Indicators of Public Administration Capacity Building for ESF monitoring

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/ performanceindicatorsin 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 Count of 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 indicatorsfor 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