Indicators as Nonsense-indicators

Posted by mariusvalentinniculae on 05/03/14

I could not find a better term to define the following result and output indicators:

1) “Action-based conscience-shaping of the youth living on the target area, sustainable land use and forming social view”, base value 100, target value 200, measurement unit %;

2) “Action-based conscience-shaping of the adult society living on the target area. Knowing the values, exposure and reduction of hazard points”, base value 100, target value 200, measurement unit %;

3) “Making the results of monitoring and closed projects understood, making the usability of the created values understood”, base value 100, target value 200, measurement unit %;

These indicators should facilitate the operationalization of the following general objective „Shaping of social conscience among the young and adult population, development of human resources” and allow feedback for further measurements and corrections. The latter are needed in order to maximize the impact of the project at the level of the target group and facilitate the overall evaluation of the programme. However, it is not easy to do so since their definition is hardly understandable and the base and target values non-measurable.

Finalizing a project is not the equivalent of closing a project because the Subsidy Contract legally bounds the beneficiaries to a sustainability period of 5 years. During this period the above indicators should be accomplished. The problem is that, at this point, there are no practical instruments to actually evaluate the progress of a project during the mandatory sustainability period and, more challenging, no available tools to enforce the provision of the Subsidy Contract.

Confusion persists also when it comes to quantify the output indicators and their logical coherence with the specific objective – “Studies, website, conscience-shaping actions, and programmes for the youth

1) “Making a situation-revealing and monitoring study, as well as informative publications, throw-away materials and a film”, base value 0, target value 13154, measurement unit: pieces;

2) “Mapping and elimination of illegal waste deposits”, base value 50, target value 100, measurement unit %;

3) “Programmes organized for the adult society, opening and closing conferences, information. Youth programmes. Common editing and operation of a website”, base value 0, target value 19 , measurement unit: pieces;

In a few words, the role of the indicators is to guide us through the implementation process and set up the targets to be achieved.  In this sense, they have to be understandable, easy to measure and transparent.  As it can be seen, this is not the case with the above indicators. From this perspective, the entire process of evaluation and implementation is questionable and can be the subject of an irregularity procedure under the suspicion of misplacement of EU funds.

 

 

Leave a Reply »»

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Marius Niculae rss

This blog plans to discuss the quality of governance in cross-border cooperation. For this purpose, we plan to develop a more profound understanding of the problems currently affecting the capacity of the European Territorial Cooperation to reduce disparities among regions and to contribute to the fulfilment of the general objective of the EU2020 Strategy. more.



Advertisement