1 / 13

Presentation

Presentation. Midterm Evaluation of the operational programme of the Land Brandenburg Brussels, 8. October 2004 For further information please contact: Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbH Birgit Schultz Georg-Glock-Str. 8 D-40474 Düsseldorf

megara
Download Presentation

Presentation

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. Presentation Midterm Evaluation of the operational programme of the Land Brandenburg Brussels, 8. October 2004 For further information please contact:Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbHBirgit Schultz Georg-Glock-Str. 8D-40474 Düsseldorf Tel: 02 11 / 96 59 - 2 27Fax: 02 11 / 96 59 - 3 12Birgit.Schultz@Kienbaum.de

  2. Content • Socio-economic situation in the Land of Brandenburg and the OP 2000-2006 • Projekt management and organization of the midterm evaluation • Examples from the midterm evaluation • Relevance and coherence • Performance of the monitoring system Horizontal objectives • Employment effect • Suggestions für future evaluations

  3. Socio-economic situation in the Land of Brandenburg Population, Economy and Labour Market Population: Increasing population between 1997 to 2000 Ongoing decrease of inhabitants in the more peripheral counties and increase of inhabitants in counties being part of the Berlin metropolitan area.Economy: Decreasing economic dynamics since 1996 (collapse of the building sector) Only low increase in productivity Large scale industry is still missing SMEs with typical problems (turnover, financing, too low innovation activities) • Unemployment is still increasing (18,9 %) • Partly more than 30 % unemployment rate in the more rural areas. • Apprenticeship openings are missing (more than 50% of the vacancies are financed by the public sector). Labour Market

  4. The Operational Programme • 4,86 bil € (3,04 bil € providet by the EU) • are available in 2000 to 2006 • Per 31.12.2002: • 31,1 % could be paid out60,0 % were at level of authorisationof grants • They started late and catchep up soon !

  5. Funds Reports EFRD Kienbaum ESF TAURUS EAGGF Landge-sellschaft Midterm evaluation – Project management and reporting • Evaluation team: • Reporting system (about 1300 pages) Project management and internal quality assurance Kienbaum 1 2 3 OP overall Kienbaum EFRD Kienbaum ESF TAURUS EAGGF Landge-sellschaft 4 Annex to the Funds’ Reports Overall assessment of the OP and conclusions and recommendations Kienbaum 5 Summary 6 To do list for the administration 7

  6. Relevance and coherence: Global objectives of the OP The global objectives of the OP are related to the priorities of the support in deviating intensity and specific ways. During the process of programme planning nobody knew exactly which actions and guidance would be chosen. We structured the coherence by a qualitative approach (and had a lot of discussions…).

  7. Performance of the monitoring system Implementation process: • The programme implementation in Brandenburg started late and it took much time to make the monitoring system workable. • By our count more than 30 people from different administrations were involved in creating indicators etc.. • More than 400 indicators and variables were defined, not all were convincing • Data collection was difficult because they had to update all forms etc. • The midterm evaluation was the first situation for the administration to have to deliver the database to external people. Data availability: • On the project level in nearly all measures within the EFRD but not in Priority 2 (Infrastructure). • On the project level in a few measures within the EAGGF. • No specific data about participants and their placement in the labour market within the ESF

  8. Impact analysis and special surveys • ERDF: about 40 interviews with regional and local agencies, incubators, universities, technology transfer administration (economic, traffic, urban development, culture) particularly in redard of infrastructure projects. To improve the communication within the programme implementation we produced a short film about the measure “Future in the City” (CD is available). • ESF: about 20 interviews with participants and project executing organisation written survey with 1300 participants (about working life and impact of the qualification supply) • EAGGF: about 30 interviews with executing organisations and local administrations

  9. Horizontal objectives • One project manager was responsible for the implementation of an integrative proceeding in analysing each horizontal objective (sustainability, equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming, information society) during the whole evaluation. • Information society: • We specified a wordlist (ICT, Media, E-commerce etc.) and searched for projects in the monitoring system at project level in the fields “support object”, “content” and “project description”. • Gender Mainstreaming: • Most of the actions and measures were described as “gender friendly” or “gender neutral”. The expected impact all over the programme was estimated as very positive and gender friendly respectively . • We compared women’s participation in the measures with the percentage in Brandenburg (employment, working population etc.) • Result: Although the funded measures did not disadvantage women, they did not lead to an increase in their participation either. (Specific gender oriented measures are missing).

  10. Employment effects - Priority 1 (31.12.2002) • Employment effect cross: jobs within the funding of qualitaty management and consulting service for not counted. • Employment effect net: • Investment support: Benchmarking about cost per job companies who only created jobs = C1 • companies who only protected jobs = C2 • companies who did both = C3 • Cost per job should comply the following conditions C1 > C3 > C2 (on project level an on the level of economic sectors • consulting support and networking: The Jobprotection and –creation is reduced about 70%

  11. Employment effects Priority 1 (31.12.2002) • The number of jobprotection seems to be the number off all jobs in the funded companies. • There is only few interdependence between estimating the target value, counted jobs in the monitoringsystem and reality for the protected jobs. • It would be more valid to seperate jobcreation and jobprotection in the estimation and for programme planning too. • It would be easier and more valid to ascertain the following numbers in the funded companies • jobs at the beginning of the funded project in the companies (branch) • Jobs directly involved in the investment or in the project • Created jobs

  12. Suggestions for future evaluations Give yourself a project organisation with the following properties: One face to the customer ! Straight responsibilities for all overlapping topics ! Clear quality assurance !Analyze the Monitoring System at project level at least one time and don’t always believe the annual reports made at measure level !Collaborate with the steering committee and start disputing about strategy and results of the evaluation early !Give realizable advice and at the end produce a to-do list for administration and politics What - Task Who - Responsibility Until when? - Time planning

  13. Download • You can download the evaluation documents: • www.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php?template=mdf_detail&id=12807&_siteid=120 • or: • www.mdf.brandenburg.de … click…. “Strukturfonds” and click “Dokumente…”

More Related