CNR-IRPPS is tasked with:

A. Evaluating the policies implemented by Municipalities and PLUS Areas from 2016 to 2023 with reference to:

• the socio-economic framework of the territory, for comparison with regional and national data;
• the nature of projects implemented to combat poverty and reduce social inequalities;
• the impact assessment of projects on a purposive sample of beneficiaries by type of service and family socio-economic status;
• the construction of an interpretative framework of life histories for the purpose of studying indicators to be included in the process and impact evaluation analysis.

B. Process evaluation of projects submitted in 2024 following the regional call aimed at expanding the pool of beneficiaries of the inclusion allowance, taking into account:

• the correspondence of the project with regional Guidelines;
• the pool of beneficiaries considered;
• the methodologies followed in drafting individualized projects aimed at supporting families in pathways out of various forms of poverty;
• ongoing monitoring of individual projects.

C. Contribution to the definition of the REIS Information System to enable synchronic and diachronic evaluation analyses, containing data on:

• social services;
• personalized assessments and planning;
• activated services;
• professions and public and private social sector operators.

D. Shared design of tools aimed at detecting structural indicators to be applied universally throughout the regional territory. The detection of the “characteristics of the container” in which assistance is provided and compliance with accreditation requirements is a sine qua non condition for ensuring evaluation quality. This design is preparatory to the implementation of outcome indicators that refer to context, socio-cultural aspects, and economic factors.

Throughout the project lifecycle, action research methodology is applied to activate a participatory analysis process based on dialogue and continuous learning.

This methodological approach can significantly enhance planning/design, strategies, implementation, evaluation, and impact measurement to achieve a more comprehensive and articulated vision of social inclusion policies.

The circular, theoretical-empirical-research-innovation-practice model, and the multidisciplinary and dialogical approach to social issues and society aims to acquire an open systemic vision and includes, among other things, the involvement of stakeholders at all process levels. This is fundamental for testing the robustness of theory and indicators. Since complex dynamics and logics must be described, it is necessary to gather expert and diverse viewpoints that allow the greatest possible number of aspects and themes to be addressed. The need to adopt this methodological approach stems from the consideration that outputs and outcomes do not depend solely or primarily on the activity of a single organization, but also on the role of other actors involved and on specific contextual conditions.

The participatory approach to indicator construction and the production of shared tools enable the aggregation of diverse competencies into a single dataset.

Action research then enables the production of changes and the acquisition of generalizable knowledge on social policies and the activation of reflexivity processes through an interactive pathway of diagnosis-intervention-learning. In this methodological approach, the researcher has the role of “expert” and actively participates in working groups on equal footing with other stakeholders.

In action research, a network is created where organizations and actors are both senders and recipients of knowledge. In the network, all maintain a high degree of autonomy while being effectively interconnected and working jointly on the same policy, as a single organism.

Action research uses quantitative and qualitative research techniques in relation to phases and objectives. So-called S.M.A.R.T. indicators (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) must be related to a reference framework that allows comparison with an initial baseline value, establishes a series of final references (target value), and enables description of the situation at the time of observation (current value) to assess the level of achievement in intermediate phases. This reference framework, which will evolve with the project and verify changes, requires the most multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder contribution possible.

Quantitative indicators, particularly useful for future impact evaluation, are then integrated with narrative descriptors necessary to measure the outputs and outcomes of implemented actions. In impact evaluations, the balanced mix of qualitative and quantitative indicators must be made explicit for each level of the results chain – output-outcome-impact – and require shared and uniform sources and verification tools.