Evaluation of the Information and Publicity Activities

1. Evaluation of the Information and Publicity Activities Irmina Šalčiūtė-Ričkienė, Central Project Management Agency (CPMA), Lithuania

2. Evaluation of the Information System of EU Structural Assistance The aim of the evaluation is to provide recommendations on the optimal way to organise the process of information and publicity in 2014–2020 andto improve the system of information and publicity of EU structural assistance for 2007–2013. SF communication

3. Scope of evaluation • Evaluated aspects: • Sharing of functions and responsibilities among EU funds institutions; • Procedures for coordinating and implementing communication activities; • Implementation of communication activities; • Supervision of project level communication. • Timing: First half of 2012 • External evaluators: „PricewaterhouseCoopers“ SF communication

4. Results 13 general recommendations, 3 of them designed for the 2014-2020 programming period The recommendations focused on the improvement of: • planning, monitoring and coordinating of communication activities; • inter-institutional cooperation and involvement of socio-economic partners; • effective communication tools, activities and channels. SF communication

5. TARGETS COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION FM Coordination SADM ŠMM SM AM SAM IVPK ŪM VRM IKG ESFA TID LVPA LMT APVA CVPA Plans Project promoters

6. Planning, monitoring and coordinating Situation • IKG discusses annual plan, MA adopts it; • IKG gathers every month; • IKG adopts quarter plans; • Division of responsibilities among institutions are shifting form centralised model to semi-centralised. Recommendations • To strengthen MA as coordinator, evaluator and methodological guide; • To improve procedures of IKG; • To improve quarter plan forms and system of setting and monitoring indicators; • To involve partners and animate IKG. SF communication

7. Centralization vs. decentralization Situation • Decentralized approach in 2004-2006; • Centralized approach in the beginning of 2007-2013; • Semi-centralized approach in the end of 2007-2013. Recommendations • Centralization at the beginning: • Administration system is not ready; • MA was leading programming and starts implementing. • Semi-centralization from the middle of period: • Coordination of MA; • MA is responsible for general information (emotional based), other institutions are responsible for the results. SF communication

8. Social-economic partners Situation • Social-economic partners are not involved in communication activities; • Usually partners are involved to the Monitoring Committees; • There are some examples: joined events; • According to the survey partners want to participate in all stages of communication. SF communication

9. Effective communication tools Situation • Most of publicity activities and channels addres the mass media. Recommendations • Define TG in more details; • To involve TG (media, public opinion leaders); • To make annual survey to make publicity strategy corrections (new TG); • To use direct communication channels (for the intermediate bodies); • To use integrated communication (several channels, activities, apply them periodically). SF communication

10. Supervision of project activities Situation • Standard and stereotyped project communication activities; • Projects are uncritical about their activities; • Lack of competences; • No evaluation of communication activities at the application stage. Recommendations • To differentiate the supervision of big and small projects; • To consider evaluation of communication activities at the application stage; • More informal consultations. SF communication

11. Thank you!