1. REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME 2007-2013 (ROP) SLOVAK REPUBLIC DG REGIO Evaluation Network Meeting, Brussels, 14 March 2012

2. ROP Factsheet -Total budget = 1,8 billion EUR (ERDF contribution 1,5 billion EUR) -Covers all Convergence regions in Slovakia (the whole territory except Bratislava region) -7 priority axes (9 measures) aimed almost exclusively at developing public infrastructure and services -Absorption capacity = Almost 3400 applications received exceeding 3 billion EUR -Committed funds = 92% of the total allocation -Payments to beneficiaries = 39% of the total allocation

3. COM pilot exercise on future result indicators Example: Social infrastructure support ROP Priority axis Social Infrastructure -Objective set in 2006 = To increase scope and quality of social services -The objective was accomplished by activities like modernization, expansion of existing social infrastructure facilities and building new social facilities in larger cities. 80% of funds were committed to approved projects when... COM and partners requested radical re-design of the priority axis strategy (2010) -New activities (2011-2013) = DI pilot projects (promoting community-based care) in existing facilities, supporting community centres aimed at social inclusion of Roma population, no more sustaining existing institutions! -Remaining funds available for new activities = 44 million EUR (ERDF contribution 37,5 million EUR) -Currently we have 6 output indicators, 1 result indicator and 6 impact indicators (which actually are results) which represent both old and new activities (AIR). These indicators are driven mostly by the list of core indicators.

4. COM pilot exercise on future result indicators Example: Social infrastructure support Applying new COM approach First, we decided to concentrate the pilot exercise only at the new strategy and activities (DI), because sustaining existing social welfare institutions will no longer be supported. 1)Re-think the design of priority axis: Is it too complex? We divided the current priority axis into 2 separate priorities. 2)Re-think objective: What do we really want to change by the policy? We moved from „quality of social services“ further to „quality of life of the social welfare and childcare users“ 3)Re-define result indicator(s): How do you measure the planned change? (the hardest part...) Try to identify also the other factors contributing to the change. 4)Consider data sources! We cooperate with Ministry of Labour, social affairs and family and Office of Plenipotentiary for Roma communities, but regional / local statistics are needed as well. 5)Adjust output indicators if needed

5. COM pilot exercise on future result indicators Example: Social infrastructure support Applying new COM approach PriorityResult / ChangeResult indicatorsOutput indicatorsAllocation (ERDF) 2a - Supporting pilot projects of de- institutionalisation of existing social services facilities and de- institutionalisation of existing facilities of social and legal protection of children and social guardianship To improve quality of life of social welfare and childcare users through de- institutionalization of existing social infrastructure Name: Increase of the percentage of users benefitting from de-institutionalized social infrastructure Definition: Share of users benefitting from new and improved services provided in the supported facilities of social infrastructure at the total number of users of social infrastructure Source: most actual statistics of MLSAF Baseline: most actual statistics of MLSAF Name: Increase of the percentage of social welfare and childcare users satisfied with the quality of their life Definition: Increase of the percentage of social welfare and childcare users satisfied with the quality of their life Source: study / survey on a sample of users of supported facilities and a control group of users of not supported facilities Baseline: unknown (a study should have been done before interventions) Note: MLSAF will also provide data on facilities de- institutionalized outside ROP interventions, so we will be able to define and analyze the real ROP contribution. Name: Number of new and improved services Definition: Number of new and improved social services and social and legal protection of children and social guardianship measures provided to the users in supported facilities of social infrastructure Source: projects Target: 40 Note: services are defined by legislation Name: Number of de-institutionalized social infrastructure facilities Definition: Number of supported existing social services facilities and facilities of social and legal protection of children and social guardianship Source: projects Target :20 17,1 million EUR

6. COM pilot exercise on future result indicators Example: Social infrastructure support Applying new COM approach PriorityResult / ChangeResult indicatorsOutput indicatorsAllocation (ERDF) 2b - Supporting community centres focused on strengthening social inclusion To increase social inclusion of Roma Name: Increase of the index of social inclusion of Roma Definition: Increase of the level of social inclusion of Roma population in supported settlements in the fields of school attendance, employment and community activities participation. Source: study / survey on a sample of Roma in supported settlements and a control group of Roma living in not supported settlements Baseline: unknown (a study should have been done before interventions) Note: National / regional index might be introduced and reported. Name : Increase of the percentage of Roma participating in community activities Definition: Increase of the percentage of Roma population living in settlement with supported community centres who participate in activities performed and organized by the supported community centres Source: projects Baseline: projects Name : Number of new and improved services Definition : Number of new and improved services provided to the users in the supported community centres Source : projects Target :150 Name : Number of supported community centres Definition : Number of supported community centres Source: projects Target :50 20,4 million EUR

7. Lessons learned and issues discussed -New COM approach to indicators is dramatically different to what we used to do in 2006-2007. A change of thinking of program managers is needed. -New COM approach requires full dedication to strategic programming of new 2014-2020 programmes: Are MS authorities and politicians ready (willing) to change the way of looking at indicators? Broader promotion of the new approach will be needed to share the idea that indicators are our friends not enemies. -It seems that new COM approach favours „more simple priorities“ from „fewer complex priorities“ - number of priorities in 2014-2020 programmes will probably increase. -Strictly following the new COM approach encourages to decrease the number of result indicators. But in reality projects usually have horizontal (side)effects (new jobs created, energy savings, equal opportunities promotion etc.) – Should these be monitored at the programme level only?

8. Lessons learned and issues discussed -Sources of relevant data are essential: Cooperation with national Statistical Office and regional bodies must be improved, macro statistics are rarely suitable, regional and local statistics must be rapidly improved and inter-linked! -We should not request all indicators values from beneficiaries but supplement these data with our own internal and external research (more flexible technical assistance rules, better coordination at national level needed)

9. Richard Broos Head of Regional Development Programmes Preparation Unit Regional Development Support Agency www.ropka.sk richard.broos@build.gov.sk Thank you for your attention.