Guidelines for systems of monitoring and evaluation for the Human Resources Initiative EQUAL in the period

Transcription

1 Final July 2000 Guidelines for systems of monitoring and evaluation for the Human Resources Initiative EQUAL in the period INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the main elements of a monitoring and evaluation framework for the new Human Resources Initiative, EQUAL. This framework should be seen as an indicative methodology as referred to in Articles 36 and 42 of the General Structural Funds Regulation (1260/99) and as guidance for the monitoring and evaluation provisions in the Community Initiative Programmes mentioned in point 62 of the Communication from the Commission on EQUAL. The framework builds on the experience gained from monitoring and evaluation of the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives in the period , both in the Member States and at the European level through the national mid-term and final evaluations and the EU-wide evaluation of these Initiatives. The framework reflects the specific features of EQUAL, in particular: The emphasis on the process/mechanisms of change which transpires from the general objective: EQUAL will act as a testing ground to develop and disseminate new ways of delivering employment policies in order to combat all forms of discrimination and inequality in connection with the labour market; The closer links to the European Employment Strategy through the thematic approach to testing new ways of delivering employment policies; The partnership approach: EQUAL will be implemented by Development Partnerships (DP) established at geographical or sectoral level in the Member State and that the DPs will form and carry out transnational co-operation;

2 The clear focus on mainstreaming both within Member States and across the Union. The Communication from the Commission specifies that the Community Initiatives Programme (CIP) will take the form of a Single Programming Document, supplemented by a Programme Complement. The CIP will be the object of three types of evaluations: Ex-ante evaluation, in accordance with Article 41 of the General Regulation, to be included in the CIP; Mid-term evaluation, in accordance with Article 42 of the General Regulation, to be submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2003 and up-dated by 31 December 2005; Ex-post evaluation, in accordance with Article 43 of the General Regulation, to be completed not later than three years after the end of the programming period. These guidelines focus mainly on the mid-term evaluation and its update and aim to assist the national authorities in elaborating an evaluation programme, determining the scope of the evaluation and selecting qualitative and quantitative information to be collected and analysed. In Chapter 2 we look at a general descriptive model in which to situate the characteristics of EQUAL, as a tool to increase the understanding of and map the hierarchy of objectives and intervention logic of the CIP. This chapter also includes a schematic picture of the monitoring and evaluation system. In Chapter 3 we look at the overall evaluation criteria, a typology of effects and specific evaluation questions for EQUAL at different levels of the programme. To cover these, the quantitative data described in Chapter 4 are needed together with accompanying qualitative information researched at all levels of the programme. In Chapter 4 we give recommendations for minimum monitoring information to be presented in the Annual report of the Management Authority and Monitoring Committee and for the mid-term evaluation. The common minimum would include a limited set of input (financial) and output (physical) indicators covering the entire programme, to be collected at DP-level and aggregated at thematic and CIP-level annually. Together with "policy indicators" - specific quantified objectives, they constitute the key indicators of the programme. 2

3 Chapter 5 includes a reminder of some aspects to take into account in the organisation of the mid-term evaluation and its update. 2. FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION Three levels can help visualise the CIP: the programme level with its overall objective(s), the priority level (structured around a theme(s) or specific objectives), the project level encompassing the Development Partnership with its different partners and activities. Filling in such a model can be a useful exercise both when preparing the CIP (in the ex-ante evaluation) and in the mid-term evaluation. Community Objectives Commission Communication EQUAL Programme CIP Overall objective (aim) Thematic priorities new ways of combating discrimination and inequalities in the labour market Specific objectives Thematic measures, Actions 1-3, European level activities Projects (DPs) DP results Thematic measures, Actions 1-3, European level activities Monitoring & Evaluation system Indicators Aggregation of common minimum indicators; Presentation of data for specific quantified Aggregation of common minimum indicators; Followup of quantified specific (eg.thematic) Common minimum indicators + additional specific output, outcome and impact indicators (gross/net and 3

4 objectives Financial execution objectives; direct/indirect) Evaluation Consistency, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency Global appreciation of outcome and impacts: partnerships, innovation, transnationality, participation, dissemination and mainstreaming NAP, socio-economic context and conditions of implementation Achievement of work programme objectives (effectiveness), impact 3. CONTENT OF EVALUATION 3.1 Issues for Evaluation The evaluation would need to cover classical evaluation questions such as effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and consistency, which are normally part of all evaluations and which are relevant at all levels of the programme. For EQUAL, these evaluation questions should be addressed within/for each of the guiding principles of the Initiative. Ultimately the evaluation should give an answer to how and to what extent EQUAL has succeeded in achieving its overall objective of creating/testing and transferring new ways of delivering employment policies, seeking in the longer term to reduce labour market discrimination and inequalities faced by disadvantaged groups. In this respect, emphasis should be put on assessing the effectiveness of the key principles of EQUAL: Partnership: How has the partnership at the DP level and the institutional partnership in the dissemination and mainstreaming phases contributed to new solutions and changes in corporate, institutional and societal practices within the fight against labour market discriminations and inequalities? Transnationality: How has the transnational co-operation at the DP level and through the networking at national and EU level contributed to the emergence of innovation, a better diffusion of best practice, a better design of policies? Innovative solutions: How have they emerged? How have they been identified and accepted as innovations? What is the interface to the national policy? Empowerment/participation: How has this principle been operationalised and how/to what extent has it helped the DPs to achieve their objectives and contribute to the fight against discrimination and inequalities at the local level? Thematic approach: Have the themes and the specific objectives been defined in a way corresponding to national policy priorities and weaknesses? To what extent have the DPs been active in these fields (supply or demand-driven project selection)? Have 4

5 the main policy actors and operators on the ground been involved in the validation and dissemination of the DPs' achievements? Dissemination and Mainstreaming: Have the dissemination and mainstreaming activities been effective in reaching and influencing the main policy actors, have the activities been adapted to the potential of innovation of the DP results? Have they led or will they lead to improvements in policy design? In comparison with the typology of effects used for the ESF 1, for EQUAL the impact would mainly refer to structural effects or impacts relating to the performance of (formal and informal) systems (e.g. in terms of effects on the formulation and implementation of policy and practices, establishment of durable partnerships, changes in training systems, changes in corporate or social attitudes, capacity building in organisations ). An assessment of effectiveness and efficiency will however also require to assess, at the DP level, the effects on persons or companies who participate in the interventions (e.g. in terms of employability, capacity to integrate, adaptability, entrepreneurial aptitude, empowerment, gender equality) or the job creation where relevant. The information on outcomes (short-term/immediate effects at the end of the activity) and impacts (medium and long-term effects) recorded at the different levels of the programme, should try to distinguish between these types of effects. Effort should be also made to identify direct/indirect and gross/net impacts in the analysis. The overall evaluation approach would essentially be qualitative and a list of examples of specific evaluation questions for the key aspects within the three Actions of EQUAL is given below. ACTION 1 Setting up DPs and Transational Co-operation (TC) ACTION 2 Implementing Work programme 1 Guidelines for systems of monitoring and evaluation of ESF assistance in the period , European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs DG, July

6 National and Transnational Cooperation Innovation ACTION 1 Setting up DPs and Transational Co-operation (TC) What are the types of partners participating in the DP and TC (enterprises, public bodies, social partners, NGOs +geographical/sectoral) and what is their background (co-operation prior to EQUAL and nature of their links)? What difficulties were encountered in forming the partnerships and how long did it take? Preliminary assessment/formulation of hypothesis of the potential of the co-operations, based on the representative capacity of the DP/TC in relation to the objectives and expectations on the co-operation and the financial and other commitment of each partner by using the DP and TC Agreements and other documentation. Monitor and analyse partnerships/projects that are abandoned during or at the end of Action 1, registering numbers and types and analysing reasons for not being able to successfully finalise the first phase. How/to what degree have the expectations in terms of testing/developing new modes been explicitly formulated, documented/motivated and quantified? Have the ways in which the national and transnational co-operation should contribute to the testing/development of the method/approach been adequately specified and quantified? What is the role of each partner? What evidence is there of empowerment /participation of the groups at which the project is targeted in the definition/planning stages? ACTION 2 Implementing Work programme Examine the type and intensity of the realised co-operations, achieved documented activities of the DPs and outcomes of the co-operation, looking into reasons for deviations from original plans. What can be said about any explicit contribution of/links between (different types of) national and/or transnational co-operation and project outcomes (degree of innovation, effectiveness of activities, empowerment/participation, dissemination/mainstreaming)? Try to identify determinant factors affecting the degree and type of innovation Assess the actual contribution of the national and transnational co-operation to the achieved results Assess the potential of the achieved results to increase the effectiveness of national policy delivery if transferred, using quantitative follow-ups (outcomes, drop-out rates etc.) in combination with qualitative sections ('softer' outcomes for individuals and organisations in terms of e.g. confidence and capacity building, changes in corporate attitudes etc.) What evidence is there of empowerment effects/participation of the groups at which the project is targeted in/through the implementation? What has their reaction to EQUAL been? 6

7 Dissemination & Mainstreaming Thematic approach ACTION 1 Setting up DPs and Transational Co-operation (TC) Is there a strategic plan for dissemination and mainstreaming activities? Have the ways in which the national and transnational co-operation should contribute to the dissemination/mainstreaming activities been specified? Role of each partner? What evidence is there of a gender perspective being applied in the definition/planning of work programmes and activities? Specific questions in relation to the link between the DP activities and the selected themes, sub-themes and specific objectives ACTION 2 Implementing Work programme Have project outcomes been documented in a systematic and suitable form to facilitate dissemination and mainstreaming? What has been the intensity and content/type of DPs contribution to the national thematic networking? Analysis of any local/regional/national dissemination and transfers already initiated by the DPs? Specific involvement of transnational partners? What evidence is there of a gender perspective being applied in the implementation of work programmes and activities? Specific questions in relation to the link between the DP activities and the selected themes, sub-themes and specific objectives 7

8 ACTION 3 Thematic networking, dissemination and mainstreaming a) Analysis of the system for quality check and methodological generalisation of DP results? How is good practice identified? b) Have strategies for horizontal (practices at local/regional/national level) and vertical (policy at regional/national level) mainstreaming been put in place with formal/informal routines for the dissemination to relevant actors? At what level (DP/local/regional/national)? Obstacles/barriers? c) Which actors have been involved in the process? d) What evidence is there of actual/potential horizontal and vertical mainstreaming? Obstacles/barriers? Indications of the importance of the transnational co-operation as a factor in the process? e) What evidence is there of a potential for further dissemination and mainstreaming at the European level? f) What evidence is there of a gender perspective being applied in the dissemination and mainstreaming strategies and activities? A further specification/interpretation of the above questions and effects could be done e.g. within the scope of the ex-ante evaluation. The EU-wide evaluation of the Employment and Adapt Initiatives 2 can also be used as background document for examples of evaluation questions for some of the key aspects. Also, indicative typologies of innovation, transnationality and mainstreaming have been annexed at the end of this document. 3.2 Evaluation at the Programme (CIP) level At programme level, the General Regulation requires a Mid-Term Evaluation, to be carried out by an independent evaluator and submitted to the Commission by the 31 December 2003 at the latest. As a continuation, it shall be up-dated and completed no later than 31 December 2005 so that it can feed into the preparation of future assistance. The general evaluation criteria, typology of effects and types of specific evaluation questions to be used for EQUAL have been described above (3.1) and a "checklist" for the Mid-Term Evaluation and its up-date is given below: The mid-term evaluation would initially cover the following aspects: - Analysis of the definition of CIP-level and thematic objectives and their operationalisation in the programme complement, the programme consistency as a whole, the application and coherence of selection criteria, an assessment of the adequacy of the activities and the dynamic of the implementation of the programme, - Analysis of the monitoring systems: examination of the coverage, the relevance and the reliability of the systems of indicators, availability of quantitative and qualitative information, links with the national systems, collection methods; - Evaluation scope and feasibility: methods, type of analysis, proposal for the sampling of measures (which will be the subject of detailed evaluations), data collection methods (surveys, interviews, etc). At the end of 2003 at the latest, the mid-term evaluation would cover the following principal points: 2 - "European wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative EMPLOYMENT", final report by NEI/FHVR in March "EU Wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative ADAPT", final report by PLS Consult in March

9 - Analysis of the interventions on the basis of financial (input) and physical (output) indicators, checking of achieved objectives, appraisal of results according to the evaluation criteria, analysis of the effects of the measures and their emerging impact; - Analysis of the interventions' context: socio-economic environment, operational context, link with the national plans for employment and the national social policies; - Analysis of implementation conditions: the partnership, selection of actions (procedures, criteria), the use of technical assistance, information and visibility, management, financial and administrative channels, control; - Evaluation of key topics and transverse/horizontal topics; - Summary and conclusions which take account of contextual changes and implementation methods. Recommendations in the Mid-Term Evaluation should aim to strengthen the effectiveness of interventions and implementation at the time of the mid-term reprogramming of the interventions The Final Assessment in 2005 would involve: - Update of the mid-term evaluation; - Evaluation of the mid-term reprogramming; - Analysis and Conclusions on the emerging impact of the interventions. Recommendations in the Final Assessment should aim to feed into the preparation of assistance beyond An important aspect within the analysis of the implementation of EQUAL, is the analysis of the arrangements and criteria used for the selection of partnerships and work programmes. This would consist of showing how the overall frame for the selection in the Communication has been interpreted/translated into operational selection criteria and used in the selection process; it would also involve describing the national selection set-up and methods, the actors involved and any regional differences in the case of a decentralised organisation. The information should be drawn mainly from the national monitoring systems, the European data base, the partnership agreement documents and other DP documentation including self-evaluations. This information would be completed/accompanied by targeted surveys and/or case-studies by the national independent evaluator. Such surveys/case-studies could target direct and indirect beneficiaries, key actors involved in the Initiative and policy influencers at the periphery or outside and/or look into particular issues/priorities. 3.3 Evaluation at the European level The Commission will be responsible for synthesising the main findings and conclusions of the national programme (CIP) evaluations. The Commission will organise technical meetings and partnership meetings to discuss methodological issues and the progress of the evaluations. The Commission may also undertake additional EU-wide evaluation work to examine particular (e.g. thematic) issues across the Union and/or to support the further development of evaluation methodology. The evaluation of the mechanisms (mentioned in section V of the Communication) to create an impact at Union level will be organised by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member States. On the basis of the national CIP evaluations, it will provide a synthesis of the set-up and implementation of the national thematic networking, dissemination and mainstreaming structures and activities (Action 3). The evaluation will specifically look at the links and interactions between the 9

10 transnational co-operation at DP-level, the national thematic networking and the networking at the European level. An analysis of the actual and potential impact of (a selection of) the transnational discussion fora/seminars/conferences/activities organised at the European level should be carried out to cover the main question of their contribution to the effective dissemination and mainstreaming of national results/identified good practices into practices, procedures and policies at regional, national and Community level. The evaluation will also provide an assessment of the implications of EQUAL to the National Action Plans and other Community Programmes. 4. CONTENT OF MONITORING The Mid-Term Evaluation, and its update, the Annual Report and the on-going follow up of the implementation and progress of the programme is dependent on the existence of appropriate, systematic and timely monitoring information. It is important to ensure a comprehensive flow of quantitative (financial and physical) and qualitative information through all of the levels of the programme from the start of the programme. 4.1 Definitions and Systems of Indicators For accountability purposes, it is necessary that at least a minimum of input (financial) and output (physical) information is available in order to give a picture of the "volume" of the activities generated by the Initiative across the EU. The minimum quantitative data needed for EQUAL is outlined in the left-hand column below, together with accompanying minimum qualitative information in the righthand column. These are considered as a set of common minimum indicators to be annual, exhaustive and aggregated from the Action and Thematic (measure) level to the CIP (programme) level. The Managing Authority and Monitoring Committee would be responsible for aggregating the below information, which would need to be collected from the DPs, both by call for proposal, by theme and globally for the entire programme and forwarding it electronically to the Commission services annually. There will be a possibility for most of the below data to be continuously registered/transferred to the European database once operational. The Managing Authority would need to add data on number of applications submitted/approved. 10

11 Minimum (input and output) Quantitative Data Accompanying Minimum Qualitative Information Action 1, Setting up partnerships: - Geographical or sectoral DP, themes Data to be collected/registered at the end of Action 1: - Total and Average Amounts spent to set up DP/TC - Average Time spent to set up DP/TC - Average Number of partners in DP/TC - Type of national and transnational partners: public authority (national, regional, local); education/training body; chamber of commerce/industry/craft; employment service; services/enterprises/ngos - list to be agreed), countries Action 2, Implementing work programmes: - Amounts spent with distribution by core activities (list to be agreed) and separation for transnational co-operation activities (e.g. meetings with transnational partners) - Where applicable, number of beneficiaries (persons/companies/other) in the core activities and distribution by gender and status in the labour market, asylum seekers (persons), size and sector (companies)* - Number of transnational meetings attended/time spent in events - Classification/encodage of the principal type of innovation pursued during the year according to the general typology in Annex A - Classification/encodage of the principal TC activity carried out during the year according to the general typology in Annex B Action 3, National networking, dissemination & mainstreaming: - Amounts spent for specific preparation and participation - Number of events attended/time spent in events - Type of event (meeting/conference/other) DPs participation in European level networking, dissemination & mainstreaming: - Amounts spent for preparation and participation - Number of events attended/time spent in events - Type of event (thematic review/discussion forum/other) The monitoring information collected, analysed and aggregated for the CIP would, together with available information for the specific quantified objectives (see 4.2), feed the national Annual Report as well as the Mid-Term Evaluation. Each Member State shall, in the CIP or programme complement, supplement/expand the above minimum with more comprehensive data in relation to the nature of the programme activities and the specific objectives at the level of themes/sub-themes and/or Actions, also adding outcome (short-term/immediate effects) and impact (medium or long-term effects) indicators. Additional qualitative information relating to the socio-economic context, background and conditions of implementation must also be collected for the assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the Actions under the Programme. 11

12 4.2 Quantification of objectives To the extent possible, the overall general objective(s) at the programme level, should be broken down into specific, quantified, objectives at the level of themes/sub-themes and/or Actions. They could be expressed either as a specific quantified target or by announcing a tendency to which a baseline is identified (e.g. in the form of a contextindicator). Progress towards such specific quantified objectives/targets should be monitored continuously and presented together with the common minimum indicators above. 4.3 Monitoring at the European level At the European level, the monitoring data provided by each Member State would be aggregated to give a global picture for the Union as a whole of the total volume and types of activities per call for proposal and theme within EQUAL. Additional monitoring activities would also be carried out by the Commission to collect data on the thematic networking, dissemination and mainstreaming activities at the European level. This would involve classification of events by theme, systematic collection of data on attendance rates, types of participants, coverage of target audiences etc. to be complemented by qualitative information and analysis in the evaluation phase. 5. EVALUATION SET-UP AND ORGANISATION Timing: the Community timetable of the mid-term evaluation and its update presupposes that evaluation work is foreseen at the very start of the programming period, with appropriate funding available under technical assistance. It is therefore important to prepare the evaluation mandate/terms of reference as soon as possible so that the mid-term evaluation can be launched in parallel with the programme. Duration: the duration of the mandate must allow for having evaluators in place for the whole programming period (clauses for the possibility of complementing the evaluation mandate and cancellation clauses could be included in the contract). Evaluator: the independence criteria must be demonstrated to ensure an external (independent of the administration responsible for the implementation of the programme) evaluation of the programme. The evaluator/evaluation team should be selected following the elaboration, in partnership, of terms of reference and in compliance with the EU directives on public procurement. It should be specified if the evaluation will be carried out by a single evaluator or a co-ordinating evaluator of thematic or decentralised evaluations. Partnership: partnership is a determining principle of Structural Funds evaluations. It implies the close collaboration of the main decision-makers, managers and other stakeholders in the programme during all of the programme phases, also in the preparation, implementation and follow up of evaluations. 12

13 The partnership principle should be operationalised through the setting up of an "Evaluation Steering Group": It is a technical group, composed of persons responsible for the evaluation representing the partners (i.e. the Ministries, the Regions, policy evaluation departments and the Commission) and the independent evaluators once selected. It prepares the mandate for and selection of the evaluators. It gives opinions on the evaluation reports. It accompanies the evaluation work, it prepares the decisions on validation (in particular regarding the quality and the fulfilment of the mandate), on dissemination and on publication of reports. It also has a function in coordinating the evaluation in the event of a multi layer evaluation mechanism. It identifies topics to be studied in greater detail (e.g. in thematic evaluations). Property and publicity: it is advisable to determine, within the partnership framework, the rules of validation of reports to avoid unilateral standpoints. The use of evaluations, their dissemination and publication must also be specified. As a general rule, evaluation results should always be made available to the general public. 13

14 ANNEX A GENERAL TYPOLOGY OF INNOVATION 3 The following overall categories of innovation can be distinguished: Process-oriented Goal-oriented Context-oriented Process-oriented innovations Focuses on the process of reaching the objectives, through the development of new methods/tools/approaches or the improvement/adaptation of existing ones Goal-oriented innovations Centre around the formulation of new objectives/new subject-areas/new uses/new target-groups, thus mainly focusing on the objectives and results of the activities Context-oriented innovations Refer to the political and institutional structures within which the activities take place and the objectives are pursued and aim to improve the frame conditions or reorganise the existing settings, e.g. by developing/adapting networking practices 3 Source: "European wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative EMPLOYMENT", final report by NEI/FHVR in March 2000; Point 29 of the EQUAL Communication

15 ANNEX B GENERAL TYPOLOGY OF TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION 4 The following main models of transnational co-operation can be distinguished according to the objectives and the contents of co-operation between the project partners: 1. Exchange of information and experiences ('getting to know each other') This model usually represents the starting point of transnational co-operation and it is also the common denominator for all the following models. Partners exchange information about their projects and the background to their activities. Partners have not explicitly defined joint concrete objectives of their cooperation at this stage. 2. Parallel development of innovative approaches In this model, partners share and pursue a common concrete objective, yet work relatively independently (in parallel) of each other on the practical realisation of their common goal. The exchange of experiences is less general and more systematically goal-related than in the first model above. It is a systematic attempt to secure support in the development of innovations from partners with comparable interests. 3. Import, export or adoption of new approaches and their adaptation to own situation This model is usually a variant or continuation of the "parallel development"-model above, coming into play when it becomes apparent in the course of transnational co-operation that the project partner already has a largely "complete" solution for one's own problem. In that case transnationality makes it possible for certain partners to have access to insights which the other partner already possesses. 4. Joint development division of tasks with a common objective This model often results from partnerships that have been in existence for some time. It implies a common perception of the problem and an intention to find a joint solution to it, making conscious use of individual strengths. The steps required to solve the problem are defined and the resulting tasks divided up among the project partners. 5. Sub-model/additional activity: Exchange of trainees/trainers/staff The exchange of trainees, trainers or staff between the transnational partners is an additional activity or a sub-model which usually occurs in parallel with one of the four main models. But these activities need to go beyond study visits (otherwise they would belong to the first model of co-operation above). There has to be a precise definition of the specific objectives of the exchange in relation to the further development and progress towards the common project objective. 4 Source: "European wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative EMPLOYMENT", final report by NEI/FHVR in March 2000/"EU Wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative ADAPT", final report by PLS Consult in March

16 ANNEX C INTRODUCTION TO MAINSTREAMING 5 Mainstreaming must be considered in two dimensions, one concerning its potential results and the other as the process leading to mainstreaming effects and consisting of different steps. This process starts with innovation at the project (DP) level, includes dissemination and transfer activities and finally - in the best case, results in mainstreaming effects (figure 1). The effects of mainstreaming can be changes at project level or at policy level. Horizontal mainstreaming is aimed to project organisations active in the same or a similar field as the EQUAL projects. Vertical mainstreaming affects the policy level and leads to changes in the content, the mode of implementation or the incentives linked with active labour market policy. Figure 1 The mainstreaming process Horizontal Mainstreaming Changes on Project level Vertical Mainstreaming Changes on Policy Level Mainstreaming Effects Transfer and adoption of lessons Selection of lessons Drawing of lessons Assessment of results TRANSFER Mainstreaming Process Dissemination Documentation Methodological generalisation of project results Innovation on project level DISSEMINATION Project Level The mainstreaming process can be understood as a learning process. In order to achieve learning effects the analysis and processing of information is required. Thus ultimately, mainstreaming can be described as a sequence of passing-on and processing of information. Methodological generalisation, assessment of results, drawing, selection and adoption of lessons are actions taken to process the information; documentation and dissemination can be said to deal predominantly with the passing-on of information. As mainstreaming aims to influence not only the EQUAL project organisations, but also broader systemic entities, e.g. the regional and local training sector or regional and national policies, the active involvement of different actors is required. Local and regional project organisations, public employment services, public authorities from different levels, implementing agencies are all examples of actors possibly involved. 5 Source: "European wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative EMPLOYMENT", final report by NEI/FHVR in March