Two participatory approaches were taken to enhance the Committee's work: first, the consultation of a "college" of persons in poverty or in a precarious situation within the “Conseil national des politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale (CNLE)” (National council against Poverty and Social Exclusion) ; second, the creation of a panel of thirty citizens representative of the French population. The Committee decided that the evaluation would have a dual strategic and analytical dimension and would be carried out on two levels:
An evaluation of thirty-five measures and their effects
The thirty-five measures of the National Strategy are grouped according to five public policy areas: early childhood and education; health; support, training and employment; housing and social rights. They will be monitored and their effects assessed using indicators selected regarding their expected outcomes. Scientific literature will be used to shed light on the expected effects for each of the five areas. Some measures will be subject to scientific impact assessment to assess their causal effect.
An evaluation of the National Strategy as a whole
The Strategy has two main objectives: to prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty, and to help people to move out of poverty. The Committee also decided to evaluate a third objective: to leave no one in deep poverty.
The evaluation will take into consideration policies that share the objective of poverty reduction as well as those that pursue other objectives and whose effects may run counter to or favour the National Strategy; or public policies that target the same audience, for example, early childhood. The Committee will also study the effectiveness of the approach adopted to implement the National Strategy in the territories and reach the target groups. Certain conditions need to be in place for the evaluation to be successful. The Committee makes five recommendations to this effect and asks in particular for the financial means to build a multi-year research program. Finally, the Committee stresses the need for the evaluation to continue beyond 2022, largely because of the timing of the implementation of the measures, the availability of data or the time needed to observe the effects of several measures.