evaluation of the sme funding schemes - summary

Centre for

Strategy & Evaluation Services

Evaluation of the SME Funding Schemes - summary

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Centre forStrategy & Evaluation Services

Aims of evaluation

An evaluation of the SME funding scheme was carried out in the first half of 2003.

The main aims were to: Assess the impact and sustainability of

the 2001 projects Carry out a preliminary evaluation of

the 2002 projects Prepare recommendations for future

funding schemes


Overall conclusion

A well-run programme that is achieving useful results in the field of health and safety at work.

Relevant to the health and safety issues faced by SMEs and shows a high degree of financial additionality.

Considerable added value, beneficial impacts on the target group of SMEs, and wider ‘demonstration’ effects.


Methodology – key phases

6

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Preparatory TasksPreparatory Tasks Survey Work & InterviewsSurvey Work & Interviews Analysis & ReportingAnalysis & Reporting

Set up meeting Desk research Methodology

Survey of 103 projects Case studies with sample of

35 projects Interviews with Agency staff

and National Focal Points

Analysis of research findings

Preparation of draft final report

Inception Report Interim Report Final Report

January 30 March 21 June


Numbers of projects

A total of 103 projects involving total costs of some €14.7 million from the Agency.

2001-02 Number of eligible projects

Number of awarded projects

Total cost of awarded

projects (€m)

Agency contribution

(€m)

Intervention rate %

National 281 35 4.53 2.21 48.8

Transnational 129 16 3.58 2.28 63.6

Total 410 51 8.11 4.49 55.3 2002-03 Number of

eligible projects



projects (€m)

Agency contribution

(€m)

Intervention rate %

National 248 41 4.54 2.17 47.8

Transnational 111 12 2.03 1.51 74.5

Total 359 531 6.571 3.68

1 56.1

2003-04 Number of eligible projects



projects (€m)

Agency contribution

(€m)

Intervention rate %

National 437 26 3.10 1.63 52.7

Transnational 212 14 2.61 1.95 74.6

Total 649 40 5.71 3.58 62.7

1 For 2002-03, the totals shown are in respect of the 53 projects initially awarded. Subsequently, two projects did not proceed. The data in the remainder of this section is in respect of the remaining 51 projects.


Types of projects

Projects supported under the SME Funding Scheme addressed a very diverse range of subjects. The analysis below is limited to the 2002-03 scheme

Types of Risk National Transnational

No. % No. % General H & S 11 28 1 13 Accidents 9 22 2 25 Asbestos 1 3 0 0 Chemical, solvents 6 15 0 0 Ergonomic/stress 4 10 5 37 Other risks 9 22 3 25 Total 40 100 11 100


Acceptances A large number of applications. Relatively few accepted - 12% under the

2001-02 scheme and 14% the following year.

Calls for proposals and subsequent procedures were clear.

More time is needed to prepare project proposals.


Financing National projects received funding of up to

€90,000 and transnational projects generally received amounts up to €200,000.

The Agency’s intervention rate was 55.6%.

There is a higher intervention rate for transnational projects (67%) than national projects (54%).


Additionality

Very few projects would have gone ahead without some input from Agency funding.

Response options No. %

Yes, the project would have gone ahead without funding 2 4.3

The project would have gone ahead but on a reduced scale 12 26.1

The project would have gone ahead but on a reduced scale 3 6.5

No, the project would not have gone ahead at all without funding 26 56.5

Don’t know 3 6.5

Total 46 100.0


Projects that did not go ahead

Of projects that did not receive Agency funding, most were unable to obtain alternative funding and did not go ahead.

Response No. %

Project went ahead in full as planned 6 14

Project went ahead in part 11 26

Project did not go ahead 26 60

Total 43 100


Achievement of objectives

Most projects considered that they had fully or partially achieved their objectives.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fully achieved Partially achieved Not achieved atall


Help and advice

Those carrying out projects rated highly the help and advice received from the Agency.

Response option Agency

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Total

% Fair - Excellent

Answering questions 17 18 4 3 1 43 90.7

Giving additional information 15 16 10 3 0 44 93.2

Monitoring projects 13 18 8 4 2 45 86.7

Response option National Focal Points

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Total

% Fair - Excellent

Answering questions 2 10 4 1 1 18 88.9

Giving additional information 3 8 5 0 1 17 94.1

Monitoring projects 3 8 2 0 2 15 86.7

Source: survey of 2002-03 projects


Numbers of SMEs benefiting

Of the order of 700,000 SMEs will have benefited from the scheme in some way (after scaling up for non respondents).

Of these 700,000 SMEs of the order of 80,000 SMEs will have received direct advice .


Number of SMEs benefiting

Note: A = Number of respondents; B = Average number of beneficiaries claimed by respondents; C = Total. For the 2001-02 scheme a further total D is shown which excludes one Netherlands scheme where the data includes beneficiaries from other non Agency work

2001-02 Scheme 2002-03 Scheme

Responses A B C D Responses A B C

Received advice 23 6,143 141,000 66,000 Received advice 27 1,574 42,000

Viewed website 12 430,492 5,166,000 166,000 Viewed website 15 13,978 210,000

Received written info 20 8,744 175,000 50,000 Received written info 34 5,468 186,000

Total 5,482,000 282,000 Total 438,000


Period for which SMEs benefit

Project holders considered that SMEs continue to benefit from the results of projects.

Responses 2001-02 Scheme Responses 2002-03 Scheme

No. % No. %

Up to a year 2 6.1 Up to a year 3 6.8

More than a year 31 93.9 More than a year 41 93.2

Total 33 100.0 Total 44 100.0


Benefits to SMEs

Feedback from interviews and case studies suggests that the benefits of the SME Funding Scheme are very diverse (and consequently difficult to measure):

For example: Useful case studies but difficulties in transferring

experiences. The challenge of reaching SMEs. Spin off into other areas, for example reduced

insurance premiums.


Timescale for each programme

Each funding scheme takes two years from start to completion. But this only allows about 9 months for fieldwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Agr

eem

ents

sig

ned.

Pay

men

ts c

ompl

eted

.

Year 1 Year 2

Work period

Bud

get f

inal

ised

. O

J ad

vert

isem

ent.

Ret

urn

of p

ropo

sals

.S

elec

tion

com

plet

ed .

Rep

ort.

Agr

eem

ents

sig

ned.

Pay

men

ts c

ompl

eted

.

Work period

Bud

get f

inal

ised

. O

J ad

vert

isem

ent.

Ret

urn

of p

ropo

sals

.S

elec

tion

com

plet

ed .

Rep

ort.

Agr

eem

ents

sig

ned.

Pay

men

ts c

ompl

eted

.

Work period

Bud

get f

inal

ised

. O

J ad

vert

isem

ent.

Ret

urn

of p

ropo

sals

.S

elec

tion

com

plet

ed .

Rep

ort.


Project timescales

The one-year period for completion of projects is too short.

Not enough time after completion of schemes to disseminate the results.


Publicity and dissemination

Most projects involved a research phase and a publicity or dissemination phase.

Need to concentrate more on dissemination.

There are many studies carried out by others who bring together research on safety and health.


Recommendations - General Continued support, preferably on a larger scale, for the

SME Funding Scheme. Consider whether the SME Funding Scheme should

continue in its current form, i.e. as a separate scheme, or become part of a larger EU-funded programme.

If the SME Funding Scheme continues in its present form, the funding arrangements should be altered to allow projects to be supported on a multi-annual basis. Similarly, if the SME Funding Scheme continues in its present form, there should be a greater focus on the types of projects that deliver the highest Community added value.

There also needs to be more emphasis on ensuring that the results of projects are disseminated as widely as possible.


Recommendations – Using other EU funds

Steps should be taken to ensure that synergies with other EU funded networks and programmes are maximised.

‘Horizontal’ theme in major EU-supported programmes such as the Structural Funds.

Prepare guidance aimed at policymakers in regional authorities explaining what sorts of health and safety projects are eligible for support.

The Agency should investigate the possibility of similar guidance being included in other major EU funding initiatives, in particular the agricultural and fishery funds.


Recommendations – New Member States

Whilst a transfer of know-how from the Agency’s EU15 SME Funding Scheme to the New Member States (NMSs) is desirable, this should be a two-way process.

Following EU enlargement, there is a strong case for a special SME Funding Scheme for the NMSs.

There is a need to review experience from EU15 to identify ideas and good practices in the safety and health at work field that are especially relevant to the NMSs.

Support should be provided, where necessary, to help develop safety and health at work institutional capacity and policies in the NMSs.

Many of the suggested improvements to the SME Funding Scheme that has operated in EU15 are especially relevant to the NMSs and should be implemented there if a scheme is to be launched that goes beyond transferring best practices.

evaluation of the sme funding schemes - summary

Documents

transnational projects

aheadof projects

financingnational projects

agency funding

sme funding scheme

alternative funding

project proposals

higher intervention