1. Indicators of Public Administration Capacity Building for ESF monitoring

2. Administrative Capacity Building Thematic Objective 11 "enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration" only covered by 1 CI output indicator -number of projects targeting public administrations or public services at national, regional or local level -no result indicators Aim  guidance on specific indicators for typical TO11 activities

3. General issues Unit of reference Public admin capacity building aimed - Primarily at institutions (systems and structures) - but also assistance to staff of institutions 2 types of reference unit - Entities - formal structures with specific functions and resources for their fulfilment - Individuals – holders of public office or staff of these entities

4. Components of administrative capacity "model" indicators => ID generic components of ACB (a) Focus on individuals Skills and competences: (who) through development of skills at all levels within public authorities (b) Focus on entities Processes: (how, in terms of rules, procedures, tools, working methods etc.) Organisation/structure: (how, structure and organisation of departments, functions etc.) Resources: (what, mainly covering informational and technical resources, HR strategies, etc.)

5. Standard approach to ESF monitoring indicators simple, easy to measure & reliable closely linked to actions supported (direct effects) Existing guidance: Output indicators: what directly produced/supplied through implementation of operation Result indicators: expected effects on participants or entities brought about by operation -capture a (+ve) state/situation change (e.g. for participants, nos. moving into employment, gaining a qualification, entering training…), not performance/impact type measures => deal with public admin by indicators which focus on state/capacity change of admin bodies

6. Focus on capacity rather than effectiveness/ performance indicators in ESF monitoring Performance/impact indicators (time, cost, productivity…) not consistent with general ESF indicator logic suffer time delays to observe performance change results may not be sufficiently close to ESF funded operation: influenced by other non-ESF activities + economic situation may be hard to aggregate can improve performance, but no guarantee sustainable  should be assessed via an evaluation

7. State change indicators of improvement Simple measures of: how systems have changed/improved scale effect of changes - no. of new systems implemented - no./share of services covered by new tool/systems - no. of entities fully implementing and using new system qualitative level of change (different levels of state change) - e.g. e-services (info retrieval only, allowing transactions on line, etc.)

8. Generic formulation for result indicators Countof systems/tools/processes/new working methods No. of systems/tools/processes/new working methods implemented as a consequence of the supported projects No./share of services in a given functional area which have been created/improved/made more accessible At staff level No. staff trained to certain standard/acquiring certain skills /qualifications

9. Generic formulation for result indicators (cont) At entity level No. of (entities) which implemented (new/upgraded) system/tool/process /working methods to improve (specific activity) –No. of (entities) receiving support which gained a recognised quality standard –No. of (entities) receiving support which implemented (i.e. in application) new forms of work organisation to … –No. of (entities) receiving support which implemented new IT system to …  ID relevant state change with regard to capacity improvement targeted

10. Examples of indicators for institutional capacity building based on material from available OPs SKILLS AND COMPETENCES Outputs: - No. of staff participating in training on late payment and debt recovery legislation - No. of internal auditors participating in training - No. of court managers participating in training on financial management Results: - No. of staff dealing with late payment and debt recovery disputes, who have improved their professional competence - No. of certified internal auditors 6 months after training - No. of court managers who have improved their financial management skills

11. Examples of indicators for institutional capacity building based on material from available OPs PROCESSES Outputs: - No. of administrations receiving support to introduce a quality management system - No. of units of tax administration receiving support to introduce an IT tool for management of tax collection - No. of e-services receiving support for development Results: - No. of administrations that have implemented a quality management system as a result of supported development activities - No. of tax administration units in which a newly implemented IT tool in use to improve tax collection - No. of supported e-services at transaction stage

12. Thank you for your attention