Using indicators to make comparisons between programmes
Using indicators to make valid comparisons between programmes is important but difficult. This is due to various factors, such as the diversity of interventions within a programme, the diversity of regional contexts, or the incompatibility of definitions. For example, depending on the regions and programmes, tourist trips may be counted in terms of the number of visits or the number of nights stayed; trainees may be counted in terms of the number of participants in training course or in hours of training provided; and environmental protection may be measured in terms of the number of projects, the number of sites or the number of hectares protected.
Comparability may be sought and obtained through exchanges between managers in different regions or countries. There have been numerous opportunities for this type of comparison provided by the INTERREG Programme (see Box Cooperation to generate transnational comparisons ).
Comparability is often easier to obtain and more useful at all levels if it results from a co-ordinated collective effort at a higher geographical level. This approach has the advantage of multiplying the possibilities for comparison, and also allowing for the aggregation of indicators at the regional or national level. The Scottish Office created a series of standard indicators applicable to seven Scottish programmes (see Box A set of standard indicators for several programmes ). Although mainly concerned with contextual indicators rather than evaluation the Urban Audit provides an example of efforts to achieve comparability.
Public communication
Systems of indicators should be useful for decision-making. They are also important for accountability purposes, for example to the European or national parliaments, to regional or local elected representatives, to socio-economic partners, to journalists and, through them, to citizens and taxpayers.
If systems of indicators are to serve as a basis for public communication, a small number of indicators that can immediately be understood by lay people must be selected, quantified and published. The publication of such indicators is normally organised in the form of simple tables with accompanying commentary, for example in an annual review. More detailed information can also be made available through an "observatory" open to the public, or through a system of consultation on the Internet.
In defining these publicly accessible indicators, priority should be given to generic indicators (applicable to many different actions within the same programme) and standard indicators (allowing for comparisons between programmes in different regions or countries). Moreover, these indicators should be understood by all the partners without long explanations and without any misinterpretation of their meaning.