Specific objectives Cornerstone of a clear intervention logic (ESF OPs) Kamil Valica Unit A.3 Impact Assessment and Evaluation DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Athens, 15 May 2014

Content Specific objective – Cornerstone of the intervention logic 2. Observations - based on submitted OPs

Cornerstone of the intervention logic 1. Specific objective Cornerstone of the intervention logic What is expected according to the guidelines for the content of the OP

Relevant sections of an OP SO is a cornerstone of an intervention logic, which is outlined in the following sections of the OP: Section 1.1.1: Description of the programme's strategy for contributing to the delivery of Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and for achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion Section 2: Specific objectives and expected results Section 2: Description of the type and examples of actions to be supported and their expected contribution to the corresponding specific objectives including, where appropriate, the identification of main target groups, specific territories targeted and types of beneficiaries

Specific objective (title) Description of SO and expected results Reference situation (needs/challenges and underlying causes) – 1.1.1 and/or section 2 Selection of causes to be solved by intervention Result indicators Outline expected results Description of actions and their expected contribution to SO Output indicators Overview of types of actions (+ examples) How will actions contribute to attain SO and the results

Questions to verify the intervention logic Specific objective – title 1) Does the title of SO reflect the change sought? 2) Is it precisely defined (target group, problem area, etc.)? Specific objective – reference situation and results 3) Is the reference situation sufficiently defined (sect. 1 or under SO)? Are the needs/challenges outlined? 4) Are the underlying causes identified? 5) Is it specified at which causes will the intervention focus? 6) Are expected results achievable through intervention? 7) Can results be measured? By suggested result indicators? Actions and their expected contribution to SO 8) Is it explained how will actions contribute to attain SO and its results? 9) Are actions linked to target groups/beneficiaries/targeted at specific territories? 10) Does the description enable selection of output indicators? Are selected output indicators appropriate/sufficient?

2. Observations Based on submitted OPs

Specific objective (1) Should not be too vague – not more specific than the name of the relevant IP (or a part of it) Ex. "Ensuring equal access to good quality early- childhood education" While the real goal could be phrased as: Increase the no. of sustainable places in pre-school education, or Increase the number of children (from certain areas or from certain population groups) completing pre-school education

Specific objective (2) Should not be too broad – not cover very distinctive intervention logics. Ex. "Increase access to good quality early childhood and school education" 3 broad areas identified: access to pre-school education, additional classes for talented/ troubled pupils, competences of teachers Increase the number of sustainable places in pre-school education, in particular in rural areas Increase the number of children in primary/secondary schools who participate in additional classes Increase the competences of teachers in primary/secondary schools

Specific objective (3) Should not contain (key) action(s) Ex. "Increasing the availability of high-quality, sustainable and affordable solutions for the care of a dependent member of the household, especially children, in order to increase the employment rate" Establishment/increasing capacities of nurseries/kindergartens/ senior care services was only one type of supported actions; Other actions contained i.a.: Provision of financial contribution for child-care Maintenance of skills and training of persons with parental responsibilities Support and guidance for employers to develop and implement working arrangements to reconcile work and family life

Specific objective (4) Should be more specific then the IP about target groups or problem area it seeks to change. Ex. "Jobless and inactive have work" The change is clear – people are in job However, there is a complete lack of link to the target groups under focus and therefore lack of concentration (IP: Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people…)

Specific objective (5) Should not contain targets. Ex. "Increasing the share of children from marginalized Roma communities in pre-primary education to 50%" Targets are to be set for indicators which should relate to supported individuals or entities

Specific objective (6) Should be based on a well formulated problem, if possible demonstrated by evidence. Ex.: Low employment rate of women aged 25-49 years with a child younger < 6 years Women (25-49) with children < 6 y. = below 40% Men (25-49) with children < 6 y. = 83%

Specific objective and result Should not be based on a too long causal chain. Ex. SO: "Improving access to and quality of health care services and preventive practices as part of an integrated model for the provision of health care services" Ex. Result: "Reduced share of patients referred by primary health care providers for examination by higher-level health care providers" However, the actions aim at developing and implementing various guidelines for health care providers. Therefore alternatively: To develop standardised clinical guidelines and standardised guidelines for preventive practices and to integrate them into a nation-wide health care system

Actions Should be linked to identified causes of problem/expected results/SO Ex. "Maintaining skills and training of persons with parental responsibilities" However, outdated or insufficient skills of persons in parental leave are not identified as a cause of their unemployment Ex. "Contribution for child care/ care for dependent person" However, financial unaffordability of care services not identified as a cause of unemployment of people with care responsibilities

Indicators (1) Common indicators not used, even in cases when the programme-specific indicator collects exactly the same data Ex. "Number of people in employment 6 months after leaving the programme (including self-employed)" Result indicators lacking the point in time in which the effects are measured Ex. "Enterprises which put into practice plans for organizational change linked to the training"

Indicators (2) Result indicators too distant from actions and their effects, not linked to supported individuals/ entities Ex. "Share of 25-64 year old persons involved in lifelong learning" or "Youth (aged 20–34) employment rate" Other issues: Missing links between the SO and the result indicator Indicators not reflecting the specific target groups