PERSPECTIVES OF USING THE EVALUATION IN THE FIELD OF NATIONAL PUBLIC FUNDS

5. EVALUATION CONFERENCE WARSAW, 23 OCTOBER 2009

Dr Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak

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

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

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)

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

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

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% 3,900.6 18.14

reduction of pension premium for employees to 1.5%, for employer to 4.5% 9,753.6 17.54

two PIT rates –18% and 32% 3,157.0 18.43

two PIT rates –18% and 32%, and reduction of the first threshold by 20% 2,201.0 18.43

18% flat-rate tax 6,705.1 18.43

18% flat-rate tax, tax credit PLN 935 0.0 19.85

increase in the tax deductible expenses by 25% 719.6 18.38

increase in the tax deductible expenses by 50% 1,398.1 18.25

increase in the tax deductible expenses by 100 % 2,737.3 18.20

tax credit for a child 530.08 2,894.0 17.68

tax relief for a child 2,530.08 6,062.2 17.08Base poverty rate = 18.61%

Income decile division persons against base equivalent disposable income of

households (base income)

Structural division in family categories1. Single person of working age2. Person of working age raising a child on their own3. Marriage of working age with no children4. Marriage of working age with a child5. Single pensioner6. 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:

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 530.08PIT 14: relief amounting to PLN 1,060.16PIT 14_1: relief amounting to PLN 1,060.16 and tax credit of PLN

2,000PIT14_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

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