1. Dr Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak

2. Potential fields of applying the evaluation in the national policies  Ex-post:  Examination of the efficiency of the existing policies and measures  Evaluation of the efficiency of the functioning of public institutions  Ex-ante  Evaluation of the planned measures and policies  including the assessment of regulation outcomes

3. Use of indicators for the evaluation  Task budget  Definition of tasks and monitoring indicators for budget expenditure  Definition of programme objectives in form of indicators, e.g.:  Limitation of household poverty threat indicator by x%  Covering a specified percentage of children by pre-school care  Shortening the average period of stay in a hospital by x%  Monitoring of implementation of specific measures/policies:  The number of customers covered by a given programme  Comparison of the efficiency of an institution’s operation:  Average cost of providing a specific service  Proceeding duration of a given case

4. Evaluation tools  Stored data:  Expenditure/costs  The number of customers using a given programme  Research  Statistical research, including panel ones  Dedicated evaluation research  Models  Micro-simulation models (for ex-ante evaluation in particular)

5. Example of monitoring programme results: Post- accession Rural Support  Programme under implementation in 500 rural and rural-urban gminas in 13 voivodeships  Objectives:  Increase in the level of social integration  Increase in the use of external funds for financing of social policy  Development of civil society

6. Example of monitoring programme results: Post- accession Rural Support  Achieved results:  % of gminas applying for external funds, including the EU ones for social programmes:  2006: 6%  2007: 8%  2008: 82%  Share of gminas’ inhabitants in the measure programming:  15,000 persons at workshop meetings  5,295 persons in workshop teams  The number of persons using the services under the programme:  676,726 persons – inhabitants of rural areas  12,500 villages using the programme  Gminas in which non-government organisations were established: 360

7. Ex-ante evaluations: influence of the reforms in the field of personal income taxes and premiums – on the basis of SIMPL model Reform cost (PLN mln) poverty rate reduction of pension premium for employees to 4.5%3,900.618.14 reduction of pension premium for employees to 1.5%, for employer to 4.5% 9,753.617.54 two PIT rates –18% and 32%3,157.018.43 two PIT rates –18% and 32%, and reduction of the first threshold by 20% 2,201.018.43 18% flat-rate tax6,705.118.43 18% flat-rate tax, tax credit PLN 935 0.019.85 increase in the tax deductible expenses by 25% 719.618.38 increase in the tax deductible expenses by 50% 1,398.118.25 increase in the tax deductible expenses by 100 % 2,737.318.20 tax credit for a child 530.08 2,894.017.68 tax relief for a child 2,530.08 6,062.217.08 Base poverty rate = 18.61%

8. Income decile division persons against base equivalent disposable income of households (base income) Structural division in family categories 1. Single person of working age 2. Person of working age raising a child on their own 3. Marriage of working age with no children 4. Marriage of working age with a child 5. Single pensioner 6. Married pensioners Ex-ante evaluation: influence of the reforms in the field of personal income taxes and premiums – on the basis of SIMPL model Analysed cross-sections:

9. Ex-ante evaluation: influence of the reforms in the field of personal income taxes and premiums – on the basis of SIMPL model PIT 13: relief amounting to PLN 530.08 PIT 14: relief amounting to PLN 1,060.16 PIT 14_1: relief amounting to PLN 1,060.16 and tax credit of PLN 2,000 PIT14_2: relief amounting to PLN 1,060.16 and tax credit of PLN 1,000 Source: SIMPL – Faculty of Economic Sciences of the University of Warsaw

10. Problems and challenges in the field of evaluation  No defining of quantity objectives of implementing specific programmes/policies  Limitation of access to information that is necessary for evaluation:  Frequent absence of costs calculation in public institutions  Deficiency of evaluation tools  Panel research  Micro-simulation models  Preparation of human resources for broad use of evaluation