consistency/complementarity of the PHP
10 Monitoring of the PHP
10.1
Background and focus
Monitoring of the Public Health Programme (PHP) has been addressed by the following evaluation question:
Evaluation questions
Q15: Does the current monitoring system deliver the information needed to support sound implementation of the programme?
In the PHP programme decision, it is stated: "1. The Commission, in close co- operation with the Member States, shall regularly monitor, where appropriate with the help of experts, the implementation of the actions of the programme in the light of the objectives. It shall report annually to the Committee. The Com- mission shall transmit a copy of its main findings to the European Parliament and to the Council. 2. At the request of the Commission, Member States shall submit information on the implementation and the impact of this programme."
It is in this context that the evaluation of the current monitoring system of the programme has been undertaken.
10.2
Summary - monitoring
In 2008, the Court of Audit concluded that the indicators at programme level were inadequate to monitor achievements. Furthermore, the CoA concluded that there was no systematic monitoring of actions already undertaken in the different priority areas, which sometimes led to duplication of work.
Evidence provided by interviews with internal stakeholders indicates that - even though there are procedures in place to ensure information flows - more information is warranted, e.g. on the results and the implementation of the pro- gramme at both EU and national levels. However, reporting by the EAHC is restrained by lack of available resources.
Evaluation question
Q15: Does the cur- rent monitoring sys- tem deliver the in- formation needed to support sound im- plementation of the programme?
10.3
Evaluation results
In the following, the data collected through document review and interviews are presented.
10.3.1 Document review
As mentioned in section 6.3.1, the Court of Auditors made an audit of the PHP in 200840. It concluded that the indicators at programme level were inadequate to monitor achievements. Indicators should be defined both for impact (differ- ence made to the target group) and for output (means through which the differ- ence will be brought about).
Furthermore, the CoA concluded that there was no systematic monitoring of actions already undertaken in the different priority areas, which sometimes led to duplication of work.
On the other hand, the interim evaluation of the PHP undertaken in 200641 con- cluded that the projects funded were adequately monitored against the aims of the PHP - at least from the point of view of the project coordinators. One sug- gestion to improving the monitoring system from the project coordinators was that DG SANCO could provide a generic and 'easy to handle' tool for self- assessments. Also, DG SANCO officials could play a more active and commu- nicative role in monitoring activities making use of consultative meetings. Fi- nally, human resource capacity should be increased because feedback and co- ordination of activities were not perceived as optimal.
10.3.2 Interviews with internal stakeholders
During interviews, we asked respondents how the EAHC informs DG SANCO on programme implementation and PHP results and about the procedures in place between DG SANCO and the EAHC to ensure that PHP results are used in the DG SANCO/other DG policy cycle.
How does EAHC inform DG SANCO on programme implementation and PHP results and at which intervals?
Evidence indicates that there are procedures in place to ensure information flows, e.g. monthly coordination meetings with DG SANCO (management meeting), programme steering group meetings, compilation of EAHC annual reports. Furthermore, project and policy officers are in continuous contact, and all project deliverables are sent to the policy officer (inception, interim, draft
40 The European Union's Public Health Programme (2003-07): An Effective Way to Im-
prove Health?
41 Oortwijn, W., ling, T., Mathijssen J., Lankhuizen, M., Scoggins, A., Stolk, C. and Cave J.
Interim Evaluation of the Public Health Programme 2003-2008
Court of Auditors: indicators at pro- gramme level were inadequate to moni- tor achievements
The interim evalua- tion: projects were adequately moni- tored against the aims of the PHP ac- cording to the project coordinators
Procedures to ensure information flows are in place
final and final report etc.). If possible, DG SANCO also participates in kick-off meetings.
However, one stakeholder argued that more information is warranted, including monitoring of results, mapping of gaps in the implementation of the programme and feedback from Member States on the national implementation of the pro- gramme.
Increased reporting by the EAHC to DG SANCO, e.g. on results, would require that additional resources are made available for this.
Which procedures are in place between DG SANCO and EAHC to ensure that PHP results are used in the DG SANCO/other DG policy cycles?
As mentioned above, there are procedures in place to ensure information flows in general. However, these procedures are not targeted to ensure that PHP re- sults are used in the DG SANCO/other DG policy cycles.
One stakeholder argued that the large number of priorities makes it more diffi- cult to obtain an overview and to ensure that the PHP results are used. Another stakeholder mentioned that the use of results/information in the DG SANCO/other DG policy cycles is rather random and depends to a large extent on personal relations.
However, more in- formation is war- ranted