Evaluation of cultural institutions’ service and infrastructural developments supporting education

1. Evaluation of cultural institutions’ service and infrastructural developments supporting education Bálint Koós Hétfa Research Institute HungarianAcademy of SciencesResearch Centre for Economic and Regional Studies (MTA KRTK) 30 April 2013

2. About the evaluation Aim of theevaluation: Evaluation of cultural institutions’ service and infrastructural developments supporting educationbetween 2007–2012. Grant construction: SROP 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.8, 3.2.9/A, 3.2.11 SIOP 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.3 Available budget: 210 million euros – at 2007 exchange rate HUF 52.1 billion. At current exchange rates HUF71.7 billion, Participated: expertsof the Hétfa Research Institute, MTA KRTK and theRevitaFoundation

3. Methodology Evaluation focuses and methods

4. The policy environment • National DevelopmentConcept: • Culture is one of the bases of economic development(improving accessibility and infrastructure development is needed) • Directions of culturalmodernisation • Culture in the service of national and EU development objectives • EU 2007-2013 – culture in itself cannot be supported, however its role in promoting: • lifelong learning • quality education (talent support) and services tackling early school leaving (inclusion) serves as a link. • Main policy changes affecting cultural institutions: • Deterioratingfinancialsituation (staffcuts) • Changes in maintainance (county – MIK.) • Procurement stop (since 2011) • EU fundingforthesupport of education and LLL

5. Fund absorption • 38 calls - huge interest: 2509 applications and 1106 accepted • strongly over-applied (56%) • Support needs were justified: 96% eligible, (only 12 - 12 applicants – withdrew from implementation) • Developments of the cultural institutional system were dominated by the most common maintaning bodies, municipalities:68.6% of the resources, 1600 applications, 665 supported applications. • 15,8 per cent were allocated tofinancingchurch, civil, ethnic-minority government and non-profit developments. • The middle segment of the municipal hierarchy was supported, that is, cities and county seats (influcenced by Agóra, Agóra Pólus interventions)

6. Fund absorption Emphasis on the disadvantaged micro-regions: • 25.6% of the funds contracted were allocated to the 94 disadvantaged micro-regions. Within this, 9.5% of the total amount went to the (47) least advantaged micro-regions. • An additional 6.5% to municipalities with high unemployment rate. • The importance of this is further enhanced by the fact that the large volume infrastrutural development programmes were also implemented in the most advantaged territories/cities (Agóra, Agóra Pólus)

7. Impact and results • Services of supported cultural institutions have been modernised and expanded, the infrastructural situation has improved • Learning process: cultural institutions, although inexperienced in application, performed outstandingly as beneficiaries • Appreciation of lifelong learning programmes– for museums this is a significant change (museum education appreciation) • Interventions were well-received – the target group deemed services provided useful • The access to services supporting lifelong learning has improved (countryside!) • However: the solvent demand for services is moderate – strong selection already in the maintenance phase! • The synergic effect is limited (unintended positive effects mainly in the case of projects related to tourism)

8. Impact and results Effect of intervention on cultural institutions, the results of statictical model (Stata, diff-diff ) Control Treatment group Museums

9. Impact and results Effect of intervention on cultural institutions, the results of statictical model (Stata, diff-diff ) Control Treatment group Public culture institutions

10. Impact and results Ratio of digital catologues, % Effect of intervention on cultural institutions, the results of statictical model (Stata, diff-diff ) Control Treatment group Libraries

11. Impact and results

12. Impact and results • The range of visitors-users has been rearranged: the proportion of 5-18-year-olds and the elderly has increased- disadvantaged groups only temporarily (further interventions are needed for this target group!!!) • Cultural institutions have „opened” – their social-professional connectivity has strengthened (lasting connections have been created especially with educational institutions: according to the NDA’s calculations 1723 co-operation agreements have been established) • Polarisingculturalinstitutionalsystem(„thelargerones vs. those who have been left out” and the small ones with „development potential” attached to the large ones) • The intervention has strengthened all the key competencies necessary for lifelong learning, largest effect made on cultural and digital key competences

13. Recommendations • It is justifiedtofollowthecurrentdevelopmentpath • It is justified to develop the services of cultural institutions supporting lifelong learning and quality education in the Central-Hungary Region • Dissemination: broaddissemination of experiences and goodpractices • Large emphasis should be laid on the improvement of the accessibility of cultural institutions services (disabled accessibility, travel expenses of visitors, travelling-exhibition, mobile equipments) • In order to support quality education, the central IT infrastructure should be improved (especially museums, archives)

14. Recommendations • There should be incentives for the creation and maintenance of professional and interdisciplinary co-operations (consortium, collaborations) • Based on the experience of interventions targeting the development of competencies, recurring, regular programmes are effective; it is justified to promote them. • Project implementers should have greater freedom (and responsibility) in the creation of professional content. In connection with this, it is adviseable to differentiate expected activities along quantity and quality (based on size and level of service).

15. Thankyouforyourattention! Hétfa Research Institute H-1051 Budapest Október 6. utca 19. www.hetfa.hu