Planning Evaluation Planning evaluation 2014 2020 An example

Planning Evaluation Planning evaluation 2014 - 2020 An example - ERDF Berlin Dr. Oliver Schwab If. S Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik

Planning Evaluation Overview • ERDF OP of Berlin - the Evaluation Subject • Evaluation System - the Structure • Planning Evaluation - the Process • Conclusions 2

Planning Evaluation The subject • ERDF-OP Berlin • Some 635 Mio. € ERDF • Four Priorities – Innovation - Specific objective: Strengthening R&D in enterprises - Result indicator: R&D-personnel in Berlin – Investment - Specific objective: Increasing productivity - Result indicator: Growth rate of productivity (compared to the national average) – Climate protection – Integrated urban development • OP will be formally submitted by end of this month 3

Planning Evaluation Structure: Monitoring and evaluation system - Overview Specific objective Results Result indicators Outputs Actions System of objectives Projects Implementation Output indicators (OP-specific) Common output indicators Financial indicators Indicator System Monitoring Annual reports Internal monitoring reports Expected results Evaluation External factors 4

Planning Evaluation Structure: Evaluations • One Evaluation study per priority axis • Scheduled from 2017 to 2019 • Possibly covering pre-2014 data and results for instruments that have not been changed • Predominantly theory-based • Checking if comparison-group approach is feasible for parts of PA 1 (innovation) • Additional ad-hoc-studies • Focused on implementation-related issues 5

Planning Evaluation Process – First teps • 2012 • Call for tender for external evaluation and strategic support – Defining the basic pattern of the evaluation system – First decisions on the approach in the offer • Monitoring and evaluation system profits from the experiences of the 2007 to 2013 period 6

Planning Evaluation Process – Strategy Development • 2012/2013 • (More) strategic programming – – Draft Strategy Outline (MA, June 2012) Expert Workshop per Priority (Autumn 2012) Development of concrete proposals to implement the strategy Consultation on a draft programme structure (Summer 2013) • Crucial for future evaluation – Clear definition of objectives – Good result indicators – Selection of instruments as focused as possible - Basis for future intervention models 7

Planning Evaluation Process – Planning Evaluation • 2014 • Literature Review – Reviewing academic studies plus available relevant evaluations (some 20 pages per priority) - (Re-)Construction of the intervention model for each priority - Identification of the relevant external factors 8

Planning Evaluation Process – Evaluation Plan • 2014 • The actual evaluation plan, per priority: – Defining the concrete evaluation questions – Selecting the focus for the studies – Defining data sources - Relation to monitoring? - Additional own data collection? Methods and Design? – Methods for evaluation – Processes of evaluation and discussion of results 9

Planning Evaluation Conclusions • Intensive communication is essential, linking competences of • • Managing Authorities Bodies responsible for the delivery of single instruments Evaluation Team Potential users of the evaluation results (Monitoring Committee) • Coordination of crucial aspects • • • Developing a common understanding of the intervention logic Coordination of data collection (indicator definition!) Link to Monitoring processes (using existing reports and analysis) Coordination with additional evaluation activities Question and purpose of the evaluation 10

Planning Evaluation Conclusions • Internal evaluation plan • More comprehensive and detailed than the „official“ one • Training? • Specific situation • Early involvment (and long-term contract) • Good relation to most actors • Possibility to coordinate with the development of the monitoring system and additional evaluations • Most actors are interested in evaluation (or at least open for) 11