RISE's newly conducted FP10 position paper shares the concerns of the many voices calling for a larger RD&I budget and brings up a few structural dilemmas that need to be addressed in the early discussions of the next FP. Notably, it is time for RD&I to be prioritized in the upcoming multiannual financial framework (MFF), and for EU leaders to cease reallocating funds from its RD&I posts to address crisis-related expenditures. 

Tackling the instability of the current framework programme 

As the EU´s long-term budget negotiations getting closer, the call for a larger RD&I budget risks being overshadowed by the Member States general policy stance of a restrictive EU budget since few, if any, national representatives are inclined to report increased budget allocation to the EU in their national debates. Consequently, increasing the FP10 budget might primarily revolve around prioritizing the RD&I budget post within the EU´s budget and its multiannual financial framework (MFF). Today, this is far from reality, as the EU frequently reallocates funds from its RD&I posts to address crisis-related expenditures. The most recent example in February (2024), when €2.1 billion was redeployed from Horizon Europe to bolster crisis support packages, which undoubtedly serve vital purposes. However, stealing from already constrained RD&I pockets will in the long run hamper the EU´s innovation capacity which is the fundament for our economic growth and Europe´s competitiveness. 

There are additional two more structural dilemmas, other than regular reallocation of the FP budget, to address in upcoming negotiations. Annual re-discussion of the MFF budget and yearly changes in allocation within the FP-budget are also contributing to the instability of the current FP. To overcome this instability, the RD&I budget should be ringfenced within the MFF, where the initial budget is protected to ensure stability and predictability for stakeholders participating in the FP. 

Member states positions: key building blocks of FP10

The Danish government has taken a first-mover role when presenting distinct recommendations in its position for the upcoming FP10. Finding common ground among EU member states will undoubtedly pose challenges, but being first with a national position will hopefully have a great impact on the rest. 

The Danish position succeeds in pointing out needed reformations such as merging existing EU programs with RDI components with FP10, integrating support for technology infrastructure and lift the Missions out of the FP. Components that are also stressed in RISE's recently adopted position paper on FP10. Hereby, RISE brings several strategic issues to the attention of the policymakers negotiating the future FP10 under the headlines of: 

1. Increasing the FP Budget 
2. Tackling the instability of the RD&I budget in the MFF 
3. Launching support for Technology Infrastructures 
4. Streamlining the European RDI support landscape  
5. Enhancing the focus on industrial competitiveness 
6. Simplifying participation for beneficiaries 

It is now time for other Member States to formulate their position, adding points of discussion, to the debate. It may be overly optimistic to anticipate national positions including both a larger and ring-fenced FP10 budget. Hence, two plausible alternatives emerge: a substantially augmented budget with provisions for diversion, or a moderate increment specifically earmarked for RD&I actions. Nevertheless, let us aspire to avoid arriving at this crossroad. Instead, the council should chart a course that prioritizes RD&I as a means to enhance the EU´s longterm competitiveness, which is the main imperative of a larger RD&I budget post and a strenghtened FP10. Ultimately, we can only hope that the message resonates well with the Member States. 

Sveriges Stadsmissioner is the Swedish national organisation that brings together the local city missions around the country. Together, the ten independent city missions have 1,300 employees and many volunteers who work to fight poverty and homelessness. Within the national organisation, the local city missions collaborate on, advocacy work, collection and quality and method development. An important issue is the follow-up of effects. The interventions need to have an effect on the target groups, such as increasing the quality of life or well-being. But it is also important to be able to show funders that the interventions give positive effects and that the money makes a difference.

"It is difficult to measure social work, but we have taken a good step together with RISE. In 2024, we will continue to implement, develop, and spread the message about the importance of measuring impact", says Kenneth Humling, quality developer at Östergötlands Stadsmission.

Ombudsmanship and work integration

Among other things, the city missions wanted to develop methods to follow up the effects of ombudsmanship and work integration. Ombudsmanship is an intervention where the target group gets help in activities such as contacts with authorities. Work integration is an intervention aimed at getting the target group into employment.

"We chose these interventions because we work with them at all city missions. We wanted to ensure the quality of the measurements, get reliable metrics on the effects in the target group, but also support the implementation of the new methods in the various city missions", says Kenneth Humling.

Category based measurements

RISE has expertise in areas such as implementation research and so-called category-based measurements, which involve going from simple surveys to quality-assured measurements of experiences, feelings, behaviors, and abilities. With quality-assured measurements, it is possible to state how much the feeling of well-being or quality of life has increased, or how much it has increased in compared to other groups or over time.

"For quality-assured measurements, work is needed in several stages. Construction and testing of questions and surveys is an important part. Another important part is the analysis where you use Rasch analysis to obtain reliable measurement values", says Clara Larsson, analyst at RISE, and continues:

"Then there is always a balancing act in dialogue with the partner, how far you want or can go. More accurate measurements require more work and is more complex, but we should not make more accurate measurements than what the partner needs. The most important thing is that the measurements become useful and provide the answers needed for the partner."

Organising for impact

In addition to questionnaires, tests of the measurement tools against the target groups and recommendations regarding measurement and analysis of the measurements, RISE also produced a training material regarding the integration of effect measurement, a material called Organising for impact. RISE also researched digital tools that might be suitable for carrying out and compiling the measurements. It's important to make it easy, filling out a survey often ends up way down the priority list.

"The focus of our activities is to support the participants in the efforts, we need to make it easy for them to answer. We also need to continue developing the questionnaires, for example we have seen that participants often answer that they feel much better than they actually do. Another aspect is that if we help explain the questions to the participant, we influence the result to some extent. There are also challenges with language barriers that we want to continue working on", says Kenneth Humling.