1. Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of 2 Years 6 June 2006 Hugues FELTESSE

2. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 2 PEER REVIEW  Mutual learning is an essential element of the Open Method of Co-ordination  A peer review is an event where a host country presents a policy or institutional arrangement (good practice) to a selected group of decision-makers and experts from other countries (peer countries) and to stakeholders' representatives and European Commission officials.  Peer reviews allow for an open discussion on social inclusion policies. They are designed to disseminate examples of good practice and examine their transferability to other Member States.

3. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 3 GOALS  Not competition. No ranking the policies.  But the reasons why certain policies were well succeeded in certain conditions can be replicated elsewhere, if appropriate care is taken in adapting them to different cultural, institutional and economic contexts.  Looking for success stories, or at least inspiring stories.

4. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 4 3 objectives (1) 1.Reaching a better understanding Member State's policies in combating poverty and social exclusion  a frank and objective account about not only what works well, but also what does not work as intended, or not at all.  hosts can also learn with the critical remarks from peers as well as similar experiences that have been carried out in their respective countries.

5. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 5 3 objectives (2) 2. To improve the effectiveness of policies and strategies

6. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 6 3 objectives (3) 3. To facilitate the transfer of key components of policies, or of institutional arrangements, (approaches, methods, organisational framework…) which have proved effective in combating poverty and social exclusion

7. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 7 Methodological aspects (1)  One host country (senior officials,experts, stakeholders representatives: max 5)  7 peer countries (1 policy maker+ 1 expert)  2 European stakeholders (NGOs’or local authorities’networks, social partners)  E.U Commission representative(s)

8. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 8 Methodological aspects (2) = A good mix of policy- makers, practioners and researchers  brings a broader perspective  guarantees a comprehensive analysis of the measure or policy under review  provides for lively discussions. + active participation of Commission representatives provides an excellent opportunity to communicate the Commission’s view to the Member States in a non- directive way

9. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 9 Methodological aspects (3)  An insight into a specific policy or institutional arrangement that goes far beyond the level of information provided at a traditional conference  In contrast with most conferences the great majority of participants in the 2004-2005 peer reviews had read the papers distributed before the meeting, and prepared comment papers

10. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 10 Methodological aspects (4) The relatively small size of the meetings enables in-depth discussion, and facilitates the active participation of all.  Even controversies, when they occur, are handled and used as learning opportunities. Thus, the cultural and political diversity represented by the different groups of participants becomes an asset rather than an obstacle.

11. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 11 Methodological aspects (5)  However: the local policy implementers could be underrepresented i.e. the civil servants or NGO specialists who directly deliver the services to the beneficiaries,  Therefore a prominent role should be given during the site visits, allowing direct communication with the participants and direct contacts with beneficiaries

12. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 12 Level of satisfaction (questionnaires distributed at the end of each peer review)  Usefulness of the outcomes: between 78% and 100% very positive or positive with only one exception (53,3%)  Cost-effectiveness of the process: positive or very positive by a majority of 73% to 95,5% with two exceptions (58% and 28%),  Efficiency of the organisation: a predominantly feedback-between 70% and 95,5% with again two exceptions (40% and 62,5%)

13. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 13 Documents and Reports  Short reports (1-2 pages) and minutes of the meetings (published on the website)  Synthesis reports, based on discussion and comment papers and meeting results(available in 3 languages, prepared and published on the website and in hard copies)  Electronic newsletter in English, French and German

14. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 14 Website  The most important dissemination tool of the peer review programme.  A high success with in the first half of 2005 a total of 27,756 documents downloaded from the website and in the second half of 2005 the number of 26,398 documents downloaded  In the last three months of 2005, the average number of visits per day rose to 123

15. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 15 Transfer of the "good practice” or components of it (1)  Surveys realised among the peer review participants 6 to 12 months after the seminars showed:  the peer reviews engender a high number of transfer activities, and if there is no transfer they increase mutual learning, stimulate new ideas and contribute to the policy debate and practice in the peer countries.  They also contribute in some cases to amendments and further development of the host countries’ programmes under review.

16. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 16 Transfer of the "good practice” or components of it (2)  32 out of 99 participants who answered responded positively to the question of transfer of a host country programme or components of it to their peer country:  3 out of 7 in the UK,  5 out of 7 participants in the peer reviews in Finland and Germany,  In Ireland, 4 out of 8 participants  In Austria 2 of the 5 peer countries  3 out of 9 participants in Denmark,  2 out of 9 participants in the Czech Republic,  2 out of 7 participants in Hungary,  3 out of 8 in Greece  3 out of 9 in Belgium.

17. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 17 Transfer of the "good practice” or components of it (3)  In some cases activities already under way,  In other cases only an intention to take the example studied in the peer review into consideration for national policy development.  New Member States are clearly over- represented amongst those who reported an impact of a peer review in terms of transfer activities

18. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 18 Impact of the "good practice” or components of it (1)  31 out of 94 peer country and stakeholder representatives confirmed the reviews ignitate policy debate in the peer countries  11 out of 23 host country participants confirmed the reviews had provoked amendments to or further developments of the programmes presented

19. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 19 Impact of the "good practice” or components of it (2)  96 of the 123 participants confirmed stimulation of new ideas through participation in a peer review  In the cases of the UK, Irish and Italian peer reviews all participants answered ‘yes’.

20. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 20 Succes stories (1)  Impact of the Irish Peer Review on Over- indebtedness:  Creation of a "Consumer Insolvency Act" in Hungary Creation of a "Consumer Insolvency Act" in Hungary  Discussion of new measures for debt reduction in Denmark by the Parliament  Feasibility study on Irish and Dutch systems of debt counseling commissioned in Germany Feasibility study on Irish and Dutch systems of debt counseling

21. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 21 Succes stories (2) Impact of the UK and the Danish Peer Reviews on Homelessness  Mandatory Policy Formulation For Marginalised Groups In Denmark inspired by the UK Peer ReviewPolicy Formulation For Marginalised Groups In Denmark  Inter-ministerial "Protocol of Collaboration" in Romania following the peer review on the "Rough Sleepers Unit" in London Inter-ministerial "Protocol of Collaboration" in Romania  Proposal to build "skaeve huse" (alternative housing) in the Netherlands inspired by the Danish experience Proposal to build "skaeve huse" (alternative housing) in the Netherlands

22. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 22 Succes stories (3)  Impact of the German Peer Review on Reconciliation of work and family life  "Familienallianz" (Family Alliance) launched in Austria"Familienallianz" (Family Alliance)  Impact of the Italian Peer Review on Social exclusion of families  Complementary benefits for families provided in Romania Complementary benefits for families  Impact of the Finnish Peer Review on mobilisation of all relevant actors  Pilot project on social support networks in Latvia Pilot project on social support networks

23. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 23 To go further (1)  Clear Monitoring and evaluation process and clear definitions are needed from the Member States to facilitate the assessment process.  We need also to focus more closely on the link between tools, indicators and targets. .

24. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 24 To go further (2) Relevance for European Policies  The peer review process can provide the spark to ignite changes and improvements in social inclusion policies. But:  Lack of clear evaluation criteria for the assessment of relevant policies at EU level.  Absence of clear EU definitions. Definitions should not endanger the richness of the experiences and approaches, but should provide tools to structure the debate and to allow comparison between Member States.  Lack of evident links between policies at European level, national level and local level..  Perhaps in future more attention should be paid to aftercare and follow-up activities.

25. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 25 Thank you very much for your attention ! For more information see: www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net

26. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 26 Level of satisfaction    

27. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 27

28. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 28

29. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 29

30. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 30

31. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 31

32. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 32

33. 2005Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 33