Executive summary

I. The Leonardo da Vinci programme is designed to implement the European Union’s vocational education and training policy. Mobility projects, the largest part of the programme, enable organisations involved in vocational education and training to send participants to another European country, thus giving them the chance to improve their competences, knowledge and skills.

II. The European Commission has overall responsibility for the programme and monitors and supervises its implementation in cooperation with national authorities — usually education ministries — in each participating country. Operational responsibility for managing mobility projects is fully devolved to the national agencies designated by the Member States.

III. The Court considered whether the design and management of the Lifelong Learning Programme’s (2007–13) Leonardo da Vinci mobility scheme is likely to lead to effective results.

IV. The Court’s findings relate to an audit carried out at the Commission and in six participating countries selected for the audit. Since Leonardo is one of four education and training programmes included in the Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme, many audit findings have relevance that extend to the other Lifelong Learning Programme schemes. The Court found that:

- In designing the current Leonardo da Vinci programme (2007–13), the Commission took account of its own mandatory evaluations of the predecessor programme, but did not systematically take account of other important studies and reports.

- The Commission established an appropriate project life cycle management system for Leonardo, but the supporting IT system had some significant omissions.

- The operational elements of the programme, including publicity and promotion of the programme and the annual programming cycle, were generally well managed, but the Commission did not address the difficulties of applicants in finding partners and did not ensure the quality of national agencies’ assessments of grant applications.

- A system of reporting is in place but it does not yet enable the Commission to measure the results and effects of the programme. There are shortcomings in the system for reporting on the results and effects of the Leonardo programme. The Commission had started but not yet completed the establishment of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of Leonardo by the third year of the programme.

- Controls at national agency level complied with Commission guidance.

- There are weaknesses in the way national authorities carry out their secondary controls of national agencies.

- The overall conclusion is that the design and management of the mobility scheme of the Leonardo da Vinci programme could lead to effective results. The Commission had started but not yet completed the establishment of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of Leonardo. As a result, the Commission cannot yet assess how the objectives are being met three years into the programme — around half of its lifespan.

V. On the basis of these observations, the Court makes recommendations to the Commission to improve the supporting IT system, provide qualitative feedback regarding the annual programming of work, provide more support for finding host partners, further develop and monitor procedures for assessing project applications, finalise SMART objectives and performance indicators without further delay, improve the assessment of results, focusing more on the impact of the programme, and, in the future, ensure that for any successor programme a system for measuring impact is set up from the outset.

Introduction

1. The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 set the strategic objective for the European Union to become the world’s most dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. It recognised the important role of education as an integral part of economic and social policies. The basis for European cooperation in vocational education and training was laid down in the subsequent "Copenhagen process" [1]which established the objective of increasing voluntary cooperation, in order to promote mutual trust, transparency and recognition of competences and qualifications, thereby establishing a basis for increasing mobility and facilitating access to lifelong learning.

2. The European Commission has brought its various educational and training initiatives together under a single umbrella, the Lifelong Learning Programme [2], with the aim of fostering interchange, cooperation and mobility between education and training systems within the Union. The new Lifelong Learning Programme replaces previous education, vocational training and eLearning programmes, which ended in 2006.

3. An indicative financial allocation [3]for the implementation for the seven-year period starting on 1 January 2007 was 6970 million euro. Within this allocation, the sums to be allocated to the subprogrammes shall not be less than:

- Comenius 13 %;

- Erasmus 40 %;

- Leonardo da Vinci 25 %;

- Grundtvig 4 %.

4. Leonardo da Vinci is the name given to the subprogramme designed to implement the European Union’s vocational education and training policy, supporting and supplementing actions taken by the Member States. The current phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme 2007–13 is a continuation of former programmes, Leonardo I (1995–99) and Leonardo II (2000–06). The general, specific and operational objectives of the Lifelong Learning Programme and of Leonardo da Vinci [4]are set out in paragraph 44 and in the Annex.

5. A range of activities may be supported by the Leonardo da Vinci programme, including:

- mobility — where participants spend some time in another European country;

- partnerships focusing on themes of mutual interest;

- multilateral projects, in particular those aimed at improving training systems.

6. Mobility projects continue to be one of the main forms of activity in Leonardo, as they were for its predecessors. As shown in Graph 1, the share of Leonardo grants awarded to mobility projects was 64 % in 2007 and 59 % in 2008.

Graph 1

Leonardo da Vinci, grants awarded to projects by type of activity 2007–08 (million euro)

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Commission.

7. Mobility projects supported by Leonardo are intended to give individuals, including trainees in initial vocational training and people already in the labour market, as well as vocational education and training professionals, the chance to improve their competences, knowledge and skills through a training placement in another European country. Grants contribute to project management, travel costs and living expenses. The distribution of participants in 2008 mobility projects by field of education and training is shown in Graph 2.

Graph 2

Participants in 2008 mobility projects by field of education and training

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Commission.

Role of the Commission

8. The European Commission has overall responsibility for ensuring effective and efficient implementation of the Lifelong Learning Programme [5]. The Lifelong Learning Programme Committee, comprising representatives of Member States, assists the Commission with the implementation of the programme. The Commission’s role is to:

- regularly monitor and evaluate the Lifelong Learning Programme against its objectives [6] in cooperation with the Member States; and

- establish appropriate supervisory controls, by overseeing and coordinating the operation of the whole system and reviewing the systems of national controls [7].

Role of the National Authority

9. There are 31 participating countries in the programme: the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey. The national authority, usually the education ministry in each participating country, monitors and supervises the work of its national agency in cooperation with the Commission. The national authority is responsible for establishing a system of secondary controls, whose objective is to give reasonable assurance that the systems and primary controls carried out by the national agencies are working effectively.

Role of the National Agency

10. Operational responsibility for mobility projects within Leonardo is fully devolved to national agencies established within each participating country. These national agencies are responsible for the management of the life cycle of the mobility projects. They also contribute, as required, to the Commission’s monitoring and evaluation of the programme. The functions expected of them are set out in the legal basis of the programme, including the Commission decision on the respective responsibilities of the European Commission, the Member States and the national agencies implementing the Lifelong Learning Programme (C(2007) 1807); the operational instructions are detailed in the "Guide for national agencies" , which is part of the yearly financial agreement signed between the Commission and the national agencies.

Audit scope and approach

11. The audit focused on mobility activities funded by the Leonardo programme. The overall objective was to assess whether the design and management of the Lifelong Learning Programme’s (2007–13) Leonardo da Vinci mobility scheme is likely to lead to effective results.

12. The objectives of the audit were to assess whether:

(a) the design of the programme took account of relevant evaluations and studies and had an appropriate project life cycle management system;

(b) the operational elements of the programme, including the preparation of annual work programmes, the process of publicity, promotion and provision of information and selection of projects to be funded, were well managed;

(c) there was a reporting system in place which enabled the Commission to measure the results and impact of the programme; and

(d) the system of control was adequate.

13. The audit covered the preparation of the Lifelong Learning Programme, which started in 2004, and the actual execution of the programme in 2007–08. Relevant developments in 2009 have also been taken into account. In addition to an audit at the Commission, six Member States [8]were visited. 45 % of total Leonardo mobility funds were allocated to them in 2007 and 44 % in 2008 (see Graph 3).

14. Since Leonardo is part of an integrated Lifelong Learning Programme with various educational and training initiatives under a single umbrella, many findings, conclusions and recommendations apply to the programme as a whole.

15. The audit work included the collection and analysis of data, reviews of planning, evaluation and implementation documents, an examination of mobility project files and interviews with officials from the Commission, national authorities and national agencies and with representatives of beneficiary organisations in the selected Member States.

Graph 3

Value of Leonardo mobility grants by country awarded 2007–08 (million euro)

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Commission.

Observations

Design

16. The audit examined whether the Commission took account, when it established the Leonardo programme, of the wealth of information available to it about its predecessor programmes, i.e. all evaluations, studies and national reports including whether national authorities made use of the national reports. It considered whether the Commission established an appropriate project life cycle management system at Commission and participating country level for implementing Leonardo, including the supporting IT system. At Commission level, it assessed whether there was a clear assignment of tasks to different units. At participating country level, it examined the administrative implementation by the national authorities and agencies charged with the programme’s management, whose roles and responsibilities are set out in guidelines issued by the Commission.

The Commission took account of its own mandatory evaluations of the predecessor programme, but did not systematically take account of other important studies and reports

17. All programmes funded from the general budget of the European Union are subject to mandatory evaluation at three stages [9]:

- Ex ante evaluation: a report accompanies the legislative proposal for a new or renewed EU programme or action.

- Mid-term evaluation: carried out at the halfway stage of a programme, this provides direct feedback during the course of a programme and can thus help to improve the quality of ongoing interventions. Moreover, given the lengthy lead time involved in setting up new programmes, mid-term evaluations are also very important sources of information for the design of the next generation of a programme.

- Final evaluation: at the end of a programme.

18. In designing the new Leonardo programme, the Commission took account of the results of the mid-term and final evaluations of the predecessor programme. The results of the mid-term evaluation were taken into account in the preparation of the ex ante evaluation. For both the mid-term and final evaluations, the Commission prepared internal action plans, setting out how the recommendations of each one would be taken into account during the initial design phase and in subsequent adjustments of the design. However, the internal action plans for the establishment of IT and SMART objectives and performance indicators have not yet brought the expected results (see paragraphs 27–29 and 48–52).

19. Each participating country is required to produce its own national mid-term and final reports on the implementation and effectiveness of the programme, and its impact on the vocational training systems and arrangements in the Member States, and to submit them to the Commission. These reports must be submitted to the Commission in the context of monitoring and evaluation of the programme, and analysed and followed up in that context.

20. Analysis of the final national reports was entrusted to an external contractor hired by the Commission to undertake the final evaluation [10]. However, the contractor was not able to analyse all the national evaluation reports, as only 19 of the 31 participating countries sent them to the Commission by the required deadline. For its part, the Commission did not undertake any separate analysis of the national reports provided after the deadline, or otherwise follow them up.

21. The use made of these national reports by some national authorities was also limited. In three of the Member States visited, the recommendations were reviewed and followed up but only one of them included the recommendations in their management arrangements for the new Leonardo programme. In the other three countries visited, there was no evidence of examination of the reports by national authorities.

22. The Commission has carried out two major studies on aspects of mobility activities within Leonardo [11]. The Commission states that these studies support decision-makers in their work, but it is not clear how the Commission itself exploited the useful information they contained in order to develop and improve the effectiveness of the programme.

The Commission established an appropriate system for project life cycle management. The supporting IT system, however, had some significant omissions

23. The audit encompassed the project life cycle management system set up by the Commission and it assessed whether this system is appropriate. The Court considers this to be the case if the management of the project life cycle is clearly divided between the parties involved, the tasks are clearly described and there are supervisory measures in place.

Box 1

Examples of recommendations for action made in the "Impact Analysis of Leonardo da Vinci Mobility Measures on Young Trainees and Employees, and the Influence of Socio-economic Factors" (2007)

There are still some weaknesses in the implementation of the measures in the host countries, and also in their preparation. Better preparation of projects, including involving the participants, a more careful selection of host organisations and more and better mentoring/tutoring during the mobility measures by the sending and, in particular, the host organisation, are required.

Impact analysis of the programme should be carried out to a greater extent and on an ongoing basis. Constant evaluation of the processes should look at preparation, implementation and follow-up, and especially the process of skill development (impact), while also observing participants’ needs.

24. Following the launch of the new Lifelong Learning Programme in 2007, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture reorganised itself to reflect the needs of a newly integrated programme.

25. Previously, there were different national agencies dealing with different educational programmes. Following the launch of the new Lifelong Learning Programme in 2007, the Commission encouraged the participating states to designate a single national agency for all subprogrammes of the Lifelong Learning Programme, and this is now the case in most countries. Mobility projects under Leonardo are directly administered by national agencies which are responsible for all aspects of management:

- promoting the programme;

- organising the grant award procedure, including assessment of applications;

- issuing grant agreements and transferring grant payments to successful applicants;

- monitoring and supporting programme beneficiaries;

- organising the dissemination of results;

- providing feedback on how the programme is functioning and having an impact in their country.

26. National agencies are overseen by appointed national authorities which are responsible for proper management of the EU funds transferred to the national agency and for monitoring and supervising the work of the national agency in cooperation with the Commission.

27. In general, therefore, the structure for the management of the project life cycle is appropriate. However, there were significant weaknesses in the IT system for project management and reporting. National agencies are required to use the IT systems made available by the Commission [12]. The most recent IT system developed by the Commission is LLPLink, a tool for the Lifelong Learning Programme designed to manage project life cycles electronically, from application to final payment. In parallel with LLPLink, the Commission was also developing web-based e-forms to enable applications to be submitted online, and to enable national agencies to assess, select and report on projects online. National agencies were required to use LLPLink for all new projects from 2008 onwards.

28. The new supporting IT system had some significant omissions. At the time of the audit, LLPLink could satisfy only the most urgent Lifelong Learning Programme needs but the project was late and incomplete. The national agencies that wished to manage the application assessment process and reporting by using online solutions had to continue to use the old system or their local systems in parallel with LLPLink throughout 2009. In cases where there were no interfaces between LLPLink and the systems used by the national agencies, data had to be input twice, which was time-consuming and placed an additional burden on staff.

29. Delays in the implementation of LLPLink have an impact on the management of Leonardo and the rest of the Lifelong Learning Programme since the system cannot provide complete and consistent implementation data from participating countries from the beginning of the programme which are necessary for measuring progress towards objectives.

Management

30. The audit dealt with aspects of the day-to-day operations of the programme. It assessed whether the procedures for agreeing on an annual work programme could provide the Commission with a preliminary assurance that the programme would be implemented in accordance with the provisions in the relevant framework documents. The audit also assessed whether the Commission and the national agencies have promoted the programme, whether the agencies have publicised the programme in accordance with guidance from the Commission and whether the main difficulty experienced by agencies in running the programme is being addressed. Lastly, it examined whether the agencies’ assessment of project applications was transparent, well-organised and followed instructions from the Commission, and whether the weaknesses identified were followed up.

Arrangements for approving the National Agencies’ annual work programmes are appropriate, although the Commission does not systematically provide the National Agencies with qualitative feedback thereon

31. On the basis of standardised specifications and templates provided by the Commission, each national agency prepares an annual work programme, which the Commission subsequently approves. The Commission’s primary aim in approving work programmes is to gain preliminary assurance that the national agency will implement the programme in accordance with the provisions set out in the relevant framework documents. National authorities also agree to the annual work programme, thereby committing themselves to providing the national agency with the necessary national matching resources. This system works without major problems and so annual work programmes are approved within the deadlines, thereby enabling a continuous implementation of the programme along the lines agreed. Although enabling consolidated work programmes to be submitted by each national agency, the Commission has not taken the opportunity to provide the national agencies and authorities systematically with feedback on the quality of the work programme; this would provide a concise view of the planned national implementation, something which would be useful both for the Commission and for the participating countries because problems could be identified and corrected in good time.

The Commission and participating countries publicise and promote the programme satisfactorily

32. The Commission and national agencies have fulfilled their obligations relating to promotion activities by providing visibility and by supporting the dissemination and further exploitation of good practice through a series of measures. The national agencies have publicised the "calls for proposals" in participating countries in accordance with the guidance from the Commission and have submitted relevant supporting information about the Leonardo programme.

The Commission has not addressed applicants’ difficulties in finding host partners in other countries

33. Applicants had difficulties finding host partners in other countries. The causes for this included a lack of language skills and cultural differences. Under Leonardo, and in common with other Lifelong Learning Programme mobility schemes, national agencies are only responsible for securing placements in foreign countries for applicants from their own country; they have no role in helping applicants from other countries to find suitable hosts.

34. The Commission provides information, advice and assistance to potential applicants looking for host partners. However, in 2007 the Commission closed down its European partner-search database that was designed to facilitate the search for partners, as it could not ensure that the data on potential partners in the database were of the quality expected by its users in the participating countries. This database has not yet been replaced by a suitable alternative.

35. National partner-search databases already exist in some participating countries, but these are not a substitute for a Europe-wide database. Using the respective national databases as a partner-search tool leads to a situation where those seeking partners are obliged to register with multiple databases so that they can sign in and make a search.

Weaknesses in the assessment of applications

36. The procedures for assessing applications and selecting projects in the participating countries are transparent, well-organised and in line with the Commission’s instructions. However, the assessments of applications showed examples of the following weaknesses which increase the risk that selected projects do not meet the aims set:

- applications were accepted even though description of the content, aims and expected results of the training were insufficient as a basis for justifying the outcome of the assessments;

- applications were accepted even though information on costs in the applications was not sufficient to justify the amounts requested;

- lack of comments provided by assessors to justify the marks given in each section of the assessment form, particularly on qualitative matters.

37. The Commission does not conduct quality assurance reviews of project assessments of applications as it considers that this is the role of the national authority. However, the Commission had not issued specific guidelines on how the national authorities should check the assessments of applications. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that checks by national authorities could be less rigorous in some participating countries than in others.

Reporting

38. The Commission, in cooperation with the participating countries, has to ensure the collection, analysis and processing of the available data needed to measure the results and effects of the programme [13]. This activity comes in addition to the in-depth impact assessments undertaken as part of the mid-term and final evaluations of the Leonardo programme. The audit assessed whether there was a reporting system in place based on SMART objectives which enabled the Commission to measure the results and impact of the programme against planned performance [14].

There are shortcomings in the system for reporting on the results and effects of the Leonardo programme

39. The national agencies prepare an annual activity report for the Commission [15]providing information on the implementation of the programme. The content of the report is stipulated by the Commission and covers matters such as the number and type of projects supported and their results.

40. The Court examined the 2007 activity reports of the six countries visited and found a number of shortcomings, described in paragraphs 41–44. These shortcomings reduce the value of the reports as an instrument for informing the Commission and other users about the results and impact of the Leonardo programme.

41. As the annual work programme is structured differently from the annual activity report, it is not possible to make a meaningful comparison of results against planned performance. The Commission plans to adapt the annual activity report structure in line with the restructuring of the work programme with effect from the 2011 working programme.

42. The information on results provided by national agencies is limited to factual data that do not allow an assessment of the impact of Leonardo in terms of its objectives, e.g. improvements in teaching, the acquisition of skills and economic impacts. For example, the annual activity report includes information on the numbers of projects, but the information on the results and outcomes of the supported activities for participants and institutions is limited.

43. Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency in the national agencies’ approach to annual activity reporting, with the consequence that the final reports submitted to the Commission contain different analyses of results, presented in different ways.

44. The Commission’s review of the annual activity reports submitted by national agencies has focused more on completeness and coherence than on ensuring that the necessary information was reported (see paragraph 38). However, the Commission reported that it has sent feedback to the participating countries after the assessment of the 2008 yearly reports, thereby establishing a link between the ex ante check of the work programme and the ex post assessment of the annual report as of 2009.

Box 2

Examples of weaknesses in the way National Agencies presented the results of the implementation of the 2007 work programme

lack of quantitative assessment of project results;

insufficient analysis of the way objectives were addressed;

general potential effects described without reference to actual evidence of impact;

examples of impacts taken from a study of the previous Leonardo II programme.

45. National agencies also undertake monitoring visits to projects, the aim being to support the beneficiaries, gather and disseminate examples of best practice and establish or maintain good relations between the beneficiaries and the national agency.

46. The Commission has set a requirement [16]for selecting which beneficiaries should be visited, including the size and type of the beneficiary, their geographical spread throughout the country and the level of EU grant awarded. However, unlike in the case of primary controls, the Commission has not specified a minimum number of monitoring visits which the national agency should undertake.

47. In 2008 the Commission introduced "quality and impact monitoring" visits. The objective was to obtain greater insight into the quality of programme activities in the participating countries. These visits include meetings with national authorities, agencies and grant beneficiaries. Although this is a positive step, the scope of these visits is not sufficiently developed. Commission reports issued in 2008 on the outcome of these visits included facts and developments relating to mobility activities, but did not contain any analysis of the actual effects of Leonardo mobility projects on education systems, participating institutions or individuals. Reports or other feedback had not been sent systematically to the participating countries for confirmation or comment in the first two years.

The Commission had started but not yet completed the establishment of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of Leonardo by the third year of the programme

48. Programme objectives should be "SMART" (i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely) [17]. However, this is not the case for the objectives for the Leonardo programme which are rather general, making it difficult to measure how mobility projects can contribute to them (see Box 3).

Box 3

Leonardo da Vinci Specific Objectives

to support participants in training and further training activities in the acquisition and the use of knowledge, skills and qualifications to facilitate personal development, employability and participation in the European labour market;

to support improvements in quality and innovation in vocational education and training systems, institutions and practices;

to enhance the attractiveness of vocational education and training and mobility for employers and individuals and to facilitate the mobility of working trainees.

Leonardo da Vinci Operational Objectives

to improve the quality and to increase the volume of mobility throughout Europe of people involved in initial vocational education and training and in continuing training, so as to increase the number of placements in enterprises to at least 80000 per year by the end of the Lifelong Learning Programme;

to improve the quality and to increase the volume of cooperation between institutions or organisations providing learning opportunities, enterprises, social partners and other relevant bodies throughout Europe;

to facilitate the development of innovative practices in the field of vocational education and training other than at tertiary level, and their transfer, including from one participating country to others;

to improve the transparency and recognition of qualifications and competences, including those acquired through non-formal and informal learning;

to encourage the learning of modern foreign languages;

to support the development of innovative Information and communication technology-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning.

49. The national agencies report on the results of the programme in their annual activity reports. At the time of the Court’s audit the Commission had not provided detailed guidelines to the national agencies on how to evaluate the results of the programme or how to assess the impact of mobility projects.

50. In December 2006, the Lifelong Learning Programme Committee [18]decided to establish a working group with the aim of assessing the impact of the whole Lifelong Learning Programme including Leonardo da Vinci. The remit of the working group included the identification of a set of common impact indicators to evaluate the success of the Lifelong Learning Programme against its objectives. In November 2009, the working group made a proposal to the Lifelong Learning Programme Committee for impact indicators and for a data collection and reporting system which would address some of the current weaknesses. However, by January 2010 the proposal had not been approved.

51. Once the Commission has decided on the indicators it wants to measure, other changes will be necessary, for example the questions in the existing annual activity reports will need to be revised to ensure that they can be used for gathering the necessary statistical information for efficient management of the programme. The reporting module of the LLPLink IT system will need to be adapted to meet new data collection needs.

52. The setting up of an impact assessment working group was a positive step towards creating the necessary conditions for monitoring and measuring results and impacts. However, three years into the current Leonardo programme, the Commission has not been able to assess to what extent the programme is meeting its objectives, nor does it have a system in place that would enable it to do so in the future. Even assuming that the Lifelong Learning Programme Committee approves the impact indicators in 2010, the data needed to assess the impact of the programme would only be collected for the remaining stage of the programme, and it will be very difficult to obtain comparable data for the first three years of the programme (2007–09), i.e. the period to be covered by the mid-term evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme, the report on which is due to be submitted in March 2011.

Controls

53. The audit dealt with the adequacy of the controls carried out in respect of Leonardo at all levels, i.e. by national agencies, national authorities and the Commission, within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme [19]. The controls carried out were considered to be adequate if they took place in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines and under its supervision.

In most cases, control over Leonardo by National Agencies complied with Commission guidance

54. National agencies perform "primary controls" at beneficiary level. They are undertaken to give assurance as to the reality and eligibility of the activities supported with EU funds and as to the legality and regularity of the underlying operations.

55. The standards and minimum requirements for primary controls are defined in the Commission’s guide for national agencies [20]. The controls consist of a range of activities: analysis of final reports, a desk check of supporting material submitted by beneficiaries at final report stage, an on-the-spot check during the implementation of a supported activity, a post-completion audit and a systems audit of regular beneficiaries.

56. Primary controls are by definition compliance controls which are not designed to focus on the results of the mobility measures. As regards the implementation of primary controls, although national agencies generally carry out their controls in accordance with the Commission’s guide for national agencies, examples of weaknesses were observed:

- at one national agency, the assessment and approval of the final reports did not respect the deadline of 45 days from receipt of the report;

- at another national agency, final payments to beneficiaries were made without the required feedback from all the mobility participants.

Although the secondary controls carried out by National Authorities generally provide reasonable assurance that the primary controls are effective, a number of weaknesses were identified

57. The national authority is responsible for national controls over Leonardo. For this purpose, the Commission requires it to establish a system of secondary controls, the objective of which is to provide reasonable assurance that the system of primary controls operated by the national agencies is effective [21]. In most cases, the secondary controls carried out by the national authorities gave reasonable assurance that the system of primary controls is effective. However, the audit also showed weaknesses in the way secondary controls were carried out: inadequate documentation of supervisory procedures, insufficient supervision of the national agency and weaknesses in the follow-up of recommendations proposed by national or Commission control bodies.

The Commission only recently provided complementary guidance on the specific procedures covered by the secondary controls

58. The Commission carries out "system monitoring" visits to participating countries. These focus on monitoring compliance by national agencies’ systems and procedures with Lifelong Learning Programme rules. National authorities have interpreted the meaning of "secondary controls" in different ways. As the Court observed in its 2008 Annual Report, [22]Commission guidance on the responsibilities of the national authorities lacked clarity on specific procedures. The Court’s audit of Leonardo confirms this conclusion as weaknesses were found in the secondary controls. The Commission has subsequently taken corrective measures by issuing instructions to the authorities providing further guidance on procedures covered by the secondary controls.

Conclusions and recommendations

59. The Commission took account of its own mandatory evaluations in designing the Leonardo programme but did not establish action plans for other important studies and reports. The Commission established an appropriate project life cycle management system. However, the main IT system, LLPLink, was still incomplete by the end of 2009, thus hindering proper reporting and requiring the use of old systems at the same time. By mid-2010 a common reporting tool for impact measurement was still not complete for the Lifelong Learning Programme.

60. The operational elements of the programme, including the preparation of the annual work programme, publicity, promotion and the provision of information, were generally well managed. Nevertheless, there were weaknesses in some areas such as helping applicants finding host partners in other countries and ensuring the quality of national agencies’ assessments of grant applications.

Recommendation 1

(a) After its analysis of the annual work programme, the Commission should provide the national authorities with qualitative feedback. This feedback should provide a concise view of national implementation and should highlight strengths and weaknesses, something which would be useful both for the Commission and the national authorities.

(b) The Commission should explore options to ensure a user-friendly and effective partner-search tool, either at EU or at national level.

(c) The Commission should consider whether national agencies should facilitate the placements of foreign participants by providing other national agencies with information about hosting and intermediary organisations in their own country.

(d) The assessment of applications could be improved by further developing the assessment handbook for evaluators, specifying in detail, for each section defined in the assessment form, the purpose of the evaluation and the methods to achieve this.

(e) In order to ensure consistent interpretation of Commission rules, the Commission should consider including checks of assessments of applications in its quality and impact monitoring visits to participating countries.

(f) The Commission should finalise the LLPLink application for reporting on impact measurement without further delay in order to guarantee collection of complete, consistent implementation data from all participating countries.

61. Although control systems at Commission and Member State level were adequate in most cases, their reporting systems did not focus sufficiently on the programme’s results, and even less on its effectiveness and impact. The Commission had started but not yet completed the establishment of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of Leonardo by the third year of the programme. As a result, the Commission has not been in a position to measure the impact of the first three years of Leonardo — around half its lifespan.

Recommendation 2

(a) The Commission should improve its "quality and impact monitoring system" and coordinate it with the annual activity reporting currently carried out by the national agencies.

(b) The Commission should align the structure of the work programme and the annual report so as to enable a comparison of results against planned performance.

(c) The Commission should finalise its work on setting SMART objectives and performance indicators without further delay.

(d) In the future, the Commission should ensure that for any successor programme a system for measuring impact is set up from the outset.

62. The overall conclusion is that the design and management of the mobility scheme of the Leonardo da Vinci programme could lead to effective results. The Commission had started but not yet completed the establishment of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of Leonardo. As a result, the Commission cannot yet assess how the objectives are being met three years into the programme — around half of its lifespan.

This Report was adopted by Chamber IV, headed by Mr Morten LEVYSOHN, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 29 June 2010.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] The Copenhagen process was launched in November 2002 by the ministers for education and vocational training of the European Union and the countries belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), the European social partners and the European Commission.

[2] Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 45).

[3] Article 14 and paragraph B.11 of the Annex to Decision No 1720/2006/EC.

[4] In this report, the term "Leonardo" refers to the current phase of the programme.

[5] Article 6 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.

[6] Article 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.

[7] Article 8 of Commission decision of 26 April 2007 relating to the respective responsibilities of the Member States, the Commission and the national agencies in implementation of the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007–13).

[8] France, Germany, Malta, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom.

[9] Basic requirements on the scope, purpose, timing and use of evaluations are set in the Financial Regulation (Articles 27(4), 28, 33, 56(3) and 166) and its Implementing Rules (Article 21).

[10] Joint report on the final evaluation of Socrates II, Leonardo da Vinci II and eLearning, 2008.

[11] "Study on the obstacles to transnational mobility facing apprentices and other young people in initial vocational training and on ways of overcoming them", also referred to as the MoVE-iT study (2007); "Impact analysis of Leonardo da Vinci mobility measures on young trainees and employees, and the influence of socio-economic factors" (2007).

[12] 2008 Guide for national agencies implementing the Lifelong Learning Programme (paragraphs 28.1. and 9.1.1.).

[13] Article 6(3)(d) of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.

[14] Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, Article 27 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

[15] Part 1 of the yearly report of the national agency.

[16] 2008 guide for national agencies implementing the lifelong learning programme, point 3.1.1.3.

[17] Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, Article 27 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).

[18] The Lifelong Learning Programme Committee assists the Commission with implementation of the programme. It comprises representatives of Member States and gives opinions on or is consulted about measures to implement the programme.

[19] The Court has previously reported on the audit of controls over the Lifelong Learning Programme. See Annual Report of the Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 2008 (OJ C 269, 10.11.2009, p. 181–185).

[20] 2008 guide for national agencies implementing the Lifelong Learning Programme, point 3.8.1.

[21] Article 8 of Commission Decision of 26 April 2007.

[22] Annual Report of the Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 2008, Chapter 9, paragraphs 9.21 and 9.33.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX

Objectives (based on the legal base of the lifelong learning programme)

Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning

General Objectives of the Lifelong Learning Programme

to contribute through lifelong learning to the development of the Community as an advanced knowledge-based society, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, while ensuring good protection of the environment for future generations.

in particular, it aims to foster interchange, cooperation and mobility between education and training systems within the Community so that they become a world quality reference.

Specific objectives of the LIFELONG LEARNING Programme

to contribute to the development of quality lifelong learning, and to promote high performance, innovation and a European dimension in systems and practices in the field;

to support the realisation of a European area for lifelong learning;

to help improve the quality, attractiveness and accessibility of the opportunities for lifelong learning available within Member States;

to reinforce the contribution of lifelong learning to social cohesion, active citizenship, intercultural dialogue, gender equality and personal fulfilment;

to help promote creativity, competitiveness, employability and the growth of an entrepreneurial spirit;

to contribute to increased participation in lifelong learning by people of all ages, including those with special needs and disadvantaged groups, regardless of their socio-economic background;

to promote language learning and linguistic diversity;

to support the development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning;

to reinforce the role of lifelong learning in creating a sense of European citizenship based on understanding and respect for human rights and democracy, and encouraging tolerance and respect for other peoples and cultures;

to promote cooperation in quality assurance in all sectors of education and training in Europe;

to encourage the best use of results, innovative products and processes and to exchange good practice in the fields covered by the Lifelong Learning Programme, in order to improve the quality of education and training.

Leonardo da Vinci Specific Objectives

to support participants in training and further training activities in the acquisition and the use of knowledge, skills and qualifications to facilitate personal development, employability and participation in the European labour market;

to support improvements in quality and innovation in vocational education and training systems, institutions and practices;

to enhance the attractiveness of vocational education and training and mobility for employers and individuals and to facilitate the mobility of working trainees.

Leonardo da Vinci Operational Objectives

to improve the quality and to increase the volume of mobility throughout Europe of people involved in initial vocational education and training and in continuing training, so as to increase placements in enterprises to at least 80000 per year by the end of the Lifelong Learning Programme;

to improve the quality and to increase the volume of cooperation between institutions or organisations providing learning opportunities, enterprises, social partners and other relevant bodies throughout Europe;

to facilitate the development of innovative practices in the field of vocational education and training other than at tertiary level, and their transfer, including from one participating country to others;

to improve the transparency and recognition of qualifications and competences, including those acquired through non-formal and informal learning;

to encourage the learning of modern foreign languages;

to support the development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning.

--------------------------------------------------