Guidance document on ex ante evaluation Revised version ESF Evaluation Partnership Meeting 15th June 2012 Kamil Valica Evaluation and IA unit DG EMPL

Main modifications Answer to main comments: Other changes: Proportionality and independence principles Timing and Evaluation plan Other changes: Concentration Relevance and clarity of indicators Linkage between actions, outputs and results (intervention logic) Requirements for evaluators Data collection and evaluation SEA

Proportionality and Independence new section 2.5. based on Art. 4(5) CPR; relates to both programmers and ex-ante evaluators Independence (2.4.) developed Best practice: external tender or different organisation Good practice: different departments within the same organisation Other solutions: need of specific measures to guarantee independence (written job description, no subordination to the programmer) Reminder added in the Introduction The final responsibility for the programme design rests with the programmer

Timing and Evaluation Plan "call for tenders" in mid 2012 (2.1.) Examination of evaluation plan dropped (1.2.4.) Too early Content developed in "Monitoring and Evaluation" guidances Recommendation maintained that the evaluators advise on the main evaluations, their timing, methods, data needs and possible training with particular focus on impact evaluations -> Contribution to a good quality evaluation plan

Concentration Addition of reflection on concentration (art. 16 CPR) 1.1.1. Consistency of programme objectives Choices will have to be made as to which challenges and needs will be addressed by the programme. 1.3. Consistency of financial allocations Do financial allocations concentrate on the most important objectives in line with the identified challenges and needs and in line with the concentration requirements under Art. 16 CPR and Art. 4 ESF Reg.?

Relevance and clarity of indicators (1.2.1.) Quality of intervention logic mentioned as a crucial factor for the responsiveness of programme-specific result indicators to policy Important clarification on difference between ESF (capture effects on supported persons and entities) and ERDF indicators (measure change in a MS/region/area/sector/targeted population, thus not limited to the supported entities) Clarity Important clarifications on normative interpretation, robustness and statistical validation

Intervention logic and Requirements for the evaluators More precise description of planned actions and how they will lead to results Inclusion of integrated (territorial) approaches and some of the possible tools to implement them Joint action plans deleted Requirements for the evaluators (2.6.) completed Help to make apparent the mechanisms underlying the intervention logic (IL) Bear in mind needs for future evaluations, when examining the IL, indicators and available data

Data collection and evaluation, SEA More information on administrative and statistical databases - contain data on individual units - could be sources to inform some indicators - could contain data for impact evaluations SEA (1.5.) In principle not required for ESF programmes To be carried out during programme preparation and completed before their adoption Further guidance in Annex 1