Special report No 1/2006 on the contribution of the European Social Fund in combating early school leaving, together with the Commission's replies
Date: 2006-02-23
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU financing, European Social Fund, audit, dropout, education policy, financial management, project evaluation, report

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF AUDITORS

SPECIAL REPORT No 1/2006

on the contribution of the European Social Fund in combating early
school leaving, together with the Commission’s replies

(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)

(2006/C 99/01)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

Page

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early school leaving rate to be halved by 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The use of ESF in tackling early school leaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Audit scope and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AUDIT OBSERVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Commission’s fulfilment of its management function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Member States’ management of ESF co-financed activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Was the provision of funding preceded by an appropriate analysis of the expected
benefits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Were beneficiaries targeted and resources allocated based on specific needs? . . . . .

Were resources allocated to the most needy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did project management maximise the impact of the funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for better targeting of individual beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Limited management information systems and sharing of information . . . . . .

Did appropriate monitoring and evaluation take place? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I-VI

1-12

4-8

9

10-12

13-50

13-17

18-50

18-25

26-36

35-36

37-43

40-41

42-43

44-50

51-60

Annexes 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Commission’s Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

8

10

10

10

10

11

12

14

22

C 99/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

ESF

ESL

EES

Managing

MGI

NAP

GLOSSARY

European Social Fund

Early school leaving

European Employment Strategy coordinates Member States’ national employment policies and
provides for the creation of Employment Guidelines, adopted annually by the Council, on
proposals from the Commission

An authority or body designated by Member States to manage an Authority intervention
programme. It is responsible, on the one hand, for the efficiency and correctness of management
and, on the other hand, for implementation (receiving, examining and evaluating programme
operations, gathering data, drawing up the annual report, organising the mid-term evaluation, etc.)

Social integration programme (mission générale d’insertion)

National action plans are prepared by each Member State in order to implement the employment
guidelines that are adopted annually by the Council

Objective 3

EU policy objective for combating long-term unemployment and facilitating occupational
integration

OP

Paying

SGP

Operational programme of socioeconomic development jointly financed by national and
Structural Funds

An authority or body designated by Member States for the authority purposes of drawing up and
submitting payment applications and receiving payments from the Commission

Social guarantee programmes

Structural Funds

Community funds for the support of programmes of socioeconomic

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.
Under the Lisbon Agenda of 2000, the European Council agreed, as part of its social inclusion agenda,
to focus on reducing the percentage of young people leaving school prematurely from the average rate of
19,3 %. To this end it established a benchmark which required that ‘By 2010, all Member States should have
at least halved the rate of early school leaving (1), in reference to the rate recorded in the year 2000, in order
to achieve an EU average rate of 10 % or less’. The audit examined for six Member States (Spain, France, Ire-
land, Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) the nature of ongoing actions co-financed by the Euro-
pean Social Fund (ESF) with the aim of tackling the problem of early school leaving (ESL). It assessed whether
there were adequate procedures in place to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of such actions aimed at these
objectives.

The ESF supports many different types of actions aimed at preventing school drop-out or reintroduc-
II.
ing young people into the educational system, such as the introduction of differentiated curricula, special-
needs classes, attendance monitoring systems, social integration skills and activities, educational assessment,
and guidance counselling.

Strengths and weaknesses were identified in management decision-making procedures in Member

III.
States which affect the benefit to be obtained from Community funds. In particular:

(a) ESF co-financed activities for ESL were initiated without adequate analysis of the existing situation and the

expected or targeted results;

(b)

(c)

in most cases, Member States’ authorities could not sufficiently demonstrate their justification for the over-
all level of funding allocated to actions, nor could they justify the allocation of ESF funding to different
regions on the basis of the level of ESL experienced;

the use of varying definitions of ESL within a Member State has not facilitated the targeting of geographic
areas for assistance nor the measurement of the impact of initiatives. On a wider level, efforts to adopt the
Eurostat definition would assist Community efforts in tackling the problem of ESL;

(d) Member States experienced difficulties in identifying the population targeted by their actions. However,
two Member States tackled this problem by establishing national databases to monitor the incidence of
ESL;

(e)

little quantitative evaluation information was generally available on the results or impact of the co-financed
programmes that aimed to reduce ESL, although separate evaluations on the implementation of the ESL
measures were carried out by two Member States.

IV.
To properly fulfil its management function the Commission must obtain reasonable assurance that
sound financial management is being implemented in practice in the Member States, either through better utili-
sation of information currently received or through additional monitoring activities.

V.

The Court recommends that the Commission:

(a) where necessary, give appropriate guidance to Member States, so as to ensure that Community funding is

efficient, effective and economic;

(b) verify that Member States’ management systems adhere to the principles of economy, efficiency and effec-

tiveness in conformity with Community regulations.

VI.

The Court also recommends that Member State authorities, in cooperation with the Commission:

(a) properly define and identify the incidence of ESL;

(b) establish or strengthen existing procedures within co-financed measures for identifying and targeting those

most at risk of leaving school prematurely;

(1) Early school leaver was defined in terms of the number of 18 to 24-year olds with only lower secondary education or

less who were not in education or training.

C 99/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

(c)

encourage the exchange of information and best practice between all local and national organisations
responsible for tackling ESL, where permitted by law;

(d) actively promote the innovative use of ESF funding in tackling ESL.

INTRODUCTION

benchmark by which to measure a reduction in the ESL level:
‘young people who have completed education at level 2 (lower
secondary education (2)), one year before the European Labour
Force survey, and who are no longer in education or training’.

In March 2000 the European Council agreed on a new
1.
objective for the European Union: to transform Europe into a
competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, character-
ised by a greater degree of social inclusion. An important aspect
of the social inclusion agenda was the recognition of the need
to combat the phenomenon of young people leaving school pre-
maturely. In the year 2000, 19,3 % (1) of young people across the
former EU-15 Member States were estimated to have left school
prematurely.

5.
The following year, in the context of the Lisbon Agenda,
the European Council agreed on a number of targets to be
achieved in the area of social inclusion and economic perfor-
mance. One of these was a targeted reduction in ESL, which
required that ‘By 2010, all Member States should have at least
halved the rate of early school leavers (3), in reference to the rate
recorded in the year 2000, in order to achieve an EU average rate
of 10 % or less’ (4).

The problem that ESL co-financed programmes address is
2.
the large number of young people without the minimum pre-
ferred level of education to allow them to successfully integrate
into, and progress within the labour market. ESF co-finances
actions implemented by Member States to address this situation.

Subsequently, the Guidelines for the Employment Policies
6.
of Member States, 2002 (5), included proposals that Member
States should substantially reduce the number of young people
who leave education at the earliest opportunity. This should be
done by developing specific remedial measures and by improv-
ing the quality of education and training systems and relevant
curricula.

3.
The Court carried out an audit of the contribution of the
ESF in reducing early school leaving. The objective of the audit
was to determine whether adequate procedures existed to ensure
the efficiency and effectiveness of ESF co-financed actions aimed
at combating early school leaving (ESL) in seven Member State
programmes. The total cost of these actions, consisting of ESF and
national contributions, was budgeted at 1 078 million euro for
the period 2000 to 2006, of which 489 million euro was spent
up to 31 December 2003.

Early school leaving rate to be halved by 2010

4.
While the definitions of ESL applied by Member States are
derived from their individual education systems, the following
definition of early school leavers was adopted by the European
the establishment of a
Council

in 1999 as a basis for

(1) Eurostat, Labour Market Survey.

7.
While the above guidelines and policy statements are clear,
in common with other areas of employment and social policy,
education policy is the responsibility of the Member States and is
supported by the EU in the framework of the EES. Given that the
phenomenon is experienced by Member States to differing
degrees due to different educational, economic, social and cultural
contexts, Community support for the alleviation of ESL is

(2) Lower secondary education or second stage of basic education. The
contents of education at this stage are typically designed to complete
the provision of basic education which began at ISCED level 1. In
many, if not most, countries, the educational aim is to lay the foun-
dation for lifelong learning and human development. The pro-
grammes at this level are usually on a more subject-oriented pattern
using more specialised teachers and more often several teachers con-
ducting classes in their field of specialisation. The full implementation
of basic skills occurs at this level. The end of this level often coincides
with the end of compulsory schooling, where the latter exists.

(3) Early school leaver was defined in terms of the number of 18 to
24-year olds with only lower secondary education or less who were
not in education or training.

(4) According to the Commission’s report in 2002, European benchmarks
on education and training: Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, the
current EU average was 19 %. It maintained that many activities (edu-
cational guidance; early warning and prevention systems; individual
support initiatives for risk groups and measures to diversify teaching
content and approaches) were being established to tackle the prob-
lem.

(5) Council Decision 2002/177/EC (OJ L 60, 1.3.2002, p. 60).

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/5

provided through measures and actions within individual Opera-
tional Programmes (OP), in support of Member States’ policies on
lifelong learning and increased access to labour markets. In most
cases, Member States also have nationally financed actions
addressing different aspects of the problem.

8.
In 2000 the average rate of ESL was 19,3 % across the
former EU-15 Member States with only two Member States (Fin-
land and Sweden) having ESL rates below the European target of
10 %. The ESL rate went down to 18,0 % in 2004 and was fur-
ther reduced to 17,3 % with the accession of 10 new Member
States that year (see Annex 1). With the new Member States
included, nine out of 25 came in below the European target rate
of 10 %. In its report on the implementation of the ‘Education
and Training 2010 work programme’ (1)
the Commission
observes continuous improvements in recent years in reducing
the ESL rate, while underlining that progress will need to be faster
to reach the benchmark of 10 % in 2010.

The use of ESF in tackling early school leaving

9.
The role of the Structural Funds is to co-finance invest-
ments in physical and human capital, so as to reduce the differ-
ences in living standards between people and regions of the EU.
The European Social Fund is one of the four EU Structural Funds
and is structured around the requirement of contributing to
actions undertaken in pursuance of the European Employment
Strategy. The reinforcement of ESF support in the non-EU policy
area of education in the 2000 to 2006 programming period
reflected recognition on the part of the Commission and Member
States of the need to tackle this problem through the modernisa-
tion of educational systems and curricula. While ESF co-financed
actions combating ESL should contribute effectively to meeting
the European Employment Guidelines and the benchmarks (2)
established by the Lisbon Agenda 2000, the nature of these
actions depends on the specific needs of the individual Member
States. The programmes described in Annex 2 present typical ESF
co-financed activities aimed at combating ESL in each of the
Member States concerned. The Annex also highlights the particu-
lar aspects that influenced the effectiveness of the programmes,
including the good practices.

Audit scope and approach

10.
The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of
the procedures at the Commission and in Member States intended
to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of ESF co-financed
actions addressing early school leaving.

(1) COM(2005) 549 of 30 November 2005, p. 19.
(2) Commission’s report on European benchmarks on education and training:
Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, COM(2002) 629 final of
20 November 2002 (not published in the Official Journal).

The Court approached the audit objective by examining

11.
the following questions:

(a) Had the Commission fulfilled its management function
regarding the sound financial management of ESF funding in
this area?

(b) Was the provision of funding preceded by an appropriate
analysis of the expected economic benefits by the Member
States’ authorities?

(c) Had beneficiaries been targeted and resources allocated on
the basis of the specific needs of the parties, and in a reason-
able and cost-efficient manner?

(d) Were projects implemented in a manner that allowed the
specific objectives of the actions and the general objective of
combating ESL to be met?

(e) Did appropriate monitoring and evaluation activities take
place in the Member States to ensure that actions were effec-
tively addressing the objectives set?

The Court audited the management procedures at the
12.
Commission and in six Member States. Operational Programmes
covering the 2000 to 2006 period were selected in respect of
Spain (Andalusia and Catalonia), France, Ireland, Netherlands,
Portugal and the United Kingdom. These Member States were
chosen on the basis of the significance of their ESL problem as
measured by Eurostat (see Annex 1), and their use of ESF funding
in tackling the problem. The audit methodology consisted of desk
research and on-the-spot audits in 34 implementing bodies
and 50 ESL projects (see Annex 3), where management proce-
dures at national, regional and project levels were examined and
tested, and interviews conducted with the various stakeholders.

AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

The Commission’s fulfilment of its management function

13.
Under Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (3), which lays down general provisions on the
Structural Funds, Member States are required to verify that man-
agement and control arrangements ensure that Community funds
are being used efficiently and correctly and to provide the Com-
mission with a description of these arrangements. They must also
ensure that Community funds are used in accordance with the
principles of sound financial management and must cooperate
with the Commission to this end. The Member States are thus
principally responsible for establishing the management and con-
trol systems and for applying them to measure and project imple-
mentation in conformity with Community requirements. The
Commission nevertheless has the final responsibility for the
execution of the budget (as described under Article 274 of the EC
Treaty and in the Financial Regulation).

(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

C 99/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

In this regard, under Article 5 of Commission Regulation
14.
(EC) No 438/2001 (1) the Commission receives from Member
States a description of their management and control systems.
However, these descriptions relate mainly to legality and regular-
ity and not to the achievement of economy, efficiency and effec-
tiveness. The Commission, for its part, is required under Article 6
of the said regulation to ‘satisfy itself that (Member States’) man-
agement and control systems … meet the required standards’ and
to ‘make known any obstacles which (the aforementioned man-
agement and control systems) present … to the Commission’s
discharge of its responsibilities under Article 274 of the Treaty’.
In fulfillment of this requirement, the Commission collects man-
agement information on Operational Programmes through a
number of mechanisms. These include Annual programme review
meetings, evaluations, Annual Implementation Reports submit-
ted to the Commission by Member States under Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (2), the Commission’s participation at Programme
Monitoring Committee (PMC) meetings, national audit reports
submitted under administrative arrangements between the Com-
mission and Member States and the Commission’s own audits in
Member States. However, with the exception of project selection
procedures, these mechanisms are insufficiently used to specifi-
cally assess the functioning of Member States’ management sys-
tems with regard to their adherence to the principles of economy,
efficiency and effectiveness, as defined by Article 27 of the Finan-
cial Regulation.

15.
An examination of the Commission’s audit reports under
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 for the period
2004/2005 indicated that Member States’ management systems
were not systematically examined with a view to ascertaining
their adherence to the principles of economy, efficiency and effec-
tiveness. Furthermore, the Court’s audit of the Commission’s
management files indicated that, while the Commission obtained
knowledge of the implementation of OPs through its participa-
tion in PMCs, Steering Committees, bilateral meetings with Mem-
ber States and through on-site audit visits, such knowledge was
in respect of the seven operational pro-
not fully exploited,
grammes audited. Therefore, procedures for processing and util-
ising such management information emanating from different
sources need to be improved.

16.
The Court’s analysis of seven mid-term evaluation reports
for the OPs audited, provided for under Article 42 of Regulation
(EC) No 1260/1999, also revealed that although the reports often
contained observations and recommendations on programme
management issues, the Commission did not consider it appro-
priate to carry out, on its own, an independent assessment and
follow-up of these recommendations. Instead, it exercised its
management function in this regard through its advisory role on
PMCs and Steering Committees and ultimately through its formal
approval of changes to Operational Programmes.

(1) OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21.
(2) Articles 34(1)(c) and 37.

In its opinion on a Council Regulation on the Structural
17.
Funds (3), the Court recalled that a substantial strengthening of
Community controls is the indispensible corollary to a system in
which project management rests with the national or regional
authorities. This means in specific terms, that the Commission
must be able to obtain assurance that sound financial manage-
ment is being implemented in practice, in relation to these OPs
and ESL measures, either through better use of information cur-
rently received or through new monitoring activities. Without
such information neither the Commission nor indeed the man-
aging authorities of the programmes can have sufficient assurance
that appropriate standards of management are being applied in
the implementation of actions addressing ESL, or consequently,
that the maximum benefit is being obtained from Community
funding.

Member States’ management of ESF co-financed activities

Was the provision of funding preceded by an appropriate
analysis of the expected economic benefits?

18.
One of the objectives of ESF intervention was to reduce
ESL with a view to improving the functioning of the labour mar-
ket and the employability of the individual (4). While the poten-
tial macroeconomic impact is clear (5), five of the seven mea-
sures (6) audited, which addressed ESL, were not based on a
precise assessment of the extent and nature of the problem being
faced at national, regional or local level. Despite political consen-
sus for new, additional efforts to tackle ESL, as evidenced in the
Lisbon Agenda, some Member States were slow to apply the
funding to flexible, new approaches to combating ESL and adapt-
ing educational systems. For example, only in very few cases were
decisions on co-financed activities preceded by research studies.

the European Social

(3) Opinion No 2/2005 on the proposal for a Council regulation laying
down general provisions on the European Regional Development
Fund,
Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004) 492 final of 14 July 2004), (OJ C 121, 20.5.2005, p. 14).
(4) Communication of the Commission: Guidelines for programming in
the period 2000 to 2006, Part 2: C: promoting employability, skills
and mobility through lifelong learning, 1 July 1999.

(5) The EU Economy: 2004 Review, Commission staff working paper,
SEC(2004) 1368 of 26 October 2004, Paragraph 4.1. ‘There is no
solid evidence that education influences the aggregate employment
rate … partly because researchers have not had access to data…on
functional competences, as opposed to years of schooling. On the
other hand, encouraging more people to complete upper-secondary
education would have the effect of evening out the distribution of
skills … and might be expected to have a positive long-term employ-
ment impact’.

(6) Spain (Andalusia), France, Portugal, Netherlands and the United King-

dom.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/7

Furthermore, economic justification for the level of fund-
19.
ing to ESL activities as shown in Table 1, was, in the case of Spain
(Andalusia), France, Netherlands, and Portugal, either unavailable,
or could not be sufficiently demonstrated due to the absence of
documentation. In the case of Ireland, funding was allocated to

the ESL pilot programme on a detailed needs-assessment basis,
but additional resources were later allocated to an extended
pilot phase of the programme without any forecast of specific
expected incremental benefits, which does not conform to best
practice.

Total planned and actual expenditure on EU co-financed activities combating ESL in the six Member States
audited

Table 1

Member State and region

Programme

Planned expenditure
(million euro)
2000 to 2006 (1)

Actual expenditure
(million euro)
2000 to 2003

ESF contribution rate

Spain
— Andalusia

— Catalonia

France
— National

Ireland
— National

Netherlands
— National

Portugal
— National

United Kingdom
— South East

— West Midlands

Objective 1 OP,
Measure 41.15

Objective 3 OP,
Measure 4.4

Objective 3 OP,
Priority 3,
Measure 4

Objective 1 OP,
Measure 5

Objective 3 OP,
Priority 2,
Measure E

Objective 1
PRODEP III OP,
Measure 1.2

Objective 3 OP,
Measure 2.2

50

19

356

103

379

36

67

68

Total

1 078

18

4

146

26 (2)

199

9 (3)

40

47

489

In some cases these amounts are estimates, due to the unavailability of exact figures for ESL activities.

(1)
(2) Actual expenditure for 2000 to 2002 only.
(3) Actual expenditure for 2000 to 2001 only.

75 %

45 %

45 %

52 %

45 %

75 %

56 %

63 %

20.
Where a needs-analysis and a justification for funding
levels are missing, clear objectives and deliverables in terms of
outputs cannot be formulated nor can implementing bodies
define meaningful criteria to be used later in the context of EU
procedures for evaluation of their activities and to determine
whether they have achieved what they set out to achieve.

In four of the six Member States audited (1), the ESF-
21.
supported activities did not form part of a strategic plan contain-
ing specific objectives to be attained, risk attaching to their
achievement and specifications for combating ESL. Instead, they
supported existing social and educational programmes aimed at
addressing different aspects of the phenomenon (e.g. absenteeism
or school failure).

(1) Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

22.
In the case of France, ESF funding which had been pro-
vided for the adaptation and modernisation of the educational
system was used to support educational activities which were a
normal feature of the educational system and existed prior to ESF
intervention in this area. Similarly, in the case of the United King-
dom, some funding was used to bring statutory educational pro-
vision in the area of career guidance and advisory services up to
planned operational levels. In instances such as these, where
co-financing is not applied to a clear and distinct strategy for tack-
ling the ESL problem as such, one must consider that the funding
is not being applied to optimum effect.

In Portugal, ESL was part of the national strategy for
23.
employment and social inclusion. However, individual measures
to identify and help students at risk of abandoning school pre-
maturely were not coordinated within this strategy. In the United
Kingdom, although a clear link existed between Government
policy and priorities on tackling ESL, and although ESL was

C 99/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

included within the 2000 to 2006 Objective 3 operational pro-
gramme (OP), it was not accompanied by a coherent and focused
strategy for addressing the problem. The provision of funding for
ESL projects under two policy fields in the OP in the period 2000
to 2004, each with multiple target groups, created ambiguity as
to the intended focus of the action and resulted in confusion on
the part of beneficiaries. This in turn adversely affected the pro-
gramming, coherence and timing of efforts on the ground (see
Annex 2 — United Kingdom). Furthermore, despite the commis-
sioning of a meta-evaluation (1) of research reports on ESL by a
United Kingdom state-funded body in 2001, there was no evi-
dence that this work influenced the targeting of beneficiary
groups or the choice of ESL activities, despite the fact that it out-
lined the most likely causes of and the most effective interven-
tions for ESL.

24.
In the case of Ireland, while a coherent strategy existed
based on a pilot initiative to combat ESL, the results and experi-
ences emanating from the exercise were not fully exploited
when developing the strategy for the subsequent phase of

the programme. They were only taken into account after the sec-
ond initiative had been developed.

25.
Alongside deficiencies in strategy, in four of the six Mem-
ber States (2) no single authority had a clear overview of the ESL
situation in the Member State, or the region, possessed a defini-
tion and precise quantification of its characteristics, and coordi-
nated the efforts of various national, regional, and Community
funded initiatives. Thus
the absence of an appropriately
researched and coordinated strategy which addresses the various
dimensions of the ESL problem has consequences for the actions’
effectiveness in reducing ESL.

Were beneficiaries targeted and resources allocated based on
specific needs?

26.
Different definitions of ESL exist in each of the Member
States audited and definitions also vary between different organi-
sations and regions within those Member States. In consequence,
the beneficiary target groups also vary, as shown in Table 2,
alongside variance in national and regional authorities’ estima-
tions of the extent of the ESL problem being faced.

Table 2

Early school leaving beneficiary groups by Member State

Member State

Beneficiary target group

Spain (Andalusia and Catalonia)

16 to 21-year olds without the end of compulsory school diploma/a school leaving
certificate

France

Ireland

Netherlands

Pupils attending lower secondary schools (dispositifs relais)

Young people over 16 (MGI)

8 to 18-year olds who have abandoned school or are at risk of abandoning school

Students in vocational education, who are under 23 years of age, have not yet obtained
a ‘start qualification’ (level 2 vocational education), and who are at risk of ESL

Portugal

15 to 18-year olds who have not yet obtained the end of compulsory school diploma

United Kingdom (England)

13 to 17-year olds who have abandoned school or are at risk of abandoning school
(2000 to 2004)

16 to 18-year olds not in education, employment or training (NEETs) (2004 onwards)

(1) Improving Student Retention and Achievement, P. Martinez, 2001, Learn-

ing and Skills Development Agency.

(2) Spain (Andalusia), France, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/9

In France, the Ministry of Education estimated that
27.
60 000 pupils (8 % of the cohort) left school annually without
any qualification. However, on the basis of Eurostat’s definition of
ESL, which was applied by the schools subject to audit, this group
amounted to 152 000 pupils (or 20 % of the cohort). Similarly in
the UK, multiple definitions of ESL resulted in varying statistics on
the extent of the pupil retention problem. This ranged from
31,5 % of 16 to 18-year olds who were not in education or train-
ing in England in 2003, to 9 % of 16 to 18-year olds who were
not in education, training or employment in England in 2003.
Finally, the ESL rate in England, according to the Eurostat defini-
tion, was estimated as 18 % in 2003 (1).

28.
These varying definitions of ESL within a Member State
do not facilitate the targeting of geographic areas for assistance
nor the measurement of the impact of initiatives. On a wider
level, efforts to adopt the Eurostat definition would assist Com-
munity efforts in tackling the problem of ESL.

identifying the most needy areas for assistance, a feature of most
of the ESF co-financed measures was their exclusion of young
people under compulsory school age.

32.
In three of the six Member States (2), co-financed activi-
ties were restricted by regulation to pupils over compulsory
school age (i.e. 15 or 16 years of age) or educational level, with-
out evaluating the potential group at risk outside this category.
This was done on the basis that activities targeted on younger
pupils were the sole responsibility of the national educational
authorities. For example,
in the United Kingdom, under an
amendment to the OP in 2004, the ESL target group, which had
included 13 to 17-year olds, was restricted to those aged 16 to 18,
not in education, training or employment (NEETs). In France
however, while national regulations set the minimum age for
admission to the social integration programme (MGI) at 16, in
some cases pupils under
this age were admitted to the
programme.

29.
Considerable variance was found in Member States’ abil-
ity to estimate the population targeted by their actions. In Ireland,
the School Completion Programme identified the most needy
schools and pupils by analysing a national database to determine
the number of pupils leaving school prematurely (see Annex 2 —
Ireland). This information was then used in selecting beneficiaries
and allocating funding. In the Netherlands however, an accurate
quantification of ESL figures was not possible up to 2004, due
to insufficient data. Thereafter, ESL figures were revised upward
from 16 000 to 70 000 pupils. This situation has now been rem-
edied through the implementation of a national database.

33.
While the limitation of ESF preventive interventions to
post-compulsory school age could be justified on the basis of
higher school drop-out rates, research shows that the causal fac-
tors of ESL (such as absenteeism, learning difficulties and behav-
ioural problems) are established in earlier years and that the pre-
school leaving age category requires equal attention, if ESL rates
are to be reduced significantly and permanently (3).

30.
The ability to quantify needs also varied between regions.
For example, although the Spanish region of Catalonia possessed
detailed estimates of ESL compiled on the basis of information
provided by schools in each municipality, supporting evidence
for Andalusia’s estimated target population of between 50 000
and 75 000 pupils could not be provided.

31.
The availability of statistics did not always ensure their
use in strategic and operational decision-making. Even though
some statistics were available at national and regional/‘Académie’
level in France and Portugal, they were not used by the PRODEP
III managing authority in Portugal and most ‘Académies’ in France
to manage ESL actions. However, in one French region (Lorraine),
a five-year action plan did provide a detailed identification of
underlying problems, together with the necessary corrections
in
to compensate for them. While statistics are important

(1) Source: DfES Statistical Service.

34.
Although the Lisbon Agenda called on Member States to
halve their rate of ESL by 2010, the setting of this reduction
benchmark was not the subject of empirical research. In two of
the six Member States (4) audited, no specific target for the reduc-
tion of ESL, annual or otherwise, was fixed by national authori-
ties until 2003. Moreover, where national or regional targets for
the reduction of ESL were fixed, the basis of the particular targets
could not be objectively substantiated (5). As an example, in the
case of England a planned reduction of 2 % by the year 2010 in
the number of 16 to 18 year-olds not engaged in education,
employment or training (which is a smaller target population
than that of the Eurostat definition) would only result in a mod-
est reduction in the ESL rate of 18 % (2003). In consequence, the
Lisbon Agenda target of halving the ESL rate by 2010 is unlikely
to be met.

(2) Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
(3) ‘Constructions sociales des absentéïsmes et des décrochages scolaires en France
et en Angleterre’, March 2003, Report to the Development and Pro-
gramming Directorate of the Ministry for Education, France by ‘Le
Laboratoire de recherches sociales en éducation et formation —
FARSEF — Observatoire Européen de la Violence Scolaire’.

(4) Spain (Andalusia) and the Netherlands.
(5) Ireland, France and the United Kingdom.

C 99/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

Were resources allocated to the most needy?

given that there was limited competition in the selection process,
with two of the three aforementioned projects being the only eli-
gible bids received for ESL activity, at the time.

35.
In France, the basis on which ESF funding for ESL activi-
ties was allocated between the regions and within the regions, and
the justification for the level of ESF support for ESL activities
could not be provided. Nor was there a clear and systematic cor-
relation between the most needy areas and the number of pupils
involved in the ESL programmes at regional level. Similarly, in
Spain (Andalusia), the basis for allocating the funding between
ministries, municipalities, and non profit-making organisations,
could only be provided for a small part of one of the two sub-
measures. In the United Kingdom, as ESL beneficiaries were
inclusion target group within the ESF
merely one social
co-financed measure, funding to regions was not allocated on the
basis of the incidence of ESL within the region, but on the basis
of the broad socioeconomic criteria (principally, youth unem-
ployment and low educational attainment levels) used by the
European Commission in allocating Objective 3 funding to Mem-
ber States. At local level, however, geographic areas were priori-
tised for funding on the basis of comparative levels of educational
attainment and deprivation. In the case of Ireland’s School
Completion Programme, funding was based on costed expendi-
ture proposals which were linked to justified needs in terms of the
rate of ESL experienced in each consortium of schools.

36.
Thus, in the majority of instances, there was a lost oppor-
tunity to make use of available data in accurately establishing the
‘at risk’ population and so improve the formulation, planning
and implementation of the activities, leading to greater efficiency
and effectiveness in the use of resources.

Did project management maximise the impact of the
funding?

In the case of Ireland’s School Completion Programme
37.
(see Annex 2 — Ireland), which consisted of succinct project ele-
ments to be delivered, some elements were abandoned or changed
without decisions being taken at the appropriate level, i.e. the Pro-
gramme Monitoring Committee or the overall impact of changes
to the action being adequately considered. Nevertheless, in the
case of this programme and one UK project (1) also audited, the
establishment of a consortium of local schools or colleges oper-
ating under written agreements and with the assistance of a coor-
dinator constitutes an innovative and worthwhile practice, con-
tributing positively to the efficient administration of the projects
and the programme.

38.
Weaknesses were also encountered in the project selec-
tion processes. In France, this process took no account of school
drop-out rates, and under the ‘MGI’ programme some schools
were selected without sufficient justification. In the United King-
dom, for three of the eight projects audited there was no evidence
of follow-up of project-appraisers’ questions and concerns about
project applications. Such weaknesses are particularly important

(1) Youth Inc.

39.
Delays of up to two years in implementing the ESF
actions were also noted in two Member States. This was due to
protracted discussions with the Commission on the eligibility of
certain expenditure and the setting up of national regulatory and
financial arrangements in the case of France. In the case of the
United Kingdom, it was due to uncertainty among beneficiaries as
to the intended target group for the actions. This resulted in
slower progress in initiating projects to tackle ESL.

Need for better targeting of individual beneficiaries

40.
In the case of programmes which provided special
courses for students (2), the selection procedures were normally
based on pupils’ levels of academic achievement. For other actions
containing a range of co-financed activities the selection of par-
ticipants was based on the likelihood of them abandoning school.
These assessments were generally done at local administrative or
school level, e.g. in France, where schools selected pupils through
an interview process. In the majority of cases (3) the risk assess-
ment and pupil admissions criteria, where available for examina-
tion, were not based on objective and transparent criteria.

41.
In the Netherlands, while the rules required that school
authorities should focus on pupils at ‘increased risk’ of leaving
school prematurely, in practice, all pupils meeting the minimum
requirements were selected without prioritisation. Furthermore,
the quality and detail of pupil records was also quite variable and
at times inadequate.

Limited management information systems and sharing of information

Generally, management information systems providing
42.
data on performance were found to be limited yet adequate for
the purposes intended. However, with the exception of project
appraisal and selection, the system for ESL actions in France suf-
fered from significant weaknesses which prevented it from pro-
viding adequate management information on the implementation
of the actions. Firstly, the managing authority could not accu-
rately identify the amount of ESF funding by recipient, due to
duplicate, inaccurate and/or non-comparable data. Secondly, it
was not possible to ascertain the actual number of pupils enrolled
in ESL projects throughout the country, nor to obtain details of
the related expenditure. Following the audit the managing author-
ity announced (4) the future development of a new information
systems tool which would be adapted to the needs of the next
programming period 2007 to 2013.

(2) Portugal and Spain (Andalusia and Catalonia).
(3) Ireland, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
(4) Letter of Ministre d’emploi, travail et cohésion social, 6 August 2004.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/11

A particular impediment to the assessment of pupils’
43.
needs in the case of Ireland and the UK was the sharing of per-
sonal information between primary and secondary level schools
and educational bodies, due to data protection considerations.
Thus, some schools were not aware of the risk characteristics of
entrant pupils, whereas, had it been available, this information
would have better facilitated their integration into the school
environment. In the United Kingdom there was evidence of a lack
of information-sharing at local level. Although under national
regulations (1) collaborative working arrangements were required
to be established between different local funding agencies, data-
sharing agreements were either found not to be in place or not
operating successfully. Thus detailed statistical information on
ESL which had been collected locally was not available to the edu-
cational authorities who formulated strategy and approved fund-
ing for ESL activities.

In general (2), the mid-term evaluations of OPs contained
47.
little quantitative evidence on the impact of ESL co-financed
activities in Member States, due to the fact that no specific impact
indicators for ESL were foreseen. In their absence it was thus not
possible to determine whether the focus and strategy being fol-
lowed were the most efficient and effective for tackling ESL. For
example, in respect of the United Kingdom measure, the inclu-
sion of the ESL target group in this multi-focused measure, which
had many target groups, did not facilitate the collection of moni-
toring data and the evaluation of ESL activities. As a consequence,
analysis of co-financed activities could only be provided by the
national authorities for a small group of closed projects support-
ing 13 to 17-year olds at risk of disaffection, which were funded
directly by the regional Government Offices rather than through
intermediaries.

Did appropriate monitoring and evaluation take place?

Responsibility for the sound financial management of
44.
co-financed activities rests with the managing authority of each
OP. Accordingly, the managing authorities should, through evalu-
ation exercises, monitoring visits and reports from implementing
bodies, assess the appropriateness of strategies, the adherence of
actions to good financial practice, and the adequacy of results.

Generally, the implementing bodies carried out some
45.
monitoring of projects with a view to ensuring that they were
meeting their objectives. However, difficulties occurred in the
coordination and dissemination of research in Ireland, where, due
to a lack of cross-communication between different units of the
implementing body (the Department of Education and Science),
parallel research work was commissioned by both units without
the knowledge of the other party. Furthermore, while the imple-
menting body also commissioned research into the standardisa-
tion of risk assessment for ESL, full benefit was not obtained from
this initiative, as the results of this research were not sufficiently
disseminated among schools for it to influence their student diag-
nosis and selection procedures. In the Netherlands a sub-optimal
situation also occurred whereby individual schools separately
commissioned and funded similar research and development
projects on ESL.

46.
The principal challenge facing Member State authorities
in assessing the impact of such ESF co-financed programmes and
actions on the rate of ESL is the difficulty in taking account of the
effect of national and local educational initiatives and extraneous
factors such as employment levels and social conditions. For
example, in the case of the United Kingdom measure, the use of
ESF was not considered by the national authorities as of major
importance compared to nationally funded actions, while in the
Netherlands many projects implemented by schools contained
elements which were not co-financed by ESF, thus making assess-
ment of the Community added value virtually impossible.

48.
Special evaluations were commissioned by Ireland and
Portugal to examine the implementation of their respective ESL
actions. Such an initiative is, of course, useful. Unfortunately, in
both cases, although changes were made on the basis of recom-
mendations, the absence of detailed analysis of the conclusions
and recommendations by the national authorities meant that the
adequacy of these changes could not be assessed by the Court.

49.
These deficiencies detract from the added value that a
proper evaluation process brings as a means of assisting in the
management decision-making process. Nevertheless, one useful
innovation in evaluation in Ireland was the requirement that
projects perform a self-appraisal and evaluation, which included
both statistics on improved retention rates and the qualitative
impacts felt in running the project. Similarly, in the United King-
dom, not only were all projects required to carry out end-
evaluations, one project (3) also gathered baseline data on partici-
pants with which to measure their needs and subsequent
performance.

50.
Overall, the added-value of such Community assisted
measures in addition to the funding is, firstly, their ability, in
accordance with the Structural Funds partnership principle, to
harness the involvement of local actors and address the individual
needs of communities. For example, in the Netherlands and Ire-
land, ESF co-financed projects promoted communication
and coordination between schools and other local actors through
the establishment of consortia, working associations, meeting-
points and the use of internet sites. Secondly, such measures can
give direction to and prioritise the achievement of common EU
policy objectives such as halving the rate of ESL by 2010. Finally,
they have the potential to raise awareness throughout the Euro-
pean Union that the problem of young people dropping out of
school affects the whole economy.

(1) Circular 03/06 March 2003 of Learning and Skills Council entitled

‘Strategic Area Reviews’.

dom.

(3) Future Train.

(2) Spain, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United King-

C 99/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(c) Had beneficiaries been targeted and resources allocated on the basis
of specific needs of the parties and in a reasonable and cost-efficient
manner?

In respect of the audit questions asked the Court con-

51.
cludes and recommends the following.

(a) Had the Commission fulfilled its management function regarding
the sound financial management of ESF funding in this area?

52.
For the Commission to fulfil its management function it
must obtain reasonable assurance that sound financial manage-
ment is being implemented in practice, in the Member States,
either through better utilisation of information currently received
or through additional monitoring activities. This was not suffi-
ciently demonstrated regarding the management of ESL measures
(see paragraphs 13 to 17).

The Commission should give appropriate guidance to Mem-
ber States, where necessary, so as to ensure that Community
funding is efficient, effective and economic.
The Commission should verify that Member States’ manage-
ment systems conform to Community regulations and adhere
to the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

53.
The Court’s audit of management processes for the selec-
tion and implementation of actions combating ESL in the Mem-
ber States examined the management procedures and highlighted
both strengths and weaknesses which affect the value to be
obtained from Community funds. These observations are dem-
onstrated in regard to the following audit questions addressed.

(b) Was the provision of funding preceded by an appropriate analysis

of the expected economic benefits?

54.
In the majority of cases the Member States’ authorities
applied ESF funding without adequate analysis of the existing situ-
ation and the expected or targeted results. Furthermore, in most
cases, Member States could not sufficiently demonstrate their jus-
tification for the level of funding allocated to ESL activities. How-
ever, in the case of one programme the funding was directly
linked to justified needs in terms of the rate of ESL experienced
by the schools (see paragraphs 18 to 25).

Member State authorities should carry out an analysis of
expected economic benefits, which should include a docu-
mented and reasoned justification for the level of funding
being allocated and the areas or activities being prioritised.

55.
Considerable variance was found in Member States’ abil-
ity to estimate the population targeted by their actions. The abil-
ity to quantify needs also varied between regions. The use of vary-
ing definitions has not facilitated the targeting of geographic areas
for assistance nor the measurement of the impact of initiatives.
On a wider level, efforts to adopt the Eurostat definition would
assist Community efforts in tackling the problem of ESL (see para-
graphs 26 to 34).

Member States should continue to follow-up their achieve-
ment in combating ESL by reference to the Lisbon Agenda
definition as agreed by Heads of State or Government, so as
to bring about the intended long-term reduction. Reasonable
annual targets for the reduction of ESL would help to meet the
objective fixed by the European Council.

56.
Member States did not always allocate Community
resources to different regions and actions in proportion to their
needs or levels of ESL, or on a demonstrably justifiable basis (see
paragraphs 35 to 36).

National authorities responsible for the allocation of Commu-
nity resources should ensure that the allocation is based on
objective and relevant criteria, so as to maximise the poten-
tial impact of the funds.

(d) Were projects implemented in a manner that maximised the impact
of funding in meeting the specific objectives of the actions and the
general objective of combating ESL?

57.
Some weaknesses were found in the decision-making
procedures for selecting projects, in selection procedures for indi-
vidual pupils, and in the sharing of information on ESL between
managing organisations and projects. On the other hand, some
innovative practices were found whereby local schools and col-
leges formed consortia in order to jointly tackle the ESL problem
(see paragraphs 37 to 43).

The responsible authorities should ensure that proper project
selection procedures are followed, and that individual benefi-
ciaries of the activities are selected objectively and consistently
across all projects, through the standard application of ESL
risk assessment.
Data-sharing agreements should be established and imple-
mented between all local and national organisations that are
responsible for tackling ESL where permitted by law.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/13

(e) Did appropriate monitoring and evaluation activities take place to
ensure that actions were effectively addressing the objectives set?

58.
In most cases the implementing bodies carried out some
monitoring of projects with a view to ensuring that they were
meeting their objectives. However, there was a lack of coordina-
tion and dissemination of research on ESL within and between
Member States, resulting in insufficient benefit being obtained
from the funding. In two Member States one useful innovation
was the requirement that projects perform self-appraisals provid-
ing quantitative and qualitative impacts of the activities carried
out. Nevertheless, the overall Operational Programme evaluations
generally provided little information on the results or impact of
the ESL actions (see paragraphs 44 to 50).

59.
ESF funding is a minor financial contributor to the over-
all human resource investment in Member States. To maximise its
impact, it should therefore be applied judiciously to areas of par-
ticular need which clearly demonstrate Community added value.
The combating of early school leaving is one such area. However,
how such funding can best contribute to reducing ESL depends

on the specific needs of the individual Member States, the exist-
ence of sound and supportive national policies, and the way in
which the funding is applied.

If ESF is to be an effective tool for achieving the goals of
60.
the Lisbon Agenda for combating ESL, then it must be applied to
well thought-out strategies, which address prioritised needs and
which target specific operational objectives. Moreover, it must be
subject to good management practices which comply with gen-
erally accepted standards of performance management (see para-
graphs 18 to 50).

Given the importance of good management practice in the
area of diagnostics targeting, resource allocation and evalua-
tion, with regard to early school leaving the Commission
should, in partnership with the national authorities, facilitate
the development and dissemination of best practice in these
areas, so as to enhance the impact of the Community fund-
ing.

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of the
23 February 2006.

For the Court of Auditors
Hubert WEBER
President

C 99/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

ANNEX 1

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AGED 18 TO 24 WITH AT MOST LOWER SECONDARY
EDUCATION AND NOT IN FURTHER EDUCATION OR TRAINING

‘Early school leavers’ refers to persons aged 18 to 24 meeting the following two conditions: the highest level of education or
training attained is ISCED 0, 1 or 2 and declared by respondents as not having received any education or training in the four
weeks preceding the survey (numerator). The denominator consists of the total population of the same age group, excluding
no answers to the questions ‘highest level of education or training attained’ and ‘participation to education and training’.
Both the numerators and the denominators come from the EU Labour Force Survey.

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

EU (25 countries)

EU (15 countries)

—

—

—

—

—

—

21,7(e)

20,7(e)

—

—

—

17,2(i)

16,9(i)

16,5(i)

15,9(b)

15,9(i)

20,5(i)

19,3(i)

18,8(i)

18,5(i)

18,1(b)

18,0(i)

Belgium

16,1

15,1

12,9

12,7

14,5

15,2(b)

12,5

13,6

12,4

12,8

11,9(b)

—

—

—

—

—

6,1

12,1

13,3

—

—

22,4

20,7

33,8

31,5

15,4

15,2

21,4

18,9

32,8

31,7

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

17,6

13,6

12,1

10,7

12,9

19,9

30,3

14,1

18,9

30,1

—

—

—

30,7

17,8

—

16,0

10,8

—

—

—

—

9,8

—

12,6

19,8

29,8

14,9

—

28,4

—

—

—

—

—

—

11,5

14,9

14,0

17,8

29,5

14,7

11,6

14,9

14,2

17,1

28,8

13,3

—

8,8

12,5

14,1

16,5

28,6

13,5

—

—

—

27,2

15,0

—

—

25,3

15,1

—

16,7

19,1(b)

16,8

15,9

13,0

13,8

—

15,5

—

—

—

54,2

16,2

10,7

15,5

10,2

—

—

26,4

14,8

—

13,7

18,1

12,9

54,4

15,3

10,2

7,9

5,5

8,4

12,6

12,6

16,1

29,0

13,4

14,7

24,3

14,0

19,5

6,0(b)

10,0(b)

6,1

8,1

12,8(i)

12,8(p)

11,8

13,7

15,3(b)

15,3(p)

29,8

30,4

13,7(b)

14,2

12,1(b)

12,9(p)

23,5

23,5(p)

15,1(b)

18,4

18,1

15,6

14,3(b)

11,8

9,5(b)

17,0

12,2

53,2

15,0

9,5

7,6

17,0(p)

—

11,8(b)

12,6

48,2

45,0(b)

15,0(p)

9,2(b)

—

9,2

6,3

5,7(b)

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

—

8,6

—

—

23,2

36,4

16,4

22,9

35,1

—

—

—

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Luxembourg

34,4

33,4

35,3

44,3

41,4

40,1

40,6

46,6(b)

44,9

42,6

44,0

45,1

40,4

39,4(b)

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

11,1

7,5

—

—

—

8,1

6,8

—

—

—

7,9

—

—

—

—

9,9

6,9

—

—

7,5

—

8,9(b)

10,3

4,8(u)

4,3(u)

4,2(u)

5,6

9,9

4,9(b)

8,3(b)

7,1

8,7

8,6

7,7

10,5(b)

10,4

9,0(b)

United Kingdom

32,3

19,7(i)

18,3(i)

17,6(i)

17,7(i)

16,7(i)

16,7(p)

(—) Not available, (i) See box below, (b) Break in series, (e) Estimated value, (p) Provisional value, (u) Unreliable or uncertain data.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/15

Eurostat Structural Indicators/Social Cohesion/Early school-leavers

Percentage of the population aged 18 to 24 with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training.

i: Notes

Due to the implementation of harmonised concepts and definitions in the survey, information on education and train-
ing lack comparability with former years from:

— 2003 in CZ, DK, EL, IE, CY, HU, AT, SI, FI, SE, NO, CH and from 2004 in BE, LT, MT, PL, PT and RO due to wider

coverage of taught activities,

— 2003 in SK due to restrictions for self-learning,

— 2003 in DE due to the exclusion of personal interest courses,

— 1999 in NL, 2000 in PT, 2003 in FR and CH due to changes in the reference period (formerly one week preceding

the survey; CH: 12 months for vocational training instead of four weeks),

— LU (1999) due to a new definition of lower secondary education level,

— EU-15, Eurozone, EU-25, consequently.

Due to changes in the survey characteristics, data lack comparability with former years in IT (from 1993), PT (from
1998), BE and UK (from 1999), FI (from 2000), SE and BG (from 2001), LV and LT (from 2002), HU (from 2003), FI
(quarter 1 from 2003) and AT (quarter 2 from 2003).

In DK, LU, IS, NO, EE, LV, LT, CY, MT and SI, the high degree of variation of results over time is partly influenced by a
low sample size.

In CY, the reference population (denominator) excludes students abroad.

The EU aggregates are provided:

— until 1999, on the basis of the available country data,

— from 1999, using the closest available year result in case of missing country data and provisional UK data (all GCSE

levels excluded until a new ISCED 3c level definition is implemented in 2005 at EU level).

Source:

Eurostat.

C 99/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

ANNEX 2

PROGRAMMES AUDITED IN THE MEMBER STATES

SPAIN

Social Guarantee Programmes (SGP)

Andalusia — Objective 1 OP, Axe 4A measure 15 A

What was the nature of the programme? The Social Guarantee Programmes are aimed at those pupils who, despite spe-
cial curricular courses, do not meet the minimum requirements entitling them to an upper secondary level diploma. The
objective is to facilitate their transition into the labour market, while giving them the possibility of continuing to study
through intermediate Specific Vocational Training. The participants are normally aged between 16 and 21 years and the
courses last between six months and two academic years. Each class has a maximum of 20 pupils.

What activities were co-financed? The SGPs are national programmes which are implemented in State schools by the
Department of Education for the region under its specific regional regulations. The programmes have a common structure
consisting of five areas: specific vocational training (vocational skills); job training and counselling; basic educational coun-
selling in personal and social skills; complementary activities.

These programmes may also target specific groups, e.g. young people with special educational needs; those from ethnic dis-
advantaged minorities; prisoners, etc. The actions can be carried out by secondary schools, local municipalities or non profit-
making associations.

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? The dissemination of the information on the
courses, via websites, workshops, mailing, publicity, etc., secured a widespread knowledge of the Social Guarantee Pro-
grammes. The high level of interest, commitment and dedication of programme implementers was considered by the audit
as an important factor for the success of the programme. However, one of the difficulties was the lack of a proper analytical
basis for tackling the ESL problem and the absence of specific evaluation and follow-up actions for the measure.

Catalonia — Objective 3 OP, measure 4.4

What was the nature of the programme? Although SGPs were only introduced in Spain in 1992, the Departments of
Education and Labour in Catalonia had been implementing similar courses, addressing the needs of pupils without a diploma,
since 1986/87. The SGP courses are generally implemented by the Department of Education in collaboration with the
municipalities, outside the normal educational system.

What activities were co-financed? The courses comprised, firstly, basic training carried out by two teachers on behalf of
the Department of Education and the municipality, and secondly, vocational training.

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? Courses are planned and coordinated annu-
ally for each municipality by the Department, on the basis of needs analysis. This direct management of these SGP and simi-
lar courses by the Department in collaboration with municipalities guarantees the existence of a minimum supply of courses
and also the stability of the programme. The implementation of these courses over several years by the same team also pre-
sents added value in terms of experience and know-how. Evaluation was also an important part of the programme, which
monitored and evaluated the progress and achievements of pupils.

Some important success characteristics of the programme were: the fact that courses were essentially based on practical sub-
jects, usually implemented outside the school system, delivered by only two tutors for the full duration of the course, and
delivered to small classes (normally 15) which allowed the development of closer personal relationships. The continuity of
the responsible team year after year also allowed the acquisition of important know-how and created a network which facili-
tated the exchange of good practice and a high level of assistance and monitoring of each course.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/17

Lifelong education and learning, Objective 3, Single Programming Document for 2000 to 2006

FRANCE

What was the nature of the programme? The ESF assisted the alleviation of ESL in France through three separate activi-
ties contained in the Life-long Learning Policy Field within the Objective 3, Single Programming Document for 2000
to 2006. These were grouped under the objective of ‘giving a second chance to young people who abandon the education
system prematurely’.

The principal approach was to support existing actions defined under national regulations and aimed at helping pupils to
reach the end of upper-secondary level education. Depending on the definition of ESL, between 60 000 and 150 000 young
people leave school each year without any qualification. The percentage of 18 to 24-year olds with no higher than lower-
secondary education was estimated to be 14,2 % (2004 (1)).

What activities were co-financed? The ‘Social integration plan’ (‘Mission Générale d’Insertion’ — MGI) consists of special
courses aimed at motivating and encouraging pupils to obtain additional qualification level. The pupils admitted to these
courses were over 16, had not entered upper-secondary education and were experiencing difficulties in school or had been
absent from school for less than one year. Under local regulations these pupils could request an assessment interview with
the school team and with an educational psychologist. A course admissions board then proposed a suitable support course
to the student concerned, which was agreed with the young person following an interview with the course team.

Special needs classes (dispositifs relais) catered for pupils who were attending secondary school and who experienced learning
difficulties. These were small classes of not more than 12 pupils, aimed at addressing their specific needs. Personalised cur-
ricula, timetables and extra-curricular activities (e.g. sport) helped integrate disaffected young people back into standard cur-
ricula education.

‘Pilot actions’ (les actions pilotes) were specific projects based on local needs. They typically provided pupils with extra-curricular
activities (after-school homework classes; outings; cultural, artistic and sporting activities etc.). For young people aged
between 15 and 20 years they helped them define career choices and gain work experience in local firms. The ‘second chance
school’ pilot project aimed to integrate young people into the economic world by providing customised courses and work
experience for older students who had left normal education prematurely. Funding was also received from a local enterprise
tax levied on companies. Courses lasted from 8 to 10 months.

What particular aspects influence the effectiveness of the programme? One important aspect of the courses and activi-
ties was the degree to which they were customised to meet the specific needs of the students. In Metz Academy, the MGI
action called ‘support courses for professional integration’ was a flexible action where the choice of subjects within courses
was not predetermined but was based on the needs of the targeted pupils.

IRELAND

Objective 1, 2000 to 2003 Ireland, Measure 05, Employment and Human Resources,
School Completion Programme

What was the nature of the programme? The programme was centrally run by the Department of Education and Science.
In the first phase a national database of pupils and schools provided the basis for a detailed analysis of primary and post-
primary pupils (aged between 7 and 18) leaving school prematurely. Schools were then prioritised by applying a weighted
educational disadvantage formula. By invitation, the schools submitted action plans detailing costed proposed activities
aimed at preventing ESL. In the second phase of the programme, submissions and funding proposals were received from
consortia of schools and organisations involved locally in youth and community development and were considered for for-
warding as funding proposals under the School Completion Programme. Following assessment and approval, annual fund-
ing was allocated on the basis of costed joint Action Plans. The project leader school managed the overall project and coor-
dinated the needs and activities of other schools and primary feeder schools in its locality.

What activities were co-financed? One of the most concrete and beneficial uses of the funding seen was the enhancement
of attendance recording and monitoring systems in schools, through the computerisation and initiation of follow-up pro-
cedures. School directors stated that this had had a positive effect, not just on the behaviour of pupils, but also on the atti-
tudes of parents. Funding was also used to create smaller special needs groups within schools, establish breakfast clubs and
provide extra-curricular activities aimed at motivating pupils and reducing absenteeism.

(1) Eurostat Labour Market Survey, 2004.

C 99/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? Although centrally managed, the Programme
was based on a multi-agency, community-inclusive approach. For many of the projects visited this integrated approach was
particularly effective in enlisting important support, both financial and technical, from local community agencies, and Local
Partnerships in particular. For example, in one case (1) the Local Partnership provided expertise in the drafting of a compre-
hensive and professional Action Plan.

The projects visited also highlighted the success of the programme in terms of ‘process benefits’. One project spokesman
stated that ‘Being geared towards implementing a plan makes a big difference even if you do not get all the money (you
want)’. Some projects also identified a shift in attitudes among teaching staff and parents as to how schools relate to the
problem of falling school numbers and high drop-out rates: ‘the home circumstance may not have changed significantly but
the school circumstances did’. Most of all, the audit highlighted the project implementers’ high level of interest, commit-
ment and dedication to the programme. This was one of the most important factors for the success of the programme.

NETHERLANDS

Measure 3.3 E ‘Combating premature school leaving’

What was the nature of the programme? The Ministry for Education, Culture and Science, which was designated as sole
beneficiary under the measure, offered funding to schools and organisations providing vocational training in support of
projects aimed at combating ESL. Since schools in the Netherlands are autonomous, they are at liberty to engage or not
engage in such projects. Participation by schools and organisations in such projects up to 2004 was slow, but applications
for ESF co-funding under the measure are now expected by the authorities to absorb the available funds in the period 2000
to 2006.

What activities were co-financed? Schools were invited to devise projects around one or more themes stipulated by
national legislation. These included: development and coordination of individual career guidance, student counselling
and care teams; development of procedures and instruments for intake and assessment of students; development of net-
working in schools; transition arrangements between preparatory and secondary vocational education; coordination with
community action plans for combating ESL; certification of training for new segments of the local labour market, in coop-
eration with local and regional trade and industry; school support for parents of children at risk. The criteria for targeting
students were also defined by national legislation as: students under 23 years of age, enrolled in schools for vocational edu-
cation, not having obtained a ‘start qualification’ (level 2 vocational education), and, in the schools’ opinion, at risk of ESL.

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? Within the themes set by national legislation,
schools were free to design their own ESF projects. The Ministry did not impose any further rules, nor give guidance to spe-
cific projects. It did however promote best practice through the publication of ESL related studies, the setting up of discus-
sion platforms for schools, and the dissemination of information via a website. While, in general, the project themes were
already being addressed in the normal activities of the school, the ESF projects expanded these activities for the benefit of
students at risk. As a result, the projects were interwoven with the ‘normal’ daily activities of the school. Due to the inde-
pendent status of schools and the diversity of student populations, approaches to combating ESL in the 10 schools visited
were quite different. Some schools focused on cooperation with community services and local businesses, others tackled
problems on their own. The extent to which schools were involved in information exchange (an important resource in
designing ESF projects) also differed considerably between schools. An important issue in measuring the results of ESF
projects is the reliability of statistics. In order to improve the reliability of statistics on ESL, the Ministry introduced a law in
1999 on the registration of ESL, which resulted in the provision of reliable and complete statistics on which the Ministry
could base its decision-making process.

Action 1.2 of PRODEP III ‘Provision of alternative courses at basic education level’

PORTUGAL

What was the nature of the programme? The principal approach adopted by Portugal in combating ESL was to provide
diversified secondary courses and vocational training courses in schools. The courses were defined under national regula-
tions and were to cater specifically for students of 15 or over who had not yet attained lower secondary level education. In
Portugal, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds with no higher than lower secondary education was estimated to be approxi-
mately 45,5 % (2004 (2)).

(1) Mullingar Community College.
(2) Eurostat Labour Market Survey, 2004.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/19

What activities were co-financed? In the sample of eight school projects audited, courses were implemented to respond
to the needs of the school’s own pupils and other young people in the locality, by allowing them to complete the ninth grade
(lower secondary education) and to obtain a vocational qualification. The pupils attending the courses were between the ages
of 15 and 18, who although older than the minimum optional school-leaving age of 15 years, had not yet obtained the ninth
grade diploma. These students were characterised principally by school failure or having to repeat school years. The courses
addressed their needs by focusing more on the attainment of specific vocational skills than on academic subjects. They also
included work experience in enterprises, so as to motivate students to apply themselves practically. This aspect was impor-
tant as these students were normally more prone to quitting school and taking up employment, due to demotivation or
because they were older than their class-mates.

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? In the case of some schools in inner-city areas
of Lisbon, the courses provided new funded activity to support schools where pupil-numbers were in decline as a result of
demographic changes. For example, Escola Secundária Marquês de Pombal (a Lisbon State secondary school with a tradition of
expertise in electrical engineering), situated in an old area of the town with an aging population, implemented vocational
courses which utilised the specialised facilities it possessed.

While the schools applied for approval and funding to hold such courses on the basis of the availability of eligible partici-
pants, systematic diagnostics and targeting of ‘at risk’ pupils within the schools was also part of the process. However,
although national initiatives to combat child labour also existed, no specific initiatives were implemented within schools to
target pupils under 15 who were at risk of abandoning school.

Portugal’s National Action Plan on Employment — NAP (2003 to 2006) aims to reduce ESL to 35 % by 2006 and 25 % by
2010, which is broadly in line with the Lisbon Agenda. Attainment of these targets may be difficult, given the apparent
absence of a coordinated strategy to examine and address the ESL phenomenon from within schools prior to the age of
15 years, which is when the causal factors of ESL are established. However, Portugal’s National Action Plan proposes the
establishment of an early detection system for pupils at risk of dropping out of school and individualised support to pupils
in the near future.

Objective 3, Operational Programme for England and Gibraltar, 2000 to 2006, Measure 2.2

UNITED KINGDOM

What was the nature of the programme? Under the Objective 3 Operational Programme the majority of actions aimed at
combating ESL were contained in the Social Inclusion Policy Field, Measure 2.2, whose objective was ‘to develop local and
area-based responses to assist individuals with multiple disadvantages in the labour market that face the risk of exclusion’.
The original target group was 13 to 17 year olds at risk of abandoning school. Following the mid-term evaluation this was
limited to 16 to 18 year olds not in education, employment or training. The ESF funding was allocated to regional govern-
ment offices which then allocated the funding through a direct tendering process by projects and through competitive
co-financing arrangements with State-funded educational bodies.

What activities were co-financed? The projects were various and were implemented principally by charities, schools and
other training and career guidance providers. Schools participating in the projects usually selected pupils for the courses on
the basis of aptitude, suitability and educational history. Courses ranged from 15 days to one year, including job-placements
in some cases, and offered life and vocational skills training, counselling and personal support, group work, in-school and
after-school activities, and alternative curricula. Pupils continued to attend school outside the course timetable. All courses
audited had as a goal the attainment of some educational credits towards basic skills qualifications.

What particular aspects influenced the effectiveness of the programme? One of the difficulties with the co-financed
activities under Measure 2.2 was that there was no common programme or framework of commonly identifiable features.
Against the backdrop of a plethora of national initiatives catering for youth education and other target groups catered for
within a measure, no specific identity or role for ESF funding in this area was discernible. This lack of a common approach
also manifested itself in the targeting and risk assessments that accompanied projects. Furthermore, the lack of a proper ana-
lytical basis for tackling the ESL problem and the absence of shared information between responsible organisations at
regional and local level also influenced the effectiveness of operations. Nevertheless, good practices were evident within indi-
vidual projects as regards coordination of participating schools and evaluation practices. Furthermore, the ESF funding also
attracted voluntary charitable support in providing courses and activities.

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

EN

d
n
a

-
a
e
M

d
n
a
l
g
n
E

P
O

3

,

6
0
0
2

o
t

0
0
0
2

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
O

r
a
t
l
a
r
b
G

i

.

2
2

.

e
r
u
s

.

2
1

.

n
o
i
t
c
A

,
I
I
I

P
E
D
O
R
P

C 99/20

3
X
E
N
N
A

D
E
T
I
D
U
A
S
T
C
E
J
O
R
P
D
N
A
S
E
I
D
O
B
G
N
I
T
N
E
M
E
L
P
M

I

,

S
E
M
M
A
R
G
O
R
P

L
A
N
O
I
T
A
R
E
P
O

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

n
i
a
p
S

s
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
O

e
v
i
t
c
A

‘

3

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
O

d
n
u
F

l
a
i
c
o
S

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

D
P
S

)
F
S
E
(

d
n
a

s
e
i
c
i
l

o
p

t
e
k
r
a
m

r
u
o
b
a
l

,

2

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

,
’

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
l

-
j
i
t
r
o
o
V

g
n
d

i

j
i
r
t
s
e
B

‘

g
n
o
l
-
e
f
i
l

e
r
u
s
a
e
m

-
r
e
t
n
u
o
C

(

’

n
e
t
a
l
r
e
v
l
o
o
h
c
S

g
i

d

-
v
a
e
l

l

o
o
h
c
s

e
r
u
t
a
m
e
r
p

g
n
i
t
c
a

.

d
o
i
r
e
p

6
0
0
2

o
t

0
0
0
2

,
)
g
n

i

n
a
m
u
H

d
n
a

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

0
0
0
2

,

P
O
1
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
O

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
R

.

5
0

e
r
u
s
a
e
M

,

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

6
0
0
2

o
t

e
l
l
e
v
u
o
n

e
n
u

r
e
n
n
o
D

‘
(

1

r
e
t
i
v
é

r
u
o
p

s
e
n
u
e
j

x
u
a

n
o
i
t
c
A

e
c
n
a
h
c

e
l

t
n
e
m
é
r
u
t
a
m
é
r
p
t
n
e
t
t
i
u
q
s
l
i
’

u
q

-
a
c
i
f
i
l
a
u
q

s
n
a
s

e
r
i
a
l
o
c
s

e
m
è
t
s
y
s

-
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o
w
e
n
g
n
d
i
v
o
r
P
(

i

’

n
o
i
t

o
t

r
e
d
r
o
n

i

e
l
p
o
e
p
g
n
u
o
y
r
o
f

s
e
i
t

-
a
c
u
d
e

e
h
t

g
n
i
v
a
e
l

r
i
e
h
t

t
n
e
v
e
r
p

-
h
t
i

w
y
l
e
r
u
t
a
m
e
r
p
m
e
t
s
y
s

l
a
n
o
i
t

-
a
e
M

f
o

,
)
)
s
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
a
u
q

y
n
a

t
u
o

e
d

e
g
a
s
s
a
p

e
l

r
e
t
i
l
i
c
a
F
‘
(

4

e
r
u
s

e
h
t
g
n
i
t
a
t
i
l
i
c
a
F
(

’
l
i
a
v
a
r
t
u
a

e
l
o
c
é
’
l

)
)
k
r
o
w
o
t

l

o
o
h
c
s

m
o
r
f
n
o
i
t
i
s
n
a
r
t

-
r
o
f

-
e
i
v

t
e

a
l

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
‘
(

3

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

f
o

e
d

g
n
o

l

u
a

t
u
o
t

n
o
i
t
a
m

.

3
0
0
O
P
1
6
1
S
E

.

.

.

.

0
0
0
2
—

a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

A
4
e
j
E

,

P
O
1
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
O

,
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A
—

a
í
t
n
a
r
a
G
e
d
s
a
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

‘

-

A
5
1
a
d
d
e
m

i

-
o
c
s
e

o
s
a
c
a
r
f

n
o
c

s
e
n
e
v
ó

j

a
r
a
p

l
a
i
c
o
S

.

.

.

3
0
3
O
P
3
5
0
S
E
0
0
0
2

.

.

—

a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

.
’
r
a
l

4

e
j
E

;

P
O

3

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

,
a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C
—

e
d

s
a
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

—

.

1
4
4

.

n
ó
i
c
a
u
t
c
a

-
a
r
f

n
o
c

s
e
n
e
v
ó

j

a
r
a
p

l
a
i
c
o
S

a
í
t
n
a
r
a
G

.
r
a
l
o
c
s
e

o
s
a
c

:
)

W
Z
S

p
a
h
c
s
t
n
e
g
A

(

e
d
a
r
T

,
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
E

f
o

t
n
e
m

;
)
r
u
o
b
a
L

d
e
t
i
d
u
a

s
e
i
d
o
b

g
n
i
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

.

6
0
0
2

o
t

0
0
0
2

g
n
i
g
a
n
a
M

-
t
r
a
p
e
D

(

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
A

g
n
i
g
a
n
a
M

f
o

y
r
t
s
i
n
M

i

(

t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D

F
S
E

)

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

f
o

y
r
t
s
i
n
M

i

(

E
S
F
A
U

-
n
r
a
e
l

g
n
o
l
-
e
f
i
l

d
n
a

3

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
O
e
c
n
a
r
F

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
(
’

F
S
E

f
o

)
)
g
n

i

-
n
e
P

d
n
a

k
r
o
W

f
o

t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D

-
s
i
L
(

l
a
n
o
i
g
e
r
d
n
a
l
a
r
t
n
e
c
I
I
I
P
E
D
O
R
P

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
A

;
s
n
o
i
s

.
s
t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
d

)
o
t
r
o
p
O
d
n
a

n
o
b

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

r
o
f

t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D

;
s
l
l
i
k
S

-
d
M

i

t
s
e

W

e
c
i
f
f

O

t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
G

;
s
d
n
a
l

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

s
l
l
i
k
S

d
n
a

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
L

;
e
r
i
h
s
d
r
o
f
f
a
t
S

-
o
h
t
u
A

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

d
n
a

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
L

;
e
r
i
h
s
d
r
o
f
f
a
t
S

y
t
i
r

;
e
c
i
v
r
e
S

s
n
o
i
x
e
n
n
o
C

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

r
o
f

t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D

;
t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D
s
c
i
t
s
i
t
a
t
S

,
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

-
r
u
S

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

s
l
l
i
k
S

d
n
a

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
L

;

y
e
r

l
i
c
n
u
o
C

s
l
l
i
k
S

d
n
a

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
L

;
e
r
i
h
s
p
m
a
H

.
t
s
a
E

h
t
u
o
S

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

s
n
o
i
x
e
n
n
o
C

;
t
s
a
E

h
t
u
o
S

e
c
i
f
f

O

t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
G

e
r
u
t
l
u
C

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
f
o
y
r
t
s
i
n
M

i

;
)
t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

d
n
a

-
n
M

i

(

I

C
R
D

,

O
C
S
E
D

,

P
E
D

,

F
A
D

.
e
c
n
e
i
c
S

d
n
a

t
n
e
m

t
r
a
p
e
D

(

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
A

g
n
i
y
a
P

;
)

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

f
o

y
r
t
s
i

e
d
a
r
T

,
e
s
i
r
p
r
e
t
n
E

f
o

;
)
t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

d
n
a

,
l
i
a
v
a
r
T

u
d

e
l
a
n
o
i
g
é
R

n
o
i
t
c
e
r
i

D

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
F

a
l

e
d

t
e

i

l

o
p
m
E
’
l

e
d

-
t
r
a
p
e
D

(

y
d
o
b

g
n
i
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

e
c
n
a
r
F
-
e
d
-
e
l
I
(

e
l
l
e
n
n
o
i
s
s
e
f
o
r
P

;
)
e
c
n
e
i
c
S
d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E
f
o
t
n
e
m

;
)
e
n
i
a
r
r
o
L

d
n
a

-
b
u
D

f
o
y
t
i
C

(
y
d
o
b
y
r
a
i
d
e
m
r
e
t
n
I

-
z
t
e
M
d
n
a

l
i
e
t
é
r
C

f
o

s
e
i
m
é
d
a
c
A

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
c
o
V

n

i
l

.
)
e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
C

.

y
c
n
a
N

a
l
l
i
v
e
S

e
d

l
a
i
c
n
i
v
o
r
P

n
ó
i
c
a
g
e
l
e
D

t
n
e
m
a
y
n
e
s
n
E
d

’

t
n
e
m
a
t
r
a
p
e
D

l
l
a
b
e
r
T

e
d

t
n
e
m
a
t
r
a
p
e
D

:

a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

a
d
n
e
i
c
a
H
e
d

a
í
r
e
j
e
s
n
o
C

n
ó
i
c
a
c
u
d
E

e
d

a
í
r
e
j
e
s
n
o
C

:

a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/21

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

n
i
a
p
S

d
e
t
i
d
u
a

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
P

e
r
i
h
s
d
r
o
f
f
a
t
S

,
c
n
I

h
t
u
o
Y

)

n
o
b
s
i
L
(

l
a
b
m
o
P

e
d

s
ê
u
q
r
a
M

.

S

.

E

)
t
r
o
o
f
s
r
e
m
A

(

a
s
A
C
O
R

e
g
e
l
l

o
C

e
r
o
m
a
l
l

u
T

a
L

,
e
c
n
a
h
C
e
m
è
i
x
u
e
d
a
l

e
d
e
l
o
c
E

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

(

,

z
e
t
i
n
e
B

s
é
r
d
n
A

.

.

S
E
.
I

k
c
o
n
n
a
C

,
s
e
g
e
l
l

o
C

f
o
m
u
i
t
r
o
s
n
o
C

l
l
i
k
S

t
n
e
l
o
S

,
s
u
l
P

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
y
o
p
m
E

l

h
t
u
o
m

s
t
r
o
P

,
t
s
e
u
Q

.
)

n
o
b
s
i
L
(

I

é
s
o
J

.

D

.

.

S
E

k
c
e
e
b
n
r
o
o
H

C
O
R

e
g
e
l
l

o
C

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

r
a
g
n

i
l
l

u
M

P

.
J

l
e
n
n
o
i
s
s
e
f
o
r
p

e
é
c
y
L

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

(

,

o
n
a
i
r
e
v
e
S

n
a
S

.

.

S
E
.
I

)
t
r
o
o
f
s
r
e
m
A

(

d
u
a
b
m
T

i

e
v
u
e
n
r
u
o
C

h
t
u
o
m

s
t
r
o
P

,

n
r
e
h
t
u
o
S

)
o
s
r
i
T

o
t
n
a
S
(

s
u
s
e
J

e
d

)
o
l
e
g
n
e
H

(

y
n
o
t
n
A

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
M

r
e
e
r
a
C

T
V

a
í
h
n
a
p
m
o
C
a
d
a
s
e
u
g
u
t
r
o
P
a
i
c
n
i
v
o
r
P

d
n
a
l
r
e
d
e
N

-
t
s
o
O

C
O
R

l

o
o
h
c
s

y
r
a
d
n
o
c
e
S

i

n
o
E

e
t
s
i
a
l
o
C

,

n
n
a
m
h
o
K

l

e
r
r
e
i
P

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
A

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

(

,

z
i
d
á
C

e
d

a
í
h
a
B

.

.

S
E
.
I

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

,
t
c
e
j
o
r
P

e
d

i
l

G

e
h
T

)
á
m
a
s
s
a
M

(

s
i
a
h
l
a
v
r
a
C
e
d

t
r
a
u
t
S

.

S

.

E

)
o
l
e
m
A

l

(

s
u
l
P

e
t
n
e
w
T

C
O
R

e
g
e
l
l

o
C

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

n
w
o
t
s
b
o
J

e
l
l
i
v
e
z
l
a
M

,
e
n
i
a
l
r
e
V

l

u
a
P
e
g
è
l
l

o
C

n
ó
i
c
a
l
o
s
n
o
C

e
d

n
e
g
r
i
V

.

.

S
E
.
I

t
r
o
p
s
o
G

,

i

p
h
s
r
e
n
t
r
a
P

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
A
n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

d
n
a

i

g
n
n
r
a
e
L

e
k
o
t
S

,

n
i
a
r
T

e
r
u
t
u
F

-
a
d
n
i
L
(

a
h
l
e
V
-
a
-
a
d
n
i
L

e
d

.

S

.

E

)
a
h
l
e
V
-
a

)
h
c
s
o
b
n
e
g
o
t
r
e
H
-
s
’
(

I

m
e
l
l
i

W

i

g
n
n
o
K

C
O
R

l

o
o
h
c
s

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

R
S

s
a
m
o
h
T

t
S

e
n
i
a
l
b
m
o
T

,

n

i
l

u
o
M
n
a
e
J

e
g
è
l
l

o
C

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

(

,
r
u
S

o
n
o
g
í
l

o
P

.

.

S
E
.
I

)
a
i
s
u
l
a
d
n
A

(

,
t
s
u
r
T

e
r
a
C

y
e
r
r
u
S

,

y
a
w

l
l
i
k
S

)
s
o
l
e
c
r
a
B

(

f
o
r
p
i
s
n
E

)

n
r
o
o
d
l
e
p
A

(

s
u
t
n
e
v
A
C
O
R

l

o
o
h
c
s

y
r
a
d
n
o
c
e
s

s
’
l

u
a
P

t
S

é
u
o
b
u
A

,
e
ü
n
e
v
n
e
i
B
e
c
n
e
g
l
ü
F

P
L

s
n
a
m
a
g
e
l
P

i

à
t
i
l

o
S
-
u
a
l
a
P

T
T
P

y
e
r
r
u
S

o
s
r
i
T

o
t
n
a
S

e
d

l
a
n
o
i
s
s
i
f
o
r
P

)
o
s
r
i
T

a
l
o
c
s
E

o
t
n
a
S
(

)

m
e
h
c
n
i
t
e
o
D

(

p
a
h
c
s
f
a
a
r
G

e
d

C
O
R

e
n
a
t
r
A
S
B
C

’

s
d
i
v
a
D

z
t
e
M

,

y
r
é
l
a
V

l

u
a
P

e
g
e
l
l

o
C

)
a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

(

,
i
e
R

e
d

s
n

i
l

o
M
T
T
P

)
a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

(

)
a
d
a
m
A

l

(

e
d
a
r
d
n
A
e
d

o
m
l
e
s
n
A

.

.

S
E

)

n
e
g
e
m

j
i

N

(

n
e
g
e
m

j
i

N
C
O
R

,
l

o
o
h
c
S

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

)
e
d
E
(

2
1
A
C
O
R

,
e
g
e
l
l

o
C

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

d
r
o
f
x
e
W

y
e
r
o
G

w
o
l
k
c
i

W

y
e
b
b
A

)
a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

(

,
s
i
r
r
a
B
u
o
N
a
n
o
l
e
c
r
a
B
T
T
P

)
a
i
n
o
l
a
t
a
C

(

,
l
l
e
r
o
t
r
a
M
T
T
P

)

n
e
l
r
e
e
H

(

s
u
c
r
A
C
O
R

e
v
i
s
n
e
h
e
r
p
m
o
C

n
u
m
y
l
l
a
B

l

o
o
h
c
s

C 99/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

III.

The Commission will pursue and strengthen the imple-
V.
mentation of these recommendations, beyond the mechanisms
already in place, as far as its powers will allow.

(a) Several of the Member States audited were able to evaluate
the nature and scope of the problem of early school leaving
(ESL) to a greater or lesser extent on the basis of the best
information available to them.

(a) By way of example, as regards the organisation of the evalu-
ation, the ‘Guidelines for the mechanisms of monitoring and
evaluating ESF interventions during the 2000 to 2006 period’
provide appropriate general guidance which can, moreover,
be applied to the various different individual cases.

(b) Several of the Member States audited were able to determine
the level of funding to a greater or lesser extent on the basis
of estimates, by using the best sources of information avail-
able to them. Within a given programme, the distribution of
funds between the various regions of a Member State or
between the different measures concerned is a national
responsibility. Distribution depends on a number of criteria,
some of them political in nature, which take account of local
needs ground. In several of the cases audited, particular cri-
teria were also applied to determine the allocation of
resources between regions and/or measures.

(d) As a general rule, the Member States’ approach has been to
define the various target groups on the basis of their national
education systems and their specific problems. These target
groups have been quantified to a greater or lesser extent to
obtain an overview of the situation. Several of the Member
States audited have set quantified national targets to reduce
ESL in line with the European target. See the replies under (a)
and (b).

(e) The purpose of the mid-term review is not to measure the
impact, which depends on the results and the extent to which
the quantified targets are met by the end of the programme.
While the mid-term review is carried out at operational pro-
gramme
(EC)
stipulated
No 1260/1999) for the Member States audited, the mid-term
evaluations referred to the specific measures addressing Early
School Leaving (ESL), and action has been taken to adjust the
focus and strategy where necessary.

by Regulation

level

(as

In the medium and long term, the number of early school
leavers should drop in response to these measures. This is
confirmed by 2000 to 2004 trends, as reported in the Com-
mission Communication on modernising education and
training COM(2005) 549.

There is an appropriate monitoring and control mecha-
IV.
nism in place to ensure respect for the principles of sound finan-
cial management in accordance with Commission powers and in
proportion to the level of European Union support, although
there is room for further improvement through better use of
information.

(b) As regards controls on the Member States’ management sys-
tems, audit recommendations are made in connection with
sound financial management where the situation warrants.

These recommendations must be assessed in the light of
VI.
the Member States’ specific responsibilities as regards the plan-
ning of management and control for the Structural Funds. ESF
measures in the ESL field are part of a broader national policy
context and must be analysed accordingly. The definition
and implementation of measures to combat early school leaving
take account of the national character of education policies and
strategies.

AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

14.
The use of the mechanisms and tools mentioned by the
Court should be extended to fully ensure sound financial man-
agement as prescribed in Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

Some of the procedures described to apply Article 5 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 438/2001 are also designed to guarantee effective
and efficient operation of the relevant systems (e.g. procedures for
the monitoring
the evaluation and selection of projects,
and implementation of projects in relation to targets and compli-
ance with the directives on calls for tender).

Fulfilment of
the abovementioned regulatory obligations
designed to ensure sound financial management is described in
detail in the manuals of procedures prepared by the responsible
authorities in the Member States. Moreover, the national imple-
mentation guidelines provide for the need to address the issue of
selection, sound financial management and added value. As
regards audits of these procedures ensuring sound financial man-
agement, see the reply to point 15.

15.
The correct application of sound financial management
principles, as far as project selection and follow-up procedures are
concerned, is part of the Commission’s audit strategy, and its
implementation should be reinforced.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/23

As regards the other sources of information relating to the imple-
mentation of the operational programmes (such as meetings of
monitoring committees,
implementation reports and bilateral
meetings with the Member State concerned, and so on, the Com-
mission takes the view that the measures already implemented
enable management information to be adequately processed,
although there is still room for improvement in some cases.

The recommendations of the mid-term evaluation report
16.
have been assessed, discussed and followed up by the bodies
responsible (the Managing Authority and Monitoring Committees
in cooperation with the Commission). Following the recommen-
dations, appropriate action has been taken: the findings and rec-
ommendations are fed into the programming, implementation
and monitoring as required. Finally, the Commission has also fol-
lowed up the mid-term evaluations by approving the mid-term
review decisions.

17.
There is a suitable monitoring and control mechanism in
place to ensure that the principles of sound financial management
are respected, in accordance with the Commission’s powers and in
proportion to the level of European Union support, although
there is room for further improvement through better use of
information. As described in the replies to points 14 to 16, sound
financial management mechanisms and tools are built in and
described in the Structural Funds Regulations; the Commission
and the Member States must monitor implementation in accor-
dance with those provisions, and they have a variety of means at
their disposal to meet that objective.

18.
Several of the Member States mentioned have succeeded
in evaluating the nature and scope of the problem to varying
degrees on the basis of the best information available to them
(detailed historical data and statistics, specific studies and research,
ex-post evaluation of the preceding programming period and
ex-ante appraisal of the current programming period).

Several Member States have been able to ascertain fund-
19.
ing levels to a greater or lesser extent on the basis of estimates,
using the best information sources available.

Although the analysis of needs should be further
20.
improved, results indicators are defined in the programming
documents and are used for follow-up in the context of the annual
reports. Ex post evaluations of the preceding period and ex-ante
appraisals of the current period have also helped to prepare mea-
sures interventions while guaranteeing the consistency of the
strategy and specific objectives and establishing the expected
impact of the measures envisaged. Subsequent evaluations in the
planning cycle examine the extent to which these pre-defined
objectives have been realised.

Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 states that ‘Commu-
nity actions shall complement or contribute to corresponding
national operations.’ Moreover, ESF support is required in so far
as it improves the quality of measures and has a lever effect in
enabling them to reach more beneficiaries.

23.
There have been arrangements in place in the United
Kingdom since 2005 to ensure a coherent and focused strategy
(i.e. Strategic Area Reviews: Stars). At mid-term, the role of each
measure was further clarified to ensure that no possible confu-
sion could be created. As to the research reports, there were other
means of influencing the targeting of beneficiary groups or the
choice of ESL activities (i.e. connections recording systems).

25.
As a general rule, the Member States’ approach has been
to define different target groups on the basis of their national edu-
cation systems and their specific problems. These target groups
have been quantified to a greater or lesser extent to obtain an
overview of the situation.

27.
The change in the setting of target groups in the United
Kingdom following the mid-term review clarifies the purpose of
the priorities.

31.
In France, the main statistical indicators of the Evaluation
and Long-Term Planning Department (DEP) are published annu-
ally. As this area is decentralised, it is up to headteachers to define
the way in which it is organised and the strategies to be followed
in combating early school leaving and to present an annual analy-
sis, based on DEP data, of the situation of unqualified school leav-
ers and the policies to be implemented by the central administra-
tion. An annual survey of unqualified school leavers aged over 16
is also conducted. In Portugal, the national authorities have
defined several statistical indicators which were used in the mid-
term review, leading to a substantial reinforcement of measures
designed to address ESL.

32 and 33.
ESF measures generally focus on categories of
students above the ages of 15 or 16, the aim being to facilitate
their entry into the workforce. However, in two of the six coun-
tries audited (Portugal and France), there are also co-funded mea-
sures targeting the under-16s.

34.
As the European Council has set itself the political target
of halving the ESL rate by 2010, relative progress against that tar-
get can be measured in each Member State on the basis of the par-
ticular situation prevailing there.

The Member States also have a variety of follow-up mechanisms
based on indicators, particularly where results are concerned.

All national objectives relating to early school leaving are in line
with the European target.

21 and 22.
Strategies have been or are being developed
to combat the various aspects of early school leaving in the vari-
ous Member States mentioned, although in some cases there is
room for improvement as regards their consistency.

In 2001 the Dutch authorities set a national target of contribut-
ing to the Lisbon objective (halving instances of early school leav-
ing by 2010).

C 99/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

It is up to each Member State to distribute funds within
35.
each programme between different regions or measures. Distri-
bution depends on a range of criteria (some of them political) tak-
ing account of local needs.

36.
A large number of studies, evaluations and research
projects on this subject have been conducted and statistical data
collected. The use to which they are put could be systematised.

In the Netherlands, pupils meeting the minimum requirements
include those who have not obtained any recognised qualification
at the level immediately below their present one, those who have
used up the time available for them to spend on education, those
with social difficulties and early school leavers who have been
guided back to school through the remedial system. Conse-
quently, nearly all of the pupils concerned are, because of their
nature and characteristics, at high risk of leaving school early.
This is confirmed by the education inspectorate’s annual reports
on the state of education.

37.
The Commission welcomes the good practice mentioned
by the Court in the cases of Ireland and the United Kingdom,
which have established consortia of schools operating under writ-
ten agreements in order to improve the efficiency of project and
programme administration.

To avoid overlap with the previous project (the Research and
Evaluation strand of the Early School Leavers Initiative) and to
take advantage of synergies, the Irish authorities decided that it
was more appropriate to continue work on the tracking template
(of the previous project) under the Primary Pupil Database Project.

In France, the approvals procedure is based on standard

38.
aid application forms used by schools.

Where applicable, the authority responsible in each Member State
should disseminate good practice identified in the projects audited
by the Court (in the case of the UK, these include the Surrey Care
Trust and Youth Inc.) for the benefit of other selection proce-
dures. Using detailed selection criteria facilitates identification of
the groups most at risk.

The issue noted by the Court in connection with the UK

39.
has been addressed following the Mid-Term Review.

In several of the cases mentioned, objective cri-
40 and 41.
teria are now used to select beneficiaries. In Ireland, for instance,
guidelines on the targeting of pupils (ESL risk assessment) have
now been made available to all projects and have been covered in
the course of the in-service training provided for local coordina-
tors. All projects use a form of student profiling. Moreover, there
is a fair, justifiable basis at project level for linking resources and
needs transparency, where Early School Leavers Initiative projects
are concerned through the use of pre-designed selection criteria
applying a scoring system.

In the UK, several detailed databases at Connexions level (input
following school profiling exercises, pupil interviews) and a num-
ber of instances of good practice as regards beneficiary selection
criteria are helping to improve choices and thus enhance use of
resources.

In France, each education region comes up with solutions on the
basis of the needs expressed in discussions about the situation and
the strategic objectives which it has set within the framework of
its education plans. Consequently, the criteria applied may vary
from one regional education authority to another.

Schools submit their project applications, which are then judged
on their formal and management aspects and their content using
reference frameworks such as standard protocols and assessment
matrices. If necessary, additional information is requested and
provided by the applicants. The output indicator built into the
financing system also guarantees effective selection, and bench-
marking between projects is carried out on the basis of cost data.

42.
In France, the information system responsible for collect-
ing data on the activities of the General Integration Measure (MGI)
is currently being overhauled with a view to improving the reli-
ability of analyses. The new version will be available in 2007. In
the meantime, changes are to be made in recording pupils regis-
tered participating in the measures, so as to improve the reliabil-
ity of the data.

43.
The Commission recognises the importance of sharing
information (particularly between primary and post-primary
schools). However, schools can be reluctant to share pupil infor-
mation, particularly pupils’ psychological assessments and pupil
profiles, with other schools, as there are fears about the possible
future legal implications arising from the sharing of such infor-
mation. In Ireland, the National Coordination Team issued a let-
ter to all projects in October 2003 on targeting and sharing infor-
mation. This issue will be examined in greater depth by the overall
Management Committee, and the Department of Education and
Science has also started to develop protocols for integrated work-
ing (and, hence, information sharing) between the National Edu-
cational Welfare Board and coordinators working on other pro-
grammes for the disadvantaged, including the School Completion
Programme.

In the United Kingdom, the National Audit Office report regard-
ing cooperation between British agencies also found evidence of
much goodwill between bodies when it comes to collaborating
and sharing information. The Commission stresses that data pro-
tection legislation may limit the sharing of personal information
between the different levels of schools and educational bodies.

45.
For Ireland, with responsibility for the programme now
transferred to the expanded Social Inclusion Unit and with the
establishment of the overall Management Committee, the issues
highlighted in relation to cross-communication and exchange of
information should not present a problem in future. Guidelines
on the targeting of pupils (ESL risk assessment) have now been
made available to all projects. The new overall Management Com-
mittee will further refine the core risk indicators and disseminate
the results to all projects on the ground.

26.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/25

The arrangements in place in the Netherlands should minimise
the risk mentioned by the Court. Information is exchanged via the
network of ESL coordinators, platforms, various working associa-
tions, evaluation studies and internet sites to allow schools to
benefit from each other’s experiences and to avoid ‘reinventing
the wheel’ for comparable activities.

46.
As the prevention of early school leaving is a preventive
measure, there are indeed limits to measuring its effectiveness. In
the medium and long term, the number of early school leavers
should drop as a result of the measures. This is confirmed by the
2000 to 2004 trend reported in the Communication on moder-
nising education and training (COM(2005) 549. It will always be
difficult — even for an evaluator — to separate the effects of an
ESF early school leaving project totally from the impact of other
national policy measures aimed at preventing early school leaving.

In the UK, the national authorities are adapting the system to
allow for intermediate data collection (added to the collection at
project closure).

47.
The mid-term review does not seek to measure the
impact, which depends on the results and the degree to which the
quantified objectives are achieved by the end of the programme.
While the mid-term review is conducted at Operational Pro-
gramme level (as stipulated by Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999),
for the Member States audited, the mid-term evaluations referred
to specific measures targeting ESL, and action has been taken to
adjust the focus and strategy where necessary. The problems
detected in the mid-term evaluations have repeatedly been
addressed by the Commission’s departments in their contacts
with the authorities in the Member States.

better use of information. The Commission would refer to the
various processes implemented with a view to guaranteeing this,
which are described in the replies to points 14 to 16.

Going beyond the mechanisms already in place, the Commission
will pursue and extend the implementation of these recommen-
dations within the limits of its powers. By way of example, as
regards the organisation of evaluation, the ‘Guidelines on ESF
monitoring and review provisions for the 2000 to 2006 period’
are adequate general guidelines which can be applied to different
individual cases. Exchanges of good practice in the field of sound
financial management will also be pursued.

As regards checks on the Member States’ management systems,
audit recommendations on sound financial management are
issued where the situation warrants.

53.
The recommendations made under the following points
(54 to 60) must also be assessed in the light of the Member States’
specific responsibilities as regards planning the management
and control of the Structural Funds. ESF measures to benefit ESL
are part of a broader national policy context and need to be analy-
sed as such. The definition and implementation of measures
designed to combat early school leaving respect the national char-
acter of education policies and strategies.

As a general rule, the Member States’ approach has been
54.
to define various target groups, depending on their national edu-
cation systems and their specific problems. These target groups
have been counted to a greater or lesser extent to obtain an over-
view of the situation (see the replies to points 18 to 25).

As regards the UK measure, the issue noted by the Court (the risk
of overlap between target groups in measures 3.1 (Priority 3)
and 2.2 (Priority 2); multiple target groups, leading to confusion
and complicating data collection) has been addressed following
the mid-term review.

55.
The Commission would refer to its reply under point 54.
As far as the Netherlands’ ability to estimate the population tar-
geted by ESL actions is concerned, the situation mentioned by the
Court has now been remedied through the use of a national
database.

48.
As regards Ireland, this statement has already been made
under point 24. As regards Portugal, the special review in 2002
and the mid-term review enabled the EU-Member States partner-
ship to focus especially on monitoring the problem of early
school leaving. This led to a substantial review of the objectives
and funding of measure 1 of PRODEP when re-programming
took place in 2004.

In several of the Member States mentioned, quantified national
targets have been set to reduce early school leaving in line with
the European target. In the medium and long term, the number
of early school leavers should drop in response to these measures.
This is confirmed by the 2000 to 2004 trend as reported in the
Communication on modernising education and training
(COM(2005) 549).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

52.
There is an appropriate monitoring and control mecha-
nism in place to ensure compliance with the principles of sound
financial management,
in accordance with the Commission’s
powers and in proportion to the level of European Union sup-
through
port, although there is

improvement

room for

56.
The distribution of funds between the various regions of
a Member State or between the different measures is a national
responsibility. Distribution depends on a number of criteria, some
of them political, which take account of local needs.

The Commission agrees with this recommendation, but it should
take into account the political nature of the choices determining
the allocation of funds.

C 99/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2006

The Commission welcomes the good practice mentioned
57.
by the Court in the cases of Ireland and the UK in establishing
consortia of
schools operating under written agreements
to improve the efficiency of project and programme administra-
tion. In many of the cases mentioned, objective criteria are now
used for the selection of beneficiaries. For example, in France the
approval procedure is based on standard aid application forms
used by schools. Frameworks such as the standard protocols and
assessment matrices used in the Netherlands also ensure proper
project selection.

Early school leaving is one of the explicit priority areas
60.
of the European Employment Strategy (EES), which involves all
the Member States working within a common framework. Each
year, the Commission and the Member States agree on a series of
guidelines for action. All the Member States work towards these
goals within their own yearly employment action plans. Each
year, the Commission sets out, in its draft Joint Employment
Report, the Member States’ progress in complying with the guide-
lines adopted the previous year. The ESF thus translates the
national priorities identified in the framework of the EES into
concrete priorities and measures for funding.

The correct application of sound financial management principles
to project selection and follow-up procedures is part of the Com-
mission’s audit strategy and should be reinforced.

This means that ESF programmes are implemented in a decentra-
lised context, which is the best way to address the specific ESL
problems of each Member State.

58.
Measures have been put in place for the two Member
States concerned (Ireland and the Netherlands) to improve the
coordination of measures and the dissemination of research find-
ings. Mid-term reviews have referred to the specific measures
designed to combat early school leaving in the Member States
audited. Where necessary, action has been taken following these
reviews to fine-tune the strategy and the targeting of measures.

See also the reply to point 53.

As far as good management is concerned, the Commission agrees
with the general principle stated by the Court.

In addition to the mechanisms already in place, the Commission
will pursue and extend the implementation of these recommen-
dations within the limits of its powers.