1. Regional Policy Guidance on monitoring TÓTH Gábor DG EMPL – Impact Assessment, Evaluation Unit ESF Evaluation Partnership meeting, Rome, 26 November 2014

2. Regional Policy Why this presentation? Recall changes in the guidance and state of play Report on feedback by participants of the ESF TWG Discuss preparations in light of the requirements

3. Regional Policy Target setting and baselines More explanation on the linkage of an indicator to a target More detailed methodological advice adjustment of the baseline setting the level of the target No evidence for target setting: action plan

4. Regional Policy 4 Common indicators in the programmes Where relevant to the nature of the operation: set a target Relevancy in terms of Target group: common output indicator Objective: common result indicator Design of programme specific output indicators as a combination of common output indicators Message: enable aggregation of targets where possible (Article 16 report) Regional Policy

5. Complete participation record Regulatory requirement Including data on household situation Confirmation by Commission's legal service Comparability: report only full datasets At the same time Sensitive data: beyond completeness Difference between eligibility and reporting Reporting of grand total of participants Message: Focus on practices of data collection Knowledge sharing on good practices of data collection of personal data

6. Regional Policy Eligibility, performance monitoring and data reliability Distinction between eligibility and reporting Confirmed by Legal Service However: data reliability, verification of systems What is the reason of underreporting? Good reason: only complete sets are reported Problematic reason: deficiency in eligibility checks or lack of capacity in collecting or storing data Not unacceptable per se, rather A factor to be taken into account in the verification of systems

7. Regional Policy Annual or cumulative values in the AIR Annual values are necessary Retroactive changes Traceability For exceptional cases: cumulative values are also necessary for programme specific RIs E.g.: percentages are reported and the output indicator (denominator) is 0 In most cases (absolute numbers, percentages in relation to reported OIs) the cumulative value will be calculated automatically

8. Regional Policy Precision requirements in representative sampling Workshop in June Draft specific guidance Few comments Finalisation of the guidance Insertion of the conclusion of the specific guidance into the main guidance More comments, including in ESF TWG

9. Regional Policy Precision requirements in representative sampling Technical proposal Relative standard error Justification: Common method of expressing the expected range of the real value of the estimate 1% level at 95% of confidence – high precision Justification: Relatively small populations Managerial decisions Aggregation at EU level

10. Regional Policy Precision requirements in representative sampling Comments Method for the calculation of the precision Instead of the value of the estimate, the error should relate to the size of the population Precision level EU surveys (SILC) as benchmarks Cost implications Differentiated levels for total populations and sub- populations (e.g. genders, categories of regions)

11. Regional Policy Precision requirements in representative sampling Compromise proposal Balance between reliability and proportionality Method for the calculation: relative standard error Precision level: +/-2% Support by the ESF Data Support Centre in the validation of methods