External Evaluation of EAPN

1. EXCO DOC 7 External Evaluation of EAPN Preliminary findings EAPN ExCo, 26 June 2014

2. Structure of this preliminary report • Evaluation questions • Methods and timing • Framework & key ideas • Sections:

3. Evaluation questions • Are the statuary and working structures adequate and effective in the current reality of EAPN? • Are the policy objectives and structures for engaging with them the right ones? • What is the impact of EAPN lobbying and advocacy work at EU and national level? • How to develop strong national networks and organise capacity building for members? • How to fundraise and ensure that solidarity funding contributes to strong members who engage better with EAPN? • How to continue to strengthen direct participation of people experiencing poverty inside EAPN and its external network?

4. Methods and timing • Methods used • 21 Questionnaires: 14 from the national network and 7 from the European organizations • Interviews: European Commission, European Parliament, peer organisations, members of the EXCO • Workshop with the Secretariat • Additional: analysis of different EAPN documents and listening to EAPN debates.

5. Framework & key ideas • The disparity/diversity of networks is a strength and a weakness: no single model but the need for common understanding • Different opinions trends interest National networks/European organisations • Cooperation-competition between EAPN and European networks • Tension between mission (broad) and available resources (limited). The importance of not missing the poverty target • Change of patrons from the Commission and period of transition: less dialogue, towards project funding, evidence-based, to work as a group, added value to the Commission, loosing our voice. • Quality of EAPN work (external opinion): well appreciated by the stakeholders, well prepared, broad and focused approach at the same time, efficiency, fast, dynamic, with capacity • EAPN is more than another organisations at European level, it is the most engaged with its members • Different perceptions about ownership and engagement by the Secretariat and by the members • Different opinions (doubts) about priorities in orientation: advocacy, capacity, exchange. Benefits and setbacks of project orientation (financing, risk of division instead of joining). The importance of not losing the critical independence.

6. Mission and Goals of EAPN

7. Opinions • Effectiveness of the EAPN work on it’s current mission: policy success (e.g. policy targets) • To promote and enhance the effectiveness of actions against poverty and social exclusion: mean 3 (range 1-5) • To help shape social policies and design action programmes: Mean 3.1 (range 1-5) • To lobby for and with people and groups experiencing poverty and social exclusion. Mean 3.6 (range 2-5)   • The relevancy of the goal established in the strategic plan • A social and sustainable development model that tackles poverty, social exclusion (and inequalities) is at the heart of decision making in Europe. Mean 4.4 (rank 2-5) • EAPN is a dynamic, membership driven organisation that is recognised as a key civil society actor fighting poverty, social exclusion and inequalities at National and European levels.  Mean 4.2 (range 3-5)   • People Experiencing Poverty and Social Exclusion recognise EAPN as their Network. Mean 3.5 (range 1-5)   

8. Issues to be discussed • Tension between broad approach (social protection, inequalities) and a more focused approach on poverty • Areas of concern: increasing inequalities, people in extreme poverty, decreasing social protection, access to the services, access to the rights. • Groups: Child & family poverty, in-work poverty, youth poverty, elderly poverty

9. Proposals for improvements • Tackling priorities at the EU level in a more structured way: EU 2020 targets on poverty, minimum income. • More focused on: rights (esp. fundamental rights), monitoring of the EU 2020 agenda, social protection • Priorities at national level: Social protection systems, budget reduction • As regards to the goals: • debate between representation of the people experiencing poverty and support to the PEP • Strengthening EAPN role as social actor

10. Membership Engagement

11. Opinions Positive opinion about the support provided by the EAPN to its members (diversity of opinions in the case of the European organisations) • EAPN provides an opportunity to lobby for my Organisation's/Network’s/member organization's interest at European level: Mean 3.5 (range 1-5) lower score in the European networks • EAPN allows my Network/member organizations to share views, exchange experiences and/or form alliances with other Organisations/Networks with the same/similar agenda: Mean 3.8 (range 2-5) lower score in the European networks • Being a member of the EAPN has a positive impact on the reputation of my Organisation/member organisations mean 3.4 (range 1-5) • The tools and support provided by EAPN strengthen the capacity of my Organisation/my member organisations. Mean 3.4 (range 2-5) • EAPN tools and support(e.g. publications, events, trainings etc.) help my Network/Organisation to access quality information. Mean 3.3 (range 2-5) • Being a member of EAPN increases my Network’s/Organisation’s/member organisations’ funding opportunities. Mean 1.9 (range 1-5) Focus for the future: • Advocacy at European level, influencing the EU policy making process/EU semester process. Mean 3.4 (range 2-5) • Promote mutual learning and exchange between member organisations. Mean 3,5 (rank2-5) • Capacity building for member organisations (e.g. guidance on lobbying at national & European level, European semester process, network building) Mean 2.4 (range 1-5) • Bring the voice of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion closer to shaping the EU we want. Mean 3.7 (range 3-4)

12. Issues to be discussed • Diversity of EAPN members: It is a weakness and also a strength • A more active engagement of the networks • Member-driven agenda vs. agenda driven by the Secretariat • Develop an area of projects where networks can be engaged • Increasing transparency in the decision making process • About the European organizations: • different areas of interest, different priorities • Competition and cooperation at the same time • The participation of the European Organization members in the national networks

13. Proposals for improvements • Regarding Information and materials: Less information and friendlier: other forms of reporting and communication (videos, slogans, posters). Translation into more languages, simplification • Regarding member participation and engagement, expectations are related to: • More interactive connection with the national networks • Balance between capacity and lobbying • Help members to better understanding EAPN’s policies and strategies • Strengthening the national networks: short and easy materials, joint campaigns (e.gannually), fostering exchange and mutual learning, training, capacity, training (based on bottom-up demands) • Increasing horizontal interaction between the networks (e.g. clustering members by interest and affinities, twinning-based on areas of interestetc.). Create opportunities for alliances between the members • Fostering mutual learning and mutual support is a potential of the EAPN, as different networks are skilled in different areas • More engagement of the European organizations and benefits from their positions, knowledge and expertise. • MASS: Creates positive expectations from networks although the need and forms of implementation have to be adjusted to the national realities. Priority: network development

14. Working with EU Institutions, Stakeholders and Peers

15. Opinions • Framework: • Change of patrons from the Commission: less dialogue, towards project funding, loss of historical background. • Period of transition: at the policy level and for financing • Strengths • EC: good and permanent cooperation and influence of the agenda • EP: Increasing relations and influence (despite being based on individual relations and poor capacity to involve national networks in the lobbying process) • ECO: • Weakness • EC: economic dependency. Relations only with one DG. Lack of relations at the political level. • EP: Not consistent in the long term. Rather individual relations for the moment • ECO: poor influence trough national networks

16. Issues to be discussed • Dependency form the EC: • The risk of following their agenda and not having our own agenda • The financial dependency • The pros and cons of project orientation • The need for European institutions to better understand what EAPN is and represents in the European Project • Individual interlocution vs. joint interlocution (together with other lobbies) • Regarding opening up to other institutions (EP, Council, EESC): need for a balance between efficiency and means • Clarity on the task of EAPN and the task of its members, especially as regards to the Parliament and especially the Council (EAPN providing support but memberslead)

17. Proposals for improvements • EC: opening to other DGs and to other dimensions of the poverty agenda. Influencing the interest groups, etc. Increasing relations at political level. Influencing other agendas such as Regio, EAC, Sanco, Justice, digital agenda… • EP: Focusing more on the EP; improving communication; increasing advocacy work. Empowering the national networks in their lobbying with their EMP. More proactivity in the hearings, etc. Influence their agenda (taxation, minimal income, austerity measures etc.) Involving EMP in the PEP meetings. • ECO: To anticipate the agenda. Influence together at the national and European level. Better help national networks to influence the European Council by producing simple and focused documents (instead of answering with long papers). More simple and focused reports • Cooperation with other institutions: increase relations with ESC (economic and Social Committee), the FRA, ETUC for social policies and anti-austerity measures…

18. Working Structures and Methods

19. Opinions • The functioning of the Assembly: Mean 2.6 (Min 1 max 4) • The functioning of the EXCO : Mean 2.9 (min 1, max 5) • The functioning of the BUREAU: Mean 3.1 (min 1 max 5) • Support provided by Secretariat to members: Mean 3.3 (min 1 max 5) • Quality of outputs/reports: Mean 3.7 (Min 2 max 5) • Inclusion strategies group: Mean 3,9 (Min 2, max 5) • Tax forces 3.4 (mean 2 max 5) • Subgroups: Mean 2,7 (min1 max 5)

20. Issues to be discussed • “Member-driven” network vs. “Secretariat-driven” network • Concerns about the decision making process: Who decides what and how decisions are taken. What is the role of each body in the decision-making process? • Balance between effectiveness & outputs • Internal communication between EAPN and its networks: information and communication is not going in both directions (especially from the networks to the EAPN) • The participation of the European organizations: very divers positions and views

21. Proposals for improvements • EAPN: A real governing body. More participatory decisions (from the assembly). Decisions shouldn’t pass by all governing bodies. • EXCO: more executive role and supporting participation and involving more people in the discussions (information on the agenda and results). No positive opinion about the subgroups. Allowing/support areas of interest of different members • BUREAU: Enlargement of the BUREAU and division of responsibilities (each member following a different area) • Potential improvements of the secretariat: less documents and more focused, friendly documents, more readiness to support the networks, better financial management, more support to the EXCO and to the president. Better balance between advocacy and support to the networks. • Better integration of the EUIG with the BUREAU and the Secretariat • Entities/workshops, etc.: better selection of participants (more engagement in the network and representing the network interests). Better focus on the purpose and avoiding duplication in their works • For improving internal communication: to learn from those networks that have a system. Use electronic means for meeting (Skype etc.) • Regarding European organizations: always working together - not dividing, providing value based on EAPN specificity (poverty)

22. Funding

23. Opinions • The sustainability of funding is a critical issue for most of the members • In general terms, there are few proposals on this subject • Most of the members thinks that EAPN should look for financing through projects and trough different DGs

24. Issues to be discussed • Independence vs. increasing sources of financing (particularly if they come from companies) • Competition for funding with national members should be avoided. Competition for funding with European organizations is a matter of concern • The risk of becoming a project-oriented organisation

25. Proposals for improvements • Seeking broader financing form the European Commission (despite project base): DG Saco, DG Justice (Human Rights and Citizenship initiatives), DG Regio, DG Education etc. • Looking for other funding: Norwegian funds, International large donors, Open Society • Need for a financing strategy, learning from previous experiences • Activists could become donors.

26. Participation of People Experiencing Poverty

27. Opinions/Facts • Substantial progress at the national level and increasing different ways of participation: meetings, working groups… • Increasing synergies at the local level and with grassroots organizations

28. Issues to be discussed • The challenge is to make the EU agenda better understandable for them • EAPN supporting people experiencing poverty vs EAPN representing people experiencing poverty • Admitting we are not lacking representative members of direct experience of poverty. We want to go deeper on this and we want to make sure a strong process continues and makes part of our core business – particularly towards the external actors.

29. Proposals for improvements • Participation of people experiencing poverty at all levels of the EAPN • PEP should be integrated in the national network and EO’s governing bodies, with normality • Ensuring that people experiencing poverty will form part of the national Executive Committees