Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of 2 Years 6 June 2006 Hugues...
-
Upload
clara-glenn -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of 2 Years 6 June 2006 Hugues...
Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of
2 Years
6 June 2006
Hugues FELTESSE
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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)
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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%)
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer 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’.
2005 Peer 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
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
2005 Peer 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 Reviewson Homelessness
Mandatory Policy Formulation For Marginalised Groups In Denmark inspired by the UK Peer Review
Inter-ministerial "Protocol of Collaboration" in Romania following the peer review on the "Rough Sleepers Unit" in London
Proposal to build "skaeve huse" (alternative housing) in the Netherlands inspired by the Danish experience
2005 Peer 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 Impact of the Italian Peer Review on Social exclusion
of families Complementary benefits for families provided in
Romania Impact of the Finnish Peer Review on mobilisation of
all relevant actors Pilot project on social support networks in Latvia
2005 Peer 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.
.
2005 Peer 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.
2005 Peer 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
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 26
Level of satisfaction
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 27
Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Peer Review: Usefulness of the Outcomes
33,3
54,5
25,0
61,5
31,8
20,0
42,1
35,7
40,9
26,3
33,3
50,0
13,3
25,0
40,9
66,7
27,3
66,7
30,8
54,5
66,7
52,6
57,1
45,5
57,9
44,4
37,5
40,0
62,5
45,5
18,2
8,3
7,7
13,6
13,3
5,3
7,1
13,6
15,8
11,1
12,5
26,7
12,5
13,6
11,1
13,3 6,7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SE 2004 (12)
UK 2004 (11)
AT 2004 (12)
NL 2004 (13)
FI 2004 (22)
FR 2004 (15)
IE 2004 (19)
DE 2004 (14)
IT 2005 (22)
DK 2005 (19)
CZ 2005 (18)
HU 2005 (8)
PT 2005 (15)
EL 2005 (16)
BE 2005 (22)
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 28
Impact of peer review exercise on programme presented / policy debate and practice in peer countries: Did it provoke
amendments or further developments?n=117
25,0
66,7
50,0
20,0
37,5
44,4
50,0
33,3
27,3
20,0
61,5
36,4
40,0
75,0
33,3
100,0
100,0
50,0
80,0
62,5
55,6
50,0
66,7
72,7
80,0
38,5
63,6
60,0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
01/SE (4)
02/UK (6)
03/AT (6)
04/NL (5)
05/FI 88)
06/FR (5)
07/IE (8)
08/DE (9)
01/IT (2)
02/DK (9)
03/CZ (11)
04/HU (10)
05/PT (13)
06/EL (11)
07/BE (10)
yes no
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 29
Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Peer Review:Possibility to Transfer Policy Reviewed to Your Country
10,0
50,0
12,5
27,3
6,7
9,1
15,4
25,0
6,3
7,1
12,5
7,1
23,1
21,1
60,0
20,0
12,5
36,4
40,0
36,4
69,2
41,7
75,0
28,6
60,0
25,0
35,7
46,2
57,9
30,0
30,0
50,0
27,3
46,7
54,5
7,7
25,0
18,8
50,0
20,0
62,5
28,6
30,8
15,8
25,0
6,7
7,7
8,3
14,3
20,0
28,6
5,3
9,1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SE 2004 (10)
UK 2004 (10)
AT 2004 (8)
NL 2004 (11)
FI 2004 (15)
FR 2004 (11)
IE 2004 (13)
DE 2004 (12)
IT 2005 (16)
DK 2005 (14)
CZ 2005 (10)
HU 2005 (8)
PT 2005 (14)
EL 2005 (13)
BE 2005 (19)
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 30
Has there been any kind of transfer of the host country programme or components of it?
(peer country participants only, n=99)
42,9
20,0
71,4
50,0
71,4
33,3
22,2
28,6
37,5
33,3
100,0
57,1
80,0
100,0
28,6
100,0
50,0
28,6
100,0
66,7
77,8
71,4
100,0
62,5
66,7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
01/SE (2)
02/UK (7)
03/AT (5)
04/NL (4)
05/FI (7)
06/FR (5)
07/IE (8)
08/DE (7)
01/IT (2)
02/DK (9)
03/CZ (9)
04/HU (7)
05/PT (10)
06/EL (8)
07/BE (9)
yes no
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 31
Impact of peer review exercise on programme presented / policy debate and practice in peer countries: Did it stimulate
new ideas?n=123
50,0
100,0
50,0
20,0
88,9
83,3
100,0
77,8
100,0
88,9
90,9
90,0
76,9
90,9
70,0
50,0
50,0
80,0
11,1
16,7
22,2
11,1
9,1
10,0
23,1
9,1
30,0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
01/SE (4)
02/UK (7)
03/AT (6)
04/NL (5)
05/FI (9)
06/FR (6)
07/IE (11)
08/DE (9)
01/IT (2)
02/DK (9)
03/CZ (11)
04/HU (10)
05/PT (13)
06/EL (11)
07/BE (10)
yes no
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 32
Do you know of bilateral contacts between your ministry (or other national institutions in your country) and the host
country or with other peer countries after the event, in order to follow up exchange of experience and transfer of good
practice?n=128
33,3
37,5
10,0
36,4
44,4
22,2
45,5
30,0
7,7
9,1
20,0
66,7
62,5
100,0
100,0
90,0
100,0
63,6
55,6
100,0
77,8
54,5
70,0
92,3
90,9
80,0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
01/SE (3)
02/UK (8)
03/AT (6)
04/NL (5)
05/FI (10)
06/FR (6)
07/IE (11)
08/DE (9)
01/IT (2)
02/DK (9)
03/CZ (11)
04/HU (10)
05/PT (13)
06/EL (11)
07/BE (10)
yes no
2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 33
Did you receive requests for information on the peer review and its results from colleagues or institutions within your
country?n=126
50,0
37,5
33,3
20,0
20,0
50,0
25,0
22,2
22,2
27,3
30,0
15,4
54,5
60,0
50,0
62,5
66,7
80,0
80,0
50,0
75,0
77,8
100,0
77,8
72,7
70,0
84,6
45,5
40,0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
01/SE (4)
02/UK (8)
03/AT (6)
04/NL (5)
05/FI (10)
06/FR (6)
07/IE (12)
08/DE (9)
01/IT (2)
02/DK (9)
03/CZ (11)
04/HU (10)
05/PT (13)
06/EL (11)
07/BE (10)
yes no