At the end of 2021, the Kraków City Office faced an important question: was the city’s integration policy keeping pace with a rapidly changing reality? A growing number of new residents, the evolving needs of migrant communities, and new challenges for public administration made it necessary not only to update the “Open Kraków” Programme, but above all to carry out a thorough evaluation of it.

This is exactly where our role begins.

The evaluation we conducted as the Jewish Association Czulent was not merely a formal summary of activities. We approached it as a watchdog process—carefully and critically examining how municipal policies function in practice. We were interested not only in what was written in documents and reports, but above all in whether the Programme was actually used by the City Office as a tool for everyday work and real change.

Rather than creating a simple catalogue of activities, we developed a multidimensional picture of how the municipal policy operates. We drew on various sources—reports, official documents, interviews with individuals involved in implementing the Programme, as well as quantitative data. By combining these perspectives, we were able not only to describe the actions taken, but also to understand their real impact and identify areas where the system does not function as it should.

During the analysis, it became clear that the key question is not “were the actions implemented?”, but rather “were they used, and do they matter?”. This shift in perspective allowed us to see the “Open Kraków” Programme as part of a broader municipal policy—with its limitations, tensions, and untapped potential.

Therefore, in the report we compared not only completed and uncompleted tasks, but also examined initiatives considered successes, as well as those areas which—despite being formally included in the Programme—had a limited impact on the urban reality.

Our approach is practical and intervention-oriented. By analysing specific solutions—such as the accessibility of administrative procedures or the quality of communication by the city office—we show how public policies translate (or fail to translate) into residents’ experiences. In one of our studies, for example, we demonstrated that the vast majority of administrative procedures are written in language that is difficult to understand, which in practice significantly limits their accessibility.

However, the evaluation does not end with diagnosis. An integral part of it consists of recommendations—concrete, data-driven proposals for change that can increase the effectiveness of the city’s actions and better respond to residents’ needs.

This publication shows how we understand working with municipal policies. It is not only about analysis, but also about responsibility—for the quality of public services, for how funds are spent, and for whether adopted strategies actually lead to social change.

In this sense, evaluation becomes a tool of influence. And that is exactly how we treat it.

We encourage you to read the full report: