1. Your feedback on the FEAD Evaluation partnership meetings
27 April, 2018
Andris Skrastins
Evaluation and Impact Assessment Unit
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

2. Feedback provided in the follow-up survey after previous partnership
13 responses received; 10 OP I (with 2 replies for single country) OP II
Participation in other FEAD events
Network
Expert Group
Always 8 6
Usually 3
Never 2 1

3. Rating of the elements:
IT system to register to the meetings (AGM)
Good 11
Satisfactory 2
Organisation of files on CIRCABC
Good 7
Satisfactory 5
Poor 1

4. Rating of the elements:
Pre-meeting information (timeliness, clarity, completeness)
Good 5
Satisfactory 8
Possibilities to introduce items for discussion in the agenda
Good 9
Satisfactory 4
Possibilities to express views and opinions
Good 12
Satisfactory 1

5. Frequency of the meetings
Right frequency 12
Too seldom 1
Partnership meetings to be held in conjunction with other FEAD events (multiple answers)
with FEAD Expert Group 8
with FEAD Network 6
Should be separate events 4

6. Comments and suggestions
- Material should be made available 5 working days before the meeting
(5 comments)
- Meeting to be held at least twice a year (2 comments)
- More interactivity and MS presentations (2 comments)
- Meetings should focus around 1 central topic (1 comment)
- Hold Evaluation meetings back to back with FEAD Network and Expert Group (1 comment in addition to specific question)
- Meetings should be whole day events (1 comment)

7. Interest in project visits in other Member States
Interested 10
Occasionally 1 No
No answer
Meetings are held in English without translation
Content 11 No 2

8. Holding meetings in Other Member States
Yes 7
Occasionally 5 No 1
Willing to help hosting Partnership meeting in your Member State
Yes
7 (single response used for the 2 respondents from single country) No 4
No answer 1

9. Issues should be covered by Evaluation partnerships (multiple replies possible)
Sharing of evaluation experiences by Member States 11
Practical experience in other Member states in conducting surveys of the end recipients 9
Information on the work of Commission in relation to FEAD 6
More academic information on the evaluation methodology (tutorials etc) 7
Practical experience in dealing with specific topics (such as accompanying measures, food donations etc)
More practical help with difficulties faced with during evaluations 5
Dissemination of results (use of data visualization techniques etc) 4
External experts on particular topics (such as data collection on minors, tackling of disadvantaged communities such as Roma)
Practical experiences in collecting storing and reporting of data

10. Other suggested topics for discussions
Practical experience / help with concrete actions in the FEAD specificities such as tenders, how to include social clauses, etc.
What kind of evaluation should we strive for, how to tackle the problem of "one-size-fits-all" results, results that show only positive impact, need to embed evaluation in project design
Rigidity of structured survey dates which do not serve the purpose of evaluating and showing results
More content related to OP II

11. The partnership should have more
Open round-table discussions 9
Workshops and working group sessions 8
Plenary sessions and presentations 7
Social and networking events 4
Face to face events 3
E-environment discussions/platforms such as Yammer groups -

12. Other issues beyond monitoring and evaluation
No guidance on communication, promotion of FEAD activities without stigmatizing patronising end-recipients, use of social media and the web
FEAD has no logo
Need to feel confident that we have clarified or learned new things

13. Overall appreciation of the Partnership
Very good 7
Good 6
FEAD helped to gain knowledge and expand network
YES 9
Partially 4
Positive appreciation voiced also in the open comments (5 responses)

14. Main take-aways More presentations from MS and open discussions
Workshops for the thematic issues (OPII, tendering etc)
More regular meetings (minimum twice per year)
Holding meetings in conjunction with FEAD Expert group (as today)
Holding them in other MS (in future)
More timely provision of invitations, agendas and documents for discussions!!!
Comments beyond M&E will be relayed to the FEAD network

15. Thank you!