1. What can we learn from the evaluation of social developments? András Csite Hétfa Research Institute 30 April 2013

2. The evaluations of social developments in 2012-2013 Evaluation projects started in February 2012 We have examined nine intervention areas – Improvement of accessibility for the disabled, health tourism, health care, adult education, higher education, employment, public education, culture and social inclusion – We have sought to answer partly mutual, partly unique evaluation questions in each of the areas – Wide variety of data collection and analysis methods – More than 40 experts – significant project management challenge NDA Coordination MA Evalution Division, involved MAs, ministries were co-operating as clients

3. Conducting evaluations: validity and credibility With professional autonomy, observing the rules of scientific methods: – Providing information for the Hungarian decision makers – Creating the possibility for dialogue between governmental, scientific and non-governmental actors concerned – Feedback for the Commission about the results of interventions A large number of evaluations have recently been conducted about cohesion policy interventions  introduced by the Commission, a less-known policy tool Partly this is the reason for misunderstandings: the aim is not criticism, but rather the improvement of the policy process

4. Three key questions for today What have the Cohesion Funds done to Hungary? What has Hungary done with the Cohesion Funds? What would have happened to Hungary without the Cohesion Funds?

5. Spectacular results Renewal of the physical infrastructure of public services Strengthening the service functions of the operation of public service providers Cohesion resources have started to reach social groups with the worst access to public services – the problems of accessibility have been mitigated „Development centers” (e.g. cities, NGOs, clusters of organisations): able to absorb and use efficiently cohesion funds in large amounts – yet, this is incidental

6. Problems to be solved Cohesion funds do not always reach places where they would really be necessary (targeting, cream skimming, e.g. least developed areas) and people who should be incentivised (migration, lack of skilled workforce, e.g. in public health care) The application (and public procurement) system lays significant administrative burden on beneficiaries Lack of a system of different actors involved in the resolution of a complex problem to implement interconnected projects (difficulties of integrated developments) Difficulties of matching national and EU funds within the systems of national policy areas in a consistent way (see rural development)

7. Lessons for 2014-2020 Hungary’s ambitious EU2020 targets (employment rate: 75%, reduction of poverty: - 450.000), social needs and challenges are enourmous – an integrated, consistent system of EU and national interventions is required Well-grounded public policies with a stable system of objectives are needed to utilise the Cohesion Funds effectively– this cannot be established merely by the reform of NDA and managing authorities Dare to de-centralise Cohesion Funds – strengthen beneficiaries’ responsibility in project implementation, use new forms of resource allocation (e.g. unit cost, flat rate, CLLD)

8. Youth unemployment –Balázs Szepesi – Based on the experience of 2007-2013, what kind of youth policy Hungary needs – “Youth is the solution, not the problem” Employment (SROP 1 and 2) –Károly Mike and Ágota Scharle – Non-profit organisations in focus – considerable progress in capacity building, co-operation between the actors of employment policy should be strengthened – Results of econometric impact assessment – Budapest Institute Public Education – Gábor Balás and Culture – Bálint Koós – Have the cohesion funds helped the achievement of the goals identified after the ”PISA-shock”? – Has the cultural sector managed to renew their services? Higher Education – Károly Mike – To what extent did the allocation and utilisation of Cohesion Funds fit in the operational system of science and university? Today’s programme 1

9. Disabled people and other target groups – Zita Éva Nagy – The importance of the exact definition of target groups – Revita Foundation Health Care – Norbert Kiss and Balázs Váradi – Have cohesion policy interventions managed to support the renewal of Hungarian health care? – Spatial econometric analysis – funds allocated to micro-regions in real need – Budapest Institute Social Inclusion – Nóra Teller – What do we have to do to fulfill the national EU2020 targets (reduction of poverty)? – a lot! Public transport accessibility of regional centres – György Kukely – Transport accessibility of county and new district centres (public service centres) – what further interventions are needed? – Terra Studio Today’s programme 2

10. Thank you for your attention! Hétfa Research Institute H-1051 Budapest Október 6. utca 19. www.hetfa.hu