EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.5.2019 SWD(2019) 182 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION













of the













European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) {COM(2019) 234 final}



Contents 1.INTRODUCTION 2.Background to EaSI 3.Implementation / state of play 4. Methodological frame, limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Relevance 5.2.Effectiveness 5.3.Efficiency 5.4.Coherence 5.5.EU added value 5.6.Governance 6.Conclusions and lessons learned 6.1. Relevance 6.2.Effectiveness 6.3.Efficiency 6.4.Coherence 6.5.EU added value 6.6.EaSI governance

Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Overview of the mid-term evaluation process and methods Annex 3: Summary of the evaluation topics and questions Annex 4: Stakeholders’ open public consultation Annex 5: Relevant documents used for the mid-term evaluation Annex 6: EaSI mid-term evaluation framework Abbreviations list Term or acronym Meaning or definition COSME Programme for competitiveness of enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises CSR Country-specific recommendations DG Directorate-General DG EMPL Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion EaSI Employment and social innovation programme ECoGC European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit EEA European Economic Area EESSI Electronic exchange of social security information EFSE European Fund for South East Europe EFSI European Fund for Strategic Investment EIB European Investment Bank EIF European Investment Fund EMCO Employment Committee EPAP European Platform against Poverty ESCO European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations ESDE Employment and Social Developments in Europe ESF European Social Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ESPN European Social Policy Network EU European Union EURES European Employment Services GDP Gross domestic product GFI Guarantee financial instruments IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ILO International Labour Organisation InnovFin EU finance for innovators programme ISSG Inter-Services Steering Committee KPIs Key performance indicators MF/SE Microfinance/social entrepreneurship MFF Multiannual financial framework MISSOC Mutual Information System on Social Protection NGO Non-governmental organisations SLIC Committee Senior Labour Inspectors SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SPC Social Protection Committee SWD Staff working document YfEj Your first EURES job 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation This European Commission staff working document (SWD) reports on the mid-term evaluation of the Employment and Social Innovation programme for 2014-2020 (EaSI) and identifies avenues for possible further improvements. It is based on an external evaluation report and other sources of evidence, in particular EaSI performance monitoring reports, the annual management reports of the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and evaluations of previous programmes. The objective of the mid-term evaluation, as set out in Article 13 of the EaSI Regulation, was ‘to measure, on a qualitative and quantitative basis, progress made in meeting the programme’s objectives to address the social environment within the Union and any major changes introduced by Union legislation, to determine whether the resources of the Programme have been used efficiently and to assess its Union added value.’ The SWD summarises the main results of the external evaluation and provides the Commission with evidence and data for improving programme performance in later implementation; assessing whether there is any need to amend the EaSI Regulation; and preparing to design the post-2020 programme. The findings of the mid-term evaluation feed into the European Commission’s mid-term review of the current Multiannual Financial Framework and the preparation of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF 2021 – 2027). They also serve to inform the programme’s participating countries, the general public and other stakeholders about the performance of EaSI and its achievements. A proposal reflecting the findings and lessons learned will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. In compliance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation is based on the following criteria: ·relevance: whether EaSI’s objectives as originally defined remain relevant; ·effectiveness: the effectiveness of EaSI activities and the extent to which EaSI has delivered against its objectives; ·efficiency: the relationship between the resources used and the changes produced by EaSI; ·coherence: how well EaSI works with other EU and national initiatives;

·EU added value: value resulting from EaSI activities that is additional to the value that would have resulted from other initiatives at national level. In addition, a sixth topic was included in order to assess the programme’s governance, focusing on governing mechanisms, accountability and transparency. The mid-term evaluation covered the period of activity from January 2014 to December 2016 and the activities of its three axes: PROGRESS, EURES and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. It covered the programme’s geographical scope and relevant stakeholders, in particular the EaSI Committee, policy committees, social partners, national authorities and bodies, and key EU civil society organisations. 2. Background to EaSI The European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) — adopted in December 2013 — is one of four EU financial instruments in the area of employment and social affairs for 2014-2020, together with the European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived (FEAD) and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. EaSI is designed to promote a high level of quality and sustainable employment, guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty, and improving working conditions in the Member States and the other participating countries (EFTA/EEA , candidate and pre-candidate countries). The programme is partly managed directly by the Commission and partly indirectly (for microfinance), by entrusting budget implementation tasks to the European Investment Fund (EIF). The total financial envelope for the programme from 2014 to 2020 is EUR 919 469 000. EaSI’s general objective is to contribute to the overarching Europe 2020 strategy, including Europe 2020 flagship initiatives such as the ‘European platform against poverty’, ‘An agenda for new skills and jobs’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘Innovation Union’. The programme is designed to complement the ESF, which operates under shared management with the Member States and pursues similar general objectives at national level. When the new Commission came into office in 2014, the focus of the programme was steered towards the objectives defined in the Agenda for jobs, growth, fairness and democratic change (the Juncker Commission’s Political guidelines). The 2015 and 2016 EaSI work programmes were the first adopted by President Juncker’s Commission. Three of the political guidelines are particularly important for EaSI: ·Guideline 1: New boost for jobs, growth and investment; ·Guideline 4: Deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base; ·Guideline 5: Deeper and fairer economic and monetary union. 2.1Structure of the programme EaSI has three axes — PROGRESS, EURES and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. PROGRESS supports policymaking and implementation by: producing policy evidence, organising information sharing and mutual learning activities, creating better conditions for social policy innovations and helping to build capacity for EU and national organisations. The types of actions funded by PROGRESS are: ·analytical activities, such as conducting studies, drafting reports, and providing technical support for databases; ·capacity building activities to develop, promote and support EU instruments and policies, including outreach to young people, information and awareness raising, and support for social networks, conferences and events; ·information sharing and mutual learning activities, such as organising seminars, meetings, workshops and networks and producing guides, manuals and promotional materials; and ·support for social innovation, including designing and implement social experimentations. EURES aims to help workers move freely in the EU by making recruitment information more transparent and accessible, and by responding to jobseekers’ and employers’ requests for information, assistance and guidance. The EURES network is composed of various organisations, including public employment services. The types of activities funded under EURES are: ·targeted mobility schemes such as the ‘Your first EURES job’ (YfEj) scheme, which helps young people up to 35 years old to find a job, traineeship or apprenticeship under employment contract in another Member State, and helps employers to find the skills needed for their hard-to-fill vacancies;

·services provided through the EURES job mobility portal such as advertising vacancies, giving tips on applying for a job, and informing users about companies and about EU Member States’ labour markets; ·services to jobseekers and companies provided by EURES staff in cross-border regions, such as providing information on social security, taxation, education and training, living and working conditions, and assisting them with job searching or recruitment (through ‘cross-border partnerships’); ·operational support for the network, which includes a common training programme for staff, communications, analytical activities and mutual learning support. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship aims to improve access to finance for vulnerable people (i.e. those at risk of social or financial exclusion), microenterprises and social enterprises through funding for financial intermediaries and capacity building for relevant actors. The European Commission does not directly finance entrepreneurs or social enterprises, but enables selected microcredit providers and social enterprise investors in the EU to increase lending. The types of activities funded under Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship are: ·providing financial guarantees to financial intermediaries; ·providing loans, equity and hybrid instruments. A very important cross-cutting aim of every part of the EaSI programme is to foster social policy innovation. A significant amount of EaSI funding is devoted to this objective, in particular through calls for proposals for social experimentation projects. 2.2Management of the programme EaSI is directly managed by the European Commission (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) on the basis of calls for proposals and calls for tenders. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship actions (including the EaSI Guarantee Instrument and the EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window) are implemented indirectly: i.e. the Commission entrusts the budget to the European Investment Fund (EIF). The programme is monitored by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion’s ‘Programming and planning’ unit (Unit F3), which is responsible for formulating EaSI’s scope and funding, and for coordinating, monitoring and evaluating its implementation. The unit is assisted by a network of ‘EaSI coordinators’ in the operational units that carry out programme activities, and by the EaSI Committee which advises on and examines the work done. The EaSI Committee is composed of a chair from the European Commission and a delegate from each Member State. Other countries eligible under EaSI (EEA countries, candidate and potential candidate countries) may also be represented on the EaSI Committee as observers. In most cases, members of the EaSI Committee are from the ministries in charge of labour and social affairs in their country. Members may ask to be assisted by external experts on particular matters. The EaSI Committee meets two to four times a year. The committee met four times in 2015-2016 and discussed issues such as the monitoring reports and an update of the performance monitoring system, the mid-term evaluation results, good practice projects and the annual work programmes. The Chair drafts the agenda and sends it to the members for approval. Committee members are also consulted between meetings. For instance, they are consulted about the work programme for the year to come, the various types of activities to be launched, their implementation and the funding priorities. Members have an opportunity to give their opinion and exchange views on items on the agenda. For instance, under the advisory procedure, the committee discussed the roadmap for this mid-term evaluation. In other cases, members have a binding vote under the examination procedure, which means the Commission cannot act on a document without their approval. This is the case for instance with the adoption of the EaSI’s annual work programmes. EaSI has a comprehensive performance framework, with regular monitoring and evaluation of programme implementation. A logical framework explains how EaSI is expected to achieve results and impacts, laying out the process in detail from inputs to outputs and outcomes. It also involves a set of key performance indicators, a system for gathering and storing information and a methodology for analysing and disseminating information about EaSI-funded projects and organisations. Mid-term and ex post evaluation is also required under the EaSI Regulation. A baseline report was drafted in 2014, and the values of key performance indicators (KPIs) observed before the programme were taken as the baseline. The second EaSI monitoring report — published in autumn 2017 — focuses on the outputs delivered and benefits brought by the programme in 2015-2016.





Figure 1 shows EaSI’s intervention logic, which was used for the purposes of the mid-term evaluation. There are three main categories of objectives: alongside general and axis-specific objectives, there are cross-cutting objectives (i.e. paying attention to vulnerable groups, promoting equality between men and women, combating discrimination and promoting sustainable employment) which are incorporated into each programme axis and action. The intervention logic describes the interaction between the different components of the programme in terms of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, and depicts the causal mechanisms or pathways through which the activities are thought to bring about the desired changes (i.e. causes and effect linkages). The outputs should lead to achieving the programme’s objectives. The intervention logic also indicates the assumptions made about the political and economic cycle, and about the socioeconomic, institutional and policy environment in which the programme operates, in particular the EU2020 strategy, the Juncker Commission’s priorities and the European Semester cycle of economic coordination. 3. Implementation / state of play EaSI is implemented on the basis of work programmes adopted every year. High unemployment, increased poverty rates, and increasing inequalities between EU countries and among citizens remained the core challenges and issues to be targeted by EU policies and programmes, including EaSI. Specifically, the 2014 work programme reacted to post-crisis policy challenges such as the high rate of unemployment (especially long-term unemployment), increased poverty and social exclusion, the rise in jobless households and the rise in in-work poverty. The 2015 work programme focused on the issues emphasised in Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s Political guidelines, such as ensuring that the job-creation and social aspects of the EU are taken into consideration in the European Semester. One of the Commission’s key strategies was to enhance convergence of labour markets across the euro area. Social measures were also proposed, notably to sustain welfare systems and to make sure that the most vulnerable members of society are not left behind. The main objective of EaSI’s work programme 2016 was to advance work in the areas identified as priorities in the Commission’s 2016 work programme, including initiatives already planned in 2015, such as the proposal for a Council recommendation on integration of the long-term unemployed, to boost integration in the labour market and promote relevant skills. As shown in the intervention logic (Figure 1; Section 2), the EaSI programme (2014-2020) aims to achieve nine specific objectives (see Figure 2) — also referred to as immediate or short-term outcomes — that are expected to contribute to the achievement of the five general objectives (intermediate or long-term outcomes) set out in the Regulation. The Regulation set no specific targets for each specific objective’s share of funding, so the information provided below was collected only for analytical purposes in order to better understand programme spending and trends. Figure 2: EaSI specific objectives Source: EaSI performance monitoring report 2015-2016 Over the entire 2014-2020 programming period, around EUR 540 million was allocated to PROGRESS, of which 41 % was planned to be committed in the first 3 years of implementation. In 2014 (Figure 3), the bulk of PROGRESS funding was committed to supporting effective and inclusive information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue (38 %) and increasing the capacity of national and EU organisations (35 %). Source: Based on performance monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 A significant share of funding (25 %) was also committed to producing policy evidence. Commitments in all the areas mentioned largely reflected initial plans. Some 1 % of the overall budget was committed to supporting social innovation. A call for proposals for social experimentation was launched in 2014; however, because the applications were still being evaluated at the end of 2014, the planned commitments were postponed to the following year. In 2015, around 30 % of funding was committed to each of the three PROGRESS objectives, while around 15 % was committed to social policy experimentation. In 2016, a smaller share (around 18 %) was committed to evidence-based policy, while information sharing, mutual learning and capacity building objectives each received greater support (slightly more than 30 % each). Around 20 % of funding was committed to social policy experimentation. Over the entire 2014-2020 programming period, around EUR 159 million was allocated to EURES, of which 40 % was planned to be committed in the first 3 years of implementation.

Source: Based on performance monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 In 2014, two thirds of commitments went to effective provision of services for recruitment and the placing of workers, while the rest was committed to making labour market information more transparent (Figure 4). The distribution of EURES commitments by objective was very similar in 2015 and 2016. In both years, roughly two thirds of funding was committed to services for recruiting and placing workers (including cross-border partnerships), while one third of funding was committed to ensuring that information on job vacancies and applications is made transparent for EU jobseekers and employers. For the full 2014-2020 period, around EUR 193 million was allocated to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. The first year of EaSI implementation was spent negotiating the new funding instruments with the European Investment Fund (EIF), so the expenditure planned for 2014 was actually committed in the years after that. Under EaSI, the Commission entrusted the EIF with managing the following financial instruments: ·the EaSI Guarantee Instrument , to increase access to finance for social enterprises, microenterprises and vulnerable groups, and ·the EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window , to build up the institutional capacity of microcredit and social finance providers. To apply for EaSI funding, candidates answer calls for expression of interest on the EIF website . Figure 5: Commitments to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship by specific objective in 2015 and 2016 Source: Performance monitoring report 2015-2016 Figure 5 shows commitments in 2015 and 2016 to the two main specific objectives of Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. Work on the third specific objective, building the institutional capacity of microcredit providers, only started in 2017 and so is not covered here. In 2015, around 76 % of funding was committed to supporting access to microfinance, while in 2016 commitments to Microfinance and to Social Entrepreneurship were roughly equal. In addition, a comparatively small amount has been set aside for cross-cutting objectives, including funding for communication and publication activities and for launching the new EaSI-MicPro online platform. In each of the two years, the allocations for both Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship were fully utilised. Among the most significant benefits of EaSI between 2014 and 2016 were access to high-quality comparative analytical knowledge and sound evidence, and the opportunity to finance projects. Nearly 60 projects were awarded funding each year under the various thematic calls for proposals, including 15 social experimentation projects between 2014 and 2016. EaSI also supported capacity building for 20 EU-level NGO networks each year. Cross-border partnerships have contributed to better job matching and placement services in cross-border regions. The EURES job mobility portal — which attracted 0.7 million visitors a month and posted more than 1 million vacancies a year — also gained importance in providing public information on job opportunities and labour market characteristics. The number of jobseekers and employers registered on the portal has more than doubled since 2014. Around 3.5 % of people contacting EURES advisers found a job each year as a direct result of this action. Around 5 000 placements are made each year thanks to ‘Your first EURES job’ projects. By the end of 2016, around 12 000 enterprises had benefited from EaSI funding. Of those supported, 19 % were unemployed or inactive before receiving the microloan. A leverage factor of 3 was achieved each year, meaning that EaSI provided enterprises with three times more support than the initial amount. Incorporation of cross-cutting objectives in EaSI has also increased since 2014. The best mainstreamed issue, as seen by EaSI’s stakeholders, was attention to vulnerable groups such as young people. Gender equality and non-discrimination continued to be well integrated in EaSI projects. The monitoring data also indicated improved mainstreaming of disability and accessibility aspects across EaSI programme activities. 4. Methodological frame, limitations and robustness of findings The mid-term evaluation covered the five criteria laid down in the Better Regulation Guidelines: efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value. An evaluation roadmap set out the evaluation mandate and the specific contract for the evaluation included terms of reference. The external evaluation was carried out by ICF and coordinated by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs, with the support of an Interservice Steering Group (ISSG) including other Commission departments. The research process was carried out in four phases and triangulated a wide range of data sources to answer the evaluation questions. Evaluation started with a number of scoping interviews held with key actors at EU level and analysis of secondary data, including existing evaluations, implementation data and contextual data. An open online public consultation was then held for 12 weeks in order to capture wider stakeholder views. An online survey was circulated to beneficiaries for feedback. In parallel, 15 case studies were conducted to capture more focused and detailed experience of the project selection process and implementation. In the course of the evaluation as a whole, a series of 40 in-depth semi-structured interviews with EaSI project partners and EU officials was carried out. A focus group of EaSI Committee members was also organised to capture their opinions on specific issues, in particular the programme’s governance. The main limitation of this mid-term evaluation is its timing, as it took place only three years after the programme began. This operating timeframe was too short for many results and wider impacts to emerge and reduced the explanatory power of the analysis. Any extrapolation to the whole volume of projects running under this implementation period would therefore be risky. Few projects were finished by the end of 2016 and some started in 2015 — for instance, Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship activities. Moreover, capacity building investment only started in 2017 and so was not evaluated.

The heterogeneity of EaSI architecture made the evaluation even more problematic. The results and impacts of a complex programme like EaSI, operating in a multifaceted policy context, are difficult to capture: it is difficult to determine what has caused or contributed to the changes observed. Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks for performance. Worldwide, there is no programme similar to EaSI in terms of size, thematic coverage and depth. The form of the programme is quite unique. It ranges from the production of policy evidence through information sharing and mutual learning, social policy innovation and experimentation, geographical and occupational mobility and services to jobseekers and employers, to facilitating access to finance for vulnerable people, microenterprises and social enterprises. EaSI’s performance should thus be seen in the light of its specific role, scope and scale within a wider support system, in particular as regards its impact on EU and national or regional policy initiatives. Finally, the relatively low number of responses to the open public consultation (81) and to the beneficiaries survey (159) was also limiting. For this reason, generalisations have been avoided; the public consultation and beneficiaries survey results are used in conjunction with other methods or as examples. A number of measures were taken to overcome all these limitations. For example, evidence from a variety of sources was systematically compared to strengthen the findings. This included evidence gathered using quantitative and qualitative methods such as in-depth analysis of existing documentation, the open public consultation of stakeholders, the beneficiaries survey, the focus group with EaSI Committee members, interviews with key informants and case studies. This approach made it possible to collect financial and non-financial data and to produce the necessary analysis for the mid-term evaluation. In particular, multiple case studies were conducted (7 on PROGRESS, 4 on EURES and 4 on Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship) in order to capture more focused and detailed experience on completed and ongoing projects. Multiple sources of evaluative evidence were cross-checked and different tools used in conjunction to validate information across stakeholders and methodologies, to identify common and different views, and to overcome the limitations inherent in each method. The mid-term external evaluation clearly indicated its data sources and gaps in data availability. All evaluation results were systematically checked against input from stakeholders. Regular presentations were made and progress checked against the evaluation’s targets at EaSI Committee meetings. 5. Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions The mid-term evaluation sought to answer questions about five criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. The programme’s governance was also examined. Understanding and addressing the key issues of accountability, transparency, participation and inclusion is crucial to ensuring that they are fully embedded in the programme’s governance. Based on the building blocks of EaSI implementation logic, each criterion was detailed with questions, judgement criteria and relevant indicators. The evaluation questions were grouped into key topics to develop a coherent framework and make the final assessment explicit. 5.1.Relevance EaSI’s relevance was assessed in relation to its general objectives, the specific objectives for the three axes and the allocation of resources between them. 5.1.1.Continuing relevance of the programme’s general objectives The relevance of EaSI’s general objectives was examined in the light of the current challenging European socioeconomic context. In the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis, GDP growth has been limited, the unemployment rate has risen (8.6 % in 2016 compared to 7.2 % in 2007), and labour markets are uneven across the EU-28, which affects long-term unemployment (4 % in 2016, almost half of total unemployment) and particularly youth unemployment (18.7 % in 2016, against 15.9 % in 2007). The seventh edition of the annual report Employment and social developments in Europe — focusing in 2017 on intergenerational fairness and solidarity — confirms that although there has been moderate growth (real GDP growth was 1.9 % in the EU in 2016) and solid net job creation since mid-2013, the social and economic situation is far from recovering to its pre-crisis levels. So issues such as long-term unemployment, youth unemployment and inequalities are among the most pressing problems to be dealt with. Moreover, the challenges of integrating refugees and making employment more secure further strengthen the case for EaSI’s relevance. One of EaSI’s core aims is help citizens take advantage of the right to free movement of workers in the EU. This has remained particularly important in the current context, with approximately 2-3 million job vacancies unfilled throughout the European Union, coupled with relatively high unemployment. Encouraging workers to move for work is one way of boosting employment opportunities and reducing unemployment. For instance, although Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have common borders, the unemployment rate in Germany in 2016 (at 4.1 %) was far lower than in Belgium (7.8 %) or the Netherlands (6 %). This is one reason why EU action through EaSI is still relevant: to help make the labour market more transparent. European Investment Fund (EIF) data for 2016 suggests that microenterprises are more prevalent in countries with high unemployment rates such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, where microenterprises account for 40-60 % of employment. These numbers highlight the importance of microenterprises in contributing to employment in the European market and therefore the relevance of supporting them as part of EaSI. All these socioeconomic and labour market patterns in the EU countries also make the case for the cross-cutting objectives linked to gender equality, non-discrimination, vulnerable groups and sustainable development. Analytical activities and social experimentation/innovation featured prominently in the evaluation as activities that were highly appreciated by stakeholders. The evaluation showed that measures should, however, be taken to improve communication on social innovation as promoted by PROGRESS, and perceptions of it as an issue that cuts right across the programme. Although social innovation is often a component of EaSI actions relating to cross-border partnerships, microenterprises and social enterprises, it is impossible to estimate the amounts spent on this issue in each axis and their respective impact. There is, however, broad agreement among stakeholders that without EaSI funding, a series of social policy innovations in the programme’s participating countries would not have taken place (see also Section 5.5 on the programme’s value added). Funding opportunities provided by EaSI enabled stakeholders to test innovative solutions to societal challenges such as ageing societies, migration, poverty and social exclusion with different partners across the EU, which might not be possible through only national funding. Some 20 social experimentation projects were awarded grants between 2014 and 2016 as tools to design and catalyse social policy reforms for better economic and social outcomes. The evidence collected on the INNOVCare project, selected as a case study for the mid-term evaluation, shows its relevance in addressing the unmet social needs of people living with a rare disease and their families, which affect their dignity, autonomy and fundamental human rights. The proposed holistic, person-centred care pathway for people with rare diseases was tested through a pilot project in a Romanian county. The project team intends to consolidate the work done with financial assistance from from the European Network of Resource Centres and Case Handlers for Rare Diseases, to ensure that the network created under INNOVCare continues to operate when the project ends. The evaluation shows that in its first implementation period, through support for peer reviews and other mutual learning activities, EaSI also contributed to the European Semester. The topics covered by the 2015 and 2016 mutual learning activities — e.g. labour market integration measures for young people, asylum seekers, refugees and long-term unemployed people, future skills needs — were closely aligned with priorities set in the Employment Guidelines and the country-specific recommendations as part of the European Semester. The European Semester was also supported by other EaSI-funded analytical activities, in particular the Employment and social development report and the Labour force survey. For the remaining period, EaSI could give analytical and mutual learning activities even higher priority and better link them to policymaking, including the European Semester process. Disseminating good practice from different countries more widely at operational level creates awareness of innovative practices introduced across the Member States and develops the capacity of national and local actors to deliver better services. Exchanges between countries participating in the programme enable them to develop comparable levels of expertise and ensure that a similar range of services is offered to citizens regardless of where they live. The gradual improvement of EU economies can be further coupled with recent political events likely to impact the EU Member States in the coming years. For instance, with a large influx of refugees and immigrants, the share of vulnerable people has increased. In the next couple of years, integrating these groups will require increased employment opportunities and social care. The EaSI programme could play an important role in this context by continuing to produce policy evidence, facilitating mobility across the EU and enabling access to finance for different vulnerable groups should they wish to start their own microenterprise, or become employed in a microenterprise or social enterprise.

5.1.2. The continuing relevance of the axes’ specific objectives The analysis of the programme’s general objectives was complemented by evaluation of the three axes’ specific objectives (see Section 1 — Figure 1 and Section 3 — Figure 2). The evidence gathered shows that PROGRESS remains relevant in terms of its four specific objectives. Its top priorities remain tackling social exclusion and poverty, and implementing analytical, mutual learning and dissemination activities. Stakeholders are mostly aware of: (i) surveys, studies, analyses, monitoring and evaluation reports; (ii) the labour market policies database; (iii) common methodologies, classifications, micro-simulations, indicators, benchmarks and statistical data. The findings confirm that the demand for analytical, mutual learning and dissemination activities is high, particularly so for policy evidence outputs on social impact measures mapped through statistics, good practice and case studies. On this basis, PROGRESS could continue to sustain and promote the exchange of good practices between policymakers across Member States by delivering mutual learning, awareness raising and dissemination activities, and training. The analytical tools, dissemination events and innovative projects should continue to focus on vulnerable groups, but also on cross-cutting issues like gender equality. PROGRESS should continue to support EU-level NGO networks with the aim of aligning different policy agendas across different levels of government, and support social policy innovation/experiments with a particular focus on transferability and upscaling. The evaluation research showed that jobseekers and employers have similar needs and there is great demand for information on cross-border mobility, recruitment and placement, and for counselling activities and training. EURES’ specific objectives address these needs through provision of information and counselling regarding opportunities for young people and SMEs across the EU. There are currently around 2 million to 3 million job vacancies unfilled EU-wide, and unemployment is relatively high. This, together with the fact that young people find it hard to break into the labour market, shows that there is a need to promote workers’ mobility and encourage jobseekers and employers to consider opportunities beyond their own borders. At the same time, around 16 million Europeans live and work in another country. Making labour market information and service provision about living and working conditions transparent across the EU appears essential to help them find work. The evidence gathered shows that EURES’ objectives continue to be relevant to increasing the transparency of the labour markets in the EU and making them accessible to workers and employers. In this respect, the EURES portal is gaining importance as an efficient way to share vacancies on one platform throughout Europe. Cross-border partnerships also remain relevant, given the many commuters in cross-border regions (for example, in the cases studied this number was around 20.000 to 30.000). Cross-border partnerships provide information and counselling on opportunities in the different labour markets and on social security systems in neighbouring countries. There are many obstacles to cross-border mobility, mainly because of lack of knowledge about working environments and social security systems in neighbouring countries. In terms of service provision, EURES is also particularly relevant to young people who qualify for specific help from ‘Your first EURES job’. This scheme allows young people, who are more likely to face difficulties accessing the labour market, to find a job; at the same time, it helps employers to fill vacancies in key occupations. In the light of these findings, EaSI funding could help to further strengthen the role of the EURES portal and continue to deliver services targeted at specific groups (as in the case of YfEj and cross-border partnerships). Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship addresses three specific objectives through actions to make microfinance available and accessible for existing microenterprises, for vulnerable people wanting to start up a business, and for social entrepreneurs. The EIF does not provide funding directly to individuals or enterprises, but works through local financial intermediaries, such as microcredit providers, social finance, guarantee institutions and banks. It selects intermediaries that have applied under an ongoing call for expressions of interest. The application procedure considers factors such as expected impact (e.g. volumes and geographical reach), financial standing, financial capacity and operational capabilities. The demand-driven character of these financial instruments explains why, for both microfinance and social entrepreneurship, most funding was allocated to countries with more developed markets for micro-enterprises and social enterprises. For example, in 2016, France, Sweden, Romania and Spain received the largest amounts, while Slovakia, Estonia, Albania and Austria received the smallest. In terms of numbers of financial intermediaries supported, Greece, Romania and Spain led with three financial intermediaries each. Country coverage for social enterprises is similar, with France receiving 56 % of the budget available, followed by Spain with 15 %, Poland (13 %), the United Kingdom (9 %) and Austria (6 %). The evaluation shows that Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship has been relevant both in terms of its general objectives and stakeholders’ needs. Existing market imperfections in both the microfinance and social enterprise markets, along with mismatches in supply and demand for finance in most participating countries, suggest the need to keep promoting financial inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of finance for vulnerable people. In some participating countries, underdeveloped markets for lending to social enterprises are likely to remain a key challenge to be solved so the sector can develop further. Ensuring a larger focus on underdeveloped markets by creating incentives for financial intermediaries to apply — for instance by opening the calls for expressions of interest to a particular group of countries for a certain period — could increase the availability and accessibility of finance for vulnerable people. Furthemore, giving incentives to the financial intermediaries to attract funding to replace EIF funding in order to avoid gaps and ensure sustainability of service provision, could address gaps between supply and demand and ensure sustainability of the services’ provision. Financial intermediaries should be able to attract funding from financial institutions other than the EIF thanks to a good track record of involvement in EaSI. 5.1.3.Continuing relevance of resource allocation defined in the EaSI Regulation Activities supported by EaSI are grouped in one or more thematic sections listed in Table 1, which shows the indicative budget allocation for each axis and indicative breakdowns of allocations between the different sections of each axis defined in the EaSI Regulation. Table 1: The minimum indicative percentages by EaSI axis and thematic section Axes/thematic sections Minimum percentages PROGRESS 61% a. employment, in particular to fight youth unemployment 20% b. social protection, social inclusion and reduction/prevention of poverty 50% c. working conditions 10% EURES 18% a. transparency of job vacancies, applications and related information for applicants and employers 32% b. services for the recruitment and placing of workers through the clearance of job vacancies and applications at Union level, in particular targeted mobility schemes 30% c. cross-border partnerships 18% Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship 21% a. microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises 45% b. social entrepreneurship 45% Source: EaSI Regulation If warranted by either socioeconomic developments or the findings of the mid-term evaluation, the EaSI Regulation allows funds to be reallocated between axes or between individual thematic sections. This reallocation can exceed the indicative amount set under the EaSI Regulation up to 10 %. The allocation is monitored every year so the European Commission can see where to invest more in subsequent years up to 2020. Any remainder is allocated to one or more of the thematic sections or to a combination of them. ‘Social policy experimentation’ is not a thematic section, but a cross-cutting issue funded from within the EaSI thematic sections. A significant amount of EaSI funding is devoted to fostering social innovation, in particular through calls for proposals to support social experimentation projects. The evaluation proposed that financial resources should be allocated more equitably and consistently between and within the thematic sections of each axis in order to increase the overall impact of the EaSI programme. The data on resource allocation must be interpreted taking into account that 2014 was the first year of EaSI implementation and some planned activities were postponed to subsequent years, in particular under Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. In 2014-2016, PROGRESS’s planned and committed funding mostly matched the share of overall funding per thematic section provided for in the EaSI Regulation. However, in 2014, the bulk of funding (71 %) was committed to employment policy, while the other thematic sections committed 39 % of planned expenditure. Compared to the two other axes, PROGRESS has a slight tendency not to commit all indicative funding, which might result in some unused funding having to be returned to the EU budget (EUR 4 million was not committed in 2015 or 2016). Some planned studies and events might even become unnecessary in a better social and economic context, which might lead the Commission to cancel planned activities and related commitments.

Overall, the amounts of funding committed in 2014-2016 were in line with the EaSI Regulation regarding the minimum proportions of funding to be allocated to different thematic sections of EURES. The planned commitments for the development of EURES services in 2014 were greater than the percentage set in the EaSI Regulation (42 % instead of 30 %). In terms of actual commitments, development of EURES services was the largest item (at 55 % of EURES commitments), while ‘transparency of job vacancies’ accounted for 43 %. No funding was committed to establishing cross-border partnerships in 2014. Quite a lot more than the minimum amount (48 % instead of 30 %) was committed in 2015 to developing services for recruiting and placing workers. In 2016, commitments in the thematic section on cross-border partnerships were slightly below the target set in the Regulation (around 16 % of the overall budget, instead of 18 %). Commitments were also lower than expected in the thematic section on the transparency of job vacancies (27 % versus 32 %). Once again, in 2016, more than the minimum indicative share of funding was committed to developing EURES services. Activities under Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship got off to a strong start in 2015-2016, while its predecessor programme — the European Progress Microfinance Facility — continued until 2016. In 2015, a much larger share of funding was committed to microfinance (76 %) than to social entrepreneurship (24 %). This is understandable, since funding social enterprises was a new activity, while microfinance was well established because of its predecessor. This situation means higher funding can be expected for social entrepreneurship in subsequent years to 2020. In 2016, commitments for the two were roughly equal. Some funding — less than 1 % — was also committed to build up microfinance providers’ capacity, and for communication and dissemination activities in the areas of microfinance and social entrepreneurship. Implementation of the EaSI work programme for 2014-2016 was well in line with the EaSI Regulation and the indicative shares of funding per axis roughly matched the shares set in the Regulation. For instance, in 2015 and 2016, a slightly higher share of funding than initially planned was committed to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, while a somewhat lower share than planned was committed to PROGRESS. As shown by the evaluation, the current split does not reflect the reality of the markets in terms of demand or development stage. A more developed microfinance sector, along with greater demand for microfinance funding in participating countries than for social entrepreneurship funding, could justify allocating more of the budget to Microfinance. This being the case, a revision of the indicative budget split between Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship could be explored in the second half of implementation. Making resource allocation more flexible across axes would also allow more scope for transferring budgets between them when necessary. This greater flexibility in resource allocation would particularly benefit Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. Such a shift was already considered in the ‘Omnibus’ Regulation adopted in 2018. 5.2.Effectiveness The evaluation examined how effectively EaSI has delivered its intended outcomes and brought about change. 5.2.1. Effectiveness in achieving its objectives and generating outcomes The evidence gathered shows that the EaSI programme as a whole has achieved good-quality outcomes, even if they are few given its short operating life so far. The evidence collected shows that PROGRESS contributed to positive outcomes in terms of capacity building and uptake of analytical research outputs which have informed both the European Semester cycle and national policies. PROGRESS has proven to be most effective in facilitating inclusive information sharing, mutual learning activities and dialogue. It has also proven effective in developing comparative and analytical knowledge. Overall, PROGRESS should maintain the thematic focus on those policy themes relevant to and appreciated by stakeholders, in particular those related to employment and working conditions. For the remainder of the period, PROGRESS should continue to focus on activities to disseminate comparative and analytical knowledge by boosting the outreach of events and investing in analytical tools (datasets, statistics and focused studies) linked to national and EU policymaking and the needs of stakeholders (national governments, statistical offices and thematic research networks). DG Employment started in 2014 to develop a new version of the EURES job mobility portal. In 2015 and 2016 new functions were added, such as automated matching of job vacancies and applications/CVs. This helped to attract a steady number of monthly visitors to the EURES portal in 2014-2016 (0.7 million). The number of employers registered on the EURES portal was 6 800 at the end of 2016 (compared with 5 600 at the end of 2015 and 3 000 at the end of 2014). Member States share only around half of their vacancies on the portal. In 2014 there were around 1 million vacancies registered; in 2015 there were 1.5 million, but this had fallen slightly to 1.4 million by May 2017. The number of contacts by EURES staff with jobseekers and employers rose from 947 489 in 2014 to 1 131 002 in 2016, increasing steadily. The percentage of people who found a job as a direct result of contacting EURES advisers increased slightly from 3.3 % in 2014 to 3.7 % in 2015 and in 2016. Two calls for proposals — leading to four new ‘Your first EURES job’ projects — were issued in the evaluation period. This scheme helped to increase the number of youth job placements from 3 433 in 2014 to 5 720 in 2016. The evaluation revealed several challenges to project effectiveness, mainly in finding the right partners and attracting employers. The projects financed under call VP/2014/013 exceeded their target. The data analysed show that the projects already finalised had several positive impacts on the young people who benefited from YfEj funding, with 68 % of job contracts lasting more than six months, and many being permanent contracts. Given that the projects funded under call VP/2015/006 started after the evaluation period, it was not possible to evaluate their effectiveness. The results of projects focusing on cross-border partnerships include support for the provision of services in cross-border regions and — in one project — the creation of specific cross-border info points providing information about employment opportunities and social systems in cross-border regions. The evaluation showed that the involvement of employers and employers’ organisations could be further encouraged, for instance through more targeted communication activities and incentives provided directly to employers. The evaluation reveals that one particular challenge for beneficiaries of cross-border projects is that grants are made for one year. The majority of these partnerships apply each year for follow-up funding and this may create path dependency on the EU programme. Revising the implementation period and considering a longer one — 2 years at a minimum — might enable project beneficiaries to measure the effectiveness of activities carried out within the project’s lifetime and to take measures to sustain it further. The evaluation shows that Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship has been effective in increasing the availability of and access to finance. For instance, a series of quantitative changes were identified, such as increased lending volume, number of loans and number of beneficiaries. Thus, the number of microloans granted under Microfinance rose from 421 in 2015 to 13 021 in 2016, while 64 social enterprises received support as of 31 December 2016 under Social Entrepreneurship. The EIF provides the EaSI guarantee and counter-guarantee to financial intermediaries with the aim of increasing the availability of microfinance. By 31 December 2016, 33 contracts had been signed under Microfinance, accounting for EUR 50.3 million. These transactions alone are expected to unlock more than EUR 637 million in funding. As of 31 December 2016 the leverage factor was 3, meaning that financial intermediaries actually provided the final beneficiaries with three times more support than the funding provided by the EU. The overall leverage achieved to date is lower than the target specified in the EIF call for expressions of interest, which specify a minimum leverage factor of 5.5 for the EaSI guarantee instrument as a whole. Nonetheless, the expected leverage factor is much higher, at 12.7, and should be reached by the end of the five-year period. This suggests that the objectives of the EaSI guarantee will be surpassed by a long way. By 31 December 2016, 7 contracts had been signed for Social Entrepreneurship. The total amount disbursed under EaSI to support social entrepreneurship was EUR 5.7 million. The majority of loans (around 90 %) were provided by the French cooperative bank La Nef. The target leverage factor of 5.5 was not achieved; nonetheless, the 7 signed transactions are expected to unlock more than EUR 116 million of financing for social enterprises, which means the expected leverage factor is 12.8, well above the target leverage. EaSI support allowed financial intermediaries to provide funding to 64 social enterprises as of 31 December 2016; the average loan was EUR 89 000. Most of the funding went to social enterprises operating in wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, followed by manufacturing and agriculture, forestry and fishing. These quantitative effects would not have materialised or would have done so more slowly without EaSI funding, as the financial intermediaries would not have been able to offer similar products. To boost the effectiveness of the support provided, the financial intermediaries also provide mentoring and training activities for final beneficiaries. Of 5 490 final beneficiaries who reported on this issue by the end of 2016, 68 % confirmed that they received training and mentoring services from the microcredit institutions. Financial intermediaries could assess the impact of their activities — particularly mentoring and training activities — on a more regular basis (every 2 years for instance). This could enable the EIF to continuously assess whether the loans provided had the intended outcomes and impacts. Effectiveness in achieving objectives could be also improved by acting on a series of issues such as: delays in making the financial instruments available; flexible allocation of funds between Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship; and coherence and clarity of the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit (ECoGC). 5.2.2.Effectiveness in bringing about change The evaluation examined the extent to which the programme contributed to quantitative and qualitative changes, and the factors influencing those changes. Attributing impacts to programme implementation is difficult, given that employment and social policies are primarily a national competence. Nevertheless, the data gathered show that several positive changes could be attributed to EaSI intervention. These include increased awareness of and improved information about EU policy efforts on social inclusion and poverty reduction; improved perceptions of cross-border employment and greater awareness among regional employers and jobseekers of cross-border opportunities. Other benefits were rapid testing and implementation of innovative measures; increased access to finance and increased capacity building opportunities in the microfinance and social entrepreneurship sectors; facilitated policy change through research, and exchange and building of advocacy capacity. There was also support for different stakeholders with contributing to formulating and implementing EU policies.

PROGRESS outputs have had a number of qualitative and quantitative effects, helping in particular to develop analytical knowledge, facilitating mutual learning and dialogue, and supporting capacity building activities. For example, the Labour Force Survey is in great demand among stakeholders and has a direct impact on policies. The Eurocarers network contributed to the development of the new national careers strategy in the UK. The knowledge produced at EU level is also used by number of NGOs in their lobbying and advocacy work with policymakers at national and local levels. PROGRESS has also pinpointed a series of additional positive effects. For example, the Labour Law Network provided valuable support to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and the INNOVCare project partners cooperated with DG Health and Food Safety to develop an action plan and help improve services provided to people with rare diseases. The ‘Nowcasting’ model is expected to be applied by Member States to assess the impact of policy reforms (e.g. the pension system). PROGRESS has also offered major support for the effective implementation of social innovation and experimentation projects. However, the limited funding and lack of follow-up mechanisms (within EaSI or other instruments, such as the ESF) are obstacles to systematically scaling up tested social innovations. At the moment, despite the valuable information provided to policymakers, there are no examples of scaled-up interventions, which is the ultimate goal of the social policy experimentation funded by EaSI. The evaluation shows that all the activities carried out under EURES (see figures in Section 5.2.1) contribute to increasing the number of placements across the participating countries and work towards the EU2020 employment objectives. The evidence collected shows that EURES is effective at improving access to job vacancies and at enhancing labour market transparency by providing information on the job mobility portal and support to jobseekers and employers via the network. For example, respondents to the open public consultation and to the beneficiaries survey believe that job mobility across the EU has become ‘fairer’ due to EURES support, as jobseekers and mobile workers are better informed about labour market conditions and social protection systems in EU Member States. The evaluation also stated that EURES is effective in supporting cross-border partnerships and cross-border mobility. The data points to positive changes due to EURES support, for instance an improved general perception of cross-border employment, and the development of ‘welcome centres’ and ‘cross-border info points’. An example of the latter is the Information Centre at the border between Lithuania and Poland, set up under the project ‘Posting of workers’, providing services to workers from the three Baltic States. There is also increased awareness among regional employers and jobseekers of the potential of cross-border labour markets. Moreover, the preparatory action under ‘Your first EURES job’ was the basis for developing and testing the national mobility programme MobiPro-EU in Germany. Regarding Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, the quantitative changes resulting from its activities are in its leverage effect, lending volume, the number of loans disbursed and the number of final beneficiaries served (see figures in Section 5.2.1). Given the timing of the mid-term evaluation, the evidence for assessing the impacts of Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship was scarce. However, at the end of 2015, the EIF had already signed 12 operations with financial intermediaries (11 for Microfinance and 1 for Social Entrepreneurship), indicating strong initial uptake compared with anticipated demand for the programme. Equally, at first glance the open public consultation and beneficiaries survey show positive feedback on the intended outcomes for both. Qualitative changes observed as a result of Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship implementation include: improved procedures and processes including risk management, reporting and monitoring; improved compliance with the ECoGC; a greater range of provision, with the creation of new financial products; improved portfolio quality by using clear criteria; and a growing interest in social enterprises. Across the EaSI programme, different factors besides the interventions themselves influence the degree of achievement observed — for example, grant duration, which is sometimes too short for developing and implementing innovative approaches and ensuring their sustainability. EURES beneficiaries expressed a need for more balanced consortia, combining countries that are experienced and those that are new to EURES projects, in order to ensure better implementation of their activities. Similarly, Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship beneficiaries pointed out that the financial intermediaries’ lack of experience with micro-entrepreneurs and vulnerable groups can affect the implementation of the guarantee. 5.3.Efficiency The evaluation questions on EaSI’s efficiency were grouped and analysed in one topic, i.e. efficiency of resource allocation and the benefits accruing (relative to inputs). This topic was analysed for PROGRESS and EURES only, as the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship activities had only just been introduced and benefits could not yet be identified (see the discussion of limitations related to timing of the mid-term evaluation in Section 4). 5.3.1.Efficiency of resource allocation and benefits accruing Table 2 presents financial information on EaSI’s performance in terms of planned and total commitments for each EaSI axis in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The accumulated commitments in 2014-2016 came to EUR 356 million, which represents 97 % of total planned commitments. Table 2: Planned and total commitments by axis in 2014, 2015 and 2016 Year/ Axe PROGRESS EURES Microfinnace/Social Entrepreneurship TOTAL 2014-2016 Planned (EUR) Executed (EUR) Planned (EUR) Executed (EUR) Planned (EUR) Executed (EUR) Planned (EUR) Executed (EUR) 2014 71.799.500 65.479.469 21.422.355 15.858.011 26.304.151 28.477.451 119.526.006 109.814.931 2015 72.710.574 69.580.317 23.090.525 23.094.474 26.459.001 31.436.141 122.260.100 124.110.932 2016 73.352.883 71.598.651 22.450.000 22.864.342 27.849.770 27.744.070 123.652.653 122.207.068 Total 217.862.957 206.658.437 66.962.890 61.816.827 80.612.922 87.657.662 365.438.759 356.132.931 Source: Data from monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 The accumulated commitments for PROGRESS in 2014-2016 came to EUR 206.658.435, which represents 95 % of planned commitments. PROGRESS produced a range of regular analytical outputs such as studies, databases, methodologies and classifications. There were also one-off outputs, such as the Classification of European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO), the Labour Market Policy Database, the Mutual Information System on Social Protection Database (MISSOC), a Flash Eurobarometer on working conditions, and studies on adequate social protection for long-term care needs in an ageing society and on coping strategies for unemployed persons. A large amount of funding was used to set up the European Network of Public Employment Services (PES) and to establish other key networks of independent experts such as the European Employment Policy Observatory, the European Social Policy Network and the European Labour Law Network. In the policy area of social protection and social inclusion, notable analytical activities supported were the tax/benefit model EUROMOD, the Social Situation Monitor, and the development and deployment of Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI). EaSI also supported the activity of the European Social Policy Network (ESPN) and the development of the European Platform against Poverty (EPAP). In the policy area of working conditions, the actions EaSI supported included the development of European Statistics on Occupational Diseases and the monographs programme of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, managed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). EaSI has also funded recurring information sharing and learning activities, such as thematic days and plenary meetings of the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC), occupational safety and health conferences, meetings of the Group of Directors-General for Industrial Relations, high-level meetings between the European Commission and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and annual legal seminars. EaSI-funded evidence also contributed directly to the establishment of the European Platform on Undeclared Work in 2016. In 2014-2016, PROGRESS also provided financial support for building up stakeholders’ capacity to design and implement social experimentation. Three calls for proposals for social policy experimentation were published in 2014-2016 and 20 projects were awarded funding. PROGRESS also helped up to 20 key EU-level NGO networks each year to increase their capacity to develop, promote and support the implementation of EU policies and law in the area of employment and social affairs. The networks included Caritas Europa, European Social Network, Eurocities, Eurochild, the European Anti-Poverty Network, ENSIE and Microfinance Network. PROGRESS also funded information sharing and mutual learning activities, such as networks of experts, peer reviews, learning exchanges, training, Council presidency conferences, seminars and high-level events, communication campaigns, good practice guides and informative material, and the development and maintenance of information systems.

Information and communication activities were funded in order to raise awareness of priority policy issues. Conferences and seminars focusing on growth and jobs promoted the debate on these issues among key decision makers and stakeholders at national, European and international level with a view to creating support for meeting EU objectives and priorities. Another important focus was dealing with issues such as anticipation of skills needs and analysis of skills supply and of labour market needs. PROGRESS analytical outputs were also instrumental in preparing country-specific recommendations and contributed to the implementation of the Employment Package, the Youth Employment Package and the Youth Guarantee. Much EaSI-funded evidence fed directly into key EU policy processes such as the European Semester, including texts such as the Annual Growth Survey, country-specific recommendations, employment guidelines and joint employment reports. The accumulated commitments for EURES in 2014-2016 amounted to EUR 61.817.827, which represents 92 % of the planned commitments. In 2014-2016, EURES funded actions to improve the transparency of labour market information through the exchange and dissemination of information on available vacancies and applications at transnational, interregional and cross-border level. A key tool in achieving this goal is the EURES job mobility portal, which attracts an average of 0.7 million visitors a month. By December 2016, around 250.000 jobseekers’ CVs were available on the portal. The breakdown of registered jobseekers remained largely unchanged in 2016, with most coming from Italy and Spain. The occupations most often selected were waiter/waitress, language teacher, hotel receptionist and administrative assistant. At the end of 2016, a total of 6.800 companies were searching for employees through the EURES portal. Around 50 % of all national vacancies are shared on the portal. While EURES activities have traditionally contributed to information and dissemination, they are increasingly also focusing on recruitment. EaSI supported services ranging from pre-recruitment preparation to post-placement assistance with a view to the jobseeker’s successful integration into the labour market. The main actions funded include supporting the EURES advisers’ network in providing information, counselling, placement and recruitment services for jobseekers and employers and developing targeted mobility schemes to fill job vacancies where labour market shortcomings have been identified. The EURES advisers’ network has a fairly steady number of personal contacts with jobseekers and employers each year (around 1 million per year). Total commitments for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship in 2014-2016 amounted to EUR 87.657.662., which represents 108 % of planned commitments. The financial instruments for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship were modelled on previous experience with Progress Microfinance programme, so guarantees and funding are provided to financial intermediaries to incentivise them to lend money to final beneficiaries. While 2014 was spent negotiating the new funding instruments with the European Investment Fund (EIF), by September 2016, 33 contracts had been signed with microfinance intermediaries for EUR 50.3 million, which resulted in 13.021 microloans for a total of EUR 152.288 million. A leverage factor of 3 times the initial funding was achieved. In addition to supporting the microcredit sector, in 2015-2016 EaSI also released the first funding for social enterprises and the first 7 contracts with financial intermediaries were signed, for EUR 9 million. The majority of funding went to enterprises operating in the area of wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (around 32 % of the overall funding). The highest amounts were disbursed to final beneficiaries in France (27.5 %), Spain (20.6 %) and the Netherlands (15.6 %). The enterprises supported by Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship employed 22.328 employees: 1.168 were employed in social enterprises, the others in microenterprises supported with microfinance. Among the people supported through Microfinance window, 19 % (1.121 in total) were unemployed or inactive before receiving the microloan. EaSI focused on supporting people who are disadvantaged in accessing the conventional credit market. These included women, unemployed people, those with no education, or only primary education, young people and older people. As concerns the management fees paid to EIB/EIF for manage the third axis financial instruments, they are based on the number of transactions as well as the performance according to specific indicators (e.g. microloan inclusion, the number of microloans, the number of countries covered, the number of non-bank microfinance institutions covered). The average fees and management costs per contract signed with financial intermediaries have decreased from EUR 210.069 in 2015 to EUR 138.751 in 2016. Also the average fees and management cost as a percentage of volume of all Final Recipient Transactions signed and reported have fallen sharply from 34% to 3%, suggesting higher efficiency from the Commission’s perspective. The evaluation shows that EaSI was efficient in its first implementation period. PROGRESS improved access to reliable data for policymakers at EU and national level (e.g. databases, comparative studies and tested social innovations) and EURES increased the transparency of job vacancies and offered support services for jobseekers/employers across participating countries. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship also improved access to finance, ensured better terms and conditions for obtaining loans, increased the visibility of financial intermediaries, and improved awareness of microfinance and social entrepreneurship markets. Analysis of the three axes reveals that while the budget allocation for PROGRESS and EURES remain sufficient, more flexible reallocation between the different strands should be enabled to cover the needs of Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, in particular. Also, given that the programme’s budget could not be increased, greater emphasis on themes where EaSI can make a difference and better thematic coherence in relation to different types of activities (e.g. social experimentation, EU-level NGO networking, cross-border cooperation, microfinance and social entrepreneurship) might be useful. It has also emerged that EaSI funds are difficult for small participating countries to tap into: they have less capacity and knowledge than other Member States that can build on their use of predecessor programmes and that have more resources to devote to EaSI participation. In addition, co-financing is becoming increasingly problematic for organisations, not only financially (in particular for small participating countries), but also because it is not always clear to applicants for calls for proposals, for instance, whether they are expected to contribute in labour costs or actual money. 5.4.Coherence The evaluation questions on the coherence of EaSI were grouped in two topics for analysis: coherence accruing from merging the three previous programmes and coherence with other EU and participating countries’ programmes. 5.4.1. Coherence accruing from merging the three previous programmes The aim of grouping the three axes under one umbrella programme was to create synergies and achieve the common objective of promoting employment, social inclusion and labour mobility. Through building on the past success of each axis, the ultimate goal of the new programme launched in 2014 was to achieve improved coordination between activities, greater policy coherence and more effective delivery and management. Data collected suggest that the three axes operate rather independently. Different sources (case studies and interviews) could not identify a clear impact and there was no consensus on these questions in the open public consultation or the beneficiaries survey. Stakeholders’ opinions on this issue were mixed. Some of them agreed that the merger had improved the coherence of the programme, while others did not see any synergies between the three strands. Other stakeholders saw the merger as a purely administrative exercise or even believed the programme should be divided into separate programmes again. Stakeholders may have had no strong feelings on this question because they did not notice significant changes in implementation after the merger. The evidence collected indicates that merging the three predecessor programmes has mainly administrative impacts, i.e. it rationalises the European Commission resources allocated to the programme’s coordination and implementation. The evaluation also points out that one of the effects of introducing minimum indicative shares for each axis was that budgets cannot be easily moved to an axis in more demand to ensure faster deployment of funds when needed. Nevertheless, the evaluation also found that the support provided under EaSI is more effective in some cases than in the predecessor programmes. For instance, the synergies created between PROGRESS and EURES have resulted in calls for proposals in areas of working conditions and employment, EU-level NGO network support and mutual learning activities. In the policy area of working conditions, EaSI and its predecessor PROGRESS funded national and transnational cooperation projects through two calls for proposals on posting of workers published in 2015 and 2016. Their aim was to enhance the implementation, application and enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers where services are provided across borders. In the policy area of employment, PROGRESS has funded awareness raising, dissemination and outreach activities on Youth Guarantee offers. Two calls for proposals on this action were launched in 2015 and 2016. Moreover, mutual learning among EURES actors and training of EURES advisers, including EURES cross-border partnership advisers, are financed under PROGRESS. PROGRESS also supports Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship by funding policy evidence activities, information sharing and mutual learning, and support for actors in the microfinance sector (e.g. the European Microfinance Network, European Venture Philanthropy Association and the Microfinance Centre, and EaSI Technical Assistance for microcredit providers). EaSI Technical Assistance in particular offers assistance to microcredit providers and business development tools for the wider microcredit sector.

EURES focuses on intra-EU labour mobility by providing information, guidance and recruitment/placement services for employers, jobseekers and citizens wishing to take advantage of freedom of movement for workers. This support covers all phases of placement, from pre-recruitment preparation to post-placement assistance. By financing these activities, EURES works towards EaSI’s goal of high quality, inclusive EU labour markets accessible to all. So — using different means — Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship and EURES both support employment in a coherent and complementary way. 5.4.2. Coherence with other EU and national programmes The evaluation also examined EaSI’s complementarity and synergies with other EU programmes. The data collected indicate that EaSI complements actions not only under the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), particularly the European Social Fund (ESF), but EU funds such as EURAXESS, Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, COSME and SOLVIT. For example, the first cycle of the ‘SHARE wave 6 Croatia’ project was financed by PROGRESS and its project team has already secured funding for the next cycle under the Horizon 2020 programme. Other projects complement EU-level initiatives by other DGs. For instance, the INNOVCare project builds on the project partners’ experience in expert groups on rare diseases organised by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. EURES supports cross-border connections, with a transnational framework, whereas the ESF supports purely national activities, under national rules, so the two complement each other. They do not overlap, because ESF actions focus on supporting individual workers at national level (by providing information and services, active labour market measures) while EaSI supports the functioning of the European job search network as a whole and transparency of labour markets in general. It does this through a common training programme for staff of EURES member organisations and by developing and maintaining the European job mobility portal. While other EU programmes such as Erasmus+ and EURAXESS encourage labour mobility, EaSI’s EURES axis is the only one with a focus purely on cross-border mobility. Moreover, EURES supports projects that have a particular added value at EU level. Projects on services for specific target groups, like workers in cross-border regions, fall into this category. But so do projects for particular target groups that can be reached throughout the EU under the same rules, so there is equal treatment and they have a specific logic (‘Your first EURES job’). In this way, specific EaSI-funded services complement the more general information, assistance and guidance that individual countries provide to workers interested in mobility. In this area, a good example of upscaling a project started under EaSI and making it ‘national’ was Spain’s decision to take on project activities first financed by ‘Your first EURES job’ and run them under a similar national programme co-funded by the ESF. While there are many programmes funding a variety of stakeholders and target groups, Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship is the only one that focuses solely on financially supporting microenterprises and social enterprises. COSME, for instance, promotes entrepreneurship and seeks to improve the business environment for SMEs; but COSME and EaSI differ both in terms of their target groups and in the type and size of the funds. So the two programmes can be seen as complementary and not overlapping. The InnovFin programme (EU Finance for Innovators) offers early-stage equity investment to microenterprises, SMEs and social enterprises and so complements EaSI Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship funding. InnovFin aims to support investment in enterprises of any size (from microenterprises and small businesses to large businesses); but its main feature is its focus on research and innovation investments across the entire value chain of research and innovation. To be eligible, businesses therefore need to operate in the sectors listed under Horizon 2020. Given this restriction, InnovFin and the EaSI Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis do not overlap, but complement each other. Nor were overlaps detected between Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship and ESF microcredit actions. For instance, the ESF Microcredit Fund in the Italian region of Campania — active between January 2014 and December 2016 — improved access to finance for young people, the unemployed, women, migrants and disadvantaged persons in a region of Italy hit hard by the economic and financial crisis. Despite its similarities with EaSI’s Microfinance window, the regional focus of the ESF Microcredit Fund makes it different and not overlapping with EaSI. By contrast, some overlap was detected with another EU regional fund providing financing to microenterprises and small enterprises, the European Fund for South East Europe (EFSE). Operating since 2007, this fund aims to provide financing to micro and small-scale enterprises, together with rural and housing loans, through qualified financial intermediaries in the South East European region. The fund partly overlaps with EaSI’s Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, as they both serve microenterprises by using the local financial sector to provide micro loans, and some of their target countries are the same. Nevertheless, as the main objective of EFSE is to provide ‘development finance’, the underlying aims of the two programmes differ, and they can be considered complementary. Finally, no overlaps between the objectives of EaSI and the objectives of national instruments/programmes were found. In particular, the open public consultation shows a significant consensus on the importance of maintaining each type of EU instrument even where minor overlaps are identified. The evidence gathered indicates that EaSI is more complementary with national funding instruments than regional funding. Examples from PROGRESS show that interventions involving local services require greater involvement by local and/or regional authorities, in contrast with country-wide delivery. The ‘posting of workers’ projects are clear examples of the importance of having regional and national authorities involved when dealing with transnational matters. For example, EURES’ coherence with national programmes could be jeopardised by the dependence that EURES funding can sometimes create for certain organisations. Indeed, they may become dependent on EU funding and eventually not use the relevant national funding. It is important that EaSI funding complements national funding and does not substitute for it. With regard to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, EaSI funding and national/regional policies are not always consistent. This is because EaSI’s goals and actions are not always aligned with specific national and regional policies. So efforts should be made to ensure that EaSI actions do not interfere with programmes already under way, and that the EU financial instruments are complementary. 5.5. EU added value The evaluation shows EaSI’s undeniable added value compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and local levels. EaSI is the one EU-level programme in the social field that is open to many participating countries and combines: the production of comparative analytical knowledge (e.g. studies, databases, methodologies); exchange of good practices and mutual learning activities; promotion and testing of social innovations; matching and placement thanks to the combined effect of the online platform matching capabilities (EURES job portal); the roll out of targeted placement services for young workers (‘Your first EURES job’); creation of cross-border partnerships; support for social enterprises; and the provision of loans to microenterprises. EaSI support also fulfilled a vital function by enabling EU-level NGO networking and capacity building for stakeholders across the programme’s participating countries. These findings tend to suggest that thanks to the EaSI programme, more relevant projects were supported than would have been possible through only national or other EU funding. The implications for employment, social affairs and inclusion — should the EaSI programme be discontinued — would be clearly negative. For instance, both employment opportunities and jobseekers’ intra-EU mobility would decrease, as would cooperation between the stakeholders, the availability of analytical knowledge across participating countries, access to finance and opportunities to test social innovations. Another added value of EaSI comes from its transnational dimension: there are few equivalents in the programme’s participating countries in terms of scale and scope. The evidence gathered shows that EURES is able to support broader cross-border projects than is possible at national level; no other programme combines building cooperation links across borders with delivering services and information to facilitate mobility. PROGRESS, too, contributes to building EU-level networks and produces comparative analyses not prioritised at other levels of government, such as multi-country databases, studies, statistics, social policy experimentations, capacity building and mutual learning activities. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship also appears to fill a clear gap in the supply of microfinance loans and support to social entrepreneurship in the programme’s participating countries. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence to suggest that it would be useful for organisations and individuals to learn more about the results of EaSI’s activities and evidence of EaSI’s impact. There is still room to improve communication on programme activities and dissemination of results, for instance by increasing the frequency and adapting the timing of information provision, providing more country-specific examples and examples of good practice, regularly updating the relevant websites, organising specific events, making information available in more languages and making content more accessible for the general public. The evaluation found that the information on EaSI’s outputs has improved in quantity and quality. In particular, some reports have been issued with systematic descriptions and analyses of project results and programme activities. Overall public knowledge and awareness of EaSI’s added value could also be boosted through more in-depth meta-analysis of projects, in particular the social experimentation projects carried out as part of PROGRESS, in order to highlight the main messages and to judge the conditions for transferring or upscaling them. 5.6.Governance

The evaluation explored the composition, roles and responsibilities of the levels involved in programme governance to establish whether these are clear and sufficient for effective coordination and coherence in relation to national programmes, and for a high level of transparency and accountability to the participating countries. The evidence gathered shows that DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion’s rules and communication channels ensure smooth internal coordination of the programme. So the analysis focused mainly on interaction between the European Commission and the national levels represented in the EaSI Committee. The evaluation points out that perceptions of EaSI differ across the programme’s participating countries. For instance, in the countries that are major beneficiaries of the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), there is a tendency to perceive EaSI as relatively minor and difficult to access. EaSI Committee membership reflects this mix of perspectives, which may boost the group dynamic but may also be a potential source of conflicting interests at times. The evidence — in particular from the focus group of EaSI Committee members — suggests that members’ views on appropriate policy choices and the allocation of resources between the three axes are not systematically canvassed to allow participating countries to state their priorities. It also appears that EaSI Committee members are not well equipped as points of contact and ‘coordinators’ of EaSI at national level. Committee members do not think they are informed in good time of the publication of calls for proposals and notification of the results. Consequently, they consider themselves unable to pass on information at national level at the right time and answer questions raised by potential applicants. These findings indicate that despite the efficient coordination of the programme, there is still room to improve EaSI’s governance. For instance, holding meetings more often and including policy messages from other EU committees, especially the SPC and EMCO committees, could help to optimise inputs from the EaSI Committee. Commission staff and EaSI Committee members could feed ‘information memos’ to the meetings, covering examples of projects funded and recommendations that could be fed into policy cycles, including the European Semester. Also, EaSI Committee members could be informed by email when a call for proposals or the results of an evaluation procedure are published on the Europa website. Inviting an occasional/ad hoc expert to EaSI Committee meetings could be also useful when discussing specific technical topics. EaSI Committee members could also be encouraged to identify a number of ‘agents of change’ at national level whose role would be to ‘mine’ the results of projects and to ensure that those most likely to directly benefit from the findings are informed though direct communications, meetings, seminars and access to dedicated websites. 6. Conclusions and lessons learned This section summarises the key findings and issues for consideration in the second half of the programme’s implementation and after 2020. The conclusions cover the evaluation’s six themes: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and programme governance. 6.1. Relevance The mid-term evaluation finds that all the activities undertaken in the first half of the programme are in line with the goals set in the EaSI Regulation. EaSI’s original rationale and its five general objectives are still highly relevant, particularly in the current challenging socioeconomic context of the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis, with a welcome but slow recovery. The programme’s objectives are also still pertinent in light of recent political events likely to impact the EU in the coming years. For instance, with a large influx of refugees and immigrants, the share of vulnerable people has significantly increased, making their successful integration one of the highest priorities across the EU in the next couple of years and an important challenge for society. Still, EaSI’s relevance and impacts could be improved. Analytical tools, dissemination events and innovative projects should focus more on gender issues, youth unemployment, inequalities (income, education, skills) and the fight against social exclusion, putting greater focus on transferability and the possibility of upscaling social innovations. PROGRESS and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship can play an important role in this process by prioritising social inclusion activities and access to finance for vulnerable groups. EURES should continue to fund projects targeted at groups with economic needs (as is the case with ‘Your first EURES job’ and cross-border partnerships). The topics of mutual learning activities — e.g. labour market integration measures for young people, asylum seekers, refugees and long-term unemployed people, future skills needs — closely followed priorities set in the Employment Guidelines and the country-specific recommendations as part of the European Semester cycle of economic coordination between countries. The European Semester was also supported by other EaSI-funded analytical activities, in particular the Employment and Social Development Report and the Labour Force Survey. In its analytical activities, the programme should prioritise the exchange of good practices between policymakers across the participating countries through mutual learning, awareness raising and dissemination activities. Similarly, disseminating good practices from different countries — including social experimentation — more widely at operational level creates awareness of innovative practices introduced across the Member States and helps national and local actors to deliver better services and products. So maintaining EU-level networks is crucial to aligning the different policy agendas across different levels of government and the participating countries. In practice, more flexible resource allocation across the three programme axes (instead of the current minimum indicative percentages set in the EaSI Regulation) would allow more scope for transferring budgets between them when needed. This could particularly help Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, where spending is demand-driven. Greater flexibility would also boost responsiveness to emerging needs (for instance new initiatives such as the European Solidarity Corps and ‘New start for social dialogue’). 6.2.Effectiveness Despite the limited data sets available, the evaluation presents evidence that EaSI was effective in reaching relevant stakeholders, producing desired outcomes and achieving its objectives. Hence, EaSI has greatly helped to increase awareness of EU policy on social inclusion and poverty reduction, improve perceptions of the cross-border potential for employment, rapidly test and implement innovative measures, and increase access to microfinance loans and support for entrepreneurship. EaSI also facilitated policy change through comparative research, exchanges and capacity-building, in this way helping different stakeholders to influence the formulation and implementation of socioeconomic policies in the programme’s participating countries. PROGRESS is most effective in facilitating information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue, and in developing and disseminating comparative and analytical knowledge. One of EURES’ more effective activities is contributing to the development of a transparent labour market. Evidence on Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship suggests that EaSI funding has increased the availability of and access to finance across the participating countries. In access to finance, promoted by Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, the evaluation shows that vulnerable groups were already an important focus. However, vulnerable groups do not represent the majority of final beneficiaries. They still encounter barriers to accessing finance. Based on the annual impact data (September 2016), on average 35 % of micro-borrowers are women, over 40 % are below 30 years old or above 50 years old, close to 20 % are unemployed persons (versus 62 % self-employed/entrepreneur) and 10 % have a migrant background (non-EU). More actions need to focus on vulnerable groups, and therefore explore the possibility of introducing minimum targets for them for the remainder of the EaSI programme. For instance, an additional amount of EUR 1 million was added in the EaSI work programme 2017 to help finance non-financial ‘business development services’ (e.g. coaching and training) for refugees and migrants. Policy-based incentives for the EIF could also be considered when designing future instruments to further promote outreach to vulnerable groups. The evaluation pinpointed a number of ways of improving effectiveness across the programme. PROGRESS, while continuing to cover policy themes relevant to and appreciated by stakeholders (e.g. employment, working conditions), should improve efforts to deliver social experimentation by better embedding it in the policymaking process. Very often, programmes in the field of social policy lack robust evidence of what works and what does not work. Social experiments may help to prevent expensive launches of untested programmes, measures or policies that fail; to provide inspiration for policymakers; and to develop comprehensive responses to particular social problems and related policy decisions, resulting in policies that would not be adopted otherwise. For EURES, a longer implementation period (2 years at a minimum) combined with measures to reduce the administrative burden of call management should be considered, to enable stakeholders to properly develop projects, implement them, measure their effectiveness and ensure their sustainability. For Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, a stronger focus on vulnerable groups for the second EaSI implementation period is suggested, e.g. by setting a target for the share/number of vulnerable groups in calls for proposals. 6.3.Efficiency The evaluation provides insights into the match between available means and the programme’s objectives. However, due to the type of activity and the influence of conditions outside the programme’s control, it proved difficult to conclude much about EaSI’s efficiency. While the financial means available were sufficient to implement PROGRESS and EURES activities, the budget for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship was too low. The efficiency of PROGRESS could be further improved by reducing the administrative burden in the projects’ award and implementation stages. Moreover, it is not always clear to applicants whether co-financing should be in labour costs or in actual cash value. This should be clarified. Regarding EURES, larger amounts were committed to the allocation for transparency of job vacancies than originally planned, in order to introduce new IT; however, the development of services remained relatively stable. The high uptake of the EaSI guarantee instrument under Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship put pressure on its budget and resulted in full utilisation of the Microfinance budget. In response to the strong demand, it is planned to use the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) guarantee to top-up the EaSI loan guarantee instrument in the second implementation period.

Overall, more flexible reallocation between the three axes should be enabled in order to minimise discrepancies between planned and actual commitments, and ensure optimal transfer of budgets between the three where needed. 6.4.C