Contents 1Introduction 2Background to the intervention 2.1 Policy context 2.1.1 ESF objectives and functioning 2.1.2 ESF support to employment and labour mobility (thematic objective 8) 2.1.3 ESF support to social inclusion (thematic objective 9) 2.1.4 ESF support to education and training (thematic objective 10) 10 2.2 Baseline and points of comparison 2.2.1 Employment 2.2.2 Labour mobility 2.2.3 Social inclusion 2.2.4 Education and training 3Implementation / state of Play 3.1 Programming and budget 3.2 Employment and labour mobility 3.3 Social inclusion 3.4 Education and training 3.5 Typology of Operations funded

3.5.1 ESF support to employment and labour mobility 3.5.2 Social inclusion 3.5.3 Education and training 3.6 Financial and operational implementation 4Method 4.1 Short description of methodology 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings 5Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1 Effectiveness 5.1.1 Financial and output achievements 5.1.2 Findings on results and contribution to overarching objectives 5.1.3 Effects on participants 5.1.4 Factors hindering or promoting effectiveness 5.2 Efficiency 5.2.1 Assessment of efficiency 5.2.2 Factors hindering or promoting efficiency 5.2.3 Visibility of ESF interventions 5.3 Relevance 5.3.1 Alignment with needs 5.3.2 Observed factors that improve relevance

5.3.3 Flexibility in a changing context 5.4 Coherence 5.4.1 ESF Internal coherence 5.4.2 ESF external coherence 5.5 EU added value 5.5.1 Volume effects 5.5.2 Scope effects 5.5.3 Role effects 5.5.4 Process effects including sustainability 6Conclusions 6.1 Lessons learned Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: ESF Intervention logic List of figures Figure 1. Allocations to thematic objectives 8, 9, and 10 (ESI Funds plus national co-financing) - EUR millions Figure 2. Europe 2020 - Distance to targets for headline indicators

Figure 3. Employment rate as function of age in 2014 and in 2018 Figure 4. Proportion (in %) of the EU population at risk of poverty or social exclusion 15 Figure 5. Total ESF and YEI budget per thematic objective - EUR millions 18 Figure 6. TO8 - Indicative allocations per investment priority - in EUR millions 18 Figure 7. TO9 - Indicative allocation by investment priority - in EUR millions 20 Figure 8. TO10 - Indicative allocations by investment priority - in EUR millions 21 Figure 9. Distribution of thematic objective 10 eligible costs by area of operation 25 Figure 10. Number of participations by selected characteristic and thematic objective 31 Figure 11. How would you qualify the following administrative arrangements for the implementation of operations? 39 List of tables Table 1.. Types of operations per investment priority – TO8 Table 2. Types of operations per investment priority - TO9 Table 3. Project selection rates Table 4. Absorption rates Table 5. Participant profiles Table 6. Achievement rates for specific output indicators Table 7. Reported results (common result indicators only; upon leaving and after six months) Table 8. Cost per participation

List of Boxes Box 1. Identifying the target group needs for social inclusion operations Box 2. Ensuring the relevance of early leavers from education and training operations through risk assessment Box 3. Integrated approaches for ensuring relevance of support to employment Box 4. Examples of flexibility Box 5. Preliminary reflections on the ESF’s possible role in addressing COVID 19 crisis Box 6. Types of ESF added value Box 7. Significant volume effects of ESF support to education and training Box 8. Social inclusion scope effects: broadening actions to more groups Box 9. Examples of TO8 role effects Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AIR Annual Implementation Report Beneficiary Public or private body responsible for initiating or both initiating and implementing operations CPR Common Provisions Regulation CSR Country-specific recommendations DG EMPL Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion DG REGIO Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ELET Early leavers from education and training EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund FEAD Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived GDP Gross domestic product ISCED International Standard Classification of Education JRC Joint Research Centre MS Member State IP Investment priority NEET Person not in employment, education or training NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OP Person not in employment, education or training Operation Operation means a project, contract, action or group of projects selected by the managing authorities of the programmes concerned, or under their responsibility, that contributes to the objectives of a priority or priorities Participant A person benefiting directly from an ESF intervention who can be identified and asked for their characteristics, and for whom specific expenditure is earmarked SFC System for Fund Management in the European Union SWD Staff working document TO Thematic objective VET Vocational education and training YEI Youth Employment Initiative 1Introduction This staff working document (SWD) presents results of the evaluation of the European Social Fund (ESF) support to policies in the areas of employment and labour mobility (thematic objective 8), social inclusion (thematic objective 9), and education and training (thematic objective 10). The conclusions of the evaluation are relevant for the implementation of the final stages of the 2014-2020 ESF investments and the preparation of the 2021-2027 programming period of European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) by providing lessons, notably as regards cost-effectiveness, outreach and target groups most in need. The evaluation can support the negotiation of the ESF+ programmes and the design of operations by the Member States in the respective areas. In addition, it paves the way for the ex-post evaluation of the ESF. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and the EU added-value including the sustainability of activities funded by the ESF in the period 2014-2018. It also addresses the complementarity and coherence with other relevant initiatives during the period concerned. It covers all Member States during that period (i.e. including the United Kingdom). It builds on the results of three separate studies, one for each thematic objective. The ESF and Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) support to youth employment, (part of thematic objective 8), was the subject of another thematic evaluation. ESF support to Institutional capacity building (thematic objective 11) has been covered by a study. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic happened when the field work for the supporting studies was completed or about to be completed. Also the time frame covered, 2014-2018, excludes the pandemic and the subsequent crisis. Nevertheless, a number of aspects of the lessons learned take on a particular relevance (see Box 5).

2Background to the intervention 2.1Policy context The ESF is one of the five European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds. These are EU funding instruments providing structural and investment financing across the EU. Their total budget in 2014-2020, to be invested in 11 areas called ‘thematic objectives’ (TO) as defined in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), is EUR 461 billion. The funds allocated for thematic objectives 8, 9 and 10 amount to EUR 173 billion ( Figure 1 ). Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu While the five funds address different stakeholders and sectors, they share two important features: •They support growth and job creation, are aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy and contribute to the implementation of relevant country specific recommendations (CSR); •They are delivered under shared management. The Europe 2020 strategy emphasises smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as a way to overcome the structural weaknesses in Europe’s economy, improve its competitiveness and productivity and underpin a sustainable social market economy. The ESF should contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction. The Communication ‘Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds’ provides an overview of what the ESI Funds are expected to achieve in 2014-2020. In November 2017, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights which is about delivering new and more effective rights for citizens. It builds upon 20 key principles, structured around three chapters: •Equal opportunities and access to the labour market; •Fair working conditions; •Social protection and inclusion. The Pillar relies on previous policy guidance available at EU level, which oriented the use of resources provided by ESI Funds (ESIF). 2.1.1ESF objectives and functioning The ESF contributes to four of the 11 thematic objectives defined by the Common Provision Regulation: •Thematic objective 8: Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility; •Thematic objective 9: Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination; •Thematic objective 10: Investing in education and training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning;

•Thematic objective 11: Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration. In each Member State, the partnership agreement (PA) describes the investment framework for the ESI Funds in that Member State. The partnership agreements are aligned with Europe 2020, the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, taking into account where appropriate the relevant country specific recommendations. The actual implementation is framed by programmes agreed between the Commission and the Member States, known as operational programmes for cohesion policy funds. Besides the EU funding, operational programmes also receive national funding, public or private. The total budget for ESF operations for 2014-2020 is EUR 121 billion, with an EU contribution of EUR 84 billion. National co-funding ranges from about 20% to over 50%, and depends on the development of regions, with less developed regions expected to contribute less than more developed ones. Operational programmes are structured by priority axes, each composed of one or more investment priorities setting at least one specific objective. Priority axes may combine one or more complementary investment priorities from the ESF, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund. They may have a national or regional dimension. In total, 187 operational programmes received ESF funding in the 2014-2020 programming period. Ninety-two operational programmes are multi-fund meaning that they also receive ERDF or Cohesion Fund funding. Under shared management the actual day-to-day management of operational programmes is entrusted to national bodies, working in accordance with rules established at Union level. The Commission supervises implementation and retains ultimate responsibility for the execution of the EU budget. The operational programmes fund projects or operations run by a range of public and private organisations called beneficiaries. These projects benefit their participants – for the ESF, these are usually individuals, but they can also be companies or organisations. The selection of projects, their monitoring, their control and the reporting are done by the national bodies. The overall intervention logic of the ESF is given in Annex 4. 2.1.2ESF support to employment and labour mobility (thematic objective 8) Thematic objective 8 promotes sustainable, quality employment by boosting job creation, helping people into employment, and supporting labour mobility. The investment priorities supported within TO8 can be separated into three broad categories: •investment priorities directly supporting access to employment o8i Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including the long-term unemployed and people far from the labour market, also through local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility; o8iv Equality between men and women in all areas including in access to employment, career progression, reconciliation of work and private life and promotion of equal pay for equal work; o8vi Active and healthy ageing It also includes 8ii (sustainable integration into the labour market of young people) which has been covered by another evaluation exercise. •investment priorities supporting businesses o8iii Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation; o8v Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change. •investment priority supporting institutions o8vii Modernisation of labour market institutions. 2.1.3ESF support to social inclusion (thematic objective 9) Thematic objective 9 promotes social inclusion and combats poverty and any discrimination. The six investment priorities supported under TO9 tend to be characterised by a focus on a specific target group (marginalised communities - 9ii) or an issue (discrimination and equal opportunities - 9iii, access to services - 9iv and the social economy - 9v). Investment priority 9vi is about the instrument chosen to deliver policy (community-led local development strategies). Investment priority 9i (active inclusion) is very broadly defined. In a Member State, a minimum of 20% of the ESF allocation has to be allocated to TO9 (social inclusion). This is the only thematic objective with such earmarking.

2.1.4ESF support to education and training (thematic objective 10) Thematic objective 10 focuses on ‘investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning’, delivered through four interlinked investment priorities, which cover all stages of education and target a wide range of potential groups: •10i Reducing and preventing early school leaving and promoting equal access to education, including formal, non-formal and informal learning pathways for reintegrating into education and training; •10ii Improving the quality and efficiency of, and access to, tertiary and equivalent education and training; •10iii Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups in formal, non-formal and informal settings; and •10iv Improving the labour market relevance of education and training systems. 2.2Baseline and points of comparison Four of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, are directly relevant to the ESF scope of action. They represent the labour market, social inclusion and education and training dimensions of the strategy. Figure 2 below shows the distance to the EU target for these four headline indicators. By the end of 2018, the EU seemed to be on track for the targets on the employment, early leavers from education and training and tertiary educational attainment. However, the target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty or social exclusion seemed out of reach. There are however, large differences between and even within Member States. The COVID 19 pandemic is already having an impact on these indicators. Source: Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators/europe-2020-strategy/main-tables Abbreviations: lhs: left hand scale; rhs: right hand scale. 2.2.1Employment One of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy adopted in 2010 by the European Council is to increase the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 to at least 75% by 2020. In addition, Member States set national targets for the employment rate in 2020. Between 2014 and 2018, the EU employment rate grew by 4.0 percentage points to 73.2%, surpassing the pre-crisis 2008 rate of 70.2% in 2015. However, large differences in employment rate remained between Member States and also between gender and age groups. Employment rates (in 2018) are below 70% in Belgium, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy and Romania but close to 80% or above in Czechia, Germany, Estonia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Employment rates, in Greece (in particular), Cyprus and Spain (marginally) were still below pre-crisis levels. The employment rate gap between men and women is almost 12 percentage points. The main reason behind the employment gap between women and men is the high share of women in inactivity (in 2018 27.6% vs. 15.7% of men). In 2014, nearly a third of inactive women aged 20-64 (29.4%) were not seeking employment due to family and caring responsibilities. The employment rate is correlated with age. The highest rate is noted for the 40-44 age group (83.1% in 2018). The employment rate drops to 71.8% for the 55-59 age group and to only 44.4% for the 60-64 age group. Nevertheless, the employment rate of the older workers has been increasing more rapidly than the overall employment rate by 7.8% for the 60-64 age group compared to a 4.0% overall increase from 2014 to 2018 (see Figure 3 ). Active ageing, i.e increasing the proportion of older workers still in employment remains key to achieving the overall employment target. Source: Eurostat: lfsa_ergan

In 2013 when the unemployment rate in the EU reached its peak (10.8%), about 20.5 million people in the 25-64 age group were unemployed. In 2018, though the unemployment rate decreased to 6.8% (below the pre-crisis level of 7.0%), there were still 16.9 million people unemployed. At the same time, the share of long-term unemployed among unemployed, though considerably down from its peak in 2014 (38.5%) was still above the pre-crisis level (35.0%; 33.4% in 2008). Between 2014 and 2018, as the economic situation improved, youth unemployment rates fell in all Member States and by an average of 7 percentage points at EU level. However, not all Member States saw the same degree of improvement. Over that period, the rate of young people not in employment, education or training fell from 12.5% in 2014 to 10.5% in 2018. More importantly, it fell in all countries but Germany and Denmark, where it only marginally increased. The improvement derives entirely from the fall in the number of unemployed young people (down 3 percentage points) as the number of inactive young people slightly increased (up 1.2 percentage points). The composition of the target population is thus shifting, with a higher share of inactive young people (58% in 2018). For young migrants (15-24 years), the unemployment rate fell from 29.2% in 2014 to 20.9% in 2018. In 2014, 29.9 million people aged 25-64 were self-employed which corresponds to 15.3% of those employed. By 2018 the share of self-employed dropped by 1 percentage point to 14.4% which is 29.6 million people aged 25-64 years. Thus, at EU level the number of self-employed people has hardly changed since 2014, but since the total number of employed has risen significantly the share of self-employment has gone down. It is broadly acknowledged that the success of EU businesses and industry, coupled with a fair and balanced socio-economic legal framework, is vital to increasing employment and creating new and better jobs. In 2014, there were 23.3 million SMEs in the EU-28’s non-financial business economy accounting for more than 99% of all enterprises. The overwhelming majority of these (92.5% of all enterprises) were enterprises employing fewer than 10 people. By 2016 (the most recent year for which there are complete available data for the EU as whole), the number of SMEs increased to 24.7 million (still accounting for more than 99% of all enterprises in the EU’s non-financial business economy) employing 94.9 million people. 2.2.2Labour mobility Labour mobility has both a geographical (place of employment) and an occupational dimension (type of work performed). Free movement of workers (geographical mobility) is one of the central tenets of EU policies. Labour mobility in the European Union is increasing. One measure of geographical mobility is the share of non-nationals in total employment. Between 2014 and 2018, the share of non-nationals in total employment increased from 7.1% to 8.3%. There are very big differences between Member States. In Luxembourg, over half the employed are non-nationals while in Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, less than 1% of the employed persons are non-nationals. Other aspects of geographical mobility include cross-border work and commuting between regions. Occupational mobility is more difficult to define and measure but also seems to be increasing. Job tenure tends to become shorter while the age at which people leave the labour market is increasing. In the EU28, the share of long job tenures (60 months or more) declined from 62.9% in 2014 to 60.8% in 2018. The EU28 average duration of the working life has increased by nearly one full year between 2014 (35.3 years) and 2018 (36.2 years). 2.2.3Social inclusion The EU generally saw an improvement in living standards in 2014-2018. This improvement is attributed in part to increases in real median income and household incomes, as well as improvements in economic activity and the labour market. Gross disposable household income has increased in real terms since 2012-2013 in nearly all Member States, although in some this has not yet returned to pre-crisis levels (notably some southern Member States). Despite these positive developments, as well as the Europe 2020 target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty, over one fifth of the EU population remains at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The Europe 2020 target was set before the 2008 economic and financial crisis, which had a detrimental impact on the EU’s ability to reach this target. The highest rates are found in the southern and eastern regions of the EU. The proportion of people suffering from severe material and social deprivation declined between 2014 and 2018 from 8.9% to 5.9% in the EU-28. The proportion of people in the EU-28 experiencing severe housing deprivation slightly declined from 5% to 4% in the same period. Those who were disproportionately affected by this condition included persons at risk of poverty, tenants, households with dependent children, people in rural areas and Roma. Source: Eurostat, People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex [ilc_peps01. Notes: The middle line is the EU28 average; the outer lines represent the maximum and minimum observed at the level of the Member States. On access to services, the proportion of people in the EU-28 self-reporting unmet needs for medical examination declined from 6.7% to 3.6% between 2014 and 2018. However, strong inequalities persist across certain groups of the population, with people in lower income groups, the unemployed, people with low education and people living in rural areas more likely to report unmet needs for medical examination. Across the EU-28, the reason most often cited is that it is too expensive, followed by long waiting lists. Although in 2016, 86.3% of EU children from 3 up to the minimum compulsory school age received formal early childhood education and care, this varied widely between countries, from 51.3% in Croatia to 98.6% in Belgium. Although employment is generally seen as a route out of poverty, in 2018 the EU average in-work poverty rate was 9.5%, unchanged from 2014. Groups more at risk of in-work poverty are people in households with low work intensity, single parents with dependent children, people with low education, migrants, people with a disability and young people. Regional disparities in unemployment and the prevalence of in-work poverty persisted. Although unemployment rates declined between 2014 and 2018, strong regional disparities persisted, notably in Belgium, Bulgaria, France and Italy. 2.2.4Education and training The rate of early leavers from education and training (ELET), one of the Europe 2020 headline targets, fell from 11.9% in 2013 to 10.6% in 2018 although it has still not reached the EU 2020 target (below 10% of 18-24 year olds) and rates of ELET vary significantly across Member States. A total of 17 Member States were below the overall EU target of 10% in 2018. 16 of them had already achieved it in 2013, but reductions can be observed in almost all Member States. However, despite some improvement in the Member States that had a particularly unsatisfactory performance at the start of the period (Spain, Italy, Malta, Portugal and United Kingdom), there are still Member States that are not reaching the EU target. These include those mentioned above as well as Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Hungary and Romania. Tertiary education attainment, another Europe 2020 headline target, experienced steady growth during the programming period, from 37.1% in 2013 to 40.7% in 2018. Approximately two-thirds of the Member States (18 of 28) had already achieved the EU target by 2018 (40% of 30-34 year olds have completed tertiary or equivalent education), up from 16 Member States that had achieved it in 2013. All countries made significant progress, most notably some Eastern European Member States. There are still several countries where further efforts are needed to achieve their national targets, however, including Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Romania. Moreover, significant gender imbalances remain in tertiary education enrolment in specific subjects; women are underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines (e.g. in ICT, female enrolment is 18% v. 82% for men, and in engineering, manufacturing and construction it is 26.1% vs 73.9%). Regional disparities in ELET and tertiary education attainment remain significant across the EU. Overall, 60 EU regions of 281 considered in the analysis and for which data are available, have improved their relative performance in ELET during the current programming period. 170 EU regions show relative stability while ELET performance deteriorated over the period in 51. The challenge of reducing and preventing early leavers from education and training is still particularly substantial in several Mediterranean and Eastern European regions. As regards tertiary education attainment, 40 regions improved their relative performance in 2013 – 2018, 184 regions remained relatively stable and the performance of 52 regions decreased. There are significant remaining challenges to improving the quality and efficiency of, and access to, tertiary education in several central and eastern European regions, in Italy’s south and in several Eastern German regions.

The participation of adults in education and training increased over time, reaching 10.1% for men and 12.1% for women in 2018. The participation of employed, unemployed and inactive persons in education and training recovered after the economic crisis and increased during the current programming period but, in this case too, there are significant disparities between countries and more than half of the Member States have a participation rate which is below the EU average. Overall, the number of Vocational Education and Training (VET) students has been declining in the EU over the decade, with some exceptions such as an increase of upper secondary level students in Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and the United Kingdom; post-secondary level students in Czechia and France and short-cycle tertiary level students in Sweden. The share of students enrolled in vocational education are highest in post-secondary (91.5% in 2017) and short-cycle tertiary levels (86.4%). In lower secondary education, the share of VET students is low (7.4%) while in upper secondary education there is a substantial equilibrium between students in general and vocational education. Educational outcomes on basic skills (reading, mathematics and science), according to the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), also vary significantly across countries and regions, and these disparities persist, with some Member States recording a performance that is consistently below the average. Furthermore, no improvement can be observed in PISA 2018, in the sense that the EU has not made any progress towards the ET 2020 benchmark on the share of low-achievers. Finally, the employment rate of recent graduates increased during the 2014-2018 evaluation period, although has not fully recovered from the economic crisis. The challenges include a persistent gender gap in the employment rate of recent graduates, which has not changed substantially during the current programming period, driven by the advantage that men continue to have in entering the labour market. In 2018, for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education graduates, the employment rate for men was 76.7% vs 71.4% for women. The gender gap was therefore 5.3 percentage points. For recent tertiary education graduates, the employment rate was 83.9% for women and 87.4% for men (gap of 3.5 percentage points in 2018). 3Implementation / state of Play 3.1Programming and budget About EUR 130 billion are available for ESF and YEI operations in the 2014 – 2020 programming period. The EU contribution corresponds to 71% of total planned expenditure. National public and private contributions make up the balance. The YEI is implemented through investment priority 8ii under thematic objective 8. Figure 5, below, shows the budgets per thematic objective. Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu 3.2Employment and labour mobility ESF support to employment and labour mobility is supported specifically (excluding youth employment support) through 151 operational programmes, in all Member States. The total allocation of these programmes, excluding 8ii, is EUR 32.1 billion, which is the equivalent of 26% of the total ESF budget for 2014-2020. This underlines that Member States consider support for employment and labour mobility as a central objective within the ESF. Figure 6 shows the indicative allocations per investment priority. Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu Access to employment (8i) is the dominant investment priority, absorbing more than half of the entire budget allocated to TO8 (53%) and programmed by all Member States except Denmark. Adaptability to change (8v) is another substantial priority, corresponding to EUR 7.3 billion (23%). It is particularly important in Germany (EUR 2.2 billion) and France (EUR 1.3 billion), where it represents over half of the total TO8 investments. The ESF TO8 actions in transition regions is comparatively less focused on access to employment (44%; EU average 53%). These regions spend more on entrepreneurship (17%) and adaptability (33%). Programmes in less developed regions concentrate comparatively less on adaptability (16%; 23%), to favour access to employment. 3.3Social inclusion In the current programming period TO9 operations are financed by 145 operational programs financing covering all Member States and regions. They account for a total planned expenditure (including EU and national co-financing) of approximately EUR 31.3 billion (of which EUR 21.4 billion EU funding). This corresponds to about one quarter of total ESF funding which is more than the required earmarking. The absolute amounts planned vary considerably across Member States, from EUR 8 million in Luxembourg to EUR 4.0 billion in Germany. The total amounts planned for TO9 as percentage of total ESF does range from 20% in Finland to over 70% in the Netherlands. These budgets have remained relatively stable in 2014-2018, with a slight overall increase of less than 1%. The biggest increases in absolute terms were in Greece. Figure 7 Figure 7. TO9 - Indicative allocation by investment priority - in EUR millions shows the indicative allocation per investment priority.

Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu Similar amounts are allocated to less developed regions (43%) and to more developed regions (42%). The balance (15%) goes to transition regions. Looking at investment priorities ( Figure 7 ), around 73% (EUR 22.1 billion) is allocated to 9i (active inclusion). The next most important investment priority in terms of indicative allocation is 9iv (access to services) at 17% (EUR 4.8 billion). The remaining investment priorities represent between 1% and 6% of total funding allocated to TO9. A similar picture emerges at MS level. Generally, the bulk of the allocations is to 9i (active inclusion). In eleven MS (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom), 9i even amounts to 90% or more of the total TO9. Only eight MS allocate the biggest share of the total to a priority other than 9i (9ii – Hungary; 9iii – Cyprus; 9iv – Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia and Romania). 3.4Education and training Total planned expenditure on TO10 in the current programming period is approximately EUR 39.2 billion (including EU and national co-financing). This corresponds to nearly one third of total ESF (32%). The amounts planned vary considerably across Member States, from EUR 5 472.8 million in Italy to EUR 8 million in Luxembourg and zero in the Netherlands. The total amounts planned on TO10 as a percentage of total ESF range from a maximum of 53% in Portugal, to a minimum of 15% in Cyprus, ignoring the Netherlands. Planned expenditure on TO10 relating to public spending on education is significant in several EU countries. For example, total TO10 is 7.1% of general government expenditure on education in Portugal, 4.2% in Romania and 4.1% in Poland. TO10 is also important in the Baltic countries, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Hungary and, Slovakia. More than half of the total TO10 funds, 51.4%, goes to less developed regions, 34.8% to more developed regions and 13.7% to transition regions. Looking at investment priorities (see Figure 8 ), around 29% (EUR 711.24billion) is planned on 10i (early leavers from education and training), 15% (6 billion) on 10ii (tertiary education), 30% (11.8 billion) on 10iii (lifelong learning) and 26% (10.19 billion) on 10iv (labour market relevance). Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu Several Member States have selected all investment priorities, but only a few (such as Portugal) have a fairly equal distribution of funds across all. Many Member States decided to concentrate on a limited number. For instance, France focuses on 10iii and 10i, the United Kingdom on 10iii and 10iv, Belgium, Slovenia and Sweden on 10iii, and Czechia on 10i and 10ii. Between 2016 and 2018 there were changes in ESF resources planned under TO10. Overall, in the EU, there was a 0.1% increase in total planned resources (EU and national co-financing). Looking at the ESF component only, the positive change between 2016 and 2018 was EUR +262.6 million (+1%). However, considering that the total net increase (EU and national co-financing) was much smaller and amounted approximately to EUR 55 million between 2016 and 2018, the observed positive change in planned ESF (i.e. EUR 262.2 million) was clearly compensated by a reduction in national resources. In absolute values, the biggest increases (considering both EU and national co-financing) took place in Spain (EUR +300.7 million) and Greece (EUR +182.3 million) while the largest reductions were recorded in the United Kingdom (EUR -322 million) and Italy (EUR -116.4 million) where, however, there was a 32.6 million increase in EU resources planned under TO10. 3.5Typology of Operations funded 3.5.1ESF support to employment and labour mobility The supporting study conducted a mapping of the types of operations. ESF TO8 operations combining types of operations are the most common and represent 18% of the costs. Support for entrepreneurs is also around 18%, closely followed by guidance and support (12%), adaptability (14%), and financial incentives (10%). Of investments in the area of entrepreneurship (8iii), 99% consist of operations that provide some sort of support for entrepreneurs. Likewise, adaptability operations are basically only found within the adaptability investment priority (8v), where these operations represent half of the reported eligible costs. Operations in support of active ageing dominate the active ageing investment priority (66% of that investment priority’s costs), while operations that seek to strengthen institutional capacity represent 84% of the costs reported for the investment priority on labour market institutions (8vii). For access to employment, a variety of types of operation can be found, such as guidance and support (20%), financial incentives (17%), education and training (8%), and a considerable share of operations that combine multiple types (30%). Type of operation Programmed under Total TO8 (excl. 8ii) Access to employ-ment (8i) Entre-preneurship (8iii) Gender equality (8iv) Adaptability (8v) Active ageing (8vi) LM insti-tutions (8vii) Work-based learning 4% 5% 7% Education & training 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% Guidance & support 12% 20% 7% Financial incentives 10% 17% 3% 2% Support Entrepreneur 18% 3% 99% 3% 7% Institutional capacity 4% 4% 1% 84% Women in employment 5% 1% 80% 1% Adaptability 14% 1% 55% 1% Active ageing 2% 2% 66% Integrated pathways 6% 10% 2% 3% 3% Other Combined 18% 30% 2% 5% 33% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: mapping by authors, based on qualitative screening of the annual implementation reports 2015-2018. Mapping of all operations under TO8 shows that in practice almost all mobility operations can be found under the ‘Access to employment’ (8i), and to a lesser extent in support to labour market institutions (8vii). Investments targeting labour market institutions are relatively small, with an overall investment of EUR 1.3 billion. These investments include support for labour market institutions to improve their provision of labour mobility services (e.g. through EURES). 3.5.2Social inclusion Social Inclusion operations are complex, highly diverse and delivered to a range of vulnerable groups as well as entities. There is significant overlap between investment priorities under TO9. The definition of 9i is broad and actions may more easily fit within it than under other more narrowly defined investment priorities such as 9v. As a result, most operational programmes covered 9i. The supporting study on social inclusion identifies six types of operations on the basis of the objective actually pursued and the target groups aimed at. Four types of operations encompass actions directed to people, while the two remaining types comprise actions directed to people and to organisations or society at large (e.g. capacity building of social services, support to social enterprises, information campaigns). Table 2 below presents the six types of operations and their prevalence across the operational programmes, including TO9 actions. Type of operation Main target groups Number of operational programmes programmed under 9i I9ii 9iii 9iv 9v 9vi 1 Employment-focused actions ·people with a disability ·LTU 136 95% 12% 6% 1% 9% 2 Enhance basic skills ·LTU ·people with a disability ·Low skilled 29 69% 17% 14% 3 Basic school education ·people with a disability ·LTU ·Recipients of minimum income 25 32% 48% 20% 4 Access to services ·people with a disability ·LTU 97 54% 22% 21% 68% 1% 2% 5 Social entrepreneurship ·people with a disability ·SMEs, social enterprises 75 25% 67% 12% 6 Actions influencing attitudes and systems 79 47% 19% 16% 41% 25% 9% Source: mapping by authors, based on qualitative screening of the annual implementation reports 2015-2018. This pattern of prevalence of investment priorities and types of operations across the operational programmes is also reflected in terms of finances. Investment priority 9i accounts for 71% of indicative TO9 allocations, 73% of the planned allocation and 80% of the declared expenditure. This concentration on one investment priority is less marked at the level of the types of operations. The operations aiming to move participants in employment (type 1) are the most important. They represent 45% of the planned allocations and 48% of the declared expenditure. Investment priority 9vi (community-led local development, CLLD) is a very specific case. CLLD is an instrument to involve local private and public actors and to propose integrated, local solutions. In total, 14 Member States plan the use of CLLD, combining ESF and other ESI Funds resources, mostly EARDF. Investment priority 9vi accounts for 2.4% of the indicative TO9 allocations, 1% of the planned allocations and only 0.2% of the declared expenditure. 3.5.3Education and training The analysis of the operations financed by ESF under TO10 highlighted that secondary and post-secondary education and training is the most important area of intervention in financial terms. Overall, 28.3% of total eligible costs are related to operations supporting vocational secondary education and training, and a similar share, 27.4% of the total supports general secondary education and training. As regards the other areas of intervention, 21.2% is allocated to non-formal job-related education and training and 4.3% to non-formal non job-related education and training; 15.4% of the total went to tertiary education and 3.5% is allocated, altogether, to pre-primary and primary education (see Figure 9 below). The distribution of funds by area of operation varies considerably between Member States. For example, more than 50% of the funds are allocated to vocational secondary and post-secondary education and training in Cyprus, Austria and Portugal while the focus is on general (lower and upper) secondary education and training in Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia and Romania. Non-formal job-related education and training prevail in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Slovenia, Finland and the United Kingdom, while non-formal non job-related education has an important role in Ireland. Tertiary education is central in Croatia, Lithuania, Malta and Poland, while pre-primary and primary education are significant in Czechia. Source: mapping by authors, based on qualitative screening of the annual implementation reports 2015-2018. The distribution of funds by area of operation varies also across investment priorities. Under 10i, 68.2% of total resources are allocated to support general secondary and post-secondary education and training. 20.1% of total allocations go to vocational secondary and post-secondary education and training and 8.6% to primary education. Under 10ii, most resources, 86.7%, go to tertiary education operations, followed by non-formal job-related education and training (9.1% of the total). Under 10iii, funds are concentrated on non-formal job-related education and training (53.8%), while 31% go altogether to vocational, general secondary, post-secondary education and training, and 13% to non-formal non job-related education and training. As regards 10iv, funds are mostly used for vocational secondary and post-secondary education and training (72.1% of total). 14.6% is used for non-formal job-related education and training, and 4.9% for tertiary education. 3.6Financial and operational implementation

The performance review foreseen by the Common Provisions Regulation was carried out in 2019. It examined the achievement of the milestones for financial and output indicators as reported in the 2018 annual implementation reports submitted by Member States in 2019. Across all thematic objectives, ESF performing priorities represented 83% of the performance reserve for the ESF (i.e. EUR 4.2 billion) that is definitively allocated on the basis of Commission decisions on the performance review. However, there are important differences between Member States and programmes. Nine Member States managed to achieve all their ESF milestones. On the contrary, in some Member States, most priority axes have not achieved their milestones. This is the case in Romania, for example. There were also large differences between thematic objectives. In absolute terms, the highest amount to reallocate concerned TO9 social inclusion, TO10 education and training and multi-TO priorities. TO8 employment performed well both in absolute and relative terms with an achievement rate of around 90%. At the end of 2018, the number of non-performing priority axes was high, about one fifth, and far beyond what was expected in light of the programme amendments adopted in previous years. It demonstrates, inter-alia, that the setting of milestones and the selection of the indicators are very challenging. The European Court of Auditors found that for around one quarter of the indicators included in the performance framework of the examined operational programmes (28 %) it was not possible to draw conclusions about the accuracy of the target value for the milestone, either because the calculation methodology could not be verified or because there was no detailed explanation of the unit costs or the assumptions made. It considered that around 18 % of the remaining milestones and target values are not realistic and achievable or insufficiently ambitious. Taken together this means that in around 46 % doubts remain as to the milestones specified for releasing the performance reserve. Financial implementation as measured by the ratio of interim payments to the Member States in relation to the total allocation is running slower than at a comparable time in the previous programming period. In May 2013, this ratio was approaching 50%. It is just over one third in May 2020. The main reasons for this delay in implementation include the late adoption of the Regulations, and a more relaxed automatic de-commitment rule (a move from a combination of N+2 and N+3 in 2007-2013, to a general N+3 for all Member States in 2014-2020). 4Method 4.1Short description of methodology Three separate supporting studies were contracted out (one corresponding to each thematic objective). The evaluation questions specific to each supporting study, derived from the better regulation evaluation criteria, were broken down into a number of sub-questions for each thematic objective and agreed with the corresponding inter-service groups. The studies applied an appropriate mix of evaluation methods. This includes desk research, public consultations, case studies, modelling, interviews with stakeholders and Member States’ officials and focus groups. They are explained in further detail in Annex C to this staff working document. The results of the three twelve-week public consultations can be found in annex 2. 4.2Limitations and robustness of findings The findings and conclusions are reasonably robust, since they are based on sufficient triangulation of sources and tools, such as the data reported by the monitoring systems, stakeholder consultation, case studies…. However, the evaluation also faced several limitations, notably: •Data quality and timeliness. The figures in this SWD are based on the situation as reported by the Member States in the annual implementation reports for 2018. The cut-off date for all data is thus 31 December 2018. During the process of examination and acceptance of the annual implementation reports, corrections to the data may be made. This explains small differences in figures in the supporting studies as the data were extracted from the electronic data exchange platform at different times. •Detailed programme information is usually not available. The ESF is funding thousands of projects or operations, sometimes even very small ones, each having their own logic, implementation partners and procedures. •Demarcation of operations focused on employment and labour mobility from those focused on youth employment (covered by a separate SWD). Although youth employment operations are mainly funded under 8ii, they can be found across other investment priorities. •Public consultations which by nature cannot be considered as representative by definition, although some mitigation measures have been applied, notably triangulation with other data sources. •Towards the end of the field work, holding focus groups in the Member States and at EU level became impossible due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead EU level Delphi surveys were held instead. •Data for comparative analysis of the socio-economic context, notably SILC data, were sometimes only available till 2017. •Cost effectiveness analyses, including the attempts to conduct cost benefit analyses, are affected by timeliness and completeness of data, due to delayed and non-simultaneous reporting on outputs, results and costs. •Counterfactual impact evaluations were used only for a small number of operations. The main limitation is that the results cannot be extrapolated to the whole of the ESF. They also inform about the effect of treatment single intervention, not about the ESF as such. •Rhomolo analysis, like all general equilibrium models, need to be based on a number of simplifying assumptions, although it is a high-quality and mature model very well-suited for estimating macroeconomic impacts. •COVID-19 pandemic. The fieldwork for the studies supporting this SWD was carried out before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in Europe. This is not a limitation to assess the 2014-2018 period as such. It does present challenges to assess the relevance of ESF support in the current context. Annex 3 to this SWD explains in more detail how these limitations were dealt with.

5Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1Effectiveness 5.1.1Financial and output achievements At the end of 2018, financial execution was 7% lower than at a comparable moment in the previous programming period (20% versus 27% at the end of 2011). However, this was due to expenditure declarations (from final beneficiaries to Member States authorities and from Member States to the Commission) rather than commitments or project selection on the ground, where levels were comparable to those in 2007-2013. The delay in terms of claims submitted by MS is only 4.24% (accumulated between 2014 and 2017). In fact, proportionally more claims were received in 2018 (13.2%) for the 2014-20 period than in 2011 (12.92%) for the 2007-13 period. Financial implementation was, on average, comparable across the three thematic objectives. There was however, considerable variation between Member States, regions, operational programmes, investment priorities and actions types. Other things being equal, ESF implementation tended to be slower in less developed regions, a notable exception being the TO10 (education and training) operations in Portugal. Project selection rates up to 2018 were similar, 72% for TO8 (employment and mobility), 71% for TO9 (social inclusion) and 69% for TO10 (education and training) (see Table 3). Project selection rate (in %) TO8 (employment and labour mobility) TO9 (social inclusion) TO10 (education and training) EU average 72 71 69 Range per investment priority 38-77 26-77 64-70 Range per Member State 58-111 48-114 26-144 Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu These similar average rates hide considerable differences across Member States and investment priorities. Globally, the differences between thematic objectives (TOs) within Members States were limited. The major exceptions were Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania. Six Member States (Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta and the Netherlands) had basically already engaged the full allocated amounts by the end of 2018 across all thematic objectives. In the other Member States, there was a clear difference between thematic objectives. For instance, Bulgaria and Slovakia had fully allocated the planned amounts for TO8 but only a third of the amount for TO10, with TO9 being in between. The project selection rates were generally higher for TO8. In Italy, Poland, Portugal and Finland, the highest selection rates were for TO10. The highest projection selection rates in Germany, Austria and Romania were for TO9. The absorption rates, defined as the proportion of expenditure claimed by beneficiaries to allocated resources, were still relatively low (see Table 4 ). In three Member States, the absorption was very low, less than 10 % for TO9 (Ireland) and TO8 (Romania), a TO10 (Slovakia, Romania). Declared expenditure rate (in %) TO8 (employment and mobility) TO9 (social inclusion) TO10 (education and training) EU average 33 28 27 Range per investment priority 16-41 3-32 21-32 Range per Member State 7-53 5-68 6-45 Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu The beginning of the programming period coincided with the aftermaths of the economic and financial crisis. Across all thematic objectives, the focus of implementation has been on tackling urgent challenges related to the employment crisis, partly at the expense of more structural longer-term policies. The econometric analysis carried out for TO8 (employment and mobility) indicates that the reduction of unemployment rates in certain countries/regions was associated with lower financial progress, further stressing the fact that in several Member States the improvement of labour market conditions resulted in a reduction of the pace of financial implementation. A person can participate more in than one in ESF project. Therefore the number reported is of participations, not participants. In total, there were 22.2 million participations over the 2014-2018 period (see Table 5 ). The differences in participant profiles across thematic objectives is largely in line with what can be expected. TO10 (education and training) had a higher proportion of inactive young persons. TO8 (employment and mobility) focused on the unemployed. The highest proportions of people with a disability, people with a migrant background or minorities and people with other disadvantages were recorded for TO9 (social inclusion). TO8 (IP8ii excluded) TO9 TO10 Total ESF/YEI Participations (in millions) 6,9 6,2 9,1 26,3 of which Employed 25% 15% 25% 20% Unemployed 68% 53% 10% 44% Long term unemployed 23% 24% 3% 16% Inactive 7% 31% 66% 36% Women 54% 52% 51% 52% Young people (16-24 years) 15% 22% 69% 43% Older workers (55-64 years) 11% 11% 4% 7% Low skilled (ISCED 1-2) 33% 54% 61% 48% Migrants, people with a foreign background, minorities** 13% 28% 9% 15% People with disabilities** 7% 16% 3% 7% Other disadvantages** 11% 37% 11% 17% Homeless or affected by housing exclusion 1% 4% 0% 1% From rural areas 23% 16% 23% 21% Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu

The collection of some types of data has proven problematic. The data marked ** in Table 5 are in special categories defined under Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC. Data on sensitive characteristics were not collected consistently in some Member States (for instance Portugal collected data on disability only in operations targeted to disabled people). The data on homelessness and rural areas were estimated based on sampling and reported only once. Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu Access to employment operations (investment priority 8i) significantly over performed other investment priorities under thematic objective 8 (employment and mobility). The employment-focused operations under thematic objective 9 (social inclusion) received the bulk of the available financing and had the highest success rates (calculated as the proportion of participants for whom positive results were recorded). Based on progress measured against common output indicators, activities under investment priority 10i (early leavers from education and training and access to learning pathways) and 10iii (lifelong learning) have generally performed better than activities under the other thematic objective 10 (education and training) investment priorities. Regarding TO8, progress towards result targets set to be achieved by 2023 was relatively in line with the progress towards output targets. Operations related to access to employment made more progress towards their result targets than other investment priorities. By the end of 2018, an average of 55% of all result targets have been achieved at EU level (42% if weighted by actual size of the targets). Progress in transition regions (38%) was considerably lower than in less developed (56%) and more developed regions (61%). Progress in Cyprus and Sweden was somewhat of an outlier, due to possibly incorrect target settings. Progress towards the result targets was relatively modest in Bulgaria, Ireland, Croatia and Malta, and has not yet been reported for Romania. Overall, adaptability investments showed a similar progress towards the targets, though it was also influenced by a number of outliers (Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary). Progress towards the result targets for investment in entrepreneurship, gender equality, active ageing and labour market institutions was slightly lower, varying between 30% and 40%. While slightly lower than for other investment priorities, these figures are within the acceptable limits. For TO9 (social inclusion), most targets were set against programme specific indicators. The average achievement rate for specific output indicators was 99%, meaning that on average, the targets set for the end of the programming period (2023) were already achieved by the end of 2018 (see Table 6 ). The achievement rates for specific output indicators under TO10 were a bit lower. There was also less variation between investment priorities and Member States indicating more even implementation. SOI achievement rates (in % of 2023 targets) TO8 (employment and labour mobility) excluding IP8ii TO9 (social inclusion) TO10 (education and training) EU average 59 99 79 Range per investment priority 24%-90 19 -118 44-87 Range per Member State 2%-279 1 -540 3-108 Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu However, progress towards set targets, including performance framework milestones, may not be a very reliable indication of implementation performance. Targets were often set far too low, making it easy to overshoot them sometimes even by multiples. On the other hand some achievement rates were very low. The most likely explanations are that: (i) targets were not realistic, (ii) implementation had barely started when progress was measured or (iii) reporting was not reliable. 5.1.2Findings on results and contribution to overarching objectives There has been good progress on results achieved from participation in ESF funded operations, with a total of 9.5 million positive results by December 2018 (this includes participants who engaged in job searching or found a job, were in employment including self-employment; entered education/training, or gained a qualification (see Table 7 ). (Figures in thousands) TO8 (IP8ii excluded) TO9 TO10 Total (ESF & YEI) Results upon leaving Inactive participants engaged in job search 31 309 155 862 Participants in education or training 185 289 792 1 695 Participants gaining a qualification 697 365 2 222 3 949 Participants in employment 1 389 697 210 3 153 Disabled participants with positive result 611 1 202 630 2 950 Total immediate common result indicators 2 303 1 659 3 380 9 660 Results at six months - - - - Participants in employment 1 595 1 118 338 4 105 Participants with improved labour market situation 269 167 208 734 Older workers in employment 106 62 10 213 Disadvantaged in employment, in education or training or gaining a qualification 316 722 84 1 489 Total results at six months 1 864 1 284 546 4 839 Source: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu It is impossible to disentangle the impact of ESF funding from other factors. However, evidence shows that the actual contribution of ESF operations towards the EU 2020 targets is clearly positive, both from a micro and a macro perspective. This assessment is based on results achievements, qualitative evidence from stakeholder views and micro and macro econometric modelling. As regards employment and labour mobility support (TO8) the most outstanding result was the 1.6 million participants in employment after 6 months, contributing to the labour market integration of the unemployed. In terms of investment priorities, access to employment (8i) operations made more progress towards their result targets than others, also according to stakeholders, followed by support to self-employment/entrepreneurship (8iii). This confirms that in the first years of ESF implementation, most of the focus was on fighting high unemployment levels and less attention was paid to more structural long-term policies. Evidence of the effects of ESF support shows that these have been mostly positive, though typically stronger for people furthest from the labour market and for women. These quantitative findings are underpinned qualitatively by stakeholders’ views, including on soft outcomes (e.g. increased self-confidence, motivation, active engagement and cooperation). In addition, effects are generally more positive and stronger in regions that: (i) are net receivers of EU support, (ii) have a larger labour supply and (iii) have a stronger export orientation. Many of these are in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia, as well as, to some extent, the United Kingdom. ESF support to social inclusion has contributed to progress made towards achieving of Europe 2020 target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty. Although the extent to which TO9 operations contributed to this progress cannot be directly assessed, evidence on the scale and type of results generated by ESF support to TO9 suggests that the contribution was positive. In total, more than 3 million positive results were reported in terms of engagement in job search, participation in education and training and accessing employment including self-employment. In terms of engagement in employment, the most successful operations were Type 1 (employment-focused actions). In addition to reflecting a high degree of effectiveness, these achievements may also indicate some degree of 'creaming' effects whereby participants in these operations were very close to the labour market from the start. On the other hand, although the proportion of recorded results for enhanced basic skills and basic school (Types 2 and 3 operations) was low, their perceived effectiveness is high. A high proportion of respondents to the public consultation noted that basic skills training (90%) and training and education (89%) were mostly useful or very useful in the promotion of social inclusion and in combating poverty and discrimination. Respondents also perceived the effectiveness of support to overcoming barriers to job search actions as high (85%). ESF support to education and training resulted in notable contributions to progress towards achieving the Europe 2020 education and training targets. Based on the available data, over 4.34 million participants (46% of total) achieved positive results from participation in ESF support to education and training (50% of participants with such results are women). The majority of positive results related to gaining a qualification upon leaving (3.3 million) or engaging in education and training. Stronger results success is seen for early leavers from education and training (10i) and lifelong learning (10iii), in line with the finding that Member States have been effective in their use of ESF funds to support national and regional strategic priorities in these areas. However, many Member States have faced challenges related to achieving positive results under ESF tertiary education (10ii) operations. The country reviews suggested that only Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal were on course to achieve their output and result targets under this investment priority. Particular achievements are highlighted in the country reviews and case studies (see them in the TO10 supporting study).

Further evidence is provided by stakeholder views, which consider that ESF operations have played a key role in helping the EU reach its headline targets in education, contributing particularly to the drop in the proportion of early leavers from education and training and the rise in participation in adult learning. For instance, managing authorities intermediate bodies and public respondents to the public consultation considered that the ESF’s contribution was either ‘very effective’ or ‘mostly effective’ in supporting the development of work-based learning systems and improving access to lifelong learning opportunities (69.2%; N=104). The responses to the open-ended public consultation questions also suggested that the focus on prevention and early intervention was beneficial in reducing school drop‑out rates. Moreover, there are also some examples of positive impacts on early leavers from education and training and lifelong learning based on counterfactual evidence to show what would have happened without intervention (for example in Spain and the United Kingdom). However limited impact studies have been completed to date. At this stage of the programming period, the ability of quantitative analysis to show the overall effects of ESF operations on reaching Europe 2020 targets is limited. However, it is already clear that ESF support for the development of system level changes and sustainable innovative measures can have a significant long‑term impact. Qualitative evidence (country-based analyses including case studies) suggests that ESF support to social inclusion also has broader level impacts including improved access to public services, deinstitutionalisation, and cross-sectoral collaboration to promote innovative approaches. The ESF’s TO10 operations on education contribute to reach the education and training targets by supporting systemic change. This is highlighted by examples of operations that have led to systemic changes in government policy approaches to education and training, showing greater potential under 10i (early leavers from education and training) and 10iii (lifelong learning). Finally, the modelling of ESF impacts based on RHOMOLO simulations estimates that operations under the three thematic objectives generate positive macroeconomic impacts on the economy as a whole, on top of the direct results for participants in ESF operations. For TO8, investment in employment and mobility up to 2018 would translate into the creation of 47 000 jobs in the long term and an increase in GDP of 0.06% compared to the baseline (2014). This would be due to final macroeconomic impacts generated by human capital investments and the improvement on labour productivity, as well as the structural changes involved. ESF support to social inclusion is expected to increase the EU GDP by 0.037% (which amounts to EUR 4 billion) by 2023 and create an additional 127 000 jobs, whereas education and training operations are expected to add 0.16% to GDP (EUR 18 billion of euro) by 2023 compared to the baseline, and create around 170 000 additional jobs. All increases are expected to be long-term (until 2033), as GDP and employment are expected to still be higher relative to the baseline. At the same time, labour supply, i.e. the number of individuals either working or looking for a job, should increase as well (moving from inactivity to activity), in particular as a result of ESF investments in employment and social inclusion (TO8 and TO9). Moreover, at the regional level, a considerable number of regions seem to benefit significantly from ESF support, in particular less developed regions and those with less favourable conditions in terms of employment, social development and human capital and education. In some regions, these positive effects can be quite significant, given the size of the policy. In the context of the recent COVID-19 pandemic all results should be considered with due caution. The model assumes that there are no other adverse or positive shocks affecting the economy other than the ESF. However, COVID-19 is already having a very strong impact on observed GDP and employment rates. Poverty and inequality are likely to rise, with the elderly, women and young people with low skills likely to be affected the most. On the other hand, RHOMOLO estimations show however that the expected post-COVID-19 macroeconomic outcomes would be worse in the absence of ESF support. 5.1.3Effects on participants There is evidence that ESF operations have a sustainable positive impact on participants. These impacts primarily relate to gains in terms of employment, education and qualifications, both in the immediate and longer-term (see Table 7 ). Although a wide range of 'soft' outcomes (such as soft skills or increased self‑confidence) was also identified notably for social inclusion operations, these were recorded in only a few instances, as they are not part of the common indicators. The figures in Table 7 should be interpreted with considerable caution as there is significant under reporting, as explained in chapter 3 - Implementation / State of play. Evidence from the ESF implementation of employment related operations under TO8 (employment and labour mobility) and TO9 (social inclusion), is in line with meta-analyses of active labour market policies, responses received from the public consultations, and in the case of TO8 (employment and mobility) of counterfactual evaluations conducted. In general, in the short term, net employment effects seem to be positive for service/sanction type programmes (job counselling, guidance, orientation), whereas for traineeships and job incentives they were stronger in the medium- to long-term (from one to two year onwards). Public work typically showed lower net employment effects. The effects of vocational and educational training are positive as long as this training is personalised, adjusted to labour market needs and possibly coupled with work experience. This is made easier if training offered to employees is on very specific problems faced by companies and also addresses change management. The effect of the different forms of support tend to also vary based on target group characteristics. For instance, job guidance and counselling can be very effective for low skilled people and migrants, both in the short- and medium- to long-term, but is less useful to graduates. Self-employment support seems to have also a positive effect especially for the low skilled. Work-based learning seems to generate homogeneous effects on the probability of employment across all skill groups in the medium- to long-term. Lighter forms of support such as job counselling can however be ineffective for those at a greater distance from the labour market, such as the people who are inactive, have been unemployed for more than two years or have multiple disadvantages. They also appear to show lower than average benefits for the high skilled. There is evidence that T010 (education and training) operations have contributed to reducing ELET, supporting the achievement of school leaving qualifications, reducing the number of young people at risk of becoming NEET and helping young people to achieve qualifications that enable them to gain access to the labour market. Operations focusing on adults with low levels of qualifications target both those in employment and those who are unemployed or inactive. Case studies have highlighted successful examples of ESF operations providing second-chance education opportunities for adults with low levels of qualifications. In the case of TO9 (social inclusion) the success rate was used as a first indication of effectiveness. This is the ratio of recorded successes (as measured by result indicators) to the corresponding reference group (as measured by output indicators). The observed range is from zero to 29%. This relatively low rate can be explained by low reporting on results and the fact that common result indicators do not necessarily correspond to the desired results, (for instance employment outcomes for actions aimed at parents of school going children). Moreover, the bulk of the operations took place under investment priority 9i (active inclusion) hiding, a large variety of actions with labour market, education and training or service delivery aims. The estimated success rates are higher when calculated for the most relevant indicator for each type of operation (e.g. the success rate for employment focused actions is 89% for the result indicator referring to being in employment or self-employment). While the differences across investment priorities and types of actions are in line with expectations, any analysis of result indicators should be treated with great caution. However, the success of ESF actions should not be analysed only in terms of employment, education and qualifications outcomes. Inputs to an EU level Delphi survey on thematic objective 9 (social inclusion) identified a number of areas including individual behaviour and social roles where ESF actions may have induce change. The soft outcomes most commonly identified based on country evidence and national evaluations (e.g. in Bulgaria, Spain, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom) are soft skills, increased self-esteem, and improved labour market prospects. More than half of the organisations involved in the delivery of ESF support who responded (N=295) to the public consultation on TO9 agreed that participation in ESF supported actions generated soft-skills (57%) and increased self-confidence (54%). Such soft outcomes are particularly important to TO9but not limited to it. A high proportion (41% out of 141 participants) of respondents to the public consultation on TO10 (education and training) also felt that their self-confidence increased as a result of participation. The evaluation of TO 8 (employment and mobility) notes that soft-outcomes are quite widespread but underreported. 5.1.4Factors hindering or promoting effectiveness The various supporting studies identified a range of factors which affect the effectiveness of ESF operations as regards the delivery of support. There are broadly three groups of factors: (1)The environment in which the operations take place. This is made up of external factors that are not directly influenced by the entities involved in the delivery of these operations; (2)Factors internal to the management entities. They relate to institutional capacity, regulatory requirements, governance and partnerships; (3)The target groups themselves.

A supportive environment is crucial. This refers both to how the operations fit into a wider national or regional context and to how they are perceived by the local communities in which they take place. It is particularly important for TO9 (social inclusion) and TO10 (education and training) operations. Shared management entails that the actual day-to-day management of operational programmes is entrusted to national (or regional) bodies. Operational programme strategies should be integrated and embedded into national (or regional) strategies if they are to be implemented successfully. Performance improves when there is a strong strategic approach that informs the prioritisation and targeting of resources to address specific needs. On the other hand, there are several documented cases where the lack of local support or buy-in has slowed down the implementation of TO9 (social inclusion) measures. For instance, a housing programme in Italy was challenged when owners remained reluctant to rent their property to vulnerable groups (homeless people and members of the LGBT community) even with a guarantee of payment. Such examples show that there might be a need to envisage actions that build support for the proposed operations. The various supporting studies have also shown that institutional capacity, at all levels of implementation, and regulatory requirements, are linked and cross-cutting factors influencing effectiveness. Managing authorities have to lead strong coordination processes involving local and regional authorities and key partners such as NGOs, civil society organisations and social partners. In turn, beneficiaries must have the capacity to deliver ESF operations at the scale required. They may need to rely on the managing authorities to build the capacity of their staff on how to access, implement and monitor the funds. Regulatory issues include those related to the setting up and operation of the monitoring systems, the definition of simplified cost options, duplications of controls and compliance with state aid regulations. Responses to the public consultation tend to confirm that these regulatory issues can place an important burden on beneficiaries and managing authorities in the implementation of ESF supported actions. For example, respondents to the TO8 public consultation on employment and labour mobility were asked about factors that may hinder the implementation of actions. Approximately three quarters of them (76% of 238) agreed that the administrative burden on beneficiaries and managing authorities hampers progress. In addition, external factors, such as structural problems (i.e. lack of employment opportunities and low education and skills level) also play an important role in respondents’ views (for 71.3% of 238 respondents). Some organisations specified the obstacles types they had encountered in a related open question. Out of 80 responses, 33 indicated cumbersome bureaucracy and lengthy procedures as the most important factors hampering the effectiveness of ESF procedures, which is aligned with the responses given to the closed question. The public consultation for TO9 (social inclusion) asked the organisations involved in the management and delivery of ESF support to qualify the administrative arrangements for implementing operations. The results suggest that the most effective administrative arrangement of all is communication, with 71% of respondents rating it as appropriate. Opinions on the management and control system were, however, mixed, with 45% of respondents believing that it is effective and 41% considering it burdensome. N= 295 Source: TO9 supporting study report annex 7 -https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8350&furtherPubs=yes Partnerships between managing authorities, beneficiary organisations and other actors improve effectiveness. A high level of cooperation is especially important in the delivery of personalised operations or integrated support. This success factor was highlighted in the public consultations as well as the country-based analyses of several Member States across all supporting studies. Local actors, civil society organisations and NGOs, often play a crucial role in engaging with harder to reach target groups. The correct alignment of operations with the needs of the target group is also a success factor. An econometric analysis of TO8 (employment and mobility) data showed that the socio-economic context and distance of the target groups from the labour market might affect the ‘gross’ results of the operations with an employment objective. Combined with a focus on targets or results, this may lead to ‘creaming’. This finding also applies to TO9 and TO10 operations. However, it is the form and suitability of the support offered to participants that determines its net effects, irrespective of where it is implemented and for whom. The overshooting of targets and high success rates across all ESF operations indicates that creaming does indeed occur. The precise identification of a target group makes it easier to take into account the additional efforts required to reach it, as opposed to those people for whom a result can be generated more easily. The econometric analysis of monitoring data for TO8 (employment and mobility) suggests that operations targeting needs that are comparatively widespread and constant among the population tend to proceed at a faster pace, especially where there are no obstacles to participation such as disabilities or multiple disadvantages. Similarly, the evaluation of ESF support to TO10 showed that all Member States identified target groups at the design stage of operations. This is largely thanks to the programming process of the European Structural and Investment Funds, which ensured that needs assessments were conducted by all Member States in the partnership agreement and reflected in the operational programmes. At a general level, 143 of the 145 operational programmes that planned for ESF TO9 operations were found to be consistent with the country specific recommendations (CSRs). The CSRs from 2014 to 2019 were reviewed more closely to identify relevant recommendations for ESF support to social inclusion. In their replies to the public consultation, beneficiary organisations and managing authorities also underlined the importance of knowing and understanding the specific circumstances and needs of the target group to successfully deliver ESF support. However, the precise alignment of operations to the needs of the target group does not need to take place in the operational programme itself. The broad definition of the target group in some operational programmes has allowed for flexibility in implementation, for instance in reacting to the refugee crisis (e.g. Belgium, Austria). 5.2Efficiency 5.2.1Assessment of efficiency At this stage of implementation, efficiency can only be assessed based on the cost per participation. Cost per result would be a more appropriate measure, but it cannot be used yet because of delayed and non-simultaneous reporting on results and costs. Cost per participation (in EUR) TO8 Employment and mobility TO9 Social inclusion TO10 education and training average 1,309 1,441 1,137 Range across investment priority 142 - 1,935 581 – 3,048 729 - 2,754 Range across Member States 440 - 8,129 326 – 7,493 343 – 6,791 2007 – 2013 Ex-post update* 1,215 1,685 739 *The 2007-2013 estimate was calculated ex post at the end of the period. The current estimates for 2014-2020 are based on end-of-2018 data and are affected by delays in reporting. The cost per participation is the ratio of declared expenditure to the reported number of participations. The observed cost per participation (see Table 8) varies widely, reflecting the variety of operation types implemented, the different needs of target groups and the range of contexts in which operations are implemented. The estimates for TO8 (employment and mobility) and TO9 (social inclusion) are roughly in line with the unit costs reported in the supporting study the update of data reported in the 2007-2013 ESF ex-post evaluation. The estimate for TO10 (education and training) is 50% more. This is essentially thought to reflect: (i) a bigger emphasis on more costly operations, indicating a wider use of individual grants, and (ii) high quality and longer schemes supporting higher education and training. Moreover, in 2007-2013, the reporting of indirect participants was more widespread (e.g. where a school or curriculum was directly targeted, the number of pupils was also reported).

Overall cost‑benefit analyses carried out for TO9 (social inclusion) and TO10 (education and training) suggest positive returns particularly under 9i (active inclusion), and significant private and public returns for 10i (early leavers from education and training) and 10ii (tertiary education). However a note of caution should be attached to the results as a number of broad assumptions needed to be applied, given the limitations of the monitoring data and the limited impact evidence. A detailed cost benefit analysis identified positive returns for four out of five projects investigated under TO 9 (social inclusion). The net benefits of TO9 are even higher if all outcomes, in particular including 'soft outcomes' are considered. 5.2.2Factors hindering or promoting efficiency As regards TO8 operations, actual and perceived administrative burden has hampered effective implementation, through delays, and has also impacted cost-effectiveness. New monitoring systems and databases were developed at Member State level to comply with regulatory changes since the 2007-2013 programming period. The most significant factor is insufficient administrative capacity, which in turn affects implementation. Furthermore, additional costs have been incurred for recruiting and delivering ESF to harder‑to-reach groups, especially those in remote/rural areas. As regards TO9, there were mixed views on whether the application of simplified cost options reduced administrative burden or not. The implementation of mono-fund operational programmes appeared to be more efficient than multi-fund operational programmes. Gold plating was identified in 13 Member States. TO10 operations, gold plating was also frequently highlighted by national stakeholders as creating additional administrative barriers for ESF project managers and potential beneficiaries. The particular challenges in managing ESF TO10 operations highlighted in the case studies included the following: •high number of stakeholders in implementing ESF operations which requires a strong coordination capacity to ensure efficient delivery; •lack of cooperation between national governmental ministries in the delivery of operations under the same investment priority; •insufficient communication and information exchange between project managers in the implementing organisations. •lack of mutual coordination in aligning individual education policy actions; •lack of consistency in implementing operations (for example in cases some activities are carried out in parallel and should take place in successive stages). Overall, most organisations that responded to the TO10 public consultation and most stakeholders believe that, on the whole, the ESF administrative and regulatory requirements are proportionate to the benefits achieved; most managing authorities and intermediary bodies that responded (62.3%, i.e. 65 out of 104) judged the listed arrangements to be appropriate. However, on average, more than 20% (23 out of 104) of respondents rated the arrangements to be burdensome, while around 8% (8 of 104) judged them as insufficient. Most respondents from beneficiary organisations (59.5%, i.e. 135 out of 227) judged the listed arrangements as appropriate. However, more than 22% (50 out of 227) of beneficiary organisations rated them to be burdensome, while 6% (13 out of 227) perceived them as insufficient. Moreover, interviewed stakeholders from countries with smaller ESF allocations felt that the requirements would be too onerous. The evaluation research suggests that administrative requirements can discourage smaller beneficiaries such as NGOs, which are crucial for reaching vulnerable groups, from accessing ESF funds. 5.2.3Visibility of ESF interventions Regarding the visibility of ESF operations, there is room for improvement. In particular, evidence of the visibility of TO8 operations remains thin, even if there are several good examples of effective communication. Out of 541 respondents to the TO8 public consultation, 70.4% seem to consider social media campaigns as the best channel of information, followed at a distance by information and awareness raising events (44.5%). The least popular channel seem to be the distribution of flyers and placement of advertisements in newspapers. Interestingly, the channels of information actually encountered by surveyed ESF participants are slightly different: most respondents say that they learned about the support measures they benefited from through employment services and employment information centres (43.4%), and less than a fifth through social media. , a significant proportion of stakeholders and potential participants were not aware of or familiar with the ESF at all. Although many Member States invested in raising awareness of the ESF among beneficiaries, target groups and the general population, the level of awareness remains mixed. The picture is somewhat better for TO10, where there was positive evidence of the visibility of ESF funded operations: responses to the public consultation suggested a good level of the ESF’s visibility among organisations without a direct role in managing and delivering ESF programmes (only 12.9%, i.e 8 out of 62- organisations reported never hearing of the ESF before the survey). Programme managers were familiar with the programme’s visibility rules and claimed to be applying them. Beneficiaries are aware of visibility rules as this is part of their contractual obligations and intermediary organisations have played an important role as multipliers in maximising the visibility of TO10 operations among beneficiary organisations. 5.3Relevance 5.3.1Alignment with needs This evaluation criterion examines the extent to which ESF operations were relevant for addressing policy needs and the needs of target groups requiring support, at the programming and implementation levels. Overall, evidence from the three supporting studies shows that there is a high degree of alignment of planned ESF operations under the three thematic objectives with employment, social inclusion and education and training needs. The evidence also shows that ESF operations have in general been relevant for the needs of target groups though there is still room for improvement in this area. This could be achieved by better involving different actors in both the design and monitoring stages, stakeholder involvement is key to meeting target group needs – particularly those of the most disadvantaged groups. A) At the planning stage, evidence shows that the most important needs of the main target groups of each ESF thematic objective were taken on board to a great extent. This is largely part thanks to the programming process of the European Structural and Investment Funds which ensured that needs assessments were conducted by all Member States in the partnership agreement and reflected in the operational programmes. The broad scope in the design of the investment priorities, covering a wide range of policy, areas also contributed to ensuring relevance at the strategic level. For instance, the evaluation findings show that TO8 operations on employment and labour mobility, contributed to helping unemployed people join the labour market. In response to the high level of unemployment across the EU at the start of the programming period most attention was given to (immediate) employment measures, such as providing individual guidance to job seekers, integrated approaches, hiring incentives for employers, and supporting apprenticeship models. Less attention was dedicated to more structural employment measures, such as gender equality, active ageing or labour market institutions. Moreover, analysis of regional allocation of expenditure suggests that TO8 funding was typically directed to where it was most needed. This means that regions with the highest unemployment rates received not only the bulk of funding but also the largest share of expenditure with respect to their GDP.

Social inclusion (TO9) operations were highly relevant given that target groups were typically identified at the planning stage, through needs assessments and existing evaluations and consultative processes, which promoted buy-in and helped ensure that objectives were realistic and adapted to the socio-economic context. For instance in Austria, target groups were identified through consultations between the Managing Authority, the intermediate bodies at the federal and regional level, the social partners, NGOs, and other stakeholders. In Lithuania, the specific needs of the ageing population were reviewed during the planning stage through workshops with local stakeholders; TO9 actions were tailored accordingly. Delphi survey respondents also underscored the importance of identifying the target groups in the early stages of the project to promote relevance. As regards education and training, all Member States identified the target groups at the design stage of operations. The design of investment priorities covered a wide range of education and training objectives and types of intervention across all education levels throughout the life-cycle, allowing Member States to tackle diverse education and training needs in different Member States or regions. This programming flexibility has been widely praised by national and EU stakeholders alike for increasing the relevance of planned operations to the needs of target groups. B) During the implementation stage, ESF operations succeeded in reaching the most important target groups of each thematic objective and addressed their needs. This was demonstrated by participation indicators and confirmed by stakeholder views and other evaluation evidence, although some challenges were identified for specific target groups. The objectives and operations funded by ESF support to employment and labour mobility (TO8) were mostly aligned with the needs of the target groups addressed. Participation figures confirm the dominance of operations targeting the unemployed. Until December 2018, the number of participations of unemployed people across all programmes amounted to some 4.6 million compared to 0.5 million of inactive persons, and 1.7 million of employed people. According to organisations that responded to the public consultation, job-seekers, inactive people and the long-term unemployed were the most successfully supported groups. In-depth analysis of operational programmes and country case studies provide evidence that Member States have developed operations that are relevant to the needs of the unemployed, entrepreneurs, women, employees, older workers and labour market institutions. As regards social inclusion, most of the participations recorded under TO9 involved people who were unemployed (53%) and had a low education level - primary or lower secondary - (54%). A large proportion of participations were from people with a foreign background or from minority groups including Roma (28%) and people with a disability (16%). The reported proportion of people living in rural areas (16%) is far below the almost one third of the EU28 population living in rural areas - see Table 5 and Figure 8. Several social inclusion operational programmes carried out gender-based targeting, (e.g. women not engaged in the labour market were targeted Ireland, lone immigrant women were targeted in Finland and Roma women were targeted in Spain). Moreover, TO9 funds were mostly allocated to less economically favourable regions, thus addressing those geographic areas in which most people in need are living; about 68% of recorded participations were in less economically favourable regions. Education and training operations succeeded in reaching and addressing the needs of their target groups, particularly of young people, a key target group for TO10: approximately 6.26 million participations were by people under 25 years old (66% of the total TO10 participations). Young people were the main focus of operations under investments priorities 10i (early leavers from education and training and access to learning pathways) and 10ii (tertiary education). Evidence shows that ESF TO10 operations made good progress in addressing the needs of young people. This contributes to reducing the share of early leavers from education and training, supporting the achievement of school qualifications, reducing the number of young people at risk of becoming NEET and helping young people to get qualifications that enable them to gain access to the labour market. Planning risk assessments at the start of operations that target disadvantaged student groups, has allowed for more tailored support that directly addresses people’s needs. For example, in Latvia, a risk assessment methodology was developed as part of the programme supporting students at risk of early school leaving in Latvia. This made it possible to identify people’s specific needs and their circumstances from the start, which is important as these vary even within the same target group. Some at-risk students, in particular those with learning difficulties, needed extra classes, while others, such as those from low-income families, needed transport and accommodation compensation instead. The risk assessment ensured that the programme to be tailored to these specific needs, increasing its relevance. C) However the evidence shows that ESF operations did not always fully succeed on reaching and addressing the needs of some specific target groups, particularly the most disadvantaged ones. This is discussed in more details below TO8 employment operations have managed to reach participants in high need of support, including inactive people, the long-term unemployed and migrants. Despite some reported issues with eligibility criteria including as a result of gold-plating (e.g. for migrants) one in eight participant has a migrant or minority background. Over one in four participations registered comes from a rural background. This is less than the proportion of the rural population in the EU28 but there is considerable evidence of underreporting in this area. However, there are still some challenges to address, as disadvantaged groups are particularly targeted in more developed regions, and in regions in which labour market conditions are improving and which have progressively increased their focus on individuals at a greater distance from the labour market. Less developed areas seldom report positive results for disadvantaged. Organisations that responded to the public consultation seem to moderately agree on the ESF’s ability to support migrants (49.2%) and individuals with a foreign background or people in remote areas (48.9%) and highly disagree about TO8 ESF support to people affected by poverty (39.1%) and homeless people (17.4%). Moreover, operations have been less effective in addressing the needs of older workers (participants aged over 54) and gender equality, with limited focus on measures for active ageing and those that address strongly embedded gender gaps. Compared with ESF support under TO8 and TO10, support for social inclusion (TO9) reached a substantially higher proportion of people with a disability, migrants, people with a foreign background and minorities, as well as people with low education - see Table 5. However, evidence on whether ESF support for social inclusion reached the most vulnerable populations with the greatest needs is mixed. In the replies to the public consultation, 39% of respondents considered that the target groups that should be prioritised were in effect being reached while 35% believed the opposite. Respondents to the EU-level Delphi survey noted that reaching target groups outside the reach of social services, employment services, health care and education is a key challenge. Among other factors (see below), the assessment identified the risk of ‘creaming’ in TO9 operations, i.e. targeting less vulnerable people with less complex needs who can get better results. For example in Poland, the managing authority of the national ESF operational programme believed that the focus on monitoring employment results created a tendency to recruit participants who were more likely to become employed rather than the people furthest away from the labour market. Education and training operations have faced the biggest challenges in reaching disadvantaged groups, registering lower participation rates for disadvantaged people compared with other ESF operations (TO8 and TO9): Overall, the proportion of disadvantaged participants in TO10 is 21%, below the proportion of disadvantaged participants in all ESF operations (31%). Multiple stakeholders at the EU and national level identified refugees and migrants, Roma, the long-term unemployed, older workers and people with