1 / 11

Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation Update November 2012 (ERDF + Cohesion Fund)

Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation Update November 2012 (ERDF + Cohesion Fund). Evaluation Network Meeting 23 November 2012 Kai Stryczynski. Changes. Clarification on use of result indicators Independence of evaluators

johnsantos
Download Presentation

Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation Update November 2012 (ERDF + Cohesion Fund)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation Update November 2012(ERDF + Cohesion Fund) Evaluation Network Meeting 23 November 2012 Kai Stryczynski

  2. Changes • Clarification on use of result indicators • Independence of evaluators • Adaptation to compromise text of Presidency (GAC June 2012) • Adaptation of annex on common indicators (GAC October 2012)

  3. Result indicators in OP and their monitoring: not just beneficiaries Baseline and targets in OP should relate to the same population / region / sector,… Coverage: future (still unknown!) beneficiaries plus non-beneficiaries Why? The situation of the total of the population / region / sector motivates the decision to run an intervention Monitoring in AIR: same coverage as for baseline and target One chain: Baseline – monitoring - target

  4. Evaluation 1: values for result indicators on beneficiaries and more needed Evaluations need certain data depending on method applied. Typically this is different from monitoring data! Example: a counterfactual analysis might need: Financial data: who received how much? Observed change of result indicator for beneficiaries and a (not supported) comparison group Additional data for matching (subsector, enterprise size, age,…) Cohesion Policy

  5. Evaluation 2: values for result indicators on beneficiaries and more needed • Source: Enterprise panel, tax administration,… but most of it not information that is in AIR • The evaluation plan needs to spell out which data is needed depending on method

  6. Example: Result indicators in M+E for counterfactual evaluation (diff in diff)

  7. Example: policy monitoring and evaluation for transport infrastructure Task becomes simpler if the sector / region found to have a problem at the beginning of a period and the benefitting sector / region are identical E.g.: A new highway will cross a region and improve its access to the next metropolitan region, measured in average travelling time (result indicator) Still a task for evaluation: is the observed change in travelling time only due to the new highway?

  8. Closing the policy cycle • Policy monitoring + impact evaluation `= full picture: How has a specific dimension of wellbeing that motivates policy action changed during the period – and what was the contribution of the policy to this.

  9. Independence of evaluators (art. 47, section 3.4) Distinction of • best practice: external experts; different organisation • good practice: different department • other cases: clear arrangements ensuring independence

  10. Adaptations to Presidency Compromise June 2012 Evaluation plan: submission to monitoring committee no later than a year after programme adoption (CPR, art. 104) Evaluation plan can cover several OP Summary of evaluations by MS in 2021 (CPR, art. 104)

  11. Next steps Revision after this meeting (Possible) revision after adoption of regulations

More Related