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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Concentration Addition of reflection on concentration (art. 16 CPR)
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.?

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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