EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 6.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1130  final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Impact Assessement 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the European Social Fund and repe aling Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 
{COM(2011) 607 final} 
{COM(2011) 608 final} 
{COM(2011) 609 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1131 final}  
 
 1Disclaimer 
This Impact Assessment report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its 
preparation and the text is prepared as a ba sis for comments and does not prejudge the final 
form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
 2Table of contents 
 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties .................................................... 1 
1.1. The instruments under discussion ................................................................................ 1 1.2. Organisation and timing of preparatory work.............................................................. 3 1.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 3 
1.3.1 The ESF.................................................................................................................. .3  
1.3.2. The EGF ................................................................................................................. .4  
1.3.3. The direct management instruments........................................................................ 4 
1.4. Main results of public consultation.............................................................................. 5 
1.4.1. Main results of the public consultation on the ESF................................................. 5 1.4.2. Main results of the public consultation on the EGF................................................ 6 1.4.3. Main results of the public consultation on the direct management instruments ..... 6 
2. Problem definition.......................................................................................................... .... 8 
2.1. Description of the problem .......................................................................................... 8 2.2. Lessons from ESF implementation ............................................................................ 10 
2.2.1 Effects.................................................................................................................. .. 10 
2.2.2. Practical implementation....................................................................................... 14 
2.3. Lessons from EGF implementation ........................................................................... 18 
2.3.1. Effects................................................................................................................. ... 18 
2.3.2. Practical implementation............................................................................................ 19 2.4. Lessons from the direct management instruments..................................................... 20 
2.4.1. PROGRESS........................................................................................................... 20 2.4.2. EURES .................................................................................................................. 2 2 
2.4.3. Progress Microfinance........................................................................................... 24 
2.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 25 2.6. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 26 
2.7. Does the EU have the right to ac t and is EU added-value evident ............................ 27 
2.7.1. The right to act for instrume nts under shared management .................................. 27 
2.7.2. The right to act for direct  management instruments.............................................. 27 
2.7.3. EU added value of the shared management instruments (ESF and EGF)............. 28 2.7.4. EU added value of the instruments in direct management.................................... 30 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. ....... 31 
3.1. General objective ....................................................................................................... 31  
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 31  
3.2.1. ESF ..................................................................................................................... ... 32 
3.2.2. EGF ..................................................................................................................... .. 32 
3.2.3. The instruments under direct management ........................................................... 32 
3.3. Operational objectives................................................................................................ 33 
3.3.1. ESF ..................................................................................................................... ... 33 
3.3.2. EGF ..................................................................................................................... .. 33 
3.3.3. The instruments under direct management ........................................................... 34 
4. Policy options.............................................................................................................. ..... 35 
4.1. The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 38 4.2. Simplification of ESF implementation ...................................................................... 41 4.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF..................................................................... 41 4.4. Links between the ESF and the di rect management instrument ................................ 42 
4.5. Options not analysed.................................................................................................. 43 
4.5.1. No-funding ............................................................................................................ 43  
 
 34.5.1. Focussing ESF operational programmes............................................................... 44 
5. Analysis of impacts ......................................................................................................... . 45 
5.1. The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 45 5.2. Simplification............................................................................................................ . 48 
5.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF..................................................................... 49 5.4. Links between the ESF and the di rect management instrument ................................ 51 
6. Comparing the options ..................................................................................................... 54  
6.1. The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 55 6.2. Simplification............................................................................................................ . 56 
6.3. The EGF................................................................................................................... .. 57 
6.4. Links between the ESF and the di rect management instrument ................................ 57 
7. Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................... 59 
7.1. ESF....................................................................................................................... ...... 59 
7.2. The EGF................................................................................................................... .. 61 
7.3. The integrated programme for employme nt, social policy and inclusion (Social 
Development Agenda) ............................................................................................... 61 
7.4. Tracking of climate-related expenditure .................................................................... 62 
 
 
Annexes 
 
ANNEX  1.  THE INSTRUMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION ..................................................................... i 
ANNEX  2.  CONSULTATIONS AND EXPERTISE ............................................................................ vi 
ANNEX  3.  GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................viii 
ANNEX  4.  RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS ....................................................................................xii 
ANNEX  5.  SUMMARY OF STUDIES COMMISSIONED IN SUPPORT OF THE INITIATIVE ............... xxiv 
ANNEX  6.  SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES ..........................................................xxxii 
ANNEX  7.  MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS OF THE ESF  SCOPE OPTIONS ....................xliii 
ANNEX  8.  PROPOSED COMPULSORY COMMON INDICATORS FOR ESF  CO-FINANCED ACTIONS
............................................................................................................................... ...............xlviii 
 
 
 1Impact Assessment 
 
1. Procedural issues and consul tation of interested parties 
This is the Impact Assessment of the financ ial instruments of the DG Employment, Social 
Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL ), notably the European Soci al Fund (ESF), the European 
Globalisation Fund, the PROGRE SS programme, EURES and th e PROGRESS micro-finance 
facility.  
The European Social Fund is one of three instruments supporting European Cohesion Policy 
together with the European Regional Deve lopment Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund 
(CF). In the context of simplification and harmonisation of rules, common implementation 
issues are to be covered by a General Regulat ion applicable to all three instruments and 
subject to a separate Impact Assessment. Th e issues covered are European added value, 
performance and delivery of the policy. In addition, two fund specific Impact Assessments 
cover issues specific to the E SF and to the ERDF/Cohesion Fund.  
The ESF issues covered in this Impact Assessmen t regard the scope of the instrument as well 
as one specific aspect of the delivery, name ly the mode of cost accounting. This Impact 
Assessment also discusses the articulation between the ESF and the other financial instruments available to the DG Employment, So cial Affairs and Inclus ion. More detailed ex-
ante evaluations will accomp any the Commission's proposal fo r a new integrated programme 
covering PROGRESS, EURES and the micro-finan ce facility, the Commi ssion' proposal for 
the EGF regulation and each ESF operational pr ogramme. These instruments will not be the 
subject of separate Impact Assessments. 
A number of other issues which are highly rele vant to these financial have are not been 
covered in this Impact Assessment as they deri ve from other legal acts such as the financial 
regulation. One example is the eligibility or not of non-recoverable VAT which falls outside 
the scope of the ESF regulation and of the General Regulation
1. 
1.1. The instruments under discussion 
Detailed information on five financial instru ments covered by this Impact Assessment is 
provided in Annex 1. The instruments are: 
• The European Social Fund  (Budget 76 billion € for th e programming period 2007-2013) 
The European Social Fund (ESF), establishe d by Article 162 of th e Treaty, invests in 
employment, education, social in clusion and institutional capacity  in the Member States. The 
ESF is part of cohesion policy (as are the ER DF and the CF).  Following the June Budget2 
package the future ESF should focus on four thematic objectives. According to these 
                                                 
1 The ESF financial system is based on the reimbursement of expenditure made by the beneficiary. Non 
recoverable VAT has thus up to now been considered an eligible expenditure given that it is a real expenditure 
for the beneficiary. At the level of the ESF, the amounts discussed are low: for example non recoverable VAT 
represents less than 1% of the amounts of completed operations under the Danish Programme and 2% under the Finnish mainland programme (data on operations of the first years of the programme). However, given the 
characteristics of the ESF final beneficiaries and the size of the operation, the non eligibility of VAT might make 
the involvement of some actors mostly NGOs and civ il society organisations impossible, disproportionally 
strongly affect operations in some areas notably social inclusion and fight against poverty.  
2 COM(2011)500 & SEC(2011)868 
 
 2proposals, the ESF should benefit from at l east 25% of the Cohesion Policy envelope, not 
counting the Connecting Europe Facility (e.g. € 84 billion). Three categories of regions are 
identified, less developed regions, more deve loped regions and a new category, transition 
regions situated in between the previous tw o in terms of GDP pe r capita. Cohesion policy 
resources will be concentrated as is curre ntly the case on the le ss developed regions. 
• The European Globalisation Fund (EGF)  (Budget maximum 500 million € per year) 
The EGF was established by Regulation (EC)  No 1927/2006 and is based on Article 175 of 
the TFEU. It was set up in order to demonstrat e solidarity at EU level and to provide one-off, 
time-limited tailor made support to large numbers  of workers made redundant within a short 
period of time as a result of major structur al changes in world trade patterns due to 
globalisation.  
• The European Progress Micro-Finance Facility   (Budget 100 million € for the period 
2010 to 2013 with an additional contribution of 100 million € by the EIB).  
The aims of the European Progress Microf inance Facility (Progress Microfinance)3, which 
was set up in 2010, are to make microfinance more  readily available to persons who wish to 
start up or develop micro-enterprises, including with a view to self-employment. A Decision 
of the Council and the Parliament establishing a new integrated programme, as announced in 
the Commission Communication ‘A budget for Europe 2020’4, would provide for the 
continuation and extension of the actions carried out under the Decision No 283/2010/EU 
while ensuring sound financial appropriations until 2020.      
• PROGRESS - The EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity  (Budget 683.25   
million € for the programming period 2007-2013) 
Working alongside the European Social Fund, the PROGRESS programme5 supports the 
development and coordination of EU employme nt and social policy. The programme helps 
the Commission to fulfil its task s both in the fields of (a) law- making, to ensure that evidence-
based legislation meets all the principles of  Smart Regulation; and (b) policy-coordination 
among the Member States, where the Commissi on acts as facilita tor and broker. The 
programme expires on the 31st December 2013. The Decision No 1672/2006 should therefore 
be replaced by a Decision establishing a new integrated programme.   
• EURES  (Budget 21.3 million € per year) 
Set up in 19936, EURES is a co-operation network be tween the European Commission and 
the Public Employment Services of the EEA Me mber States (The EU countries plus Norway, 
Iceland and Liechtenstein) and other partner or ganisations. Switzerland also takes part in 
EURES co-operation. The purpose of EURES is  to provide information, advice and 
recruitment/ placement (job-matching) services for the benefit of workers and employers as 
well as for any citizen wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of persons. 
A Decision establishing a new integrated programme would on the one hand provide sound 
                                                 
3 Decision No 283/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a 
European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. 
4 COM(2011) 500 of 29 June 2011. 
5 Decision No 1672/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a 
Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress . 
6 COM 2003/8/EC of 22 December 2002 based on regulation 1612 from 1968 codified 492/2011 from 5 April 
20011 
 
 3financial appropriations for the continuation of EURES horizontal act ivities under the MFF 
2014-2020 and, on the other hand, w ould create a legal basis for the "Your first EURES Job" 
scheme currently carried out as a 3-year preparatory action. 
1.2. Organisation and timing of preparatory work 
Work on the Impact Assessment of the legisl ative proposal for the ESF post 2013 began in 
April 2010 with the preparation of the roadmap followed in July 2010 with  the creation of the 
Impact Assessment Inter Service Steering Group (IA ISSG)7.  Work on the related Impact 
Assessments of the General Regulation and on the ERDF/CF regulation began in September 2010. The 5
th Cohesion Report and its accompanying pol icy conclusions as well as the Budget 
Review from October and November 2010 constitute  major general inputs to this work. Since 
its start the steering group met 5 times. The last meeting was on 20 July 2011. 
The IA-Board discussed a draft version of this document at its meeting of 31 August 2011 In 
line with the recommendations of the Board, the problem definition was revised to facilitate 
the understanding of achievements of the ESF in the past, ther eby also elaborating on the 
specificities of shared management, which allo ws on the one hand for solutions adapted to the 
specific situation of a region or Member Stat e, but on the other hand requires high standards 
of cooperation and partnership between the Co mmission and Managing Au thorities. This is 
particularly true in the area of focusing investments. The pr ovisions made on the European 
level allow and encourage such concentration, but shared management will – irrespective of the scope of the ESF – not be able to compel  concentration. Further clarification is also 
provided on the other instruments included in this Impact Assessment. This concerns the 
question to what extent the preferred EGF opti on will allow implementation to accelerate as 
well as more details on directly managed instruments and some more detail on the 
implementation of the direct management inst rument. Nevertheless, given the already high 
complexity of this document a more compre hensive discussion of the implementation 
arrangements of the new instrument in direct management is left to the ex-ante-evaluation.
8 
Given the broad scope of the Impact Assessment,  it was therefore not possible to stay within 
the usual page-limit of 30 pages.  
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
1.3.1 The ESF 
Relevant input for the ESF parts of this IA are: the B udget Review; the 5th Cohesion Report; 
the results of evaluations notably the ex-post evaluations of 2000-2006 programmes9; results 
of the public consultation which were summ ed up in the 5th Progress Report on Economic 
and Social Cohesion adopted by the Commi ssion in June 2008; re sults of the public 
consultation following the adoption of the 5th Cohesion Report in November 2010 and on a 
broad range of studies  and expert advice10.  
                                                 
7 The following services attended at least one meet ing of the ESF IA ISSG: AGRI, BEPA, BUDG, CLIMA, 
COMP, EAC, ECFIN, ENER, ENTR, ENV, HOME, INFSO, JUST, MARKT, REGIO, RTD, SANCO, SG and 
TRADE.  
8 REFERENCE TO Progress ex-ante-Evaluation…. 
9 Ex-post evaluation reports are available at http ://ec.europa.eu/social/main. jsp?catId=701&langId=en 
10 Annex 4 summarises the results of the main evaluations conducted and presents the main findings of studies 
commissioned specifically in support of this initiative.  Annex 6 refers to published studies and reports 
particularly relevant for this initiative. A report summar izing a conference on the future of the ESF is available 
 
 4In addition to the above, expert advice was also  gained from permanen t working contacts with 
Managing Authorities and with other stakehol ders (for instance th rough the monitoring 
committees of the ESF programmes or the ESF Technical Working Group) to gain knowledge 
of their day-to-day difficulties and concerns as  part of the implementation process.  Between 
December 2010 and February 2011 focus groups with  Member States experts met to discuss 
proportionality and simplification, financial engi neering, the involvement of local actors and 
the logic of intervention and common indicators.  
The ESF Committee itself issued opinions on the futu re of the ESF at its meetings of 3 June 
2010 and of 10 March 201111.The European Parliament adopted on 7 October 2010 
resolutions on the future of the Cohesion Policy12 and of the ESF13. The European 
Commission has also asked for exploratory opi nions of the Economic and Social Committee 
(ECOSOC – adopted on 15 March 201114) and the Committee of the Regions (COR- adopted 
on 30 March 201115).  Moreover both EMCO16 and SPC17 issued opinions.  
1.3.2. The EGF 
Two stakeholder conferences18 were organised to discuss the future of the EGF on 25 and 26 
January 2011 and 8 March 2011.  
A survey of Member States' experts and of Eu ropean social partner organisations conducted 
between August 2010 and February 2011 provided additional evidence. Member States' experts met in Porto on 29 and 30 Septem ber 2010 and in Brussels on 9 March 2011. 
The European Parliament adopted on 7 September 2010 a Resolution
19 on the functioning and 
the funding of the EGF. 
1.3.3. The direct management instruments 
In the context of the review of the cu rrent PROGRESS progr amme, the Commission 
organised a two-step consultation: 
1. A working group gathering the programme's  key stakeholders representatives;  
2. A public online consultation on a possible successor instrument to PROGRESS was 
carried out between 4 April and 27 May 201120.  
                                                                                                                                                         
at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/100907-conference-report-final_en.pdf . The results of the 
public consultation are accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfmN  
11 http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=445&langId=en 
12http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getD oc.do?type=TA&refe rence=P7-TA-2010-
0356&language=EN&ring=B7-2010-0539   
13http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc .do?pubRef=-//EP// TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-
0357+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN   
14http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments. aspx?pmi=ha5jDW%2bOWSEKS2CtbtA2nl2VJruX4mnz
BdsQyM7Dy60%3d  
15http://www.cor.europa.eu /pages/PressTemplate.aspx?view= detail&id=b0a92bb4-7fbd-4cea-aade-
1cf0a26429aa   
16 http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?catId=115&langId=en   
17 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/empl/dv/empl_spc_on_esf_/empl_spc_
on_esf_en.pdf 
 
18 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes  
19 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do? type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0236&language=EN 
 
 5Furthermore, given that PROGRESS is impl emented through a results-based management 
approach, the Commission regularly monitors th e progress achieved towards expected results 
against clearly defined pe rformance indicators.  
Regarding the Microfinance Facility, relevant  stakeholders were consulted, notably the 
European Microfinance Network (EMN), which re presents the European microfinance sector. 
Also the 2011 meetings of EURE S Working Party and Heads of Public Employment Services 
(PES) held specific discussions  on the future on EURES.  
1.4. Main results of public consultation 
1.4.1. Main results of the public  consultation on the ESF 
Several contributions on the public consultation following the 5th cohesion report refer 
explicitly to the ESF21. When expressing their views on the ESF, respondents generally 
highlighted the important contribution it makes in the current socio-economic circumstances 
and its direct link with the Eur ope 2020 objectives and wanted to maintain the current specific 
nature of the ESF in terms of its focus on empl oyability, training and so cial inclusion. At the 
same time, most argued that the European So cial Fund is an indispensable part of an 
integrated cohesion policy. Cont ributors largely welcomed gr eater coordination between the 
ESF and ERDF, although there were mixed views on a multi-fund approach and cross-
financing. Respondents were generally in favour of keeping the same budget heading for the 
ESF and ERDF, with financial allocations  being negotiated be tween the European 
Commission and Member States (as is currently the case). A small number called for separate 
budget headings for the ERDF and the ESF. 
Fourteen Member States  called for maintaining the same budget line for the ESF and ERDF 
at EU level and for continuing to decide on how it is allocated at national level. Furthermore, 
five called for greater coordination between the funds and for the possibilities of cross-
financing across operational programmes and of opting for multi-fund programmes. These 
respondents would generally prefer to have one multi-fund operational programme for their 
entire territory. 
Regional and local authorities  often called for maintaining the specific role of the ESF 
within cohesion policy. In part icular, they called for con tinued funding for education and 
professional training, social incl usion and, especially, the inclus ion of vulnerable groups. The 
contributors were generally in favour of be tter coordination between the funds, allowing 
cross-financing of projects , while still maintaining the current budget structure.  
Social partners, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders  mostly called 
for greater coordination betw een the two funds a nd asked to maintain the same budget 
heading for both. Many also shared similar view s with other categories of respondents on the 
specific role of the ESF and requested concen tration of the fund on both employment and 
social inclusion priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 objectives and the Integrated 
Guidelines. 
                                                                                                                                                         
20 The results of the public consultation (a summary report and individual responses) can be found at the 
following webpage:  http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=699&langId=en&consultId=6&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes
  
21 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfm   
 
 61.4.2. Main results of the public  consultation on the EGF 
Discussions22 on the EGF showed an overwhelming suppo rt for a rapid cris is intervention 
instrument in case of large scale redundancies. Nevertheless, the complexity of the procedure 
and the slowness of the current decision making process were severely criticised by all. 
Furthermore, the differences between the ESF and EGF were the subject of the discussions. 
Some participants highlighted that the de marcation between these two Funds is not 
sufficiently clear since both Funds co-finance si milar measures. As a consequence, possible 
integration of the EGF into the ESF was propos ed. Integrated funds could be implemented 
easier and faster as the ESF has well es tablished structures  and procedures.  
However, other stakeholders objected to the possible merger of the Funds: the EGF would 
lose its flexibility and added value as an emergency instrument as the ESF measures are pre-programmed and cannot be shifted to deal easily  with crisis situatio ns caused by collective 
redundancies.   
1.4.3. Main results of the public consul tation on the direct management 
instruments 
Feedback from both the PROGRESS Key St akeholder Working Group and the public 
consultation of PROGRESS reveal ed a high level of satisfaction with the programme. Key 
stakeholders, who include next to the Member  State representatives also social partner 
organisations and civil societ y organisations, suggested cont inuing the programme with few 
improvements relating to:  
- The dissemination of the PROGRESS outputs and results;  
- A better mainstreaming of gender equali ty and anti-discrimination objectives; 
- Further synergies with other EU financial instruments supporting the Inclusive Growth 
priority, in particular th e European Social Fund.  
None of 171 respondents to the public online co nsultation challenged the need for a successor 
instrument to PROGRESS. Respondents gave a number of reasons  for their support: 
- The financial crisis and its impact on so cial protection and e quality perspectives 
underscore the need for enhanced coordina tion of employment and social policies 
across Europe. The successor to PROGRESS should help to esta blish consensus on 
the right policy approach on social problem s through it support to the Open Method of 
Coordination.   
- An EU financial instrument is an indispensi ble tool to enable transnational initiatives 
involving stakeholders on all levels. Activities such as mu tual learning and collecting 
and comparing data from various Member St ates are seen to be vital to continue 
improving the formulation and implementation of policies at EU and national level. 
They are also seen as essential for im proving understanding and ownership of EU 
objectives.  
                                                
 
22http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&eventsId=323&furtherEvents=yes  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes  
 
 
 7- The future EU financial instrument shoul d have a clear focus on international 
cooperation and European level actions and thus bringing about stronger EU 
dimension and complementarity to the ESF.  
- Many respondents (in particul ar public authorities) emphasise the importance of 
monitoring the application of EU legislation in the Member States and stress that this 
objective should remain a key priority  for the successor programme.    
Several respondents call for an integrated a pproach to combat unemployment, social 
exclusion and poverty. In particular , 79% consider that it  is very relevant or relevant for the 
future instrument to support intra-EU mo bility as well as self-employment and 
entrepreneurship as means to job creation.  
A number of respondents praised activities under the current Progress programme that 
contributed to innovations in social policies an d confirmed that there was a need for social 
innovations to combat the negative impacts of th e financial crisis. They  confirmed that very 
often government programs in the field of so cial policy suffered from a lack of robust 
evidence of what does and does not work. They suggested that the future instrument should 
support social innovation through transnational projects. Yet, id entification and promotion of 
innovative approaches should be  accompanied by a sustainabl e implementation strategy. In 
this context, several respondents indicated that  where the successor in strument to PROGRESS 
could identify best practices, the implemen tation should be a matter for the ESF.   
Regarding the geographical cove rage, respondents from non-EU  countries suggested that 
greater synergy between the ne w programme and the ESF coul d limit the possibility to 
participate for EEA/EFTA countri es and candidate countries.  
Given that Progress Microfin ance has only become fully operational six months ago, no 
public consultation has been car ried out for this instrument . Nevertheless, stakeholder 
organisations like the European  Microfinance Network (EMN) have expressed their strong 
support for a continuation of fundi ng for microfinance after 2013.  
The stakeholders' survey within the independent  EURES evaluation in 2 009 revealed that the 
EURES Job Mobility Portal is appreciated by jobseekers, job changers and employers who 
clearly see the benefit in being able to access or post information on vacancies across Europe. 
The opportunity to upload CVs onto the Portal was considered the most useful service on the Job Mobility Portal. The EURES adviser network adds value to the se rvices provided on the 
Job Mobility Portal. These two mechanisms co mplement and reinforce each other. Evidence 
from the jobseekers and job changers survey indi cated that those jobseekers and job changers 
who applied for jobs and who received support from a EURES adviser were slightly more 
likely to get a job than those w ho simply used the Job Mobility Po rtal. It was indicated as well 
that EURES plays a role in indi viduals’ job search activities;  hence can be considered as 
having a role in minimising the costs of  transitions between and into jobs.  
The adequacy and appropriateness  of the data provided on th e Job Mobility Portal were 
however found questionable. While the views from  managers and advisers vary and tended to 
be negative; employers, jobseekers and job chan gers were generally more positive about the 
available information.  
 
 82. Problem definition 
2.1. Description of the problem 
Europe's societies are confronted with multip le challenges stemming from increased global 
competition, the fast pace of technological progress, demographic trends, and climate 
change23. These challenges have been compounded by the recent economic and financial 
crisis, which has hit all Member States an d regions in the EU, leading to record 
unemployment levels in some Member States , especially among the most vulnerable groups 
and the young.  
Despite significant structural support to help the working po pulation to adapt to a changing 
economic context, it is often not possible to a void sudden shocks caused to the local, regional 
or national economy by the unforeseen closure of enterprises. Many  Member States and 
regions face difficulties completing the transition to more competitive activities and there are still considerable disparities, in  employment and social inclusi on, levels of health and in the 
availability of and access to education.  
Hence the need for the EU and its Member St ates and regions to e quip themselves with 
policies to keep pace with th ese trends, to promote econo mic development and social 
cohesion, to help people adapt to  changing circumstances, and to  provide them the tools to 
harness the opportunities provided by European in tegration. It also pushes for a reassessment 
and eventual modernisation of the instruments already in place.  
Health inequalities persist not only between th e EU Member States, but also within EU 
Member States across di fferent population groups
24. This is particularly important in the 
context of the ageing population. Poor health entails high economic costs and needs to be addressed to ensure longer working lives, hi gher productivity, employme nt and sustainability 
of social protection systems.  
As industry takes advantage of the economic opportunities provided by the transition to a low 
carbon economy and the growing importance of th e knowledge economy, the need to ensure a 
skilled work force, especially in the construc tion sectors, technical professions, engineering 
and research, becomes more pressing. Furthermor e the need for structural adjustment of 
carbon intensive industries creates demand for re qualification and adapti on of existing skill 
sets and working methods.   
Moreover, it is also important to retain as many highly skilled workers as possible, and to 
attract the right skills for the expected incr ease in labour demands. In this context, the 
attractiveness of the research profession in Eur ope must be increased in order to provide a 
workforce qualified to cope with the gr and challenges facing our societies.  
European financial support can help to coordinate efforts an d to develop and introduce active 
labour market policies, effective lifelong lear ning, instruments to promote labour mobility, 
and adequate social security systems. Action at European level is required, all the more so, as 
a lack of economic, territorial and social  cohesion would hinder the Union's further 
development and undermine its legitimacy  in the eyes of its citizens.  
The crisis also highlighted cl ose links and spill-ove r between EU-27 economi es, especially in 
the euro area, which means reforms or the lack of them, in one country, affect the 
                                                
 
23 COM(2010)2020 
24 Commission Communication 'Solidarity in health: reduci ng health inequalities in the EU', COM(2009) 567/4 
 
 9performance of the others.  Common action taken by the EU as a response to the crisis, 
particularly through the adoption of the Euro pean Economic Recovery  Plan and common 
action to stabilise the banking system, proved to be effective, which means that coordinated actions at the EU level are more effective in addressing common cha llenges than individual 
actions of single Member States. To be cost-eff ective, reforms also need to be as far as 
possible based on evidence. In this context, so cial experimentation, as part of an innovation 
approach, can be a powerful tool to guide the reforms and policy adaptations needed to 
implement Europe 2020. 
However, the development and dissemination of social innovation approach on a larger scale 
in the European Union is hampered by: 
- insufficient knowledge of the needs of the sector: grass roots or ganisations, social 
enterprise and social entrepreneurship ac tivities, public sector organisations;  
- fragmentation of efforts and resources, lack of transparency and visibility, limited 
financial support and insufficient technical skil ls that can support orga nisations to develop 
and deliver social innovations; 
- poor diffusion, and little scale-up of good practices; 
- poor methods of impact evaluation of actions and policies
25.  
A lack of adequate evidence also complicates policy co-ordination at EU level despite the 
presence and acknowledgement of common goal s. Importantly, ensuring such adequacy 
requires not only generation of new information (such as comparable statistics, sufficient 
analytical knowledge), but al so effective sharing of exis ting one (such as available good 
practices) through mutual learning  processes such as periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer 
review. To fully use such evidence stakeholde rs should reach a common understanding of the 
meaning of essential elements of the status quo. This is a prerequisite for the elaboration of 
consensual policy solutions. Th erefore good policy making require s an active involvement of 
all relevant stakeholders th roughout the policy process.  
In order to ensure equal protection of European  citizens in the workplace, particularly in 
sectors considered to be  at risk and for categor ies of workers who are most vulnerable (young 
people, workers on fixed-term contracts, low-skilled workers, migrants, etc.), the 
implementation of EU legislation  has to be strengthened. The Commission, as the guardian of 
the Treaties, has to ensure that the EU direct ives are transposed and implemented correctly, 
and assist Member States in doing this. Such problems arise primarily as a result of national 
administrations hesitating to inve st themselves in the EU’s d ecisions, which imply changes in 
specific approaches such as guaranteeing admi nistrative capacity, screening domestic rules 
and procedures, a systematic discussion be tween relevant authorities across the EU, ex-post  
evaluations, the identification and spread of best practices, as well as extens ion of training 
programmes for judges and public administrations . To address these challenges, a cultural 
change is required, which includes a shift from  increasing new EU law to an emphasis on 
effective application26. 
The preparations for the next MFF provide an opportunity to fully alig n the current set of 
instruments to the Europe 2020 objectives in order to deliver on specific priorities and 
initiatives, ensure complementarity and synerg ies, and simplify and mainstream activities in 
                                                 
25 See BEPA, 'Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union', 2010; OECD, 
'Fostering innovation to address social challenges', 2011.  
26 European Economic and Social Committee. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on 
How to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation , 28 September 2005. 
 
 10order to maximise the impact of the funding. This  includes also the que stion of how best to 
coordinate the financial instruments at th e disposal of the European Commission.   
2.2. Lessons from ESF implementation 
2.2.1 Effects 
The policy objectives for the ESF are defined in the Treaty (article 162) and in the fund 
regulations. They are however se t in broad political terms such  as supporting European policy 
objectives of economic and social cohesion and the European Employment Strategy (EES).  
Moreover, the ex post evaluations of th e 2000-2006 programming period have shown some 
weaknesses in the ESF monitoring and evaluati on systems and also th at at the level of 
Operational Programmes objectives and targets ar e not always easily identifiable. These result 
in difficulties to aggregate information at EU level and to assess longer term effects of ESF 
interventions on the individual pa rticipants and on Member States' economies and systems at 
large. It is only with the 2007-2013 program ming period that a minimum set of common 
output indicators related to participants  characteristics have  been introduced.  
Preliminary results for 2010 show that the ESF has reached over 15 million participants. Over 
a quarter are young people less than 25 years in age27. However, data quality remains uneven, 
data collection methods vary greatly among MS, and no information is provided about 
intensity of support to individuals.  
These factors and the sheer diversity of ESF programming in the Member States and regions 
as well as the context sensitivity of social  policy make it difficu lt to provide general 
statements. Yet evaluations and academic res earch do offer some insights on outcomes and 
effects of ESF.  
The ESF contributes to social and territori al cohesion by drivi ng innovation in labour 
activation, education and social po licies in the Member States.  
The ESF is an essential instrument to implem ent and disseminate concepts and reforms linked 
to the EES28. ESF interventions in systems and st ructures considerably supported the 
European Employment Strategy goals and faci litated policy convergence at European level29. 
Focusing on European policy objectives means that  even in richer Member States or regions, 
a relatively small amount of ESF funding can trigger significant cha nges in the areas of 
employment policy30, education and lifelong learning31. Also horizontal aspects such as the 
systematic attention paid to innovation, networking, transnational ity, sustainability and equal 
                                                 
27 Source: SFC 2007. See also: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main .jsp?catId=66&langId=en   
28 Reports of the ESF ex-post evaluation (2011) and of the Evaluation of the ESF contribution to the European 
Employment Strategy (2010) 
29 Report of the ex-post evaluation of the "Impact on the functioning of the labour market and on the investment 
in human capital infrastructure through support to systems and structures". 
30 Verschraegen, G.;  B. Vanhercke and R. Verpoorten, 2010. The European Social Fund and domestic activation 
policies: Europeanization mechanisms. Journal of European Social Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–18. 
31 See for instance: Evaluation of measur es for education and training under the ESF, February 2008.  Brine, J., 
2002. Further education participation, European Expans ion and European Erasure. British Education Research 
Journal, Vol. 28, No 1. Brine, J., 2004. The Europe an Social fund: the Commissi on, the Member State and 
levels of governance. European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 3, No 4. 
 
 11opportunities32
 have had strong positive impacts in the Member States. Likewise, ESF has 
provided incentives for enterprises to  engage in training of the employed33. In addition, many 
Member States have successfully used ESF in relation to achieving their climate objectives or 
implementing their low-carbon strategies34. 
ESF has also provided support for institutiona l and administrative ca pacity building beyond 
the specific policy fields of employment, education and social  inclusion. A study of capacity 
building interventions concluded that there were  considerable achievements at the level of 
outputs and results. However, there is also evid ence to suggest a certain lack of impetus in 
administrative capacity building in some Member  States which continues to impede their 
effective absorption and implementation of ESF assistance35. 
Nevertheless, referring to the ex-post evalua tion of the 2000-2006 ESF support to the Open 
Method of Coordination in so cial protection and social in clusion the SPC called on the 
Commission to make the ESF an instrument bett er fitted to support soci al protection, health 
and long-term care strands.   
 The ESF contributes to social and territorial cohesion by helping poorer  regions to catch up 
ESF is also a cohesion instrument which channe ls most of the money to the disadvantaged 
parts of the EU and to the most disadvantag ed people. It reduces the negative impact of 
income disparities on the capacity of the individu al countries and regions to invest in human 
capital, which is in turn an essential condi tion for a sustainable catching up process (see 
Figure 1).  
During the period 2000-2006 one third of all persons having benefitted from Active Labour 
Market Policy (ALMP) meas ures in the Member States were supported by the ESF36. Figure 1 
shows the volume of ALMP (2008) and ESF average annual allocations for the ongoing 
period.  
The ESF has been a major source of support fo r active labour market policies in the new 
Member States during the crisis37. It has been the instrument to introduce or strengthen active 
labour market policies in those states that we re facing budgetary restrictions and supported the 
labour market merely with pass ive labour market policies (su pporting household incomes), as 
it has been the case f.i. in SK. 
                                                 
32 Begleitung und Bewertung des ESF, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens, Bewertungsbericht 2009, Zweiter Teil, verabschiedet durch den Begleitausschuss im August 2010. and Ecotec, Cross-cutting themes resear ch project, final report, April 2006. 
33 Wagner, G., 2009. Begleitende Evaluierung für den Europäischen Sozialfonds im Freistaat Sachsen 2007-2013 
– Evaluierung der Prioritätsachse A, ISW Halle/S., Sept. 2009. and  Measure 2.3 scheme a) of the Polish Human Resource Development Single Operational Programme 2004 – 2006. and Kasemets, L., K. & K. Klaas, 
2008.  Evaluation of the results of labour market projects funded by the ESF directed to workers declared 
redundant and their applicability in labour market policies, Tallinn 2008. 
34 European Commission "The European Social Fund: sustainable development and eco-technologies", 2010. 
35 Ecorys. Assessment of administrative and institutional capacity building interventions and future needs in the 
context of European Social Fu nd. Final report. December 2010. 
36 Ex-post evaluation of the 2000-2006 ESF programmes. 
37 Draft interim report of the "Evaluation of the reactio n of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis". 
 
 12Figure 1. ALMP and ESF allocation in % of GDP 
 
  
 
The ESF contributes to social and territorial cohesion by investing into human capital  
An extensive review of literature and the a ssistance of a panel of international experts38 
concluded that the training of employed people is socially rewa rding but often not profitable 
at the level of the firm. Als o, the training of unemployed peopl e is socially profitable, in 
particular for those less likely to find a job themselves, and under the condition that it is 
associated with job-search assistance. However,  training needs to be seen as a medium to 
long-term investment. Positive impacts like s horter unemployment spel ls and higher income 
often become visible only severa l years after the actua l intervention. Impact in the short term 
is often negative because peopl e stop seeking jobs when they participate in a training 
programme (lock-in effect). However, the study also concluded there were still considerable 
knowledge gaps such as the impact of training  on workers ‘at-risk’ of  unemployment, or the 
fact that a trainee may find a job at the expense of someone else (substitu tion effect). Also the 
impact of contextual factors, which might lead  to e.g. gender specific ef fectiveness of training 
is not yet understood. 
Several studies also point to potentially signif icant returns to investments in education and 
lifelong learning, in terms of both earnings and social inclusion39. There is a positive and 
statistically significant relationship between th e level of cognitive skills in a population and 
                                                 
38 Study on the return on ESF investment in Human capital by Eureval/Ecorys/Rambøll Management for DG 
EMPL and completed in (August 2010).   
39 Blanden, J., F. Buscha, P. Sturgis and P. Urwin, 2010. Measuring the Returns to Lifelong Learning. CEE 
discussion papers, CEEDP0110. Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics and 
Political Science, London, UK. 
 
 13economic growth. Achieving the official EU be nchmark of less than 15  % low-achievers in 
basic skills by 2020 would amount to a gain of € 21 trillion40.   
Though most existing studies do not distinguish between  ESF and non-ESF supported 
measures, there is evidence that the firs t perform at least as well as the latter41.  
The ESF contributes to soci al cohesion by supporting th ose otherwise forgotten  
Following the observation that Member States tend to neglect the specific problems of 
migrants and minorities, the ESF has strengthe ned the attention paid to the social and 
economic inclusion of these groups42. Several evaluations confir m that these groups would 
otherwise not or insufficiently ha ve benefitted from support programmes43. 
Income support measures are currently only fi nanced if accompanying activation measures. 
However, a number of stakehol ders have been pleading for wi dening the scope of the ESF to 
include income protection instruments44. Others, notably Trade Unions, have been arguing 
against on the ground that the ESF is fo remost an employment instrument. 
Yet considerable differences remain be tween Member States and regions.  
The table below gives the averag e values of the Europe 2020 head line targets directly relevant 
for the ESF, and their spread calculated as the difference between the maximum and 
minimum value per Member State.  Three of the four indicato rs denote a positive evolution 
(less school drop-outs, more persons with tert iary education, and fewer people at risk of 
poverty or exclusion). Also the di fferences between Member States  have reduced in all cases. 
Yet they remain considerable (see Table 1).  
Table 1. Disparities between Member States 
 
                                                 
40 Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2010) The Cost of Low Educational Achievement in the European 
Union. Analytical Report for the European Commission prepared by the European Expert Network on 
Economics of Education (EENEE) 
41 Deeke, A., C. Ohlert, 2009. Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen  während Kurzarbeit nach endgültigem Arbeitsausfall 
– Analysen zur Förderung im Rahmen des ESF-BA-Programms 2000 bis 2006 und zum Verbleib nach der 
Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009.  
42 Report on the Evaluation of "ESF Support for Enhancing Access to the Labour Market and the Social 
Inclusion of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities". 
43 Report on the Evaluation of "ESF Support for Enhancing Access to the Labour Market and the Social 
Inclusion of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities" but also   Ad-hoc-Evaluierung der Aktion A.5 – Förderung des Unternehmergeistes – im Rahmen des ESF-
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME Hamburg 2007-2013   
Deeke, Axel, 2010. Arbeitsmarktpolitik mit dem Europäis chen Sozialfonds – Analysen zur Umsetzung und zu 
den Wirkungen der Ergänzung des SGB III aus Mitteln des ESF – Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ESF-
BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010  
 Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report No 376 (Cubie, A./O. Baker), European Social Fund Objective 3, The 2005 Benefici ary Survey for England, 2006 
44 See for instance an Italian discussion paper for the Em ployment, Social Policy, H ealth and Consumer Affairs 
Council (dated 1/3/2010) 
 
 142007 Latest Europe 2020 Headline target indicators45 Average Spread Average Spread Target 
Employment rate of 20 - 64 year olds 70.0% 21.6% 68.6% 18.8% 75% 
School drop-out rates 15.1% 34.2% 14.1% 32.2% < 10% 
Proportion of 30-34 year old having completed tertiary 
education 30.0% 34.0% 33.6% 31.8% >40% 
Number of persons at risk of poverty or exclusion 24.5% 46.8% 23.1% 32.2% - 20 
million 
 
Despite methodological limitations deriving from  monitoring, evaluating and reporting on a 
wide and complex set of actions embedded in a very diverse local context, the overall effects 
of the ESF are found to be satisfactory. The E SF is on the one hand confirmed to support the 
European level strategies (the so cial aspects of the Lisbon strategy) and at the same time to be 
an important instrument of employment, educ ation and social inclusion policies in the 
Member States and regions. The ESF has been  quite successful at striking this balance 
between local and European level requirement s. Nevertheless, some fine-tuning may be 
necessary to reflect a bigger emphasis given at Eu ropean level to social inclusion and the fight 
against poverty.  
2.2.2. Practical implementation 
Payments to Managing Author ities are lagging behind… 
Figure 2 below compares the rate of payments46 from the Commission to the Managing 
Authorities for the current programming period (s olid line) with the previous one (dotted 
line). It shows that the 2007-2013 pr ogrammes started comparatively slowly. It is only in the 
n3rd year (2009) that payments to Member States really started to pick up. By the end of June 
2011, 27% of the budgeted amounts for the ESF have actually been paid out to the MS.  This 
is less than in the previous programming period.    
Based47 on the national implementation data provided  by the Managing Aut horities, the risk 
of automatic de-commitment by the end of  2011 was estimated at € 524 million. The 
concerned countries are IT, BE, GR, DK, NL and LU.  Moreover,  26 OPs have been put into 
reserve and thirteen OPs are interrupted or suspended. Consequently € 808 million of interim payments remain blocked. The potential amount of  the interim payments blocked due to the 
reservations, interruptions and su spensions is currently estimated at € 2.4 billion though this is 
7 % less as compared to the end of the first quarter of 2011. 
… yet implementation is st ronger than payments to Managi ng Authorities suggest 
Payments to Managing Authorities are not the only indicator of actual implementation. 
Commitments and payments from Managing Au thorities to final be neficiaries are other 
equally important indicators. By the middle of  2011 a number of Member States estimated 
having already committed the whole or nearly th e whole of their ESF allocations (Ireland, 
Latvia and Netherlands).  
Figure 2 shows how much Managing Authoritie s have committed to beneficiaries and how 
much they actually paid out. However these figures are provided by the Member Sates on a 
                                                
 
45 Source: Eurostat. Latest values refer to 2010 except for the persons at risk of poverty or exclusion which refers 
to 2009. 
46 The data are taken from SFC (for the 2000-2006 programmes) and SFC2007 (for the 2007-2013 programmes). 
47 Estimates from the end of June 2011. 
 
 15voluntary basis starting with the first quarter of 2009, and need to  be interpreted with caution. 
Nevertheless two points are evident. Implemen tation really took off only in 2009 and there are 
considerable time lags between committing money to projects, paying the beneficiaries and 
being refunded by the Commission. 
Figure 2. Rate of budget implementation 
0%25%50%75%100%
02468 1 0 1 2
Year of implementationProportion of total allocation (in %)Paid to MS 2007-2013
Paid to MS 2000-2006
Committed by MA to beneficiaries
Paid by MA to beneficiaries
 
There are several reasons for this situati on. Commitments by Mana ging authorities to 
beneficiaries will not all translate later on in  actual payment by the Commission to Managing 
Authorities. There are several steps, each impl ying a time lag to comply  with and each step, 
potentially reducing the volum e of payment: not all commit ments result in actually 
implemented projects; other pr ojects may suffer considerable delays, some payment requests 
are late, rejected or suspended. Other reasons are: th e overlap with and th e extension of the 
previous programming period, the late approva l of some Operational Programmes and the 
financial crisis. However, delays are due also to deficits in administrative capacity in 
particular for those managing the ESF for the first time and difficulties with the compliance 
assessment.  
Summing up, there are some th ings which could be done to speed up payments to member 
states. This concerns speeding up the various steps, so that the time lags become smaller. In 
particular in the new Member States increasin g experience with ESF will thereby be very 
helpful, but also the simplification efforts discussed later will help. There are some other aspects, like the number of steps as such, whic h can for audit reasons not significantly be 
reduced and finally there are issues – such as the slow start of implementation – which 
actually do not require sp ecific regulatory action. 
Conformity with audit rules has improved compared with previous programming period 
The error rate is a measure of the errors  representing deviatio n from the regulatory 
requirements designed to promote sound financia l management. An error does not necessarily 
denote fraud. In many cases, the e rror rate is rather an indicat ion of the complexity of the 
 
 16system to account for the expenditures in curred. For instance, the ESF management 
department of the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has reported that 73% of 
invoices attached to payment claims concerned i ndirect costs. As a result 73 % of the effort 
and human resources were spent on verifications and controls of invoices  representing only 22 
% of the financial allocation and without a clea r link to the outputs a nd results of operations. 
In this context it is also important to stress that most ESF operations are small. Half the ESF 
operations have a budget of less than 50 000 € and more than 70% of ESF projects are below 
100 000 €48. Also the final beneficiaries include ma ny NGOs particularly for operations for 
social inclusion and the fight against poverty. 
Comparing the previous and the current pr ogramming period shows a shift towards lower 
error rates. This is reflected in the me dian error rate which was 2.1 for the 2000-2006 
programming period while it curre ntly stands at 1.7. This means that half the Operational 
Programmes have an error well below the 2% threshold set by the ECA. Nevertheless, the 
average error rate is at 2.5 – 3 %49 still above the threshold. Ther e is therefore a need for a 
continued further reduction which is expected to be achieved through further simplification 
and increased experience in managing authorities. 
Simplified cost calculation methods are gai ning wide acceptance by Managing Authorities 
The current programming period offers three me thods to simplify costs accounting for grants: 
the use of flat rates for the declaration of indir ect costs, the use of sta ndard scale of unit costs 
and of lump sums. Flat rates were available as from the start of th e programming period. The 
use of standard scales of unit cots and of lump sums was in troduced in 2008 under the crisis 
recovery plan.   
As of June 2011, schemes for flat rates for indirect costs have been approved for 37 
Operational Programmes in 16 Member States . Proposals for a further 22 Operational 
Programmes in 8 more members States are be ing reviewed by the Commission, two of these 
are about to be finalised.  
Standard scales of unit costs and of lump sums are expected to facilitate the move towards a 
performance based system. Their introductio n is not submitted to examination by the 
Commission. They are clearly being increasingly taken up, for instance in Spain, Czech Republic, France, Italy and Latvia. In the UK  – England and Belgium-Flanders, standard 
scales of unit costs and lump sums now account  for a significant share of total costs.  
Experience with public tendering instead of calls  for proposals (for instance in Greece and in 
the UK) and with simplified cost options show s that it is possible to simplify for the 
beneficiaries and dramatically reduce error rates.  The question is then why these systems have 
not been adopted even more widely. According to stakeholders these systems have not been 
adopted even more widely for essentially three reasons: 
1. Some Managing Authorities worry about the le gal certainty these systems offer. Could 
the bases on which different rates or lu mp-sums were calculated not be questioned 
triggering thereby large corrections? 
2. While these systems are believed to lead to reduced overall workloads, there is also a 
shifting of workloads. Final beneficiaries profit directly of a simplified system to 
claim and justify expenses. Managing Authorit ies must invest more resources to put 
                                                
 
48 Source DG EMPL: sample of 176 operations selected for the audit plan 2011 
49 AAR 2010 
 
 17the systems into place before projects are se lected and implemented than for the more 
"traditional" payment against expenditure. Th is increased investment ex-ante should 
be off-set by a reduced workload at the stage of control a nd verifications of 
expenditure after project implementation.  However, the actual balance can not be 
checked. 
3. There is a natural reluctance to move from a familiar system to an untested one. Some 
Managing Authorities are inclined to wait for more experiences before adopting the 
systems themselves.  
There is therefore a continued need to prom ote these simplified costs systems and push for 
further simplifications. 
High consistency between programming and actual  implementation, c oncentration on very 
few priority themes and str ong link to Lisbon Strategy 
Comparing the amounts allocated indicatively to priority themes50 at the stage of 
programming with those effectively spent, give an indication of the concentration of the ESF 
Operational Programmes and thei r consistency over time.  
Overall there are 86 priority themes, which cover all expenditure under the Structural Funds.    
Twenty seven out of these 86 priority them es are currently used by the 2007-2013 ESF 
Operational Programmes. Fifteen  are "typical ESF priority themes", two more refer to 
technical assistance.  Most of th e 27 priority themes 'used' unde r the ESF are directly linked to 
the Lisbon Strategy51. They account for 93% of the indicative allocations set in the 
operational programmes and 94% of actual spending in 2009.  
The ESF is strongly concentrated on a limited number of priority th emes. Six priority 
themes52 account for more than 75% of all allocati ons and actual spending (2009 data) in 20 
Member States and in more than half of the Operational Programmes (68 out of 115, 2009 
data).  On average only 5 priority  themes are needed to  account for at least three quarters of 
spending of an Operational Programme, and the maximum is seven (see Table 2). No 
significant differences were found between Co nvergence and Regional Competitiveness and 
Employment regions.  
Table 2.  Number of priority themes needed to account for a given concentration of ESF 
expenditure at the level of an Operati onal Programme (Source: SFC2007 for 2009) 
 min max Average 
25% 1 2 2 
50% 1 4 3 
75% 1 7 5 
90% 1 11 9 
                                                 
50 Priority themes are set in the General Regulation an d in the Implementing Regulation. They are used to 
characterise the expenditures in terms of their objectives or type of intervention. These data refer to the 
operational programmes as a whole.  
51 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 – Annex IV 
52 They are: 66 – Implementing active and preventive measures on  the labour market; 73 – Measures to increase 
participation in education and training […], 71 – Pathways  to integration and re-entry into employment [..], 62 – 
Development of life-long learning systems and strategi es in firms […], 72 – Design, introduction and 
implementation of reforms in education and training systems […], and 74 – Developing human potential in the 
field of research and innovation […] 
 
 18It is not possible to assess whether this obser ved concentration is optimal or not. Firstly 
priority axes form the basis of reporting on physical achievement, not the priority themes 
which run across the whole programmes. It is  therefore not possibl e to directly link 
achievements with the level of concentration of funding on some  priority themes or not. 
Secondly, the ESF is not the only source of f unding in the policy domains covered. National 
and regional funds (not only the co-funding) may be much more important in volume. 
National and regional aut horities could decide to allocate EU funds to one or several policy 
areas without that any changes to the overall leve l of resources available to each policy area. 
Concentration or spread of ESF resources do es therefore not necessarily reflect overall 
concentration or spread at a national level. This makes it impossible to objectively attribute 
observed changes at the macro leve l (for instance overa ll employment rate) to actual degree of 
concentration of ESF programmes.  
While there is convincing evid ence of high concen tration of ESF expenditure on a small 
number of European level priority themes, this does not avoid that  managing authorities 
disburse the funds though a high number of relatively small proj ects (half the ESF operations 
have a budget of less than 50 000 €). There is no i ndication that this is in any way detrimental 
to the actual overall impact of the operati onal programmes. Implementation requires 
considerable local knowledge. In a situation of  shared management project selection and 
follow-up is primarily the competence and re sponsibility of the managing authority.  
Administrative costs 
There is a natural tension between reducing administrative cost, and maintaining high quality 
financial management. One complaint often hear d is that the administrative burden imposed 
by the ESF (and the Structural Funds more widely) is disproportionately heavy. Ongoing 
studies (for the ESF and for the ERDF and the CF ) to define more precisely the administrative 
costs associated with cohesions policy operation al programmes have yet to be completed. An 
indication is that the current Regulation foresees that up to 4% of the f unds can be allocated to 
Technical Assistance yet current allo cations are well below, at 3%.  
The extensive and thorough 2008 report on the future  of the Funds from the House of Lords 
provides further indications53. The report stated that "the  evidence received did not 
demonstrate that the cost of administration, relative to the total size of the budget, is 
significant in the United Kingdom. Extrapolation to countries receiving larger contributions 
from the funds might suggest furt her efficiencies and we dismiss witnesses’ claims that the 
regional policies are beset by a costly bureaucracy". 
2.3. Lessons from EGF implementation 
2.3.1. Effects 
Experience gained with the EGF shows that , although the package of  active labour market 
measures proposed for EGF funding differs signi ficantly from one app lication to another, 
common characteristics are that: 
− the support targets a clearly identified group of dismissed workers with a common 
dismissal background, 
                                                 
53 House of Lords European Union Committee report 19 "The future of EU Regional policy", 16 July 2008   
 
 
 19− the package of measures is di scussed in great de tail with all stakeholders involved, not 
only trade unions and employer organisations, but also local  and regional authorities, 
training institutes, and others, 
− the measures provide tailor made soluti ons for a specific group of workers.  
As a result the EGF delivers  some highly individualised an d innovative measures. Sweden, 
for example, tested the concep t of 'generation change' in the application for workers made 
redundant by Volvo. Under this innovative m easure a redundant worker is continuously 
mentored by an older and experienced worker  seeking to hand on some valuable skills. 
Germany tested the concept of continuous re flection and support in 'peer groups'. It was 
initially successfully tested in the application related to workers dismissed by the mobile phone manufacturer BenQ and later proposed in  all further German EGF applications. 
Another innovative measure in Germany was the selection of coaches to match the need of 
particular groups of dismissed workers (e.g.: coaches with a migra tion background for ex-
workers with a migration background so as to reduce communication obstacles). 
In the period 2007 – 2010 EGF support has been  requested for 72 537 workers being 
dismissed by 6 054 enterprises in 18 Member St ates. The enterprises belonged to a wide 
variety of economic sectors, such as automotiv e, machinery, textiles, construction, printing 
and publishing industry, electronic equipment, ba sic metals, shoe manufacture, shipbuilding, 
furniture, crystal glass, carpent ry and joinery. Furthermore in some Member States the EGF 
has contributed to a green restructuring of the economy
54 . 
An analysis based on the data av ailable with the European Restru cturing Monitor indicate that 
for the period 2009 – 2010 the EGF has been able  to assist about 10 % of all dismissed 
workers in the EU. Experience so far suggests th at the reintegration rate is around 40 % after 
12 months and further positive impact can be observed over a longer period of time55.  
2.3.2. Practical implementation 
The EGF has high visibility as it is gran ted on a case by case basis and it creates big 
expectations amongst dismissed workers. The Fund is to act as an emergency, short term and 
immediate instrument.  However, it takes from 8 months to 15 months (more than 11 months 
on average) between the application and the pa yment date. Because of constraints on Member 
States' finances, Member States are usually relu ctant to start and pre-finance the active labour 
market measures in the absence of a confirmation by the Commission on the eligibility of the 
case. 
The main underlying driver of this problem is the complex procedure56 to secure the 
allocation of funds for EGF assistance. The EG F is currently funded outside the MFF. Every 
application submitted by a Member State requir es an in-depth assessment by the Commission, 
followed by a Proposal for a Decision of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council. After 
the Decision is adopted by both arms of th e Budgetary Authority, the Commission takes a 
                                                 
54 Anticipating & Managing Restructuring - EU Synthesis Report: (see 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?catId=819&langId=en .) 
55 The mid-term evaluation of the EGF is currently being carried out; therefore it is not possible to provide more 
evidence of the EGF outcomes for the purpose of this Impa ct Assessment. The evaluatio n is carried out by GHK. 
The final report is expected in December 2011. 
56 The arrangements are covered under point 28 of the In ter-institutional Agreement (OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1) 
between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management. EGF applications are funded through unspent margins or cancelled commitments from the 
previous years.  For each appli cation the Commission has to make a Proposal to deploy the EGF. 
 
 20Financing Decision which allows it to pay ou t the approved contribu tion to the applicant 
Member State. Of the total period of elev en months, about three months are spent on 
procedures (translations, Inter Service Consultations, etc.). 
While ESF and EGF operate in similar circum stances, the EGF is seen as the emergency 
instrument to tackle unforeseen mass redundancie s and the ESF to deal with the more long 
term structural elements. However, optimum use is not always made of these synergies 
between the EGF and the ESF. Even though mana gement and control systems for the EGF in 
most Member States are very similar to the one s used for the ESF, Member States had to set 
up parallel structures for management and control. 
A further problem arises from the absence of a constant expenditure pattern as a consequence 
of the unforeseeable nature of redundancy even ts triggering applications for EGF support. 
Experience has shown that the amounts which ar e needed vary from year to year: in 2007 
demand for EGF support reached € 51,8 million, in 2008 € 20,6 million, in 2009 € 131,7 million and in 2010 € 132,5 million. This makes it difficult to programme with a high degree 
of certainty the budgetary needs of the Fund.  
The current EGF eligibility criteria and measur es are also not adapted to the situation of 
farmers who might be negatively affected by trade agreements. 
2.4. Lessons from the direct management instruments 
2.4.1. PROGRESS 
Effects 
Since its establishment in 2007, PROGRESS ha s contributed to both strengthening the 
coordination of EU employment and social polic y and bringing about effective application of 
EU law. The interim results of the mid-term evaluation
57 and those of the annual performance 
monitoring58 provide evidence of PROGRESS outcomes  and offer insights about its delivery 
processes.    
PROGRESS allowed for Europe-wide comparison of evidence, and for developing statistical 
tools, methods and common indica tors to ensure that EU empl oyment and social policy and 
legislation are relevant to the needs of Member  States. The quality of analytical outputs is 
generally good in terms of cont ent and usefulness. Although the primary user of such outputs 
is the Commission itself, there is evidence59 that these outputs are used in the EU and national 
policy- and law-making as well as in the wide r policy debate. Specific examples of policy 
evidence which was evaluated by the respondent s to the 2010 Annual Survey as being most 
helpful in different PROGRESS policy areas include: 
• Employment section: Monthly Labour Mark et Monitor and Quar terly Labour Market 
Review, 
• Social protection and social in clusion section: Collection of statistics on income and 
living conditions, reports of the group of independent experts on social inclusion and 
MISSOC database: Comparative Tables on Social Protection, 
• Working conditions section: Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing 
Directive 2003/10/EC, 
                                                 
57 The mid-term evaluation is carried out by Ecorys Nether lands. The final report is expected in December 2011.  
58 The results are presented in the annual pe rformance monitoring reports available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/m ain.jsp?catId=659&langId=en   
59 PROGRESS Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2009.  
 
 21PROGRESS is the main financial instrument to mutual learning and the exchange of good 
practices in employment and so cial solidarity through the Eu ropean Employment Strategy 
(EES) and the Open Method of Coordination on Social Inclusion and Social Protection 
(Social OMC). These processes have proven to provide factual information, influence agenda-
setting, enhance cooperation among national aut horities and constitute a basis for decision-
making for participating Member States60. For instance, 22 Member States plus Norway and 
Serbia were actively involved in the Mutu al Learning Programme in 2010. Main issues 
covered included self-employm ent, labour market integration of the Roma community, 
support for the jobseekers and the unemployed, short time working arrangements, ageing population and education choices, activation of th e elderly, and labour market integration of 
lone parents.  
PROGRESS strengthened partners hip among policy makers and st akeholders especially by 
contributing to the capacity building of key no n-governmental actors (EU-level networks and 
national NGOs). In particular, the outputs of ke y EU networks were seen by a majority of 
stakeholders as beneficial for advocacy and partnerships
61. For instance, in 2010, 
PROGRESS-supported key EU networks and NGOs  produced 295 reports aimed at providing 
policy advice, research and an alysis, 179 reports aimed at id entifying good practices, and 235 
reports aimed at monitoring/assessment in th e policy areas of anti-discrimination, social 
protection and social inclusion, and gender equa lity. They also organised 316 training, peer 
review and other mutual learning events, as well as 462 information and communication 
events. The number of participants in those events increased by more than 50% from 21 901 
in 2009 to 34 501 in 2010.   
Through PROGRESS, the Commission seeks to bri ng about effective app lication of EU law 
on matters related to health and safety at work, labour law, working conditions, non-
discrimination and gender equality in all Member  States. First of all, PROGRESS contributed 
to improving the quality of the Commission’s polic y initiatives by ensuring that they are built 
on strong evidence62 as well as making its decision-making processes more accessible and 
involving a broad range of stakeholders in  policy development. For instance, in 2009, 
PROGRESS contributed to seve ral policy initiatives, includi ng the agreement in Council on 
the revision of Dire ctive 86/613/EEC on equal treatment of self-employed and assisting 
spouses and the Council decision for the Eur opean Union to sign the UN Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabi lities. Second, it helped to ensure correct and effective 
application of EU law in the Member States by monitoring the implementation of EU law in 
the Member States (by supporti ng networks of legal expert s and external studies) and 
providing assistance to the Member  States (through trainings a nd mutual learning events for 
legal practitioners) in transposing and applying EU law effectively.   
 
Practical implementation 
                                                 
60 89% of the 2010 Annual Survey respondents claim to have gained better understanding of EU policy 
objectives by participating in PROGRESS-funded events . See PROGRESS Annual Performance Monitoring 
Report 2010.  
61 Over 4/5 of the respondents to the 2010 Annual Survey  agree that EU-level NGOs/n etworks are successful in 
increasing awareness and exerting pressure on policy makers  in the relevant policy area, and a source of useful 
and appropriate information on the implementation of EU law and/or conditions, needs and expectations of 
relevant target groups. 
62 This evidence is also reported to be used for developing national legal acts implementing EU law. Namely, 
25% of the respondents of the 2010 Annual Survey indicated that studies,  analyses, thematic assessments and 
monitoring reports produced under the programme have contributed to adopting/amending national legal acts 
implementing EU law.  
 
 22The mid-term evaluation finds that the PR OGRESS programme's annua l cycle of planning, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities is considered generally fitting, 
however it is recommended that a multi-annu al programming be developed to set more 
strategic long-term policy objectives co mbined with annual funding priorities63.  
The evaluation confirms that the main types of activities (analytical, mutual learning and 
support to main actors) are very relevant to the programme objec tives across its policy 
sections. The analytical outputs analysed by ev aluators are generally of good quality in terms 
of content and usefulness. However, timeline ss of delivery of studies should be improved by 
greater use of framewor k contracts. Mutual learning and p eer reviews seminars are highly 
attended and generate considerab le learning effects. However, th e results of both the mid-term 
evaluation and the annual performance monitoring confirm that despite continued efforts in 
the last years, visibility and dissemination of PROGRESS results deserve further 
improvement to ensure sustainability and the long-term exploitation of funded projects.   
Another weakness of the current programme is the rigid allocation of its budget to the policy 
sections. This rigidity made it harder to e ffectively respond to political imperatives and 
changing circumstances, in particular in the wake of the crisis. The successor instrument 
should drawn lessons from this experience in orde r to strike a balance between predictability 
and flexibility in its budget. 
Results-based management and performance measurement proved to be successful in 
demonstrating the programme’s achievement s as well as in enhancing the EU’s 
accountability. The mid-term evaluation recommends  maintaining this approach; however, the 
administrative burden linked to the annual reporting should be reduced.  
Synergies between the programme and the Eu ropean Social Fund should be more fully 
exploited. For example, at EU level, coordi nation and knowledge transf er should be improved 
between PROGRESS and the ESF in particular in the framework of the Open Method of 
Coordination. Furthermore, the ESF could he lp mainstreaming results of the PROGRESS 
projects, for example, by drawing lessons from social experimentation projects and supporting 
replication of this approa ch in the Member States. 
Lastly, despite some positive examples of integration of the gender dimension into the 
programme activities, the mid-term evalua tion recommends putting more emphasis on the 
concrete implementation of this principle, and ensuring that gender equality is mainstreamed 
in a meaningful way across all PROGRESS-supported activities.  
2.4.2. EURES 
Effects 
Increasing intra-European job mobility by providing easier and actual access to more 
employment opportunities and support to employers can prove extremely helpful to tackle the 
issue of unfilled job vacancies around Europe and actually contribute to the general 2020 employment rate objective. Evidence from Co mmission research suggests that countries not 
applying transitional rules on free movement an d therefore allowing incoming mobility have 
benefited from a higher GDP growth
64. Even now, after the 2008-2010 recession, Europe has 
pockets of labour shortages and excess of skille d labour, i.e. there are many job vacancies that 
                                                 
63 Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation.  
64 Employment in Europe report 2008 "….. estimate that mobility flows from the EU-8 have added an extra 0.4% 
to the Irish GDP and 0.3% to the UK’s GDP by 2007…" 
 
 23remain unfilled due to the lack of a suitable work force65. Current imbalances in the EU 
labour markets are partly due to a lack of la bour mobility within the Union. However, intra-
EU mobility of workers is not seen as a priority by a lot of Member States.  
The June 2010 Special Eurobarometer on "Geographical and labour market mobility" showed 
that 34% of Europeans think that their chances of finding a job abroad are better than in their 
own countries; however, today only 2.3% of the working age population lives and works in a 
Member State different from the one of their nationality.  
An external evaluation of the functioning of the EURES network66 revealed that in 
comparison to other EU networks, EURES ha s a significantly stronger focus on employment 
opportunities and it is also the only one that aims at providin g specific job-matching services. 
The EURES Job Mobility Portal is appreciate d by jobseekers, job ch angers and employers 
who clearly see the benefit in be ing able to access – or post – information on vacancies across 
Europe. The surveys with jobseekers and job changers and employers show that the job 
vacancies database has facilitated j ob matching and intra-EU job mobility.  
However, one of the findings of the evaluatio n was that the links between its aims and 
objectives, its achieved outputs an d the wider employment aims and objectives of the EU are 
not prominent enough. The translat ion of strategic obj ectives into operational objectives and 
its capacity to achieve and present results need s to be improved. EURES needs to focus more 
on tangible outcomes and results in terms of outgoing and incoming placements and 
recruitment also trough targeted mobility sc hemes: for example by helping young people and 
employers to fill open bottleneck vacancies, i.e.  vacancies for which recruitment difficulties 
or market failure have been identified. "Your  first EURES job", currently implemented as a 
preparatory action, is intended to foster you th job mobility across the EU-27 countries. 
 
Practical implementation 
EURES predates the European Employment Strate gy (1997) as well as th e Lisbon strategy for 
Growth and Jobs (2000). The EURES objectives were broadly defined in 1993 and stopped at 
the provision of information and virtual transparency67 of labour markets through clearance of 
vacancies and CVs. The EURES objectives do not make full use of the exclusive competence 
provided by the TFEU in the field of free movement of workers.  
There is a need to simplify and streamline EU RES. Its founding documents  are composed of a 
Regulation, a Commission decision, a "Chart er" and three-year guidelines. Funding is 
distributed to the network with a three year partnership following a call for proposals in 2010. 
Moreover, four different committees and bodies supervise its functioning: the two committees 
created by Regulation 1612/68 (revised 492/2011) , a EURES working party and the High 
Level Strategy Group, created by Commission decisi on 2003/8/EC. As a resu lt there is a need 
to harmonise and update the implementation provisions to  take into account the Europe 2020 
                                                 
65 "A new strategy for the single market", report by M. Monti, 9 May 2010, p.57 
66 Ex-post evaluation of the EURES programme covering the period 2006-2008, EPEC 2010  
67 Commission decision of 23 December 2002 implemen ting Council Regulation 1612/1968 as regards the 
clearance of vacancies and applications for employment , Article 2 on EURES objectives:  
(a) the development of European la bour markets open and accessible for all; 
(b) the transnational, interregional and cross-border exchange of vacancies and job applications; 
(c) transparency and information exchange on the European labour markets, including on living conditions and on the opportunities for acquisition of skills; 
(d) the development of methodologies and indicators for this purpose. 
 
 24labour markets features, notably regarding th e clearance of vacancies and application for 
employment, the definition of the operational ob jectives of EURES services, the composition 
and governance of the EURES network, the quality sta ndards and exchange of 
information/best practices. Moreover, the curr ent set-up does not reflect  the increasing role 
played by private employment services. These reforms will ensure consistency between the 
different parts of EURES in line with the new MFF instruments. It should be noted that all  
strategic objectives of the EURES reform can be achieved without changing these texts68 
The largest part of the EURES budget (14 million €) is currently spent in direct management 
mode on over 49 grants of the EURES ne twork, following annual calls for proposals. 
Management of the grants is cumbersome both on the side of the Commission and of the 
beneficiaries, and is disproportionate  compared to the budget available. 
2.4.3. Progress Microfinance 
Effects 
Progress Microfinance was designed to address the lack of access to finance, which is one of 
the main obstacles preventing people  to start their own business.  
Especially disadvantaged groups such as unemp loyed, young or older people or migrants have 
difficulties securing traditional bank loans. Even before the crisis, the demand for microcredit 
(i.e. loans of less than € 25.000) was estimate d at € 6.3 billion. The European Progress 
Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion extends the outreach of 
microfinance to particular at-risk groups and to further support the development of 
entrepreneurship, the social economy and micro-enterprises.  
Progress Microfinance has allowed pooling expert ise at European leve l and putting it at the 
service of employment creation and poverty reduc tion in the Member St ates. Ministries of 
labour and social affairs are ofte n less experienced in the field of financial engineering. As a 
result only a small number of managing authori ties have used ESF resources for establishing 
financial engineering instruments in th e programming period 2007-2013. Given that the 
establishment of such funds is time-consuming and complex and that a critical mass is 
needed, a fund at EU level bear s a strong added value: within somewhat more than one year 
since the entry into force of  the founding decision, the guara ntees window and the funded 
instruments window have become operational, fina l beneficiaries in six Member States have 
already been benefitting and the forecast for tr ansactions suggests that  towards the end of 
2011 citizens in half of the Member States  will enjoy easier access to finance.  
One of the target groups of Pr ogress Microfinance are social entreprises in their start-op 
phase. However, it has become clear that their sp ecific nature (often a spin-off of a team from 
a traditional business, or a civic society organi sation, or a public serv ice) requires a mix of 
funding sources to get started, and that they face particular needs regarding development, 
consolidation and growth (mezzanine and hybrid capital)69. The limitation of microloans to 
amounts of up to EUR 25 000 is in this regard problematic.  
The positive externalities of social enterprises, i.e. their impact on social, environmental and 
community development, are undervalued and no t rewarded by the market.  This constitutes a 
                                                 
68 A new Commission decision (CWLP 2012) will provide for the new setting of the EURES network, its 
operational objectives and its results orientation. 
69  Social Investment Manual. A Guide for Social Entrepreneurs, developed by the Social Investment Task Force (Technical 
University Munich; Schwab Foundation Community of So cial Entrepreneurs, Schwab Foundation for Social 
Entrepreneurship), 2011. 
 
 25limiting factor to the development and scaling of  social enterprises, in addition to the low 
levels of development of national or regional de bt or equity platform s for funding for social 
enterprise, both in terms of scale and capacity. This calls for a public role in developing the market for social impact investme nts.  In order to overcome initial reluctance at national level, 
a possible role for the EU could be to pave th e way through a suitable EU level instrument 
that has the capacity to leverage public sources of funding (notably ESF) as well as mobilising 
private social impact investors 
Delivery issues 
The microfinance sector has called for more capacity building, enhanc ing the link between 
funding and capacity building. Seve ral microcredit providers (e.g. MicroStart  in Belgium or 
Qredits  in the Netherlands) have benefitted on the one hand from Progress Microfinance and 
on the other from a loan or an equity invest ment for institutional ca pacity building under the 
EPPA initiative as well as from training under JASMINE. However, while this setup is 
considered as complex because the microcre dit providers have to apply for different 
programmes, it does not achieve the maximum va lue for money because the two processes are 
not linked enough in the sense th at there is, for instance, no conditionality between the 
capacity building part  and the funding.  
By far the majority of micro-credit to disa dvantaged persons in the EU is provided by non-
commercial micro-finance institutions ( NGOs, foundations, government bodies, Member 
States' promotional banks, non-bank financial institutions), but these providers do not 
currently have the capacity to meet the important demand. In order to improve the absorption 
capacity of the market, more cap acity building is needed. As a result, more funds can be 
channelled through them to the final beneficiaries.  
2.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 
For the ESF the definition of scope will impact on wh ich projects can actu ally be financed 
and how the related systems operate. This will ha ve significant influen ce on project providers 
(beneficiaries) and by that also on the final beneficiaries, i.e. the European citizens and also 
the institutions operating  in the labour market.  
For the EGF,  workers laid off as a consequence of large scale restruct uring are directly 
affected, as they cannot necessarily count on the timely delivery of appropriate support 
measures. The Member States are affected indirectly as they cannot optimise resource management and control of ESF and EGF and have  to find the necessary funds to pre-finance 
the measures for a considerable period of time. 
The main players affected by PROGRESS  are public authorities, so cial partners and civil 
society organisations at EU and national level as well as the European Commission itself.  
Discontinuing the programme would cut off the Eu ropean policy debate and transfer of good 
practices in the social field. Fu rthermore it would take away th e most important instrument to 
evidence-based social and labour market  policy-making at the European level.
70  
                                                 
70 PPMI, PROGRESS stakeholder needs analysis, 2011. The analysis looked into the situation, motivations and 
interests of EU-level, national and regional stakeholders in relation to the broad thematic areas addressed by the PROGRESS programme. The results and implications for the successor programme to PROGRESS will be 
presented in a separate ex-ante evaluation.  
 
 26Changes to EURES  will facilitate the management of the network and in so far make the 
network more effective and allow for the inclusion of private employment services into the 
network. This would increase the outreach to workers with the aim of making job mobility 
between Member States easier. This would be to the benefit of all workers, those going 
abroad but also those staying behind, but having a new colleague from abroad, or getting a job 
which otherwise would have gone to a mobile colleague.  
As far as the implementation of the microfinance facility  is concerned, the target groups of 
the microfinance facility, are bearing the conse quences of the lack of availability of 
microcredit. Increasing the abso rption capacity of th e market through cap acity building would 
allow channelling more funds through them to the final beneficiaries.  
2.6. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?  
The baseline scenario anticipates for the ESF a prolongation of th e current set-up, which 
involves maintaining the current coverage, scope and the ESF delivery arrangements.  
The ESF priorities would remain focussed on employment and skills. This implies that 
alignment with Europe 2020 and its strengthen ed emphasis on social inclusion might be 
difficult. ESF interventions are provided in a ll countries and regions.  Social cohesion is 
thereby mentioned as an equally important ob jective of European policy as economic and 
territorial cohesion. Furthermore the ESF as the most impor tant single financia l instrument of 
the European Union in the social field plays an important role in demonstrating that Europe is 
not only about economic but also about soci al issues. Moreover, while the increased 
acceptance of the simplified cost options should lead to a continued downward trend of the 
error rates, there is no guarantee as to the spee d of that trend and that it would ultimately 
result in rate below the threshold set by th e ECA. However, even this baseline scenario 
requires the establishmen t of a new regulation. 
The current EGF Regulation expires on 31 December 2013. The baseline scenario anticipates 
a continuation of the EGF Regula tion under its current rules. It would neither put in question 
the well-established line of distinction between the instruments nor the basic administrative 
requirements, which implies rather long delays  between applications for and granting of 
support. On the other hand, the status quo is very  suitable to cope with discontinuous and 
unpredictable payment requirements.  
Also in the case of PROGRESS,  which expires on 31 December 2013, the baseline scenario 
assumes that the current scheme is prolonged,  but without the gender  equality and anti-
discrimination strands (to be part of DG Justice Programmes71).  
Also for the two other instruments, EURES  and the Microfinance facility  a continuation of 
the status quo are assumed as a baseline scenario. The Progress Microfinance Facility would 
continue to provide guarant ees and funding under joint mana gement with the European 
Investment Fund, with a last invest ment in 2016 without new resources. 
However, the baseline scenario would only be partially satisfactory fo r the following reasons: 
- Even if the objectives of the renewed inst ruments would be optimally aligned on the 
Europe 2020's goals, an opportunity to impr ove the policy coherence and impact by 
                                                 
71 COM(2011) 500 final. A Budget for Europe 2020 - Part II - Policy Fiches - Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. 
 
 27linking PROGRESS activities wi th microfinance and social entrepreneurship support, 
social innovation and intr a-EU mobility of worker s (through EURES) would be 
missed.  
- Carrying on the current instruments without any change would not have any positive 
impact on simplification and administrativ e burden in particular for potential 
beneficiaries. Moreover, the rigid alloca tion of the PROGRESS budget to its different 
policy sections would preven t the Commission from effectiv ely responding to political 
imperatives and changing circumstances.  
- Without the gender equality and anti-d iscrimination strands the new PROGRESS 
would be smaller and as such would not have  the critical mass needed to achieve its 
policy objectives. Its role, as an EU st and-alone programme supporting policy-making 
and coordination, would therefor e be considerably reduced. 
2.7. Does the EU have the right to ac t and is EU added-value evident 
2.7.1. The right to act for instrume nts under shared management  
The legal basis of the European Social Fund  is Title XI of the TFEU. Next to Article 162 
TFEU which establishes the ESF, further specifi cations are provided in Articles 8 – 10 and in 
Articles 153 and 175. The latter states that the ESF is one of the structural funds to be used in 
support of economic, social and territorial cohesion. 
The legal basis of the EGF in its current form  is the third paragraph of Article 175 of the 
TFEU. Under the flagship initiative72 'An industrial policy for the globalisation era' the 
Commission has pointed to the role that an expa nded EGF could play to improve the ability of 
Member States and regions to manage the fall -out of the financial and economic crisis.  
In practice, both the ESF and the EGF already ha ve a strong focus on subsidiarity. They are 
implemented under shared management. Nationa l and regional author ities initiate the 
planning of measures co-funded by the EU. U ltimately they make the individual funding 
decisions and deliver the programmes on the ground, leaving the Commission with an 
advisory and a supervisory function. In the case  of the EGF this role is enhanced in the 
application process73.  
The reflections put forward with this docum ent will not change the general division of 
competencies between the EU, Member States and between Member States and lower level 
administrative and political entities.  
2.7.2. The right to act for dire ct management instruments 
The legal basis of the PROGRESS  programme are Articles 149 and 153 TFEU which make 
provisions for coordination of em ployment and social policies74. In line with these provisions, 
a successor instrument to PROGRESS would enco mpass the actions which have an EU-wide 
dimension and which are necessary to enable the EU to effectivel y fulfil its role, as assigned 
                                                 
72 COM(2010)2020, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth. 
73 The Commission additionally prepares and submits for each individual application for EGF support a proposal 
for a Decision to the European Parliament and the Council, acting as the Budgetary Authority. 
74 Actually, the current PROGRESS programme has a trifold legal basis. However, actions implemented on the 
basis of Article 19 TFEU fall within  DG JUST area of competencies and will be part of its future post-2013 
programmes.   
 
 28by the Treaty in the employment and social fiel d. As such, the Commi ssion proposal would be 
in line with its competences and respect the subsidiarity principle.   
The current legal basis for Progress Microfin ance is Article 175 (3) TFEU. Its aim is to 
increase the access to, and availability of, microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-
enterprises to a sufficient scale and within a reasonable time-frame. A strengthened Microfinance Facility (including a new financial instrument to support social enterprises) 
under the new MFF would be implemented on the same legal basis. 
EURES  is based on Article 45 TFEU, which aims to  secure the freedom of workers, one of 
the four freedoms in the TFEU. Regulation 492/2011 from 5
th of April 2011 tasks the 
Commission for clearance of vacancies and CVs on the EU level. The action proposed is in 
line with the subsidiarity princi ple because of the transnational nature of the European labour 
markets challenges and needs (eg skill gaps, mismatches and bottle neck vacancies).  
2.7.3. EU added value of the shared man agement instruments (ESF and EGF) 
Full alignment with the Europe 2020 strategy shoul d ensure the policy relevance of the future 
instruments. Subsidiarity will re quire (i) concentrating on cross-border or transnational issues, 
(ii) helping national or regional authorities to do wh at they need to do, but lack the capacity 
for, (iii) intervening in a targeted manner so  as to make essential contributions to the 
achievement of Europe 2020 policy goals. The actual implementation mechanisms of the ESF 
and the EGF involving directly national and re gional authorities in the management of the 
programmes guarantee a full applic ation of the principle of subsidiarity as the way in which 
the funds are spent depend fully on decisions in the region or Member State in question. 
The Fifth Cohesion Report looke d at public spending in MS a nd discusses additionality, the 
principle that finance from cohesion policy as a whole should not replace equivalent 
expenditure by Member States, which are required to maintain public investment rather than 
diverting funding to other purposes. Additiona lity is checked several times during a 
programming period. This verification may re sult in financial corr ections. Placing ESF 
expenditure into the context of  similar national expenditure outside co-funded programmes is 
not straightforward. This requires information about government expend iture at a level of 
detail that is not read ily available. ESF investments corre spond to several groups and classes 
of the UN Classification of  Functions of Government75 (COFOG). Yet complete data for all 
Member States are available only for the 10 main COFOG Divisions but not for the more 
detailed groups or even classe s. Education is one of these di visions, yet only very small parts 
of education-related expenditure are eligible for EU support. Similar issues arise with the 
European System of Accounting.  
While additionality is critical for the structural nature of C ohesion Policy, the current system 
is often contested on the grounds that it is a cumbersome "ad-hoc" exercise the results of 
which are not fully reliable and not comparable across Member States. Options to reform this verification process and link it to the transmission of data in the context of the Stability and 
Growth Pact are being explored. They are no t specific to the ESF but  regard the Cohesion 
Policy as a whole. 
Figure 1 offers a already feasible comparis on between national ALMP expenditure and ESF 
allocations in relation to GDP. The comparison is  not perfect as more policy areas than just 
ALMP can be supported with the ESF. Moreove r, the ALMP figures do not systematically 
                                                
 
75 The expenditure is classified into Divisions (10), Groups (74) and Classes.  
 
 29include (or exclude) ESF funding and there are problems with the quality of some data. 
Member States have voluntarily committed themselves to the provision of these data. While there are constant efforts to improve the stat istics, some improvements have already been 
achieved, it seems overly optimistic to expect th ese problems would disappear in the near 
future.  
While this concerns the comparison of inputs (money spent), a similar phenomenon can also 
be observed on the side of output s or results of interventions. The ESF comes along with quite 
demanding requirements in terms of monitori ng and evaluation. Public authorities from 
Member States confirm that these requirements had a positive influence on the implementation of national programmes. It is jus tified to state that ESF expenditure is at least 
as good – in many Member States better – mon itored and evaluated as national expenditure. 
While there are constant efforts to improve ev aluation and monitoring – as elaborated in 
section 7 – there are al so methodological limitations
76: it is often difficult to compare ESF 
supported interventions with sim ilar interventions within one MS, as those outside the ESF 
might not have been evaluated in the same way or because there might not be similar interventions. Comparisons between  MS (and in so far also the aggregation) might be difficult 
because of different social contexts, which can be decisive for success or failure but also 
determine the exact design of interventions.  
Nevertheless the overall pictur e is that the Western and Northern European Member States 
which spend considerable amounts on ALMP receive on average less ESF funding. The 
picture is reversed in Central and Easter n European Member States. Since employment 
promotion is the ESF core business, this is fully consistent with an ESF being deployed in 
addition to national efforts. 
More generally, evaluations and interactions wi th stakeholders confirm the ESF has "volume 
effects". The ESF 'adds' to exis ting actions, either by supporting a national action in general or 
specific areas of national policy. This will continue to be the case essentially in convergence regions where the volume of financial suppor t provided through the ES F is significant in 
relation to national funding. This would be strengthened by concentrating on key issues 
identified in the NRPs and in the CSRs in  accordance with the partnership contracts. 
However, the added value of structural funds ac tions and of the ESF in particular can not be 
limited to volumes of actions undertaken. The E SF has brought significan t benefits for many 
stakeholders in terms of processe s (how things are done). It can be  expected to continue to do 
so even if as process effects are related by definition to how actions are delivered, it is 
difficult to anticipate what effects will be gene rated in the future. The evidence-based and 
mid- to long-term oriented implementation of  the fund by means of operational programmes 
will also in the future encourage a dialogue between various stakeholder groups and support a 
strategic approach. Improvements of the deliv ery mechanisms (notably simplification and 
reductions of the administrative burden) shoul d ensure the continued relevance of process 
effects. ESF and EGF are instruments to faci litate a practical dialogue between European 
priorities and active labour market policy in Europe.  
Several examples in terms of scope - extendin g coverage of action (b roadening/widening) - 
and innovation - novel action / ideas that are applied on a larger scal e – show the added value 
of the instruments considered such as the ESF and the EGF even in the current 
competitiveness and employment regions. The ex amples include: extending career guidance 
                                                
 
76 For a discussion of the comparison of the impacts of active labour market policy see e.g. Kluve (2006) or Car, 
Kluve, Weber (2010). 
 
 30from unemployed to workers; the developmen t of a national network of job information 
centres; setting up of networks supporting small enterprises and start-ups often by people with 
a migration background; establishing of part nerships which became Labour Force Service 
Centres, one-stop-shops fo r "hard to employ" groups. 
2.7.4. EU added value of the inst ruments in direct management 
The instruments under direct management will bring about EU added value in the following 
ways: 
The EU is uniquely placed to provide a Europe an platform for policy exchange and mutual 
learning processes between the Member Stat es (also including th e EEA and candidate 
countries) in the employment and social area. K nowledge of the policies carried out in other 
countries broadens the range of options avai lable to policy makers, triggers new policy 
developments and encourages national reforms77. Finally, it brings be nefits in terms of 
improving the governance of the EU employment and social policy; 
The EU action adds value to national interven tions by providing a European dimension and 
comparison when gathering evidence, developi ng statistical tools and methods and common 
indicators to allow for a complete picture of the situation prevailing in the employment and 
social fields at European level; 
The need for better application of EU law has been recognised as a key priority under the 
Smart Regulation agenda. The EU  level is the most appropriate for modernising a legal 
framework, aiming to create a level playing-fi eld and to guarantee a common level of EU 
legal protection for all in the fields of health and safety at work and labour law. The EU is 
also uniquely placed to finance measures aime d at improving compliance with EU rules as 
well as providing systematic review of the EU legislation application across the Member 
States;   
Developing the capacity of key Eu ropean level civil-society networks to support and further 
develop the Union social policy goals can best be achieved at EU level. 
An increase in the availability of microcredit is  best achieved at the European level: firstly, 
the European Commission in cooperation with the European Investment Fund has already 
gathered experience with the current microfinan ce facility, the JASMINE pilot project and the 
EPPA initiative requested by the European Parl iament. Microfinance institutions in all 
Member States can now benefit from this expe rtise without their nati onal, regional or local 
authorities having to use resources to put in place similar systems.  
In addition, the financial resource s pooled together at  the European level are more likely to 
attract additional funding from third investors li ke the European Investment Bank who, in the 
case of Progress Microfinance, matched the EU contribution of 100 million. The same is true 
for an EU level financial instruments for investme nts in social enterprises: it can be expected 
that it will attract more resources from public and private investors.  
An improved EURES would facilitate labour ma rket mobility. Member States benefitted as 
bottleneck or hard-to-fill vacancies were f illed by intra-EU-mobility, leading to increased 
economic activity and thus contributing to ec onomic growth. Furthermore more European 
                                                 
77 National and regional authorities consider monitoring, research and exchange of information (through the 
OMC and mutual learning) as areas where EU added value is the highest. See PPMI, PROGRESS stakeholder 
needs analysis .2011. 
 
 31labour market mobility could also foster a European citizenship which goes beyond national 
interests.  
3. Objectives 
Preparing the next MFF provides an opportunity to fully align th e financial instruments to the 
Europe 2020 objectives in order to deliver on specific priorities and initiatives, ensure 
complementarity and synergies, and simplify and mainstream activities in order to maximise 
the impact of the funding and its EU added value.  
3.1. General objective 
The general objective of the labour market and social inclusion financial instruments will be 
to support the EU to develop  a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy achieving high 
levels of employment, produ ctivity and social cohesion , i.e. to contribute fully to the Europe 
2020 Strategy and in accordance with the Single Market Act of April 201178.  
The EU 2020 indicators and targets that are di rectly relevant for the labour market/social 
inclusion instruments are given in Table 3. 
Table 3. Labour market and social incl usion relevant Europe 2020 indicators and 
targets 
Indicators Current 
values79 Target by 2020 
Employment rate of 20 - 64 year olds 68.6% An increase to 75% 
School drop-out rates 14.1% A decrease to 10%  
Proportion of 30-34 year old having completed tertiary 
education 33.6% An increase to 40% 
Number of persons at risk of poverty 114 million A reduction by 20 
million 
The financial instruments in employment and social  policy also contribute in a more indirect 
manner to the low-carbon economy, biodiversity80, energy, R&D and competitiveness targets. 
For example, improving digital skills enhanc es the knowledge base of an economy and 
contributes to raising the grow th potential. Training and ca pacity building on ecologically 
sound technologies helps to foster sustainabl e employment and indirectly supports the 
achievement of emissions reduction and energy efficiency targets.   
3.2. Specific objectives 
The changing policy context, a growing pressu re on public finance and overall economic and 
social circumstances require maximising the performance and consistency of financial 
instruments. The specific objective for all DG  Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
financial instruments is therefore  
                                                 
78 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/index_en.htm 
79 Source: Eurostat. The data are for 2010 except for the number of persons at risk of poverty which is for 2009. 
80 A recent study commissioned by DG Environment concluded that Natura 2000 network of protected areas 
supports 1.3 – 2.4 million jobs in the tourism and recreation sectors. Employment rates generated by Natura 
2000 are estimated at 0.017 – 0. 032 full time jobs per hectare. 
 
 32• Financial instruments which are consis tent and mutually reinforcing.   
In addition to this, each instrument has a se t of specific objectives derived from its legal 
founding and from the alignment with Europe 2020.  
3.2.1. ESF 
The specific objectives for the ESF are derive d from the Europe 2020 headline targets to 
which it can make a direct contribution. Th ey are taken from June Budget Package 
(COM(2011)500). They are the following: 
1. Promoting employment and the mobility of workers; 
2. Investing in skills, educa tion and life-long learning; 
3. Promoting social inclusi on and combating poverty; 
4. Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration. 
The indicators of Table 3 will be used to assess the achievement of the specific objective. 
However, actual EU level targets for the ESF can not be set. This is because the 
implementation of funds follows national and regional operational progr ammes. Targets can 
only be set at these levels and aggregated ex-post.   It is also at the level of these operational 
programmes that the ex-ante evaluations will be carried out. The focus of these specific objectives is on the requirement to make the ESF contributions measurable , i.e. to establish a 
clear causal link betwee n changes of an indicator valu e and the activities undertaken. 
Through these specific objectives, the ESF will also contribute to other policy objectives such 
as the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy. Th is is in line with the new 
MFF proposal stating that the Commission inte nds to increase the proportion of climate 
related expenditure across the EU budget to at leas t 20%, with contribution from different 
policies.  
3.2.2. EGF 
The specific objective for the EGF is: 
1. Supporting workers made redundant as a re sult of major structural change 
3.2.3. The instruments under direct management 
The specific objectives for the instruments under direct management are the following: 
1. Strengthen ownership of the EU objectives in the employment, social and working 
conditions fields among key European and national policy-makers, as well as other 
interested parties in order to bring about concrete and coordinated actions at both EU 
and Member State level; 
2. Support the development of adequate, acces sible and efficient social protection 
systems and labour markets and facilita te policy reform, by promoting good 
governance, mutual learning and social innovation;   
3. Modernise EU legislation in line with the Smart Regulation principles and ensure that 
EU law on matters relating to working conditions is effectively applied;  
 
 334. Promote workers’ geographical and occ upational mobility and boost employment 
opportunities by developing European labour ma rkets that are open and accessible to 
all; 
5. Promote employment and social inclus ion by increasing the availability and 
accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and by 
investing in social enterprises; 
6. Improve policy coherence and efficiency  through cross-cutting work between the 
various strands of action and complementarity with other EU financial instruments, in 
particular the ESF.  
In pursuing these objectives, these instrument s will aim at promoting equality between men 
and women and combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.  
3.3. Operational objectives  
3.3.1. ESF 
The operational objective for the ESF is to si mplify delivery. The following indicators have 
been retained to measure this:  
1. The absorption of the Fund:  Target: 100%  or the avoidance of automatic de-
commitment); 
2. The error rate. Target less than 2%; 
3. The use of the simplified cost options. Fo r at least 75% of the total cost of 
grants. 
These operational objectives should also be seen in the context of the General Regulation and 
its Impact Assessment. It is in the General Regulation that implementation issues common to 
all instruments of Cohesion Policy are covered. Th is is in particular the case of the overall 
performance and delivery of the po licy. Moreover, there is no intention to change the general 
division of competencies between the Commis sion and the national an d regional authorities 
implementing and controlling the Operational Progr ammes. They will con tinue to initiate the 
planning of ESF co-funded interventions an d make the individual funding decisions and 
deliver the programmes on the ground. The Commi ssion has an advisory and supervisory role 
and sits on the Monitoring Committees as an observer. 
 
3.3.2. EGF 
The operational objectives for  the EGF are as follows: 
1. The EGF support should reach the redunda nt workers more rapidly. Taking 
into account the status quo a benchmark of 8 months is an ambitious but 
realistic target 
2. The rate of assisted workers finding a new and stable job after 12 months 
should be at least 50%. 
 
 343.3.3. The instruments under direct management 
Learning from the existing instruments in dire ct management, the following objectives will 
need to be met in the future as well:  
PROGRESS strand: 
1. Develop and disseminate high-quality comparative analytical knowledge in 
order to ensure that EU employment and social policy and working conditions 
legislation are based on sound evidence a nd are relevant to needs, challenges 
and conditions in the in dividual Member States; 
2. Facilitate effective and inclusive info rmation-sharing, mutual learning and 
dialogue on EU employment and social policy and working conditions legislation at European, national and inte rnational level in order to assist the 
Member States in developing thei r policies and in implementing EU 
legislation;   
3. Provide policy-makers with financial support to test social and labour market 
policy reforms; build up the main actors’ capacity to design and implement social experimentation; and make the relevant knowledge and expertise 
accessible;.  
4. Provide European and national organisati ons with financial support to step up 
their capacity to develop, promote a nd support the implementation of EU 
employment and social policy and working conditions legislation.  
It is impossible to make these four specific objectives genuinely measurable while they are 
specific, acceptable and realis tic. For instance, mutual lear ning events cannot be quantified 
because their number and topics depend on Member  States interests and will to host such 
events and participate in them. The volume of knowledge produced de pends on the needs of 
policy development. These objectives by their ve ry nature are therefor e assessable only by 
means of subjective variables, like satisfac tion of and knowledge among stakeholders, surveys 
investigating on the perception of EU role in so cial and employment policy debates as well as 
intended and actual use of outputs for policy-making.  Nevertheless,  this approach remains in 
line with result based management which foresees setting effective target s at a level close to 
the activity as such.   
Microfinance/Social Entr epreneurship strand:  
5. Increase the number of microloans  to the target beneficiaries; 
6. Build up institutional capacities of microc redit providers to ensure that they 
can absorb funding from th e microfinance facility in  order to extend their 
client base; 
7. Increase the number and scale of so cial enterprises contributing to the 
achievement of a high level of employment and social inclusion. 
 
 
 35EURES strand: 
8. Develop an efficient monitoring sy stem and increase the number of 
transnational placements (i.e both outgoing and incoming) facilitated by 
EURES by 3% per year (currently estimated at 100.000 direct and 50.000 
indirect placements per y ear, evidence not robust). 
9. Increase the number of job vacancies /CVS on the EURES Portal by 3% per 
year (currently 1,000,000 job vacancies, 600,000 CVs)  
10. Set up specific targeted mobility scheme at EU level to fill bottleneck and 
niche vacancies, help specific groups of  jobseekers with a high propensity for 
mobility and support countries which are or  will become recipients of mobile 
workers. 
In order to achieve these object ives, EURES will need to:  
• simplify and rationalise its intervention logic by developing EURES services 
in relation with both outgoing/incoming placements and recruitment services 
where there is an economic need and will to fill open job vacancies.   
• reform its administrative management, via the restructuring of its activities into 
a) vertical i.e. national and cross bor der activities under "shared management" 
(ESF) ; b) horizontal i.e. EU level ac tivities under the new integrated direct 
management tool for PROGRESS.   
• Ensure the consistency of its financial instruments in light of its new 
organisational structure 
Furthermore, the results of the actions implem ented under the integrated programme shall be 
adequately communicated and disse minated in order to maximise their impact, sustainability 
and the EU added value. 
4. Policy options 
The options considered cover different dimensions, namely: 
1. The scope of the ESF interventions; 
2. Simplification of ESF implementation 
3. The relationship between the EGF and the ESF; 
4. The links between direct manage ment instruments and the ESF. 
The first two dimensions direc tly address the issue of the co ntent of ESF support including the 
question of how to simplify implementation. U nder all change options, the monitoring and 
evaluation systems will be reinforced in comparison to the current situation.   
The latter two dimensions focus on the overall architecture of employme nt and social policy-
related financial instruments on the European level. For each dimension, the options being 
considered represent a range which has been shaped by di alogue with stakeholders and 
recommendations derived from research in the area. 
Further aspects which make a significant contri bution to the effective implementation of the 
ESF, namely questions relating to demarcation with other funds and to  complementary with 
other EU instruments, performance orientati on or increased transparency through a better 
monitoring system are to be discussed in the IA accompanying the General Regulation. For 
 
 36these governance related aspects it is important to  ensure consistency between the Structural 
Funds.  
Table 4 presents and overview of the intervention logic.  
 
 37 Table 4.  Overview of intervention logic 
PROBLEMS  GENERAL  
OBJECTIVE  INSTRUMENTS  S PECIFIC OBJECTIVES  O PERATIONAL OBJECTIVES  O PTIONS CONSIDERED  
all Improve policy coherence and 
efficiency   
ESF Promote  
• Employment and mobility, 
• Education/training skills,  
• Social inclusion, and 
• Institutional capacity building. • Content level operational 
objectives defined in the OPs 
• Governance related: 
high absorption (target 100%) 
and no de-commitment; error 
rate below 2% Scope and reimbursement 
modes 
EGF • Support workers made 
redundant as result of major 
structural changes • Speeding up delivery 
• At least 50% reinsertion in the 
labour market Budgetary status of EGF 
and relation with ESF PROGRESS • Strengthen ownership of the EU 
employment and social policy 
• Support policy reform by 
strengthening social innovation 
• Modernise EU legislative 
framework and ensure effective 
application of EU law in the employment and social policy 
field Promote: 
• Research 
• Mutual learning 
• Social innovation & 
experimentation/pilot projects 
• Capacity building EURES • Promote geographical and 
occupational mobility • Increase the number of job 
vacancies on the EURES Portal 
• Increase number of transnational 
placements 
• Set up specific targeted mobility 
scheme at EU level Global challenges (global competition, ageing, climate change, technological change, 
etc..) 
Large disparities in 
employment, health, education/training and 
social inclusion between 
MS and regions.  
High unemployment, 
shortcomings in skills
, 
low labour mobility  
Links and spill-over 
between EU MS and 
regions requiring 
coordinated action 
Weak evidence 
hampering  policy-coordination 
Unequal application of 
EU labour market 
legislation 
Implementation issues 
and overlaps between instruments available 
Contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy – in particular the social and employment objectives 
 
Social Development Agenda 
MICROFINANC
E / SOCIAL 
ENTREPRENEU
RSHIP  • Increase access to and 
availability of microfinance and support to social enterprises • Increase the number of micro-
loans 
• Build of institutional capacity 
with microcredit providers 
• Increase the number and scale of 
social enterprises Levels of integration 
between the instruments under direct management 
and integration with 
instruments under shared management 
 
 38 
4.1. The scope of the ESF 
In times of budgetary tensions it is essentia l that the EU money is used to support EU 
priorities81. This is in line with official statements from the European Council in June 2010, 
President Barroso82 and is also shared by the ESF Committee83. Still, there is a decision to be 
taken between an ESF narrowly fo cused on core tasks directly related to employment or a 
broader scope including income replacement, for instance through measures providing out-of-work income maintenance and support (so-ca lled passive measures as opposed to active 
measures which aim at activating people and improving their integration into the labour 
force).  
The options below are chosen following the disc ussion with stakeholders and experts. They 
form a continuum starting with narrower focuses than is currently the case to a much broader 
focus. They are defined in terms of their rele vance to the Europe 2020 integrated guidelines 
(IGL)
84. This entails that any ESF action is conceived in suppor t to one or more guidelines, 
not that it supports all actions foreseen under a given IGL. For instance actions of regulatory 
or legislative nature are addressed to the Member  States and fall naturall y outside the scope of 
the ESF. Moreover, it also recogni ses that the ESF is only one of the necessary instruments.    
The no-policy change ( option 1.1 ) corresponds to an ESF covering policies and actions 
leading directly or indirectly to empl oyment and enhancing social inclusion .  This 
corresponds to the IGL 7, 8, 9 and, to some extent, 10. In view of  its importance to the Europe 
2020 strategy, a particular importance is given to the transition from training and education 
notably tertiary and vocational education to employment. Transnational actions related to 
people in labour market and adult education (b eing unemployed or in job search) are covered. 
Social inclusion and fight agains t poverty are eligible as suc h, even for people that are not 
very close to the labour market. Nevertheless, a certain link to th e labour market still needs to 
be established. Vulnerable groups can be supported with a view to promoting their 
reintegration in the labour market. Institutio nal capacity building measures may cover all 
sectors. Health is supported to a limited extent, provided there is  a clear labour market linkage 
(e.g. health and safety at work, mental health in  the framework of social  inclusion priority). 
Passive measures are only eligible when linked to activation measures. The transition to low-carbon economy can be supported through profe ssional training and advanced vocational 
training to develop and adjust skills and qualif ications, especially in the energy efficiency, 
renewable energy, sustainable tran sport and agriculture sectors. 
Under option 1.2 , the ESF is narrowly focussed on policies and actions leading directly to 
employment . This corresponds to the IGL 7, 8 and 9. Th e function of the ESF is to facilitate 
access to employment. Social inclusion and fight against poverty interventi ons are not eligible 
as such, except for people that are very clos e to the labour market. The coverage is much 
narrower than today. For instance, it does no t cover activities oriented towards long-term 
unemployed which are not likely to find any tim e soon a job in the first labour market, or 
people with a disability who will permanently re ly on subsidised or sheltered employment  
                                                
 
81 Council Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on broad guidelin es for the economic policies of the Member States 
and of the Union" and "Council Decision of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the 
Member States"  
82 Council Decision from June 2010 and State of the Union Speech from September 2010 
83 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/article_10127_opinion_on_future_esf_en.pdf  
84 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:308:0046:0051:EN:PDF   
 
 39(such activities are covered in  options 1 and 3). Support to the reforms for instance of 
employment services is covered. In the field of education, only actions with direct labour 
market relevance are eligible  (e.g. strengthening the links between the labour market and 
education, adapting education and training syst ems to labour market demand). Institutional 
capacity building can be covered in relation to  public employment services and capacity 
building of social partner. 
Under Option 1.3  the ESF has a broad scope  for interventions covering policies and actions 
leading directly or indi rectly to employment or social in clusion. This corresponds to the IGL 
7, 8, 9 and 10. Expanding on option 1.1, this option does not require the ac tivity to be linked 
to employment. This has the benefit that activiti es where such a link w ould be highly artificial 
but which are nevertheless important for social  inclusion can be funded without difficulties. 
For instance, interventions aiming at fostering pre-school attendance would be covered. In the 
field of social inclusion, the scope of the ESF is extended to cover access to high quality, 
affordable and sustainable services, in particular  in the social field. It does include a broad 
range of health activities a nd greater focus on anti-discrimination measures, which aim at 
enhancing full participation in society. Passive  measures are only eligible when linked to 
activation measures. All actions in the fiel d of education are e ligible for support.  
Some stakeholders have called for a broad scope for ESF including passive measures . 
Option 1.4  corresponds to the IGL 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Th e range of actions is the same as under 
option 1.3. However, the ESF can also co-finan ce income support for actions with a social 
inclusion dimension. Under opti on 1.4 passive measures can be supported even outside the 
periods of activation.  
All the options proposed continue with the – by  now well established a nd accepted – practice 
to support people as well as institutions (systems  and structures) in th e relevant areas of 
intervention. While the ESF may fund equipment needed for a given intervention, it does not 
fund infrastructure works, such  as construction or renovation of buildin gs and roads, under 
any of the options. These types of investment s may be supported by other instruments under 
Cohesion Policy notably the ERDF. It has also to be underlined that the existing practises to 
fund passive measures during (and only during)  the period for which participants follow 
active measures (training for example) re mains unchanged for options 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.  
A particular emphasis is given to  innovative and transnational act ions in synergy with actions 
supported in other EU programmes under all options. The role effe cts (in particular the policy 
change, mutual learning, innovation dimensions85) and scope effects of the ESF (broadening 
in a relevant and effective way the scope of existing actions) can be strengthened by funding 
in a more systematic way social inno vation and experimentation projects.  
In line with the new MFF proposal announcing that the Commission inte nds to increase the 
proportion of climate related expenditure acro ss the EU budget to at least 20%, climate 
mainstreaming gains in importance. For all ESF options, climate objectives  will in particular 
be relevant in relation to activities under prom oting employment and investing in skills which 
will be needed for the transition to a low-carbon and climate resilient economy. 
Mainstreaming must be visible, robust and acco mpanied by a clear cross-cutting obligation to 
identify where programmes promote climate action or  energy efficiency so that the EU is able 
                                                 
85 The ex-post evaluation proposes "that the ESF promotes a portfolio of innovative projects. The ESF should 
focus on an experiment-oriented and risk-taking approach whereby new solutions to labour market and welfare policies are attempted, and knowledge about what work s is increased and systematically disseminated across 
regions and MSs through, among other things, the promotion of ‘best practices’".   
 
 40to set out clearly how much of its spending relates to climate action. Clear benchmarks, 
monitoring and reporting rules for all relevant EU policy instruments will be established by building on two strands: 1) comm on tracking procedures for clim ate related expe nditure; and 
2) target setting in all relevant pol icies and the monitoring of results. 
Furthermore horizontal issues such as aiming to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or  sexual orientation remain cornerstones of the 
ESF under all options. In particular, gender e quality continues to be actively promoted 
through the dual approach of gender mainstream ing and specific actions. Those issues should 
be addressed as horizontal principles aiming at  achieving the overall goal of the ESF. The 
social and economic integration of Roma peopl e should also be specifically addressed. The 
obligations that the European Union has take n by becoming party to the UN Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
86 should also be considered. In addition, all actors 
responsible for the implementation of the ESF are to ensure that implementation of its 
priorities is in full respect with the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  This approach is fully in line with the Strategy 
for the effective implementation of the Char ter of Fundamental Ri ghts by the European 
Union.
87. 
The Table 5 below summarise the differences a nd similarities between the different options. 
Table 5. ESF scope options 
 Policy areas 
Options Employment Education  Inclusion Institutional 
Capacity building 
1.1 – No policy 
change All measures 
considered as ALMP 
Health only  
included where 
directly related to 
employment (f.i. health and safety at 
work) Fully covered (not 
restricted to 
transition from education and 
training to 
employment) Covered provided a 
link a link to the 
labour market is established Any sector  
1.2 – focus on 
employment All measures 
considered as ALMP Focus on transition 
from education and to training 
employment Not covered Only of labour 
market related institutions 
1.3 – broad scope Same as option 1.1 Same as option 1.1 Option 1.1 but with 
access to services and anti-
discrimination Same as option 1.1 
1.4 – broad 
scope including 
passive 
measures Option 1.3 plus 
income support 
(passive labour 
market measures) Same as option 1.1 Option 3 including 
income support. Same as option 1.1 
 
                                                 
86 Council decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, 
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:023:0035:0061:EN:PDF  
87 Communication  on Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the 
European Union from 19.10.2010 COM(2010) 573 final. 
 
 414.2. Simplification of ESF implementation  
The scope for the simplification of ESF impl ementation is actually foremost dependent on 
provisions made elsewhere notably  in the Financial Regulation and in the General Regulation 
for the ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund. The options  discussed here mirror a discussion in the 
Impact Assessment of the General Regulation bu t focus on the use of simplified cost options 
for which ESF specificity is the most marked. The analysis will develop an ESF specific 
approach.  
Under option 2.1 ( status quo ), reimbursement is based mainly on real costs, the use of 
simplified cost options (flat rates, standard scal es of unit costs and lump  sums) is allowed, but 
optional. The use of simplified cost options al ways requires the development of a regional/ 
national methodology to underpin the rates to be used.   
Option 2.2 ( proportional approach ), allows for reimbursement based on real costs or on the 
simplified cost options i.e. as in option 1, but with additional possibili ties facilitating the use 
of simplified cost options and reinforcing a more result based approach: for example 
introduction of flat rates at EU level, accepta nce of rates establishe d for other EU funding 
instruments or application of already ex isting national funding models. The detailed 
possibilities could vary according to  the specific types of operations.  
Under option 2.3 ( prescriptive approach ), payments to projec ts are based only on 
deliverables with corresponding amo unts or rates agreed beforehand.  
4.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF 
The options considered differ exclusively in th e organisational set-up, which is essential as 
problem analysis and stakeholders' views dem onstrate. Content-wise the usefulness of an 
emergency instrument to support people hit by major unforeseeable economic turbulences has not been put in question. The questions of wher e and how exactly to put eligibility thresholds 
will be discussed in the upcoming ex-ante evaluation
88. 
Option 3.1  corresponds to the no policy change with the EGF operating without a proper 
budget outside the MFF. The ab sence of an own budget line a nd financial arrangements 
implies the approval of the Budgetary Authority on a case by case basis. However, efforts will 
be made to shorten the time gap between app lication for and payment of EGF support. This 
will be pursued through further streamlining of the application process, requiring the 
submission of a complete app lication, making the provision of  additional information an 
exception and limiting the time for Member States  to submit this information, providing for 
the adoption by the Commission of the financing d ecision 'sous clause suspensive' at the same 
time as the Commission adopts the Proposal  for a Decision to mobilise the EGF. 
Under Option 3.2 , the actions currently carried out under EGF are incorporated into the ESF . 
A specific ESF component comparable to th e Community initiatives which existed in 
                                                 
88 The recently adopted MFF 2014-2020 proposal extended th e scope of the EGF to include assistance to farmers 
whose livelihoods may be affected by globalisation. This ha s been driven by the need to facilitate the adaptations 
required by international trade agreements. The extensio n of the EGF's activities to cover farmers may require a 
change of/ addition to its framework, scope, tools and implementing arrangements to ensure that the new policy 
objectives are achieved. Budget ary issues are also to be considered as the new MFF proposal is earmarking up to 
2.5 billion € of the EGF to be used for agriculture. Th e legal, policy and budgetary consequences of this 
extension of the EGF activities need to be further assess ed. This would also cover aspects such as triggering 
mechanism and the consistency and complementarity with the CAP in general and with rural development measures in particular. This analysis w ill be part of an ex-ante evaluation.  
.  
 
 42previous programming periods will be created. This component focuses on emergency aid to 
workers affected by large-scale redundancies an d farmers suffering from the indirect effects 
of globalisation. Main ju stification for such support will be  changes in the global division of 
labour or other factors having a significant adve rse impact on the regional or local economy, 
including large unforeseen cyclic al downturns, similar to the present economic and financial 
crisis.  
Option 3.3 is the EGF as a stand-alone fund with its own budget line  within the Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF). The intervention cr iteria, scope, intervention rate and type of 
measures would be identical to the ones in option 3.1. Under this option the Commission 
services take decisions on each EGF application. The approval of  an application leads to a 
grant agreement with the applicant Member State.  
4.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument  
Option 4.1  is no policy change  which means that, EURES, the European PROGRESS 
Microfinance Facility and the EU programme  for employment and social solidarity - 
PROGRESS continue to exist as separate instruments running alongside the ESF. The 
PROGRESS programme does not in clude the gender equality and anti-discrimination strands 
(amounting together to 35% of the overall budget) which are incorporated into the new 
generation of JUST programmes89. The current Progress Microfinance Facility continues to 
provide guarantees and funding under joint management with th e European Investment Fund, 
with a last investment in 2016 without new extra resources. Member States are still able to set 
up holding funds (e.g. under JEREMIE) with  ESF resources to provide funding and 
guarantees to microfinance providers. ESF con tinues to support generally entrepreneurship 
and self-employment through the financing of  training, mentoring and, in some cases, 
capacity building of microfinance providers. 
No dedicated capacity building funding for mi crofinance providers is foreseen. Some 
awareness raising and exchange of good practi ces are financed out of the ESF technical 
assistance. 
Option 4.2  is a new integrated programme for empl oyment, social policy and inclusion  
(Social Development Agenda) implemented thr ough direct management. Such an EU-level 
instrument complements the ESF (shared management). Both instruments together constitute the comprehensive European Employment Initiative, as called for by the Budget Review 
Communication (p 15).  
The new programme is made up of three strands: 
1. PROGRESS strand covering employme nt, working conditions, social 
protection and social inclus ion. An important financia l support is provided for 
testing and scaling up cost-e ffective experiments or pr ojects in the areas of 
employment, poverty reducti on and social inclusion.  
2. EURES strand covering services at EU  level related to both outgoing and to 
incoming placements targeted mobility schemes at EU level and involving both Public Employment Services (PES) and Private Employment Services. 
                                                
 
89 COM(2011) 500 final. A Budget for Europe 2020 - Part II - Policy Fiches - Communication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. 
 
 43National EURES activities would not be c overed any more as they already fall 
under the scope of the ESF. 
3. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship st rand covering the strengthened facility 
for microfinance and providing financial s upport to social enterprises. Under 
this strand, the EU continues to  provide guarantees and funding to 
microfinance institutions under joint management with the EIF. New elements are capacity building support to microfinan ce institutions (in the form of loans, 
equity or grants) and to social invest ment funds (through equity instruments, 
debt and risk-sharing instruments and gr ants) for the development and scaling 
of social enterprises. Member States ar e still allowed to use ESF funding to set 
up their own holding funds, as under option 4.1.  
Option 4.3  corresponds to the establishment of a single financial instrument for 
employment and social affairs under the banner of the European Social Fund . Such a 
new ESF has both shared management (to cove r the existing ESF and the EGF) and direct 
management components. The latter includes the actions currently carried out under the 
PROGRESS programme, the Micro-Finance Facili ty complemented by a financial instrument 
to support social enterprises, and EURES. 
Under the direct management component, PR OGRESS strand covers employment, working 
conditions, social protec tion and social inclusion policy fi elds as well as social innovation 
projects.  
The current Progress Microfinance Facility co ntinues to provide guarantees and funding under 
joint management with the European Investment  Fund, with a last inve stment in 2016 without 
new extra resources. Under shared management , Member States use (possibly ring-fenced) 
ESF resources to support micro-finance activities at national level (in the form of guarantees 
and funding including an allocation covering pa rt of the operational costs) and social 
enterprises. Technical assistance resources could be used for specific capacity building 
measures aimed at microcredit providers. 
Under direct management, the ac tivities are limited to awaren ess raising and general support 
to policies in the area of self-e mployment and entrepreneurship.  
4.5. Options not analysed 
4.5.1. No-funding 
The no-funding policy option would see the discon tinuation of European financial support to 
help developing and introducing active labour ma rket policies, effective lifelong learning, 
instruments to promote labour mobility, and ade quate social security systems. This would 
directly affect several millions  of citizens annually; end the mo st tangible expression of EU 
solidarity; and greatly diminish the capability to promote EU employment and social policy 
objectives: 
° The no-funding option would mean that actions usually funded under ESF (i.e. 
supporting people to improve their skills and job prospects; encouraging self-
employment and entrepreneurship; and intr a-EU labour mobility ) would instead be 
solely reliant on national measures. It is doub tful that in the lesser developed Member 
States and regions national resources would be available to take over this role.  
 
 44° The EU would also lose the most visible sign of the common employment and social 
policy ambitions as formulated in Article  151 of the TFEU. Due to its impact on the 
ESF, the no-funding option would in turn affect the cohesion policy as a whole thereby jeopardising the promotion of econom ic, social and territorial cohesion, and 
solidarity among the Member States and regions.  
° Moreover, as EU funding has b een shown to work as a catalyst, the ability to promote 
and facilitate reforms, as well as to empowe r stakeholders who have  a crucial role to 
play in the delivery of reform would be severally diminished.  
4.5.1. Focussing ESF operational programmes 
The Commission staff working paper (S EC(2011)868) accompanying the June Budget 
package raises the issue of the focussing of  funding of ESF operational programmes. The 
reasons for not taking up the options consid ered up in this report are as follows.   
Concentration should be achieved firstly by  strengthening the li nk with the country 
assessment and the country specific recommendations. This allows for an approach which is 
flexible and common to all Structural and Cohe sion Funds. As such this is the subject of the 
General Regulation and its Imp act Assessment not of the f und specific Regulations and 
Impact Assessments.  
Focussing of Cohesion Policy Operational Programmes 
Focussing operational programmes (ESF and non- ESF) will be achieved trough a process of 
strategic programming and an increased atten tion on performance. Broad thematic objectives 
are defined in the General Regulation. In the June Budget communication (COM(2011)500), 
the Commission decided that the ESF should focus on four of these90. Based on their NRPs, 
the Country Specific Recommendati ons and their own ex-ante ev aluation, the Member States 
will select which ones it should co ncentrate on. This selection will be fixed in Partnership 
Contracts and operational programmes. For each  thematic objective , the fund specific 
regulations will define detailed investment  priorities which will correspond to specific 
objectives to be pursued under th e Operational Programmes. It s hould be noted that the actual 
selection of projects remains a competence of  the Managing Authorities. However, actions 
that can not be shown to contri bute to the intended specific object ives will be ineligible.    
Progress towards the specific objectives is to be monitored through a reinforced monitoring 
and evaluation system. Each Priority Axes of  an Operational Programme will require the 
identification of milestones on th e basis of financial,  output and result i ndicators in order to 
assess performance. A performance reserve will be available to reward the better performing 
programmes. 
While the system sketched above does not mechan ically avoid fragmentat ion of resources, it 
is judged to offer a powerful yet flexible way to achieve it.  
 
                                                 
90 They are: employment promotion; investment in skills, education and life-long learning; social inclusion and 
the fight against poverty; and enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration. 
 
 455. Analysis of impacts 
Taking into account the nature of the options the analysis of impacts will focus on a 
qualitative analysis, demonstrating which causa lities will be dominant under each option.  
This analysis focuses on social and economic impacts.  On a very general note all the 
instruments are expected to facilitate or  mitigate the change of economic, including 
employment, structures.  
As mentioned in the objectives section, a lthough employment and social policy will have 
environmental impacts, these impacts depend on the concrete implementa tion, i.e. in the case 
of the ESF on the Operational Programmes and th e actual projects funded and not directly on 
the legal provisions. However, the different inst ruments are expected also to facilitate the 
transition to a low-carbon ec onomy notably through targeted vocational trai ning and re-
training towards "green-collar" job opportuni ties, addressing emerging skills bottlenecks and 
supporting the development of know-how for low-carbon technologies as a basis for 
innovation. 
5.1. The scope of the ESF 
Under  Option 1.1  the ESF covers policies and actions leading directly or indirectly to 
employment. It is placed between options 1.2 and 1.3. While this optio n maintains the clear 
focus on employment and is ther efore also in line with social  partners' request to focus on 
employment and with EMCO's opinion, it includes also those at the margins of or outside the 
labour market, which has it in common with option 1.3.  
Applying a broad interpretation of  indirectly leading to empl oyment, would bring option 1.1 
very close to option 1.3. One could basically do everything which helps a working age or 
younger individual to be integrated in society, wh ile maintaining the objective of integration 
into work, whereby work might not necessarily  mean first labour market. However, it could 
also result in a more stringent focus on labour  market related issues, making it difficult to 
support early education or primarily social and h ealth issues, while ensu ring that interventions 
keep an economic rationale. 
From an administrative point of view several MS would appreciate to  continue with this 
approach as it could avoid new groups of stakeholders wetti ng their appetite to obtain ESF 
funding, which could mean it becomes more  difficult to concentrate the funds. 
In economic  terms  Option 1.2  – an ESF narrowly focussed on policies and actions leading 
directly to employment (including support to  education, but only tertiary education and 
vocational education) – ensures ex-ante a concentration of th e ESF on economically relevant 
tasks, namely inserting people into the labour market or improving their skills. Both can be 
expected to improve the productivity of those trai ned or counselled and can in so far translate 
into economic growth. Social partne rs stated that they consider th is – in line with the Treaty 
provisions – as the core of ESF activities. Ev aluations and studies provide insights in the 
benefits of these types of investments91.  Institutional capacity building of labour market 
                                                 
91 See for instance: Study on the return on ESF investment in Human capital by Eureval/Ecorys/Rambøll 
Management for DG EMPL and completed in (August 2010).  Card, D., J. Kluve und A. Weber (2010), Active Labour Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-analysis. Economic Journal 120 (548): 452-477; 'Active Labour market policies for the Europe 2020 Strategy: ways to move forward' publication by the Flemish Department of 
Work and Social Economy in cooperation with the Rese arch Institute for Work an d Society, the European 
 
 46related institutions should lead to better matching between jobseekers and available jobs, 
swifter transitions to a job due to tailored assistance taking into account labour market 
demands and thus contributing to achieving the employment rate.  
Nevertheless, the economic benefits of an ESF ex clusively limiting itself to this area would be 
rather limited. It could even mean to consolid ate labour market and social segregation by only 
supporting people in or close to the labour market .  Looking more into the social impacts of 
this option, the horizontal prin ciples of anti-discrimination bu t also innovation e.g. developing 
new approaches to work-life-balance might become more difficult to support. Innovation 
often requires that things which were seen se parately before can be looked at in a more 
integrated way or that a diffe rent perspective becomes possibl e. A labour market focus would 
tend to imply a focus on individuals wherea s barriers to employment may lay beyond for 
instance the household. Focussing the ESF excl usively on labour market integration and 
training is likely to be too narrow also when seen from this angle. 
Option 1.3 , broad scope of ESF, extends the scope to the fields of social inclusion and health, 
irrespective of whether inclusion into the labour market is an issue. This option allows the 
greatest flexibility to ad apt to the wide range of challenges throughout the Union. It is also in 
line with broad political decisi on placing in the context of Eu rope 2020 a stronger emphasis 
on the fight against poverty. By investing more substantially in ensuring access to high quality, affordable, and sustainable servi ces to vulnerable groups, anti-discrimination 
measures and in access to health care. A broad sc ope is also more in line with the opinions of 
the EESC, the CoR and of the ESF Committee ad  hoc group on the future and was generally 
supported at the ESF conference in June 2010. Th e SPC for its part has called for an ESF 
better fitted to suppor t the social protection, health and long-term care OMC strands. 
This option will have no difficulties to work w ith those groups which are not likely to find 
employment without public support . In so far deadweight losses and substitution effects might 
be lower and the economic benefits  in terms of avoided costs for the social security system of 
this option are likely to be hi gher than for option 2. Still it s hould not be overlooked that with 
this approach the immediate effect on productiv ity is probably lower, as medium and high-
skilled which are already in employment – or those close to the labour market – will receive 
less support.  
Indirect economic costs of the pe rsistence of large scale inequalities in health are potentially 
considerable but difficult to estimate. One of the few studies that has attempted to do so 
estimated that the potential economic gain whic h would occur if it wa s possible to bring the 
health of the whole population up to the level of health experienced by those with higher 
education would be between 1.2% and 9% of the EU GDP92. Therefore, hi gh levels of health 
(i.e. reducing unnecessary ill heal th and premature death) for a ll sections of the population are 
important in the context of an ageing populat ion to allow longer working lives and support 
higher productivity and employment levels. Avoi dable ill-health also means large costs for 
health systems and puts unnecessa ry pressure on public budgets. 
A comprehensive activation strategy which in some MS will be needed to achieve the 75% 
employment target could well be supported un der this option. It could make possible the 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Commission and the City of Antwerp (Presidency Conference of October 2010) and Employment in Europe 
2006. 
92 Mackenbach, J. P., Meerding, W. J. , Kunst, A. E., 2006 Economic implications of socio-economic inequalities 
in health in the European Union, Erasmus MC, Department of Public Health, Netherlands for the European 
Commission 
 
 47support of people who might be in  a position to take up employ ment only after a series of 
interventions. Managing Author ities might also be in a positi on to support interventions not 
likely to lead rapidly to employment, but helping people not to drop out from society. 
While the ESF budget is limited and direct income support is not part of this option, any other 
support which could contribute to lifting pe ople out of poverty, which could e.g. be a 
neighbourhood project or a yout h centre, is with in the scope of this option.  
This option has a considerable social potential in  terms of actual benefits  but also in terms of 
innovation though it will largely depend on the Mana ging Authorities to make use from these 
additional flexibility. They are aware that this b ears a challenge for them as they will have to 
be even more precise when developing the OP, so as to allow sufficient practical 
concentration which is required for administrative purposes and to be able to show the impact of the programme. Compared to other options, th is option has the most potential beneficial 
impact on fundamental rights as in addition to the promotion of the principles of non-
discrimination (Article 21), gender equality (Article 23), integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26), right to  access to placement services (Ar ticle 29) or right to fair and 
just working conditions (Article 31) it would al so provide for funding of actions relevant for 
the exercise of the right to health care (Ar ticle 35) or education (Article 14).    
Two risks are associated with broadening the scope of interv ention, increased overlaps with 
other EU instruments
93 and an increased fragmenta tion of support and the possible 
consequence of lacking critical ma ss to make a real difference.  
The risks of overlap are minimised by different  emphases of the different programmes. For 
instance the "Education Europe" programme pr omotes the international mobility of young 
persons in education or training, while the ESF focuses on the mobility (essentially 
occupational) of workers. Possible overlaps with  other funds in shared management are to be 
addressed through the Common strategic Framew ork and the National Partnership Contracts 
which will cover the ESF, the ERDF, the CF, the EAFRD and the EMFF. 
It is not possible to fully anti cipate the possible frag mentation of support. This is because the 
actual allocation of funds will be decided in the context of  negotiations of regional and 
national operational programmes and can therefore not be a ssessed ex-ante. There are 
however, three factors that should he lp mitigate these possible effects. 
The major factor is that the negotiations on the new operational programmes will be 
conducted in a much tighter framework of st rategic programming putting a much greater 
emphasis on the performance of the future pr ogrammes. Moreover, the definition of minimum 
shares of ESF allocations  per category of regions94 should ensure that a critical mass of 
funding is achieved.  
Finally while the scope is widened it is not in  a dramatic manner. The number of investment 
priorities is an indirect though imperfect meas ure of the scope. In the draft regulation, the 
extension of the scope translates into two i nvestment priorities on a total of 18. Costly 
infrastructure interventions (f.i. school buildi ngs) remain outside the E SF scope but are in the 
scope of the other instruments of cohesion policy. This should increase the possible synergies 
between interventions co-finan ced by the different funds.  
                                                 
93 Notably "Education Europe", "Justice and Fundamen tal Rights for Citizens" and "Health for Growth" 
94 June Budget Pack age: COM(2011) 500. 
 
 48Option 1.4,  broadening the scope of  the ESF towards income support does not meet much 
appreciation. The CoR for instance explicitly  advocates the continued linking of income 
support with activation measures  as is currently the case. 
In the European Union, out-of-work income maintenance and support in 2009 amounts to 
nearly 164 € billion95. This is nearly 15 times the curren t ESF budget on a yearly basis. The 
spending by Member States and regional author ities on passive measures  is therefore of a 
completely different order of magnitude than  the funds potentially available for the ESF96. 
Furthermore, providing income support is foll owing the subsidiarity principle first and 
foremost an obligation which should be met by national or regional institutions. The operational costs of social security schemes ar e to be paid from national sources. Supporting 
passive measures would change the character of  the fund and may even be in contradiction 
with the Treaty provisions. More over, any amount spen t on passive measures  is not available 
for the other activities where a European Added Value can be identified.  
5.2. Simplification  
Though the main purpose of the simplified cost options is to reduce the error levels, the 
reduction of administrative burden is potentially very significan t. If beneficiaries apply for 
one or more of the three options, they would ne ed to retain a considerably lower number of 
accounting documents, both to comply with pe riodical audits, and to show proofs of 
expenditures when requesting payments. A st udy conducted by CEPS conc ludes these options 
could reduce the administrative costs and burdens  by nearly 17% for the Cohesion Policy as a 
whole. For the ESF the potential reduction is ev en larger as approximately 75% of operations 
funded may benefit
97. The actual reduction is more difficult to quantify or predict. It depends 
on the speed with which the simplified costs options are introduced and also whether they are 
widely applied or used only for specific cases.  
Under Option 2.1 – No policy change , payments based on real costs provide assurance that 
EU funds are used towards co-financed projec ts. In its 2009 Annual Report, the European 
Court of Auditors highlighted that "in the C ohesion area, a significant reduction in the error 
rate has been noted compared to previous years.  The frequency of errors  has also decreased in 
the last three years." Under a situation of no po licy change, there is scope for further reduction 
of the error rates.  
Managing a real cost system can lead to a hi gher error rate and disp roportional management 
costs.  This is particularly an issue for th e ESF with many final beneficiaries implementing 
relatively small operations. The real cost system is one of the main reasons why implementation of cohesion policy is perceived by many beneficiaries to  be overly complex.  
In the 2007-2013 period, first steps have been  made to introduce simplified reimbursement 
options – flat rate for indirect costs, standard  scales of unit costs and lump sums. The initial 
reaction from Member States has been positive and encouraging with gr eat interest for the 
uptake of some of these solutions. The de velopment of initial methodologies for the 
establishment of a flat rate or standard s cale system has proved more time consuming and 
                                                
 
95 Eurostat: LMP data for 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/p age/portal/statistics/search_database  
96 During the programming period 2007 – 2013, the budget available for ESF was nearly 76 billion €. The MFF 
foresees that the ESF should amount to at least 84 b illion € for the seven year programming period 2014 – 2020.  
97 Measurement of administrative burdens generated by the European legislation; Prepared by CEPS for the 
Directorate General of Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission under Specific Contract No. SI2.546728 implementing Framework Contract No. ENTR/2006/006 – Lot 4. Second interim report - first part: 
AB quantifications  
 
 49resource intensive than e xpected by Member States an d the Commission. Overall, a 
reimbursement based on real costs has remained  the most common even if in some ESF OPs 
simplified cost options are now the op tion by default (Flanders, England).  
Option 2.2 – Flexible approach  would make it easier for national/regional authorities to use 
the optional simplified payment options, providing a lternatives to a system based on real costs 
which can often lead to unnecessary complexity and a disproportionate administrative burden.  
The experiences in some ESF operational progra mmes with public tendering instead of calls 
for proposals and with simplified cost options show that it is  possible to simplify for the 
beneficiaries thereby dramatically  reducing error rates. Furthermor e the use of standard scales 
of unit costs and lump sums have  the potential to place output s and results at the focus of 
programme implementation.  
As the use of the different systems would re main voluntary, this op tion should ease the 
transition to a range of simplified cost opti ons for certain types of projects, parts of 
programmes or programmes and at the same time still allow for reimbursement based on real 
costs for all other projects.  
A possible drawback is the co mplexity associated with r unning simultaneously different 
systems though this should be mitigated by th eir voluntary nature. Moreover these systems 
require a much bigger ex-ante investment to put them into place than the more common payment against expenditure.  
The detail of expenditure would not be checked any more under Option 2.3 – Prescriptive 
approach  making it potentially the simplest syst em. Moreover, basing the payments to 
projects based on deliverables should increase the focus on deliverables and render the system 
more accountable in terms of the results achie ved. The main difficulty with this option is 
avoiding "creaming" effects (sel ecting projects where attainment of deliverables is simple, 
rather than projects which are mo re necessary). Moreover, this option can be expected to stifle 
some operations where deliverables are difficult  to precisely define and cost before hand, 
particularly the more innovative on es. This is likely to be esp ecially the case for the actions 
contributing to the promotion of social incl usion and combating poverty and to institutional 
capacity building. Under Option 3 negotiations between the Commission and the Member 
States on the future operational programmes can  be expected to be significantly more 
complex.  The start-up of the actual programme s might also be affected. Furthermore under 
this option the transparency would be redu ced as underlying costs would not be checked 
anymore. 
5.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF 
Under  Option 3.1  - no policy change the EGF will not have an own budget. That means that 
following each application the budgetary auth ority has to take a decision whether this 
situation merits support. The main disadvantage of this situation lies in the long delays 
implied by the administrative procedures. Taking into account that such decisions have to be 
prepared and often negotia tion is required, the process will c ontinue to take considerable time 
and resources. Considering the experience collected with the implementation of the EGF so 
far it seems ambitious but possible to speed up the process and reduce the average time 
needed to process an application to around 8 months, which would be a 3-4 month reduction. 
Main instruments could be a simplification of intervention criteria, wh ich would also make 
the final decision more predictable for the applic ant. In doing so, the delay of 8 months is no 
longer of such importance, as the measures co uld in many cases start earlier. The use of a 
financing decision "sous-clause -suspensive" could further re duce the time lag between an 
 
 50application and the disbursement of the aid. Up to now no application has been rejected by the 
budgetary authority. However that  risk does exist and rejection could mean that Member 
States would have started to spend suppor t funding which finally is not granted.  
Taking the money from the margins of the budget allows for a high flexibility of the 
instrument, which is in line with previous  experiences. Requests for payments varied 
considerably in the past, between 20.6 million Euro in 2008 and 132.5 Euro in 2010. Furthermore it avoids the impression that ther e is a defined budget which is waiting to be 
spent. This organisation clearly signals that this is a support  which is given in exceptional 
circumstances and outside the usual routines. It also raises awareness in Parliament of mass 
lay-offs by involving it in the actual funding decision. This might help to bring the Parliament 
closer to the citizens and their concerns. Finally the high visibi lity of each application also 
puts high expectations on the quality of  the measures to be carried out. 
This institutional arrangement means also that the EGF remains visible and cannot be 
mistaken to be a minor part of the ESF.  
Under Option 3.2 , the EGF actions are incorporated into the ESF . The integration of the 
EGF into the ESF increases coherence, promot es complementarity between preventative and 
curative measures and shortens  the decision-making process. It  simplifies and streamlines the 
management of individual EGF applications as  the EGF could benefit from ESF structures 
and procedures in the Member States, as well as ESF management and control systems in a 
more direct way than this is the case in the no policy change situation. The rules for 
reimbursement of expenditure are adapted, by inte grating ESF simplifications in eligible costs 
and project design, reducing administrative burd en. Option 2 will provide dismissed workers 
with more and better targeted support for their reintegration into employment compared to a 
situation without EU support. 
The disadvantage of option 3.2 is that an EGF integrated into the ESF would need a clear 
budget allocated to it. This c ould suggest that this budget is to be spent within the 
programming period yet large redundancies can not  be programmed. This runs counter to the 
aspect of support in extr aordinary situations. It also runs  counter to the overall allocation 
criteria used in cohesion policy whereby Me mber States and regions  are allocated a known 
quantity of EU funds. A decision making pro cess which would not involve the budgetary 
authority (Council and European Parliament) would also reduce th e political visibility of EU 
intervention.  
Option 3.3 , an EGF as a stand-alone fund with its own budgetary envelope  ensures a high 
visibility of European solidar ity with workers made redundant.  However a certain degree of 
overlap with the ESF remains whereas there is a need to increase the added value of the different EU instruments by improving the syne rgies between them rather than risking 
competition and overlaps. This is recognised by the Budget Review (p.13) which calls for beneficiaries of EU support to  "be offered a consistent se t of programmes complementing 
each other and allowing for 'smart specialisa tion' rather than being confronted with a 
multitude of partially overlapping schemes and different rules". 
In terms of effectiveness and European added value this option is very similar to option 3.2. 
The efficiency of the delivery mechanism will come at a cost compared to option 3.2, as this option will not benefit from established ESF structures, procedures and simplification 
 
 51In terms of efficient use of budgetary resources, this option presents a si milar disadvantage as 
option 3.2, as it will earmark for a variable patter n of expenditure a fixed amount of resources 
within the MFF. 
5.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument  
Assessment of social, environmen tal and economic impacts is part icularly difficult in the case 
of PROGRESS which is not a f unding programme (like the ESF) but rather a financial tool 
helping the Commission to fulfil its role according to the Treaties. The programme’s 
deliverables (analytical activit ies; mutual learning, awarene ss and dissemination activities; 
support to main actors) feed into all stages  of the EU policy-making process such as 
formulation, development, adoption and subs equent implementation of legislative and non-
legislative policy initiatives in the areas covered by the programme . These specific policy 
initiatives supported by PROGRE SS are, when relevant, underpinned by their own Impact 
Assessments. Analysis of the option and their s ubsequent comparison is therefore carried out 
against the criteria of effectiven ess, efficiency and coherence.  
The no-policy change  option (4.1)  would provide for the con tinuation of Progress, EURES 
and the Microfinance Facility  as stand-alone instrument s alongside the ESF.   
The objectives of a suc cessor instrument to Progress woul d be optimally aligned on Europe 
2020 priorities. The programme's thematic scope would be limited to the employment, 
working conditions, social protection and soci al inclusion areas; however, in pursuing its 
objectives, the programme would promote ge nder equality and anti-discrimination 
dimensions. The programme would carry on with  funding of its traditi onal types of actions 
(analytical and mutual learning activities, and su pport to main actors) which are considered as 
effective in meeting th e programme’s objectives98. Without the gender equality and anti-
discrimination strands, the new programme would also be much smaller and as such would 
not have the critical mass needed to achieve its policy objectives.  
The opportunity to increase policy coherence by  enlarging the programme’s thematic scope 
(to social innovation; self-employment and en trepreneurship including through the micro-
finance facility; and intra-EU mobility of workers through EU RES) is missed. There are no 
efficiency gains that could derive from the rationalisation of EMPL  financial instrument 
implemented through direct management.  
Under this option, no action would be taken to address in particular the issue relating to 
EURES administrative structur e which is complex and need s revision and streamlining.  
In the case of the Microfinan ce Facility, this option would miss the opportunity to embed 
microfinance in a general approach towards sup porting entrepreneurship as a means to create 
jobs and fight exclusion. With separate instru ments at EU level, support to microfinance 
institutions would continue to be fragmented with technical assistan ce (e.g. training, rating 
etc.) being delivered under a different inst rument than the loans and guarantees for 
microfinance institutions, or the funding for capacity building. This means the policy 
coherence would not be improved. Microfinance providers would c ontinue to suffer from this 
complicated setup at the EU level. Moreover, the European added value of such separate 
instruments would be reduced: even though some individual Member States might continue to 
                                                 
98 See Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation and annu al performance monitoring reports (2007-2010).  Respondents to th e public 
consultation, including national authorities, made also a strong case for the con tinuation of the analytical and mutual learnin g activities which 
are considered are highly relevant to the EU objectiv es in the employment and social policy field.  
 
 52provide support, they would not be able to satisfy the very high demand for microfinance 
from those who want to become self-employed or stand/develop a micr o-enterprise as they 
could, for instance, not so easily attract extra-re sources from internationa l institutions like the 
EIF if they operate exclusively on a national or  regional scale. In ad dition, the opportunity to 
promote social enterprises would be lost, wh ich means that the shor tcomings of Progress 
Microfinance with regard to this partic ular target group would not be addressed. 
The main advantage of option 4.2  is a high degree of rationalisa tion of EMPL financial tools. 
This option would enable the Commission to increase policy coherence and impact of its 
instruments which pursue common objectives in the employment, social affairs and inclusion 
fields. For instance, PROGRESS, EURES and the European Microfinance Facility contribute 
to the implementation of the European Employme nt Strategy. In additi on, the current Progress 
programme (2007-2014) already promotes a numbe r of activities linked to labour mobility 
and relevant for EURES activities (such as cooperation between the Heads of Public 
Employment Services, funding of the Eu ropean employment observatory, ESCO99, several 
studies and statistics on matching skills and jobs, etc.). It also finances the operating costs of 
the European Microfinance Network which promot es the use of the Microfinance Facility. 
Further complementarity between these three instru ments is therefore essential. In particular, 
the aim of improving self-employment and ge ographical mobility cannot be achieved in 
isolation from other policies (ex. flexicurity, labour law, health and safety at work) supported 
by Progress. Gender and anti-discrimination main streaming would be prom oted in all strands 
and annual monitoring would focus on measuring the extent to which these dimensions are 
addressed across all other activities100. This thematic scope would be in line with both the 
recommendations of PROGRESS stakeholder work ing group and the view of the respondents 
to the public consultation101.  
Regarding the new programme's design, creat ing three strands (Progress, EURES, 
Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship ) would be necessary given considerable 
differences between the three instruments re garding their respective types of actions, 
beneficiaries, geographical c overage and management mode. However, the Progress strand 
would be considerably redesigned in comparison to the current programme: its policy sections 
(employment, social protection/social inclusi on and working conditions) would be removed in 
order to address policy challenges in a coherent and integrated manner.   
PROGRESS strand would cover th e programme's traditional type s of actions (analytical and 
mutual learning activities, and support to main actors) which are considered as effective in 
meeting the programme’s objectives102 and should therefore be carried on in the new 
programming period. In addition, this strand w ould support social innovation in particular 
through awareness raising, capaci ty building and mutual lear ning activities; it would also 
provide funding for projects designed by public au thorities to test refo rms of their social 
protection and active labour market policies and social services delivery systems103.   
                                                 
99 ESCO stands for the European multilingual taxonomy of  Skills & Competences, qualifications and Occupations. 
100 This is in line with the results of the public consultation and the Progress mid-term evaluation calling for better mainstreaming gender equality and 
anti-discrimination issues in the new instrument. See section 1.4.3.  
101 See Section 1.4.6. 
102 See Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation and annual performance monitoring reports (2007-2010).  
103 In addition to the direct management funding, a share of th e budget managed by the Member States in the context of the 
ESF mainstream should be ring-fenced for financing social innovation and experimentation projects.   
 
 53Under this option, a new impetus would be given to EURES104. In the current programming 
period, EURES actions have been focused on ensuring information and transparency on 
European vacancies and CVs. In line with the Europe 2020 Strategy and the commitments 
taken in the "New Skills and Jobs" flagship initiative, EURES  services would be  much more 
pro-active and focused on tangibl e and visible results in te rms of out-going and incoming 
placements and recruitment. It means that, in addition to its traditio nal activities, EURES 
would provide financial support for targeted mobili ty schemes at EU level with a view to help 
a) fill bottleneck or hard-to-fill vacancies (whe re market failures have been identified), b) 
specific groups of workers (such as young people ) to find a vacancy in a country different 
from their origin country. These services woul d involve matching, placement and recruitment, 
and active preparation to post-placement assi stance for successful integration into labour 
markets. Currently, these servic es are being developed as the preparatory action "Your first 
EURES Job". .  
As far as the Micro-finance and Social Entrep reneurship strand is concerned, adding funding 
for capacity building of microfinance institution s will allow increasing the absorption capacity 
of the market, responding to a recurrent demand fr om the sector. It would also take further the 
EPPA initiative, a European Parliament Preparat ory Action in this field which ended in 2011.  
An integrated programme would furthermore al low creating synergies between the different 
elements of microfinance support: microfinance  institutions would apply for a whole support 
package instead of filing applications for the funding or guarantees for the loan portfolio, 
funding for institutional capacity building a nd technical assistance for professional 
management and approaches separately as is  currently the case: technical assistance is 
delivered under the JASMINE programme, wh ile funding and guarantees are given under 
Progress Microfinance, and fundi ng for capacity building under E PPA (currently not available 
anymore). This would not only simplify the application procedure for microfinance 
institutions, but give the opportunity to the Co mmission to better link the different elements: 
for instance by making funding conditional on fulfilling the objectives set in terms of 
institutional development and id entify during the application for funding the needs in term of 
capacity building. This would address the requests from th e sector expressed in the 
consultation.  
The incorporation of the microfinance facility in to the new integrated programme will also 
better ensure the coordination with the gene ral entrepreneurship support provided by the 
Commission. The same is true for the investme nt into social enterprises which make an 
important contribution to  the achievement of the Europe 202 0 objectives, especially the social 
and employment targets, and play a crucia l role with regard to social innovation105.   
The integrated programme would focus on large projects with cl ear EU added value in order 
to reach critical mass and reduce administra tive burden. Harmonised and simplified rules and 
procedures would be put in place to facilitate access to the programme, in particular for small 
organisations. Lump sums and flat  rates would be used, in partic ular for projects implemented 
under EURES. In addition, multi-annual programm ing would be developed to set out long-
term policy objectives alongside annual funding priorities, thereby ensuring that the 
                                                 
104 Preparing the new MFF provides an oppor tunity to significantly reform EURE S by incorporating national and cross-
border region activities into the ESF operati onal programmes managed by the Public Empl oyment Services with a view to a) 
support mobility of workers; b) help companies in recruiting from abroad (ex. organisation of and participation in Job Fairs) 
and c) develop the logistics for the clearance of vacancies and CVs. 
105 In addition to the support for microfinance at EU level (a s it is currently done through the European Microfinance 
Facility), crucial for bringing economies of scale and additional leverage, the Memb er States would have the possibility to 
use the ESF resources, through their Operati onal Programmes, to support mi cro-finance activities at na tional/regional level.   
 
 54programme is a genuine policy-driven instru ment. The programme would be implemented 
through a results-based management approach  based on regular m onitoring of progress 
against clear indicators. Lastly, further to th e lessons learned from the current programming 
period106, flexibility arrangements will be used to ensure that financial resources can be easily 
re-allocated in order to effectively react to external developments and changes in policy 
priorities.   
This option would therefore be in line with the Budget Revi ew Communication calling for 
both integrated instruments and a strong coor dination to deliver th e Europe 2020 objectives. 
These actions carried out at European level would also bring about stronger EU dimension 
and complementarity to the ESF which invests in the implementation of employment and 
social inclusion policies in the Member States.  
The main difference between  option 4.2 and option 4.3  is that all three instruments 
(PROGRESS, EURES and the Mi cro-finance Facility) are re grouped as an ESF component 
for direct management.  
A single instrument certainly would enhance the coherence of EU budget support and achieve 
critical mass (with the ESF part). It would also  ensure real synergies and complementarity of 
all EMPL instruments as well as strengthen the visibility of EU action. However, the 
efficiency of a single instrument made up of two components implemented according to 
completely different management rules (i.e . shared, direct and joint management) is 
questionable.   
While thematic scope of PROGRESS would remain the same as under option 4.2 , its 
geographical coverage would considerable be reduced because of the ESF legal basis which 
limits the Fund’s interventions to  the EU Member States. This would not be in line with the 
programme’s stakeholders w ho, in the public consultatio n, do not question the current 
geographical coverage (EU Member States’ nationa l authorities) or clearly support it (non-EU 
countries)107. 
For the microfinance facility, EU  added value of this option is similar to option 4.1 . In terms 
of effectiveness, it would be difficult to ensu re a strong link between capacity building and 
funding for microfinance institutio ns.. Economies of scale and leverage would be lost in 
comparison with an action on the EU level. An  advantage would be th e potentially stronger 
link between the ring-f enced resources for microfinance and the entrepreneurship support 
activities in the Member States under the ESF.  However, considering that, depending on the 
outcome of the negotiations in Council,  ring-fencing might not be applied, option 4.3  bears 
the risk of an uncertain and unequal investment  in microfinance and social enterprises.  
Moreover, it is important to note that the pol itical suitability and acceptance of this option 
hinges on an adequate role being given to em ployment and social affairs bodies within the 
Council and the European  Parliament (at least for the non-cohesion policy aspects), as 
opposed to it being exclusively considered by instances responsible for cohesion policy (EP 
REGI Committee and the Structur al Affairs Working Party).  
6. Comparing the options 
                                                 
106 See Section 2.4.1. Delivery issues.  
107 See Section 1.1.3.  
 
 55The comparison of options is purely qualitative.  The set of objectives and policy options are 
not likely to be assessed by tr aditional quantitative methods fo r evaluation (like cost benefit-
analysis) because they are not qua ntifiable in monetary terms.  
6.1. The scope of the ESF 
A broad scope is likely to favour efficien cy since more actors can be involved and 
programmes more easily tailored to local needs and established delivery systems. However, 
the broader the scope, the more lik ely it is that a wider range of actors will make claims on the 
fund. This makes the formulation and negotia tions of the operational programmes more 
difficult both between Member States or re gions and local partne rs and between the 
Commission and the Member States  and region. A broad scope coul d therefore come at a cost 
of effectiveness if this leads to a sprinkling of uncoordinated interven tions lacking critical 
mass.  
These different ESF scope options can be compared  in terms of their potential contributions to 
the ESF specific objectives. It is not possible to  assess the actual potential contributions since 
funding decisions about how much to allocate to a given policy area will only taken in the 
context of negotiations with th e Member States on the operati onal programmes. Nevertheless 
it is possible to assess potential risk s and make judgments on that basis. 
Clearly option 1.2 would cont ribute the l east to the specific objective  institutional capacity 
and efficient public administration as only actions in support of  the employment services 
would be eligible. A number of interventions, for instan ce the administrative reform 
Operational Programme in Bulgaria, would cease to be eligible for ESF support. The greatest 
potential contribution to this objective is with option 1.3 as it is had the greatest scope of 
interventions related to this objective. Option 1.4 has the same scope but would see part of the 
available resources being drawn away to finance the income support measures.   
By focussing the ESF resources on those interventions most likely to lead to a person taking 
up employment, option 1.2  is judged to have the most immediate impact on the specific 
objective promoting employment and mobility . As options 1.1 and 1.33 represent a 
diversification away from core employment tasks,  they are expected to contribute in a more 
indirect way, namely by allowing for a focus on long-term strategies towards activation. 
Option 1.4 is expected to contribute the least to the employment objective mostly because it 
would see part of the available resources be ing drawn away to finance the income support 
measures.   
Options 1.1 and 1.3  have the same wide scopes in terms of education. Since option 1.3 
corresponds to a slightly wider scope, this ma y entail that it has the largest potential 
contribution to the specific objective investing in skills, education and lifelong learning. 
Option 1.4 is expected to contribute less than  options 1.1 and 1.3 because of the resources 
drawn to finance income support measures. Op tion 1.2 is expected to contribute the least 
largely because only a rather limited number of in terventions would be e ligible. In particular, 
the ESF could not be used to addres s the issue of early school leaving. 
Option 1.3  is likely to be the biggest contributor to the specific objective promoting social 
inclusion and combating poverty  essentially because it has the largest scope of possible 
interventions in support of  this objective. The level of resour ces needed to make a significant 
contribution in terms of income support is such  that hardly any additional contribution may be 
expected from making income  measures eligible under option 1.4 . At the same time, the 
resources used for income support will necessarily be drawn away from the other types of 
 
 56interventions, including t hose contributions to the so cial inclusion objective. Option 1.2  
would be expected to have the least impact on the social inclusion objective. 
Another consideration is that overhauls are al ways associated with important opportunity 
costs as the stakeholders need to adjust, also those that would cease to have access to the fund. 
Option 1.2 would constitute a major overhaul l eading to an important caesura between the 
current programming period and the next one. The main difference between the ESF scope 
options 1.1 and 1.3  lies in the interventions relati ng to access to services and anti-
discrimination as well as in health and educatio n even if not leading directly to employment. 
In order to ensure c ontinuity between the tw o periods and to build on the experience built 
during this period, option 1.3 should be privileged.  
Table 6. Comparison of the scope options 
 
 Specific objectives 
Options Employment Education Inclusion Institutional 
Capacity 
Building Opportunity 
costs 
1.1 – No 
policy 
change 0 0 0 0 0 
1.2 – focus 
on 
employment + -- -- -- + 
1.3 – broad 
scope = = + ++ - 
1.4 – broad 
scope 
including 
passive measures -- - - + - 
Legend: + means an increased impact (or opportunity cost) as compared to the no-policy change; - means a 
reduced impact. (or opportunity cost) 
The assessment of the different options against the ESF specific objectives can also be used 
for a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. The model that best fits the needs is the Analytical 
Hierarchy Process (HP). The Analysis is pr esented in ANNEX 7. The analysis confirms 
option 1.3 – a broad scope for the ESF, as the preferred option .  
6.2. Simplification  
The options considered here examine different  reimbursement options. The main differences 
between them relate to what extent different  reimbursement options can be introduced and 
whether these can or cannot be linked to results. Option 2.2 (p roportional approach) is the 
preferred one. This is largely be cause if offers an increased flexibility in relation to options 
2.1 and 2.3 (no policy change) leaving to Managi ng Authorities the widest possible range of 
possibilities to introduce the simplif ications it feels conf ident with and which fit their needs. It 
is therefore also the option that this expected  to deliver most on the operational objective. 
Option 2.3 is too prescriptive and would signi ficantly complicate nego tiations between the 
Commission and the Member States on the futu re operational programmes. It also entails 
major changes from the current period and therefore 
 
 57Table 7. Comparison of the simplification options  
 
 2.1 - No policy change 2.2 - Proportional 
approach 2.3 - Prescriptive 
approach 
Efficiency 0 ++ + 
Flexibility 0 + - 
Administrative burden  0 + - 
Legend: + means an improvement as compared to  the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 
6.3. The EGF 
In terms of the speed of de livery of EGF assistance opti ons 3.2 and 3.3 are preferable. 
However, these options also include an increased  risk of reduced efficiency because of the 
non-use of allocated reso urces. The involvement of policy ma kers under option 3.1 guarantees 
the highest level of public commitment of th e EU to the welfare of redundant workers.  
Therefore, option 3.1  is the preferred option, offering as it does the necessary  flexibility to 
enable an effective use of res ources, without affecting the MFF. It contains scope to further 
simplify the delivery mechanism and thus im prove the effectiveness of the assistance 
provided to dismissed workers. 
 
Table 8. Comparison of the EGF options  
 
 3.1 – No policy change 3.2 – incorporation of 
the EGF into ESF 3.3 -  stand-alone fund 
with its own budget line 
Speed of delivery 0 (+) + + 
Efficiency 0 - - 
Effectiveness 0 0 0 
Legend: + means an improvement as compared to  the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 
6.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument 
As far as other employment and social  inclusion instruments are concerned, option 4.1  should 
be discarded for the following reasons: 
• Efficiency gains  - the option would not allow for simp lification and rationalisation of the 
existing instruments.  
• Critical mass  – the three stand-alone instruments would not have critical mass necessary 
to achieve meaningful policy objectives at EU level and bring EU added value.   
• Coherence  and effectiveness  - this option would miss th e opportunity to improve the 
coherence of EMPL fragmented financial instruments which, as such, would be less effective 
in contributing to the im plementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy.      
In contrast, option 4.3,  involving the grouping of all the em ployment and social inclusion 
financial instruments within a common ESF Regulation, would offer the following 
advantages: 
• Critical mass  – this option would allo w for achieving the critical mass needed to meet 
ambitious policy objectives.  
 
 58• Coherence and effectiveness – combining EU-level actions (direct management) with the 
investment in the implementation of the employment and social policy in the Member 
States (shared management) w ould increase policy c oherence and effectiv eness. However, 
the respondents to the public consultation on the successor instrument to PROGRESS do not support the idea of merging the programme and the ESF while  they consider that the 
complementarity and coherence between both should be strengthened
108. The main 
suggestion from respondents to ensure cohe rence between both inst ruments is adequate 
coordination by the Commission. In addition, seve ral respondents indicate that where the 
future EU financial instrument could identify  best practices, the implementation should be 
a matter for the ESF. In this context, option 4.2  is better adapted to ensure coherence 
between the ESF and the direct management instruments. 
• Efficiency gains – combining completely different  management modes (direct and shared 
management) would not allow for grater simplif ication neither for beneficiaries nor for the 
Commission.  
• Political and institutional obstacles - Option 4.3  should also be discarded because of the 
great it would come up against: 
- As part of the ESF Regulation, employment,  social-policy and inclusion instruments 
would be seen exclusively from the viewpoi nt of cohesion policy and there would be 
no visibility for EU-level action linked to the development, coordination and 
monitoring of employment, social and in clusion policy and legislation on working 
conditions.   
- As a proposal for legislation introduci ng a single instrument would probably be 
negotiated by the regional pol icy bodies in Parliament a nd the Council, Parliament’s 
EMPL Committee and the EPSCO Minist ers might not have ownership.  
Option 4.2  is the preferred option as it woul d bring about the following benefits: 
• Efficiency gains  - compared to option 4.1  (current situation), e fficiency gains could be 
achieved thanks to a considerable rati onalisation of EMPL direct management 
instruments, streamlining of their manage ment rules and procedures and ensuring 
flexibility in allocating resources to changing policy priorities.  
• Critical mass - the integrated programme would be a medium-sized EU instrument able 
to reach the critical mass needed to achieve its po licy objectives.  
• Coherence and effectiveness - bringing together a ll three direct management instruments 
which pursue common objectives in the employ ment, social policy and inclusion fields, 
would enable the Commission to increase policy coherence and impact of its actions.  The 
synergy and complementarity with the E SF could be better ach ieved by adequate 
coordination by the Commission rather th an by merging all these instruments 
implemented according to completely different management rules (i.e. shared, direct and 
joint management). 
• Political and institutional risks  – in comparison to option 4.3, this option would allow 
for avoiding the risks linked to the adopt ion of an excessively complicated ESF 
Regulation and any delays this could cau se for the cohesion policy process.  
                                                 
108 This is also one of the main recommendations of both the PROGRESS mid-term evaluation and Key 
Stakeholder Working Group.  
 
 59Table 9. Comparison of the options for direct management instruments 
 
 4.1 – no policy change 4.2 – integrated direct 
management 
programme  4.3 – incorporation into 
the ESF as a direct 
management component 
Efficiency 0 + - 
Critical mass 0 + + 
Coherence and 
effectiveness 0 ++ + 
Political and 
institutional risks 0 + - 
Legend: + means an improvement as compared to  the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 
7. Monitoring and evaluation 
7.1. ESF 
Under the existing Structural Funds Regulations  monitoring and evaluation are primarily the 
responsibility of the Member States: their managing authorities ar e required to set up a 
monitoring system and to provide annual as well as a final implementation reports. In 
addition, Member States shall submit in 2009 and 2012 strategic reports on the contribution of 
the Funds to cohesion and the Integrated Guidelin es for Growth and Jobs. In view of drafting 
the Operational Programmes, Member States sh all carry out ex ante  evaluations, during 
programme implementation on-going evaluations. The Commission shall ca rry out an ex post 
evaluation in partnership with the Member States. 
The overall allocation of res ponsibilities will remain uncha nged. However, as mentioned 
under point 2.2.1, the ex post eval uations of the 2000-2006 program ming period have shown 
some weaknesses in the current ESF monitoring and evaluation systems: data quality remains 
uneven, data collection methods vary greatly  among MS, no information is provided about 
intensity of support to i ndividuals. This results in the diffi culty to aggregate results at EU 
level or to assess longer term e ffects of ESF interventions on the individual participants and 
on Member States' economies and systems at large.  
Against this background, the main focus of the future monitoring and evaluation system will 
be on setting minimum quality standards which ensure that monitoring produces robust and 
reliable data and evaluation focuses on assessi ng effectiveness and impacts of ESF support. 
In addition to more strategic programming process, the Regulat ions will include the following 
provisions on monitoring and evaluation:  
For monitoring and reporting 
• A limited number of common mandatory output  and result indicators for all OPs (at 
present the Implementing Regulation only sets common output indicators)109. For the ESF 
the Commission has developed a number of out put and results indicators with the support 
of a working group composed of representatives of MS. The indicators list will be inserted 
in the future ESF Regulation. 
• Where applicable quantified target values linked to common indicators  
• More stringent monitoring requirements  
                                                 
109 A tentative list is provided in annex 8 
 
 60• While the Annual Implementation Reports will be simplified for most years, in others the 
Member States are requested to assess Struct ural Funds contribution to achieving Europe 
2020 objectives.  
For evaluation 
• Ex ante evaluation on each OP  
• Each Operational Programme must be  covered by an evaluation plan 
• The monitoring committee shall regularly revi ew evaluation activities, discuss findings 
and follow-up 
• A tightening of the evaluation requirements fo r Managing Authorities. The evaluation of 
the effectiveness and impact of each priority axis will be mandatory.  
• Member States shall prepare towards the e nd of the programming period a synthesis report 
which summarises their evaluations and analyses the findings and follow-up. 
To support the transition to the ne w system, the Commission foresees  
- A guidance paper on ESF monitoring and evaluation in the programming period 2014-
2020; 
- An expert hearing on MS experience on usi ng counterfactuals in ESF evaluations in  
October  2011 
- A high level conference on ESF evaluation invo lving major stakeholders in the first 
semester 2012 
- "Learning seminars" for ESF mana ging authorities in 2012 and 2013. 
Reviews of the implementation of the Funds are foreseen for 2017 and 2019 on the basis of 
strategic reports drafted by MS. An ex-post ev aluation will be carried out by the Commission 
in 2023 in co-operation with MS. 
As far as the costs of monitoring and eval uation arrangements are concerned, the current 
Regulation foresees that up to 4% of the fund s can be allocated to Technical Assistance, 
which may finance i.a. activit ies related to monitoring and evaluation. For the time being 
approximately 3 % of the ESF-budget have been allocated to Technica l Assistance (= €2.45 
billion community funding). A research into the SFC database, which entails all implementation data sent by MS, has proven impo ssible to isolate more precisely expenditure 
for monitoring and evaluation from other e xpenditure supported unde r the TA, such as 
publicity and communication. 
The new monitoring and evaluation arrangements will not increase significantly the 
administrative burden on MS. Indeed, the future General Regulation foresees that Technical 
Assistance remains limited to 4% of the overall Funds. 
In cases where data collection is not up to t echnical standards (e.g. no electronic transmission 
of data), some MS will face initial costs for se tting up adequate systems, but costs for running 
the system will most likely decrease in comp arison to the current levels once system is 
performing. This is reported from several Managing Authorities where such tools have 
recently been put in place.
110  
These initial costs must be offset against th e cost savings for many stakeholders: in many 
countries and regions, beneficiar ies need to copy, submit and la ter retain substantial volumes 
                                                 
110 E.g. Managing Authorities from England, Wa les, Poland, several Laender in Germany. 
 
 61of documents on paper. At times they are asked to submit the same information more than 
once, as information is not sufficiently and eff ectively shared within the administration and is 
not available in an electronic format. This im poses a substantial burden. Considerable costs 
are associated with the transcription and ag gregation of financial and monitoring data 
received on paper and control co sts can be higher than necessar y, as supporting documents are 
not always easily available and accessible.   
Managing authorities would have  the flexibility to developing their own IT solutions, based 
on their experience in the 2007- 2013 period and in line with the specificities of their 
programmes. 
7.2. The EGF 
As in the current Regulation on the functioni ng of the EGF the future EGF Regulation will 
provide for a mid-term evaluation to assess th e effectiveness and sustainability of results 
obtained and an ex post evaluati on to measure the impact of the EGF and its added value. 
At the level of the individual applications  the Commission will continue to monitor 
specifically the achievement of the operational objectives, in term s of people reintegrated into 
employment after 12 and 24 months of implem entation, on the basis of interim and final 
reports on each case. The obligation for Member St ates to deliver this information will be laid 
down in the future EGF Regulation. 
7.3. The integrated programme for employment,  social policy and inclusion (Social 
Development Agenda) 
Following the positive experience with the results -based management approach of the current 
PROGRESS programme and in li ne with the recommendations of its mid-term evaluation111, 
the integrated programme for employment, soci al policy and inclusion will remain committed 
to a strong focus on results and ach ievements rather than resources  and activities. To this end, 
the integrated programme will be monitored on an annual basi s in order to both assess 
headway towards the achievement of its speci fic and operational objectives against clear 
indicators112 and allow for any necessary adjustments of the policy and funding priorities. The 
monitoring will also allow for assessing th e way in which gender equality and anti-
discrimination issues have been addressed ac ross the integrated programme's activities.  
Further to the recommendations of both the mid-term evaluation and PROGRESS key 
stakeholder working group, reporti ng requirements, in particul ar those placed upon grant 
beneficiaries will be reduced. This could be done  by reducing the numb er of quantitative 
indicators at the out put level and measuring the progres s achieved towards longer-term goals 
every three years inst ead of annually.   
The integrated programme will also be subject  to mid-term term and ex-post evaluation. A 
mid-term evaluation will aim at measuri ng progress made in meeting the Programme 
objectives, determining whether its resources ha ve been used efficiently and assessing its 
European added value. Mid-term  evaluation report should be delivered by the end of 2017 to 
feed into the preparation of a successor inst rument to the Programme. The final evaluation 
shall, in addition, examine the impact of the Programme. Ex pos t-evaluation report hall be 
delivered by the end of 2022 at the latest.  
                                                 
111 See Section 2.4.3.  
112 Indicators will be developed in the ex-ante evaluation for the integrated programme.  
 
 62The opportunity to bring together three instru ments will enable the Commission to streamline 
evaluation arrangements a nd reduce their costs.  
7.4. Tracking of climate-related expenditure 
Tracking of climate-related expenditure could be performed according to three categories, 
based on an established OECD methodology ("Rio markers"): expenditure where climate is 
the principal (primary) objective (counted as 100% - climate related onl y); expenditure where 
climate is significant, but not predominant obj ective (counted as 40% - significantly climate 
related); and expenditure not ta rgeted to climate objectives (counted as 0% - not climate 
related).     
Within the Structural Funds a decision would n eed to be taken on the classification of the 
expenditure sub-categories in the instrument in view of  applying the Rio-Markers. 
 
 
 
 63 
ANNEXES 
 
 
 
 iANNEX  1.  THE INSTRUMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION  
• The European Social Fund  (Budget 76 billion € for th e programming period 2007-2013) 
The European Social Fund (ESF), establishe d by Article 162 of the Treaty, invests in 
employment, education, social inclusion and institutional capacity in the Member States. The 
ESF is part of cohesion policy (as are the ERDF and the CF) as such it is primarily governed 
by a fund specific regulation113 and a general regulation common with the ERDF and the 
CF114 both expiring at the end of 2013.  It is implemented under shared management with a 
strong focus on subsidiarity. The implementa tion occurs through national or regional 
operational programmes (currently 117) embedded in  a wide diversity of social structures and 
situations and covering a broa d range of policy issues such as employment, education and 
life-long learning, social inclusi on and institutional and administ rative capacity building. It is 
the Managing Authorities who effectively im plement the programmes starting with the 
selection of the projects.   
The ESF budget is not decided at European level.  It is the result of  the negotiations of 
operational programmes between Member States and the Commission. The ESF share of the 
overall financial envelope allo cated to ERDF and ESF is th erefore constructed ex-post - 
adding up all regional and national allocations . The table below gives an indicative mapping 
of current allocation of ESF funds.   
Table 10. Indicative mapping of ES F 2007-2013 allocations against Community 
Strategic  guidelines 
Total 
Community Strategic Guidelines 
In billion € in % 
Increasing labour market participation of women and men, 
reducing structural unemployment and promoting job quality          21.5  28 
Developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market 
needs and promoting lifelong learning          26.4  35 
Improving the quality and performance of education and 
training systems at all levels and increasing participation in 
tertiary or equivalent education;          13.4 18 
Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty          12.1  16 
Technical Assistance            2.5  3 
Total          75.9  100 
This table informs about the ESF expenditure  excluding the national co-financing. Co-
financing is set on different levels, mainly depending on whethe r the region in question is a 
so-called convergence region,  where the EU contributi on amounts up to 85% or an 
employment and competitiveness region, where the EU contribution amounts in most cases only 50%. Specific rules apply when it comes to  the technical assistance and transnational 
projects. 
                                                
 
113 Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the 
European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999. 
114 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999. 
 
 iiThe ESF supports on average per year so me 10 million people. Two million unemployed 
people find a new job as a result of an ESF- supported measure every year. In addition, the 
ESF provides support to education and training systems as well as  institutional capacity and 
organisational reforms in a wider sense115.  
The June Budget Package (COM(2011)500) and SEC(2011) 868) made a number of 
commitments regarding the ESF.  Funding will be  concentrated on the key priorities of the 
Europe 2020 strategy, in particular through four thematic objectives:  
• employment promotion;  
• investment in skills, educa tion and life-long learning;  
• social inclusion and the fi ght against poverty; and  
• enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration.  
Through these, the ESF will also contribute to ot her policy objectives such as the ltransition to 
a ow carbon economy. 
For the post-2013 period, the ESF will be co vered by the Common Strategic Framework 
(CSF) for structural funds116. Funding will be programmed as  part of the Partnership 
Contracts negotiated with the Member States. The targets will be aligned with the National 
Reform Programmes and will translate the agr eed objectives into decisions on investment.  
To strengthen the focus on results, a conditionality mechanism, based on a comprehensive set 
of ex-ante defined requirements, will be put in  place to maximise the impact of the EU budget 
and trigger and support the necessary reforms in the Member States.  
In order for the ESF to make a real contributio n to the Europe 2020 strate gy targets, a critical 
mass of funding is required both at EU level and at the level of th e operational programmes. 
The necessary minimum share of cohesion policy investments allocated to the ESF will be tailored to the different categor ies of region reflecting the diffe rent intensities of aid they 
receive and challenges that they face: this wi ll be done by establishing minimum shares for 
the ESF of the structural funds support for each category of region (25% for convergence 
regions, 40% for transition regions, 52% for competitiveness regions, based on the Cohesion Fund continuing to represent one third of the cohesion policy al location in elig ible Member 
States, and excluding territorial co-operation). The application of these shares result in a 
minimum overall share for the ESF of 25% of  the budget allocated to cohesion policy not 
taking into account the Connecting Eu rope Facility (i.e. € 84 billion). 
• The European Globalisation Fund (EGF)
  (Budget maximum 500 million € per year) 
The EGF was established by Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 and is based on Article 175 of 
the TFEU. It was set up in order to demonstrate solidarity at EU level and to provide one-off, 
time-limited tailor made support to large numbers  of workers made redundant within a short 
period of time as a result of major structural  changes in world trade patterns due to 
globalisation. The EGF was revised in 2009 by Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 as part of the 
European Economic Recovery Plan to tackle th e consequences of the financial and economic 
                                                 
115 Source? 
116 The CSF will cover the ESF, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 
 
 iiicrisis. The main permanent changes were a reduc tion of the eligibility threshold from 1 000 to 
500 redundancies, an incr ease of the implementation period from 12 to 24 months to leave 
sufficient time for the measures to be effectiv e and the possibility to assist workers made 
redundant before and after the reference period.  Two crisis-related temporary amendments 
were also introduced: th e possibility to apply for EGF s upport for redundancies that result 
directly from the financial and economic crisis  and an increase of the EGF co-funding rate 
from 50 to 65 %. These temporary provisions expire on 30 December 2011. In the light of the current economic situation the Commission has presented a proposal to extend these until 31 
December 2013.  
The EGF co-funds a package of active labour mark et policy measures ai med at re-integrating 
redundant workers into employment. It is availa ble for cases of collec tive redundancies in a 
single enterprise and its suppliers , but also for redundancies in a large number of enterprises, 
in particular SMEs, operating in a single econo mic sector and located in one NUTS II region 
or two contiguous NUTS II regions. The EGF is implemented under shared management with 
a strong focus on subsidiarity as  regards the active labour market  policy measures offered and 
their implementation.  The Commission prepares an d submits for each i ndividual application 
for EGF support a proposal for a Decision to the European Parliament and the Council, acting 
as the Budgetary Authority. Sin ce the establishment of the EGF the Comm ission has received 
78 applications for a total amount of € 358 million and to support almost 76 000 dismissed 
workers.  
In its Communication
117 to the European Parliament, th e Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on 'A Budget for Europe 2020' the 
Commission proposed to keep the EGF outside the MFF and thus to give the highest priority 
to maintaining its flexible nature, because th e amounts which are needed vary from year to 
year. Being outside the MFF implie s that each individual applica tion will continue to require 
a decision of the budgetary authority. Howeve r, in the same Communication the Commission 
addresses the concern about the complexity  and length of the current procedure and 
undertakes to ensure that the operation of th e EGF becomes simpler and more responsive to 
changing economic circumstances. The arrangements for mobilising the necessary EGF support are proposed in the draft Interinstitutional Agreement
118 between the European 
Parliament, the Council and the Commissi on on cooperation in budgetary matters and on 
sound financial management that is part of the MFF package. It is furt her specified that the 
EGF may not exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 429 million, or EUR 3 billion for 
the period 2014 – 2020. Of this amount up to EUR 2,5 billion can be made available to 
support farmers, negatively affected by trade agreements.  
The discussions that have taken place so far between Commission servic es indicate that the 
current EGF eligibility criteria and measures need some adaptation in order to offer 
comparable support to farmers affected by trade agreements. However, these discussions have 
not reached a conclusive state yet. Therefore,  it is not possible to include the analysis 
supporting the eligibility criteria  of EGF funding in the IA. As  indicated in footnote 85 on p. 
41 of the IA this analysis will be part of th e ex ante evaluation accompanying the Proposal for 
an EGF Regulation for the period 2014 – 2020. 
 
                                                 
117 COM(2011)500 final, 29.6.2011 
118 COM(2011)403 final, 29.6.2011 
 
 iv• The European Progress Micro-Finance Facility   (Budget 100 million € for the period 
2010 to 2013 with an additional contribution of 100 million € by the EIB).  
The aims of the European Progress Microf inance Facility (Progress Microfinance)119, which 
was set up in 2010 as a response to the economi c crisis, are twofold: on the one hand, it 
makes microfinance more readily available to pe rsons who wish to start up or develop micro-
enterprises, including with a view to self-empl oyment, in that it enables microcredit providers 
in the EU to increase their lending to them. On the other, it improves access to microfinance by reducing the risk borne by microfinance institu tions. This allows providers to reach out to 
groups who could not normally be served, fo r instance because they could not put up 
sufficient collateral or because the interest rates would have to be very high if they were to 
reflect the real risk.  
Progress Microfinance is jointly managed with the European Investment Fund. It is a demand-
driven instrument. The Commission estimates that the Union’s contribution of € 100 million 
will leverage a total volume of microloans of more than € 500 million over eight years.  
End of June 2011, six institutions (in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania 
and Lithuania) had already signed transacti ons under Progress Microfinance. The EIF has 
confirmed that Progress Microfinance meets with  considerable interest from the European 
microfinance sector. By the end of 2011, 14 ope rations are expected to be concluded.  
• PROGRESS - The EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity
 (Budget 683.25   
million € for the programming period 2007-2013) 
Working alongside the European So cial Fund, the PROGRESS programme120 supports the 
development and coordination of EU employme nt and social policy. The programme helps 
the Commission to fulfil its tasks both in the fi elds of (a) law-making, to  ensure that evidence-
based legislation meets all the principles of  Smart Regulation; and (b) policy-coordination 
among the Member States, where the Commission ac ts as facilitator an d broker. PROGRESS 
focuses on transnational aspects of the EU em ployment and social policy, the promotion of 
which requires a concerted action across all Me mber States, and actively supports collective 
and mutually reinforcing actions of Member States, which consolidat e EU co-operation and 
bring about mutual lear ning and social innovation. 
PROGRESS budget is spread over five broa d policy sections in the following manner121:  
1. Employment (support to the European Employment Strategy) – 23%;  
2. Social protection and social inclusion (support to the Open Method of Coordination in 
these fields) – 30%; 
3. Working conditions, including restructuri ng (support to the improvement of the 
working environment, including health and sa fety at work and reconciling work and 
family life) – 10%; 
4. Anti-discrimination and dive rsity (support to the effec tive implementation of the 
principle of non-discrimination) – 23%; 
                                                 
119 Decision No 283/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a 
European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. 
120 Decision No 1672/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a 
Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress . 
121 Two percent of the budget is used for support measures to the implementation of the whole programme. 
 
 v5. Gender equality (support to the effective implementation of the principle of gender 
equality) – 12%. 
PROGRESS contributes to the achievement of  its objectives through three main types of 
actions: 
1. Analytical activities 
2. Mutual learning, awareness and dissemination activities 
3. Support for main actors. 
The programme is directly managed by the Commission mainly through calls for tenders, 
calls for proposals and joint management. In the case of grants, the programme provides a 
maximum of 80% co-financing.    
• EURES  (Budget 21.3 million € per year) 
Set up in 1993122, EURES is a co-operation network be tween the European Commission and 
the Public Employment Services of the EEA Me mber States (The EU countries plus Norway, 
Iceland and Liechtenstein) and ot her partner organisations. Swit zerland also takes part in 
EURES co-operation. The purpose of EURES is  to provide information, advice and 
recruitment/ placement (job-matching) services for the benefit of workers and employers as 
well as for any citizen wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of persons. 
The joint resources of the EURES member and pa rtner organisations prov ide a solid basis for 
the EURES network to offer high quality serv ices for both workers and employers. EURES 
has a network of more than 850 EURES advisers th at are in daily contact with jobseekers and 
employers across Europe. It also fosters Eur opean mobility via th e internet platform 
http://eures.europa.eu  . 
In European cross-border regions, EURES provi des information about and helps to solve 
problems related to cross-border commuting th at workers and employers may experience. 
EURES supports the European Employment St rategy and contributes to strengthening the 
European Single market by providing informa tion, advice and assistance for placement, 
recruitment along with matching CVs and vacanci es. EURES has demonstrated its European 
added value during the economic crisis by incr easing the intra-EU em ployment opportunities 
available to jobseekers. The nu mber of visits on the EURES portal has almost doubled from 
2008 to 2009 (from 17 500 000 to 33 750 000)123. 
                                                 
122 COM 2003/8/EC of 22 December 2002 based on regulation 1612 from 1968 codified 492/2011 from 5 April 
20011 
123 Source 
 
 viANNEX  2.  CONSULTATIONS AND EXPERTISE  
ESF 
Highlights of this consultations process were: 
1. The conference on "Shaping the future of th e ESF - ESF & Europe 2020" in Brussels 
23rd & 24th June 2010. The conference's aim was to assess the past achievements of the 
ESF in supporting EU objectives, in particular  its contribution to the previous Growth 
and Jobs strategy. Most importantly it explored how the ESF could contribute 
effectively to the Europe 2020 Strategy. The conference brought together over 450 
high level representatives from public authorit ies, social partners and civil society at 
EU and national levels as well as from third countries124; 
2.  The Cohesion Forum on 31 January and 1 February 2011 which marked also the end 
to a public consultation on the conclusions of the 5th Cohesion Report125; and   
3.  The seminar with NGOs and Social Partners  on the future of the ESF organised on 16 
December 2010. 
4. Expert advice was provided through the E SF Committee ad-hoc group on the future of 
the European Social Fund. The ad hoc group on  the future of the ESF was an informal 
group of experts from the Member States and the social partners with DG EMPL 
acting as secretary. The experts participated  in their personal capacity and were not 
expected to present or defend formal posi tions. The ad hoc group met 7 times between 
December 2009 and March 2011. Each discussion was underpinned by an issue paper prepared by the Commission. The ESF Committ ee itself issued opi nions on the future 
of the ESF at its meetings of 3 June 2010 and of 10 March 2011
126. 
 
EGF 
Two stakeholder conferences127 were organised to discuss the future of the EGF on 25 and 26 
January 2011 and 8 March 2011.  
Evidence128 about the acceptance of th e EGF was collected by asking Member States' experts 
on the future of the EGF through two questionnaires sent to them on 26 August 2010 and 12 October 2010 and European social partner orga nisations through a questionnaire sent to them 
on 2 February 2011. Twenty five Member States  replied. Relatively few social partner 
organisations answered but they participated  actively in the conferences. Member States' 
experts were further consulted at expert m eetings in Porto on 29 and 30 September 2010 and 
in Brussels on 9 March 2011. 
The European Parliament on 7 September 2010 adopted a Resolution
129 on the functioning 
and the funding of the EGF. 
                                                 
124 The conference report is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_so cial/esf/docs/100907-conference-
report-final_en.pdf  
125 The results of the public consultation are accessible at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfmN   
126 http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=445&langId=en 
127 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes  
128 Ibid. 
129 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do? type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0236&language=EN 
 
 vii 
Direct Management instruments 
 
The working group gathering the programme 's key stakeholders representatives130 was set up 
to provide the Commission with a set of reco mmendations on the future instrument's design, 
objectives, implementation and funding (the main  recommendations are presented below).  
 
A public online consultation on a possible succ essor instrument to PROGRESS was carried 
out between 4 April and 27 May 2011. The ke y issues addressed were: designing the 
successor instrument to fit the Europe 2020 Stra tegy, targeting the actions  to maximise added 
value, improving delivery mechan isms, and ensuring complementarity and coordination with 
other policies and instruments. The consulta tion targeted national, regional and local 
authorities responsible for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities issues; experts, 
social partners, public employment  services, NGOs at both EU a nd national levels; as well as 
any other institutions or individuals following EU policy debate in employment and social 
areas. The consultation covered all PROGRESS  participating countries (EU 27 Members 
States, EFTA/EEA countries, candidate and potential candidate countries).   
Furthermore, given that PROGRESS is impl emented through a results-based management 
approach, the Commission regularly monitors th e progress achieved towards expected results 
against clearly defined performan ce indicators. In this context, an annual survey, targeted at 
policy and decision-makers, social partners, N GOs and networks at both EU and Member 
State levels is carried out to measure satisfa ction with PROGRESS outputs and the extent to 
which they contribute to meeting the program me's objectives. The results are taken into 
account for designing the successor instrument.   
The 2011 meetings of EURES Working Party a nd Heads of Public Em ployment Services 
(PES) held specific discussions  on the future on EURES.  
                                                 
130 National authorities, social partners and EU-level ne tworks of civil society organisations. The Group met 
twice in January and February 2011.   
 
 viiiANNEX  3.  GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS  
AAR:  EMPL's Annual Activity Report ( AAR) provides information concerning 
policy results, financial management, and internal control systems.  The AAR 
is submitted to the Court of Auditors an d serves as the basis for a synthesis 
report sent by the Commission to the Eu ropean Parliament, Council and Court 
of Auditors. 
ALMP - Active labour market policies:  are defined in opposition to passive labour market 
policies. The objective is to increase th e employability of the beneficiaries and 
ultimately its integration in the labour market. It does cover transfer payments 
for participation in training or job cr eation programmes. Passive labour market 
policies transfer payments for willingness to job search only. 
Automatic de-commitment: was introduced for the programming period 2000 - 2006 to 
improve financial discipline. The principle is that any budget that has not been used by 31 December of the second year ("n+2 rule") following budget 
commitment is permanently lost for the programme.   
Collective redundancies : dismissals of a group of employees  effected by an employer for one 
or more reasons not related to the individual wo rkers concerned 
Convergence regions:   Regions with a GDP per capita in purchasing power parity below 75% 
of the EU average. 
Cross-financing:  The possibility within strictly de fined limits to fund operations which 
fall under the scope of another fund. 
EES - European Employment Strategy:  The European employme nt strategy provides a 
framework (the "Open Method of Coordi nation") for EU countries to share 
information, discuss and coordinate their employment policies. 
Effectiveness: The principle of effectiveness is c oncerned with attaining the specific 
objectives set and achieving the intended results.  
Efficiency:  The principle of efficiency is concer ned with the best relationship between 
resources employed and results achieved. 
EMCO: The Employment Committee is a Treaty-based Committee. It plays an 
important role in the development of the European Employment Strategy. The 
Employment Committee prepares discussions in the Council each autumn of the employment package: the Empl oyment Guidelines, Joint Employment 
Report and Recommendations on the im plementation of national employment 
policies. EMCO also formulates Opinions  and Contributions at the request of 
the Council, the Commission or at its own initiative.  
EPPA:  European Parliament Preparatory Action: The European Parliament allocated 
in 2008, 2009 and 2010 appropriations for a total of EUR 7 M to carry out a 
preparatory action to promote a more favourable environment for micro-credit 
in Europe. Part of these funds was us ed by the Commission to provide seed 
funding to non-bank microcredit providers (EUR 4 million under the JASMINE umbrella). The remaining EUR 3 million have been transferred to 
the funded instruments window of Progress Microfinance 
 
 ixGeographic mobility or "intra-EU–mobility" is used to re fer to the movement of EU residents 
from one country to another within the European Union.  
IGL Integrated Guidelines:  There are two sets of guidelines. The employment guidelines for 
national employment policies, proposed by the Commission and agreed by the 
national governments, set out common priorities and targets. The ….. 
Inactive:   persons currently not pa rt of the labour force. 
Intensity of support:   The average amount of EU funds in € per capita from cohesion policy 
instruments (ESF, ERDF and CF). 
JASMINE: JASMINE stands for 'Joint Action to  Support Microfinance Institutions in 
Europe'. It is one of the four new fina ncial engineering initiatives introduced 
under the EU Cohesion Policy for 2007-13. With a total budget of €50 million, 
JASMINE is a pilot initiative which has been jointly developed by the European Commission (EC), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF).  JASMINE is tailored for micro-enterprises and for socially excluded people (including ethnic minorities) who want to go into self-employment, but do not have access to traditiona l banking services. 
This initiative focuses on this 'non-bankabl e' segment of the market. It aims to 
make small loans, or micro-credit, more widely available in Europe to satisfy unmet demand. In the EU micro-cr edit means loans under €25 000, but 
typically, the averag e is € 10 000 for EU-15 and €3 800 for EU-12. 
JEREMIE: Joint European Resources for Micro to Me dium Enterprises, is an initiative of 
the European Commission developed togeth er with the Eur opean Investment 
Fund.  It promotes the use of financia l engineering instruments to improve 
access to finance for SMEs via Structural Funds interventions. 
Labour market segmentation:  occurs if it is made up of diffe rent groups with little movement 
from one to the other. It can result di fferent groups (f.i. men and women) being 
employed on different terms but doing the same work. 
Labour mobility:  is about the willingness and ability of  workers to change employment or 
areas. Vertical mobility changes the wo rkers grading or st atus. Horizontal 
mobility does not. Low labour mobility is a cause of structural unemployment. 
LLL - Lifelong learning: lifelong learning is defined as ‘a ll learning activity undertaken 
throughout life, with the aim of improvi ng knowledge, skills and competence, 
within a personal, civic, social a nd/or employment-rela ted perspective.’ 
Microcredit : Micro-credit in the EU means loans under € 25 000. It is tailored for micro-
enterprises and unemployed or inactive people who want to go into self-
employment but do not have access to traditional banking services. 
Microenterprise : an enterprise employing less than 10 people, including self-employment, 
and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed € 
2 million. 91% if all European enterprises are microenterprises. 
Multi-fund programme:  An Operational Programme can not currently use combine ESF 
and ERDF funds. Operational progra mmes are mono-fund. The proposal for 
 
 xthe post 2013 period is to make it po ssible to draw on both sources of 
financing – making Operational Programmes multi-fund. 
OMC - Open Method of Coordination:  The OMC provides a framework for cooperation 
between the Member States, whose nati onal policies can t hus be directed 
towards certain common objectives. Unde r this intergovernmental method, the 
Member States are evaluated by one another (peer pressure), with the Commission's role being limited to surveillance. The European Parliament and the Court of Justice play virtually no part in the OMC process. The open 
method of coordination takes place in areas which fall within the competence of the Member States, such as employme nt, social protection, social inclusion, 
education, youth and training.  
It is based principally on: (1) jointly identifying and defining objectives to be 
achieved (adopted by the Council); (2) jointly established measuring 
instruments (statistics, indicators, guidelines); and (3) benchmarking, i.e. 
comparison of the Member States' performance and exchange of best practices 
(monitored by the Commission). 
OP - Operational Programme:  the operational programme defi nes the activities to be 
implemented with the Funds (ESF, ERDF or  CF). An OP contains inter alia an 
analysis of the situation, a justificati on of the priorities chosen, information on 
the priority axes and their specific ta rget, a financing plan. They are managed 
by a Managing Authority.  
Passive (labour market) policies:  relate to spending on income tr ansfers for persons have lost 
their employment. It consists essentia lly of unemployment benefits and early 
retirement pensions paid for labour market reasons. 
Performance monitoring:  A continuous process of collecti ng and analyzing data to compare 
how well a project, program, or policy is being implemented against expected 
results. 
Personalised services:  services provided by public employm ent services or other bodies to 
individuals with the aim to facilitate the integration of unemployed and other 
job seekers in the labour market. 
Private Employment Services  deliver employment services to  jobseekers, job changers and 
employers, on commercial and non-commercial basis. 
Professional mobility  includes job-to-job mobility, which requires a change of employer, and 
occupational mobility, which is indicated by  a change in job role and functions 
but may occur with the same employer.  
Public Employment Services  as public services have a specifi c role in the labour market: they 
deliver services free of charge to jobseekers (both unemployed and 
jobchangers) as well as to employers , which aim to bring jobseekers and 
vacancies together, and also contribute to improved transparency in the labour 
market.  
Results-based management:  A management strategy focusing on performance and 
achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts. 
 
 xiSFC:  Structural Funds Common database. This  is a portal through which Managing 
authorities and the Commission exchange  information on the progress of the 
Operational Programmes. SFC ss refe rs to the programming period 2000-2006. 
SFC2007 refers to the ongoing pr ogramming period (2007-2013). 
Social enterprises: Social enterprises have primarily so cial as opposed to profit-making goals, 
produce goods and services (often of general interest) in a highly 
entrepreneurial and innovative way to gene rate benefits to the general public, 
use surpluses mainly to achieve their social goals, and reflect their mission in the way they operate by involving worker s, customers and stakeholder affected 
by the business activity.  
Social experimentation:  the concept refers to small scale projects designed to test policy 
innovations (or reforms) before adopting them more widely. The impact of the innovation on the sample population is a ssessed against the situation of a 
‘control group’ with sim ilar socio-economic characteristics that remains under 
the dominant policy regimes. Social e xperiments can be applied to a large 
spectrum of social interventions, su ch as welfare-to-work programmes, 
provision of health services, technologi es to facilitate independent living, 
addressing homelessness, education, ear ly child development, access public 
utilities, active retirement, etc. Soci al experimentation requires a thorough 
preparation and selection. The programmes  should be of sufficient size to 
make them politically relevant and should focus on fields where evidence 
suggests that a policy change  is needed. To be conclu sive, the program must be 
subject to well-defined evaluation standards, to ensure that its results are 
transferable to a nother context.  
SPC:   The Social Protection Committee is a Treaty-based committee. The SPC serves 
as a vehicle for cooperative exchange between Member States and the 
European Commission in the framework of  the Open Method of Co-ordination 
on social inclusion, health care and long-term care as well as pensions 
("Social" OMC). In particular, the Committee plays a central role in preparing the discussion in the Council on the annua l Joint Report on Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion. The Committee also prepares reports, formulates opinions or undertakes other work within  its fields of co mpetence, at the 
request of either the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative.  
Unemployed:  persons without work, available for work and actively seeking work.  
Your first EURES job  is a new preparatory action to foster youth job mobility across the EU-
27 countries. It is aimed at helping young people and employers to fill open 
bottleneck vacancies.  "Your first EURES j ob" is one of the actions pinpointed 
in the EU 2020 strategy (flagship initiative "Youth on the Move" and 
corresponding Communication).  
 
 
  
 
 xiiANNEX  4.  RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS  
 
The ESF evaluation system reflects the hi ghly decentralised governance structure. 
Evaluations are undertaken at the project level to assess the functioning and the effectiveness 
of specific projects. They are undertaken at the level of Priority Axes or Operational 
Programmes (OPs) to analyse whether the proce ss of implementation functions properly and 
is still in line with the needs. At the European level, evaluations often focus – in line with the 
actual competences – on  governance questions.  
In the current programming period the ES F is implemented through 117 Operational 
Programmes. In the previous programming period (2000-2006) there were 212 Operational 
Programmes. Evaluations are carried out in accord ance with the size and the character of the 
Operational Programme. For the current progra mming period, the start of which was delayed 
in many Member States rather late, the Commis sion is aware of some 300 evaluations which 
are either underway or in th e process of being finalised, Mo st of these evaluations are 
conducted by independent evaluators who are commissioned by the Member States themselves. The evaluations conducted on behalf  of the Commission tend to be thematic or 
strategic. The Commission is al so responsible for the ex- post evaluation.  The ex-post 
evaluation of the 2000-2006 programming pe riod was finalised in December 2010. 
A general conclusion of the European level ev aluations concerning th e previous (2000-2006) 
as well as the current programming period is th at the ESF plays an important role when it 
comes to setting the social and employment policy agenda. European citizens would be far less aware of the need and advantages of ac tive labour market policy, gender mainstreaming, 
non-discrimination and evidence-based polic y making without the ESF. While the EES 
presented the Flexicurity concept, it is to a large extent the ESF which substantiates it and allows Member States to implement it. 
 
1. The ESF (2000-2006) ex post evaluation 
The ESF (2000-2006) ex post evaluation wa s carried out betw een 2008 and 2010. The 
principal evaluation findings can be grouped under three main  headings: resources, policy 
areas and governance.  
1. Resources 
 
More than €120 billion were  spent in ESF programmes throughout the EU during the 
programming period 2000-2006. The total amo unt spent was financed mostly by the 
European Union budget (52%), with a signifi cant contribution by Member States (42%) 
and a relatively small share coming from private organizations (6%). 
More than 75 million individuals and appr oximately 1.7 million organisations were 
supported in a variety of ways. 
The ESF has been targeted mostly at the unemployed, young and excluded. Across the Member States, expenditure was higher for active labour  market policy in 
Central European States (34%), while Northern States spent comparatively more on adaptability (39%) and while New Members States spent relatively more than others (20%) on social inclusion initiatives. 
Among the EES Objectives, ESF-supported meas ures mainly contributed to implement 
employment policies (33%) and inve stment in human capital (29%). 
 
 xiiiTraining (40%) and counselling (21%) were  the most common instruments used to 
channel ESF support. 
2. Policy areas  
 The evaluation shows that the ESF has played a significant role in s upporting investment in 
human resources across the different polic y fields foreseen in the Regulation. 
− The ESF contributed to bridgi ng the gap between education systems and labour market  
The ESF served as an important instrument for strengthening the link between 
education/training and employability, and to  improve the matching between education 
system and labour market. 
The ESF contributed to bri dging the gap between education systems and the labour 
market through a variety of means, incl uding improvements in governance; support to 
structures for the developm ent of human capital; support for improvements to systems 
linking training and the labour market; teach er training; and the design of programmes 
better adapted to the needs of the la bour market and to its changes.  
− Adaptability measures mainly targeted employed individuals 
A majority of the adaptability measures have  targeted employed individuals rather than 
enterprises. This finding is true for both types of adaptab ility (individuals and work 
organisations). While the dominant mode of adaptability intervention by the ESF was through individual training measures, there was a significant portion of the activity that 
addressed the issue th rough enterprises.  
− The ESF contributed to incr easing employment and improvi ng the functioning of the 
labour market  
The ESF contributed additional resources to national and, part icularly, regional 
governments for directly supporting traini ng and counselling of unemployed people, 
particularly of women and the young unemployed.  
Co-financed projects produced important e ffects because they contributed to the 
activation of labour markets; encouraged workforce participation; strengthened, 
modernised or improved national labour pol icies and services and contributed to 
improving the quality of labour supply. 
ESF measures targeted at the unemployed ha d positive effects, leading to an average 
insertion rate of 39.8% for all final recipients (calculated us ing data collected from all 
the measures targeted at the unemployed) . The most successful target groups were 
women (47%), the excluded (45%) and long-term unemployed (42%). 
− Social inclusion received very strong support by the ESF 
The ESF played an important role by contri buting valuable additional resources to the 
Member States to provide support to speci fic target groups. In a number of Member 
States equal opportunities and social c ohesion-related policies would have been 
financially impossible to sust ain without the help of the ESF. Their impact was not 
homogeneous due to the vast differences across Member States, regions, measures and 
programmes.  
The greatest ESF impact was at 'meso' and micro-level. Quantitative data and case 
analyses carried out by the evaluators suggest  that the ESF had an important impact on 
social cohesion: co-financed programmes helped overcome the differences across 
European regions, active and inactive popul ation and marginal social groups. 
 
 xivSocial inclusion measures generally resulte d in significant positive micro-level impacts 
in the areas of mobilisa tion, (re)motivation and reha bilitation. The implemented 
measures resulted in positive 'meso'-level im pact in the area of structural reforms. 
Modernisation of national employment se rvices provided more personalised and 
relevant services to the clients. 
− The ESF contributed to the improvement in the status of women in the labour market 
ESF gender-specific and gender-supportive meas ures have significan tly contributed to 
improving the general status of women in relati on to the labour market. The inclusion of 
a gender focus in ESF activities stimulated the creation of employ ment opportunities at 
local level, while also contributing to the improvement of family conditions that, in 
turn, have facilitated the entrance of women into the labour market.  
3.  Governance  
− Scarcity of reliable data 
Although the evaluators of the ex post evaluation managed to gather some quantitative 
data, the overall findings of the ex post evaluation for the 2000-2006 programming 
period with regard to results are largely base d on qualitative rather  than on quantitative 
data. The latter is hardly available at EU level because the 2000-2006 Regulations did 
not impose harmonised obligations or comm on standards for mon itoring and reporting 
on ESF participants. 
− Programme level objectives and ta rgets are not easily identified 
At Operational Programme level, choices are not easily identifiable either in terms of 
allocations among general objectives, nor w ithin certain policy ar eas. For example, 
social inclusion and gender measures seldom specify the sub segments they are targeting, where delivery mechan isms may be radically different for each of them.  
− Coordination between the ESF and other programmes is limited 
Coordination between the E SF and programmes funded by ot her structural funds and 
public policies is often limited. For example th e same individuals may be targeted twice 
(as demonstrated by some social inclusion measures). Action towards the same area can also lack coordination (as shown by the anal ysis of Territorial Employment Pacts and 
Local Initiatives for employment).  
− ESF management tools provide limite d support to programme performance 
A problem reported across the evaluation is  that management tools and governance 
mechanisms of ESF programmes (indicators, monitoring, control and evaluation) are 
often perceived as both costly and no t relevant to actual decision-making.  
− Tools and incentives for account ability are not adequate 
One of the common elements that emerge from  analyses on gender, social inclusion and 
local initiatives is that ther e are few mechanisms to direct available ESF funds towards 
the most effective projects.  
− Mutual learning promotes ESF effectiveness 
Mutual learning seems to be a key factor in  improving the effectiven ess of the ESF, and 
exists at three levels: (i) policy learning and harmonisation effort at the Union level, (ii) 
improved network-based mutual learning am ong key actors of planning and governing 
 
 xvthe ESF, and (iii) an improved and intens ified international ex change of working 
practices within diverse contexts.  
2. Thematic ex-post evaluations of the 2000-2006 ESF 
2.1 Impact on the functioning of the labour market and on the investment in human 
capital infrastructure through supp ort to systems and structures 
The evaluation confirmed the relevance of ES F interventions for systems and structures 
(S&S). The estimated financial commitment for S&S was between 2% and 15% of Member 
States' entire ESF allocations . In some countries ESF funds provided the biggest pool of 
resources to support adaptations in ALMPs. 65%  of the EU’s working age population live in 
Member States where the ESF has supported re forms of the Public Employment Services 
(PES). 
S&S interventions considerably supported  the European Employment Strategy goals 
and facilitated policy convergence at European level.  In particular, interventions for S&S 
allowed Mediterranean and Easter n countries to build up PES si milar to those of the more 
advanced Central and Northern EU countries. Th ey also helped improve the supply of training 
and provide a greater responsiveness to labour market needs, especially in Mediterranean 
countries. Considering that the countries most in need of adapting S&S were precisely those 
which received the largest amount of resources fr om the ESF, the territorial concentration of 
funds supported the convergence of S&S. 
S&S interventions were an important factor in  improving the effectiveness of ESF 
support to persons.  The integration of support for S&S and for persons produced a process 
of mutual reinforcement , especially in countries where E SF assistance was more sizeable. 
Here, the S&S component of the ESF improved the governance and qualit y of systems, while 
support to persons enhanced the ove rall capacity of the systems. 
The functioning of the ESF (multi-annual programming, continui ty of financing) 
appears to be particularly suited to investme nts in S&S that will main ly bear fruit in the 
medium to long-term.  The seven-year programming of the ESF is often longer than national 
practices and favours long-term strategies and independence from the political cycle. 
To achieve significant results and impacts,  the systemic nature of S&S interventions 
requires a concentration of resources and inte gration with other interventions carried 
out with national or local resources . The critical mass aspect wa s crucial in countries which 
implemented large-scale reforms, where the ope ration of all the components needed to be 
enhanced in order to make the system operational. 
Financial as well as institutional sustainability are important for successful 
implementation. National and regional authorities need  to pay more attention to how ESF 
resources will be replaced in the medium term and how to achieve orga nisational learning so 
that once the immediate intervention ends th e organisation does not slip back into the 
previous – less effective – routine. These ch allenges are particularly big in Objective 1 
regions, where reliance on ESF support is higher. 
3. Thematic evaluations of the 2007-2013 ESF 
3.1 Evaluation of the ESF contribution to the European Employment Strategy 
This evaluation for the period 2007-13 found that  all Member States when designing their 
Operational Programmes (OPs) ensured that ther e was a linkage between the objectives of the 
OPs and those of the National Reform Programme s (NRPs)/EES on a general level. However, 
in none of the 27 Member States were the OPs explicitly designed to contribute to the NRP 
 
 xviand / or the EES, with clea r and explicit contributio n chains describing overall how the 
Operational Programme was intende d to contribute to the NRP. In some cases the strategic 
link between the two policy strand s is weak, and in many cases there is obvious  link at all.  
ESF 2007-13 contributes to the EES mainly through adding volume and scope to planned 
reforms and structural changes and to existing act ivities ensuring thereby that they reach more 
people with better measures. 
The evaluation confirmed that the ESF is an essential instrument to implement and 
disseminate concepts and refo rms linked to the EES. The conn ection between the ESF and the 
EES is not as much on the opera tional level as one could expect . The different life-cycles of 
the two policy instruments as well as the of ten indirect linkage (Operational Programme 
referring not directly but only indirectly vi a the NSRF to the EES) further complicate the 
situation. 
 The evaluation showed however that the extent to which (and how) the ESF contributes to 
the EES depends on the Member State  in question:  
• In Member States with few national resour ces for ALMP, the possibility to use the 
ESF to boost or mirror (volume) national ac tivities (from large reforms to specific 
measures targeted at specific groups) can be  essential to provide the services needed 
and hence for achieving the NRP objectives.  
• In Member States with a political climat e less favourable to experiments with labour 
market measures, the ESF can be used to test innovative ideas that can later be 
mainstreamed to and implemented at national level if they have proved to be effective. Mainstreaming and the implementation of (mor e) effective measures must in turn be 
expected to contribute to the ach ievement of the NRP objectives. 
• All Member States can benefit from using ESF funds to broaden existing activ ities to 
new target groups or with new measures that make them more effec tive. This must in 
turn be expected to contribute to th e achievement of the NRP objectives. 
 
3.2 Evaluation of ESF Support for Enhancin g Access to the Labour Market and the 
Social Inclusion of Migran ts and Ethnic Minorities 
The following definitions have been used for the purpose of this study: 
Migrants : a non-EU born individual from a third country legally residing within EU27.  
Migrants are of first, second or third generation although many mi grants of 2nd and a fortiori 
3rd generation will have acquired th e nationality of the host country 
Minorities : individuals with a different cultural tr adition or background from the majority of 
the (host) population.  In EU countries where the term ‘ethni c minority’ is recognised, a 
distinction is made between ethnic minori ties of first, second and third generation.  
Additionally, the study distinguished between et hnic on one side and indigenous and national 
minorities on the other. The latter are describe d as ethnic groups that are long-standing and 
relatively well-established reside nts of a particular EU country. 
A key conclusion of this eval uation was that there is an 
increased attention promoting the 
labour market and social inclusion of migr ants and minorities in ESF in the 2007-2013 
period compared with 2000-2006 . This is reflected in ESF Operational Programme 
strategies and in higher levels of expenditure on these groups. The inclusion of an explicit 
 
 xviireference in the ESF Regulations 2007-2013 to the funds’ relevance in promoting access to 
the labour market for migrants and minorities and a requirement  to monitor and report on the 
ESF’s contribution in ESF AIRs had a positive impact in this regard. 
• At the individuals ' level, the ESF made a positive c ontribution in helping people with 
a migrant and minority background to overc ome barriers to labour market access by 
strengthening employability, promoting adapta bility and encouraging entrepreneurship 
and self-employment, which were often seen  as a viable alternative to entering the 
primary labour market. ESF has had a positiv e effect on strengtheni ng basic skills for 
employability such as ICT skills, basic literacy and communication skills and in 
particular, language skills - a major obstacl e to labour market entry for migrants and 
minorities.  
• At the level of system and structures , the ESF has helped to improve the quality of 
initial integration services and created new networks and organisational structures to 
promote the integration of migrants. The cap acity of public institutions to promote the 
integration of people with a minority backgroun d has been strengthened as a result of 
ESF intervention. Knowledge has been gained  and experiences shared, for example, 
between public institutions and migran t and minority NGOs with a specialist 
understanding of these groups’ needs and barriers they face in accessing the labour 
market.  
The ESF has also strengthened horizontal co ordination mechanisms to promote greater 
cooperation in Structural Funds management  and implementation structures between 
government Ministries, national equality bodies and specialised agencies. NGOs played a key 
role in project delivery and were seen as more effective in targeting ‘d ifficult to reach’ groups 
than traditional mainstream providers of  social and employment services.   
The evaluation found out however, that not all Me mbers States address these groups explicitly 
and that the ESF targeting strategies to prom ote the labour market and social inclusion of 
migrants and minorities vary between them. The most common approach was a 
combination of specific action s and general measures in whic h a series of disadvantaged 
groups are targeted .   
The evaluation demonstrated European Added Value of the ESF support to migrants and 
minorities both in terms of volumes by addressing an important funding gap and providing resources to promote access to the labour market  and the social inclusion of migrants and 
minorities and scope by extending coverage to wi der target groups that had not previously 
been addressed through national pr ogrammes, or had received limited  attention. Examples 
include second and third generation mi grants, immigrant youth, and the Roma.  
 
3.3 Evaluation of the ESF support to gender equality 
A key conclusion of this evaluation was that there is European Added Value  in the ESF's 
support to the gender equality policy as the ES F has 'pushed' gender equality onto the policy 
agenda in most Member States. For some Memb er States, the ESF cont ribution has been very 
important also from a budgetary point of view, as it has allo wed actions to be implemented 
for which funds would otherwise not have been available.  
In the current programming period all Member St ates have considered the gender equality 
theme in their ESF Operational Programmes but with important differences in the level of consideration. The dual approach requireme nt set by the ESF Regulation (to combine 
mainstreaming and specific actions ), has been in practice translat ed into a significant decrease 
 
 xviiiof gender-specific actions comparing to the previous period and an over-dependence on 
gender mainstreaming. This means that the c ontribution of the ESF to the promotion of 
gender equality will be dependent on how well gender mainstreaming is applied and how the relatively limited resources available for specifi c actions focus on critical issues. In response 
to these challenges, this evaluation st udy makes the following recommendations: 
• The European Commission could increase attent ion to the effective application of gender 
mainstreaming by requesting a specific focus on gender mainstreaming implementation for 
the next round of national st rategic reports due by the end of 2012; and an evaluation 
exercise on how Member States have im plemented gender mainstreaming in this 
programming cycle. 
• In the future programming period, the Co mmission should consid er defining in the 
Regulation which objectives should be consider ed as objects of gender mainstreaming and 
which as objects of specific actions. Core ESF objectives as employability should be 
mainly considered as objects of gender ma instreaming. Gender equality specific actions 
should primarily be directed to other gender equa lity dimensions that require specific focus 
and cannot be easily addressed through ge nder mainstreaming (i.e. tackling gender 
stereotypes; vertical and hor izontal work segregation; women's empowerment in public 
life). The Regulation should also stipulate that  gender equality specific actions should be 
considered in a wider perspective than just targeting women, i.e. also targeting men, key 
economic and social actors, decisi on makers and the general public. 
• The implications of gender mainstreaming should be explicitly specified either in 
Regulations or in Guidelines, with the de finition of project requirements specified 
differently according to the types of actions. 
• Member States should ensure the set up of a permanent function to lead on gender equality 
issues in the planning, implementation, mon itoring and evaluation of ESF Operational 
Programmes. Self-assessment or evaluation exercises on the application of gender 
mainstreaming are recommended at Member St ate level, with a close watch on how 
monitoring systems and data collection are work ing in practice to in form on progress with 
respect to the gender equality objectives. Fina lly, participation in projects by applicants 
equipped with gender skills should be encouraged through public events for such potential applicants in view of calls for projects,  in order to enhance the communication of 
opportunities and clarify requi rements and expectations. 
4. Findings from ESF-evaluations conducted by Member States  
For the evaluations conducted by the Member States
131, this document will only  present 
results which compare ESF support with nationa lly financed support schemes (and not present 
overall results of ESF support) . Unfortunately there are only very few evaluations which 
compare national with ESF schemes. In additi on it should be noted that we do not have 
sufficient information to assess how the ESF intrinsically contributes to Union policy objectives (such as the EES for instance). Nation al evaluations do not pr ovide for responses to 
questions about the effect of the ESF in he lping Member States to  closer align their 
employment and social policy more closely with the European policies.  
Evaluations have mostly pointed to an extens ion of support to groups of people which would 
otherwise not have benefitted from nationa l support programmes. An evaluation of the 
                                                
 
131 All the documents mentioned in this section can be found at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/em pl/esf_evaluation_discussion_group /library?l=/commission_evaluation&v
m=detailed&sb=Title 
 
 xixGerman Bund Operational Progra mme (2000-2006) found that the participants supported by 
the ESF were equally successful on  the labour market as those pa rticipating in purely national 
programmes. The evaluation concluded that the adde d value of the ESF lies in the fact that the 
ESF supported people entering the labour market  who would otherwise not have benefitted 
from any support. Compared to unemployed nonpa rticipants, ESF partic ipants were more 
successful on the labour market in the medium and long run. A group which benefitted particularly from ESF support we re women. They represented 57% of ESF participants in 
contrast to 47% of female participants in comparable national support schemes.  
Another evaluation commissioned by the German authorities even found better results of ESF 
supported schemes than for national schemes.  For ESF support to measures combining 
reduced working time (" Kurzarbeit ") Germany, it concluded that on average, a larger share of 
people completing ESF schemes (44%) were in employment two years later than those in 
competing national schemes (just under 40%)
132.  
An evaluation of ESF support to three Belgia n regions found that the ESF had mostly a 
catalytic impact, first on innovating activa tion instruments, second on the governance of 
employment policies and third on policy framing.133  
Evaluations highlighted that the ESF support wa s more flexible than national support schemes 
and could thus address the specific needs of  certain groups. An evaluation of the Hamburg 
Operational Programme for 2007-2013, covering support for business start-ups,  concluded 
that ESF assisted projects tailored their support to the specific needs and characteristics of 
migrants in general and female migrants in  particular, unlike national programmes, which 
were not flexible enough to address the sp ecific needs of the target group concerned.134 
Another evaluation commissioned by the German  Bund MA found that the ESF contributed 
to increasing the efficiency of national suppor t schemes to self-employed people by providing 
additional support not offered by the national scheme135.  
The European added value of ESF support to enterprises has mostly  been identified by 
providing incentives to engage in training of the employed. An  evaluation of ESF support to 
enterprises136 in Poland found that ESF support pr ovided a strong stimulus for micro 
businesses to train their employees. Some 41% of the micro-sized enterprises (those with 
under 10 people employed) receiving support had not  engaged in training before. Similarly, 
an evaluation of the Saxony (Germany) ESF programme for 2007-2013 found that half of the 
                                                 
132  Deeke, A., C. Ohlert, 2009. Qualifizierung smaßnahmen während Kurzarbeit nach endgültigem 
Arbeitsausfall – Analysen zur Förderung im Rahmen des ESF-BA-Programms 2000 bis 2006 und zum Verbleib nach der Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009.  
133 Verschraegen, G.; B. Vanhercke and R. Verpoorten, 2010. The European Soci al Fund and domestic 
activation policies: Europeanization mechanisms. Journal of European Social Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–
18. 
134 Ad-hoc-Evaluierung der Aktion A.5 – Förderung des Unternehmergeistes – im Rahmen des ESF-
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME Hamburg 2007-2013. 
135 Deeke, Axel, 2010. Arbeitsmarktpolitik mit dem Europäischen Sozialfonds – Analysen zur Umsetzung und 
zu den Wirkungen der Ergänzung des SGB III aus Mitteln  des ESF – Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ESF-
BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010. 
136 Measure 2.3 scheme a) of the Polish Human Resource Development Single Operational Programme 2004 – 
2006. 
 
 xxfirms receiving ESF support had no prior engagement in training137. Also an evaluation of the 
ESF programme in Estonia arri ved at a similar conclusion138.  
In the area of education policy, ev aluations mostly point to the le verage effect of ESF support. 
An evaluation conducted in Poland concluded that ESF support is th e source of a new 
initiative in education policy.139  
The added value of ESF support was also seen in  paving the way for stru ctural change in pre-
school education. The Polish ev aluation found that ESF support contributed to popularising 
pre-school education in rural areas  and thus contributed to change  parents' attitudes to early 
child care.   
An evaluation of the implementation of equal opportunities as a cross-cutting theme under the 
Welsh Objective 1 and 3 programmes in 2000-2006 found that project managers often paid 
only lip service to equal opportunities, because th ey found it difficult to see how they could 
be applied in a horizontal manner in practice. In  most cases (70% of those examined), equal 
opportunities were treated as a horizontal priori ty without a specific strategy. The evaluation 
considered that the high profile of equal opportunities in the Progr ammes has raised its 
importance and has meant that project sponsors have been encouraged to take account of 
them140. 
An evaluation of the German speaking Community in Belgium identified the European added 
value of ESF support in acting as a catalyst in horizontal aspects including innovation, 
networking, transnationality, sustai nability and equal opportunities141. 
An evaluation of the England Objective 3 progr amme identified added value of ESF support 
to people with multiple disadvantages in several respects142. Firstly, the ESF provided support 
to people who otherwise not have benefitte d from support. Secondly, ESF support offered 
higher quality of provision, includ ing: a broader range of services on offer, a stronger focus 
on individually tailored support, more intens ive support and better quality equipment.  
5. The EGF mid-term evaluation 
The EGF Regulation provides that a mid-term evaluation shall be carried out by 31 December 
2011. The external evaluators have just submitted their draft interim report and it is expected 
that the final report will be delivered in November 2011. As la id down in the EGF Regulation, 
the evaluation will focus on the effectiveness and sustainability of results. 
6. PROGRESS Mid-term evaluation 
The integrated PROGRESS Progr amme (2007-2013) is currently subject to a mid-term 
evaluation. Preliminary findings (on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, added value) 
indicate the following:  
− Moving from four separate programme s (2000-2006) to a single one had clear 
advantages in terms of harmonisation of pr ocedures, reduction of  the administrative 
                                                 
137 Wagner, G.,  2009. Begleitende Evaluierung für den Europäischen Sozialfonds im Freistaat Sachsen 2007-
2013 – Evaluierung der Prioritätsachse A, ISW Halle/S., Sept. 2009. 
138 Kasemets, L.,  K. & K. Klaas, 2008.  Evaluation of the results of labour market projects funded by the ESF 
directed to workers declared redundant and their ap plicability in labour market policies, Tallinn 2008. 
139 Evaluation of measures for education and training under the ESF, February 2008.  
140 Ecotec, Cross-cutting themes research  project, final report, April 2006. 
141 Begleitung und Bewertung des ESF, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens, Bewertungsbericht 2009, Zweiter Teil, verabschiedet durch den Begleitausschuss im August 2010. 
142 Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report No 376 (Cubie, A./O. Baker), European Social Fund 
Objective 3, The 2005 Benefici ary Survey for England, 2006 
 
 xxiburden and, to some extent, realisatio n of economies of scale. However cross-
fertilization opportunities between  the 5 policy sections and with other policies are not 
fully exploited.  
− The annual cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluati on of activities is 
considered generally fitting, however it is recommended that a multi-annual 
programming be developed to set more strategic long-term policy objectives combined with annual funding priorities. Results-bas ed management should be maintained, 
however, monitoring and evaluation should pr ovide more accurate information on the 
added value and impact for inte rested parties and citizens. 
− Synergies between the programme and the Eu ropean Social Fund (and other instruments 
such as the social dialogue) should be more fully exploited. For example, at EU level, 
coordination and knowledge transfer should be improved between Progress and the ESF 
in particular in the framework of the Op en Method of Coordination. Furthermore, the 
ESF could help make results of the PROGRESS projects sustainable, for example, by up scaling social experimentation projects in the Member States. 
− Despite continued efforts in the last year s, visibility and dissemination of PROGRESS 
results deserves further improvement to ensure sustainability and the long-term 
exploitation of funded projects.
   
− Despite some positive examples of integration of the gender dimension into the 
programme activities, more emphasis is need ed on the concrete implementation of this 
principle, and more should be done to ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed in a 
meaningful way across all PR OGRESS-supported activities. 
PROGRESS is implemented through a results-bas ed management approach. There is a strong 
focus on regularly measuring the progress achiev ed towards expected results against clearly 
defined performance indicators. The annual pe rformance monitoring reports point to other 
key results, notably:  
• PROGRESS contributed to improving the qual ity of the Commission’s policy initiatives 
by ensuring that they are built on strong evid ence as well as making its decision-making 
processes more accessible and involving a br oad range of stakeholders in policy 
development;  
• PROGRESS helped to ensure the correct and effective application of EU law in fields 
such as health and safety at work, labour  law, anti-discrimination and gender equality 
by monitoring its implementation in the Memb er States and providing assistance to the 
Member States in transposing and applyi ng EU law effectively through guidance and 
training; 
• PROGRESS assisted the development of  cooperation among national authorities 
through mutual learning and the exchange of good practices in the employment and 
social inclusion fields.  Peer reviews have proven to provide factual information, to 
influence agenda-setting and constitute a basis for decision-mak ing for participating 
Member States; 
− In the working conditions area, PROGRESS supported a pioneering use of tools to 
underpin a smarter approach to regulation as well as the us e of Impact Assessments and 
highly specialised evidence; 
− By supporting key EU networks and NGOs ac tive in promoting social inclusion, non-
discrimination and gender equality, PROG RESS boosted the capacity of national and 
 
 xxiiEU networks to take part in and influence decision-ma king and policy implementation 
at EU and national levels.  
 
7. Evaluation of the Progress Micro-finance facility 
Given the recent establishment of the European  Progress Microfinance Facility in March 
2010, neither a mid-term nor an ex-post evaluation has been carried out so far.  
However, before the crisis, potential demand for micro-credit in the EU was estimated in the 
short term at over 700 000 new loans worth approximately € 6 296 million in the short 
term.143 Most micro-credit in the EU is pr ovided by non-commercial micro-finance 
institutions (NGOs, foundations, government bodi es, Member States' promotional banks and 
non-bank financial institutions), but these provi ders do not currently have the capacity or 
resources to meet this high demand.  
The microfinance facility seeks to address th is gap. It is estimated that the Union's 
contribution of € 100 million will be leveraged to  more than € 500 million in microloans over 
eight years. This leverage will be achieved thanks to:  
• Additional funding fr om other investors.  It is assumed that th e Union's investment can 
attract funding from third parties. The Euro pean Investment Bank (EIB) is already 
committed to matching the Union's contributi on and making € 100 million available for the 
‘funded instruments’ part. A further € 50 m illion is expected to be provided by other 
investors.  
• The funds’ revolving nature.  The funds can be used more  than once during the total 
lifetime of the Progress Microfinance Facil ity. The Decision provides for the last 
investment to take place in 2016.  
• Leverage generated by the products.  It is estimated that every euro committed in 
guarantees could generate between six and se ven euro in microcredit while the funded 
instruments are expected to  have a leverage effect of between one and three. 
As far as the implementation is concerned, the agreements signed and the forecast for 
transactions suggest that the various instruments on offer are attractive to a variety of 
intermediaries which will in turn allow to re ach out to the a wide range of beneficiaries 
including those furthest from the labour market. The Commission and the EIF expect 
satisfactory fund absorption.  
8. Evaluation of EURES 
The ex-post evaluation of the EURES pr ogramme covering the period 2006-2008 was 
finalised in 2010 and concluded that: 
− EURES has contributed to the developmen t of European labour markets open and 
accessible to all by providing labour market information, information on living and 
working conditions and a job matching service.  
− EURES Members have taken due note of th e identification of mainstreaming into 
Public Employment Services (PES) as a prio rity and have worked towards the outputs 
                                                 
143 See Communication ‘A European initiative for the de velopment of micro-credit in support of growth 
and employment’ (COM(2007)708 final/2 of 20 Decembe r 2007) and EMN Working Pa per No 5 ‘Overview of 
the Micro-credit Sector in the European Union 2006-2007’, July 2008. 
 
 xxiiiexpected on the part of the Commission. Howe ver, a comprehensive approach as to how 
EURES is to be integrated in the PES was missing and there was a limited 
understanding of what the inte gration of EURES into the PE S consists of, requires and 
should result in. 
− The Job Mobility Portal and the adviser ne twork facilitated the transnational, inter-
regional and cross border exchange of vacan cies and indeed labour mobility, though the 
evaluation evidence suggested that the serv ice offer was sub-optimal and attention was 
required to achieve the aim of advertising al l vacancies notified to PES. Furthermore, 
the lack of placement data means that it was difficult to estimate the outcomes associated with the advice, guidance and in formation that jobseekers and job changers 
access.  
− Around 20% of jobseekers and job changers who were survey during the evaluation 
have received a job via EURES and just under half of these have received a job 
corresponding to their skill level. The jobsee kers and job changers, who were in contact 
with a EURES Adviser while look ing for a job, were more li kely to receive a job offer 
than those simply accessing the Job Mobility Portal. At the same time the portal was appreciated by both groups of users who clearly  saw the benefit in being able to access 
– or post – information on vacancies acro ss EEA territory. According jobseekers and 
job changers the CV set up function was the most useful  of the EURES services. 
− Education level was not found to be a barr ier to mobility, with  jobseekers and job 
changers without formal qualifications ab le to secure employment via EURES.  
Jobseekers and job changers looking for similar work to that they currently had were however more likely to secure a job th an those looking for di fferent opportunities. 
− A number of other types of activities were carried out in order to promote job matching 
such as Job Fairs (national and internationa l) and other recruitm ent events including 
information / awareness raising sessions (e.g. with employers) and other promotional 
activities. Based on the available informa tion the EURES network organised 705 events 
attended by 850 thousand part icipants between 2006 – 2008. 
− The level of human resources employed to de liver the EURES service seemed adequate 
to meet the needs of jobseekers, job ch angers and employers, though additional 
resources will be required if  EURES is to evolve to accommodate new services. 
− A key conclusion from the evaluation is th at there is a real need to introduce a 
monitoring and evaluation framework linked to a coherent set of indicators to measure 
performance, outputs, outcomes and impact . Concerning impact, a clear agreed 
approach on how EURES links to the wider employment polic y agenda is necessary as 
are appropriate indicators regarding eviden ce on whether EURES contributes to the 
achievement of policy aims and objectives. 
 
 xxivANNEX  5.  SUMMARY OF STUDIES COMMISSIONED IN SUPPORT OF THE INITIATIVE  
 
Four studies in support of the in itiative have been completed. They looked at the return on 
investment in human capital, the possibility  to introduce performance based management 
systems, the possible continuation of administra tive capacity building under the ESF. A fourth 
study consisted actually of focus groups discussion with experts fr om beneficiaries, managing 
authorities and the Commission on proportionality, financial engi neering and the involvement 
of local actors.  
Three other studies are ongoing. They cover ad ministrative burden in relation to the 
simplified cost options and the introduction of  results-based management, the setting of 
performance targets and their ad justments according to business cy cles, and a statistical study 
of costs and beneficiaries data for ALMP actions.  
In addition to these studies specifically commissi oned in support of the initiative, a number of 
other studies were identified. The major ones are given in 
 
 xxvANNEX 6 . These are generally studies published in sc ientific peer reviewed journals or as 
report or publications by renowned research institute. They have not been conducted on 
behalf of the Commission but se lected for their relevance. 
 
Study on the return on ESF investment in Human capital. 
 
This study carried out by Eureval/Ecorys/Ram bøll Management for DG EMPL and completed 
in August 2010, covered human capital investment s understood as public expenditures in: (1) 
education and training of employ ees, job-seekers and/or inactiv e people, (2) internships and 
temporary work placement associated with e ducation or training, and (3) strengthening the 
capacity of education and training systems and structures. Overall, such investments account 
for over 50% of the ESF resources over the current programming period. 
The study included three clusters of tasks as follow: 
• A synthesis of available research findings  related to the return on human capital 
investments, with a focus on: (1) the im pact of training programmes targeting 
employed people, and (2) the impact of return-to-work programmes targeting job 
seekers. Based on a first extensive scr eening of peer-reviewed publications, the 
research synthesis was improved with the a ssistance of a panel of seven experts from 
the EU and the USA. 
• A series of impact analyses based on individual data provided by volunteering 
Managing Authorities respectively in Belgiu m (Flanders), Italy (Northern regions), 
Hungary, and Poland. Through these analyses, th e study team tested a series of impact 
analysis techniques, all including control gr oups. Due to the nature of the available 
data, this part of the study a pplied to unemployed people only. 
• An in-depth investigation into four success stories of impact analyses that had been 
carried out in the same four countries  between 2005 and 2009. Th is investigation 
focused on the process of learning from im pact evaluations. The study team discussed 
the recommendations stemming from this investigation in a focus group meeting 
attended by several managing authorities. 
Major findings:    
o Training of employed peopl e is socially profitable  but not rewarding enough 
at the level of the firm. For this reas on there is an under-investment of private 
funds in this area. 
o Training of unemployed peopl e is socially profitable , but not for all target 
groups, and under the condition that it is as sociated with job-search assistance. 
o There is a rationale for investing pu blic money in systems and structures  at 
the level of industry, 
o It takes years for deriving lessons from an impact analysis. This means that 
impacts cannot be included in a performance monitoring system . 
 
Study of output-based and result-oriented conditionality systems for the European 
Social Fund 
 
 
 xxviThis study which was implemented by Delo itte aimed at explor ing possibilities for 
introducing performance management elemen ts in the relation between ESF managing 
authorities and the Commission. It was completed in November 2010. 
The report first discusses the principal-agen t relationship between the Commission and the 
Managing Authorities within the ESF manage ment structure. The Commission acts as 
principal vis-à-vis the Managing Authorities, be ing responsible for the overall implementation 
of ESF policies across all EU Member Stat es. At lower manageme nt level, Managing 
Authorities acts as principal vis- à-vis project beneficiaries.  
Concerning the type of indicators, a performan ce system based on results (i.e. related to the 
achievement of their objectives) and impacts might  not be appropriate, due  to controllability 
and accountability problems. The measurement of long-term outcomes involves time-consuming, costly and technically comple x research techniques and not all Managing 
Authorities in the EU might be able to apply such techniques. Moreover, the achievement of 
strategic objectives is only partly attributable  to the intervention of the Managing Authorities 
but depending also on factors out of  their control. This does not mean that results and impacts 
should not be monitored and evaluated, only that the funding cannot be conditioned by 
results and impacts .  
Instead of using the result or impacts at prog ramme level (i.e. related to the Operational 
Programme objectives), it is more realistic to use th e aggregated outputs, milestones  and 
occasionally some intermediate results achieved by projects within a programme to assess the 
performance of operational programmes.  
However, the outputs and intermediate results of some types of projects are relatively difficult 
to aggregate as they might differ in nature or  they might target di fferent groups of people 
(trainings can take different forms and target different groups of people). Moreover, for some 
types of projects within an operational progr amme, milestone indicators might be more 
appropriate than outputs (for example, innovative projects). As a result, the use of aggregation 
of outputs, milestones and intermediate results of  projects might be only  appropriate for parts 
of their operational programme. 
An alternative for aggregating the outputs, mil estones and intermediate results of project 
would be to aggregate the “statu s” of the different projects  within an operational 
programme. Regardless of the indicators used to measure the performance and the progress of 
projects (milestones, outputs or  results), managing authorities s hould all be able to inform the 
Commission on a regular ba sis on the “status” of their progra mme, i.e. are their projects on 
track or not, according to the chosen perfor mance indicators? A programme being on track, 
lagging behind or ahead of track, could be a trigger for funding. 
A third feasible option related to the aggr egation of individual  project performance 
specifically targets the Major Projects in the E SF. Major Projects already exist in the ERDF 
fund, but not yet in the ESF. E SF Major Projects exceed a give n threshold (which should be 
decided on) and consist of a series  of works, activities and smalle r projects that contribute to a 
common objective which is clear and measurable. It might be feasible to link funding to the 
performance achieved at Major Project level . 
In order to enable these three options, Managing Authorities have to be able to define the 
performance levels of each (type of) project be fore starting implementation and to monitor 
regularly the progress of the projects within  their operational programme. Therefore, the 
Commission has to grant managi ng authorities enough flexibility and responsibility, but at the 
same time provide them with methodological gui dance and tools in order to ensure coherence 
in the approach across the Managing Authorities.  
 
 xxviiAll ESF management levels - from the project  operators to the Commission – have to be 
involved in the target setting phase of the programme; the involvement of project beneficiaries will continue to be required to en sure that performance levels are realistic and 
acceptable, whereas the Commission needs to challenge the performance levels set by the 
managing authorities and to en sure their alignment with th e broader strategic objectives. 
In a performance-based conditionality syst em for the ESF, the equilibrium between 
centralised strategic orientation from the Comm ission (in partnership with the Member States) 
and decentralisation of the implementation pr ocess at Managing Authorities and project 
operators level will be an important aspect. A good mix between programme steered by the 
political level and its implementation under the responsibility of the actors close to the field 
should be found. 
In order to avoid increasing the administrative burden, the introduction of a performance-
based conditionality system should  accompany with simplification.  It is worth mentioning 
that many problems of administrative burden created by the application of the Financial 
Regulation might already be tackled by a more  flexible interpretation of the rules. 
A reading of the Commission proposal on the re vision of the Financ ial Regulation suggests 
that a minimum level of cont rol by the Commission on the sp ending by Managing Authorities 
will continue to be required. Nevertheless, th e recent changes (e.g. the possibility to claim 
indirect costs on a flat rate basis) might have improved th e delivery system by making it 
administratively less cumbersome. 
 
Assessment of administrative and institut ional capacity building interventions and 
future needs in the context of European Social Fund 
 
This study which was implemented by Ecorys for DG EMPL how capacity building has been 
implemented under the ESF and what lessons can be  learned for a possible future priority in 
this area. It was completed in December 2010. 
EU-support to institutional and ad ministrative capacity building is  not new: it started already 
in 1997 under PHARE and as part of the pre-acc ession process for New Member States. As a 
pre-accession instrument, implementation of PHAR E measures could be enforced as part of 
the accession negotiations. This leverage power  is largely absent under the ESF-regime.  
ACB interventions take a different approa ch depending on the coun try and the political 
willingness of formally allocating ESF funding to  this priority theme. Although the overall 
share of the administrative capac ity building actions represents  formally only a modest 2.7% 
of all ESF funds, there is strong variation between Member States. Moreover, important 
ACB-related interventions also take place under other priority themes. These apply notably to 
partnership with NGO's, labour market, soci al inclusion and social care institutions, 
education, work organisation, E-govern ment and Technical Assistance. 
ESF tends to respond rather well to the administ rative capacity issues identified, such as 
structures, human resources and systems and t ools. Interventions predominantly relating to 
systems and tools tend to be only effective if  embedded in a wider organisational change 
process and when adopted by the staff worki ng with them. An emerging pattern from the 
analysis is that the vast majority of priority theme 81 interventions are internal, horizontal and general in nature, meaning that they are not directly related to specific policy fields. 
 
 xxviiiOverall, previous PHARE and ESF support have generated considerable achievements at the 
level of outputs and results. The same appears to  hold true for the current ESF interventions. 
At project level, clear success factors have been identified. 
The strategic rationale which forms a starting point for the future ACB support lies in the 
Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular the Integrated Guidelines that put additional 
challenges to Member State governments at all levels. They involve new tasks, including the 
provision of new public services, increased resour ce-efficiency in delivering these services, a 
need to further reduce administrative burdens, and the modernisation of a wide range of 
public services including further disseminatio n of E-government. Further justification for 
continued ACB-support is provid ed by the Fifth Report on Econom ic, Social and Territorial 
Cohesion (EC, 2010).  
The study examined three Options for a future ACB component under the ESF. The case for 
discontinuing ACB support lies in  the fact that ACB is a matter of Member States and that the 
added value of the EC in general and ESF in particular may not be strong. The second option 
consists of the continuation of administrative and institutional capacity building interventions 
in Convergence regions. This option is esse ntially the no-policy change but would be 
accompanied by a number of optimisation measures. Option 3, which the study argues is the preferable one, extends ACB support beyond Convergence regions.  Future ACB support 
would be conditional and become part of the development and investment partnership contract. 
 
Report on the focus group discussion on Pr oportionality, financial engineering and the 
involvement of local actors in the ESF post 2013   
(Finalisation pending) 
Between November 2010 and February 2011, Delo itte organised on be half of DG EMPL 5 
focus group discussions on the wider applicati on of the proportionality principle, use of 
financial engineering and the involvement of local actors in  the ESF post 2013. Each focus 
group meeting was underpinned by an issue pape r which formed the basis for a discussion 
with experts representing beneficiaries, managing authorities and the Commission. The 
groups were kept deliberately small to facilitate  discussions (maximum 10 persons). The ESF 
Committee Ad hoc group of the future of ESF was given a feed back of the discussions on the 
occasion of its 3 February 2011 meeting.  
Proportionality 
There was a general support for a wider use of the proportionality especially as far as audits 
are concerned. Some divergences appeared on the need for a general framework for 
proportionality (that is more flexible) rather than a deta iled operational framework that 
provides for more legal ce rtainty. However both appro aches are compatible.  
As far as the strategic programming is concerne d the main proposals were  related to avoid the 
duplication of parts of documents and to simplif y the content of the Op erational Programme. 
For example the description of the Management and Control system is part of the compliance assessment and should not be repeated in the Operational Programme; the part on 
communication could be included in the Op erational Programme and the Communication 
plan suppressed. The Operational Programme itself should be short, with only what is necessary (and no new requirements). It could eventually be split in two parts: a committing one and a second one, more detailed, for inform ation (modifiable without decision of the 
 
 xxixCommission). The opportunity of the DIPCO was contested: additional layer of negotiation, 
unclear link with the NRP. 
 Some simplifications were discussed. In add ition to those presented by the Commission some 
experts proposed: to pay Technica l Assistance as a flat rate of the Operational Programme; to 
simplify treatment of revenues; to introduce amount s or rates of simplified costs options in the 
Regulation, eventually by relying on Eurostat da ta but it should not undermine Member States 
prerogative to define rates and un it costs; to set a minimum threshold for irregularities; to 
maintain eligibility of non recoverable VAT, to  have a better alignment with national rules 
and procedures; to restrict the use of actual expenditu re thanks to public tender and simplified 
costs. 
There were also exchanges about the opport unity to implement clearing houses. It is 
considered as one of the tools for simplification but as a ris ky one: required data should be 
known well in advance. However based on its own experience, one of th e experts underlined 
that in theory clearing houses were an excellent idea but that  in practice the number of 
documents to be handled made it very difficult to implement. 
Keeping of timesheets was considered as a prob lem by some of the experts. It was proposed 
to share experience on this issue during one of  the next ESF informal Technical Working 
Group. 
 
Financial engineering 
The focus group examined the following three op tions for future financial engineering:  
• Policy based guarantee allowing credit enha ncement for sovereign, regional and local 
borrowing in order to increase the availa ble resources for carrying out structural 
reforms in the areas of employment, social protection and inclusion;  
• Secondary market (securitization) for mi cro and small loans for business creation  
• Comprehensive package of services for providers of microfinance comprising 
institutional building meas ures and lending products 
The participants of th e focus group expressed their suppor t for the policy based guarantee and 
for designing comprehensive pack ages of services for provider s of microfinance. They found 
that developing secondary markets would requi re more detailed knowledge and capacity from 
managing authorities. 
 
 
 xxxInvolvement of local actors 
• The question of the involvement of local actors in the ESF programmes is closely 
interlinked with the issue of partnershi p. Most Many focus group members shared the 
opinion that the current regulations leave too much room for national interpretations of 
the partnership principle and suggested expe rts consider that there is no need for 
additional requirements in terms of partne rship in the regulations. There are many 
ways to implement the principle of pa rtnership according to Member States 
specificities, at local, regional and national le vel. Sufficient flexibility should therefore 
be left to Member States. One participan t expressed a different opinion, considering 
that huge differences in the implementation of the partnership principle calls for a 
clearer definition of this principle, more st ringent requirements in the regulations and ,  
the establishment of a code of good practice (soft law appro ach). A majority of experts 
in the ad hoc group disagreed with this recommendation, considering that sufficient 
flexibility should be left to Member States and no need additional requirements are thus needed in the regulations . They also highlighted the specific role of the social 
partners should also be highlighted in the context of ESF interventions. 
• Technical assistance is alr eady used in some Member States to facilitate the 
involvement of small organisations in th e implementation of the programmes. There 
was a strong support among the focus group me mbers for extending this use, in 
particular for those organi sations who do not have th e organisational scale and 
financial resources of technica l knowledge to be a solid partner. On the contrary, most 
members of the Ad Hoc group consider th at the current provi sion is well adapted 
giving MA the possibility to use such a mechanism if they deem it necessary. 
Technical assistance should remain distinctively separated from institutional capacity building which provides support to in stitutional capacity beyond the pure 
implementation of the fund. 
• A majority of experts in the focus group was critical about the idea to create a specific 
ESF heading priority for local pacts and initiatives or to require a compulsory 
territorial priority axis. They expressed th eir opposition to a compulsory priority axis 
dedicated to the promotion of the territorial  dimension in the ESF. These ideas seems 
to be at odds with the transversal/ multi- sectoral features of local initiatives, the 
principle idea on concentrating on fewer pr iorities and the notion of results based 
management by promoting the means rather than the end. The experts in the ad hoc 
group expressed their opposition to a compulsory priority axis dedicated to the promotion of the territorial dimension in the ESF. A few experts were not opposed to 
reflect further on this idea of a dedicated pr iority axis, as a horizontal mechanism to 
implement some policy priorities set up in the Operational Programme priority (following the model of Austria). 
• The results of local initiatives and sm all projects driven by NGOs are not 
demonstrated. There is no evaluation evid ence that NGOs and local actors are any 
better at helping people into work than pub lic bodies or private sector organisations. 
They often raise important difficulties in terms of control and audit. A few experts 
were not opposed to reflect further on this  idea of a dedicated priority axis, as a 
horizontal mechanism to implement some policy priorities set up in the Operational Programme priority (followi ng the model of Austria). 
• Except for one expert, there was not support expressed for a specific earmarking of the 
fund (a minimum percentage defi ned in the regulation) for te rritorial initia tives in the 
focus group and in the ad hoc group, since it will infringe the necessary flexibility in 
 
 xxxithe programming of the funding according to the needs identified and the priorities 
decided by national authori ties. Even "soft" earmark ing such as calling for a 
significant / an appropriate / a reasonable amount" should be avoided as it triggers in a 
latter stage lengthy and inconc lusive discussions between the Member States and the 
Commission. 
• There was no consensus in the focus group on the need for stringent provisions with 
regard to in-kind contributions, pre-financi ng or global grants. Most experts in the ad 
hoc group had strong reservations about a ny specific funding arrangement for local 
initiatives and small projects.  The use of global grants often leads to administrative 
complexity and burden for the intermediary  body and sometimes high error rates. "In 
kind" contributions raise important audit issu es mainly due to poor record keeping. A 
differentiated co-financing rate for different types of projects is administratively very 
difficult and has led to financial corrections in some cases. 
 
 
 
 
 xxxiiANNEX  6.  SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES  
 
ACORD International sa / G.E.A. mbH, Begleitung und Bewertung des Europäischen 
Sozialfonds, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in de r Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft Belgiens, 
Bewertungsbericht 2009, 2010. 
Dieses Dokument stellt den dritten Bewertungs bericht der Umsetzung des Operationellen 
Programms für den Europäisch en Sozialfonds in der Deut schsprachigen Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens für den Zeitraum 2007-2013 dar. 
Er ist in zwei Teile gegliedert: 
 Der erste Teil umfasst die Bewertung der Umsetzung des ESF in der DG im Jahr 2009 
 Der zweite Teil geht insbesondere auf die Aspekte ein, die gemäß Lastenheft im 
Zweijahres-Rhythmus untersucht werde n, d.h. einerseits die Zufriedenheit der 
Teilnehmer/innen in laufenden Projekten und ihre Information zum Projekt und zum ESF 
und andererseits die Dokumentation bewä hrter Praktiken bei der Umsetzung der  
horizontalen Prioritätsachsen in der DG. 
 
Altavilla,C., F. E. Caroleo, 2006. Evaluating the Dy namic Effects of Active Labour Policies in 
Italy; LABOUR, Volume 20, Issue 2, pages 349–382, June 2006.  
This paper aims at analyzing whether Active  Labour Market Program s (ALMP) could have 
different effects on unemployment and empl oyment dynamics according to the particular 
region where the program is implemented. To th is end, the research analyses alternative 
theoretical and econometric models thought to ca pture the possible effects that active labour 
market policies might have on labour for ces dynamics. The econometric methodologies 
implemented are the Generalized Method of  Moment (GMM) and the Panel Vector 
Autoregression (P-VAR). The evidence emerging  from the GMM models suggests that the 
effects of ALMP on unemployment are not simila r across the Italian re gions. It follows that 
some active programs are likely to exert a greate r effect in the South than in the North. The 
results of the P-VAR estimated models are synt hesized in the impulse response analysis and 
the forecast error variance decomposition. The impulse response analysis suggests that an 
increase in ALMP lead to: (i ) a decrease in the unemployment rate, and (ii) significant 
increase in labour force participation. More in terestingly, results obtained from the error-
variance decomposition analysis show that unemployment movements are not driven by 
shocks in the ALMP and that, especially in the northern regions, atypical contracts shocks 
account for a substantial porti on of unemployment dynamics. 
 
 
Becker, S.; P. H. Egger and M. von Ehrlich, 2010. Too much of a good thing? On the growth 
effects of the EU's regional pol icy. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8043.  
This paper focuses on the estimation of the response of average annual GDP per capita 
growth to changes in the inte nsity of regional tran sfers provided by the European Commission 
under the auspices of the Stru ctural Funds and Cohesion F und programmes. We use NUTS3 
data, the most disaggregated regional data available, covering the two most recent EU 
budgetary periods 1994-99 and 2000- 06. Nonparametric generalized propensity score analysis 
allows us to estimate the causal effect of diffe rent levels of EU transfers on GDP growth. 
 
 xxxiiiOur results point to an optimal transfer inte nsity of 0.4 percent of target region GDP and a 
maximum desirable intensity of 1.3 percent. Transfers to regions below a transfer intensity of 
0.4 percent enhance aggregate efficiency as th ey exhibit a multiplier above one. Regions with 
EU transfer intensity below 1.3 percent of th eir beginning-of-period GDP could grow faster 
by further EU transfers. Regions with a transf er intensity of more than 1.3 percent of GDP 
could give up EU transfers without experienci ng a significant drop in their average annual 
per-capita income growth rate. For a certain range of transfer intensities, we detect a trade-off 
between aggregate efficiency and regional cohe sion. Reducing the transf ers to regions below 
the maximum desirable transfer intensity signi ficantly harms their growth prospects but may 
enhance aggregate efficiency, if the transf er intensity was above the optimal level. 
Redistribution of EU transfers from the 18 per cent of regions that receive more than 1.3 
percent of initial GDP as EU transfers to regi ons below that threshold would be efficient and 
could boost regional convergence. 
 
 
Blanden, J., F. Buscha, P. Sturgis and P. Urwi n, 2010. Measuring the Returns to Lifelong 
Learning. CEE discussion papers, CEEDP0110. Ce ntre for the Economics of Education, 
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. 
 
Abstract:  This paper investigates the returns to lifelong learning, which is interpreted as  the attainment 
of qualifications following entry into the labour market. For a number of reasons our analysis 
of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)  represents an important addition to the 
existing evidence base. We allow for financial and non-financial return s to lifelong learning 
by using as dependent variable s both (i) hourly earnings and (ii) CAMSIS score. A fixed 
effects specification counters the potential bi ases that arise from unobserved individual 
heterogeneity and the inclusion of lags allo ws estimation of how th e returns to lifelong 
learning evolve over a ten year period after th e qualification is obtai ned. We find evidence of 
earnings and occupation status returns using a broad categorisation of lifelong learning for 
both men and women, but more variability in returns when disaggregated NVQ-equivalent 
categories of qualification are considered. Ou r findings are broadly in line with existing 
evidence within the UK, which is mostly based on the analysis of cohort studies. 0f particular 
interest is the fi nding that returns to women materialise much sooner af ter the attainment of a 
qualification, than is the case for their male counterparts. 
 Conclusions: The analysis of the returns to any form of  lifelong learning suggests there are significant 
positive returns for men and women, in terms of both earnings and CAMSIS. The magnitude 
of effect is similar for both  genders, with men and women e xperiencing a 20 per cent increase 
in hourly earnings 10 years after gaining a lif elong learning qualification. With respect to 
CAMSIS, both genders experience a 10 per ce nt return over the same period. However, 
interpretation of the time dynamics imply that  women experience return s from an investment 
in lifelong learning sooner than men, as we obser ve a significant increa se in earnings four 
years after the event; compared to six years fo r men. Considering changes to CAMSIS arising 
from participation in lifelong learning the differe nce is only one year and returns to women 
materialising after one year. The implication for the wider literature is that social status 
 
 xxxivreturns seem to be more immediate for both sexes, but for women both pecuniary and non-
pecuniary returns are realised sooner than is  the case for their male counterparts. […] 
 
 
 
Car, D., J. Kluve & A. We ber, 2010. Active Labour  Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-
Analysis. Economic Journal, 120 (November), F452–F477. 
This article presents a meta-analysis of recen t microeconometric evaluations of active labour 
market policies. We categorise 199 programme impacts from 97 studies  conducted between 
1995 and 2007. Job search assistance programmes yiel d relatively favourable programme 
impacts , whereas public sector employment  programmes are less effective. Training 
programmes are associated with positive medium-term impacts , although in th e short term 
they often appear ineffective. We also find that the outcome variable used to measure 
programme impact matters, but neither the pub lication status of a study nor the use of a 
randomised design is related to the sign or  significance of the programme estimate. 
 
 
Cubie, A., O. Baker European Social Fund Ob jective 3: The 2005 beneficiary survey for 
England, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 376, 2006.   
The researchers carried out tw o waves of longitudinal rese arch among beneficiaries of 
European Social Fund (ESF) training. The firs t wave drew on the views of 4,682 beneficiaries 
while they were enrolled on an ESF course an d the second wave involved interviews with 
2,063 of the same beneficiaries once they had left their course.  
 
 
Deeke, Axel, 2010. Arbeitsmarktpolitik mit dem Europäischen Sozialfonds – Analysen zur 
Umsetzung und zu den Wirkungen der Ergänzung des SGB III aus Mitteln des ESF – Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ES F-BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010. 
Ein erheblicher Teil der ESF- Mittel des Bundes wurde seit dem Jahr 2000 bis zum Herbst 
2008 in Verbindung mit der individuellen Arbe itsförderung nach dem SGB III im Rahmen 
des bundesweiten ESF-BA-Programms eingesetz t. Das Programm sollte die gesetzliche 
Arbeitsförderung qualitativ ergänzen. 
Das Programm sollte die Beschäftigungsfähigke it von Arbeitslosen im Verhältnis zum SGB 
III zusätzlich bzw. verstärkt fördern, um Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit zu verhindern und vom Ausschluss vom Arbeitsmarkt bedroht e Personengruppen zu unterstützen.  
Das Programm setzte bei einigen Förder lücken des SGB III an, erweiterte den von 
Arbeitsförderung (bei beruflicher Qualifizierung ) erreichbaren Persone nkreis und sollte das 
Wirkungspotential der ergänzten gesetzlichen Förderinstrumente steigern. Da sich die 
Problemlage auf dem Arbeitsmarkt nicht g eändert hatte und weil  die Umsetzung des 
Vorläuferprogramms „AFG-Plus“ als relativ erfo lgreich eingeschätzt wurde, gab es aus Sicht 
der Verantwortlichen keinen Anlass, das neue Programm grundsätzlich anders zu schneiden.  
 
 xxxvDieser Bericht dokumentiert die Begleitforschung , die über die gesamte Laufzeit hinweg als 
ein Verbund mehrerer Teilprojekte erfo lgte. Diese wurden ablaufbedingt mit 
unterschiedlicher Intensität  und Schwerpunktsetzung durchgeführt wurden. Sie beinhalteten 
insbesondere: 
 den Aufbau und die Fortschreibung einer Individualdatenbank mit den relevanten 
administrativen Daten der BA zu gefö rderten Personen und Vergleichsgruppen,  
 Erhebungen und Analysen zur Implementation de s Programms als zentraler Baustein der 
Evaluation auf Programmebene, 
 Erhebungen und Analysen zur Zielgruppenerreichung, 
 Verbleibsanalysen im regionalen Vergleich, 
 mikroanalytische Wirkungsuntersuchungen zu Instrumenten und Leistungen des 
Programms 
 
 
Deeke, A., C. Ohlert, 2009. Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen während Kurzarbeit nach 
endgültigem Arbeitsausfall – Analysen zur Förderung im Rahmen des ESF-BA-Programms 2000 bis 2006 und zum Verbleib nach der Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009. 
 
In the case of definite loss of employment because of substantial works alteration, 
establishments can implement short-time work a ccording to regulations in the SGB III. Short 
time compensations could be approved for a duration of up to two years until 2003 
(Strukturkurzarbeitergeld) and since 2004 with a duration of up to one year 
(Transferkurzarbeitergeld). The establishments ar e encouraged by the law to take care of the 
placement of the short-time workers in new jobs  and for this purpose to provide measures of 
vocational training if necessary. These measures could be subsidized in the framework of the 
ESF-BA-program from 2000 to summer 2008 a nd since then by the new ESF-federal-
program. Thus for the evaluation of this promo tion by the ESF the question arises, in how far 
the chances for the short-time workers to find a new job, increase with the participation in the 
training measures.  An impact analysis of vocational training dur ing short-time work is not possible with the 
available data. The data bases of the BA l ack person and establishment specific data on 
characteristics and dates of the short-time wo rk and the short-time compensation. The few 
individual-related data on participations in training measures subsidized by the ESF have 
several deficits and are therefore inadequate fo r elaborate analyses. Nevertheless, analyses on 
the structures and the amount of the subsid ies and most notably on the status of the 
participants after leaving the training measur es and the short-time work are presented. Even 
though under some reservations, basic information can be given on the results of the training 
measures. This includes the finding that more than  forty percent of the participants are in non-
subsidized employment liable to social security  one year past the training measure and also 
two years later. Besides this and other empiri cal evident results, conclusions are drawn with 
respect to the difficult situation with the data. Recommendations are given, which could 
alleviate the upcoming evaluation of the subsidy of training during shor t time work in the 
framework of the ESF-federal-program that just started and runs until 2013. 
 
 
 xxxvi 
Deeke, A, R. Cramer, R. Gilberg, D. He ss & M. Baas, 2009. Evaluation der Förderung 
beruflicher Weiterbildung im Rahmen de s ESF-BA-Programms. IAB Forschungsbericht 
1/2009 
The promotion of further vocational training  for unemployed persons according to SGB III 
was supplemented by the European Social Fund  (ESF) from the beginning of 2000 to autumn 
2008. 80 per cent of the total of 116,000 promoted cases is allocated to the years 2000 to 
2002. An impact analysis is presented in this  report covering the populat ion participating in 
these years. Outcomes subsequent to participa tion are measured, firstl y, by the fact whether 
participants entered into employment at all and, secondly, by transition into non-subsidized 
employment liable to social s ecurity. Unemployed non-participan ts and participants without 
additional ESF-funding serve as comparison groups. Separate analyses were run for 
subgroups where possible (West/East Germans, non -recipients of benef its according to SGB 
III, male/female participants and, in an excu rsus, migrants with and without additional 
language courses). 
The analysis is empirically ba sed on the longitudinal data from  representative panel surveys 
of ESF-funded participants and comparison gr oups whose samples were  drawn on the basis of 
exact pre-matching with process-produced data . The method of event history analysis was 
applied throughout the study (partly supplemen ted by propensity score matching, which, 
however, can estimate status probabilities but not  probabilities of transition). First of all, 
transition rates for the overall observation period  of six years were compared (Kaplan-Meier 
estimator). In the following the effect of part icipation was estimated in a Cox regression, 
taking into account further explan atory factors (such as personal characteristics, regional and 
program-related heterogeneity, job-s eekers' behaviour). Since, othe r than earlier studies, this 
analysis was conducted with l ongitudinal survey data using more elaborate methods, the 
results of preliminary findings are obsol ete now. In contrast to earlier findings , a clearly 
positive effect of s upplementary ESF-funding on i ndividual benefits  can be found.  Compared 
to unemployed nonparticipants, participants su pported by the ESF were more successful on 
the labour market in the medium  and long run (especially partic ipants in West Germany and 
the group of non-recipients of statutory benefits).  With reference to fu rther vocational training 
without ESF-funding, the results poin t to positive outcomes as well. 
 
 
Dmitrijeva, J., 2009. The employment effects of  public training programme: evidence from 
Latvian micro and macro data. 
During the transition to market economy and the accession to the EU Central and Eastern 
European countries have witnessed remarkable  changes in the structure and functioning of 
national economies. The aim of this paper is to  investigate the role of active labour market 
policy (ALMP) programmes in smoothing the consequences of transitional shock and 
improving the performance of the labour market . We evaluate the employment effects of 
publicly provided unemployed training prog ramme in Latvia from both micro and 
macroeconomic perspectives. 
First, the individual effects of the programme are assessed. Using the individual data provided 
by State Employment Agency of Latvia, we investigate the impact of participation on 
unemployed transitions to jobs, examine heteroge neity of treatment eff ects across different 
socio - demographic and regional groups and exam ine the empirical link between targeting of 
 
 xxxviithe programme and its efficiency. We also test the sensitivity of our re sults to the so-called 
”hidden” bias. 
Next, the aggregate impact on the outflows from  unemployment to jobs is analyzed using 
monthly panel data (1999-2006) da ta from 33 Latvian districts. The analysis is performed by 
estimating the augmented matching function, wher e the correct specification of the hiring 
process is obtained by allowi ng for stock-flow matching. The results allow to  quantify the 
aggregate outcomes of training and to assess te mporal evolution in pr ogramme efficiency (by 
comparing pre EU accession to post accession  periods) or its regi onal distribution. The 
estimation results are further employed to perfor m a costs-benefit analysis of the programme. 
Generally, the effects of unemployed traini ng are confirmed to be positive at both 
macroeconomic and individual levels: involv ement of unemployed in training increases 
aggregate outflows from unemployment to jobs  and increases individual employability of 
participants. 
 
 
Dickinson, P. and R. Lloyd, 2010. DWP resear ch Report 666: European Social Fund - 
Support for In-Work Training research  
The projects complemented a range of sub-regi onal, regional and national agendas, with the 
fit appearing closest amongst the Convergence Prio rity 5 projects in Corn wall, where explicit 
reference was made to a range of local strate gic drivers and priority activities. There are a 
number of possible reasons for this, including existing familiarities between the actors involved, the focus on a sma ller number of providers ava ilable within the county, and 
previous experienced and strategic awareness resulting from the previous Objective 1 programme. 
The Priority 2 projects had a more implicit strategic fit, which is likely to be due to the 
influence of co-financing (where the ‘con tracting’ model addresses many of the wider 
strategic parameters in advance), and may al so explain why fewer examples of strategic 
partnerships were identified. Ho wever, operational partnerships were plentiful, and served to 
broaden the range of provision (sectorally and geographically),  enhance progression routes, 
and provide expertise. 
In both cases, it was too early (and sample sizes  did not allow) for clear conclusions to be 
drawn regarding the influence of strategic a lignment with project performance and impact. 
However, in many cases the projects were pos itioned, and able to articulate their 
expectations, in terms of making real contributi ons to local, regional and national priority 
areas.  
In terms of the targeting of project activities,  most employers were ta rgeted on the basis of 
their sector or location. Whilst the projects were working with a broad range of learner 
groups, the targeting of individu als by specific characteristics wa s limited. Here Priorities 2 
and 5 projects appear to differ from those under Priority 1 – not least as the engagement is 
with the employer rather than the individual. 
Whilst there were examples of innovativ e projects, including the Innovation and 
Transnationality project studied, most provision wa s conventional. This is likely to be due to 
the more prescriptive nature of contracts under co-financing, and because activities tended to 
be delivered by experienced provi ders, to existing customers, and complementing mainstream 
provision. Most provision therefore operated with in certain parameters defined by CFO plans 
and tenders, qualification structur es (e.g. NVQs), and years of experience as to what worked. 
 
 xxxviiiMost engagement, assessment and provision tended to be undertaken by the providers 
themselves, only bringing in partners to recrui t and work with employers and learners in new 
sectors or areas. 
High levels of satisfaction were expressed by both the employers and learners interviewed 
(although it should be noted that the contact details of employers and learners were supplied 
by the providers in question). Providers be lieve they have developed flexible, relevant and 
high quality provision, and this  was reflected in the views of the employers and learners, who 
valued the responsiveness, pertinence  and calibre of the training offered. 
However, the progression and aftercare stage of the participant journey seems the least 
developed. Most providers, employe rs and learners had little to say about this stage. For some 
this was because they had only just embarked on the training, and most employers expected 
this discussion to happen. However, some lear ners had been disappointed by the lack of 
further information, advice and guidance offered, even when they had asked for it. 
The monitoring of ESF projects appears to be light touch; however, this does not seem to 
have impacted on performance as indicated by the high satisfaction levels of employers and learners who could find little wrong with the pr ovision. Providers, employers and learners all 
identified the same range of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ impacts, i.e. addressing skills needs, improving 
confidence and increasing productivity. Some providers believed that this was due to ESF 
funding as it helped them to develop or enhance existing provis ion, support harder to reach 
learners and employers, and develop innovative and flexible provision.  However, providers 
believed that ESF paperwork was still too excessive, and there was an issue over the 
definition of, and collecting evidence for, job outcomes for Response to Redundancy providers.  
 
 
Drever, E., C. Llyod, 2010. DWP Research Repo rt 709: European Social Fund Cohort Study - 
Wave 2   
The majority of participants (94 per cent) had fi nished their course when they took part in the 
Wave 2 ESF Cohort Study.  
The study found that the rate of unemployment am ong Priority 1 and 4 participants fell from 
69 per cent in the week before th e course to 43 per cent at the time of the Wave 2 interview, 
while the employment rate rose from six per cent to 27 per cen t in the same period. However, 
the rate of unemployment at the time of in terview was similar to the rate among these 
participants 12 months before the course ( 42 per cent). As the courses funded by the ESF 
programme by definition target a group of the population that have become unemployed and 
have been identified as potentially benefiting from  these courses, this is not unexpected. It is 
also important to note that interviews t ook place during the economic recession, which may 
also account for this. Participants with a disa bility or LTLI were less likely than other groups 
to have moved into work. 
Of those participants who were in employment at the time of the interview and who had been 
out of work in the week before  the course, 22 per cent said that someone on the course had 
suggested that they apply for their current j ob, while a similar proportion (22 per cent) had 
used contacts from the course wh en applying for their current job. 
Of those participants who were unemployed at  the Wave 2 interview, most had made job 
applications (69 per cent) si nce the Wave 1 interview while  over half had been to job 
interviews (56 per cent). Thirty-three per cent of unemployed participants had used contacts 
 
 xxxixfrom the course in their job search, while 28 per cent said that someone on the course had 
suggested that they appl y for particular jobs.  
Fifty-five per cent of those part icipants who were employees said  that, since they had been on 
the course, they had improved their job securi ty. Of these, a high pr oportion (87 per cent) 
agreed that the course had helped them in th is area. The course also seemed particularly 
beneficial to those employees who had taken on higher skilled work for an existing employer 
(34 per cent) – with 87 per cen t acknowledging that the course had helped them to do this 
work. 
 
 
Kasemets, L., K. & K. Klaas, 2008. Evaluation of  the Results of Lab our Market Projects 
Funded by the European Social Fund, Direct ed to Workers Decl ared Redundant and their 
Applicability in Labour Market Po licies, MindPark Llc, Talinn, 2008.  
Objectives and scope of the evaluation 
 Immediate objective of the assessment was to  analyse the results of the labour market 
projects directed to workers declared redunda nt, financed by the European Social Fund 
measure 1.3 „Equal opportunities in the labour market“. For fulfilling the aim, project-
based analysis of target groups, applied meas ures, costs of the measures and achieved 
results was conducted. This analysis was comp lemented by highlighting best practices and 
making proposals for improving the quality and impact of labour market services. Also 
assessment on their broader applicability in labour ma rket policies was conducted. 
 Implemented labour market measures as well as competitiveness and motivation drivers 
of the target group formed the core of analys is. All labour market pr oject financed by ESF 
measure 1.3 in 2004-2007 were analysed. In total,  6 projects were evaluated, out of which 
5 projects, with 1830 participan ts, have been finalised. 1 project, planning to support 360 
laid-off employees is ongoing at the time of evaluation. 
 Evaluation consisted of 3 phase s. First phase of the assessment was based on the analysis 
of project documentation. In the second pha se comprehensive package of in depth 
interviews were conducted. Interviews were held with members of the project teams, 
representatives of enterprises and laid-off employees who had participated in these 
projects. Selection of part icipants was representative comprising of workers being 
targeted by both individual and collectiv e redundancy, having diffe rent educational 
background, belonging to various  age groups etc. The third ph ase tied the outcomes of the 
previous evaluation phases into comparativ e study. Based on that the main findings and 
recommendations were formulated on the effectiveness of the projects and measures provided as well as on their broader app licability in labour market policies. 
 
 
Kluve, Jochen; RWI Essen and IZA Bonn, 2006.  The Effectiveness of European Active 
Labour Market Policy 
Measures of Active Labour Market Policy are wi dely used in European countries, but despite 
many econometric evaluation studies no conclusi ve cross-country evidence exists regarding 
"what program works for what target grou p under what (economic and institutional) 
circumstances? This paper results from an extensive research project for the European 
 
 xlCommission aimed at answering that questio n using a meta-analytical framework. The 
empirical results are surprisingly clear-cut: Rath er than contextual factors such as labour 
market institutions or the busines s cycle, it is almost exclusively the program type that matters 
for program effectiveness. While direct empl oyment programs in the public sector appear 
detrimental, wage subsidies and "Services and Sanctions" can be effective in increasing participants' employment probability. 
 
 
Lindley, J., McIntosh, S., Roberts, J., Murra y, C.C. and Edlin, R. (2010) Using Financial 
Incentives and Improving Inform ation to Increase Labour Market Success: A Non-Parametric 
Evaluation of the 'Want2Work' Programme. Working Paper. Department of Economics, 
University of Sheffield 
The `Want2Work´ programme was designed to help  individuals back into work. This article 
uses propensity score matching to evaluate th e success of a policy that cannot otherwise be 
evaluated using standard para metric techniques. Using a ra nge of estimation methods, sub-
samples and types of job, the scheme was su ccessful. Our most conservative estimates 
indicate that participants were 4-7 percentage points more likely to find employment than a 
control group of non-treated job- seekers. Effects were even stronger for Incap acity Benefit 
recipients. Moreover, there is litt le evidence that participants were placed in low quality or 
temporary jobs.  
 
 
Lücke, C. & L. Heyn, 2010. Ad-hoc-evaluierung der Aktion A.5 „Förderung des 
Unternehmergeistes“ im Rahmen des ESF-OP Hamburg 2007- 2013. 
 
"10.1 Zusammenfassung  
…. 
Insgesamt zeichnen sich die ESF-geförd erten Projekte zur Unterstützung der 
Migrantenökonomie dadurch aus, dass sie einen Mehrwert bzw. eine  Zusätzlichkeit gegenüber 
bestehenden Maßnahmen der Frei en und Hansestadt Hamburg  bieten, auf spezifische 
Bedarfslagen und ungenutzte Potenziale reag ieren und zur Stärkung des Unternehmertums in 
der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg beitragen. Die drei geförderten Projekte unterstützen 
Migranten, durch die Etablierung eines Unternehmens dauerhaft am Marktgeschehen teilzunehmen und auf diese Weise das wirtscha ftliche Potenzial durch die Schaffung neuer 
Arbeitsverhältnisse und langfristig auch  Ausbildungsverhältn issen auszubauen und 
auszuschöpfen. …." 
 
 
McNaughton Nicholls, C.; M. Mitchell, A. Brown, N. Rahim, E. Drever and Cheryl Lloyd, 
2010. DWP research Report 667: Evaluation of Gender Equality and Equal Opportunities 
within the European Social Fund  
The focus of the Gender and Equal Opportunities  within the European  Social Fund (ESF) 
research is on equal opportunities as a cross- cutting theme, looking at how equal opportunities 
are integrated into all aspect s of the programme. The study aims  to examine the effectiveness 
 
 xliof equal opportunities policy and pr actice within ESF, in the cont ext of helping to tackle the 
barriers experienced by each of the equality  groups including examining organisational 
policies within projects as they relate to equal opportunities and the mainstreaming of equal 
opportunities, drawing upon resear ch on participation and outco mes of different equality 
groups and examining the factors affecting part icipation, including discrimination and making 
recommendations for good practice to enc ourage equal opportunities on ESF projects. 
" substantial progress has been made , however work still needs to be done in order to make 
mainstreaming even more effectiv e, including: clarif ication of what specific work should be 
undertaken by CMs and providers to promote Ge nder Equality and Equal Opportunities; the 
application of consistent measures of progre ss and good practice in relation the promotion of 
Gender Equality and Equal Opportu nities (such as Equality Imp act Assessments (EIAs)); and 
further dissemination of informati on relating to these measures."  
 
 
Reinowski, Eva; Schultz, Birgit, 2006. Micro- econometric Evaluation of Selected ESF-funded 
ALMP-Programmes.  Halle Institute for economic research, September 2006 
The study evaluates different ESF-funded la bour market programmes by comparing the 
labour market status at different  points in time after the tr eatment. In order to solve the 
selection problem we employ a standard matching algorithm with a multi-dimensional distance measure. The effects of the analyzed programmes (wage subsidie s, start-up subsidies 
and qualification measures for recipients of soci al welfare) are very heterogeneous. It can be 
observed that the direct integr ation into the regular labour ma rket provides an advantage for 
the supported individuals. It s lasting effects, however, strongly depend on the group of 
persons being supported, the type of treat ment and the employers’ financial share. 
 
 
Rothgang, Michael, 2008. Evaluating the efficiency of the ESF — Wh at can we learn from the 
German experience? Society and Economy, vol.30, n°2,, pp. 227-244. 
In Europe, the new member states face the challenge to implement and evaluate EU-funded 
policies. This paper sketches the experiences in evaluating policy instruments funded by the 
European Social Fund (ESF) in Germany and discusses lessons to be learned from the 
comprehensive evaluation of ESF-funded policy measures in Germany in the programming 
period 2000–2006. It presents the matching procedure we used to estimate the net effect of the 
projects scrutinised. The experiences from  the evaluation not merely comprise the 
methodological aspect (how to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of labour-market 
policies), but also consequences  that can be drawn in respec t to the institutional background. 
 
 
Verschraegen, G.;  B. Vanhercke and R. Verpoorten, 2010. The European Social Fund and 
domestic activation policies: Europeanization  mechanisms. Journal of European Social 
Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–18. 
This article analyses the eff ects of the European Social F und (ESF) on domestic activation 
policies in the three Belgian regions: Flanders , Wallonia and Brussels. We argue that over the 
last decade the ESF has had a catalytic impact, fi rst on the innovation of activation 
 
 xliiinstruments, second on the go vernance of employment policie s and third on policy framing.  
We explain how three different mechanisms (lev erage, conditionality and learning) generate 
these effects and how they can account for a diffe rential influence in different regions. We 
conclude by summarizing our research findings and framewor k, suggesting its usefulness for 
analyzing other domestic settings and European policy instruments. 
 
 
Wagner, G.,  2009. Begleitende Evaluierung für den Europäischen Sozialfonds im Freistaat 
Sachsen 2007-2013 – Evaluierung der Priori tätsachse A, ISW Halle/S., Sept. 2009. 
By introducing accompanying evaluation of the Operational Programme (OP) of ESF Saxony 
2007-2013 a general survey was provided about the state of the implementation of the OP and 
the available databases. This first period of  the OP Evaluation was finalized in March 2009. 
Following up the introduction, key evaluation and m onitoring issues of the OP were presented 
on several programme levels of the priority axes (PA) starting with priority axis A (PA A). The evaluation will be taken up as an eval uation of several measures co-financed by ESF 
(“thematic evaluation”) and fr om measure-wide perspective (“programme evaluation”). The 
main references are the graded-questions of the evaluation plan fixed within the OP.  
The programme evaluating report for the PA A contains the following key evaluations in 
particular: 
 the improvement of general conditions fo r the implementation of PA A (chap. 2) 
 strategic adjustment/ developmen t of the OP as well as the goals and the indicators for 
the PA A (chap. 3) 
 the specification of the strategy in single m easures and the state of implementation of 
these measures (chap. 4) 
 the results and impacts of the intervention (chap. 5)  
 
 xliiiANNEX  7.  MULTI -CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS OF THE ESF  SCOPE OPTIONS  
The Impact Assessment (IA) of th e legislative proposal on the fu ture ESF Regulation presents 
a set of objectives and policy options, which ar e not likely to be assessed by traditional 
quantitative methods for evaluation (like cost be nefit-analysis) because are not quantifiable in 
monetary terms. Most of th em are not even quantifiable in other units (making also 
impossible a cost-effectiveness analysis).  
This represents a typical case of Multi Criteri a Decision Analysis (MCDA) where we cannot 
assume the availability of m easurement of the main variable s to be considered. The model 
which could best fit our needs is the Analy tic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Using the AHP 
involves the mathematical synt hesis of numerous judgments about the decision problem at 
hand. 
The AHP is a structured technique for organi zing and analysing complex decisions, based on 
mathematics.  It provides a comprehensive a nd rational framework for structuring a decision 
problem, for representing and quantifying its elem ents, for relating those elements to overall 
goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.  
The analysis is done in a number of steps. The first is to define a hi erarchy of criteria on 
which the assessment of the different options ca n be based. Once the hi erarchy is built, the 
options are assessed by comparing them to one a nother, two at a time, with respect to their 
impact on each criterion. The AHP converts thes e evaluations to numerical values to be 
processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority 
is derived for each element of the hierarc hy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable 
elements to be compared to one anot her in a rational and consistent way. 
In the final step of the process, numerical pr iorities are calculated for each of the decision 
alternatives. These numbers represent the a lternatives' relative ability to achieve the 
objectives. 
1. Criteria 
From a logical point of view, it seems reasonabl e to use the Specific Objectives identified in 
the previous sections of the IA also as the crit eria to assess the contribution of each one of the 
four options. These cr iteria will thus be: 
- Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) 
- Employment (EMP) 
- Education (EDU) 
- Social Inclusion (INC) 
2. Options 
The four scope options identified are: 
- Option 1.1: no-policy change, it corresponds to  an ESF covering policies and actions 
leading directly or indirectly to employment and enhancing inclusion; 
- Option 1.2: the ESF is narrowly focussed on po licies and actions leading directly to 
employment; 
 
 xliv- Option 1.3:  the ESF has a broad scope for in terventions covering po licies and actions 
leading directly or indirectly to em ployment or social inclusion; and  
- Option 1.4: broad scope for ESF as in op tion 3, but covers also income support. 
 
3. Hierarchy of criteria 
The basic assumptions here are that: 
- EMP is the main objective of the ESF,  representing it "core business".  
- EDU and INC are equally importa nt, on a second level of priority compared to EMP, but 
are certainly more relevant than ICB. 
This results in the following matrix. 
 ICB EMP EDU INC 
ICB 1.000 0.167 0.250 0.250 
EMP 6.000 1.000 2.000 2.000 
EDU 4.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 
INC 4.000 0.500 1.000 1.000 The resulting ranking of the criteria is as 
follows: 
1. EMP Employment 0.451 
2. INC Inclusion 0.242 
3. EDU Education 0.242 
4. ICB Institutional Capacity Building 0.065 
 
4. Contribution to the Specific Objectives/Criteria 
In this section the contribution that each optio n brings to the achievement of the specific 
objectives is quantified and ranke d. These are used as the crit eria to assess the options. The 
process of calculating the contri bution to the objectives is based on a set of assumptions 
described below, and explained in the prev ious sections of the Impact Assessment. 
 
a. Contribution to Institutional Capacity Building 
Assumptions : Option 3 is the one which 
best contributes to the ICB criterion, 
followed by option 1, then option 4, and last is option 2, which excludes this type of 
interventions except for employment 
services. 
Options 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 
1.1 1.000 3.000 0.500 2.000 
1.2 0.333 1.000 0.250 0.500 
1.3 2.000 4.000 1.000 3.000 
1.4 0.500 2.000 0.333 1.000 The resulting contribution of each option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 
Institutional Capacity Building 
Option 1.1 0.277 
Option 1.2 0.096 
Option 1.3 0.466 
Option 1.4 0.161 
 
 
 xlvib. Contribution to Employment 
Assumptions : Option 1.2 is the one which 
best contributes to the EMP criterion, by 
concentrating on it all the resources. Option 1.1 is the second best, followed by option 1.3, and last is option 1.4, which risks dispersing the e ffort of employment, 
through many other types of interventions. 
Options 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 
1.1 1.000 0.500 2.000 3.000 
1.2 2.000 1.000 3.000 4.000 
1.3 0.500 0.333 1.000 2.000 
1.4 0.333 0.250 0.500 1.000 The resulting contribution of each option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 
Employment 
Option 1.1 0.277 
Option 1.2 0.466 
Option 1.3 0.161 
Option 1.4 0.096 
 
c. Contribution to Education 
Assumptions : Options 1.1 and 1.3 are 
equally contributing to this objective, more 
than option 1.4, which faces the same risks of dispersion previously explained, and 
much more than option 1.2. 
Options 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 
1.1 1.000 4.000 1.000 2.000 
1.2 0.250 1.000 0.250 0.500 
1.3 1.000 4.000 1.000 2.000 
1.4 0.500 2.000 0.500 1.000 The resulting contribution of each option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 
Education 
Option 1.1 0.364 
Option 1.2 0.091 
Option 1.3 0.364 
Option 1.4 0.182 
 
d. Contribution to Inclusion 
Assumptions : Option 1.3 is the one 
contributing most to the inclusion 
objective, followed by option 1 and then 4. Option 1.2 excludes this type of 
interventions. 
Options 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 
1.1 1.000 2.000 0.333 0.500 
1.2 0.500 1.000 0.250 0.333 
1.3 3.000 4.000 1.000 2.000 
1.4 2.000 3.000 0.500 1.000 The resulting contribution of each option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 
Inclusion 
Option 1.1 0.161 
Option 1.2 0.096 
Option 1.3 0.466 
Option 1.4 0.277 
 
 
 xlvii5. Comparison of the Options 
According to the values calcula ted above, the overall score for each option can be determined 
as follows: 
X = Σ (KX * K r ) 
Where X is the option, K X is the value of the criterion K for the option X, and K r is the 
relative weight of  this criterion. 
The final ranking and scores of the four options is: 
Final Scores 
Option 1.3 0.304 
Option 1.1 0.270 
Option 1.2 0.261 
Option 1.4 0.165 
The option which best contributes to our ove rall objective, broken down into weighted 
specific objectives, is 1.3. 
 
 
 xlviii 
ANNEX  8.  PROPOSED COMPULSORY COMMON INDICATORS FOR ESF  CO-FINANCED 
ACTIONS  
 
Total number of participants144 (calculated on the basi s of output indicators) 
 Output indicators for participants
145 
Breakdown of participants by gender, by people entering and leaving support 
These data are to be provided in the annual impl ementation reports as set out in Art. 57(1) and 
(2) of the General Regulation.  
• Unemployed, including LTU*  
• LTU* 
• Inactive*  
• Inactive, not in educ ation or training*  
• Employed, including self-employed* 
• Below 25 years* 
• Above 54 years* 
• With primary (ISCED 1) or  lower secondary education (ISCED 2)* 
• With upper secondary  (ISCED 3) or post-secondary education  (ISCED 4)* 
• With tertiary education (ISCED 5 and 6)*  
• Migrants, people with a fo reign background, minorities (including marginalised 
communities such as the Roma)** 
• Disabled**  
• Other disadvantaged** 
 
Output indicators for entities 
These data are to be provided in the annual impl ementation reports as set out in Art. 57(1) and 
(2) of the General Regulation.  
• NGOs 
• SMEs  
 
                                                 
144  Participants refer to direct beneficiaries who can be identified and asked for their characteristics, and for 
whom specific expenditure is earmarked.  
145 The arrangements for data processing  put in place by the Member States sh all be in line with the provisions of 
the Directive 95/46 of 24 October 1995 on the protection of  individuals with regard to the processing of personal 
data and on the free movement of such data, in particular with Article 7 and 8 thereof.  Data reported under the indicators marked with * is pers onal data according to Article 7 of the above Directive. 
Its processing is necessary for compliance with a legal oblig ation to which the controller is subject (Article 7(c)). 
For the definition of controller see Art. 2 of the above Directive.  Data reported under the indicators marked with ** is a special category of data according to Article 8 of the 
above Directive. Subject to the provision of suitable safeguards, Member States may, for reasons of substantial 
public interest, lay down exemptions in addition to those laid down in paragraph 2 (ob the same Article) either 
by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority (Art. 8. 4). 
 
 
 xlixImmediate result indicators 
Breakdown of participants by gender 
These data are to be provided from 2017 onwards  in the annual implem entation reports as set 
out in Art. 57(1) and (2) of the General Regulation.  
• Inactive participants newly in job searching upon leaving 
• Participants newly in ed ucation/training upon leaving 
• Participants gaining a qu alification upon leaving  
• Participants newly in employment upon leaving  
 
Longer-term result indicators 
Breakdown of participants by gender 
These data are to be provided in the annual im plementation report and the final report set out 
in Art. 57 (4) of the General Regulation.  
• Participants in employment  6 months after leaving  
• Participants in self-employm ent 6 months after leaving  
• Participants with improved labour mark et situation 6 mont hs after leaving