COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Impact Assessement
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, European Social Fund, administrative formalities, dismissal, economic and social cohesion, economic recession, education, labour mobility, productivity, social integration, vocational training, youth unemployment

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1130  final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Impact Assessement 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 

{COM(2011) 607 final} 
{COM(2011) 608 final} 
{COM(2011) 609 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1131 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Disclaimer 
This  Impact  Assessment  report  commits  only  the  Commission’s  services  involved  in  its 
preparation and the text is prepared as a basis for comments and does not prejudge the final 
form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

1

 
 
Table of contents 

1.  Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .................................................... 1 
1.1.  The instruments under discussion ................................................................................ 1 
1.2.  Organisation and timing of preparatory work.............................................................. 3 
1.3.  Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 3 
1.3.1  The ESF................................................................................................................... 3 
1.3.2.  The EGF .................................................................................................................. 4 
1.3.3.  The direct management instruments........................................................................ 4 
1.4.  Main results of public consultation .............................................................................. 5 
1.4.1.  Main results of the public consultation on the ESF................................................. 5 
1.4.2.  Main results of the public consultation on the EGF................................................ 6 
1.4.3.  Main results of the public consultation on the direct management instruments ..... 6 
2.  Problem definition.............................................................................................................. 8 
2.1.  Description of the problem .......................................................................................... 8 
2.2.  Lessons from ESF implementation ............................................................................ 10 
2.2.1  Effects.................................................................................................................... 10 
2.2.2.  Practical implementation....................................................................................... 14 
2.3.  Lessons from EGF implementation ........................................................................... 18 
2.3.1.  Effects.................................................................................................................... 18 
2.3.2. Practical implementation............................................................................................ 19 
2.4.  Lessons from the direct management instruments ..................................................... 20 
2.4.1.  PROGRESS........................................................................................................... 20 
2.4.2.  EURES .................................................................................................................. 22 
2.4.3.  Progress Microfinance........................................................................................... 24 
2.5.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 25 
2.6.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 26 
2.7.  Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident ............................ 27 
2.7.1.  The right to act for instruments under shared management .................................. 27 
2.7.2.  The right to act for direct management instruments.............................................. 27 
2.7.3.  EU added value of the shared management instruments (ESF and EGF)............. 28 
2.7.4.  EU added value of the instruments in direct management .................................... 30 
3.  Objectives......................................................................................................................... 31 
3.1.  General objective ....................................................................................................... 31 
3.2.  Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 31 
3.2.1.  ESF ........................................................................................................................ 32 
3.2.2.  EGF ....................................................................................................................... 32 
3.2.3.  The instruments under direct management ........................................................... 32 
3.3.  Operational objectives................................................................................................ 33 
3.3.1.  ESF ........................................................................................................................ 33 
3.3.2.  EGF ....................................................................................................................... 33 
3.3.3.  The instruments under direct management ........................................................... 34 
4.  Policy options................................................................................................................... 35 
4.1.  The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 38 
4.2.  Simplification of ESF implementation ...................................................................... 41 
4.3.  Relation between the EGF and the ESF..................................................................... 41 
4.4.  Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument ................................ 42 
4.5.  Options not analysed.................................................................................................. 43 
4.5.1.  No-funding ............................................................................................................ 43 

2

 
 
 
4.5.1.  Focussing ESF operational programmes ............................................................... 44 
5.  Analysis of impacts .......................................................................................................... 45 
5.1.  The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 45 
5.2.  Simplification............................................................................................................. 48 
5.3.  Relation between the EGF and the ESF..................................................................... 49 
5.4.  Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument ................................ 51 
6.  Comparing the options ..................................................................................................... 54 
6.1.  The scope of the ESF ................................................................................................. 55 
6.2.  Simplification............................................................................................................. 56 
6.3.  The EGF ..................................................................................................................... 57 
6.4.  Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument ................................ 57 
7.  Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................... 59 
7.1.  ESF............................................................................................................................. 59 
7.2.  The EGF ..................................................................................................................... 61 
7.3.  The integrated programme for employment, social policy and inclusion (Social 

Development Agenda) ............................................................................................... 61 
7.4.  Tracking of climate-related expenditure .................................................................... 62 

Annexes 

ANNEX 1.  THE INSTRUMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION..................................................................... i 
ANNEX 2.  CONSULTATIONS AND EXPERTISE............................................................................ vi 
ANNEX 3.  GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................viii 
ANNEX 4.  RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS .................................................................................... xii 
ANNEX 5.  SUMMARY OF STUDIES COMMISSIONED IN SUPPORT OF THE INITIATIVE............... xxiv 
ANNEX 6.  SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES .......................................................... xxxii 
ANNEX 7.  MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS OF THE ESF SCOPE OPTIONS....................xliii 
ANNEX 8.  PROPOSED COMPULSORY COMMON INDICATORS FOR ESF CO-FINANCED ACTIONS
..............................................................................................................................................xlviii 

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact Assessment 

1.  Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

This  is  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  financial  instruments  of  the  DG  Employment,  Social 
Affairs  and  Inclusion  (DG  EMPL),  notably  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  the  European 
Globalisation Fund, the PROGRESS programme, EURES and the PROGRESS micro-finance 
facility.  

The European Social Fund is one of three instruments supporting European Cohesion Policy 
together  with  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  the  Cohesion  Fund 
(CF).  In  the  context  of  simplification  and  harmonisation  of  rules,  common  implementation 
issues  are  to  be  covered  by  a  General  Regulation  applicable  to  all  three  instruments  and 
subject  to  a  separate  Impact  Assessment.  The  issues  covered  are  European  added  value, 
performance  and  delivery  of  the  policy.  In  addition,  two  fund  specific  Impact  Assessments 
cover issues specific to the ESF and to the ERDF/Cohesion Fund.  

The ESF issues covered in this Impact Assessment regard the scope of the instrument as well 
as  one  specific  aspect  of  the  delivery,  namely  the  mode  of  cost  accounting.  This  Impact 
Assessment  also  discusses  the  articulation  between  the  ESF  and  the  other  financial 
instruments available to the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. More detailed ex-
ante evaluations will accompany the Commission's proposal for a new integrated programme 
covering PROGRESS, EURES and the micro-finance facility, the Commission' proposal for 
the EGF regulation and each ESF operational programme. These instruments will not be the 
subject of separate Impact Assessments. 

A  number  of  other  issues  which  are  highly  relevant  to  these  financial  have  are  not  been 
covered in this Impact Assessment as they derive from other legal acts such as the financial 
regulation. One example is the eligibility or not of non-recoverable VAT which falls outside 
the scope of the ESF regulation and of the General Regulation1. 

1.1. The instruments under discussion 

Detailed  information  on  five  financial  instruments  covered  by  this  Impact  Assessment  is 
provided in Annex 1. The instruments are: 

•  The European Social Fund  (Budget 76 billion € for the programming period 2007-2013) 

The  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  established  by  Article  162  of  the  Treaty,  invests  in 
employment, education, social inclusion and institutional capacity in the Member States. The 
ESF is part of cohesion policy (as are the ERDF and the CF).  Following the June Budget2 
package  the  future  ESF  should  focus  on  four  thematic  objectives.  According  to  these 

1  The  ESF  financial  system  is  based  on  the  reimbursement  of  expenditure  made  by  the  beneficiary.  Non 
recoverable VAT has thus up to now been considered an eligible expenditure given that it is a real expenditure 
for the beneficiary. At the level of the ESF, the amounts discussed are low: for example non recoverable VAT 
represents less than 1% of the amounts of completed operations under the Danish Programme and 2% under the 
Finnish  mainland  programme  (data  on  operations  of  the  first  years  of  the  programme).  However,  given  the 
characteristics of the ESF final beneficiaries and the size of the operation, the non eligibility of VAT might make 
the  involvement  of  some  actors  mostly  NGOs  and  civil  society  organisations  impossible,  disproportionally 
strongly affect operations in some areas notably social inclusion and fight against poverty.  
2 COM(2011)500 & SEC(2011)868 

1

 
 
 
                                                 
proposals,  the  ESF  should  benefit  from  at  least  25%  of  the  Cohesion  Policy  envelope,  not 
counting  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (e.g.  €  84  billion).  Three  categories  of  regions  are 
identified,  less  developed  regions,  more  developed  regions  and  a  new  category,  transition 
regions  situated  in  between  the  previous  two  in  terms  of  GDP  per  capita.  Cohesion  policy 
resources will be concentrated as is currently the case on the less developed regions. 

•  The European Globalisation Fund (EGF)  (Budget maximum 500 million € per year) 

The EGF was established by Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 and is based on Article 175 of 
the TFEU. It was set up in order to demonstrate solidarity at EU level and to provide one-off, 
time-limited tailor made support to large numbers of workers made redundant within a short 
period  of  time  as  a  result  of  major  structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  due  to 
globalisation.  

•  The European Progress Micro-Finance Facility   (Budget  100  million  €  for  the  period 

2010 to 2013 with an additional contribution of 100 million € by the EIB).  

The  aims  of  the  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (Progress  Microfinance)3,  which 
was set up in 2010, are to make microfinance more readily available to persons who wish to 
start up or develop micro-enterprises, including with a view to self-employment. A Decision 
of the Council and the Parliament establishing a new integrated programme, as announced in 
the  Commission  Communication  ‘A  budget  for  Europe  2020’4,  would  provide  for  the 
continuation  and  extension  of  the  actions  carried  out  under  the  Decision  No  283/2010/EU 
while ensuring sound financial appropriations until 2020.      

•  PROGRESS - The EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (Budget 683.25  

million € for the programming period 2007-2013) 

Working  alongside  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  PROGRESS  programme5  supports  the 
development  and  coordination  of  EU  employment  and  social  policy.  The  programme  helps 
the Commission to fulfil its tasks both in the fields of (a) law-making, to ensure that evidence-
based  legislation  meets  all  the  principles  of  Smart  Regulation;  and  (b)  policy-coordination 
among  the  Member  States,  where  the  Commission  acts  as  facilitator  and  broker.  The 
programme expires on the 31st December 2013. The Decision No 1672/2006 should therefore 
be replaced by a Decision establishing a new integrated programme.   

•  EURES (Budget 21.3 million € per year) 

Set  up  in  19936,  EURES  is  a  co-operation  network  between  the  European  Commission  and 
the Public Employment Services of the EEA Member States (The EU countries plus Norway, 
Iceland  and  Liechtenstein)  and  other  partner  organisations.  Switzerland  also  takes  part  in 
EURES  co-operation.  The  purpose  of  EURES  is  to  provide  information,  advice  and 
recruitment/  placement  (job-matching)  services for  the  benefit  of  workers  and  employers  as 
well as for any citizen wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of persons. 
A Decision establishing a new integrated programme would on the one hand provide sound 

3  Decision  No  283/2010/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  March  2010  establishing  a 
European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. 
4  COM(2011) 500 of 29 June 2011. 
5  Decision  No  1672/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 October  2006  establishing  a 
Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress. 
6 COM 2003/8/EC of 22 December 2002 based on regulation 1612 from 1968 codified 492/2011 from 5 April 
20011 

2

 
 
                                                 
financial  appropriations  for  the  continuation  of  EURES  horizontal  activities  under  the  MFF 
2014-2020 and, on the other hand, would create a legal basis for the "Your first EURES Job" 
scheme currently carried out as a 3-year preparatory action. 

1.2. Organisation and timing of preparatory work 

Work  on the  Impact Assessment of the legislative proposal for the ESF post 2013 began in 
April 2010 with the preparation of the roadmap followed in July 2010 with the creation of the 
Impact  Assessment  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  (IA  ISSG)7.    Work  on  the  related  Impact 
Assessments of the General Regulation and on the ERDF/CF regulation began in September 
2010. The 5th Cohesion Report and its accompanying policy conclusions as well as the Budget 
Review from October and November 2010 constitute major general inputs to this work. Since 
its start the steering group met 5 times. The last meeting was on 20 July 2011. 

The IA-Board discussed a draft version of this document at its meeting of 31 August 2011 In 
line with the recommendations of the Board, the problem definition was revised to facilitate 
the  understanding  of  achievements  of  the  ESF  in  the  past,  thereby  also  elaborating  on  the 
specificities of shared management, which allows on the one hand for solutions adapted to the 
specific situation of a region or Member State, but on the other hand requires high standards 
of  cooperation  and  partnership  between  the  Commission  and  Managing  Authorities.  This  is 
particularly  true  in  the  area  of  focusing  investments.  The  provisions  made  on  the  European 
level allow and encourage such concentration, but shared management will – irrespective of 
the  scope  of  the  ESF  –  not  be  able  to  compel  concentration.  Further  clarification  is  also 
provided  on  the  other  instruments  included  in  this  Impact  Assessment.  This  concerns  the 
question to what extent the preferred EGF option will allow implementation to accelerate as 
well  as  more  details  on  directly  managed  instruments  and  some  more  detail  on  the 
implementation  of  the  direct  management  instrument.  Nevertheless,  given  the  already  high 
complexity  of  this  document  a  more  comprehensive  discussion  of  the  implementation 
arrangements of the new instrument in direct management is left to the ex-ante-evaluation.8 

Given the broad scope of the Impact Assessment, it was therefore not possible to stay within 
the usual page-limit of 30 pages.  

1.3. Consultation and expertise 

1.3.1  The ESF 

Relevant input for the ESF parts of this IA are: the Budget Review; the 5th Cohesion Report; 
the results of evaluations notably the ex-post evaluations of 2000-2006 programmes9; results 
of  the  public  consultation  which  were  summed  up  in  the  5th  Progress  Report  on  Economic 
and  Social  Cohesion  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  June  2008;  results  of  the  public 
consultation following the adoption of the 5th Cohesion Report in November 2010 and on a 
broad range of studies and expert advice10.  

7  The  following  services  attended  at  least  one  meeting  of  the  ESF  IA  ISSG:  AGRI,  BEPA,  BUDG,  CLIMA, 
COMP, EAC, ECFIN, ENER, ENTR, ENV, HOME, INFSO, JUST, MARKT, REGIO, RTD, SANCO, SG and 
TRADE.  
8 REFERENCE TO Progress ex-ante-Evaluation…. 
9 Ex-post evaluation reports are available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=701&langId=en 
10 Annex 4 summarises the results of the main evaluations conducted and presents the main findings of studies 
commissioned  specifically  in  support  of  this  initiative.  Annex  6  refers  to  published  studies  and  reports 
particularly relevant for this initiative. A report summarizing a conference on the future of the ESF is available 

3

 
 
                                                 
In addition to the above, expert advice was also gained from permanent working contacts with 
Managing  Authorities  and  with  other  stakeholders  (for  instance  through  the  monitoring 
committees of the ESF programmes or the ESF Technical Working Group) to gain knowledge 
of their day-to-day difficulties and concerns as part of the implementation process.  Between 
December 2010 and February 2011 focus groups with Member States experts met to discuss 
proportionality and simplification, financial engineering, the involvement of local actors and 
the logic of intervention and common indicators.  

The ESF Committee itself issued opinions on the future of the ESF at its meetings of 3 June 
2010  and  of  10  March  201111.The  European  Parliament  adopted  on  7  October  2010 
resolutions  on  the  future  of  the  Cohesion  Policy12  and  of  the  ESF13.  The  European 
Commission has also asked for exploratory opinions of the Economic and Social Committee 
(ECOSOC – adopted on 15 March 201114) and the Committee of the Regions (COR- adopted 
on 30 March 201115).  Moreover both EMCO16 and SPC17 issued opinions.  

1.3.2.  The EGF 

Two stakeholder conferences18 were organised to discuss the future of the EGF on 25 and 26 
January 2011 and 8 March 2011.  

A survey of Member States' experts and of European social partner organisations conducted 
between  August  2010  and  February  2011  provided  additional  evidence.  Member  States' 
experts met in Porto on 29 and 30 September 2010 and in Brussels on 9 March 2011. 

The European Parliament adopted on 7 September 2010 a Resolution19 on the functioning and 
the funding of the EGF. 

1.3.3.  The direct management instruments 

In  the  context  of  the  review  of  the  current  PROGRESS  programme,  the  Commission 
organised a two-step consultation: 

1. 

2. 

A working group gathering the programme's key stakeholders representatives;  
A  public  online  consultation  on  a  possible  successor  instrument  to  PROGRESS  was 
carried out between 4 April and 27 May 201120.  

at:  http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/100907-conference-report-final_en.pdf.  The  results  of  the 
public consultation are accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfmN 
11 http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=445&langId=en 
12http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-

0356&language=EN&ring=B7-2010-0539  

13http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-

0357+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  

14http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx?pmi=ha5jDW%2bOWSEKS2CtbtA2nl2VJruX4mnz

BdsQyM7Dy60%3d 

15http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/PressTemplate.aspx?view=detail&id=b0a92bb4-7fbd-4cea-aade-

1cf0a26429aa  

16 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=115&langId=en  
17 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/empl/dv/empl_spc_on_esf_/empl_spc_
on_esf_en.pdf 

18 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes 
19 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0236&language=EN 

4

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
Furthermore,  given  that  PROGRESS  is  implemented  through  a  results-based  management 
approach, the Commission regularly monitors the progress achieved towards expected results 
against clearly defined performance indicators.  

Regarding  the  Microfinance  Facility,  relevant  stakeholders  were  consulted,  notably  the 
European Microfinance Network (EMN), which represents the European microfinance sector. 

Also the 2011 meetings of EURES Working Party and Heads of Public Employment Services 
(PES) held specific discussions on the future on EURES.  

1.4. Main results of public consultation 

1.4.1.  Main results of the public consultation on the ESF 

Several  contributions  on  the  public  consultation  following  the  5th  cohesion  report  refer 
explicitly  to  the  ESF21.  When  expressing  their  views  on  the  ESF,  respondents  generally 
highlighted the important contribution it makes in the current socio-economic circumstances 
and its direct link with the Europe 2020 objectives and wanted to maintain the current specific 
nature of the ESF in terms of its focus on employability, training and social inclusion. At the 
same  time,  most  argued  that  the  European  Social  Fund  is  an  indispensable  part  of  an 
integrated  cohesion  policy.  Contributors  largely  welcomed  greater  coordination  between  the 
ESF  and  ERDF,  although  there  were  mixed  views  on  a  multi-fund  approach  and  cross-
financing. Respondents were generally in favour of keeping the same budget heading for the 
ESF  and  ERDF,  with  financial  allocations  being  negotiated  between  the  European 
Commission and Member States (as is currently the case). A small number called for separate 
budget headings for the ERDF and the ESF. 

Fourteen Member States called for maintaining the same budget line for the ESF and ERDF 
at EU level and for continuing to decide on how it is allocated at national level. Furthermore, 
five  called  for  greater  coordination  between  the  funds  and  for  the  possibilities  of  cross-
financing  across  operational  programmes  and  of  opting  for  multi-fund  programmes.  These 
respondents  would  generally  prefer  to  have  one  multi-fund  operational  programme  for  their 
entire territory. 

Regional  and  local  authorities  often  called  for  maintaining  the  specific  role  of  the  ESF 
within  cohesion  policy.  In  particular,  they  called  for  continued  funding  for  education  and 
professional training, social inclusion and, especially, the inclusion of vulnerable groups. The 
contributors  were  generally  in  favour  of  better  coordination  between  the  funds,  allowing 
cross-financing of projects, while still maintaining the current budget structure.  

Social  partners,  non-governmental  organisations  and  other  stakeholders  mostly  called 
for  greater  coordination  between  the  two  funds  and  asked  to  maintain  the  same  budget 
heading for both. Many also shared similar views with other categories of respondents on the 
specific  role  of  the  ESF  and  requested  concentration  of  the  fund  on  both  employment  and 
social  inclusion  priorities,  in  line  with  the  Europe  2020  objectives  and  the  Integrated 
Guidelines. 

20  The  results  of  the  public  consultation  (a  summary  report  and  individual  responses)  can  be  found  at  the 
following webpage:  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=699&langId=en&consultId=6&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes  
21 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfm  

5

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
1.4.2.  Main results of the public consultation on the EGF 

Discussions22  on  the  EGF  showed  an  overwhelming  support  for  a  rapid  crisis  intervention 
instrument in case of large scale redundancies. Nevertheless, the complexity of the procedure 
and  the  slowness  of  the  current  decision  making  process  were  severely  criticised  by  all. 
Furthermore, the differences between the ESF and EGF were the subject of the discussions. 
Some  participants  highlighted  that  the  demarcation  between  these  two  Funds  is  not 
sufficiently clear since both Funds co-finance similar measures.  As a  consequence, possible 
integration  of  the  EGF  into  the  ESF  was  proposed.  Integrated  funds  could  be  implemented 
easier and faster as the ESF has well established structures and procedures.  

However,  other  stakeholders  objected  to  the  possible  merger  of  the  Funds:  the  EGF  would 
lose its flexibility and added value as an emergency instrument as the ESF measures are pre-
programmed  and  cannot  be  shifted  to  deal  easily  with  crisis  situations  caused  by  collective 
redundancies.   

1.4.3.  Main results of the public consultation on the direct management 
instruments 

Feedback  from  both  the  PROGRESS  Key  Stakeholder  Working  Group  and  the  public 
consultation  of  PROGRESS  revealed  a  high  level  of  satisfaction  with  the  programme.  Key 
stakeholders,  who  include  next  to  the  Member  State  representatives  also  social  partner 
organisations and civil  society  organisations, suggested continuing  the  programme  with  few 
improvements relating to:  

-  The dissemination of the PROGRESS outputs and results;  

-  A better mainstreaming of gender equality and anti-discrimination objectives; 

-  Further synergies with other EU financial instruments supporting the Inclusive Growth 

priority, in particular the European Social Fund.  

None of 171 respondents to the public online consultation challenged the need for a successor 
instrument to PROGRESS. Respondents gave a number of reasons for their support: 

-  The  financial  crisis  and  its  impact  on  social  protection  and  equality  perspectives 
underscore  the  need  for  enhanced  coordination  of  employment  and  social  policies 
across  Europe.  The  successor  to  PROGRESS  should  help  to  establish  consensus  on 
the right policy approach on social problems through it support to the Open Method of 
Coordination.   

-  An EU financial instrument is an indispensible tool to enable transnational initiatives 
involving stakeholders on all levels. Activities such as mutual learning and collecting 
and  comparing  data  from  various  Member  States  are  seen  to  be  vital  to  continue 
improving  the  formulation  and  implementation  of  policies  at  EU  and  national  level. 
They  are  also  seen  as  essential  for  improving  understanding  and  ownership  of  EU 
objectives.  

22http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&eventsId=323&furtherEvents=yes 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes 

6

 
 
                                                 
 
-  The  future  EU  financial  instrument  should  have  a  clear  focus  on  international 
cooperation  and  European  level  actions  and  thus  bringing  about  stronger  EU 
dimension and complementarity to the ESF.  

-  Many  respondents  (in  particular  public  authorities)  emphasise  the  importance  of 
monitoring the application of EU legislation in the Member States and stress that this 
objective should remain a key priority for the successor programme.    

Several  respondents  call  for  an  integrated  approach  to  combat  unemployment,  social 
exclusion and poverty. In particular, 79% consider that it is very relevant or relevant for the 
future 
intra-EU  mobility  as  well  as  self-employment  and 
entrepreneurship as means to job creation.  

to  support 

instrument 

A  number  of  respondents  praised  activities  under  the  current  Progress  programme  that 
contributed  to  innovations  in  social  policies  and  confirmed  that  there  was  a  need  for  social 
innovations to combat the negative impacts of the financial crisis. They confirmed that very 
often  government  programs  in  the  field  of  social  policy  suffered  from  a  lack  of  robust 
evidence of what does and does not work. They suggested that the future instrument should 
support social innovation through transnational projects. Yet, identification and promotion of 
innovative  approaches  should  be  accompanied  by  a  sustainable  implementation  strategy.  In 
this context, several respondents indicated that where the successor instrument to PROGRESS 
could identify best practices, the implementation should be a matter for the ESF.   

Regarding  the  geographical  coverage,  respondents  from  non-EU  countries  suggested  that 
greater  synergy  between  the  new  programme  and  the  ESF  could  limit  the  possibility  to 
participate for EEA/EFTA countries and candidate countries.  

Given  that  Progress  Microfinance  has  only  become  fully  operational  six  months  ago,  no 
public  consultation  has  been  carried  out  for  this  instrument.  Nevertheless,  stakeholder 
organisations  like  the  European  Microfinance  Network  (EMN)  have  expressed  their  strong 
support for a continuation of funding for microfinance after 2013.  

The stakeholders' survey within the independent EURES evaluation in 2009 revealed that the 
EURES  Job  Mobility  Portal  is  appreciated  by  jobseekers,  job  changers  and  employers  who 
clearly see the benefit in being able to access or post information on vacancies across Europe. 
The opportunity to upload CVs onto the Portal was considered the most useful service on the 
Job Mobility Portal. The EURES adviser network adds value to the services provided on the 
Job Mobility Portal. These two mechanisms complement and reinforce each other. Evidence 
from the jobseekers and job changers survey indicated that those jobseekers and job changers 
who  applied  for  jobs  and  who  received  support  from  a  EURES  adviser  were  slightly  more 
likely to get a job than those who simply used the Job Mobility Portal. It was indicated as well 
that  EURES  plays  a  role  in  individuals’  job  search  activities;  hence  can  be  considered  as 
having a role in minimising the costs of transitions between and into jobs.  

The  adequacy  and  appropriateness  of  the  data  provided  on  the  Job  Mobility  Portal  were 
however found questionable. While the views from managers and advisers vary and tended to 
be negative; employers, jobseekers and job changers were generally more positive about the 
available information.  

7

 
 
2.  Problem definition 

2.1. Description of the problem 

Europe's  societies  are  confronted  with  multiple  challenges  stemming  from  increased  global 
competition,  the  fast  pace  of  technological  progress,  demographic  trends,  and  climate 
change23.  These  challenges  have  been  compounded  by  the  recent  economic  and  financial 
crisis,  which  has  hit  all  Member  States  and  regions  in  the  EU,  leading  to  record 
unemployment levels in some Member States, especially among the most vulnerable groups 
and the young.  

Despite  significant  structural  support  to  help  the  working  population  to  adapt  to  a  changing 
economic context, it is often not possible to avoid sudden shocks caused to the local, regional 
or  national  economy  by  the  unforeseen  closure  of  enterprises.  Many  Member  States  and 
regions face difficulties completing the transition to more competitive activities and there are 
still considerable disparities, in employment and social inclusion, levels of health and in the 
availability of and access to education.  

Hence  the  need  for  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  and  regions  to  equip  themselves  with 
policies  to  keep  pace  with  these  trends,  to  promote  economic  development  and  social 
cohesion,  to  help  people  adapt  to  changing  circumstances,  and  to  provide  them  the  tools  to 
harness the opportunities provided by European integration. It also pushes for a reassessment 
and eventual modernisation of the instruments already in place.  

Health  inequalities  persist  not  only  between  the  EU  Member  States,  but  also  within  EU 
Member  States  across  different  population  groups24.  This  is  particularly  important  in  the 
context  of  the  ageing  population.  Poor  health  entails  high  economic  costs  and  needs  to  be 
addressed to ensure longer working lives, higher productivity, employment and sustainability 
of social protection systems.  

As industry takes advantage of the economic opportunities provided by the transition to a low 
carbon economy and the growing importance of the knowledge economy, the need to ensure a 
skilled  work  force,  especially  in  the  construction  sectors,  technical  professions,  engineering 
and  research,  becomes  more  pressing.  Furthermore  the  need  for  structural  adjustment  of 
carbon  intensive  industries  creates  demand  for  requalification  and  adaption  of  existing  skill 
sets and working methods.   

Moreover,  it  is  also  important  to  retain  as  many  highly  skilled  workers  as  possible,  and  to 
attract  the  right  skills  for  the  expected  increase  in  labour  demands.  In  this  context,  the 
attractiveness  of  the  research  profession  in  Europe  must  be  increased  in  order  to  provide  a 
workforce qualified to cope with the grand challenges facing our societies.  

European financial support can help to coordinate efforts and to develop and introduce active 
labour  market  policies,  effective  lifelong  learning,  instruments  to  promote  labour  mobility, 
and adequate social security systems. Action at European level is required, all the more so, as 
a  lack  of  economic,  territorial  and  social  cohesion  would  hinder  the  Union's  further 
development and undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.  

The crisis also highlighted close links and spill-over between EU-27 economies, especially in 
the  euro  area,  which  means  reforms  or  the  lack  of  them,  in  one  country,  affect  the 

23 COM(2010)2020 
24 Commission Communication 'Solidarity in health: reducing health inequalities in the EU', COM(2009) 567/4 

8

 
 
                                                 
performance  of  the  others.  Common  action  taken  by  the  EU  as  a  response  to  the  crisis, 
particularly  through  the  adoption  of  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan  and  common 
action to stabilise the banking system, proved to be effective, which means that coordinated 
actions at the EU level are more effective in addressing common challenges than individual 
actions  of  single  Member  States.  To  be  cost-effective,  reforms  also  need  to  be  as  far  as 
possible based on evidence. In this context, social experimentation, as part of an innovation 
approach,  can  be  a  powerful  tool  to  guide  the  reforms  and  policy  adaptations  needed  to 
implement Europe 2020. 

However, the development and dissemination of social innovation approach on a larger scale 
in the European Union is hampered by: 

- 

- 

insufficient  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  the  sector:  grass  roots  organisations,  social 
enterprise and social entrepreneurship activities, public sector organisations;  

fragmentation  of  efforts  and  resources,  lack  of  transparency  and  visibility,  limited 
financial support and insufficient technical skills that can support organisations to develop 
and deliver social innovations; 

-  poor diffusion, and little scale-up of good practices; 
-  poor methods of impact evaluation of actions and policies25.  

A  lack  of  adequate  evidence  also  complicates  policy  co-ordination  at  EU  level  despite  the 
presence  and  acknowledgement  of  common  goals.  Importantly,  ensuring  such  adequacy 
requires  not  only  generation  of  new  information  (such  as  comparable  statistics,  sufficient 
analytical  knowledge),  but  also  effective  sharing  of  existing  one  (such  as  available  good 
practices) through mutual learning processes such as periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer 
review. To fully use such evidence stakeholders should reach a common understanding of the 
meaning of essential elements of the status quo. This is a prerequisite for the elaboration of 
consensual policy solutions. Therefore good policy making requires an active involvement of 
all relevant stakeholders throughout the policy process.  

low-skilled  workers,  migrants,  etc.), 

In  order  to  ensure  equal  protection  of  European  citizens  in  the  workplace,  particularly  in 
sectors considered to be at risk and for categories of workers who are most vulnerable (young 
people,  workers  on  fixed-term  contracts, 
the 
implementation of EU legislation has to be strengthened. The Commission, as the guardian of 
the Treaties, has to ensure that the EU directives are transposed and implemented correctly, 
and assist Member States in doing this. Such problems arise primarily as a result of national 
administrations hesitating to invest themselves in the EU’s decisions, which imply changes in 
specific  approaches  such  as  guaranteeing  administrative  capacity,  screening  domestic  rules 
and  procedures,  a  systematic  discussion  between  relevant  authorities  across  the  EU, ex-post 
evaluations,  the  identification  and  spread  of  best  practices,  as  well  as  extension  of  training 
programmes  for  judges  and  public  administrations.  To  address  these  challenges,  a  cultural 
change  is  required,  which  includes  a  shift  from  increasing  new  EU  law  to  an  emphasis  on 
effective application26. 

The  preparations  for  the  next  MFF  provide  an  opportunity  to  fully  align  the  current  set  of 
instruments  to  the  Europe  2020  objectives  in  order  to  deliver  on  specific  priorities  and 
initiatives, ensure complementarity and synergies, and simplify and mainstream activities in 

25  See  BEPA,  'Empowering  people,  driving  change:  Social  innovation  in  the  European  Union',  2010;  OECD, 
'Fostering innovation to address social challenges', 2011.  
26  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee.  Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 
How to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation, 28 September 2005. 

9

 
 
                                                 
order to maximise the impact of the funding. This includes also the question of how best to 
coordinate the financial instruments at the disposal of the European Commission.   

2.2. Lessons from ESF implementation 

2.2.1  Effects 

The  policy  objectives  for  the  ESF  are  defined  in  the  Treaty  (article  162)  and  in  the  fund 
regulations. They are however set in broad political terms such as supporting European policy 
objectives of economic and social cohesion and the European Employment Strategy (EES).  

Moreover, the ex post  evaluations of  the 2000-2006 programming period have shown some 
weaknesses  in  the  ESF  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  and  also  that  at  the  level  of 
Operational Programmes objectives and targets are not always easily identifiable. These result 
in difficulties to aggregate information at EU level and to assess longer term effects of ESF 
interventions on the individual participants and on Member States' economies and systems at 
large.  It  is  only  with  the  2007-2013  programming  period  that  a  minimum  set  of  common 
output indicators related to participants characteristics have been introduced.  

Preliminary results for 2010 show that the ESF has reached over 15 million participants. Over 
a quarter are young people less than 25 years in age27. However, data quality remains uneven, 
data  collection  methods  vary  greatly  among  MS,  and  no  information  is  provided  about 
intensity of support to individuals.  

These factors and the sheer diversity of ESF programming in the Member States and regions 
as  well  as  the  context  sensitivity  of  social  policy  make  it  difficult  to  provide  general 
statements.  Yet  evaluations  and  academic  research  do  offer  some  insights  on  outcomes  and 
effects of ESF.  

The  ESF  contributes  to  social  and  territorial  cohesion  by  driving  innovation  in  labour 
activation, education and social policies in the Member States.  

The ESF is an essential instrument to implement and disseminate concepts and reforms linked 
to  the  EES28.  ESF  interventions  in  systems  and  structures  considerably  supported  the 
European Employment Strategy goals and facilitated policy convergence at European level29. 
Focusing on European policy objectives means that even in richer Member States or regions, 
a  relatively  small  amount  of  ESF  funding  can  trigger  significant  changes  in  the  areas  of 
employment  policy30,  education  and  lifelong  learning31.  Also  horizontal  aspects  such  as  the 
systematic attention paid to innovation, networking, transnationality, sustainability and equal 

27 Source: SFC 2007. See also: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=66&langId=en  
28 Reports of the ESF ex-post evaluation (2011) and of the Evaluation of the ESF contribution to the European 

Employment Strategy (2010) 

29 Report of the ex-post evaluation of the "Impact on the functioning of the labour market and on the investment 

in human capital infrastructure through support to systems and structures". 

30 Verschraegen, G.;  B. Vanhercke and R. Verpoorten, 2010. The European Social Fund and domestic activation 

policies: Europeanization mechanisms. Journal of European Social Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–18. 

31 See for instance: Evaluation of measures for education and training under the ESF, February 2008.  Brine, J., 
2002. Further education participation, European Expansion and European Erasure. British Education Research 
Journal,  Vol.  28,  No  1.  Brine,  J.,  2004.  The  European  Social  fund:  the  Commission,  the  Member  State  and 
levels of governance. European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 3, No 4. 

10

 
 
                                                 
opportunities32
  have  had  strong  positive  impacts  in  the  Member  States.  Likewise,  ESF  has 
provided incentives for enterprises to engage in training of the employed33. In addition, many 
Member States have successfully used ESF in relation to achieving their climate objectives or 
implementing their low-carbon strategies34. 

ESF has also provided support for institutional  and administrative capacity building beyond 
the specific policy fields of employment, education and social inclusion. A study of capacity 
building  interventions  concluded  that  there  were  considerable  achievements  at  the  level  of 
outputs  and  results.  However,  there  is  also  evidence  to  suggest  a  certain  lack  of  impetus  in 
administrative  capacity  building  in  some  Member  States  which  continues  to  impede  their 
effective absorption and implementation of ESF assistance35. 

Nevertheless, referring to the ex-post evaluation of the 2000-2006 ESF support to the Open 
Method  of  Coordination  in  social  protection  and  social  inclusion  the  SPC  called  on  the 
Commission to make the ESF an instrument better fitted to support social protection, health 
and long-term care strands.   

 The ESF contributes to social and territorial cohesion by helping poorer regions to catch up 

ESF  is  also  a  cohesion  instrument  which  channels  most  of  the  money  to  the  disadvantaged 
parts  of  the  EU  and  to  the  most  disadvantaged  people.  It  reduces  the  negative  impact  of 
income disparities on the capacity of the individual countries and regions to invest in human 
capital,  which  is  in  turn  an  essential  condition  for  a  sustainable  catching  up  process  (see 
Figure 1).  

During the period 2000-2006 one third of all persons having benefitted from Active Labour 
Market Policy (ALMP) measures in the Member States were supported by the ESF36. Figure 1 
shows  the  volume  of  ALMP  (2008)  and  ESF  average  annual  allocations  for  the  ongoing 
period.  

The  ESF  has  been  a  major  source  of  support  for  active  labour  market  policies  in  the  new 
Member States during the crisis37. It has been the instrument to introduce or strengthen active 
labour market policies in those states that were facing budgetary restrictions and supported the 
labour market merely with passive labour market policies (supporting household incomes), as 
it has been the case f.i. in SK. 

32 Begleitung und Bewertung des ESF, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens, Bewertungsbericht 2009, Zweiter Teil, verabschiedet durch den Begleitausschuss im August 2010. 
and Ecotec, Cross-cutting themes research project, final report, April 2006. 

33 Wagner, G., 2009. Begleitende Evaluierung für den Europäischen Sozialfonds im Freistaat Sachsen 2007-2013 
–  Evaluierung  der  Prioritätsachse  A,  ISW  Halle/S.,  Sept.  2009.  and    Measure  2.3  scheme  a)  of  the  Polish 
Human Resource Development Single Operational Programme 2004 – 2006. and Kasemets, L., K. & K. Klaas, 
2008.  Evaluation  of  the  results  of  labour  market  projects  funded  by  the  ESF  directed  to  workers  declared 
redundant and their applicability in labour market policies, Tallinn 2008. 

34 European Commission "The European Social Fund: sustainable development and eco-technologies", 2010. 
35 Ecorys. Assessment of administrative and institutional capacity building interventions and future needs in the 

context of European Social Fund. Final report. December 2010. 

36 Ex-post evaluation of the 2000-2006 ESF programmes. 
37 Draft interim report of the "Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis". 

11

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1. ALMP and ESF allocation in % of GDP 

The ESF contributes to social and territorial cohesion by investing into human capital  

An  extensive  review  of  literature  and  the  assistance  of  a  panel  of  international  experts38 
concluded that the training of employed people is socially rewarding but often not profitable 
at  the  level  of  the  firm.  Also,  the  training  of  unemployed  people  is  socially  profitable,  in 
particular  for  those  less  likely  to  find  a  job  themselves,  and  under  the  condition  that  it  is 
associated  with  job-search  assistance.  However,  training  needs  to  be  seen  as  a  medium  to 
long-term investment. Positive impacts like shorter unemployment spells and higher income 
often become visible only several years after the actual intervention. Impact in the short term 
is  often  negative  because  people  stop  seeking  jobs  when  they  participate  in  a  training 
programme (lock-in effect). However, the study also concluded there were still considerable 
knowledge gaps such as the impact of training on workers ‘at-risk’ of unemployment, or the 
fact that a trainee may find a job at the expense of someone else (substitution effect). Also the 
impact of contextual factors, which might lead to e.g. gender specific effectiveness of training 
is not yet understood. 

Several  studies  also  point  to  potentially  significant  returns  to  investments  in  education  and 
lifelong  learning,  in  terms  of  both  earnings  and  social  inclusion39.  There  is  a  positive  and 
statistically significant relationship between the  level of cognitive skills in a population and 

38  Study  on  the  return  on  ESF  investment  in  Human  capital  by  Eureval/Ecorys/Rambøll  Management  for  DG 

EMPL and completed in (August 2010).   

39  Blanden,  J.,  F.  Buscha,  P.  Sturgis  and  P.  Urwin,  2010.  Measuring  the  Returns  to  Lifelong  Learning.  CEE 
discussion  papers,  CEEDP0110.  Centre  for  the  Economics  of  Education,  London  School  of  Economics  and 
Political Science, London, UK. 

12

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
economic growth. Achieving the official EU benchmark of less than 15 % low-achievers in 
basic skills by 2020 would amount to a gain of € 21 trillion40.   

Though  most  existing  studies  do  not  distinguish  between  ESF  and  non-ESF  supported 
measures, there is evidence that the first perform at least as well as the latter41.  

The ESF contributes to social cohesion by supporting those otherwise forgotten  

Following  the  observation  that  Member  States  tend  to  neglect  the  specific  problems  of 
migrants  and  minorities,  the  ESF  has  strengthened  the  attention  paid  to  the  social  and 
economic  inclusion  of  these  groups42.  Several  evaluations  confirm  that  these  groups  would 
otherwise not or insufficiently have benefitted from support programmes43. 

Income  support  measures  are  currently  only  financed  if  accompanying  activation  measures. 
However, a number of stakeholders have been pleading for widening the scope of the ESF to 
include  income  protection  instruments44.  Others,  notably  Trade  Unions,  have  been  arguing 
against on the ground that the ESF is foremost an employment instrument. 

Yet considerable differences remain between Member States and regions.  

The table below gives the average values of the Europe 2020 headline targets directly relevant 
for  the  ESF,  and  their  spread  calculated  as  the  difference  between  the  maximum  and 
minimum  value  per  Member  State.  Three  of  the  four  indicators  denote  a  positive  evolution 
(less  school  drop-outs,  more  persons  with  tertiary  education,  and  fewer  people  at  risk  of 
poverty or exclusion). Also the differences between Member States have reduced in all cases. 
Yet they remain considerable (see Table 1).  

Table 1. Disparities between Member States 

40  Hanushek,  E.A.  and  Woessmann,  L.  (2010)  The  Cost  of  Low  Educational  Achievement  in  the  European 
Union.  Analytical  Report  for  the  European  Commission  prepared  by  the  European  Expert  Network  on 
Economics of Education (EENEE) 

41 Deeke, A., C. Ohlert, 2009. Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen während Kurzarbeit nach endgültigem Arbeitsausfall 
–  Analysen  zur  Förderung  im  Rahmen  des  ESF-BA-Programms  2000  bis  2006  und  zum  Verbleib  nach  der 
Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009.  

42  Report  on  the  Evaluation  of  "ESF  Support  for  Enhancing  Access  to  the  Labour  Market  and  the  Social 

Inclusion of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities". 

43  Report  on  the  Evaluation  of  "ESF  Support  for  Enhancing  Access  to  the  Labour  Market  and  the  Social 

Inclusion of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities" but also  
Ad-hoc-Evaluierung  der  Aktion  A.5  –  Förderung  des  Unternehmergeistes  –  im  Rahmen  des  ESF-
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME Hamburg 2007-2013 
Deeke, Axel, 2010. Arbeitsmarktpolitik mit dem Europäischen Sozialfonds – Analysen zur Umsetzung und zu 
den Wirkungen der Ergänzung des SGB III aus Mitteln des ESF – Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ESF-
BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010 
 Department  for  Work  and  Pensions,  Research  Report  No  376  (Cubie,  A./O.  Baker),  European  Social  Fund 
Objective 3, The 2005 Beneficiary Survey for England, 2006 

44 See for instance an Italian discussion paper for the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs 

Council (dated 1/3/2010) 

13

 
 
 
                                                 
 
  
 
Europe 2020 Headline target indicators45 

Employment rate of 20 - 64 year olds 
School drop-out rates 
Proportion of 30-34 year old having completed tertiary 
education 

2007 

Latest 

Average  Spread  Average  Spread 
18.8% 
70.0% 
32.2% 
15.1% 

68.6% 
14.1% 

21.6% 
34.2% 

Target 

75% 
< 10% 

30.0% 

34.0% 

33.6% 

31.8% 

>40% 

Number of persons at risk of poverty or exclusion 

24.5% 

46.8% 

23.1% 

32.2% 

- 20 
million 

Despite  methodological  limitations  deriving  from  monitoring,  evaluating  and  reporting  on  a 
wide and complex set of actions embedded in a very diverse local context, the overall effects 
of the ESF are found to be satisfactory. The ESF is on the one hand confirmed to support the 
European level strategies (the social aspects of the Lisbon strategy) and at the same time to be 
an  important  instrument  of  employment,  education  and  social  inclusion  policies  in  the 
Member  States  and  regions.  The  ESF  has  been  quite  successful  at  striking  this  balance 
between  local  and  European  level  requirements.  Nevertheless,  some  fine-tuning  may  be 
necessary to reflect a bigger emphasis given at European level to social inclusion and the fight 
against poverty.  

2.2.2.  Practical implementation 

Payments to Managing Authorities are lagging behind… 

Figure  2  below  compares  the  rate  of  payments46  from  the  Commission  to  the  Managing 
Authorities  for  the  current  programming  period  (solid  line)  with  the  previous  one  (dotted 
line). It shows that the 2007-2013 programmes started comparatively slowly. It is only in the 
n3rd year (2009) that payments to Member States really started to pick up. By the end of June 
2011, 27% of the budgeted amounts for the ESF have actually been paid out to the MS.  This 
is less than in the previous programming period.    

Based47 on the national implementation data provided by the Managing Authorities, the risk 
of  automatic  de-commitment  by  the  end  of  2011  was  estimated  at  €  524  million.  The 
concerned countries are IT, BE, GR, DK, NL and LU.  Moreover, 26 OPs have been put into 
reserve and thirteen OPs are interrupted or suspended. Consequently € 808 million of interim 
payments remain blocked. The potential amount of the interim payments blocked due to the 
reservations, interruptions and suspensions is currently estimated at € 2.4 billion though this is 
7 % less as compared to the end of the first quarter of 2011. 

… yet implementation is stronger than payments to Managing Authorities suggest 

Payments  to  Managing  Authorities  are  not  the  only  indicator  of  actual  implementation. 
Commitments  and  payments  from  Managing  Authorities  to  final  beneficiaries  are  other 
equally  important  indicators.  By  the  middle  of  2011  a  number  of  Member  States  estimated 
having  already  committed  the  whole  or  nearly  the  whole  of  their  ESF  allocations  (Ireland, 
Latvia and Netherlands).  

Figure  2  shows  how  much  Managing  Authorities  have  committed  to  beneficiaries  and  how 
much they actually paid out. However these figures are provided by the Member Sates on a 

45 Source: Eurostat. Latest values refer to 2010 except for the persons at risk of poverty or exclusion which refers 
to 2009. 
46 The data are taken from SFC (for the 2000-2006 programmes) and SFC2007 (for the 2007-2013 programmes). 
47 Estimates from the end of June 2011. 

14

 
 
 
                                                 
voluntary basis starting with the first quarter of 2009, and need to be interpreted with caution. 
Nevertheless two points are evident. Implementation really took off only in 2009 and there are 
considerable  time  lags  between  committing  money  to  projects,  paying  the  beneficiaries  and 
being refunded by the Commission. 

Figure 2. Rate of budget implementation 

100%

)

%
n
i
(
n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

a

l

a
t
o
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

75%

50%

25%

0%

0

Paid to MS 2007-2013
Paid to MS 2000-2006
Committed by MA to beneficiaries
Paid by MA to beneficiaries

2

4

6

8

10

12

Year of implementation

There  are  several  reasons  for  this  situation.  Commitments  by  Managing  authorities  to 
beneficiaries will not all translate later on in actual payment by the Commission to Managing 
Authorities. There are several steps, each implying a time lag to comply with and each step, 
potentially  reducing  the  volume  of  payment:  not  all  commitments  result  in  actually 
implemented projects; other projects may suffer considerable delays, some payment requests 
are late, rejected or suspended. Other reasons are: the overlap with and the extension of the 
previous  programming  period,  the  late  approval  of  some  Operational  Programmes  and  the 
financial  crisis.  However,  delays  are  due  also  to  deficits  in  administrative  capacity  in 
particular for those managing the ESF for the first time and difficulties with the compliance 
assessment.  

Summing  up,  there  are  some  things  which  could  be  done  to  speed  up  payments  to  member 
states. This concerns speeding up the various steps, so that the time lags become smaller. In 
particular  in  the  new  Member  States  increasing  experience  with  ESF  will  thereby  be  very 
helpful,  but  also  the  simplification  efforts  discussed  later  will  help.  There  are  some  other 
aspects,  like  the  number  of  steps  as  such,  which  can  for  audit  reasons  not  significantly  be 
reduced  and  finally  there  are  issues  –  such  as  the  slow  start  of  implementation  –  which 
actually do not require specific regulatory action. 

Conformity with audit rules has improved compared with previous programming period 

The  error  rate  is  a  measure  of  the  errors  representing  deviation  from  the  regulatory 
requirements designed to promote sound financial management. An error does not necessarily 
denote  fraud.  In  many  cases,  the  error  rate  is  rather  an  indication  of  the  complexity  of  the 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
system  to  account  for  the  expenditures  incurred.  For  instance,  the  ESF  management 
department  of  the  Czech  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs  has  reported  that  73%  of 
invoices attached to payment claims concerned indirect costs. As a result 73 % of the effort 
and human resources were spent on verifications and controls of invoices representing only 22 
% of the financial allocation and without a clear link to the outputs and results of operations. 
In this context it is also important to stress that most ESF operations are small. Half the ESF 
operations have a budget of less than 50 000 € and more than 70% of ESF projects are below 
100 000 €48. Also the final beneficiaries include many NGOs particularly for operations for 
social inclusion and the fight against poverty. 

Comparing  the  previous  and  the  current  programming  period  shows  a  shift  towards  lower 
error  rates.  This  is  reflected  in  the  median  error  rate  which  was  2.1  for  the  2000-2006 
programming  period  while  it  currently  stands  at  1.7.  This  means  that  half  the  Operational 
Programmes  have  an  error  well  below  the  2%  threshold  set  by  the  ECA.  Nevertheless,  the 
average error rate is at 2.5 – 3 %49 still above the threshold. There is therefore a need for a 
continued  further  reduction  which  is  expected  to  be  achieved  through  further  simplification 
and increased experience in managing authorities. 

Simplified cost calculation methods are gaining wide acceptance by Managing Authorities 

The current programming period offers three methods to simplify costs accounting for grants: 
the use of flat rates for the declaration of indirect costs, the use of standard scale of unit costs 
and of lump sums. Flat rates were available as from the start of the programming period. The 
use of standard scales of unit cots and of lump sums was introduced in 2008 under the crisis 
recovery plan.   

As  of  June  2011,  schemes  for  flat  rates  for  indirect  costs  have  been  approved  for  37 
Operational  Programmes  in  16  Member  States.  Proposals  for  a  further  22  Operational 
Programmes in 8 more members States are being reviewed by the Commission, two of these 
are about to be finalised.  

Standard scales of unit costs and of lump sums are expected to facilitate the move towards a 
performance  based  system.  Their  introduction  is  not  submitted  to  examination  by  the 
Commission.  They  are  clearly  being  increasingly  taken  up,  for  instance  in  Spain,  Czech 
Republic,  France,  Italy  and  Latvia.  In  the  UK  –  England  and  Belgium-Flanders,  standard 
scales of unit costs and lump sums now account for a significant share of total costs.  

Experience with public tendering instead of calls for proposals (for instance in Greece and in 
the  UK)  and  with  simplified  cost  options  shows  that  it  is  possible  to  simplify  for  the 
beneficiaries and dramatically reduce error rates. The question is then why these systems have 
not been adopted even more widely. According to stakeholders these systems have not been 
adopted even more widely for essentially three reasons: 

1.  Some Managing Authorities worry about the legal certainty these systems offer. Could 
the  bases  on  which  different  rates  or  lump-sums  were  calculated  not  be  questioned 
triggering thereby large corrections? 

2.  While these systems are believed to lead to reduced overall workloads, there is also a 
shifting  of  workloads.  Final  beneficiaries  profit  directly  of  a  simplified  system  to 
claim  and  justify  expenses.  Managing  Authorities  must  invest  more  resources  to  put 

48 Source DG EMPL: sample of 176 operations selected for the audit plan 2011 
49 AAR 2010 

16

 
 
                                                 
the systems into place before projects are selected and implemented than for the more 
"traditional"  payment  against  expenditure.  This  increased  investment  ex-ante  should 
be  off-set  by  a  reduced  workload  at  the  stage  of  control  and  verifications  of 
expenditure  after  project  implementation.    However,  the  actual  balance  can  not  be 
checked. 

3.  There is a natural reluctance to move from a familiar system to an untested one. Some 
Managing  Authorities  are  inclined  to  wait  for  more  experiences  before  adopting  the 
systems themselves.  

There  is  therefore  a  continued  need  to  promote  these  simplified  costs  systems  and  push  for 
further simplifications. 

High  consistency  between  programming  and  actual  implementation,  concentration  on  very 
few priority themes and strong link to Lisbon Strategy 

Comparing  the  amounts  allocated  indicatively  to  priority  themes50  at  the  stage  of 
programming with those effectively spent, give an indication of the concentration of the ESF 
Operational Programmes and their consistency over time.  

Overall there are 86 priority themes, which cover all expenditure under the Structural Funds.    
Twenty  seven  out  of  these  86  priority  themes  are  currently  used  by  the  2007-2013  ESF 
Operational  Programmes.  Fifteen  are  "typical  ESF  priority  themes",  two  more  refer  to 
technical assistance.  Most of the 27 priority themes 'used' under the ESF are directly linked to 
the  Lisbon  Strategy51.  They  account  for  93%  of  the  indicative  allocations  set  in  the 
operational programmes and 94% of actual spending in 2009.  

The  ESF  is  strongly  concentrated  on  a  limited  number  of  priority  themes.  Six  priority 
themes52 account for more than 75% of all allocations and actual spending (2009 data) in 20 
Member  States  and  in  more  than  half  of  the  Operational  Programmes  (68  out  of  115,  2009 
data).  On average only 5 priority themes are needed to account for at least three quarters of 
spending  of  an  Operational  Programme,  and  the  maximum  is  seven  (see  Table  2).  No 
significant differences were found between Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and 
Employment regions.  

Table 2.  Number of priority themes needed to account for a given concentration of ESF 
expenditure at the level of an Operational Programme (Source: SFC2007 for 2009) 

25% 

50% 

75% 

90% 

min 

max 

Average 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

4 

7 

11 

2 

3 

5 

9 

50  Priority  themes  are  set  in  the  General  Regulation  and  in  the  Implementing  Regulation.  They  are  used  to 
characterise  the  expenditures  in  terms  of  their  objectives  or  type  of  intervention.  These  data  refer  to  the 
operational programmes as a whole.  
51 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 – Annex IV 
52 They are: 66 – Implementing active and preventive measures on the labour market; 73 – Measures to increase 
participation in education and training […], 71 – Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment [..], 62 – 
Development  of  life-long  learning  systems  and  strategies  in  firms  […],  72  –  Design,  introduction  and 
implementation of reforms in education and training systems […], and 74 – Developing human potential in the 
field of research and innovation […] 

17

 
 
 
                                                 
It  is  not  possible  to  assess  whether  this  observed  concentration  is  optimal  or  not.  Firstly 
priority  axes  form  the  basis  of  reporting  on  physical  achievement,  not  the  priority  themes 
which  run  across  the  whole  programmes.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  directly  link 
achievements  with  the  level  of  concentration  of  funding  on  some  priority  themes  or  not. 
Secondly, the ESF is not the only source of funding in the policy domains covered. National 
and  regional  funds  (not  only  the  co-funding)  may  be  much  more  important  in  volume. 
National and regional authorities could decide to allocate EU funds to one or several policy 
areas without that any changes to the overall level of resources available to each policy area. 
Concentration  or  spread  of  ESF  resources  does  therefore  not  necessarily  reflect  overall 
concentration or spread at a national level. This makes it impossible to objectively attribute 
observed changes at the macro level (for instance overall employment rate) to actual degree of 
concentration of ESF programmes.  

While  there  is  convincing  evidence  of  high  concentration  of  ESF  expenditure  on  a  small 
number  of  European  level  priority  themes,  this  does  not  avoid  that  managing  authorities 
disburse the funds though a high number of relatively small projects (half the ESF operations 
have a budget of less than 50 000 €). There is no indication that this is in any way detrimental 
to  the  actual  overall  impact  of  the  operational  programmes.  Implementation  requires 
considerable  local  knowledge.  In  a  situation  of  shared  management  project  selection  and 
follow-up is primarily the competence and responsibility of the managing authority.  

Administrative costs 

There is a natural tension between reducing administrative cost, and maintaining high quality 
financial management. One complaint often heard is that the administrative burden imposed 
by  the  ESF  (and  the  Structural  Funds  more  widely)  is  disproportionately  heavy.  Ongoing 
studies (for the ESF and for the ERDF and the CF) to define more precisely the administrative 
costs associated with cohesions policy operational programmes have yet to be completed. An 
indication is that the current Regulation foresees that up to 4% of the funds can be allocated to 
Technical Assistance yet current allocations are well below, at 3%.  

The extensive and thorough 2008 report on the future of the Funds from the House of Lords 
provides  further  indications53.  The  report  stated  that  "the  evidence  received  did  not 
demonstrate  that  the  cost  of  administration,  relative  to  the  total  size  of  the  budget,  is 
significant  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Extrapolation  to  countries  receiving  larger  contributions 
from  the  funds  might  suggest  further  efficiencies  and  we  dismiss  witnesses’  claims  that  the 
regional policies are beset by a costly bureaucracy". 

2.3. Lessons from EGF implementation 

2.3.1.  Effects 

Experience  gained  with  the  EGF  shows  that,  although  the  package  of  active  labour  market 
measures  proposed  for  EGF  funding  differs  significantly  from  one  application  to  another, 
common characteristics are that: 

− 

the  support  targets  a  clearly  identified  group  of  dismissed  workers  with  a  common 
dismissal background, 

53 House of Lords European Union Committee report 19 "The future of EU Regional policy", 16 July 2008  

18

 
 
                                                 
 
− 

the package of measures is discussed in great detail with all stakeholders involved, not 
only trade unions and employer organisations, but also local and regional authorities, 
training institutes, and others, 

− 

the measures provide tailor made solutions for a specific group of workers.  

As  a  result  the  EGF  delivers  some  highly  individualised  and  innovative  measures.  Sweden, 
for  example,  tested  the  concept  of  'generation  change'  in  the  application  for  workers  made 
redundant  by  Volvo.  Under  this  innovative  measure  a  redundant  worker  is  continuously 
mentored  by  an  older  and  experienced  worker  seeking  to  hand  on  some  valuable  skills. 
Germany  tested  the  concept  of  continuous  reflection  and  support  in  'peer  groups'.  It  was 
initially  successfully  tested  in  the  application  related  to  workers  dismissed  by  the  mobile 
phone  manufacturer  BenQ  and  later  proposed  in  all  further  German  EGF  applications. 
Another  innovative  measure  in  Germany  was  the  selection  of  coaches  to  match  the  need  of 
particular  groups  of  dismissed  workers  (e.g.:  coaches  with  a  migration  background  for  ex-
workers with a migration background so as to reduce communication obstacles). 

In  the  period  2007  –  2010  EGF  support  has  been  requested  for  72 537  workers  being 
dismissed  by  6 054  enterprises  in  18  Member  States.  The  enterprises  belonged  to  a  wide 
variety  of  economic  sectors,  such  as  automotive,  machinery,  textiles,  construction,  printing 
and publishing industry, electronic equipment, basic metals, shoe manufacture, shipbuilding, 
furniture, crystal glass, carpentry and joinery. Furthermore in some Member States the EGF 
has contributed to a green restructuring of the economy54 . 

An analysis based on the data available with the European Restructuring Monitor indicate that 
for  the  period  2009  –  2010  the  EGF  has  been  able  to  assist  about  10  %  of  all  dismissed 
workers in the EU. Experience so far suggests that the reintegration rate is around 40 % after 
12 months and further positive impact can be observed over a longer period of time55.  

2.3.2.  Practical implementation 

The  EGF  has  high  visibility  as  it  is  granted  on  a  case  by  case  basis  and  it  creates  big 
expectations amongst dismissed workers. The Fund is to act as an emergency, short term and 
immediate instrument.  However, it takes from 8 months to 15 months (more than 11 months 
on average) between the application and the payment date. Because of constraints on Member 
States' finances, Member States are usually reluctant to start and pre-finance the active labour 
market measures in the absence of a confirmation by the Commission on the eligibility of the 
case. 

The  main  underlying  driver  of  this  problem  is  the  complex  procedure56  to  secure  the 
allocation of funds for EGF assistance. The EGF is currently funded outside the MFF. Every 
application submitted by a Member State requires an in-depth assessment by the Commission, 
followed by a Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council. After 
the  Decision  is  adopted  by  both  arms  of  the  Budgetary  Authority,  the  Commission  takes  a 

- 

& 

Managing 

Anticipating 

Restructuring 

54 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=819&langId=en.) 
55 The mid-term evaluation of the EGF is currently being carried out; therefore it is not possible to provide more 
evidence of the EGF outcomes for the purpose of this Impact Assessment. The evaluation is carried out by GHK. 
The final report is expected in December 2011. 
56 The arrangements are covered under point 28 of the Inter-institutional Agreement (OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1) 
between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial 
management.  EGF  applications  are  funded  through  unspent  margins  or  cancelled  commitments  from  the 
previous years.  For each application the Commission has to make a Proposal to deploy the EGF. 

Synthesis 

Report: 

(see 

EU 

19

 
 
                                                 
Financing  Decision  which  allows  it  to  pay  out  the  approved  contribution  to  the  applicant 
Member  State.  Of  the  total  period  of  eleven  months,  about  three  months  are  spent  on 
procedures (translations, Inter Service Consultations, etc.). 

While  ESF  and  EGF  operate  in  similar  circumstances,  the  EGF  is  seen  as  the  emergency 
instrument  to  tackle  unforeseen  mass  redundancies  and  the  ESF  to  deal  with  the  more  long 
term  structural  elements.  However,  optimum  use  is  not  always  made  of  these  synergies 
between the EGF and the ESF. Even though management and control systems for the EGF in 
most Member States are very similar to the ones used for the ESF, Member States had to set 
up parallel structures for management and control. 

A further problem arises from the absence of a constant expenditure pattern as a consequence 
of  the  unforeseeable  nature  of  redundancy  events  triggering  applications  for  EGF  support. 
Experience  has  shown  that  the  amounts  which  are  needed  vary  from  year  to  year:  in  2007 
demand  for  EGF  support  reached  €  51,8  million,  in  2008  € 20,6  million,  in  2009  €  131,7 
million and in 2010 € 132,5 million. This makes it difficult to programme with a high degree 
of certainty the budgetary needs of the Fund.  

The  current  EGF  eligibility  criteria  and  measures  are  also  not  adapted  to  the  situation  of 
farmers who might be negatively affected by trade agreements. 

2.4. Lessons from the direct management instruments 

2.4.1.  PROGRESS 

Effects 

Since  its  establishment  in  2007,  PROGRESS  has  contributed  to  both  strengthening  the 
coordination of EU employment and social policy and bringing about effective application of 
EU law. The interim results of the mid-term evaluation57 and those of the annual performance 
monitoring58 provide evidence of PROGRESS outcomes and offer insights about its delivery 
processes.    

PROGRESS allowed for Europe-wide comparison of evidence, and for developing statistical 
tools, methods and common indicators to ensure that EU employment and social policy and 
legislation  are  relevant  to  the  needs  of  Member  States.  The  quality  of  analytical  outputs  is 
generally good in terms of content and usefulness. Although the primary user of such outputs 
is the Commission itself, there is evidence59 that these outputs are used in the EU and national 
policy-  and  law-making  as  well  as  in  the  wider  policy  debate.  Specific  examples  of  policy 
evidence which was evaluated by the respondents to the 2010 Annual Survey as being most 
helpful in different PROGRESS policy areas include: 

•  Employment section: Monthly Labour Market Monitor and Quarterly Labour Market 

Review, 

•  Social  protection  and  social  inclusion  section:  Collection  of  statistics  on  income  and 
living conditions, reports of the group of independent experts on social inclusion and 
MISSOC database: Comparative Tables on Social Protection, 

•  Working  conditions  section:  Non-binding  guide  to  good  practice  for  implementing 

Directive 2003/10/EC, 

57 The mid-term evaluation is carried out by Ecorys Netherlands. The final report is expected in December 2011.  
58  The 
at 
are  presented 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=659&langId=en  
59 PROGRESS Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2009.  

annual  performance  monitoring 

available 

reports 

results 

the 

in 

20

 
 
                                                 
PROGRESS  is  the  main  financial  instrument  to  mutual  learning  and  the  exchange  of  good 
practices  in  employment  and  social  solidarity  through  the  European  Employment  Strategy 
(EES)  and  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  on  Social  Inclusion  and  Social  Protection 
(Social OMC). These processes have proven to provide factual information, influence agenda-
setting,  enhance  cooperation  among  national  authorities  and  constitute  a  basis  for  decision-
making for participating Member States60. For instance, 22 Member States plus Norway and 
Serbia  were  actively  involved  in  the  Mutual  Learning  Programme  in  2010.  Main  issues 
covered  included  self-employment,  labour  market  integration  of  the  Roma  community, 
support  for  the  jobseekers  and  the  unemployed,  short  time  working  arrangements,  ageing 
population and education choices, activation of the elderly, and labour market integration of 
lone parents.  

PROGRESS  strengthened  partnership  among  policy  makers  and  stakeholders  especially  by 
contributing to the capacity building of key non-governmental actors (EU-level networks and 
national  NGOs).  In  particular,  the  outputs  of  key  EU  networks  were  seen  by  a  majority  of 
stakeholders  as  beneficial  for  advocacy  and  partnerships61.  For  instance,  in  2010, 
PROGRESS-supported key EU networks and NGOs produced 295 reports aimed at providing 
policy advice, research and analysis, 179 reports aimed at identifying good practices, and 235 
reports  aimed  at  monitoring/assessment  in  the  policy  areas  of  anti-discrimination,  social 
protection  and  social  inclusion,  and  gender  equality.  They  also  organised  316  training,  peer 
review  and  other  mutual  learning  events,  as  well  as  462  information  and  communication 
events. The number of participants in those events increased by more than 50% from 21 901 
in 2009 to 34 501 in 2010.  

Through PROGRESS, the Commission seeks to bring about effective application of EU law 
on  matters  related  to  health  and  safety  at  work,  labour  law,  working  conditions,  non-
discrimination and gender equality in all Member States. First of all, PROGRESS contributed 
to improving the quality of the Commission’s policy initiatives by ensuring that they are built 
on  strong  evidence62  as  well  as  making  its  decision-making  processes  more  accessible  and 
involving  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  in  policy  development.  For  instance,  in  2009, 
PROGRESS contributed to several policy initiatives, including the agreement in Council on 
the  revision  of  Directive  86/613/EEC  on  equal  treatment  of  self-employed  and  assisting 
spouses and the Council decision for the European Union to sign the UN Convention on the 
Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.  Second,  it  helped  to  ensure  correct  and  effective 
application of EU law in the Member States by monitoring the implementation of EU law in 
the  Member  States  (by  supporting  networks  of  legal  experts  and  external  studies)  and 
providing assistance to the Member States (through trainings and mutual learning events for 
legal practitioners) in transposing and applying EU law effectively.   

Practical implementation 

60  89%  of  the  2010  Annual  Survey  respondents  claim  to  have  gained  better  understanding  of  EU  policy 
objectives  by  participating  in  PROGRESS-funded  events.  See  PROGRESS  Annual  Performance  Monitoring 
Report 2010.  
61 Over 4/5 of the respondents to the 2010 Annual Survey agree that EU-level NGOs/networks are successful in 
increasing awareness and exerting pressure on policy makers in the relevant policy area, and a source of useful 
and  appropriate  information  on  the  implementation  of  EU  law  and/or  conditions,  needs  and  expectations  of 
relevant target groups. 
62 This evidence is also reported to be used for developing national legal acts implementing EU law. Namely, 
25%  of  the  respondents of  the  2010  Annual  Survey  indicated  that  studies,  analyses,  thematic  assessments  and 
monitoring  reports  produced  under  the  programme  have  contributed  to  adopting/amending  national  legal  acts 
implementing EU law.  

21

 
 
 
                                                 
The  mid-term  evaluation  finds  that  the  PROGRESS  programme's  annual  cycle  of  planning, 
implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  activities  is  considered  generally  fitting, 
however  it  is  recommended  that  a  multi-annual  programming  be  developed  to  set  more 
strategic long-term policy objectives combined with annual funding priorities63.  

The  evaluation  confirms  that  the  main  types  of  activities  (analytical,  mutual  learning  and 
support  to  main  actors)  are  very  relevant  to  the  programme  objectives  across  its  policy 
sections. The analytical outputs analysed by evaluators are generally of good quality in terms 
of content and usefulness. However, timeliness of delivery of studies should be improved by 
greater  use  of  framework  contracts.  Mutual  learning  and  peer  reviews  seminars  are  highly 
attended and generate considerable learning effects. However, the results of both the mid-term 
evaluation  and  the  annual  performance  monitoring  confirm  that  despite  continued  efforts  in 
the  last  years,  visibility  and  dissemination  of  PROGRESS  results  deserve  further 
improvement to ensure sustainability and the long-term exploitation of funded projects.   

Another weakness of the current programme is the rigid allocation of its budget to the policy 
sections.  This  rigidity  made  it  harder  to  effectively  respond  to  political  imperatives  and 
changing  circumstances,  in  particular  in  the  wake  of  the  crisis.  The  successor  instrument 
should drawn lessons from this experience in order to strike a balance between predictability 
and flexibility in its budget. 

Results-based  management  and  performance  measurement  proved  to  be  successful  in 
demonstrating 
the  EU’s 
accountability. The mid-term evaluation recommends maintaining this approach; however, the 
administrative burden linked to the annual reporting should be reduced.  

the  programme’s  achievements  as  well  as 

in  enhancing 

Synergies  between  the  programme  and  the  European  Social  Fund  should  be  more  fully 
exploited. For example, at EU level, coordination and knowledge transfer should be improved 
between  PROGRESS  and  the  ESF  in  particular  in  the  framework  of  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination.  Furthermore,  the  ESF  could  help  mainstreaming  results  of  the  PROGRESS 
projects, for example, by drawing lessons from social experimentation projects and supporting 
replication of this approach in the Member States. 

Lastly,  despite  some  positive  examples  of  integration  of  the  gender  dimension  into  the 
programme  activities,  the  mid-term  evaluation  recommends  putting  more  emphasis  on  the 
concrete implementation of this principle, and ensuring that gender equality is mainstreamed 
in a meaningful way across all PROGRESS-supported activities.  

2.4.2.  EURES 

Effects 

Increasing  intra-European  job  mobility  by  providing  easier  and  actual  access  to  more 
employment opportunities and support to employers can prove extremely helpful to tackle the 
issue  of  unfilled  job  vacancies  around  Europe  and  actually  contribute  to  the  general  2020 
employment rate objective.  Evidence from Commission research suggests that  countries not 
applying transitional rules on free movement and therefore allowing incoming mobility have 
benefited from a higher GDP growth64. Even now, after the 2008-2010 recession, Europe has 
pockets of labour shortages and excess of skilled labour, i.e. there are many job vacancies that 

63 Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation.  
64 Employment in Europe report 2008 "….. estimate that mobility flows from the EU-8 have added an extra 0.4% 
to the Irish GDP and 0.3% to the UK’s GDP by 2007…" 

22

 
 
                                                 
remain  unfilled  due  to  the  lack  of  a  suitable  work  force65.  Current  imbalances  in  the  EU 
labour markets are partly due to a lack of labour mobility within the Union. However, intra-
EU mobility of workers is not seen as a priority by a lot of Member States.  

The June 2010 Special Eurobarometer on "Geographical and labour market mobility" showed 
that 34% of Europeans think that their chances of finding a job abroad are better than in their 
own countries; however, today only 2.3% of the working age population lives and works in a 
Member State different from the one of their nationality.  

An  external  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  EURES  network66  revealed  that  in 
comparison to other EU networks, EURES has a significantly stronger focus on employment 
opportunities and it is also the only one that aims at providing specific job-matching services. 
The  EURES  Job  Mobility  Portal  is  appreciated  by  jobseekers,  job  changers  and  employers 
who clearly see the benefit in being able to access – or post – information on vacancies across 
Europe.  The  surveys  with  jobseekers  and  job  changers  and  employers  show  that  the  job 
vacancies database has facilitated job matching and intra-EU job mobility.  

However,  one  of  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  was  that  the  links  between  its  aims  and 
objectives, its achieved outputs and the wider employment aims and objectives of the EU are 
not prominent enough. The translation of strategic objectives into operational objectives and 
its capacity to achieve and present results needs to be improved. EURES needs to focus more 
on  tangible  outcomes  and  results  in  terms  of  outgoing  and  incoming  placements  and 
recruitment also trough targeted mobility schemes: for example by helping young people and 
employers to fill open bottleneck vacancies, i.e. vacancies for which recruitment difficulties 
or market failure have been identified. "Your first EURES job", currently implemented as a 
preparatory action, is intended to foster youth job mobility across the EU-27 countries. 

Practical implementation 

EURES predates the European Employment Strategy (1997) as well as the Lisbon strategy for 
Growth and Jobs (2000). The EURES objectives were broadly defined in 1993 and stopped at 
the provision of information and virtual transparency67 of labour markets through clearance of 
vacancies and CVs. The EURES objectives do not make full use of the exclusive competence 
provided by the TFEU in the field of free movement of workers.  

There is a need to simplify and streamline EURES. Its founding documents are composed of a 
Regulation,  a  Commission  decision,  a  "Charter"  and  three-year  guidelines.  Funding  is 
distributed to the network with a three year partnership following a call for proposals in 2010. 
Moreover, four different committees and bodies supervise its functioning: the two committees 
created  by  Regulation  1612/68  (revised  492/2011),  a  EURES  working  party  and  the  High 
Level Strategy Group, created by Commission decision 2003/8/EC. As a result there is a need 
to harmonise and update the implementation provisions to  take into account the Europe 2020 

65 "A new strategy for the single market", report by M. Monti, 9 May 2010, p.57 
66 Ex-post evaluation of the EURES programme covering the period 2006-2008, EPEC 2010  
67  Commission  decision  of  23  December  2002  implementing  Council  Regulation  1612/1968  as  regards  the 
clearance of vacancies and applications for employment, Article 2 on EURES objectives:  
(a) the development of European labour markets open and accessible for all; 
(b) the transnational, interregional and cross-border exchange of vacancies and job applications; 
(c) transparency and information exchange on the European labour markets, including on living conditions and 
on the opportunities for acquisition of skills; 
(d) the development of methodologies and indicators for this purpose. 

23

 
 
 
                                                 
labour  markets  features,  notably  regarding  the  clearance  of  vacancies  and  application  for 
employment, the definition of the operational objectives of EURES services, the composition 
and  governance  of 
the  quality  standards  and  exchange  of 
information/best  practices.  Moreover,  the  current  set-up  does  not  reflect  the  increasing  role 
played  by  private  employment  services.  These  reforms  will  ensure  consistency  between  the 
different parts of EURES in line with the  new MFF instruments. It  should  be noted that all 
strategic objectives of the EURES reform can be achieved without changing these texts68 

the  EURES  network, 

The largest part of the EURES budget (14 million €) is currently spent in direct management 
mode  on  over  49  grants  of  the  EURES  network,  following  annual  calls  for  proposals. 
Management  of  the  grants  is  cumbersome  both  on  the  side  of  the  Commission  and  of  the 
beneficiaries, and is disproportionate compared to the budget available. 

2.4.3.  Progress Microfinance 

Effects 

Progress Microfinance was designed to address the lack of access to finance, which is one of 
the main obstacles preventing people to start their own business.  

Especially disadvantaged groups such as unemployed, young or older people or migrants have 
difficulties securing traditional bank loans. Even before the crisis, the demand for microcredit 
(i.e.  loans  of  less  than  €  25.000)  was  estimated  at  €  6.3  billion.  The  European  Progress 
Microfinance  Facility  for  employment  and  social  inclusion  extends  the  outreach  of 
microfinance  to  particular  at-risk  groups  and  to  further  support  the  development  of 
entrepreneurship, the social economy and micro-enterprises.  

Progress Microfinance has allowed pooling expertise at  European level and putting it at the 
service  of  employment  creation  and  poverty  reduction  in  the  Member  States.  Ministries  of 
labour and social affairs are often less experienced in the field of financial engineering. As a 
result only a small number of managing authorities have used ESF resources for establishing 
financial  engineering  instruments  in  the  programming  period  2007-2013.  Given  that  the 
establishment  of  such  funds  is  time-consuming  and  complex  and  that  a  critical  mass  is 
needed, a fund at EU level bears a strong added value: within somewhat more than one year 
since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  founding  decision,  the  guarantees  window  and  the  funded 
instruments window have become operational, final beneficiaries in six Member States have 
already  been  benefitting  and  the  forecast  for  transactions  suggests  that  towards  the  end  of 
2011 citizens in half of the Member States will enjoy easier access to finance.  

One  of  the  target  groups  of  Progress  Microfinance  are  social  entreprises  in  their  start-op 
phase. However, it has become clear that their specific nature (often a spin-off of a team from 
a  traditional  business,  or  a  civic  society  organisation,  or  a  public  service)  requires  a  mix  of 
funding  sources  to  get  started,  and  that  they  face  particular  needs  regarding  development, 
consolidation  and  growth  (mezzanine  and  hybrid  capital)69.  The  limitation  of  microloans  to 
amounts of up to EUR 25 000 is in this regard problematic.  

The positive externalities of social enterprises, i.e. their impact on social, environmental and 
community development, are undervalued and not rewarded by the market.  This constitutes a 

68  A  new  Commission  decision  (CWLP  2012)  will  provide  for  the  new  setting  of  the  EURES  network,  its 
operational objectives and its results orientation. 
69  Social Investment Manual. A Guide for Social Entrepreneurs, developed by the Social Investment Task Force (Technical 
University  Munich;  Schwab  Foundation  Community  of  Social  Entrepreneurs,  Schwab  Foundation  for  Social 
Entrepreneurship), 2011. 

24

 
 
                                                 
limiting  factor  to  the  development  and  scaling  of  social  enterprises,  in  addition  to  the  low 
levels of development of national or regional debt or equity platforms for funding for social 
enterprise, both in terms of scale and capacity. This calls for a public role in developing the 
market for social impact investments.  In order to overcome initial reluctance at national level, 
a possible role for the EU could be to pave the way through a suitable EU level instrument 
that has the capacity to leverage public sources of funding (notably ESF) as well as mobilising 
private social impact investors 

Delivery issues 

The  microfinance  sector  has  called  for  more  capacity  building,  enhancing  the  link  between 
funding and capacity building. Several microcredit providers (e.g. MicroStart in Belgium or 
Qredits in the Netherlands) have benefitted on the one hand from Progress Microfinance and 
on the other from a loan or an equity investment for institutional capacity building under the 
EPPA  initiative  as  well  as  from  training  under  JASMINE.  However,  while  this  setup  is 
considered  as  complex  because  the  microcredit  providers  have  to  apply  for  different 
programmes, it does not achieve the maximum value for money because the two processes are 
not  linked  enough  in  the  sense  that  there  is,  for  instance,  no  conditionality  between  the 
capacity building part and the funding.  

By far the majority of micro-credit to disadvantaged persons in the EU is provided by non-
commercial  micro-finance  institutions  (NGOs,  foundations,  government  bodies,  Member 
States'  promotional  banks,  non-bank  financial  institutions),  but  these  providers  do  not 
currently have the capacity to meet the important demand. In order to improve the absorption 
capacity  of  the  market,  more  capacity  building  is  needed.  As  a  result,  more  funds  can  be 
channelled through them to the final beneficiaries.  

2.5. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 

For  the  ESF  the  definition  of  scope  will  impact  on  which  projects  can  actually  be  financed 
and how the related systems operate. This will have significant influence on project providers 
(beneficiaries) and by that also on the final beneficiaries, i.e. the European citizens and also 
the institutions operating in the labour market.  

For  the  EGF,  workers  laid  off  as  a  consequence  of  large  scale  restructuring  are  directly 
affected,  as  they  cannot  necessarily  count  on  the  timely  delivery  of  appropriate  support 
measures.  The  Member  States  are  affected  indirectly  as  they  cannot  optimise  resource 
management and control of ESF and EGF and have to find the necessary funds to pre-finance 
the measures for a considerable period of time. 

The  main  players  affected  by  PROGRESS  are  public  authorities,  social  partners  and  civil 
society  organisations  at  EU  and  national  level  as  well  as  the  European  Commission  itself.  
Discontinuing the programme would cut off the European policy debate and transfer of good 
practices in the social field. Furthermore it would take away the most important instrument to 
evidence-based social and labour market policy-making at the European level.70  

70 PPMI, PROGRESS stakeholder needs analysis, 2011. The analysis looked into the situation, motivations and 
interests of EU-level, national and regional stakeholders in relation to the broad thematic areas addressed by the 
PROGRESS  programme.  The  results  and  implications  for  the  successor  programme  to  PROGRESS  will  be 
presented in a separate ex-ante evaluation.  

25

 
 
                                                 
Changes  to  EURES  will  facilitate  the  management  of  the  network  and  in  so  far  make  the 
network  more  effective  and  allow  for  the  inclusion  of  private  employment  services  into  the 
network.  This  would  increase  the  outreach  to  workers  with  the  aim  of  making  job  mobility 
between  Member  States  easier.  This  would  be  to  the  benefit  of  all  workers,  those  going 
abroad but also those staying behind, but having a new colleague from abroad, or getting a job 
which otherwise would have gone to a mobile colleague.  

As far as the implementation of the microfinance facility is concerned, the target groups of 
the  microfinance  facility,  are  bearing  the  consequences  of  the  lack  of  availability  of 
microcredit. Increasing the absorption capacity of the market through capacity building would 
allow channelling more funds through them to the final beneficiaries.  

2.6. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?  

The  baseline  scenario  anticipates  for  the  ESF  a  prolongation  of  the  current  set-up,  which 
involves maintaining the current coverage, scope and the ESF delivery arrangements.  

The  ESF  priorities  would  remain  focussed  on  employment  and  skills.  This  implies  that 
alignment  with  Europe  2020  and  its  strengthened  emphasis  on  social  inclusion  might  be 
difficult.  ESF  interventions  are  provided  in  all  countries  and  regions.  Social  cohesion  is 
thereby  mentioned  as  an  equally  important  objective  of  European  policy  as  economic  and 
territorial cohesion. Furthermore the ESF as the most important single financial instrument of 
the European Union in the social field plays an important role in demonstrating that Europe is 
not  only  about  economic  but  also  about  social  issues.  Moreover,  while  the  increased 
acceptance of the simplified cost options should lead to a continued downward  trend of the 
error  rates,  there  is  no  guarantee  as  to  the  speed  of  that  trend  and  that  it  would  ultimately 
result  in  rate  below  the  threshold  set  by  the  ECA.  However,  even  this  baseline  scenario 
requires the establishment of a new regulation. 

The current EGF Regulation expires on 31 December 2013. The baseline scenario anticipates 
a continuation of the EGF Regulation under its current rules. It would neither put in question 
the  well-established  line  of  distinction  between  the  instruments  nor  the  basic  administrative 
requirements,  which  implies  rather  long  delays  between  applications  for  and  granting  of 
support.  On  the  other  hand,  the  status  quo  is  very  suitable  to  cope  with  discontinuous  and 
unpredictable payment requirements.  

Also in the case of PROGRESS, which expires on 31 December 2013, the baseline scenario 
assumes  that  the  current  scheme  is  prolonged,  but  without  the  gender  equality  and  anti-
discrimination strands (to be part of DG Justice Programmes71).  

Also for the two other instruments, EURES and the Microfinance facility a continuation of 
the status quo are assumed as a baseline scenario. The Progress Microfinance Facility would 
continue  to  provide  guarantees  and  funding  under  joint  management  with  the  European 
Investment Fund, with a last investment in 2016 without new resources. 

However, the baseline scenario would only be partially satisfactory for the following reasons: 

-  Even if the objectives of the renewed instruments would be optimally aligned on the 
Europe  2020's  goals,  an  opportunity  to  improve  the  policy  coherence  and  impact  by 

71  COM(2011)  500  final.  A  Budget  for  Europe  2020  -  Part  II  -  Policy  Fiches  -  Communication  from  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions. 

26

 
 
                                                 
linking PROGRESS activities with microfinance and social entrepreneurship support, 
social  innovation  and  intra-EU  mobility  of  workers  (through  EURES)  would  be 
missed.  

-  Carrying on the current instruments without any change would not have any positive 
impact  on  simplification  and  administrative  burden  in  particular  for  potential 
beneficiaries. Moreover, the rigid allocation of the PROGRESS budget to its different 
policy sections would prevent the Commission from effectively responding to political 
imperatives and changing circumstances.  

-  Without  the  gender  equality  and  anti-discrimination  strands  the  new  PROGRESS 
would be smaller and as such would not have the critical mass needed to achieve its 
policy objectives. Its role, as an EU stand-alone programme supporting policy-making 
and coordination, would therefore be considerably reduced. 

2.7. Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident 

2.7.1.  The right to act for instruments under shared management  

The legal basis of the European Social Fund is Title XI of the TFEU. Next to Article 162 
TFEU which establishes the ESF, further specifications are provided in Articles 8 – 10 and in 
Articles 153 and 175. The latter states that the ESF is one of the structural funds to be used in 
support of economic, social and territorial cohesion. 

The  legal  basis  of  the  EGF  in  its  current  form  is  the  third  paragraph  of  Article  175  of  the 
TFEU.  Under  the  flagship  initiative72  'An  industrial  policy  for  the  globalisation  era'  the 
Commission has pointed to the role that an expanded EGF could play to improve the ability of 
Member States and regions to manage the fall-out of the financial and economic crisis.  

In practice, both the ESF and the EGF already have a strong focus on subsidiarity. They are 
implemented  under  shared  management.  National  and  regional  authorities  initiate  the 
planning  of  measures  co-funded  by  the  EU.  Ultimately  they  make  the  individual  funding 
decisions  and  deliver  the  programmes  on  the  ground,  leaving  the  Commission  with  an 
advisory  and  a  supervisory  function.  In  the  case  of  the  EGF  this  role  is  enhanced  in  the 
application process73.  

The  reflections  put  forward  with  this  document  will  not  change  the  general  division  of 
competencies between the EU, Member States and between Member States and lower level 
administrative and political entities.  

2.7.2.  The right to act for direct management instruments 

The legal basis of the PROGRESS programme are Articles 149 and 153 TFEU which make 
provisions for coordination of employment and social policies74. In line with these provisions, 
a successor instrument to PROGRESS would encompass the actions which have an EU-wide 
dimension and which are necessary to enable the EU to effectively fulfil its role, as assigned 

72 COM(2010)2020, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth. 
73 The Commission additionally prepares and submits for each individual application for EGF support a proposal 

for a Decision to the European Parliament and the Council, acting as the Budgetary Authority. 

74 Actually, the current PROGRESS programme has a trifold legal basis. However, actions implemented on the 
basis  of  Article  19  TFEU  fall  within  DG  JUST  area  of  competencies  and  will  be  part  of  its  future  post-2013 
programmes.   

27

 
 
                                                 
by the Treaty in the employment and social field. As such, the Commission proposal would be 
in line with its competences and respect the subsidiarity principle.   

The  current  legal  basis  for  Progress  Microfinance  is  Article  175  (3)  TFEU.  Its  aim  is  to 
increase  the  access  to,  and  availability  of,  microfinance  for  vulnerable  groups  and  micro-
enterprises  to  a  sufficient  scale  and  within  a  reasonable  time-frame.  A  strengthened 
Microfinance  Facility  (including  a  new  financial  instrument  to  support  social  enterprises) 
under the new MFF would be implemented on the same legal basis. 

EURES is based on Article 45 TFEU, which aims to secure the freedom of workers, one of 
the  four  freedoms  in  the  TFEU.  Regulation  492/2011  from  5th  of  April  2011  tasks  the 
Commission for clearance of vacancies and CVs on the EU level. The action proposed is in 
line with the subsidiarity principle because of the transnational nature of the European labour 
markets challenges and needs (eg skill gaps, mismatches and bottle neck vacancies).  

2.7.3.  EU added value of the shared management instruments (ESF and EGF) 

Full alignment with the Europe 2020 strategy should ensure the policy relevance of the future 
instruments. Subsidiarity will require (i) concentrating on cross-border or transnational issues, 
(ii) helping national or regional authorities to do what they need to do, but lack the capacity 
for,  (iii)  intervening  in  a  targeted  manner  so  as  to  make  essential  contributions  to  the 
achievement of Europe 2020 policy goals. The actual implementation mechanisms of the ESF 
and  the  EGF  involving  directly  national  and  regional  authorities  in  the  management  of  the 
programmes guarantee a full application of the principle of subsidiarity as the way in which 
the funds are spent depend fully on decisions in the region or Member State in question. 

The Fifth Cohesion Report looked at public spending in MS and discusses additionality, the 
principle  that  finance  from  cohesion  policy  as  a  whole  should  not  replace  equivalent 
expenditure by Member States, which are required to maintain public investment rather than 
diverting  funding  to  other  purposes.  Additionality  is  checked  several  times  during  a 
programming  period.  This  verification  may  result  in  financial  corrections.  Placing  ESF 
expenditure into the context of similar national expenditure outside co-funded programmes is 
not  straightforward.  This  requires  information  about  government  expenditure  at  a  level  of 
detail that is not readily available. ESF investments correspond to several groups and classes 
of the UN Classification of Functions of Government75 (COFOG). Yet complete data for all 
Member  States  are  available  only  for  the  10  main  COFOG  Divisions  but  not  for  the  more 
detailed groups or even classes. Education is one of these divisions, yet only very small parts 
of  education-related  expenditure  are  eligible  for  EU  support.  Similar  issues  arise  with  the 
European System of Accounting.  

While additionality is critical for the structural nature of Cohesion Policy, the current system 
is  often  contested  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  a  cumbersome  "ad-hoc"  exercise  the  results  of 
which are not fully reliable and not comparable across Member States. Options to reform this 
verification process and link it to the transmission of data in the context of the Stability and 
Growth  Pact  are  being  explored.  They  are  not  specific  to  the  ESF  but  regard  the  Cohesion 
Policy as a whole. 

Figure 1 offers a already feasible comparison between national ALMP expenditure and ESF 
allocations in relation to GDP. The comparison is not perfect as more policy areas than just 
ALMP  can  be  supported  with  the  ESF.  Moreover,  the  ALMP  figures  do  not  systematically 

75 The expenditure is classified into Divisions (10), Groups (74) and Classes.  

28

 
 
                                                 
include  (or  exclude)  ESF  funding  and  there  are  problems  with  the  quality  of  some  data. 
Member States have voluntarily committed themselves to the provision of these data. While 
there  are  constant  efforts  to  improve  the  statistics,  some  improvements  have  already  been 
achieved,  it  seems  overly  optimistic  to  expect  these  problems  would  disappear  in  the  near 
future.  

that 

these  requirements  had  a  positive 

While this concerns the comparison of inputs (money spent), a similar phenomenon can also 
be observed on the side of outputs or results of interventions. The ESF comes along with quite 
demanding  requirements  in  terms  of  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Public  authorities  from 
Member  States  confirm 
the 
implementation of national programmes. It is justified to state that ESF expenditure is at least 
as good – in many Member States better – monitored and evaluated as national expenditure. 
While  there  are  constant  efforts  to  improve  evaluation  and  monitoring  –  as  elaborated  in 
section  7  –  there  are  also  methodological  limitations76:  it  is  often  difficult  to  compare  ESF 
supported  interventions  with  similar  interventions  within  one  MS,  as  those  outside  the  ESF 
might  not  have  been  evaluated  in  the  same  way  or  because  there  might  not  be  similar 
interventions. Comparisons between MS (and in so far also the aggregation) might be difficult 
because  of  different  social  contexts,  which  can  be  decisive  for  success  or  failure  but  also 
determine the exact design of interventions.  

influence  on 

Nevertheless  the  overall  picture  is  that  the  Western  and  Northern  European  Member  States 
which  spend  considerable  amounts  on  ALMP  receive  on  average  less  ESF  funding.  The 
picture  is  reversed  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  Member  States.  Since  employment 
promotion  is  the  ESF  core  business,  this  is  fully  consistent  with  an  ESF  being  deployed  in 
addition to national efforts. 

More generally, evaluations and interactions with stakeholders confirm the ESF has "volume 
effects". The ESF 'adds' to existing actions, either by supporting a national action in general or 
specific areas of national policy. This will continue to be the case essentially in convergence 
regions  where  the  volume  of  financial  support  provided  through  the  ESF  is  significant  in 
relation  to  national  funding.  This  would  be  strengthened  by  concentrating  on  key  issues 
identified in the NRPs and in the CSRs in accordance with the partnership contracts. 

However, the added value of structural funds actions and of the ESF in particular can not be 
limited to volumes of actions undertaken. The ESF has brought significant benefits for many 
stakeholders in terms of processes (how things are done). It can be expected to continue to do 
so  even  if  as  process  effects  are  related  by  definition  to  how  actions  are  delivered,  it  is 
difficult  to  anticipate  what  effects  will  be  generated  in  the  future.  The  evidence-based  and 
mid- to long-term oriented implementation of the fund by means of operational programmes 
will also in the future encourage a dialogue between various stakeholder groups and support a 
strategic  approach.  Improvements  of  the  delivery  mechanisms  (notably  simplification  and 
reductions  of  the  administrative  burden)  should  ensure  the  continued  relevance  of  process 
effects.  ESF  and  EGF  are  instruments  to  facilitate  a  practical  dialogue  between  European 
priorities and active labour market policy in Europe.  

Several  examples  in  terms  of  scope  -  extending  coverage  of  action  (broadening/widening) - 
and innovation - novel action / ideas that are applied on a larger scale – show the added value 
of  the  instruments  considered  such  as  the  ESF  and  the  EGF  even  in  the  current 
competitiveness  and  employment  regions.  The  examples  include:  extending  career  guidance 

76 For a discussion of the comparison of the impacts of active labour market policy see e.g. Kluve (2006) or Car, 
Kluve, Weber (2010). 

29

 
 
                                                 
from  unemployed  to  workers;  the  development  of  a  national  network  of  job  information 
centres; setting up of networks supporting small enterprises and start-ups often by people with 
a  migration  background;  establishing  of  partnerships  which  became  Labour  Force  Service 
Centres, one-stop-shops for "hard to employ" groups. 

2.7.4.  EU added value of the instruments in direct management 

The instruments under direct management will bring about EU added value in the following 
ways: 

The EU is uniquely  placed  to  provide a European  platform  for  policy  exchange  and  mutual 
learning  processes  between  the  Member  States  (also  including  the  EEA  and  candidate 
countries) in the employment and social area. Knowledge of the policies carried out in other 
countries  broadens  the  range  of  options  available  to  policy  makers,  triggers  new  policy 
developments  and  encourages  national  reforms77.  Finally,  it  brings  benefits  in  terms  of 
improving the governance of the EU employment and social policy; 

The EU action adds value to national interventions by providing a European dimension and 
comparison when gathering evidence, developing statistical tools and methods and common 
indicators to allow for a complete picture of the situation prevailing in the employment and 
social fields at European level; 

The  need  for  better  application  of  EU  law  has  been  recognised  as  a  key  priority  under  the 
Smart  Regulation  agenda.  The  EU  level  is  the  most  appropriate  for  modernising  a  legal 
framework,  aiming  to  create  a  level  playing-field  and  to  guarantee  a  common  level  of  EU 
legal protection for all in the fields of health and safety at work and labour law. The EU is 
also  uniquely  placed  to  finance  measures  aimed  at  improving  compliance  with  EU  rules  as 
well  as  providing  systematic  review  of  the  EU  legislation  application  across  the  Member 
States;   

Developing the capacity of key European level civil-society networks to support and further 
develop the Union social policy goals can best be achieved at EU level. 

An increase in the availability of microcredit  is best  achieved at the European level: firstly, 
the  European  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  European  Investment  Fund  has  already 
gathered experience with the current microfinance facility, the JASMINE pilot project and the 
EPPA  initiative  requested  by  the  European  Parliament.  Microfinance  institutions  in  all 
Member  States  can  now  benefit  from  this  expertise  without  their  national,  regional  or  local 
authorities having to use resources to put in place similar systems.  

In addition, the financial resources pooled together  at the European level are more likely to 
attract additional funding from third investors like the European Investment Bank who, in the 
case of Progress Microfinance, matched the EU contribution of 100 million. The same is true 
for an EU level financial instruments for investments in social enterprises: it can be expected 
that it will attract more resources from public and private investors.  

An  improved  EURES  would  facilitate  labour  market  mobility.  Member  States  benefitted  as 
bottleneck  or  hard-to-fill  vacancies  were  filled  by  intra-EU-mobility,  leading  to  increased 
economic  activity  and  thus  contributing  to  economic  growth.  Furthermore  more  European 

77  National  and  regional  authorities  consider  monitoring,  research  and  exchange  of  information  (through  the 
OMC and mutual learning) as areas where EU added value is the highest. See PPMI, PROGRESS stakeholder 
needs analysis.2011. 

30

 
 
                                                 
labour market mobility could also foster a European citizenship which goes beyond national 
interests.  

3.  Objectives 

Preparing the next MFF provides an opportunity to fully align the financial instruments to the 
Europe  2020  objectives  in  order  to  deliver  on  specific  priorities  and  initiatives,  ensure 
complementarity and synergies, and simplify and mainstream activities in order to maximise 
the impact of the funding and its EU added value.  

3.1. General objective 

The general objective of the labour market and social inclusion financial instruments will be 
to  support  the  EU  to  develop  a  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  economy  achieving  high 
levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion, i.e. to contribute fully to the Europe 
2020 Strategy and in accordance with the Single Market Act of April 201178.  

The  EU  2020  indicators  and  targets  that  are  directly  relevant  for  the  labour  market/social 
inclusion instruments are given in Table 3. 

Table 3. Labour market and social inclusion relevant Europe 2020 indicators and 
targets 

Indicators 

Employment rate of 20 - 64 year olds 

School drop-out rates 

Proportion  of  30-34  year  old  having  completed  tertiary 
education 

Current 
values79 

68.6% 

14.1% 

33.6% 

Number of persons at risk of poverty 

114 million 

Target by 2020 

An increase to 75% 

A decrease to 10%  

An increase to 40% 

reduction 

A 
million 

by 

20 

The financial instruments in employment and social policy also contribute in a more indirect 
manner to the low-carbon economy, biodiversity80, energy, R&D and competitiveness targets. 
For  example,  improving  digital  skills  enhances  the  knowledge  base  of  an  economy  and 
contributes  to  raising  the  growth  potential.  Training  and  capacity  building  on  ecologically 
sound  technologies  helps  to  foster  sustainable  employment  and  indirectly  supports  the 
achievement of emissions reduction and energy efficiency targets.   

3.2. Specific objectives 

The changing policy context, a growing pressure on public finance and overall economic and 
social  circumstances  require  maximising  the  performance  and  consistency  of  financial 
instruments.  The  specific  objective  for  all  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion 
financial instruments is therefore  

78 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/index_en.htm 
79 Source: Eurostat. The data are for 2010 except for the number of persons at risk of poverty which is for 2009. 
80  A  recent  study  commissioned  by  DG  Environment  concluded  that  Natura  2000  network  of  protected  areas 
supports  1.3  –  2.4  million  jobs  in  the  tourism  and  recreation  sectors.  Employment  rates  generated  by  Natura 
2000 are estimated at 0.017 – 0.032 full time jobs per hectare. 

31

 
 
                                                 
•  Financial instruments which are consistent and mutually reinforcing.   

In  addition  to  this,  each  instrument  has  a  set  of  specific  objectives  derived  from  its  legal 
founding and from the alignment with Europe 2020.  

3.2.1.  ESF 

The  specific  objectives  for  the  ESF  are  derived  from  the  Europe  2020  headline  targets  to 
which  it  can  make  a  direct  contribution.  They  are  taken  from  June  Budget  Package 
(COM(2011)500). They are the following: 

1.  Promoting employment and the mobility of workers; 

2.  Investing in skills, education and life-long learning; 

3.  Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty; 

4.  Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration. 

The  indicators  of  Table  3  will  be  used  to  assess  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objective. 
However,  actual  EU  level  targets  for  the  ESF  can  not  be  set.  This  is  because  the 
implementation of funds follows national and regional operational programmes. Targets can 
only be set at these levels and aggregated ex-post.  It is also at the level of these operational 
programmes  that  the  ex-ante  evaluations  will  be  carried  out.  The  focus  of  these  specific 
objectives is on the requirement to make the ESF contributions measurable, i.e. to establish a 
clear causal link between changes of an indicator value and the activities undertaken. 

Through these specific objectives, the ESF will also contribute to other policy objectives such 
as the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy. This is in line with the new 
MFF  proposal  stating  that  the  Commission  intends  to  increase  the  proportion  of  climate 
related  expenditure  across  the  EU  budget  to  at  least  20%,  with  contribution  from  different 
policies.  

3.2.2.  EGF 

The specific objective for the EGF is: 

1.  Supporting workers made redundant as a result of major structural change 

3.2.3.  The instruments under direct management 

The specific objectives for the instruments under direct management are the following: 

1.  Strengthen  ownership  of  the  EU  objectives  in  the  employment,  social  and  working 
conditions  fields  among  key  European  and  national  policy-makers,  as  well  as  other 
interested parties in order to bring about concrete and coordinated actions at both EU 
and Member State level; 

2.  Support  the  development  of  adequate,  accessible  and  efficient  social  protection 
systems  and  labour  markets  and  facilitate  policy  reform,  by  promoting  good 
governance, mutual learning and social innovation;   

3.  Modernise EU legislation in line with the Smart Regulation principles and ensure that 

EU law on matters relating to working conditions is effectively applied;  

32

 
 
4.  Promote  workers’  geographical  and  occupational  mobility  and  boost  employment 
opportunities by developing European labour markets that are open and accessible to 
all; 

5.  Promote  employment  and  social  inclusion  by  increasing  the  availability  and 
accessibility  of  microfinance  for  vulnerable  groups  and  micro-enterprises,  and  by 
investing in social enterprises; 

6.  Improve  policy  coherence  and  efficiency  through  cross-cutting  work  between  the 
various strands of action and complementarity with other EU financial instruments, in 
particular the ESF.  

In pursuing these objectives, these instruments will aim at promoting equality between men 
and  women  and  combating  discrimination  based  on  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or 
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.  

3.3. Operational objectives  

3.3.1.  ESF 

The operational objective for the ESF is to simplify delivery. The following indicators have 
been retained to measure this: 

1.  The absorption of the Fund:  Target: 100% or the avoidance of automatic de-

commitment); 

2.  The error rate. Target less than 2%; 

3.  The  use  of  the  simplified  cost  options.  For  at  least  75%  of  the  total  cost  of 

grants. 

These operational objectives should also be seen in the context of the General Regulation and 
its Impact Assessment. It is in the General Regulation that implementation issues common to 
all  instruments  of  Cohesion  Policy  are  covered.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  of  the  overall 
performance and delivery of the policy. Moreover, there is no intention to change the general 
division of competencies  between  the  Commission and the national and regional authorities 
implementing and controlling the Operational Programmes. They will continue to initiate the 
planning  of  ESF  co-funded  interventions  and  make  the  individual  funding  decisions  and 
deliver the programmes on the ground. The Commission has an advisory and supervisory role 
and sits on the Monitoring Committees as an observer. 

3.3.2.  EGF 

The operational objectives for the EGF are as follows: 

1.  The  EGF  support  should  reach  the  redundant  workers  more  rapidly.  Taking 
into  account  the  status  quo  a  benchmark  of  8  months  is  an  ambitious  but 
realistic target 

2.  The  rate  of  assisted  workers  finding  a  new  and  stable  job  after  12  months 

should be at least 50%. 

33

 
 
 
 
3.3.3.  The instruments under direct management 

Learning  from  the  existing  instruments  in  direct  management,  the  following  objectives  will 
need to be met in the future as well:  

PROGRESS strand: 

1.  Develop  and  disseminate  high-quality  comparative  analytical  knowledge  in 
order to ensure that EU employment and social policy and working conditions 
legislation are based on sound evidence and are relevant to needs, challenges 
and conditions in the individual Member States; 

2.  Facilitate  effective  and  inclusive  information-sharing,  mutual  learning  and 
dialogue  on  EU  employment  and  social  policy  and  working  conditions 
legislation  at  European,  national  and  international  level  in  order  to  assist  the 
Member  States  in  developing  their  policies  and  in  implementing  EU 
legislation;   

3.  Provide policy-makers with financial support to test social and labour market 
policy  reforms;  build  up  the  main  actors’  capacity  to  design  and  implement 
social  experimentation;  and  make  the  relevant  knowledge  and  expertise 
accessible;.  

4.  Provide European and national organisations with financial support to step up 
their  capacity  to  develop,  promote  and  support  the  implementation  of  EU 
employment and social policy and working conditions legislation.  

It  is  impossible  to  make  these  four  specific  objectives  genuinely  measurable  while  they  are 
specific,  acceptable  and  realistic.  For  instance,  mutual  learning  events  cannot  be  quantified 
because  their  number  and  topics  depend  on  Member  States  interests  and  will  to  host  such 
events and participate in them. The volume of knowledge produced depends on the needs of 
policy  development.  These  objectives  by  their  very  nature  are  therefore  assessable  only  by 
means of subjective variables, like satisfaction of and knowledge among stakeholders, surveys 
investigating on the perception of EU role in social and employment policy debates as well as 
intended and actual use of outputs for policy-making.  Nevertheless, this approach remains in 
line with result based management which foresees setting effective targets at a level close to 
the activity as such.  

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship strand:  

5.  Increase the number of microloans to the target beneficiaries; 

6.  Build  up  institutional  capacities  of  microcredit  providers  to  ensure  that  they 
can  absorb  funding  from  the  microfinance  facility  in  order  to  extend  their 
client base; 

7.  Increase  the  number  and  scale  of  social  enterprises  contributing  to  the 

achievement of a high level of employment and social inclusion. 

34

 
 
 
 
EURES strand: 

8.  Develop  an  efficient  monitoring  system  and  increase  the  number  of 
transnational  placements  (i.e  both  outgoing  and  incoming)  facilitated  by 
EURES  by  3%  per  year  (currently  estimated  at  100.000  direct  and  50.000 
indirect placements per year, evidence not robust). 

9.  Increase  the  number  of  job  vacancies/CVS  on  the  EURES  Portal  by  3%  per 

year (currently 1,000,000 job vacancies, 600,000 CVs)  

10. Set  up  specific  targeted  mobility  scheme  at  EU  level  to  fill  bottleneck  and 
niche vacancies, help specific groups of jobseekers with a high propensity for 
mobility and support countries which are or will become recipients of mobile 
workers. 

In order to achieve these objectives, EURES will need to:  

•  simplify  and  rationalise  its  intervention  logic  by  developing  EURES  services 
in  relation  with  both  outgoing/incoming  placements  and  recruitment  services 
where there is an economic need and will to fill open job vacancies.   

• 

reform its administrative management, via the restructuring of its activities into 
a) vertical i.e. national and cross border activities under "shared management" 
(ESF)  ;  b)  horizontal  i.e.  EU  level  activities  under  the  new  integrated  direct 
management tool for PROGRESS.   

•  Ensure  the  consistency  of  its  financial  instruments  in  light  of  its  new 

organisational structure 

Furthermore, the results of the actions implemented under the integrated programme shall be 
adequately communicated and disseminated in order to maximise their impact, sustainability 
and the EU added value. 

4.  Policy options 

The options considered cover different dimensions, namely: 

1.  The scope of the ESF interventions; 

2.  Simplification of ESF implementation 

3.  The relationship between the EGF and the ESF; 

4.  The links between direct management instruments and the ESF. 

The first two dimensions directly address the issue of the content of ESF support including the 
question  of  how  to  simplify  implementation.  Under  all  change  options,  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation systems will be reinforced in comparison to the current situation.   

The latter two dimensions focus on the overall architecture of employment and social policy-
related  financial  instruments  on  the  European  level.  For  each  dimension,  the  options  being 
considered  represent  a  range  which  has  been  shaped  by  dialogue  with  stakeholders  and 
recommendations derived from research in the area. 

Further aspects which make a significant contribution to the effective implementation of the 
ESF, namely questions relating to demarcation with other funds and to complementary with 
other  EU  instruments,  performance  orientation  or  increased  transparency  through  a  better 
monitoring system are to be discussed in the IA accompanying the General Regulation. For 

35

 
 
these governance related aspects it is important to ensure consistency between the Structural 
Funds.  

Table 4 presents and overview of the intervention logic.  

36

 
 
Table 4.  Overview of intervention logic 

PROBLEMS 

GENERAL  
OBJECTIVE 

INSTRUMENTS 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 

OPTIONS CONSIDERED 

Global challenges 
(global competition, 
ageing, climate change, 
technological change, 
etc..) 

Large disparities in 
employment, health, 
education/training and 
social inclusion between 
MS and regions.  

High unemployment, 
shortcomings in skills, 
low labour mobility  

Links and spill-over 
between EU MS and 
regions requiring 
coordinated action 

Weak evidence 
hampering  policy-
coordination 

Unequal application of 
EU labour market 
legislation 

Implementation issues 
and overlaps between 
instruments available 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
e

d
n
a

l
a
i
c
o
s

e
h
t

r
a
l
u
c
i
t
r
a
p
n
i
–
y
g
e
t
a
r
t
s

0
2
0
2
e
p
o
r
u
E
e
h
t

o
t

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

all 

ESF 

EGF 

S
S
E
R
G
O
R
P

S
E
R
U
E

C
N
A
N
I
F
O
R
C
M

I

I

L
A
C
O
S
/
E

U
E
N
E
R
P
E
R
T
N
E

a
d
n
e
g
A

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
D

l
a
i
c
o
S

Improve policy coherence and 
efficiency 

Promote  
•  Employment and mobility, 
•  Education/training skills,  
•  Social inclusion, and 
• 

Institutional capacity building. 

•  Support workers made 

redundant as result of major 
structural changes 

•  Strengthen ownership of the EU 
employment and social policy 

•  Support policy reform by 

strengthening social innovation 

•  Modernise EU legislative 

framework and ensure effective 
application of EU law in the 
employment and social policy 
field 

•  Promote geographical and 
occupational mobility 

  • 
P
I
H
S
R

Increase access to and 
availability of microfinance and 
support to social enterprises 

•  Content level operational 

objectives defined in the OPs 

•  Governance related: 

high absorption (target 100%) 
and no de-commitment; error 
rate below 2% 
•  Speeding up delivery 
•  At least 50% reinsertion in the 

labour market 

Promote: 
•  Research 
•  Mutual learning 
•  Social innovation & 

experimentation/pilot projects 

•  Capacity building 

• 

• 

Increase the number of job 
vacancies on the EURES Portal 
Increase number of transnational 
placements 

•  Set up specific targeted mobility 

• 

scheme at EU level 
Increase the number of micro-
loans 

•  Build of institutional capacity 
with microcredit providers 
Increase the number and scale of 
social enterprises 

• 

Scope and reimbursement 
modes 

Budgetary status of EGF 
and relation with ESF 

Levels of integration 
between the instruments 
under direct management 
and integration with 
instruments under shared 
management 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1. The scope of the ESF 

In  times  of  budgetary  tensions  it  is  essential  that  the  EU  money  is  used  to  support  EU 
priorities81. This is in line with official statements from the European Council in June 2010, 
President Barroso82 and is also shared by the ESF Committee83. Still, there is a decision to be 
taken  between  an  ESF  narrowly  focused  on  core  tasks  directly  related  to  employment  or  a 
broader scope including income replacement, for instance through measures providing out-of-
work  income  maintenance  and  support  (so-called  passive  measures  as  opposed  to  active 
measures  which  aim  at  activating  people  and  improving  their  integration  into  the  labour 
force).  

The options below are chosen following the discussion with stakeholders and experts. They 
form a continuum starting with narrower focuses than is currently the case to a much broader 
focus. They are defined in terms of their relevance to the Europe 2020 integrated guidelines 
(IGL)84. This entails that any ESF action is conceived in support to one or more guidelines, 
not that it supports all actions foreseen under a given IGL. For instance actions of regulatory 
or legislative nature are addressed to the Member States and fall naturally outside the scope of 
the ESF. Moreover, it also recognises that the ESF is only one of the necessary instruments.    

The  no-policy  change  (option  1.1)  corresponds  to  an  ESF  covering  policies  and  actions 
leading  directly  or  indirectly  to  employment  and  enhancing  social  inclusion.    This 
corresponds to the IGL 7, 8, 9 and, to some extent, 10. In view of its importance to the Europe 
2020  strategy,  a  particular  importance is given to the  transition from training and education 
notably  tertiary  and  vocational  education  to  employment.  Transnational  actions  related  to 
people in labour market and adult education (being unemployed or in job search) are covered. 
Social  inclusion  and  fight  against  poverty  are  eligible  as  such,  even  for  people  that  are  not 
very close to the labour market. Nevertheless, a certain link to the labour market still needs to 
be  established.  Vulnerable  groups  can  be  supported  with  a  view  to  promoting  their 
reintegration  in  the  labour  market.  Institutional  capacity  building  measures  may  cover  all 
sectors. Health is supported to a limited extent, provided there is a clear labour market linkage 
(e.g. health and safety at work, mental health in the framework of social inclusion priority). 
Passive measures are only eligible when linked to activation measures. The transition to low-
carbon  economy  can  be  supported  through  professional  training  and  advanced  vocational 
training  to  develop  and  adjust  skills  and  qualifications,  especially  in  the  energy  efficiency, 
renewable energy, sustainable transport and agriculture sectors. 

Under  option  1.2,  the  ESF  is  narrowly  focussed  on  policies  and  actions  leading  directly  to 
employment. This corresponds to the IGL 7, 8 and 9. The function of the ESF is to facilitate 
access to employment. Social inclusion and fight against poverty interventions are not eligible 
as  such,  except  for  people  that  are  very  close  to  the  labour  market.  The  coverage  is  much 
narrower  than  today.  For  instance,  it  does  not  cover  activities  oriented  towards  long-term 
unemployed  which  are  not  likely  to  find  any  time  soon  a  job  in  the  first  labour  market,  or 
people  with  a  disability  who  will  permanently  rely  on  subsidised  or  sheltered  employment  

81 Council Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States 
and of the Union" and "Council Decision of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the 
Member States"  
82 Council Decision from June 2010 and State of the Union Speech from September 2010 
83 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/article_10127_opinion_on_future_esf_en.pdf 
84 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:308:0046:0051:EN:PDF  

38

 
 
 
                                                 
(such  activities  are  covered  in  options  1  and  3).  Support  to  the  reforms  for  instance  of 
employment  services  is  covered.  In  the  field  of  education,  only  actions  with  direct  labour 
market  relevance  are  eligible  (e.g.  strengthening  the  links  between  the  labour  market  and 
education,  adapting  education  and  training  systems  to  labour  market  demand).  Institutional 
capacity  building  can  be  covered  in  relation  to  public  employment  services  and  capacity 
building of social partner. 

Under Option 1.3 the ESF has a broad scope for interventions covering policies and actions 
leading directly or indirectly to employment or social inclusion. This corresponds to the IGL 
7, 8, 9 and 10. Expanding on option 1.1, this option does not require the activity to be linked 
to employment. This has the benefit that activities where such a link would be highly artificial 
but which are nevertheless important for social inclusion can be funded without difficulties. 
For instance, interventions aiming at fostering pre-school attendance would be covered. In the 
field  of  social  inclusion,  the  scope  of  the  ESF  is  extended  to  cover  access  to  high  quality, 
affordable  and  sustainable  services,  in  particular  in  the  social  field.  It  does  include  a  broad 
range  of  health  activities  and  greater  focus  on  anti-discrimination  measures,  which  aim  at 
enhancing  full  participation  in  society.  Passive  measures  are  only  eligible  when  linked  to 
activation measures. All actions in the field of education are eligible for support.  

Some  stakeholders  have  called  for  a  broad  scope  for  ESF  including  passive  measures. 
Option 1.4 corresponds to the IGL 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The range of actions is the same as under 
option  1.3.  However,  the  ESF  can  also  co-finance  income  support  for  actions  with  a  social 
inclusion  dimension.  Under  option  1.4  passive  measures  can  be  supported  even  outside  the 
periods of activation.  

All the options proposed continue with the – by now well established and accepted – practice 
to  support  people  as  well  as  institutions  (systems  and  structures)  in  the  relevant  areas  of 
intervention. While the ESF may fund equipment needed for a given intervention, it does not 
fund  infrastructure  works,  such  as  construction  or  renovation  of  buildings  and  roads,  under 
any of the options. These types of investments may be supported by other instruments under 
Cohesion Policy notably the ERDF. It has also to be underlined that the existing practises to 
fund  passive  measures  during  (and  only  during)  the  period  for  which  participants  follow 
active measures (training for example) remains unchanged for options 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.  

A particular emphasis is given to innovative and transnational actions in synergy with actions 
supported in other EU programmes under all options. The role effects (in particular the policy 
change, mutual learning, innovation dimensions85) and scope effects of the ESF (broadening 
in a relevant and effective way the scope of existing actions) can be strengthened by funding 
in a more systematic way social innovation and experimentation projects.  

In line with the new MFF proposal announcing that the Commission intends to increase the 
proportion  of  climate  related  expenditure  across  the  EU  budget  to  at  least  20%,  climate 
mainstreaming gains in importance. For all ESF options, climate objectives will in particular 
be relevant in relation to activities under promoting employment and investing in skills which 
will  be  needed  for  the  transition  to  a  low-carbon  and  climate  resilient  economy. 
Mainstreaming must be visible, robust and accompanied by a clear cross-cutting obligation to 
identify where programmes promote climate action or energy efficiency so that the EU is able 

85 The ex-post evaluation proposes "that the ESF promotes a portfolio of innovative projects. The ESF should 
focus on an experiment-oriented and risk-taking approach whereby new solutions to labour market and welfare 
policies  are  attempted,  and  knowledge  about  what  works  is  increased  and  systematically  disseminated  across 
regions and MSs through, among other things, the promotion of ‘best practices’".   

39

 
 
                                                 
to  set  out  clearly  how  much  of  its  spending  relates  to  climate  action.  Clear  benchmarks, 
monitoring and reporting rules for all relevant EU policy instruments will be established by 
building on two strands: 1) common tracking procedures for climate related expenditure; and 
2) target setting in all relevant policies and the monitoring of results. 

Furthermore horizontal issues such as aiming to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation remain cornerstones of the 
ESF  under  all  options.  In  particular,  gender  equality  continues  to  be  actively  promoted 
through the dual approach of gender mainstreaming and specific actions. Those issues should 
be  addressed  as  horizontal  principles  aiming  at  achieving  the  overall  goal  of  the  ESF.  The 
social  and  economic  integration  of  Roma  people  should  also  be  specifically  addressed.  The 
obligations that the European Union has taken by becoming party to the UN Convention on 
the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities86  should  also  be  considered.  In  addition,  all  actors 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the  ESF  are  to  ensure  that  implementation  of  its 
priorities  is  in  full  respect  with  the  rights  and  principles  enshrined  in  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  This approach is fully in line with the Strategy 
for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  by  the  European 
Union.87. 

The Table 5 below summarise the differences and similarities between the different options. 

Table 5. ESF scope options 

Policy areas 

Options 

Employment 

Education  

Inclusion 

Institutional 
Capacity building 

1.1  –  No  policy 
change 

All 
measures 
considered as ALMP 

Health only  
included where 
directly related to 
employment (f.i. 
health and safety at 
work) 

1.2  –  focus  on 
employment 

measures 
All 
considered as ALMP 

Fully  covered  (not 
to 
restricted 
from 
transition 
and 
education 
to 
training 
employment) 

Focus  on  transition 
from  education  and 
to 
training 
employment 

Same as option 1.1 

Same as option 1.1 

Covered  provided  a 
link  a  link  to  the 
labour  market 
is 
established 

Any sector  

Not covered 

Option  1.1  but  with 
to  services 
access 
and 
anti-
discrimination 

of 

Only 
market 
institutions 

labour 
related 

Same as option 1.1 

1.3 

Option 
income 
(passive 
market measures) 

plus 
support 
labour 

Same as option 1.1 

Option  3  including 
income support. 

Same as option 1.1 

–  broad 

1.3 
scope 

1.4 
–  broad 
scope  including 
passive 
measures 

the  United  Nations  Convention  on 

86 Council decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, 
the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  http://eur-
of 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:023:0035:0061:EN:PDF 
87 Communication  on Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the 
European Union from 19.10.2010 COM(2010) 573 final. 

40

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2. Simplification of ESF implementation  

The  scope  for  the  simplification  of  ESF  implementation  is  actually  foremost  dependent  on 
provisions made elsewhere notably in the Financial Regulation and in the General Regulation 
for the ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund. The options discussed here mirror a discussion in the 
Impact Assessment of the General Regulation but focus on the use of simplified cost options 
for  which  ESF  specificity  is  the  most  marked.  The  analysis  will  develop  an  ESF  specific 
approach.  

Under  option  2.1  (status  quo),  reimbursement  is  based  mainly  on  real  costs,  the  use  of 
simplified cost options (flat rates, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums) is allowed, but 
optional.  The  use  of  simplified  cost  options  always  requires  the  development  of  a  regional/ 
national methodology to underpin the rates to be used.   

Option 2.2 (proportional approach), allows for reimbursement based on real costs or on the 
simplified cost options i.e. as in option 1, but with additional possibilities facilitating the use 
of  simplified  cost  options  and  reinforcing  a  more  result  based  approach:  for  example 
introduction  of  flat  rates  at  EU  level,  acceptance  of  rates  established  for  other  EU  funding 
instruments  or  application  of  already  existing  national  funding  models.  The  detailed 
possibilities could vary according to the specific types of operations.  

Under  option  2.3  (prescriptive  approach),  payments  to  projects  are  based  only  on 
deliverables with corresponding amounts or rates agreed beforehand.  

4.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF 

The  options  considered  differ  exclusively  in  the  organisational  set-up,  which  is  essential  as 
problem  analysis  and  stakeholders'  views  demonstrate.  Content-wise  the  usefulness  of  an 
emergency instrument to support people hit by major unforeseeable economic turbulences has 
not been put in question. The questions of where and how exactly to put eligibility thresholds 
will be discussed in the upcoming ex-ante evaluation88. 
Option  3.1  corresponds  to  the  no  policy  change  with  the  EGF  operating  without  a  proper 
budget  outside  the  MFF.  The  absence  of  an  own  budget  line  and  financial  arrangements 
implies the approval of the Budgetary Authority on a case by case basis. However, efforts will 
be made to shorten the time gap between application for and payment of EGF support. This 
will  be  pursued  through  further  streamlining  of  the  application  process,  requiring  the 
submission  of  a  complete  application,  making  the  provision  of  additional  information  an 
exception and limiting the time for Member States to submit this information, providing for 
the adoption by the Commission of the financing decision 'sous clause suspensive' at the same 
time as the Commission adopts the Proposal for a Decision to mobilise the EGF. 

Under Option 3.2, the actions currently carried out under EGF are incorporated into the ESF. 
A  specific  ESF  component  comparable  to  the  Community  initiatives  which  existed  in 

88 The recently adopted MFF 2014-2020 proposal extended the scope of the EGF to include assistance to farmers 
whose livelihoods may be affected by globalisation. This has been driven by the need to facilitate the adaptations 
required by international trade agreements. The extension of the EGF's activities to cover farmers may require a 
change of/ addition to its framework, scope, tools and implementing arrangements to ensure that the new policy 
objectives are achieved. Budgetary issues are also to be considered as the new MFF proposal is earmarking up to 
2.5  billion  €  of  the  EGF  to  be  used  for  agriculture.  The  legal,  policy  and  budgetary  consequences  of  this 
extension  of  the  EGF  activities  need  to  be  further  assessed.  This  would  also  cover  aspects  such  as  triggering 
mechanism  and  the  consistency  and  complementarity  with  the  CAP  in  general  and  with  rural  development 
measures in particular. This analysis will be part of an ex-ante evaluation.  
.  

41

 
 
                                                 
previous programming periods will be created. This component focuses on emergency aid to 
workers affected by large-scale redundancies and farmers suffering from the indirect effects 
of globalisation. Main justification for such support will be changes in the global division of 
labour or other factors having a significant adverse impact on the regional or local economy, 
including large unforeseen cyclical downturns, similar to the present economic and financial 
crisis.  

Option 3.3 is the EGF as a stand-alone fund with its own budget line within the Multiannual 
Financial  Framework  (MFF).  The  intervention  criteria,  scope,  intervention  rate  and  type  of 
measures  would  be  identical  to  the  ones  in  option  3.1.  Under  this  option  the  Commission 
services  take  decisions  on  each  EGF  application.  The  approval  of  an  application  leads  to  a 
grant agreement with the applicant Member State.  

4.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument  

Option  4.1  is  no  policy  change  which  means  that,  EURES,  the  European  PROGRESS 
Microfinance  Facility  and  the  EU  programme  for  employment  and  social  solidarity  - 
PROGRESS  continue  to  exist  as  separate  instruments  running  alongside  the  ESF.  The 
PROGRESS programme does not include the gender equality and anti-discrimination strands 
(amounting  together  to  35%  of  the  overall  budget)  which  are  incorporated  into  the  new 
generation  of  JUST  programmes89.  The  current  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  continues  to 
provide guarantees and funding under joint management with the European Investment Fund, 
with a last investment in 2016 without new extra resources. Member States are still able to set 
up  holding  funds  (e.g.  under  JEREMIE)  with  ESF  resources  to  provide  funding  and 
guarantees  to  microfinance  providers.  ESF  continues  to  support  generally  entrepreneurship 
and  self-employment  through  the  financing  of  training,  mentoring  and,  in  some  cases, 
capacity building of microfinance providers. 

No  dedicated  capacity  building  funding  for  microfinance  providers  is  foreseen.  Some 
awareness  raising  and  exchange  of  good  practices  are  financed  out  of  the  ESF  technical 
assistance. 

Option  4.2  is  a  new  integrated  programme  for  employment,  social  policy  and  inclusion 
(Social  Development  Agenda)  implemented  through  direct  management.  Such  an  EU-level 
instrument complements the ESF (shared management). Both instruments together constitute 
the  comprehensive  European  Employment  Initiative,  as  called  for  by  the  Budget  Review 
Communication (p 15).  

The new programme is made up of three strands: 

1. 

2. 

PROGRESS  strand  covering  employment,  working  conditions,  social 
protection and social inclusion. An important financial support is provided for 
testing  and  scaling  up  cost-effective  experiments  or  projects  in  the  areas  of 
employment, poverty reduction and social inclusion.  

EURES  strand  covering  services  at  EU  level  related  to  both  outgoing  and  to 
incoming placements targeted mobility schemes at EU level and involving both 
Public  Employment  Services  (PES)  and  Private  Employment  Services. 

89  COM(2011)  500  final.  A  Budget  for  Europe  2020  -  Part  II  -  Policy  Fiches  -  Communication  from  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions. 

42

 
 
                                                 
National EURES activities would not be covered any more as they already fall 
under the scope of the ESF. 

3. 

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship strand covering the strengthened facility 
for  microfinance  and  providing  financial  support  to  social  enterprises.  Under 
this  strand,  the  EU  continues  to  provide  guarantees  and  funding  to 
microfinance institutions under joint management with the EIF. New elements 
are capacity building support to microfinance institutions (in the form of loans, 
equity  or  grants)  and  to  social  investment  funds  (through  equity  instruments, 
debt and risk-sharing instruments and grants) for the development and scaling 
of social enterprises. Member States are still allowed to use ESF funding to set 
up their own holding funds, as under option 4.1.  

Option  4.3  corresponds  to  the  establishment  of  a  single  financial  instrument  for 
employment  and  social  affairs  under  the  banner  of  the  European  Social  Fund.  Such  a 
new  ESF  has  both  shared  management  (to  cover  the  existing  ESF  and  the  EGF)  and  direct 
management  components.  The  latter  includes  the  actions  currently  carried  out  under  the 
PROGRESS programme, the Micro-Finance Facility complemented by a financial instrument 
to support social enterprises, and EURES. 

Under  the  direct  management  component,  PROGRESS  strand  covers  employment,  working 
conditions,  social  protection  and  social  inclusion  policy  fields  as  well  as  social  innovation 
projects.  

The current Progress Microfinance Facility continues to provide guarantees and funding under 
joint management with the European Investment Fund, with a last investment in 2016 without 
new  extra  resources.  Under  shared  management,  Member  States  use  (possibly  ring-fenced) 
ESF resources to support micro-finance activities at national level (in the form of guarantees 
and  funding  including  an  allocation  covering  part  of  the  operational  costs)  and  social 
enterprises.  Technical  assistance  resources  could  be  used  for  specific  capacity  building 
measures aimed at microcredit providers. 

Under direct management, the activities are limited to awareness raising and general support 
to policies in the area of self-employment and entrepreneurship.  

4.5. Options not analysed 

4.5.1.  No-funding 

The no-funding policy option would see the discontinuation of European financial support to 
help  developing  and  introducing  active  labour  market  policies,  effective  lifelong  learning, 
instruments  to  promote  labour  mobility,  and  adequate  social  security  systems.  This  would 
directly affect several millions of citizens annually; end the most tangible expression of EU 
solidarity; and greatly diminish the capability to promote EU employment and social policy 
objectives: 

°  The  no-funding  option  would  mean  that  actions  usually  funded  under  ESF  (i.e. 
supporting  people  to  improve  their  skills  and  job  prospects;  encouraging  self-
employment  and  entrepreneurship;  and  intra-EU  labour  mobility  )  would  instead  be 
solely reliant on national measures. It is doubtful that in the lesser developed Member 
States and regions national resources would be available to take over this role.  

43

 
 
°  The EU would also lose the most visible sign of the common employment and social 
policy ambitions as formulated in Article 151 of the TFEU. Due to its impact on the 
ESF,  the  no-funding  option  would  in  turn  affect  the  cohesion  policy  as  a  whole 
thereby jeopardising the promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and 
solidarity among the Member States and regions.  

°  Moreover, as EU funding has been shown to work as a catalyst, the ability to promote 
and facilitate reforms, as well as to empower stakeholders who have a crucial role to 
play in the delivery of reform would be severally diminished.  

4.5.1.  Focussing ESF operational programmes 

The  Commission  staff  working  paper  (SEC(2011)868)  accompanying  the  June  Budget 
package  raises  the  issue  of  the  focussing  of  funding  of  ESF  operational  programmes.  The 
reasons for not taking up the options considered up in this report are as follows.   

Concentration  should  be  achieved  firstly  by  strengthening  the  link  with  the  country 
assessment and the country specific recommendations. This allows for an approach which is 
flexible and common to all Structural and Cohesion Funds. As such this is the subject of the 
General  Regulation  and  its  Impact  Assessment  not  of  the  fund  specific  Regulations  and 
Impact Assessments.  

Focussing of Cohesion Policy Operational Programmes 

Focussing operational programmes (ESF and non-ESF) will be achieved trough a process of 
strategic programming and an increased attention on performance. Broad thematic objectives 
are defined in the General Regulation. In the June Budget communication (COM(2011)500), 
the Commission decided that the ESF should focus on four of these90. Based on their NRPs, 
the Country Specific Recommendations and their own ex-ante evaluation, the Member States 
will  select  which  ones  it  should  concentrate  on.  This  selection  will  be  fixed  in  Partnership 
Contracts  and  operational  programmes.  For  each  thematic  objective,  the  fund  specific 
regulations  will  define  detailed  investment  priorities  which  will  correspond  to  specific 
objectives to be pursued under the Operational Programmes. It should be noted that the actual 
selection  of  projects  remains  a  competence  of  the  Managing  Authorities.  However,  actions 
that can not be shown to contribute to the intended specific objectives will be ineligible.    

Progress towards the specific objectives is to be monitored through a reinforced monitoring 
and  evaluation  system.  Each  Priority  Axes  of  an  Operational  Programme  will  require  the 
identification of milestones on the basis of financial, output and result indicators in order to 
assess performance. A performance reserve will be available to reward the better performing 
programmes. 

While the system sketched above does not mechanically avoid fragmentation of resources, it 
is judged to offer a powerful yet flexible way to achieve it.  

90 They are: employment promotion; investment in skills, education and life-long learning; social inclusion and 
the fight against poverty; and enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration. 

44

 
 
 
                                                 
5.  Analysis of impacts 

Taking  into  account  the  nature  of  the  options  the  analysis  of  impacts  will  focus  on  a 
qualitative analysis, demonstrating which causalities will be dominant under each option.  

This  analysis  focuses  on  social  and  economic  impacts.    On  a  very  general  note  all  the 
instruments  are  expected  to  facilitate  or  mitigate  the  change  of  economic,  including 
employment, structures.  

As  mentioned  in  the  objectives  section,  although  employment  and  social  policy  will  have 
environmental impacts, these impacts depend on the concrete implementation, i.e. in the case 
of the ESF on the Operational Programmes and the actual projects funded and not directly on 
the  legal  provisions.  However,  the  different  instruments  are  expected  also  to  facilitate  the 
transition  to  a  low-carbon  economy  notably  through  targeted  vocational  training  and  re-
training towards "green-collar" job opportunities, addressing emerging skills bottlenecks and 
supporting  the  development  of  know-how  for  low-carbon  technologies  as  a  basis  for 
innovation. 

5.1. The scope of the ESF 

Under  Option  1.1  the  ESF  covers  policies  and  actions  leading  directly  or  indirectly  to 
employment. It is placed between options 1.2 and 1.3. While this option maintains the clear 
focus  on  employment  and  is  therefore  also  in  line  with  social  partners'  request  to  focus  on 
employment and with EMCO's opinion, it includes also those at the margins of or outside the 
labour market, which has it in common with option 1.3.  

Applying a broad interpretation of indirectly leading to employment, would bring option 1.1 
very  close  to  option  1.3.  One  could  basically  do  everything  which  helps  a  working  age  or 
younger individual to be integrated in society, while maintaining the objective of integration 
into work, whereby work might not necessarily mean first labour market. However, it could 
also  result  in  a  more  stringent  focus  on  labour  market  related  issues,  making  it  difficult  to 
support early education or primarily social and health issues, while ensuring that interventions 
keep an economic rationale. 

From  an  administrative  point  of  view  several  MS  would  appreciate  to  continue  with  this 
approach  as  it  could  avoid  new  groups  of  stakeholders  wetting  their  appetite  to  obtain  ESF 
funding, which could mean it becomes more difficult to concentrate the funds. 

In  economic  terms  Option  1.2  –  an  ESF  narrowly  focussed  on  policies  and  actions  leading 
directly  to  employment  (including  support  to  education,  but  only  tertiary  education  and 
vocational education) – ensures ex-ante a concentration of the ESF on economically relevant 
tasks, namely inserting people into the labour market or improving their skills. Both can be 
expected to improve the productivity of those trained or counselled and can in so far translate 
into economic growth. Social partners stated that they consider this – in line with the Treaty 
provisions  –  as  the  core  of  ESF  activities.  Evaluations  and  studies  provide  insights  in  the 
benefits  of  these  types  of  investments91.    Institutional  capacity  building  of  labour  market 

91  See  for  instance:  Study  on  the  return  on  ESF  investment  in  Human  capital  by  Eureval/Ecorys/Rambøll 
Management for DG EMPL and completed in (August 2010).  Card, D., J. Kluve und A. Weber (2010), Active 
Labour  Market  Policy  Evaluations:  A  Meta-analysis.  Economic  Journal  120  (548):  452-477;  'Active  Labour 
market policies for the Europe 2020 Strategy: ways to move forward' publication by the Flemish Department of 
Work  and  Social  Economy  in  cooperation  with  the  Research  Institute  for  Work  and  Society,  the  European 

45

 
 
                                                 
related  institutions  should  lead  to  better  matching  between  jobseekers  and  available  jobs, 
swifter  transitions  to  a  job  due  to  tailored  assistance  taking  into  account  labour  market 
demands and thus contributing to achieving the employment rate.  

Nevertheless, the economic benefits of an ESF exclusively limiting itself to this area would be 
rather limited. It could even mean to consolidate labour market and social segregation by only 
supporting people in or close to the labour market.  Looking more into the social impacts of 
this option, the horizontal principles of anti-discrimination but also innovation e.g. developing 
new  approaches  to  work-life-balance  might  become  more  difficult  to  support.  Innovation 
often  requires  that  things  which  were  seen  separately  before  can  be  looked  at  in  a  more 
integrated way or that a different perspective becomes possible. A labour market focus would 
tend  to  imply  a  focus  on  individuals  whereas  barriers  to  employment  may  lay  beyond  for 
instance  the  household.  Focussing  the  ESF  exclusively  on  labour  market  integration  and 
training is likely to be too narrow also when seen from this angle. 

Option 1.3, broad scope of ESF, extends the scope to the fields of social inclusion and health, 
irrespective  of  whether  inclusion  into  the  labour  market  is  an  issue.  This  option  allows  the 
greatest flexibility to adapt to the wide range of challenges throughout the Union. It is also in 
line with broad political decision placing in the context of Europe 2020 a stronger emphasis 
on  the  fight  against  poverty.  By  investing  more  substantially  in  ensuring  access  to  high 
quality,  affordable,  and  sustainable  services  to  vulnerable  groups,  anti-discrimination 
measures and in access to health care. A broad scope is also more in line with the opinions of 
the EESC, the CoR and of the ESF Committee ad hoc group on the future and was generally 
supported  at  the  ESF  conference  in  June  2010.  The  SPC  for  its  part  has  called  for  an  ESF 
better fitted to support the social protection, health and long-term care OMC strands. 

This option  will have no difficulties to  work with  those  groups  which  are  not  likely  to  find 
employment without public support. In so far deadweight losses and substitution effects might 
be lower and the economic benefits in terms of avoided costs for the social security system of 
this option are likely to be higher than for option 2. Still it should not be overlooked that with 
this  approach  the  immediate  effect  on  productivity  is  probably  lower,  as  medium  and  high-
skilled which are already in employment – or those close to the labour market – will receive 
less support.  

Indirect economic costs of the persistence of large scale inequalities in health are potentially 
considerable  but  difficult  to  estimate.  One  of  the  few  studies  that  has  attempted  to  do  so 
estimated that the potential economic gain which would occur if it was possible to bring the 
health  of  the  whole  population  up  to  the  level  of  health  experienced  by  those  with  higher 
education would be between 1.2% and 9% of the EU GDP92. Therefore, high levels of health 
(i.e. reducing unnecessary ill health and premature death) for all sections of the population are 
important  in  the  context  of  an  ageing  population  to  allow  longer  working  lives  and  support 
higher  productivity  and  employment  levels.  Avoidable  ill-health  also  means  large  costs  for 
health systems and puts unnecessary pressure on public budgets. 

A comprehensive activation strategy which in  some MS will be needed to achieve the 75% 
employment  target  could  well  be  supported  under  this  option.  It  could  make  possible  the 

Commission  and  the  City  of  Antwerp  (Presidency  Conference  of  October  2010)  and  Employment  in  Europe 
2006. 
92 Mackenbach, J. P., Meerding, W. J., Kunst, A. E., 2006 Economic implications of socio-economic inequalities 
in  health  in  the  European  Union,  Erasmus  MC,  Department  of  Public  Health,  Netherlands  for  the  European 
Commission 

46

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
support  of  people  who  might  be  in  a  position  to  take  up  employment  only  after  a  series  of 
interventions. Managing Authorities might also be in a position to support interventions not 
likely to lead rapidly to employment, but helping people not to drop out from society. 

While the ESF budget is limited and direct income support is not part of this option, any other 
support  which  could  contribute  to  lifting  people  out  of  poverty,  which  could  e.g.  be  a 
neighbourhood project or a youth centre, is within the scope of this option.  

This option has a considerable social potential in terms of actual benefits but also in terms of 
innovation though it will largely depend on the Managing Authorities to make use from these 
additional flexibility. They are aware that this bears a challenge for them as they will have to 
be  even  more  precise  when  developing  the  OP,  so  as  to  allow  sufficient  practical 
concentration which is required for administrative purposes and to be able to show the impact 
of  the  programme.  Compared  to  other  options,  this  option  has  the  most  potential  beneficial 
impact  on  fundamental  rights  as  in  addition  to  the  promotion  of  the  principles  of  non-
discrimination  (Article  21),  gender  equality  (Article  23),  integration  of  persons  with 
disabilities (Article 26), right to access to placement services (Article 29) or right to fair and 
just working conditions (Article 31) it would also provide for funding of actions relevant for 
the exercise of the right to health care (Article 35) or education (Article 14).    

Two risks are associated with broadening the scope of intervention, increased overlaps with 
other  EU  instruments93  and  an  increased  fragmentation  of  support  and  the  possible 
consequence of lacking critical mass to make a real difference.  

The  risks  of  overlap  are  minimised  by  different  emphases  of  the  different  programmes.  For 
instance  the  "Education  Europe"  programme  promotes  the  international  mobility  of  young 
persons  in  education  or  training,  while  the  ESF  focuses  on  the  mobility  (essentially 
occupational) of workers. Possible overlaps with other funds in shared management are to be 
addressed through the Common strategic Framework and the National Partnership Contracts 
which will cover the ESF, the ERDF, the CF, the EAFRD and the EMFF. 

It is not possible to fully anticipate the possible fragmentation of support. This is because the 
actual  allocation  of  funds  will  be  decided  in  the  context  of  negotiations  of  regional  and 
national  operational  programmes  and  can  therefore  not  be  assessed  ex-ante.  There  are 
however, three factors that should help mitigate these possible effects. 

The  major  factor  is  that  the  negotiations  on  the  new  operational  programmes  will  be 
conducted  in  a  much  tighter  framework  of  strategic  programming  putting  a  much  greater 
emphasis on the performance of the future programmes. Moreover, the definition of minimum 
shares  of  ESF  allocations  per  category  of  regions94  should  ensure  that  a  critical  mass  of 
funding is achieved.  

Finally while the scope is widened it is not in a dramatic manner. The number of investment 
priorities  is  an  indirect  though  imperfect  measure  of  the  scope.  In  the  draft  regulation,  the 
extension  of  the  scope  translates  into  two  investment  priorities  on  a  total  of  18.  Costly 
infrastructure interventions (f.i. school buildings) remain outside the ESF scope but are in the 
scope of the other instruments of cohesion policy. This should increase the possible synergies 
between interventions co-financed by the different funds.  

93 Notably "Education Europe", "Justice and Fundamental Rights for Citizens" and "Health for Growth" 
94 June Budget Package: COM(2011) 500. 

47

 
 
                                                 
Option  1.4,  broadening  the  scope  of  the  ESF  towards  income  support  does  not  meet  much 
appreciation.  The  CoR  for  instance  explicitly  advocates  the  continued  linking  of  income 
support with activation measures as is currently the case. 

In  the  European  Union,  out-of-work  income  maintenance  and  support  in  2009  amounts  to 
nearly 164 € billion95. This is nearly 15 times the current ESF budget on a yearly basis. The 
spending  by  Member  States  and  regional  authorities  on  passive  measures  is  therefore  of  a 
completely  different  order  of  magnitude  than  the  funds  potentially  available  for  the  ESF96. 
Furthermore,  providing  income  support  is  following  the  subsidiarity  principle  first  and 
foremost  an  obligation  which  should  be  met  by  national  or  regional  institutions.  The 
operational costs of social security schemes are to be paid from national sources. Supporting 
passive  measures  would  change  the  character  of  the  fund  and  may  even  be  in  contradiction 
with the Treaty provisions. Moreover, any amount spent on passive measures is not available 
for the other activities where a European Added Value can be identified.  

5.2. Simplification  

Though  the  main  purpose  of  the  simplified  cost  options  is  to  reduce  the  error  levels,  the 
reduction  of  administrative  burden  is  potentially  very  significant.  If  beneficiaries  apply  for 
one or more of the three options, they would need to retain a considerably lower number of 
accounting  documents,  both  to  comply  with  periodical  audits,  and  to  show  proofs  of 
expenditures when requesting payments. A study conducted by CEPS concludes these options 
could reduce the administrative costs and burdens by nearly 17% for the Cohesion Policy as a 
whole. For the ESF the potential reduction is even larger as approximately 75% of operations 
funded may benefit97. The actual reduction is more difficult to quantify or predict. It depends 
on the speed with which the simplified costs options are introduced and also whether they are 
widely applied or used only for specific cases.  

Under Option 2.1 – No policy change, payments based on real costs provide assurance that 
EU  funds  are  used  towards  co-financed  projects.  In  its  2009  Annual  Report,  the  European 
Court of Auditors highlighted that "in the Cohesion area, a significant reduction in the error 
rate has been noted compared to previous years. The frequency of errors has also decreased in 
the last three years." Under a situation of no policy change, there is scope for further reduction 
of the error rates.  

Managing a real cost system can lead to a higher error rate and disproportional management 
costs.    This  is  particularly  an  issue  for  the  ESF  with  many  final  beneficiaries  implementing 
relatively  small  operations.  The  real  cost  system  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  why 
implementation of cohesion policy is perceived by many beneficiaries to be overly complex.  
In  the  2007-2013  period,  first  steps  have  been  made  to  introduce  simplified  reimbursement 
options – flat rate for indirect costs, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums. The initial 
reaction  from  Member  States  has  been  positive  and  encouraging  with  great  interest  for  the 
uptake  of  some  of  these  solutions.  The  development  of  initial  methodologies  for  the 
establishment  of  a  flat  rate  or  standard  scale  system  has  proved  more  time  consuming  and 

95 Eurostat: LMP data for 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database 
96 During the programming period 2007 – 2013, the budget available for ESF was nearly 76 billion €. The MFF 
foresees that the ESF should amount to at least 84 billion € for the seven year programming period 2014 – 2020.  
97  Measurement  of  administrative  burdens  generated  by  the  European  legislation;  Prepared  by  CEPS  for  the 
Directorate  General  of  Enterprise  and  Industry  of  the  European  Commission  under  Specific  Contract  No. 
SI2.546728 implementing Framework Contract No. ENTR/2006/006 – Lot 4. Second interim report - first part: 
AB quantifications  

48

 
 
                                                 
resource  intensive  than  expected  by  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Overall,  a 
reimbursement based on real costs has remained the most common even if in some ESF OPs 
simplified cost options are now the option by default (Flanders, England).  

Option 2.2 – Flexible approach would make it easier for national/regional authorities to use 
the optional simplified payment options, providing alternatives to a system based on real costs 
which can often lead to unnecessary complexity and a disproportionate administrative burden.  
The experiences in some ESF operational programmes with public tendering instead of calls 
for  proposals  and  with  simplified  cost  options  show  that  it  is  possible  to  simplify  for  the 
beneficiaries thereby dramatically reducing error rates. Furthermore the use of standard scales 
of  unit  costs  and  lump  sums  have  the  potential  to  place  outputs  and  results  at  the  focus  of 
programme implementation.  

As  the  use  of  the  different  systems  would  remain  voluntary,  this  option  should  ease  the 
transition  to  a  range  of  simplified  cost  options  for  certain  types  of  projects,  parts  of 
programmes or programmes and at the same time still allow for reimbursement based on real 
costs for all other projects.  

A  possible  drawback  is  the  complexity  associated  with  running  simultaneously  different 
systems  though  this  should  be  mitigated  by  their  voluntary  nature.  Moreover  these  systems 
require  a  much  bigger  ex-ante  investment  to  put  them  into  place  than  the  more  common 
payment against expenditure.  

The  detail  of  expenditure  would  not  be  checked  any  more  under  Option  2.3  –  Prescriptive 
approach  making  it  potentially  the  simplest  system.  Moreover,  basing  the  payments  to 
projects based on deliverables should increase the focus on deliverables and render the system 
more  accountable  in  terms  of  the  results  achieved.  The  main  difficulty  with  this  option  is 
avoiding  "creaming"  effects  (selecting  projects  where  attainment  of  deliverables  is  simple, 
rather than projects which are more necessary). Moreover, this option can be expected to stifle 
some  operations  where  deliverables  are  difficult  to  precisely  define  and  cost  before  hand, 
particularly the more innovative ones. This is likely to be especially the case for the actions 
contributing to the promotion of social inclusion and combating poverty and to institutional 
capacity  building.  Under  Option  3  negotiations  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  on  the  future  operational  programmes  can  be  expected  to  be  significantly  more 
complex.  The start-up of the actual programmes might also be affected. Furthermore under 
this  option  the  transparency  would  be  reduced  as  underlying  costs  would  not  be  checked 
anymore. 

5.3. Relation between the EGF and the ESF 

Under Option 3.1 - no policy change the EGF will not have an own budget. That means that 
following  each  application  the  budgetary  authority  has  to  take  a  decision  whether  this 
situation  merits  support.  The  main  disadvantage  of  this  situation  lies  in  the  long  delays 
implied by the administrative procedures. Taking into account that such decisions have to be 
prepared and often negotiation is required, the process will continue to take considerable time 
and resources.  Considering the experience collected with the implementation of the EGF so 
far  it  seems  ambitious  but  possible  to  speed  up  the  process  and  reduce  the  average  time 
needed to process an application to around 8 months, which would be a 3-4 month reduction. 
Main  instruments  could  be  a  simplification  of  intervention  criteria,  which  would  also  make 
the final decision more predictable for the applicant. In doing so, the delay of 8 months is no 
longer  of  such  importance,  as  the  measures  could  in  many  cases  start  earlier.  The  use  of  a 
financing  decision  "sous-clause-suspensive"  could  further  reduce  the  time  lag  between  an 

49

 
 
application and the disbursement of the aid. Up to now no application has been rejected by the 
budgetary  authority.  However  that  risk  does  exist  and  rejection  could  mean  that  Member 
States would have started to spend support funding which finally is not granted.  

Taking  the  money  from  the  margins  of  the  budget  allows  for  a  high  flexibility  of  the 
instrument,  which  is  in  line  with  previous  experiences.  Requests  for  payments  varied 
considerably  in  the  past,  between  20.6  million  Euro  in  2008  and  132.5  Euro  in  2010. 
Furthermore  it  avoids  the  impression  that  there  is  a  defined  budget  which  is  waiting  to  be 
spent.  This  organisation  clearly  signals  that  this  is  a  support  which  is  given  in  exceptional 
circumstances and outside the usual routines. It also raises awareness in Parliament of mass 
lay-offs by involving it in the actual funding decision. This might help to bring the Parliament 
closer  to  the  citizens  and  their  concerns.  Finally  the  high  visibility  of  each  application  also 
puts high expectations on the quality of the measures to be carried out. 

This  institutional  arrangement  means  also  that  the  EGF  remains  visible  and  cannot  be 
mistaken to be a minor part of the ESF.  

Under  Option  3.2,  the  EGF  actions  are  incorporated  into  the  ESF.  The  integration  of  the 
EGF into the ESF increases coherence, promotes complementarity between preventative and 
curative measures and shortens the decision-making process. It simplifies and streamlines the 
management  of  individual  EGF  applications  as  the  EGF  could  benefit  from  ESF  structures 
and procedures in the Member States, as well as ESF management and control systems in a 
more  direct  way  than  this  is  the  case  in  the  no  policy  change  situation.  The  rules  for 
reimbursement of expenditure are adapted, by integrating ESF simplifications in eligible costs 
and project design, reducing administrative burden. Option 2 will provide dismissed workers 
with more and better targeted support for their reintegration into employment compared to a 
situation without EU support. 

The  disadvantage  of  option  3.2  is  that  an  EGF  integrated  into  the  ESF  would  need  a  clear 
budget  allocated  to  it.  This  could  suggest  that  this  budget  is  to  be  spent  within  the 
programming period yet large redundancies can not be programmed. This runs counter to the 
aspect  of  support  in  extraordinary  situations.  It  also  runs  counter  to  the  overall  allocation 
criteria  used  in  cohesion  policy  whereby  Member  States  and  regions  are  allocated  a  known 
quantity  of  EU  funds.  A  decision  making  process  which  would  not  involve  the  budgetary 
authority (Council and European Parliament) would also reduce the political visibility of EU 
intervention.  

Option 3.3, an EGF as a stand-alone fund with its own budgetary envelope ensures a high 
visibility of European solidarity with workers made redundant. However a certain degree of 
overlap  with  the  ESF  remains  whereas  there  is  a  need  to  increase  the  added  value  of  the 
different  EU  instruments  by  improving  the  synergies  between  them  rather  than  risking 
competition  and  overlaps.  This  is  recognised  by  the  Budget  Review  (p.13)  which  calls  for 
beneficiaries  of  EU  support  to  "be  offered  a  consistent  set  of  programmes  complementing 
each  other  and  allowing  for  'smart  specialisation'  rather  than  being  confronted  with  a 
multitude of partially overlapping schemes and different rules". 

In terms of effectiveness and European added value this option is very similar to option 3.2. 
The efficiency of the delivery mechanism will come at a cost compared to option 3.2, as this 
option will not benefit from established ESF structures, procedures and simplification 

50

 
 
In terms of efficient use of budgetary resources, this option presents a similar disadvantage as 
option 3.2, as it will earmark for a variable pattern of expenditure a fixed amount of resources 
within the MFF. 

5.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument  

Assessment of social, environmental and economic impacts is particularly difficult in the case 
of PROGRESS which is not a funding programme (like the ESF) but rather a financial tool 
helping  the  Commission  to  fulfil  its  role  according  to  the  Treaties.  The  programme’s 
deliverables  (analytical  activities;  mutual  learning,  awareness  and  dissemination  activities; 
support  to  main  actors)  feed  into  all  stages  of  the  EU  policy-making  process  such  as 
formulation,  development,  adoption  and  subsequent  implementation  of  legislative  and  non-
legislative  policy  initiatives  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  programme.  These  specific  policy 
initiatives  supported  by  PROGRESS  are,  when  relevant,  underpinned  by  their  own  Impact 
Assessments. Analysis of the option and their subsequent comparison is therefore carried out 
against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

The  no-policy  change  option  (4.1)  would  provide  for  the  continuation  of  Progress,  EURES 
and the Microfinance Facility as stand-alone instruments alongside the ESF.   

The objectives of a successor instrument to Progress would be optimally aligned on Europe 
2020  priorities.  The  programme's  thematic  scope  would  be  limited  to  the  employment, 
working  conditions,  social  protection  and  social  inclusion  areas;  however,  in  pursuing  its 
the  programme  would  promote  gender  equality  and  anti-discrimination 
objectives, 
dimensions.  The  programme  would  carry  on  with  funding  of  its  traditional  types  of  actions 
(analytical and mutual learning activities, and support to main actors) which are considered as 
effective  in  meeting  the  programme’s  objectives98.  Without  the  gender  equality  and  anti-
discrimination  strands,  the  new  programme  would  also  be  much  smaller  and  as  such  would 
not have the critical mass needed to achieve its policy objectives.  

The  opportunity  to  increase  policy  coherence  by  enlarging  the  programme’s  thematic  scope 
(to  social  innovation;  self-employment  and  entrepreneurship  including  through  the  micro-
finance facility; and intra-EU mobility of workers through EURES) is missed. There are no 
efficiency  gains  that  could  derive  from  the  rationalisation  of  EMPL  financial  instrument 
implemented through direct management.  

Under  this  option,  no  action  would  be  taken  to  address  in  particular  the  issue  relating  to 
EURES administrative structure which is complex and needs revision and streamlining.  

In  the  case  of  the  Microfinance  Facility,  this  option  would  miss  the  opportunity  to  embed 
microfinance in a general approach towards supporting entrepreneurship as a means to create 
jobs  and  fight  exclusion.  With  separate  instruments  at  EU  level,  support  to  microfinance 
institutions  would  continue  to  be  fragmented  with  technical  assistance  (e.g.  training,  rating 
etc.)  being  delivered  under  a  different  instrument  than  the  loans  and  guarantees  for 
microfinance  institutions,  or  the  funding  for  capacity  building.  This  means  the  policy 
coherence would not be improved. Microfinance providers would continue to suffer from this 
complicated  setup  at  the  EU  level.  Moreover,  the  European  added  value  of  such  separate 
instruments would be reduced: even though some individual Member States might continue to 

98 See Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation and annual performance monitoring reports (2007-2010).  Respondents to the public 

consultation, including national authorities, made also a strong case for the continuation of the analytical and mutual learning activities which 

are considered are highly relevant to the EU objectives in the employment and social policy field.  

51

 
 
                                                 
provide  support,  they  would  not  be  able  to  satisfy  the  very  high  demand  for  microfinance 
from  those  who  want  to  become  self-employed  or  stand/develop  a  micro-enterprise  as  they 
could, for instance, not so easily attract extra-resources from international institutions like the 
EIF if they operate exclusively on a national or regional scale. In addition, the opportunity to 
promote  social  enterprises  would  be  lost,  which  means  that  the  shortcomings  of  Progress 
Microfinance with regard to this particular target group would not be addressed. 

The main advantage of option 4.2 is a high degree of rationalisation of EMPL financial tools. 
This  option  would  enable  the  Commission  to  increase  policy  coherence  and  impact  of  its 
instruments which pursue common objectives in the employment, social affairs and inclusion 
fields. For instance, PROGRESS, EURES and the European Microfinance Facility contribute 
to the implementation of the European Employment Strategy. In addition, the current Progress 
programme  (2007-2014)  already  promotes  a  number  of  activities  linked  to  labour  mobility 
and  relevant  for  EURES  activities  (such  as  cooperation  between  the  Heads  of  Public 
Employment  Services,  funding  of  the  European  employment  observatory,  ESCO99,  several 
studies and statistics on matching skills and jobs, etc.). It also finances the operating costs of 
the  European  Microfinance  Network  which  promotes  the  use  of  the  Microfinance  Facility. 
Further complementarity between these three instruments is therefore essential. In particular, 
the  aim  of  improving  self-employment  and  geographical  mobility  cannot  be  achieved  in 
isolation from other policies (ex. flexicurity, labour law, health and safety at work) supported 
by Progress. Gender and anti-discrimination mainstreaming would be promoted in all strands 
and  annual  monitoring  would  focus  on  measuring  the  extent  to  which  these  dimensions  are 
addressed  across  all  other  activities100.  This  thematic  scope  would  be  in  line  with  both  the 
recommendations of PROGRESS stakeholder working group and the view of the respondents 
to the public consultation101.  

Regarding  the  new  programme's  design,  creating  three  strands  (Progress,  EURES, 
Microfinance  and  Social  Entrepreneurship)  would  be  necessary  given  considerable 
differences  between  the  three  instruments  regarding  their  respective  types  of  actions, 
beneficiaries,  geographical  coverage  and  management  mode.  However,  the  Progress  strand 
would be considerably redesigned in comparison to the current programme: its policy sections 
(employment, social protection/social inclusion and working conditions) would be removed in 
order to address policy challenges in a coherent and integrated manner.   

PROGRESS strand would cover the programme's traditional types of actions (analytical and 
mutual  learning  activities,  and  support  to  main  actors)  which  are  considered  as  effective  in 
meeting  the  programme’s  objectives102  and  should  therefore  be  carried  on  in  the  new 
programming  period.  In  addition,  this  strand  would  support  social  innovation  in  particular 
through  awareness  raising,  capacity  building  and  mutual  learning  activities;  it  would  also 
provide  funding  for  projects  designed  by  public  authorities  to  test  reforms  of  their  social 
protection and active labour market policies and social services delivery systems103.   

99 ESCO stands for the European multilingual taxonomy of Skills & Competences, qualifications and Occupations. 
100 This is in line with the results of the public consultation and the Progress mid-term evaluation calling for better mainstreaming gender equality and 

anti-discrimination issues in the new instrument. See section 1.4.3.  
101 See Section 1.4.6. 
102 See Interim report of PROGRESS mid-term evaluation and annual performance monitoring reports (2007-2010).  
103 In addition to the direct management funding, a share of the budget managed by the Member States in the context of the 
ESF mainstream should be ring-fenced for financing social innovation and experimentation projects.   

52

 
 
                                                 
Under this option, a new impetus would be given to EURES104. In the current programming 
period,  EURES  actions  have  been  focused  on  ensuring  information  and  transparency  on 
European  vacancies  and  CVs.  In  line  with  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  the  commitments 
taken in the "New Skills and Jobs" flagship initiative, EURES services would be much more 
pro-active  and  focused  on  tangible  and  visible  results  in  terms  of  out-going  and  incoming 
placements  and  recruitment.  It  means  that,  in  addition  to  its  traditional  activities,  EURES 
would provide financial support for targeted mobility schemes at EU level with a view to help 
a)  fill  bottleneck  or  hard-to-fill  vacancies  (where  market  failures  have  been  identified),  b) 
specific  groups  of  workers  (such  as  young  people)  to  find  a  vacancy  in  a  country  different 
from their origin country. These services would involve matching, placement and recruitment, 
and  active  preparation  to  post-placement  assistance  for  successful  integration  into  labour 
markets.  Currently,  these  services  are  being  developed  as  the  preparatory  action  "Your  first 
EURES Job". .  

As far as the Micro-finance and Social Entrepreneurship strand is concerned, adding funding 
for capacity building of microfinance institutions will allow increasing the absorption capacity 
of the market, responding to a recurrent demand from the sector. It would also take further the 
EPPA initiative, a European Parliament Preparatory Action in this field which ended in 2011.  

An integrated  programme would  furthermore allow creating synergies between the different 
elements of microfinance support: microfinance institutions would apply for a whole support 
package  instead  of  filing  applications  for  the  funding  or  guarantees  for  the  loan  portfolio, 
funding  for  institutional  capacity  building  and  technical  assistance  for  professional 
management  and  approaches  separately  as  is  currently  the  case:  technical  assistance  is 
delivered  under  the  JASMINE  programme,  while  funding  and  guarantees  are  given  under 
Progress Microfinance, and funding for capacity building under EPPA (currently not available 
anymore).  This  would  not  only  simplify  the  application  procedure  for  microfinance 
institutions, but give the opportunity to the Commission to better link the different elements: 
for  instance  by  making  funding  conditional  on  fulfilling  the  objectives  set  in  terms  of 
institutional development and identify during the application for funding the needs in term of 
capacity  building.  This  would  address  the  requests  from  the  sector  expressed  in  the 
consultation.  

The  incorporation  of  the  microfinance  facility  into  the  new  integrated  programme  will  also 
better  ensure  the  coordination  with  the  general  entrepreneurship  support  provided  by  the 
Commission.  The  same  is  true  for  the  investment  into  social  enterprises  which  make  an 
important contribution to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, especially the social 
and employment targets, and play a crucial role with regard to social innovation105.   

The integrated programme would focus on large projects with clear EU added value in order 
to reach critical mass and reduce administrative burden. Harmonised and simplified rules and 
procedures would be put in place to facilitate access to the programme, in particular for small 
organisations. Lump sums and flat rates would be used, in particular for projects implemented 
under  EURES.  In  addition,  multi-annual  programming  would  be  developed  to  set  out  long-
term  policy  objectives  alongside  annual  funding  priorities,  thereby  ensuring  that  the 

104  Preparing  the  new  MFF  provides  an  opportunity  to  significantly  reform  EURES  by  incorporating  national  and  cross-
border region activities into the ESF operational programmes managed by the Public Employment Services with a view to a) 
support mobility of workers; b) help companies in recruiting from abroad (ex. organisation of and participation in Job Fairs) 
and c) develop the logistics for the clearance of vacancies and CVs. 
105  In  addition  to  the  support  for  microfinance  at  EU  level  (as  it  is  currently  done  through  the  European  Microfinance 
Facility), crucial for bringing economies of scale and additional leverage, the Member States would have the possibility to 
use the ESF resources, through their Operational Programmes, to support micro-finance activities at national/regional level.   

53

 
 
                                                 
programme  is  a  genuine  policy-driven  instrument.  The  programme  would  be  implemented 
through  a  results-based  management  approach  based  on  regular  monitoring  of  progress 
against clear indicators. Lastly, further to the lessons learned from the current programming 
period106, flexibility arrangements will be used to ensure that financial resources can be easily 
re-allocated  in  order  to  effectively  react  to  external  developments  and  changes  in  policy 
priorities.   

This  option  would  therefore  be  in  line  with  the  Budget  Review  Communication  calling  for 
both integrated instruments and a strong coordination to deliver the Europe 2020 objectives. 
These  actions  carried  out  at  European  level  would  also  bring  about  stronger  EU  dimension 
and  complementarity  to  the  ESF  which  invests  in  the  implementation  of  employment  and 
social inclusion policies in the Member States.  

The  main  difference  between  option  4.2  and  option  4.3  is  that  all  three  instruments 
(PROGRESS,  EURES  and  the  Micro-finance  Facility)  are  regrouped  as  an  ESF  component 
for direct management.  

A single instrument certainly would enhance the coherence of EU budget support and achieve 
critical mass (with the ESF part). It would also ensure real synergies and complementarity of 
all  EMPL  instruments  as  well  as  strengthen  the  visibility  of  EU  action.  However,  the 
efficiency  of  a  single  instrument  made  up  of  two  components  implemented  according  to 
completely  different  management  rules  (i.e.  shared,  direct  and  joint  management)  is 
questionable.   

While  thematic  scope  of  PROGRESS  would  remain  the  same  as  under  option  4.2,  its 
geographical coverage would considerable be reduced because of the ESF legal basis which 
limits the Fund’s interventions to the EU Member States. This would not be in line with the 
programme’s  stakeholders  who,  in  the  public  consultation,  do  not  question  the  current 
geographical coverage (EU Member States’ national authorities) or clearly support it (non-EU 
countries)107. 

For the microfinance facility, EU added value of this option is similar to option 4.1. In terms 
of  effectiveness,  it  would  be  difficult  to  ensure  a  strong  link  between  capacity  building  and 
funding  for  microfinance  institutions..  Economies  of  scale  and  leverage  would  be  lost  in 
comparison with an action on the EU level. An advantage would be the potentially stronger 
link  between  the  ring-fenced  resources  for  microfinance  and  the  entrepreneurship  support 
activities in the Member States under the ESF. However, considering that, depending on the 
outcome  of  the  negotiations  in  Council, ring-fencing might not be applied, option 4.3 bears 
the risk of an uncertain and unequal investment in microfinance and social enterprises.  

Moreover,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  political  suitability  and  acceptance  of  this  option 
hinges  on  an  adequate  role  being  given  to  employment  and  social  affairs  bodies  within  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  (at  least  for  the  non-cohesion  policy  aspects),  as 
opposed to it being exclusively considered by instances responsible for cohesion policy (EP 
REGI Committee and the Structural Affairs Working Party).  

6.  Comparing the options 

106 See Section 2.4.1. Delivery issues.  
107 See Section 1.1.3.  

54

 
 
                                                 
The comparison of options is purely qualitative. The set of objectives and policy options are 
not likely to be assessed by traditional quantitative methods for evaluation (like cost benefit-
analysis) because they are not quantifiable in monetary terms.  

6.1. The scope of the ESF 

A  broad  scope  is  likely  to  favour  efficiency  since  more  actors  can  be  involved  and 
programmes  more easily  tailored to local  needs and established delivery systems. However, 
the broader the scope, the more likely it is that a wider range of actors will make claims on the 
fund.  This  makes  the  formulation  and  negotiations  of  the  operational  programmes  more 
difficult  both  between  Member  States  or  regions  and  local  partners  and  between  the 
Commission and the Member States and region. A broad scope could therefore come at a cost 
of  effectiveness  if  this  leads  to  a  sprinkling  of  uncoordinated  interventions  lacking  critical 
mass.  

These different ESF scope options can be compared in terms of their potential contributions to 
the ESF specific objectives. It is not possible to assess the actual potential contributions since 
funding  decisions  about  how  much  to  allocate  to  a  given  policy  area  will  only  taken  in  the 
context of negotiations with the Member States on the operational programmes. Nevertheless 
it is possible to assess potential risks and make judgments on that basis. 

Clearly  option  1.2  would  contribute  the  least  to  the  specific  objective  institutional  capacity 
and  efficient  public  administration  as  only  actions  in  support  of  the  employment  services 
would  be  eligible.  A  number  of  interventions,  for  instance  the  administrative  reform 
Operational Programme in Bulgaria, would cease to be eligible for ESF support. The greatest 
potential  contribution  to  this  objective  is  with  option  1.3  as  it  is  had  the  greatest  scope  of 
interventions related to this objective. Option 1.4 has the same scope but would see part of the 
available resources being drawn away to finance the income support measures.   

By focussing the ESF resources on those interventions most likely to lead to a person taking 
up  employment,  option  1.2  is  judged  to  have  the  most  immediate  impact  on  the  specific 
objective  promoting  employment  and  mobility.  As  options  1.1  and  1.33  represent  a 
diversification away from core employment tasks, they are expected to contribute in a more 
indirect  way,  namely  by  allowing  for  a  focus  on  long-term  strategies  towards  activation. 
Option 1.4 is expected to contribute the least to the employment objective mostly because it 
would  see  part  of  the  available  resources  being  drawn  away  to  finance  the  income  support 
measures.   

Options  1.1  and  1.3  have  the  same  wide  scopes  in  terms  of  education.  Since  option  1.3 
corresponds  to  a  slightly  wider  scope,  this  may  entail  that  it  has  the  largest  potential 
contribution  to  the  specific  objective  investing  in  skills,  education  and  lifelong  learning. 
Option  1.4  is  expected  to  contribute  less  than  options  1.1  and  1.3  because  of  the  resources 
drawn  to  finance  income  support  measures.  Option  1.2  is  expected  to  contribute  the  least 
largely because only a rather limited number of interventions would be eligible. In particular, 
the ESF could not be used to address the issue of early school leaving. 

Option  1.3  is  likely  to  be  the  biggest  contributor  to  the  specific  objective  promoting  social 
inclusion  and  combating  poverty  essentially  because  it  has  the  largest  scope  of  possible 
interventions in support of this objective. The level of resources needed to make a significant 
contribution in terms of income support is such that hardly any additional contribution may be 
expected  from  making  income  measures  eligible  under  option  1.4.  At  the  same  time,  the 
resources  used  for  income  support  will  necessarily  be  drawn  away  from  the  other  types  of 

55

 
 
interventions,  including  those  contributions  to  the  social  inclusion  objective.  Option  1.2 
would be expected to have the least impact on the social inclusion objective. 

Another  consideration  is  that  overhauls  are  always  associated  with  important  opportunity 
costs as the stakeholders need to adjust, also those that would cease to have access to the fund. 
Option  1.2  would  constitute  a  major  overhaul  leading  to  an  important  caesura  between  the 
current  programming  period  and  the  next  one.  The  main  difference  between  the  ESF  scope 
options  1.1  and  1.3  lies  in  the  interventions  relating  to  access  to  services  and  anti-
discrimination as well as in health and education even if not leading directly to employment. 
In  order  to  ensure  continuity  between  the  two  periods  and  to  build  on  the  experience  built 
during this period, option 1.3 should be privileged.  

Table 6. Comparison of the scope options 

Options 

Employment 

Education 

Inclusion 

Specific objectives 

Institutional 
Capacity 
Building 

Opportunity 
costs 

1.1  –  No 
policy 
change 

1.2  –  focus 
on 
employment 

1.3  –  broad 
scope 

1.4  –  broad 
scope 
including 
passive 
measures 

0 

+ 

= 

-- 

0 

-- 

= 

- 

0 

-- 

+ 

- 

0 

-- 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

- 

- 

Legend:  +  means  an  increased  impact  (or  opportunity  cost)  as  compared  to  the  no-policy  change;  -  means  a 
reduced impact. (or opportunity cost) 

The assessment of the different options against the ESF specific objectives can also be used 
for  a  Multi  Criteria  Decision  Analysis.  The  model  that  best  fits  the  needs  is  the  Analytical 
Hierarchy  Process  (HP).  The  Analysis  is  presented  in  ANNEX  7.  The  analysis  confirms 
option 1.3 – a broad scope for the ESF, as the preferred option.  

6.2. Simplification  

The options considered here examine different reimbursement options. The main differences 
between  them  relate  to  what  extent  different  reimbursement  options  can  be  introduced  and 
whether  these  can  or  cannot  be  linked  to  results.  Option  2.2  (proportional  approach)  is  the 
preferred one. This is largely because if offers an increased flexibility in relation to options 
2.1 and 2.3 (no policy change) leaving to Managing Authorities the widest possible range of 
possibilities to introduce the simplifications it feels confident with and which fit their needs. It 
is  therefore  also  the  option  that  this  expected  to  deliver  most  on  the  operational  objective. 
Option  2.3  is  too  prescriptive  and  would  significantly  complicate  negotiations  between  the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  on  the  future  operational  programmes.  It  also  entails 
major changes from the current period and therefore 

56

 
 
 
 
Table 7. Comparison of the simplification options  

2.1 - No policy change 

Efficiency 
Flexibility 
Administrative burden  

0 
0 
0 

2.2 - Proportional 
approach 
++ 
+ 
+ 

2.3 - Prescriptive 
approach 
+ 
- 
- 

Legend: + means an improvement as compared to the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 

6.3. The EGF 

In  terms  of  the  speed  of  delivery  of  EGF  assistance  options  3.2  and  3.3  are  preferable. 
However,  these  options  also  include  an  increased  risk  of  reduced  efficiency  because  of  the 
non-use of allocated resources. The involvement of policy makers under option 3.1 guarantees 
the highest level of public commitment of the EU to the welfare of redundant workers.  

Therefore,  option  3.1  is  the  preferred  option,  offering  as  it  does  the  necessary  flexibility  to 
enable an effective use of resources, without affecting the MFF. It contains scope to further 
simplify  the  delivery  mechanism  and  thus  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  assistance 
provided to dismissed workers. 

Table 8. Comparison of the EGF options  

3.1 – No policy change 

Speed of delivery 
Efficiency 
Effectiveness 

0 (+) 
0 
0 

3.2 – incorporation of 
the EGF into ESF 
+ 
- 
0 

3.3 -  stand-alone fund 
with its own budget line 
+ 
- 
0 

Legend: + means an improvement as compared to the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 

6.4. Links between the ESF and the direct management instrument 

As far as other employment and social inclusion instruments are concerned, option 4.1 should 
be discarded for the following reasons: 

•  Efficiency gains - the option would not allow for simplification and rationalisation of the 
existing instruments.  

•  Critical mass – the three stand-alone instruments would not have critical mass necessary 
to achieve meaningful policy objectives at EU level and bring EU added value.   

•  Coherence  and  effectiveness  -  this  option  would  miss  the  opportunity  to  improve  the 
coherence of EMPL fragmented financial instruments which, as such, would be less effective 
in contributing to the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy.      

In  contrast,  option  4.3,  involving  the  grouping  of  all  the  employment  and  social  inclusion 
financial  instruments  within  a  common  ESF  Regulation,  would  offer  the  following 
advantages: 

•  Critical  mass  –  this  option  would  allow  for  achieving  the  critical  mass  needed  to  meet 
ambitious policy objectives.  

57

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Coherence and effectiveness – combining EU-level actions (direct management) with the 
investment  in  the  implementation  of  the  employment  and  social  policy  in  the  Member 
States (shared management) would increase policy coherence and effectiveness. However, 
the respondents to the public consultation on the successor instrument to PROGRESS do 
not support the idea of merging the programme and the ESF while they consider that the 
complementarity  and  coherence  between  both  should  be  strengthened108.  The  main 
suggestion  from  respondents  to  ensure  coherence  between  both  instruments  is  adequate 
coordination by the Commission. In addition, several respondents indicate that where the 
future EU financial instrument could identify best practices, the implementation should be 
a  matter  for  the  ESF.  In  this  context,  option  4.2  is  better  adapted  to  ensure  coherence 
between the ESF and the direct management instruments. 

•  Efficiency gains – combining completely different management modes (direct and shared 
management) would not allow for grater simplification neither for beneficiaries nor for the 
Commission.  

•  Political and institutional obstacles - Option 4.3 should also be discarded because of the 
great it would come up against: 

-  As  part  of  the  ESF  Regulation,  employment,  social-policy  and  inclusion  instruments 
would be seen exclusively from the viewpoint of cohesion policy and there would be 
no  visibility  for  EU-level  action  linked  to  the  development,  coordination  and 
monitoring  of  employment,  social  and  inclusion  policy  and  legislation  on  working 
conditions.   

-  As  a  proposal  for  legislation  introducing  a  single  instrument  would  probably  be 
negotiated by the regional policy bodies in Parliament and the Council, Parliament’s 
EMPL Committee and the EPSCO Ministers might not have ownership.  

Option 4.2 is the preferred option as it would bring about the following benefits: 

•  Efficiency  gains  -  compared  to  option  4.1  (current  situation),  efficiency  gains  could  be 
achieved  thanks  to  a  considerable  rationalisation  of  EMPL  direct  management 
instruments,  streamlining  of  their  management  rules  and  procedures  and  ensuring 
flexibility in allocating resources to changing policy priorities.  

•  Critical mass - the integrated programme would be a medium-sized EU instrument able 

to reach the critical mass needed to achieve its policy objectives.  

•  Coherence and effectiveness - bringing together all three direct management instruments 
which  pursue  common  objectives  in  the  employment,  social  policy  and  inclusion  fields, 
would enable the Commission to increase policy coherence and impact of its actions.  The 
synergy  and  complementarity  with  the  ESF  could  be  better  achieved  by  adequate 
coordination  by  the  Commission  rather  than  by  merging  all  these  instruments 
implemented according to completely different management rules (i.e. shared, direct and 
joint management). 

•  Political and institutional risks – in comparison to option 4.3, this option would allow 
for  avoiding  the  risks  linked  to  the  adoption  of  an  excessively  complicated  ESF 
Regulation and any delays this could cause for the cohesion policy process.  

108  This  is  also  one  of  the  main  recommendations  of  both  the  PROGRESS  mid-term  evaluation  and  Key 
Stakeholder Working Group.  

58

 
 
                                                 
Table 9. Comparison of the options for direct management instruments 

4.1 – no policy change 

Efficiency 
Critical mass 
Coherence and 
effectiveness 
Political and 
institutional risks 

0 
0 

0 

0 

4.2 – integrated direct 
management 
programme  
+ 
+ 

4.3 – incorporation into 
the ESF as a direct 
management component 
- 
+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

- 

Legend: + means an improvement as compared to the no-policy change; - means deterioration. 

7.  Monitoring and evaluation 

7.1. ESF 

Under the existing Structural Funds Regulations monitoring and evaluation are primarily the 
responsibility  of  the  Member  States:  their  managing  authorities  are  required  to  set  up  a 
monitoring  system  and  to  provide  annual  as  well  as  a  final  implementation  reports.  In 
addition, Member States shall submit in 2009 and 2012 strategic reports on the contribution of 
the Funds to cohesion and the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs. In view of drafting 
the  Operational  Programmes,  Member  States  shall  carry  out  ex  ante  evaluations,  during 
programme implementation on-going evaluations. The Commission shall carry out an ex post 
evaluation in partnership with the Member States. 

The  overall  allocation  of  responsibilities  will  remain  unchanged.  However,  as  mentioned 
under point 2.2.1, the ex post evaluations of the 2000-2006 programming period have shown 
some weaknesses in the current ESF monitoring and evaluation systems: data quality remains 
uneven,  data  collection  methods  vary  greatly  among  MS,  no  information  is  provided  about 
intensity  of  support  to  individuals.  This  results  in  the  difficulty  to  aggregate  results  at  EU 
level or to assess longer term effects of ESF interventions on the individual participants and 
on Member States' economies and systems at large.  

Against this background, the main focus of the future monitoring and evaluation system will 
be  on  setting  minimum  quality standards which ensure that monitoring produces robust and 
reliable data and evaluation focuses on assessing effectiveness and impacts of ESF support. 

In addition to more strategic programming process, the Regulations will include the following 
provisions on monitoring and evaluation:  

For monitoring and reporting 
•  A  limited  number  of  common  mandatory  output  and  result  indicators  for  all  OPs  (at 
present the Implementing Regulation only sets common output indicators)109. For the ESF 
the Commission has developed a number of output and results indicators with the support 
of a working group composed of representatives of MS. The indicators list will be inserted 
in the future ESF Regulation. 

•  Where applicable quantified target values linked to common indicators  

•  More stringent monitoring requirements  

109 A tentative list is provided in annex 8 

59

 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  While the Annual Implementation Reports will be simplified for most years, in others the 
Member States are requested to assess Structural Funds contribution to achieving Europe 
2020 objectives.  

For evaluation 
•  Ex ante evaluation on each OP  

•  Each Operational Programme must be covered by an evaluation plan 

•  The  monitoring  committee  shall  regularly  review  evaluation  activities,  discuss  findings 

and follow-up 

•  A tightening of the evaluation requirements for Managing Authorities. The evaluation of 

the effectiveness and impact of each priority axis will be mandatory.  

•  Member States shall prepare towards the end of the programming period a synthesis report 

which summarises their evaluations and analyses the findings and follow-up. 

To support the transition to the new system, the Commission foresees  

-  A guidance paper on ESF monitoring and evaluation in the programming period 2014-

2020; 

-  An expert hearing on MS experience on using counterfactuals  in ESF evaluations in  

October  2011 

-  A  high  level  conference  on  ESF  evaluation  involving  major  stakeholders  in  the  first 

semester 2012 

- 

"Learning seminars" for ESF managing authorities in 2012 and 2013. 

Reviews of the implementation of the Funds are foreseen for 2017 and 2019 on the basis of 
strategic reports drafted by MS. An ex-post evaluation will be carried out by the Commission 
in 2023 in co-operation with MS. 

As  far  as  the  costs  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  are  concerned,  the  current 
Regulation  foresees  that  up  to  4%  of  the  funds  can  be  allocated  to  Technical  Assistance, 
which  may  finance  i.a.  activities  related  to  monitoring  and  evaluation.  For  the  time  being 
approximately 3 % of the ESF-budget have been allocated to Technical Assistance (= €2.45 
billion  community  funding).  A  research  into  the  SFC  database,  which  entails  all 
implementation data sent by MS, has proven impossible to isolate more precisely expenditure 
for  monitoring  and  evaluation  from  other  expenditure  supported  under  the  TA,  such  as 
publicity and communication. 

The  new  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  will  not  increase  significantly  the 
administrative burden on MS. Indeed, the future General Regulation foresees that Technical 
Assistance remains limited to 4% of the overall Funds. 

In cases where data collection is not up to technical standards (e.g. no electronic transmission 
of data), some MS will face initial costs for setting up adequate systems, but costs for running 
the  system  will  most  likely  decrease  in  comparison  to  the  current  levels  once  system  is 
performing.  This  is  reported  from  several  Managing  Authorities  where  such  tools  have 
recently been put in place.110  
These  initial  costs  must  be  offset  against  the  cost  savings  for  many  stakeholders:  in  many 
countries and regions, beneficiaries need to copy, submit and later retain substantial volumes 

110 E.g. Managing Authorities from England, Wales, Poland, several Laender in Germany. 

60

 
 
                                                 
of  documents  on  paper.  At  times  they  are  asked  to  submit  the  same  information  more  than 
once, as information is not sufficiently and effectively shared within the administration and is 
not  available  in  an  electronic  format.  This  imposes  a  substantial  burden.  Considerable  costs 
are  associated  with  the  transcription  and  aggregation  of  financial  and  monitoring  data 
received on paper and control costs can be higher than necessary, as supporting documents are 
not always easily available and accessible.   

Managing authorities would have the flexibility to developing their own IT solutions, based 
on  their  experience  in  the  2007-2013  period  and  in  line  with  the  specificities  of  their 
programmes. 

7.2. The EGF 

As in the current Regulation on the functioning  of the EGF the future EGF  Regulation will 
provide  for  a  mid-term  evaluation  to  assess  the  effectiveness  and  sustainability  of  results 
obtained and an ex post evaluation to measure the impact of the EGF and its added value. 

At  the  level  of  the  individual  applications  the  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor 
specifically the achievement of the operational objectives, in terms of people reintegrated into 
employment  after  12  and  24  months  of  implementation,  on  the  basis  of  interim  and  final 
reports on each case. The obligation for Member States to deliver this information will be laid 
down in the future EGF Regulation. 

7.3. The  integrated  programme  for  employment,  social  policy  and  inclusion  (Social 

Development Agenda) 

Following the positive experience with the results-based management approach of the current 
PROGRESS programme and in line with the recommendations of its mid-term evaluation111, 
the integrated programme for employment, social policy and inclusion will remain committed 
to a strong focus on results and achievements rather than resources and activities. To this end, 
the  integrated  programme  will  be  monitored  on  an  annual  basis  in  order  to  both  assess 
headway  towards  the  achievement  of  its  specific  and  operational  objectives  against  clear 
indicators112 and allow for any necessary adjustments of the policy and funding priorities. The 
monitoring  will  also  allow  for  assessing  the  way  in  which  gender  equality  and  anti-
discrimination  issues  have  been  addressed  across  the  integrated  programme's  activities.  
Further  to  the  recommendations  of  both  the  mid-term  evaluation  and  PROGRESS  key 
stakeholder  working  group,  reporting  requirements,  in  particular  those  placed  upon  grant 
beneficiaries  will  be  reduced.  This  could  be  done  by  reducing  the  number  of  quantitative 
indicators at the output level and measuring the progress achieved towards longer-term goals 
every three years instead of annually.   

The  integrated  programme  will  also  be  subject  to  mid-term  term  and  ex-post  evaluation.  A 
mid-term  evaluation  will  aim  at  measuring  progress  made  in  meeting  the  Programme 
objectives,  determining  whether  its  resources  have  been  used  efficiently  and  assessing  its 
European added value. Mid-term evaluation report should be delivered by the end of 2017 to 
feed  into  the  preparation  of  a  successor  instrument  to  the  Programme.  The  final  evaluation 
shall,  in  addition,  examine  the  impact  of  the  Programme.  Ex  post-evaluation  report  hall  be 
delivered by the end of 2022 at the latest.  

111 See Section 2.4.3.  
112 Indicators will be developed in the ex-ante evaluation for the integrated programme.  

61

 
 
                                                 
The opportunity to bring together three instruments will enable the Commission to streamline 
evaluation arrangements and reduce their costs.  

7.4. Tracking of climate-related expenditure 

Tracking  of  climate-related  expenditure  could  be  performed  according  to  three  categories, 
based  on  an  established  OECD  methodology  ("Rio  markers"):  expenditure  where  climate  is 
the principal (primary) objective (counted as 100% - climate related only); expenditure where 
climate is significant, but not predominant objective (counted as 40% - significantly climate 
related);  and  expenditure  not  targeted  to  climate  objectives  (counted  as  0%  -  not  climate 
related).     

Within  the  Structural  Funds  a  decision  would  need  to  be  taken  on  the  classification  of  the 
expenditure sub-categories in the instrument in view of applying the Rio-Markers. 

62

 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

63

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1.  THE INSTRUMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION 

•  The European Social Fund  (Budget 76 billion € for the programming period 2007-2013) 

The  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  established  by  Article  162  of  the  Treaty,  invests  in 
employment, education, social inclusion and institutional capacity in the Member States. The 
ESF is part of cohesion policy (as are the ERDF and the CF) as such it is primarily governed 
by  a  fund  specific  regulation113  and  a  general  regulation  common  with  the  ERDF  and  the 
CF114 both expiring at the end of 2013.  It is implemented under shared management with a 
strong  focus  on  subsidiarity.  The  implementation  occurs  through  national  or  regional 
operational programmes (currently 117) embedded in a wide diversity of social structures and 
situations  and  covering  a  broad  range  of  policy  issues  such  as  employment,  education  and 
life-long learning, social inclusion and institutional and administrative capacity building. It is 
the  Managing  Authorities  who  effectively  implement  the  programmes  starting  with  the 
selection of the projects.   

The  ESF  budget  is  not  decided  at  European  level.  It  is  the  result  of  the  negotiations  of 
operational programmes between Member States and the Commission. The ESF share of the 
overall  financial  envelope  allocated  to  ERDF  and  ESF  is  therefore  constructed  ex-post  - 
adding up all regional and national allocations. The table below gives an indicative mapping 
of current allocation of ESF funds.   

Table 10. Indicative mapping of ESF 2007-2013 allocations against Community 
Strategic  guidelines 

Community Strategic Guidelines 

Total 

In billion € 

in % 

Increasing  labour  market  participation  of  women  and  men, 
reducing structural unemployment and promoting job quality 

         21.5  

Developing  a  skilled  workforce  responding  to  labour  market 
needs and promoting lifelong learning 

         26.4  

Improving  the  quality  and  performance  of  education  and 
training  systems  at  all  levels  and  increasing  participation  in 
tertiary or equivalent education; 

Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty 

Technical Assistance 

Total 

         13.4 

         12.1  

           2.5  

         75.9  

28 

35 

18 

16 

3 

100 

This  table  informs  about  the  ESF  expenditure  excluding  the  national  co-financing.  Co-
financing is set on different levels, mainly depending on whether the region in question is a 
so-called  convergence  region,  where  the  EU  contribution  amounts  up  to  85%  or  an 
employment  and  competitiveness  region,  where  the  EU  contribution  amounts  in  most  cases 
only  50%.  Specific  rules  apply  when  it  comes  to  the  technical  assistance  and  transnational 
projects. 

113  Regulation  (EC)  No  1081/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006  on  the 
European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999. 
114  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1083/2006  of  11  July  2006  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999. 

i

 
 
                                                 
The  ESF  supports  on  average  per  year  some  10  million  people.  Two  million  unemployed 
people  find  a  new  job  as  a  result  of  an  ESF-supported  measure  every  year.  In  addition,  the 
ESF provides support to education and training systems as well as institutional capacity and 
organisational reforms in a wider sense115.  

The  June  Budget  Package  (COM(2011)500)  and  SEC(2011)  868)  made  a  number  of 
commitments  regarding  the  ESF.    Funding  will  be  concentrated  on  the  key  priorities  of  the 
Europe 2020 strategy, in particular through four thematic objectives:  

•  employment promotion;  

• 

investment in skills, education and life-long learning;  

•  social inclusion and the fight against poverty; and  

•  enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration.  

Through these, the ESF will also contribute to other policy objectives such as the ltransition to 
a ow carbon economy. 

For  the  post-2013  period,  the  ESF  will  be  covered  by  the  Common  Strategic  Framework 
(CSF)  for  structural  funds116.  Funding  will  be  programmed  as  part  of  the  Partnership 
Contracts  negotiated  with  the  Member  States.  The  targets  will  be  aligned  with  the  National 
Reform Programmes and will translate the agreed objectives into decisions on investment.  

To strengthen the focus on results, a conditionality mechanism, based on a comprehensive set 
of ex-ante defined requirements, will be put in place to maximise the impact of the EU budget 
and trigger and support the necessary reforms in the Member States.  

In order for the ESF to make a real contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy targets, a critical 
mass of funding is required both at EU level and at the level of the operational programmes. 
The  necessary  minimum  share  of  cohesion  policy  investments  allocated  to  the  ESF  will  be 
tailored  to  the  different  categories  of  region  reflecting  the  different  intensities  of  aid  they 
receive and challenges that they face: this will be done by establishing minimum shares for 
the  ESF  of  the  structural  funds  support  for  each  category  of  region  (25%  for  convergence 
regions, 40% for transition regions, 52% for competitiveness regions, based on the Cohesion 
Fund continuing to represent one third of the cohesion policy allocation in eligible Member 
States,  and  excluding  territorial  co-operation).  The  application  of  these  shares  result  in  a 
minimum  overall  share  for  the  ESF  of  25%  of  the  budget  allocated  to  cohesion  policy  not 
taking into account the Connecting Europe Facility (i.e. € 84 billion). 

•  The European Globalisation Fund (EGF)  (Budget maximum 500 million € per year) 

The EGF was established by Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 and is based on Article 175 of 
the TFEU. It was set up in order to demonstrate solidarity at EU level and to provide one-off, 
time-limited tailor made support to large numbers of workers made redundant within a short 
period  of  time  as  a  result  of  major  structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  due  to 
globalisation. The EGF was revised in 2009 by Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 as part of the 
European Economic Recovery Plan to tackle the consequences of the financial and economic 

115 Source? 
116 The CSF will cover the ESF, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 

ii

 
 
                                                 
crisis. The main permanent changes were a reduction of the eligibility threshold from 1 000 to 
500  redundancies,  an  increase  of  the  implementation  period  from  12  to  24  months  to  leave 
sufficient  time  for  the  measures  to  be  effective  and  the  possibility  to  assist  workers  made 
redundant  before  and  after  the  reference  period.  Two  crisis-related  temporary  amendments 
were  also  introduced:  the  possibility  to  apply  for  EGF  support  for  redundancies  that  result 
directly  from  the  financial  and  economic  crisis  and  an  increase  of  the  EGF  co-funding  rate 
from 50 to 65 %. These temporary provisions expire on 30 December 2011. In the light of the 
current economic situation the Commission has presented a proposal to extend these until 31 
December 2013.  

The EGF co-funds a package of active labour market policy measures aimed at re-integrating 
redundant workers into employment. It is available for cases of collective redundancies in a 
single enterprise and its suppliers, but also for redundancies in a large number of enterprises, 
in particular SMEs, operating in a single economic sector and located in one NUTS II region 
or two contiguous NUTS II regions. The EGF is implemented under shared management with 
a strong focus on subsidiarity as regards the active labour market policy measures offered and 
their implementation.  The Commission prepares and submits for each individual application 
for EGF support a proposal for a Decision to the European Parliament and the Council, acting 
as the Budgetary Authority. Since the establishment of the EGF the Commission has received 
78 applications for a total amount of € 358 million and to support almost 76 000 dismissed 
workers.  

In  its  Communication117  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on 'A Budget for Europe 2020' the 
Commission proposed to keep the EGF outside the MFF and thus to give the highest priority 
to  maintaining  its  flexible  nature,  because  the  amounts  which  are  needed  vary  from  year  to 
year. Being outside the MFF implies that each individual application will continue to require 
a decision of the budgetary authority. However, in the same Communication the Commission 
addresses  the  concern  about  the  complexity  and  length  of  the  current  procedure  and 
undertakes to ensure that the operation of the EGF becomes simpler and more responsive to 
changing  economic  circumstances.  The  arrangements  for  mobilising  the  necessary  EGF 
support  are  proposed  in  the  draft  Interinstitutional  Agreement118  between  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  cooperation  in  budgetary  matters  and  on 
sound financial management that is part of the MFF package. It is further specified that the 
EGF may not exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 429 million, or EUR 3 billion for 
the  period  2014  –  2020.  Of  this  amount  up  to  EUR  2,5  billion  can  be  made  available  to 
support farmers, negatively affected by trade agreements.  

The discussions that  have taken place  so  far between  Commission  services indicate that the 
current  EGF  eligibility  criteria  and  measures  need  some  adaptation  in  order  to  offer 
comparable support to farmers affected by trade agreements. However, these discussions have 
not  reached  a  conclusive  state  yet.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  include  the  analysis 
supporting the eligibility criteria of EGF funding in the IA. As indicated in footnote 85 on p. 
41 of the IA this analysis will be part of the ex ante evaluation accompanying the Proposal for 
an EGF Regulation for the period 2014 – 2020. 

117 COM(2011)500 final, 29.6.2011 
118 COM(2011)403 final, 29.6.2011 

iii

 
 
 
                                                 
•  The European Progress Micro-Finance Facility   (Budget  100  million  €  for  the  period 

2010 to 2013 with an additional contribution of 100 million € by the EIB).  

The aims of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (Progress Microfinance)119, which 
was  set  up  in  2010  as  a  response  to  the  economic  crisis,  are  twofold:  on  the  one  hand,  it 
makes microfinance more readily available to persons who wish to start up or develop micro-
enterprises, including with a view to self-employment, in that it enables microcredit providers 
in the EU to increase their lending to them. On the other, it improves access to microfinance 
by reducing the risk borne by microfinance institutions. This allows providers to reach out to 
groups  who  could  not  normally  be  served,  for  instance  because  they  could  not  put  up 
sufficient collateral or because the interest rates would have to be very high if they were to 
reflect the real risk.  

Progress Microfinance is jointly managed with the European Investment Fund. It is a demand-
driven instrument. The Commission estimates that the Union’s contribution of € 100 million 
will leverage a total volume of microloans of more than € 500 million over eight years.  

End of  June 2011,  six  institutions  (in  Belgium, the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Bulgaria,  Romania 
and  Lithuania)  had  already  signed  transactions  under  Progress  Microfinance.  The  EIF  has 
confirmed  that  Progress  Microfinance  meets  with  considerable  interest  from  the  European 
microfinance sector. By the end of 2011, 14 operations are expected to be concluded.  

•  PROGRESS - The EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (Budget 683.25  

million € for the programming period 2007-2013) 

Working  alongside  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  PROGRESS  programme120  supports  the 
development  and  coordination  of  EU  employment  and  social  policy.  The  programme  helps 
the Commission to fulfil its tasks both in the fields of (a) law-making, to ensure that evidence-
based  legislation  meets  all  the  principles  of  Smart  Regulation;  and  (b)  policy-coordination 
among the Member States, where the Commission acts as facilitator and broker. PROGRESS 
focuses  on  transnational  aspects  of  the  EU  employment  and  social  policy,  the  promotion  of 
which requires a concerted action across all Member States, and actively supports collective 
and mutually  reinforcing actions of  Member States, which consolidate EU co-operation and 
bring about mutual learning and social innovation. 

PROGRESS budget is spread over five broad policy sections in the following manner121:  

1.  Employment (support to the European Employment Strategy) – 23%;  

2.  Social protection and social inclusion (support to the Open Method of Coordination in 

these fields) – 30%; 

3.  Working  conditions,  including  restructuring  (support  to  the  improvement  of  the 
working  environment,  including  health  and  safety  at  work  and  reconciling  work  and 
family life) – 10%; 

4.  Anti-discrimination  and  diversity  (support  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the 

principle of non-discrimination) – 23%; 

119 Decision No 283/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a 
European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. 
120  Decision  No  1672/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 October  2006  establishing  a 
Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress. 
121 Two percent of the budget is used for support measures to the implementation of the whole programme. 

iv

 
 
                                                 
5.  Gender  equality  (support  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the  principle  of  gender 

equality) – 12%. 

PROGRESS  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  its  objectives  through  three  main  types  of 
actions: 

1.  Analytical activities 

2.  Mutual learning, awareness and dissemination activities 

3.  Support for main actors. 

The  programme  is  directly  managed  by  the  Commission  mainly  through  calls  for  tenders, 
calls  for  proposals  and  joint  management.  In  the  case  of  grants,  the  programme  provides  a 
maximum of 80% co-financing.   

•  EURES (Budget 21.3 million € per year) 

Set up in 1993122, EURES is a co-operation network between the European Commission and 
the Public Employment Services of the EEA Member States (The EU countries plus Norway, 
Iceland  and  Liechtenstein)  and  other  partner  organisations.  Switzerland  also  takes  part  in 
EURES  co-operation.  The  purpose  of  EURES  is  to  provide  information,  advice  and 
recruitment/  placement  (job-matching)  services for  the  benefit  of  workers  and  employers  as 
well as for any citizen wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of persons. 

The joint resources of the EURES member and partner organisations provide a solid basis for 
the EURES network to offer high quality services for both workers and employers. EURES 
has a network of more than 850 EURES advisers that are in daily contact with jobseekers and 
employers  across  Europe.  It  also  fosters  European  mobility  via  the  internet  platform 
http://eures.europa.eu . 

In  European  cross-border  regions,  EURES  provides  information  about  and  helps  to  solve 
problems related to cross-border commuting that workers and employers may experience. 

EURES  supports  the  European  Employment  Strategy  and  contributes  to  strengthening  the 
European  Single  market  by  providing  information,  advice  and  assistance  for  placement, 
recruitment along with matching CVs and vacancies. EURES has demonstrated its European 
added value during the economic crisis by increasing the intra-EU employment opportunities 
available to jobseekers. The number of visits on the EURES portal has almost doubled from 
2008 to 2009 (from 17 500 000 to 33 750 000)123. 

122 COM 2003/8/EC of 22 December 2002 based on regulation 1612 from 1968 codified 492/2011 from 5 April 
20011 
123 Source 

v

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2.  CONSULTATIONS AND EXPERTISE 

ESF 

Highlights of this consultations process were: 

The conference on "Shaping the future of the ESF - ESF & Europe 2020" in Brussels 
23rd & 24th June 2010. The conference's aim was to assess the past achievements of the 
ESF in supporting EU objectives, in particular its contribution to the previous Growth 
and  Jobs  strategy.  Most  importantly  it  explored  how  the  ESF  could  contribute 
effectively  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy.  The  conference  brought  together  over  450 
high  level representatives  from  public  authorities, social partners and civil society at 
EU and national levels as well as from third countries124; 
 The Cohesion Forum on 31 January and 1 February 2011 which marked also the end 
to a public consultation on the conclusions of the 5th Cohesion Report125; and   
 The seminar with NGOs and Social Partners on the future of the ESF organised on 16 
December 2010. 

Expert advice was provided through the ESF Committee ad-hoc group on the future of 
the European Social Fund. The ad hoc group on the future of the ESF was an informal 
group  of  experts  from  the  Member  States  and  the  social  partners  with  DG  EMPL 
acting  as  secretary.  The  experts  participated  in  their  personal  capacity  and  were  not 
expected to present or defend formal positions. The ad hoc group met 7 times between 
December 2009 and March 2011. Each discussion was underpinned by an issue paper 
prepared by the Commission. The ESF Committee itself issued opinions on the future 
of the ESF at its meetings of 3 June 2010 and of 10 March 2011126. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EGF 

Two stakeholder conferences127 were organised to discuss the future of the EGF on 25 and 26 
January 2011 and 8 March 2011.  

Evidence128 about the acceptance of the EGF was collected by asking Member States' experts 
on the future of the EGF through two questionnaires sent to them on 26 August 2010 and 12 
October 2010 and European social partner organisations through a questionnaire sent to them 
on  2  February  2011.  Twenty  five  Member  States  replied.  Relatively  few  social  partner 
organisations  answered  but  they  participated  actively  in  the  conferences.  Member  States' 
experts were further consulted at expert meetings in Porto on 29 and 30 September 2010 and 
in Brussels on 9 March 2011. 

The  European  Parliament  on  7  September  2010  adopted  a  Resolution129  on  the  functioning 
and the funding of the EGF. 

124  The  conference  report  is  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/100907-conference-
report-final_en.pdf 
125 The results of the public consultation are accessible at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/5cr/index_en.cfmN  
126 http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=445&langId=en 
127 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes 
128 Ibid. 
129 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0236&language=EN 

vi

 
 
 
                                                 
Direct Management instruments 

The working group gathering the programme's key stakeholders representatives130 was set up 
to provide the Commission with a set of recommendations on the future instrument's design, 
objectives, implementation and funding (the main recommendations are presented below).  

A public online consultation on a possible successor instrument to PROGRESS was carried 
out  between  4  April  and  27  May  2011.  The  key  issues  addressed  were:  designing  the 
successor instrument to fit the Europe 2020 Strategy, targeting the actions to maximise added 
value, improving delivery mechanisms, and ensuring complementarity and coordination with 
other  policies  and  instruments.  The  consultation  targeted  national,  regional  and  local 
authorities responsible for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities issues; experts, 
social partners, public employment services, NGOs at both EU and national levels; as well as 
any  other  institutions  or  individuals  following  EU  policy  debate  in  employment  and  social 
areas.  The  consultation  covered  all  PROGRESS  participating  countries  (EU  27  Members 
States, EFTA/EEA countries, candidate and potential candidate countries).   

Furthermore,  given  that  PROGRESS  is  implemented  through  a  results-based  management 
approach, the Commission regularly monitors the progress achieved towards expected results 
against clearly defined performance indicators. In this context, an annual survey, targeted at 
policy  and  decision-makers,  social  partners,  NGOs  and  networks  at  both  EU  and  Member 
State levels is carried out to measure satisfaction with PROGRESS outputs and the extent to 
which  they  contribute  to  meeting  the  programme's  objectives.  The  results  are  taken  into 
account for designing the successor instrument.   

The  2011  meetings  of  EURES  Working  Party  and  Heads  of  Public  Employment  Services 
(PES) held specific discussions on the future on EURES.  

130  National  authorities,  social  partners  and  EU-level  networks  of  civil  society  organisations.  The  Group  met 
twice in January and February 2011.   

vii

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3.  GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAR: 

EMPL's  Annual  Activity  Report  (AAR)  provides  information  concerning 
policy results, financial management, and internal control systems.  The AAR 
is  submitted  to  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  serves  as  the  basis  for  a  synthesis 
report sent by the Commission to the European Parliament, Council and Court 
of Auditors. 

ALMP  -  Active  labour  market  policies:  are  defined  in  opposition  to  passive  labour  market 
policies. The objective is to increase the employability of the beneficiaries and 
ultimately its integration in the labour market. It does cover transfer payments 
for participation in training or job creation programmes. Passive labour market 
policies transfer payments for willingness to job search only. 

Automatic  de-commitment:  was  introduced  for  the  programming  period  2000  -  2006  to 
improve financial discipline. The principle is that any budget that has not been 
used  by  31  December  of  the  second  year  ("n+2  rule")  following  budget 
commitment is permanently lost for the programme.  

Collective redundancies: dismissals of a group of employees effected by an employer for one 
or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned 

Convergence regions:  Regions with a GDP per capita in purchasing power parity below 75% 

of the EU average. 

Cross-financing: 

The possibility within strictly defined limits to fund operations which 

fall under the scope of another fund. 

EES  -  European  Employment  Strategy:  The  European  employment  strategy  provides  a 
framework  (the  "Open  Method  of  Coordination")  for  EU  countries  to  share 
information, discuss and coordinate their employment policies. 

Effectiveness:  The  principle  of  effectiveness  is  concerned  with  attaining  the  specific 

objectives set and achieving the intended results. 

Efficiency: 

The  principle  of  efficiency  is  concerned  with  the  best  relationship  between 
resources employed and results achieved. 

EMCO: 

EPPA: 

The  Employment  Committee  is  a  Treaty-based  Committee.  It  plays  an 
important role in the development of the European Employment Strategy. The 
Employment  Committee  prepares  discussions  in  the  Council  each  autumn  of 
the  employment  package:  the  Employment  Guidelines,  Joint  Employment 
Report and Recommendations on the implementation of national employment 
policies. EMCO also formulates Opinions and Contributions at the request of 
the Council, the Commission or at its own initiative.  

European  Parliament  Preparatory  Action:  The  European  Parliament  allocated 
in 2008, 2009 and 2010 appropriations for a total of EUR 7 M to carry out a 
preparatory action to promote a more favourable environment for micro-credit 
in  Europe.  Part  of  these  funds  was  used  by  the  Commission  to  provide  seed 
funding  to  non-bank  microcredit  providers  (EUR  4  million  under  the 
JASMINE  umbrella).  The  remaining  EUR  3  million  have  been  transferred  to 
the funded instruments window of Progress Microfinance 

viii

 
 
 
Geographic mobility or "intra-EU–mobility" is used to refer to the movement of EU residents 

from one country to another within the European Union.  

IGL Integrated Guidelines: There are two sets of guidelines. The employment guidelines for 
national employment policies, proposed by the Commission and agreed by the 
national governments, set out common priorities and targets. The ….. 

Inactive:  

persons currently not part of the labour force. 

Intensity of support: 

 The average amount of EU funds in € per capita from cohesion policy 

instruments (ESF, ERDF and CF). 

JASMINE: 

JASMINE  stands  for  'Joint  Action  to  Support  Microfinance  Institutions  in 
Europe'.  It  is  one  of  the  four  new  financial  engineering  initiatives  introduced 
under the EU Cohesion Policy for 2007-13. With a total budget of €50 million, 
JASMINE  is  a  pilot  initiative  which  has  been  jointly  developed  by  the 
European  Commission  (EC),  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  and  the 
European Investment Fund (EIF).  JASMINE is tailored for micro-enterprises 
and for socially excluded people (including ethnic minorities) who want to go 
into  self-employment,  but  do  not  have  access  to  traditional  banking  services. 
This initiative focuses on this 'non-bankable' segment of the market. It aims to 
make small loans, or micro-credit, more widely available in Europe to satisfy 
unmet  demand.  In  the  EU  micro-credit  means  loans  under  €25  000,  but 
typically, the average is € 10 000 for EU-15 and €3 800 for EU-12. 

JEREMIE: 

Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises, is an initiative of 
the  European  Commission  developed  together  with  the  European  Investment 
Fund.    It  promotes  the  use  of  financial  engineering  instruments  to  improve 
access to finance for SMEs via Structural Funds interventions. 

Labour market segmentation: occurs if it is made up of different groups with little movement 
from one to the other. It can result different groups (f.i. men and women) being 
employed on different terms but doing the same work. 

Labour  mobility:  is  about  the  willingness  and  ability  of  workers  to  change  employment  or 
areas.  Vertical  mobility  changes  the  workers  grading  or  status.  Horizontal 
mobility does not. Low labour mobility is a cause of structural unemployment. 

LLL  -  Lifelong  learning:  lifelong  learning  is  defined  as  ‘all  learning  activity  undertaken 
throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competence, 
within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective.’ 

Microcredit:  Micro-credit  in  the  EU  means  loans  under  €  25  000.  It  is  tailored  for  micro-
enterprises  and  unemployed  or  inactive  people  who  want  to  go  into  self-
employment but do not have access to traditional banking services. 

Microenterprise:  an  enterprise  employing  less  than  10  people,  including  self-employment, 
and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed € 
2 million. 91% if all European enterprises are microenterprises. 

Multi-fund programme: 

An Operational Programme can not currently use combine ESF 
and  ERDF  funds.  Operational  programmes  are  mono-fund.  The  proposal  for 

ix

 
 
the  post  2013  period  is  to  make  it  possible  to  draw  on  both  sources  of 
financing – making Operational Programmes multi-fund. 

OMC  -  Open  Method  of  Coordination:  The  OMC  provides  a  framework  for  cooperation 
between  the  Member  States,  whose  national  policies  can  thus  be  directed 
towards certain common objectives. Under this intergovernmental method, the 
Member  States  are  evaluated  by  one  another  (peer  pressure),  with  the 
Commission's role being limited to surveillance. The European Parliament and 
the  Court  of  Justice  play  virtually  no  part  in  the  OMC  process.  The  open 
method of coordination takes place in areas which fall within the competence 
of the Member States, such as employment, social protection, social inclusion, 
education, youth and training.  

It is based principally on: (1) jointly identifying and defining objectives to be 
achieved  (adopted  by  the  Council);  (2)  jointly  established  measuring 
instruments  (statistics,  indicators,  guidelines);  and  (3)  benchmarking,  i.e. 
comparison of the Member States' performance and exchange of best practices 
(monitored by the Commission). 

OP  -  Operational  Programme:  the  operational  programme  defines  the  activities  to  be 
implemented with the Funds (ESF, ERDF or CF). An OP contains inter alia an 
analysis of the situation, a justification of the priorities chosen, information on 
the priority axes and their specific target, a financing plan. They are managed 
by a Managing Authority.  

Passive (labour market) policies: relate to spending on income transfers for persons have lost 
their  employment.  It  consists  essentially  of  unemployment  benefits  and  early 
retirement pensions paid for labour market reasons. 

Performance monitoring: A continuous process of collecting and analyzing data to compare 
how well a project, program, or policy is being implemented against expected 
results. 

Personalised  services:  services  provided  by  public  employment  services  or  other  bodies  to 
individuals with the aim to facilitate the integration of unemployed and other 
job seekers in the labour market. 

Private  Employment  Services  deliver  employment  services  to  jobseekers,  job  changers  and 

employers, on commercial and non-commercial basis. 

Professional mobility includes job-to-job mobility, which requires a change of employer, and 
occupational mobility, which is indicated by a change in job role and functions 
but may occur with the same employer.  

Public Employment Services as public services have a specific role in the labour market: they 
deliver  services  free  of  charge  to  jobseekers  (both  unemployed  and 
jobchangers)  as  well  as  to  employers,  which  aim  to  bring  jobseekers  and 
vacancies together, and also contribute to improved transparency in the labour 
market.  

Results-based  management:  A  management  strategy  focusing  on  performance  and 

achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts. 

x

 
 
SFC: 

Structural Funds Common database. This is a portal through which Managing 
authorities  and  the  Commission  exchange  information  on  the  progress  of  the 
Operational Programmes. SFC ss refers to the programming period 2000-2006. 
SFC2007 refers to the ongoing programming period (2007-2013). 

Social enterprises: Social enterprises have primarily social as opposed to profit-making goals, 
produce  goods  and  services  (often  of  general 
in  a  highly 
entrepreneurial and innovative way to generate benefits to the general public, 
use surpluses mainly to achieve their social goals, and reflect their mission in 
the way they operate by involving workers, customers and stakeholder affected 
by the business activity.  

interest) 

Social  experimentation:  the  concept  refers  to  small  scale  projects  designed  to  test  policy 
innovations (or reforms) before adopting them more widely. The impact of the 
innovation  on  the  sample  population  is  assessed  against  the  situation  of  a 
‘control group’ with similar socio-economic characteristics that remains under 
the  dominant  policy  regimes.  Social  experiments  can  be  applied  to  a  large 
spectrum  of  social  interventions,  such  as  welfare-to-work  programmes, 
provision  of  health  services,  technologies  to  facilitate  independent  living, 
addressing  homelessness,  education,  early  child  development,  access  public 
utilities,  active  retirement,  etc.  Social  experimentation  requires  a  thorough 
preparation  and  selection.  The  programmes  should  be  of  sufficient  size  to 
make  them  politically  relevant  and  should  focus  on  fields  where  evidence 
suggests that a policy change is needed. To be conclusive, the program must be 
subject  to  well-defined  evaluation  standards,  to  ensure  that  its  results  are 
transferable to another context.  

SPC:  

The Social Protection Committee is a Treaty-based committee. The SPC serves 
as  a  vehicle  for  cooperative  exchange  between  Member  States  and  the 
European Commission in the framework of the Open Method of Co-ordination 
on  social  inclusion,  health  care  and  long-term  care  as  well  as  pensions 
("Social" OMC). In particular, the Committee plays a central role in preparing 
the discussion in the Council on the annual Joint Report on Social Protection 
and  Social  Inclusion.  The  Committee  also  prepares  reports,  formulates 
opinions  or  undertakes  other  work  within  its  fields  of  competence,  at  the 
request of either the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative.  

Unemployed:  persons without work, available for work and actively seeking work.  

Your first EURES job is a new preparatory action to foster youth job mobility across the EU-
27  countries.  It  is  aimed  at  helping  young  people  and  employers  to  fill  open 
bottleneck vacancies.  "Your first EURES job" is one of the actions pinpointed 
in  the  EU  2020  strategy  (flagship  initiative  "Youth  on  the  Move"  and 
corresponding Communication).  

xi

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4.  RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS 

The  ESF  evaluation  system  reflects  the  highly  decentralised  governance  structure. 
Evaluations are undertaken at the project level to assess the functioning and the effectiveness 
of  specific  projects.  They  are  undertaken  at  the  level  of  Priority  Axes  or  Operational 
Programmes (OPs) to analyse whether the process of implementation functions properly and 
is still in line with the needs. At the European level, evaluations often focus – in line with the 
actual competences – on governance questions.  

In  the  current  programming  period  the  ESF  is  implemented  through  117  Operational 
Programmes.  In  the  previous  programming  period  (2000-2006)  there  were  212  Operational 
Programmes. Evaluations are carried out in accordance with the size and the character of the 
Operational Programme. For the current programming period, the start of which was delayed 
in many Member States rather late, the Commission is aware of some 300 evaluations which 
are  either  underway  or  in  the  process  of  being  finalised,  Most  of  these  evaluations  are 
conducted  by  independent  evaluators  who  are  commissioned  by  the  Member  States 
themselves.  The  evaluations  conducted on behalf of the Commission  tend to  be thematic or 
strategic.  The  Commission  is  also  responsible  for  the  ex-post  evaluation.    The  ex-post 
evaluation of the 2000-2006 programming period was finalised in December 2010. 

A general conclusion of the European level evaluations concerning the previous (2000-2006) 
as  well  as  the  current  programming  period  is  that  the  ESF  plays  an  important  role  when  it 
comes  to  setting  the  social  and  employment  policy  agenda.  European  citizens  would  be  far 
less aware of the need and advantages of active labour market policy, gender mainstreaming, 
non-discrimination  and  evidence-based  policy  making  without  the  ESF.  While  the  EES 
presented  the  Flexicurity  concept,  it  is  to  a  large  extent  the  ESF  which  substantiates  it  and 
allows Member States to implement it. 

1.  The ESF (2000-2006) ex post evaluation 

The  ESF  (2000-2006)  ex  post  evaluation  was  carried  out  between  2008  and  2010.  The 
principal  evaluation  findings  can  be  grouped  under  three  main  headings:  resources,  policy 
areas and governance.  

1.  Resources  

More  than  €120  billion  were  spent  in  ESF  programmes  throughout  the  EU  during  the 
programming  period  2000-2006.  The  total  amount  spent  was  financed  mostly  by  the 
European Union budget (52%), with a significant contribution by Member States (42%) 
and a relatively small share coming from private organizations (6%). 

More  than  75  million  individuals  and  approximately  1.7  million  organisations  were 
supported in a variety of ways. 

The ESF has been targeted mostly at the unemployed, young and excluded. 

Across  the  Member  States,  expenditure  was  higher  for  active  labour  market  policy  in 
Central  European  States  (34%),  while  Northern  States  spent  comparatively  more  on 
adaptability  (39%)  and  while  New  Members  States  spent  relatively  more  than  others 
(20%) on social inclusion initiatives. 

Among the EES Objectives, ESF-supported measures mainly contributed to implement 
employment policies (33%) and investment in human capital (29%). 

xii

 
 
 
 
Training  (40%)  and  counselling  (21%)  were  the  most  common  instruments  used  to 
channel ESF support. 

2.  Policy areas 

The evaluation shows that the ESF has played a significant role in supporting investment in 
human resources across the different policy fields foreseen in the Regulation. 

−  The ESF contributed to bridging the gap between education systems and labour market  

The  ESF  served  as  an  important  instrument  for  strengthening  the  link  between 
education/training  and  employability,  and  to  improve  the  matching  between  education 
system and labour market. 

The  ESF  contributed  to  bridging  the  gap  between  education  systems  and  the  labour 
market through a variety of means, including improvements in governance; support to 
structures for the development of human capital; support for improvements to systems 
linking training and the labour market; teacher training; and the design of programmes 
better adapted to the needs of the labour market and to its changes.  

−  Adaptability measures mainly targeted employed individuals 

A majority of the adaptability measures have targeted employed individuals rather than 
enterprises.  This  finding  is  true  for  both  types  of  adaptability  (individuals  and  work 
organisations).  While  the  dominant  mode  of  adaptability  intervention  by  the  ESF  was 
through individual training measures, there was a significant portion of the activity that 
addressed the issue through enterprises.  

−  The  ESF  contributed  to  increasing  employment  and  improving  the  functioning  of  the 

labour market  

The  ESF  contributed  additional  resources  to  national  and,  particularly,  regional 
governments  for  directly  supporting  training  and  counselling  of  unemployed  people, 
particularly of women and the young unemployed.  

Co-financed  projects  produced  important  effects  because  they  contributed  to  the 
activation  of  labour  markets;  encouraged  workforce  participation;  strengthened, 
modernised  or  improved  national  labour  policies  and  services  and  contributed  to 
improving the quality of labour supply. 

ESF  measures  targeted  at  the  unemployed  had  positive  effects,  leading  to  an  average 
insertion rate of 39.8% for all final recipients (calculated using data collected from all 
the  measures  targeted  at  the  unemployed).  The  most  successful  target  groups  were 
women (47%), the excluded (45%) and long-term unemployed (42%). 

−  Social inclusion received very strong support by the ESF 

The ESF played an important role by contributing valuable additional resources to the 
Member  States  to  provide  support  to  specific  target  groups.  In  a  number  of  Member 
States  equal  opportunities  and  social  cohesion-related  policies  would  have  been 
financially  impossible  to  sustain  without  the  help  of  the  ESF.  Their  impact  was  not 
homogeneous due to the vast differences across Member States, regions, measures and 
programmes.  

The  greatest  ESF  impact  was  at  'meso'  and  micro-level.  Quantitative  data  and  case 
analyses carried out by the evaluators suggest that the ESF had an important impact on 
social  cohesion:  co-financed  programmes  helped  overcome  the  differences  across 
European regions, active and inactive population and marginal social groups. 

xiii

 
 
 
Social inclusion measures generally resulted in significant positive micro-level impacts 
in  the  areas  of  mobilisation,  (re)motivation  and  rehabilitation.  The  implemented 
measures  resulted  in  positive  'meso'-level  impact  in  the  area  of  structural  reforms. 
Modernisation  of  national  employment  services  provided  more  personalised  and 
relevant services to the clients. 

−  The ESF contributed to the improvement in the status of women in the labour market 

ESF  gender-specific  and  gender-supportive  measures  have  significantly  contributed  to 
improving the general status of women in relation to the labour market. The inclusion of 
a gender focus in ESF activities stimulated the creation of employment opportunities at 
local  level,  while  also  contributing  to  the  improvement  of  family  conditions  that,  in 
turn, have facilitated the entrance of women into the labour market.  

3.   Governance 

−  Scarcity of reliable data 

Although the evaluators of the ex post evaluation managed to gather some quantitative 
data,  the  overall  findings  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  for  the  2000-2006  programming 
period with regard to results are largely based on qualitative rather than on quantitative 
data. The latter is hardly available at EU level because the 2000-2006 Regulations did 
not impose harmonised obligations or common standards for monitoring and reporting 
on ESF participants. 

−  Programme level objectives and targets are not easily identified 

At  Operational  Programme  level,  choices  are  not  easily  identifiable  either  in  terms  of 
allocations  among  general  objectives,  nor  within  certain  policy  areas.  For  example, 
social  inclusion  and  gender  measures  seldom  specify  the  sub  segments  they  are 
targeting, where delivery mechanisms may be radically different for each of them.  

−  Coordination between the ESF and other programmes is limited 

Coordination  between  the  ESF  and  programmes  funded  by  other  structural  funds  and 
public policies is often limited. For example the same individuals may be targeted twice 
(as demonstrated by some social inclusion measures). Action towards the same area can 
also lack coordination (as  shown  by  the analysis of Territorial  Employment  Pacts  and 
Local Initiatives for employment).  

−  ESF management tools provide limited support to programme performance 

A  problem  reported  across  the  evaluation  is  that  management  tools  and  governance 
mechanisms  of  ESF  programmes  (indicators,  monitoring,  control  and  evaluation)  are 
often perceived as both costly and not relevant to actual decision-making.  

−  Tools and incentives for accountability are not adequate 

One of the common elements that emerge from analyses on gender, social inclusion and 
local initiatives is that there are few mechanisms to direct available ESF funds towards 
the most effective projects.  

−  Mutual learning promotes ESF effectiveness 

Mutual learning seems to be a key factor in improving the effectiveness of the ESF, and 
exists at three levels: (i) policy learning and harmonisation effort at the Union level, (ii) 
improved network-based mutual learning among key actors of planning and governing 

xiv

 
 
the  ESF,  and  (iii)  an  improved  and  intensified  international  exchange  of  working 
practices within diverse contexts.  

2.  Thematic ex-post evaluations of the 2000-2006 ESF 

2.1 

Impact on the functioning of the labour market and on the investment in human 
capital infrastructure through support to systems and structures 

The evaluation confirmed the relevance of ESF interventions for systems and structures 
(S&S). The estimated financial commitment for S&S was between 2% and 15% of Member 
States'  entire  ESF  allocations.  In  some  countries  ESF  funds  provided  the  biggest  pool  of 
resources to support adaptations in ALMPs. 65% of the EU’s working age population live in 
Member  States  where  the  ESF  has  supported  reforms  of  the  Public  Employment  Services 
(PES). 

S&S  interventions  considerably  supported  the  European  Employment  Strategy  goals 
and facilitated policy convergence at European level. In particular, interventions for S&S 
allowed  Mediterranean  and  Eastern  countries  to  build  up  PES  similar  to  those  of  the  more 
advanced Central and Northern EU countries. They also helped improve the supply of training 
and  provide  a  greater  responsiveness  to  labour  market  needs,  especially  in  Mediterranean 
countries. Considering that the countries most in need of adapting S&S were precisely those 
which received the largest amount of resources from the ESF, the territorial concentration of 
funds supported the convergence of S&S. 

S&S  interventions  were  an  important  factor  in  improving  the  effectiveness  of  ESF 
support to persons. The integration of support for S&S and for persons produced a process 
of  mutual  reinforcement,  especially  in  countries  where  ESF  assistance  was  more  sizeable. 
Here, the S&S component of the ESF improved the governance and quality of systems, while 
support to persons enhanced the overall capacity of the systems. 

The  functioning  of  the  ESF  (multi-annual  programming,  continuity  of  financing) 
appears to be particularly suited to investments in S&S that will mainly bear fruit in the 
medium to long-term. The seven-year programming of the ESF is often longer than national 
practices and favours long-term strategies and independence from the political cycle. 

To  achieve  significant  results  and  impacts,  the  systemic  nature  of  S&S  interventions 
requires  a  concentration  of  resources  and  integration  with  other  interventions  carried 
out with national or local resources. The critical mass aspect was crucial in countries which 
implemented  large-scale  reforms,  where  the  operation  of  all  the  components  needed  to  be 
enhanced in order to make the system operational. 

institutional  sustainability  are 

important  for  successful 
Financial  as  well  as 
implementation.  National  and  regional  authorities  need  to  pay  more  attention  to  how  ESF 
resources will be replaced in the medium term and how to achieve organisational learning so 
that  once  the  immediate  intervention  ends  the  organisation  does  not  slip  back  into  the 
previous  –  less  effective  –  routine.  These  challenges  are  particularly  big  in  Objective  1 
regions, where reliance on ESF support is higher. 

3.  Thematic evaluations of the 2007-2013 ESF 

3.1  Evaluation of the ESF contribution to the European Employment Strategy 

This  evaluation  for  the  period  2007-13  found  that  all  Member  States  when  designing  their 
Operational Programmes (OPs) ensured that there was a linkage between the objectives of the 
OPs and those of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs)/EES on a general level. However, 
in none of the 27 Member States were the OPs explicitly designed to contribute to the NRP 

xv

 
 
and  /  or  the  EES,  with  clear  and  explicit  contribution  chains  describing  overall  how  the 
Operational  Programme  was  intended  to  contribute  to  the  NRP.  In  some  cases  the  strategic 
link between the two policy strands is weak, and in many cases there is obvious link at all. 

ESF 2007-13 contributes to the EES mainly through adding volume and scope to planned 
reforms and structural changes and to existing activities ensuring thereby that they reach more 
people with better measures. 

The  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  ESF  is  an  essential  instrument  to  implement  and 
disseminate concepts and reforms linked to the EES. The connection between the ESF and the 
EES is not as much on the operational level as one could expect. The different life-cycles of 
the  two  policy  instruments  as  well  as  the  often  indirect  linkage  (Operational  Programme 
referring  not  directly  but  only  indirectly  via  the  NSRF  to  the  EES)  further  complicate  the 
situation. 

The evaluation showed however that the extent to which (and how) the ESF contributes to 
the EES depends on the Member State in question:  

• 

• 

In  Member  States  with  few  national  resources  for  ALMP,  the  possibility  to  use  the 
ESF  to  boost  or  mirror  (volume)  national  activities  (from  large  reforms  to  specific 
measures targeted at specific groups) can be essential to provide the services needed 
and hence for achieving the NRP objectives.  

In Member States with a political climate less favourable to experiments with labour 
market  measures,  the  ESF  can  be  used  to  test  innovative  ideas  that  can  later  be 
mainstreamed to and implemented at national level if they have proved to be effective. 
Mainstreaming and the implementation of (more) effective measures must in turn be 
expected to contribute to the achievement of the NRP objectives. 

•  All Member States can benefit from using ESF funds to broaden existing activities to 
new target groups or with new measures that make them more effective. This must in 
turn be expected to contribute to the achievement of the NRP objectives. 

3.2  Evaluation  of  ESF  Support  for  Enhancing  Access  to  the  Labour  Market  and  the 

Social Inclusion of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities 

The following definitions have been used for the purpose of this study: 

Migrants:  a  non-EU  born  individual  from  a  third  country  legally  residing  within  EU27.  
Migrants are of first, second or third generation although many migrants of 2nd and a fortiori 
3rd generation will have acquired the nationality of the host country 

Minorities: individuals with a different cultural tradition or background from the majority of 
the  (host)  population.    In  EU  countries  where  the  term  ‘ethnic  minority’  is  recognised,  a 
distinction is made between ethnic minorities of first, second and third generation.  

Additionally, the study distinguished between ethnic on one side and indigenous and national 
minorities on the other. The latter are described as ethnic groups that are long-standing and 
relatively well-established residents of a particular EU country. 

A key conclusion of this evaluation was that there is an increased attention promoting the 
labour market and social inclusion of migrants and minorities in ESF in the 2007-2013 
period  compared  with  2000-2006.  This  is  reflected  in  ESF  Operational  Programme 
strategies  and  in  higher  levels  of  expenditure  on  these  groups.  The  inclusion  of  an  explicit 

xvi

 
 
 
 
reference  in  the  ESF  Regulations  2007-2013  to  the  funds’  relevance  in  promoting  access  to 
the labour market for migrants and minorities and a requirement to monitor and report on the 
ESF’s contribution in ESF AIRs had a positive impact in this regard. 

•  At the individuals' level, the ESF made a positive contribution in helping people with 
a migrant  and  minority  background to  overcome  barriers to labour market access by 
strengthening employability, promoting adaptability and encouraging entrepreneurship 
and  self-employment,  which  were  often  seen  as  a  viable  alternative  to  entering  the 
primary labour market. ESF has had a positive effect on strengthening basic skills for 
employability  such  as  ICT  skills,  basic  literacy  and  communication  skills  and  in 
particular, language skills - a major obstacle to labour market entry for migrants and 
minorities.  

•  At the level of system and structures, the ESF has helped to improve the quality of 
initial integration services and created new networks and organisational structures to 
promote the integration of migrants. The capacity of public institutions to promote the 
integration of people with a minority background has been strengthened as a result of 
ESF  intervention.  Knowledge  has  been  gained  and  experiences  shared,  for  example, 
between  public  institutions  and  migrant  and  minority  NGOs  with  a  specialist 
understanding  of  these  groups’  needs  and  barriers  they  face  in  accessing  the  labour 
market.  

The  ESF  has  also  strengthened  horizontal  coordination  mechanisms  to  promote  greater 
cooperation  in  Structural  Funds  management  and  implementation  structures  between 
government Ministries, national equality bodies and specialised agencies. NGOs played a key 
role in project delivery and were seen as more effective in targeting ‘difficult to reach’ groups 
than traditional mainstream providers of social and employment services.   

The evaluation found out however, that not all Members States address these groups explicitly 
and  that  the  ESF  targeting  strategies  to  promote  the  labour  market  and  social  inclusion  of 
migrants  and  minorities  vary  between  them.  The  most  common  approach  was  a 
combination of specific actions and general measures in which a series of disadvantaged 
groups are targeted.   

The  evaluation  demonstrated  European  Added  Value  of  the  ESF  support  to  migrants  and 
minorities  both  in  terms  of  volumes  by  addressing  an  important  funding  gap  and  providing 
resources  to  promote  access  to  the  labour  market  and  the  social  inclusion  of  migrants  and 
minorities  and  scope  by  extending  coverage  to  wider  target  groups  that  had  not  previously 
been  addressed  through  national  programmes,  or  had  received  limited  attention.  Examples 
include second and third generation migrants, immigrant youth, and the Roma. 

3.3  Evaluation of the ESF support to gender equality 

A key conclusion of this evaluation was that there is European Added Value in the ESF's 
support to the gender equality policy as the ESF has 'pushed' gender equality onto the policy 
agenda in most Member States. For some Member States, the ESF contribution has been very 
important also from a budgetary point of view, as it has allowed actions to be implemented 
for which funds would otherwise not have been available.  

In  the  current  programming  period  all  Member  States  have  considered  the  gender  equality 
theme  in  their  ESF  Operational  Programmes  but  with  important  differences  in  the  level  of 
consideration.  The  dual  approach  requirement  set  by  the  ESF  Regulation  (to  combine 
mainstreaming and specific actions), has been in practice translated into a significant decrease 

xvii

 
 
 
of  gender-specific  actions  comparing  to  the  previous  period  and  an  over-dependence  on 
gender  mainstreaming.  This  means  that  the  contribution  of  the  ESF  to  the  promotion  of 
gender equality will be dependent on how well gender mainstreaming is applied and how the 
relatively limited resources available for specific actions focus on critical issues. In response 
to these challenges, this evaluation study makes the following recommendations: 

•  The European Commission could increase attention to the effective application of gender 
mainstreaming by requesting a specific focus on gender mainstreaming implementation for 
the  next  round  of  national  strategic  reports  due  by  the  end  of  2012;  and  an  evaluation 
exercise  on  how  Member  States  have  implemented  gender  mainstreaming  in  this 
programming cycle. 

•  In  the  future  programming  period,  the  Commission  should  consider  defining  in  the 
Regulation which objectives should be considered as objects of gender mainstreaming and 
which  as  objects  of  specific  actions.  Core  ESF  objectives  as  employability  should  be 
mainly  considered  as  objects  of  gender  mainstreaming.  Gender  equality  specific  actions 
should primarily be directed to other gender equality dimensions that require specific focus 
and  cannot  be  easily  addressed  through  gender  mainstreaming  (i.e.  tackling  gender 
stereotypes;  vertical  and  horizontal  work  segregation;  women's  empowerment  in  public 
life). The Regulation should also stipulate that gender equality specific actions should be 
considered in a wider perspective than just targeting women, i.e. also targeting men, key 
economic and social actors, decision makers and the general public. 

•  The  implications  of  gender  mainstreaming  should  be  explicitly  specified  either  in 
Regulations  or  in  Guidelines,  with  the  definition  of  project  requirements  specified 
differently according to the types of actions. 

•  Member States should ensure the set up of a permanent function to lead on gender equality 
issues  in  the  planning,  implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  ESF  Operational 
Programmes.  Self-assessment  or  evaluation  exercises  on  the  application  of  gender 
mainstreaming  are  recommended  at  Member  State  level,  with  a  close  watch  on  how 
monitoring systems and data collection are working in practice to inform on progress with 
respect  to  the  gender  equality  objectives.  Finally,  participation  in  projects  by  applicants 
equipped with gender skills should be encouraged through public events for such potential 
applicants  in  view  of  calls  for  projects,  in  order  to  enhance  the  communication  of 
opportunities and clarify requirements and expectations. 

4.  Findings from ESF-evaluations conducted by Member States  
For  the  evaluations  conducted  by  the  Member  States131,  this  document  will  only  present 
results which compare ESF support with nationally financed support schemes (and not present 
overall  results  of  ESF  support).  Unfortunately  there  are  only  very  few  evaluations  which 
compare  national  with  ESF  schemes.  In  addition  it  should  be  noted  that  we  do  not  have 
sufficient  information  to  assess  how  the  ESF  intrinsically  contributes  to  Union  policy 
objectives (such as the EES for instance). National evaluations do not provide for responses to 
questions  about  the  effect  of  the  ESF  in  helping  Member  States  to  closer  align  their 
employment and social policy more closely with the European policies.  

Evaluations have mostly pointed to an extension of support to groups of people which would 
otherwise  not  have  benefitted  from  national  support  programmes.  An  evaluation  of  the 

131 All the documents mentioned in this section can be found at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/empl/esf_evaluation_discussion_group/library?l=/commission_evaluation&v
m=detailed&sb=Title 

xviii

 
 
                                                 
German Bund Operational Programme (2000-2006) found that the participants supported by 
the ESF were equally successful on the labour market as those participating in purely national 
programmes. The evaluation concluded that the added value of the ESF lies in the fact that the 
ESF  supported  people  entering  the  labour  market  who  would  otherwise  not  have  benefitted 
from  any  support.  Compared  to  unemployed  nonparticipants,  ESF  participants  were  more 
successful  on  the  labour  market  in  the  medium  and  long  run.  A  group  which  benefitted 
particularly  from  ESF  support  were  women.  They  represented  57%  of  ESF  participants  in 
contrast to 47% of female participants in comparable national support schemes.  

Another evaluation commissioned by the German authorities even found better results of ESF 
supported  schemes  than  for  national  schemes.  For  ESF  support  to  measures  combining 
reduced working time ("Kurzarbeit") Germany, it concluded that on average, a larger share of 
people  completing  ESF  schemes  (44%)  were  in  employment  two  years  later  than  those  in 
competing national schemes (just under 40%)132.  

An  evaluation  of  ESF  support  to  three  Belgian  regions  found  that  the  ESF  had  mostly  a 
catalytic  impact,  first  on  innovating  activation  instruments,  second  on  the  governance  of 
employment policies and third on policy framing.133  

Evaluations highlighted that the ESF support was more flexible than national support schemes 
and  could  thus  address  the  specific  needs  of  certain  groups.  An  evaluation  of  the  Hamburg 
Operational  Programme  for  2007-2013,  covering  support  for  business  start-ups,    concluded 
that  ESF  assisted  projects  tailored  their  support  to  the  specific  needs  and  characteristics  of 
migrants  in  general  and  female  migrants  in  particular,  unlike  national  programmes,  which 
were not flexible enough to address the specific needs of the target group concerned.134 

Another evaluation commissioned by the German Bund MA found that the ESF contributed 
to increasing the efficiency of national support schemes to self-employed people by providing 
additional support not offered by the national scheme135.  

The  European  added  value  of  ESF  support  to  enterprises  has  mostly  been  identified  by 
providing incentives to engage in training of the employed. An evaluation of ESF support to 
enterprises136  in  Poland  found  that  ESF  support  provided  a  strong  stimulus  for  micro 
businesses  to  train  their  employees.  Some  41%  of  the  micro-sized  enterprises  (those  with 
under 10 people employed) receiving support had not engaged in training before. Similarly, 
an evaluation of the Saxony (Germany) ESF programme for 2007-2013 found that half of the 

132  
Deeke,  A.,  C.  Ohlert,  2009.  Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen  während  Kurzarbeit  nach  endgültigem 
Arbeitsausfall – Analysen zur Förderung im Rahmen des ESF-BA-Programms 2000 bis 2006 und zum Verbleib 
nach der Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009.  
133  Verschraegen,  G.;  B.  Vanhercke  and  R.  Verpoorten,  2010.  The  European  Social  Fund  and  domestic 
activation policies: Europeanization mechanisms. Journal of European Social Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–
18. 
134  Ad-hoc-Evaluierung  der  Aktion  A.5  –  Förderung  des  Unternehmergeistes  –  im  Rahmen  des  ESF-
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME Hamburg 2007-2013. 
135 Deeke, Axel, 2010. Arbeitsmarktpolitik mit dem Europäischen Sozialfonds – Analysen zur Umsetzung und 
zu den Wirkungen der Ergänzung des SGB III aus Mitteln des ESF – Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ESF-
BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010. 
136 Measure 2.3 scheme a) of the Polish Human Resource Development Single Operational Programme 2004 – 
2006. 

xix

 
 
                                                 
firms receiving ESF support had no prior engagement in training137. Also an evaluation of the 
ESF programme in Estonia arrived at a similar conclusion138.  

In the area of education policy, evaluations mostly point to the leverage effect of ESF support. 
An  evaluation  conducted  in  Poland  concluded  that  ESF  support  is  the  source  of  a  new 
initiative in education policy.139  

The added value of ESF support was also seen in paving the way for structural change in pre-
school  education.  The  Polish  evaluation  found  that  ESF  support  contributed  to  popularising 
pre-school education in rural areas and thus contributed to change parents' attitudes to early 
child care.   

An evaluation of the implementation of equal opportunities as a cross-cutting theme under the 
Welsh Objective 1  and  3  programmes in 2000-2006 found that project managers  often paid 
only lip service to equal opportunities, because they found it difficult to see how they could 
be applied in a horizontal manner in practice. In most cases (70% of those examined), equal 
opportunities were treated as a horizontal priority without a specific strategy. The evaluation 
considered  that  the  high  profile  of  equal  opportunities  in  the  Programmes  has  raised  its 
importance  and  has  meant  that  project  sponsors  have  been  encouraged  to  take  account  of 
them140. 

An evaluation of the German speaking Community in Belgium identified the European added 
value  of  ESF  support  in  acting  as  a  catalyst  in  horizontal  aspects  including  innovation, 
networking, transnationality, sustainability and equal opportunities141. 

An evaluation of the England Objective 3 programme identified added value of ESF support 
to people with multiple disadvantages in several respects142. Firstly, the ESF provided support 
to  people  who  otherwise  not  have  benefitted  from  support.  Secondly,  ESF  support  offered 
higher quality of provision, including: a broader range of services on offer, a stronger focus 
on individually tailored support, more intensive support and better quality equipment.  

5.  The EGF mid-term evaluation 

The EGF Regulation provides that a mid-term evaluation shall be carried out by 31 December 
2011. The external evaluators have just submitted their draft interim report and it is expected 
that the final report will be delivered in November 2011. As laid down in the EGF Regulation, 
the evaluation will focus on the effectiveness and sustainability of results. 

6.  PROGRESS Mid-term evaluation 

The  integrated  PROGRESS  Programme  (2007-2013)  is  currently  subject  to  a  mid-term 
evaluation.  Preliminary  findings  (on  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  added  value) 
indicate the following:  

−  Moving  from  four  separate  programmes  (2000-2006)  to  a  single  one  had  clear 
advantages  in  terms  of  harmonisation  of  procedures,  reduction  of  the  administrative 

137 Wagner, G.,   2009.  Begleitende  Evaluierung  für den  Europäischen  Sozialfonds  im  Freistaat  Sachsen 2007-
2013 – Evaluierung der Prioritätsachse A, ISW Halle/S., Sept. 2009. 
138 Kasemets, L.,  K. & K. Klaas, 2008. Evaluation of the results of labour market projects funded by the ESF 
directed to workers declared redundant and their applicability in labour market policies, Tallinn 2008. 
139 Evaluation of measures for education and training under the ESF, February 2008.  
140 Ecotec, Cross-cutting themes research project, final report, April 2006. 
141 Begleitung und Bewertung des ESF, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens, Bewertungsbericht 2009, Zweiter Teil, verabschiedet durch den Begleitausschuss im August 2010. 
142  Department  for Work  and Pensions,  Research  Report  No  376  (Cubie, A./O.  Baker), European  Social  Fund 
Objective 3, The 2005 Beneficiary Survey for England, 2006 

xx

 
 
                                                 
burden  and,  to  some  extent,  realisation  of  economies  of  scale.  However  cross-
fertilization opportunities between the 5 policy sections and with other policies are not 
fully exploited.  

−  The annual cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities is 
considered  generally  fitting,  however 
that  a  multi-annual 
it 
programming be developed to set more strategic long-term policy objectives combined 
with  annual  funding  priorities.  Results-based  management  should  be  maintained, 
however,  monitoring  and  evaluation  should  provide  more  accurate  information  on  the 
added value and impact for interested parties and citizens. 

is  recommended 

−  Synergies between the programme and the European Social Fund (and other instruments 
such as the social dialogue) should be more fully exploited. For example, at EU level, 
coordination and knowledge transfer should be improved between Progress and the ESF 
in  particular  in  the  framework  of  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination.  Furthermore,  the 
ESF could help  make results  of the  PROGRESS projects sustainable, for example, by 
up scaling social experimentation projects in the Member States. 

−  Despite continued efforts in the last years, visibility and dissemination of PROGRESS 
results  deserves  further  improvement  to  ensure  sustainability  and  the  long-term 
exploitation of funded projects.   

−  Despite  some  positive  examples  of  integration  of  the  gender  dimension  into  the 
programme activities, more emphasis is needed on the concrete implementation of this 
principle, and more should be done to ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed in a 
meaningful way across all PROGRESS-supported activities. 

PROGRESS is implemented through a results-based management approach. There is a strong 
focus on regularly measuring the progress achieved towards expected results against clearly 
defined  performance  indicators.  The  annual  performance  monitoring  reports  point  to  other 
key results, notably:  

•  PROGRESS contributed to improving the quality of the Commission’s policy initiatives 
by ensuring that they are built on strong evidence as well as making its decision-making 
processes  more  accessible  and  involving  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  in  policy 
development;  

•  PROGRESS helped to ensure the correct and effective application of EU law in fields 
such as  health  and  safety at  work, labour law, anti-discrimination and gender equality 
by monitoring its implementation in the Member States and providing assistance to the 
Member  States  in  transposing  and  applying  EU  law  effectively  through  guidance  and 
training; 

•  PROGRESS  assisted  the  development  of  cooperation  among  national  authorities 
through  mutual  learning  and  the  exchange  of  good  practices  in  the  employment  and 
social  inclusion  fields.  Peer  reviews  have  proven  to  provide  factual  information,  to 
influence  agenda-setting  and  constitute  a  basis  for  decision-making  for  participating 
Member States; 

−  In  the  working  conditions  area,  PROGRESS  supported  a  pioneering  use  of  tools  to 
underpin a smarter approach to regulation as well as the use of Impact Assessments and 
highly specialised evidence; 

−  By supporting key EU networks and NGOs active in promoting social inclusion, non-
discrimination  and  gender  equality,  PROGRESS  boosted  the  capacity  of  national  and 

xxi

 
 
EU networks to take part in and influence decision-making and policy implementation 
at EU and national levels.  

7.  Evaluation of the Progress Micro-finance facility 

Given  the  recent  establishment  of  the  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  in  March 
2010, neither a mid-term nor an ex-post evaluation has been carried out so far.  

However, before the crisis, potential demand for micro-credit in the EU was estimated in the 
short  term  at  over  700 000  new  loans  worth  approximately  €  6 296  million  in  the  short 
term.143  Most  micro-credit  in  the  EU  is  provided  by  non-commercial  micro-finance 
institutions (NGOs, foundations, government bodies, Member States' promotional banks and 
non-bank  financial  institutions),  but  these  providers  do  not  currently  have  the  capacity  or 
resources to meet this high demand.  

The  microfinance  facility  seeks  to  address  this  gap.  It  is  estimated  that  the  Union's 
contribution of € 100 million will be leveraged to more than € 500 million in microloans over 
eight years. This leverage will be achieved thanks to:  

•  Additional funding from other investors. It is assumed that the Union's investment can 
attract  funding  from  third  parties.  The  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  is  already 
committed to matching the Union's contribution and making € 100 million available for the 
‘funded  instruments’  part.  A  further  € 50  million  is  expected  to  be  provided  by  other 
investors.  

•  The  funds’  revolving  nature.  The  funds  can  be  used  more  than  once  during  the  total 
lifetime  of  the  Progress  Microfinance  Facility.  The  Decision  provides  for  the  last 
investment to take place in 2016.  

•  Leverage  generated  by  the  products.  It  is  estimated  that  every  euro  committed  in 
guarantees  could  generate  between  six  and  seven  euro  in  microcredit  while  the  funded 
instruments are expected to have a leverage effect of between one and three. 

As  far  as  the  implementation  is  concerned,  the  agreements  signed  and  the  forecast  for 
transactions  suggest  that  the  various  instruments  on  offer  are  attractive  to  a  variety  of 
intermediaries  which  will  in  turn  allow  to  reach  out  to  the  a  wide  range  of  beneficiaries 
including  those  furthest  from  the  labour  market.  The  Commission  and  the  EIF  expect 
satisfactory fund absorption.  

8.  Evaluation of EURES 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  EURES  programme  covering  the  period  2006-2008  was 
finalised in 2010 and concluded that: 

−  EURES  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  European  labour  markets  open  and 
accessible  to  all  by  providing  labour  market  information,  information  on  living  and 
working conditions and a job matching service.  

−  EURES  Members  have  taken  due  note  of  the  identification  of  mainstreaming  into 
Public Employment Services (PES) as a priority and have worked towards the outputs 

143 
See  Communication  ‘A  European  initiative  for  the  development  of  micro-credit  in  support  of  growth 
and employment’ (COM(2007)708 final/2 of 20 December 2007) and EMN Working Paper No 5 ‘Overview of 
the Micro-credit Sector in the European Union 2006-2007’, July 2008. 

xxii

 
 
 
                                                 
expected on the part of the Commission. However, a comprehensive approach as to how 
EURES  is  to  be  integrated  in  the  PES  was  missing  and  there  was  a  limited 
understanding of what the integration of EURES into the PES consists of, requires and 
should result in. 

−  The  Job  Mobility  Portal  and  the  adviser  network  facilitated  the  transnational,  inter-
regional and cross border exchange of vacancies and indeed labour mobility, though the 
evaluation evidence suggested that the service offer was sub-optimal and attention was 
required  to  achieve  the  aim  of  advertising  all  vacancies  notified  to  PES.  Furthermore, 
the  lack  of  placement  data  means  that  it  was  difficult  to  estimate  the  outcomes 
associated with the advice, guidance and information that jobseekers and job changers 
access.  

−  Around  20%  of  jobseekers  and  job  changers  who  were  survey  during  the  evaluation 
have  received  a  job  via  EURES  and  just  under  half  of  these  have  received  a  job 
corresponding to their skill level. The jobseekers and job changers, who were in contact 
with a EURES Adviser while looking for a job, were more likely to receive a job offer 
than  those  simply  accessing  the  Job  Mobility  Portal.  At  the  same  time  the  portal  was 
appreciated by both groups of users who clearly saw the benefit in being able to access 
–  or  post  –  information  on  vacancies  across  EEA  territory.  According  jobseekers  and 
job changers the CV set up function was the most useful of the EURES services. 

−  Education  level  was  not  found  to  be  a  barrier  to  mobility,  with  jobseekers  and  job 
changers  without  formal  qualifications  able  to  secure  employment  via  EURES.  
Jobseekers  and  job  changers  looking  for  similar  work  to  that  they  currently  had  were 
however more likely to secure a job than those looking for different opportunities. 

−  A number of other types of activities were carried out in order to promote job matching 
such  as  Job  Fairs  (national  and  international)  and  other  recruitment  events  including 
information  /  awareness  raising  sessions  (e.g.  with  employers)  and  other  promotional 
activities. Based on the available information the EURES network organised 705 events 
attended by 850 thousand participants between 2006 – 2008. 

−  The level of human resources employed to deliver the EURES service seemed adequate 
to  meet  the  needs  of  jobseekers,  job  changers  and  employers,  though  additional 
resources will be required if EURES is to evolve to accommodate new services. 

−  A  key  conclusion  from  the  evaluation  is  that  there  is  a  real  need  to  introduce  a 
monitoring and evaluation framework linked to a coherent set of indicators to measure 
performance,  outputs,  outcomes  and  impact.  Concerning  impact,  a  clear  agreed 
approach on how EURES links to the wider employment policy agenda is necessary as 
are  appropriate  indicators  regarding  evidence  on  whether  EURES  contributes  to  the 
achievement of policy aims and objectives. 

xxiii

 
 
ANNEX 5.  SUMMARY OF STUDIES COMMISSIONED IN SUPPORT OF THE INITIATIVE 

Four  studies  in  support  of  the  initiative  have  been  completed.  They  looked  at  the  return  on 
investment  in  human  capital,  the  possibility  to  introduce  performance  based  management 
systems, the possible continuation of administrative capacity building under the ESF. A fourth 
study consisted actually of focus groups discussion with experts from beneficiaries, managing 
authorities and the Commission on proportionality, financial engineering and the involvement 
of local actors.  

Three  other  studies  are  ongoing.  They  cover  administrative  burden  in  relation  to  the 
simplified  cost  options  and  the  introduction  of  results-based  management,  the  setting  of 
performance targets and their adjustments according to business cycles, and a statistical study 
of costs and beneficiaries data for ALMP actions.  

In addition to these studies specifically commissioned in support of the initiative, a number of 
in 
The 
other 

identified. 

studies 

major 

given 

were 

ones 

are 

xxiv

 
 
 
ANNEX  6.  These  are  generally  studies  published  in  scientific  peer  reviewed  journals  or  as 
report  or  publications  by  renowned  research  institute.  They  have  not  been  conducted  on 
behalf of the Commission but selected for their relevance. 

Study on the return on ESF investment in Human capital. 

This study carried out by Eureval/Ecorys/Rambøll Management for DG EMPL and completed 
in August 2010, covered human capital investments understood as public expenditures in: (1) 
education and training of employees, job-seekers and/or inactive people, (2) internships and 
temporary  work  placement  associated  with  education  or  training,  and  (3)  strengthening  the 
capacity of education and training systems and structures. Overall, such investments account 
for over 50% of the ESF resources over the current programming period. 

The study included three clusters of tasks as follow: 

•  A  synthesis  of  available  research  findings  related  to  the  return  on  human  capital 
investments,  with  a  focus  on:  (1)  the  impact  of  training  programmes  targeting 
employed  people,  and  (2)  the  impact  of  return-to-work  programmes  targeting  job 
seekers.  Based  on  a  first  extensive  screening  of  peer-reviewed  publications,  the 
research synthesis was improved with the assistance of a panel of seven experts from 
the EU and the USA. 

•  A  series  of  impact  analyses  based  on  individual  data  provided  by  volunteering 
Managing  Authorities  respectively  in  Belgium  (Flanders),  Italy  (Northern  regions), 
Hungary, and Poland. Through these analyses, the study team tested a series of impact 
analysis  techniques,  all  including  control  groups.  Due  to  the  nature  of  the  available 
data, this part of the study applied to unemployed people only. 

•  An  in-depth  investigation  into  four  success  stories  of  impact  analyses  that  had  been 
carried  out  in  the  same  four  countries  between  2005  and  2009.  This  investigation 
focused on the process of learning from impact evaluations. The study team discussed 
the  recommendations  stemming  from  this  investigation  in  a  focus  group  meeting 
attended by several managing authorities. 

Major findings:   

o  Training of employed people is socially profitable but not rewarding enough 
at the level of the firm. For this reason there is an under-investment of private 
funds in this area. 

o  Training  of  unemployed  people  is  socially  profitable,  but  not  for  all  target 
groups, and under the condition that it is associated with job-search assistance. 

o  There is a rationale for investing public money in systems and structures at 

the level of industry, 

o  It  takes  years  for  deriving  lessons  from  an  impact  analysis.  This  means  that 

impacts cannot be included in a performance monitoring system. 

Study  of  output-based  and  result-oriented  conditionality  systems  for  the  European 
Social Fund 

xxv

 
 
 
 
 
 
This  study  which  was  implemented  by  Deloitte  aimed  at  exploring  possibilities  for 
introducing  performance  management  elements  in  the  relation  between  ESF  managing 
authorities and the Commission. It was completed in November 2010. 

The  report  first  discusses  the  principal-agent  relationship  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Managing  Authorities  within  the  ESF  management  structure.  The  Commission  acts  as 
principal vis-à-vis the Managing Authorities, being responsible for the overall implementation 
of  ESF  policies  across  all  EU  Member  States.  At  lower  management  level,  Managing 
Authorities acts as principal vis-à-vis project beneficiaries.  

Concerning the type of indicators, a performance system based on results (i.e. related to the 
achievement of their objectives) and impacts might not be appropriate, due to controllability 
and  accountability  problems.  The  measurement  of  long-term  outcomes  involves  time-
consuming,  costly  and  technically  complex  research  techniques  and  not  all  Managing 
Authorities in the EU might be able to apply such techniques. Moreover, the achievement of 
strategic objectives is only partly attributable to the intervention of the Managing Authorities 
but depending also on factors out of their control. This does not mean that results and impacts 
should  not  be  monitored  and  evaluated,  only  that  the  funding  cannot  be  conditioned  by 
results and impacts.  

Instead  of  using  the  result  or  impacts  at  programme  level  (i.e.  related  to  the  Operational 
Programme  objectives),  it  is  more  realistic  to  use  the  aggregated  outputs,  milestones  and 
occasionally some intermediate results achieved by projects within a programme to assess the 
performance of operational programmes.  

However, the outputs and intermediate results of some types of projects are relatively difficult 
to  aggregate  as  they  might  differ  in  nature  or  they  might  target  different  groups  of  people 
(trainings can take different forms and target different groups of people). Moreover, for some 
types  of  projects  within  an  operational  programme,  milestone  indicators  might  be  more 
appropriate than outputs (for example, innovative projects). As a result, the use of aggregation 
of outputs, milestones and intermediate results of projects might be only appropriate for parts 
of their operational programme. 

An  alternative  for  aggregating  the  outputs,  milestones  and  intermediate  results  of  project 
would  be  to  aggregate  the  “status”  of  the  different  projects  within  an  operational 
programme. Regardless of the indicators used to measure the performance and the progress of 
projects (milestones, outputs or results), managing authorities should all be able to inform the 
Commission on a regular basis on the “status” of their programme, i.e. are their projects on 
track or not, according to the chosen performance indicators? A programme being on track, 
lagging behind or ahead of track, could be a trigger for funding. 

A  third  feasible  option  related  to  the  aggregation  of  individual  project  performance 
specifically targets the Major Projects in the ESF. Major Projects already exist in the ERDF 
fund, but not yet in the ESF. ESF Major Projects exceed a given threshold (which should be 
decided on) and consist of a series of works, activities and smaller projects that contribute to a 
common objective which is clear and measurable. It might be feasible to link funding to the 
performance achieved at Major Project level. 

In  order  to  enable  these  three  options,  Managing  Authorities  have  to  be  able  to  define  the 
performance  levels  of  each  (type  of)  project  before  starting  implementation  and  to  monitor 
regularly  the  progress  of  the  projects  within  their  operational  programme.  Therefore,  the 
Commission has to grant managing authorities enough flexibility and responsibility, but at the 
same time provide them with methodological guidance and tools in order to ensure coherence 
in the approach across the Managing Authorities.  

xxvi

 
 
All  ESF  management  levels  -  from  the  project  operators  to  the  Commission  –  have  to  be 
involved  in  the  target  setting  phase  of  the  programme;  the  involvement  of  project 
beneficiaries will continue to be required to ensure that performance levels are realistic and 
acceptable,  whereas  the  Commission  needs  to  challenge  the  performance  levels  set  by  the 
managing authorities and to ensure their alignment with the broader strategic objectives. 

In  a  performance-based  conditionality  system  for  the  ESF,  the  equilibrium  between 
centralised strategic orientation from the Commission (in partnership with the Member States) 
and  decentralisation  of  the  implementation  process  at  Managing  Authorities  and  project 
operators level will be an important aspect. A good mix between programme steered by the 
political level and its implementation under the responsibility of the actors close to the field 
should be found. 

In order to avoid increasing the administrative burden, the introduction of a performance-
based  conditionality  system  should  accompany  with  simplification.  It  is  worth  mentioning 
that  many  problems  of  administrative  burden  created  by  the  application  of  the  Financial 
Regulation might already be tackled by a more flexible interpretation of the rules. 

A reading of the Commission proposal  on  the revision of  the Financial Regulation suggests 
that a minimum level of control by the Commission on the spending by Managing Authorities 
will  continue  to  be  required.  Nevertheless,  the  recent  changes  (e.g.  the  possibility  to  claim 
indirect  costs  on  a  flat  rate  basis)  might  have  improved  the  delivery  system  by  making  it 
administratively less cumbersome. 

Assessment  of  administrative  and  institutional  capacity  building  interventions  and 
future needs in the context of European Social Fund 

This study which was implemented by Ecorys for DG EMPL how capacity building has been 
implemented under the ESF and what lessons can be learned for a possible future priority in 
this area. It was completed in December 2010. 

EU-support to institutional and administrative capacity building is not new: it started already 
in 1997 under PHARE and as part of the pre-accession process for New Member States. As a 
pre-accession  instrument, implementation of PHARE  measures  could  be  enforced  as  part  of 
the accession negotiations. This leverage power is largely absent under the ESF-regime.  

ACB  interventions  take  a  different  approach  depending  on  the  country  and  the  political 
willingness  of  formally  allocating  ESF  funding  to  this  priority  theme.  Although  the  overall 
share of the administrative capacity building actions represents formally only a modest 2.7% 
of  all  ESF  funds,  there  is  strong  variation  between  Member  States.  Moreover,  important 
ACB-related interventions also take place under other priority themes. These apply notably to 
partnership  with  NGO's,  labour  market,  social  inclusion  and  social  care  institutions, 
education, work organisation, E-government and Technical Assistance. 

ESF  tends  to  respond  rather  well  to  the  administrative  capacity  issues  identified,  such  as 
structures,  human  resources  and  systems  and  tools.  Interventions  predominantly  relating  to 
systems  and  tools  tend  to  be  only  effective  if  embedded  in  a  wider  organisational  change 
process  and  when  adopted  by  the  staff  working  with  them.  An  emerging  pattern  from  the 
analysis is that the vast majority of priority theme 81 interventions are internal, horizontal and 
general in nature, meaning that they are not directly related to specific policy fields. 

xxvii

 
 
 
 
Overall, previous PHARE and ESF support have generated considerable achievements at the 
level of outputs and results. The same appears to hold true for the current ESF interventions. 
At project level, clear success factors have been identified. 

The  strategic  rationale  which  forms  a  starting  point  for  the  future  ACB  support  lies  in  the 
Europe  2020  Strategy,  and  in  particular  the  Integrated  Guidelines  that  put  additional 
challenges to Member State governments at all levels. They involve new tasks, including the 
provision of new public services, increased resource-efficiency in delivering these services, a 
need  to  further  reduce  administrative  burdens,  and  the  modernisation  of  a  wide  range  of 
public  services  including  further  dissemination  of  E-government.  Further  justification  for 
continued ACB-support is provided by the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial 
Cohesion (EC, 2010).  

The study examined three Options for a future ACB component under the ESF. The case for 
discontinuing ACB support lies in the fact that ACB is a matter of Member States and that the 
added value of the EC in general and ESF in particular may not be strong. The second option 
consists of the continuation of administrative and institutional capacity building interventions 
in  Convergence  regions.  This  option  is  essentially  the  no-policy  change  but  would  be 
accompanied by a number of optimisation measures. Option 3, which the study argues is the 
preferable  one,  extends  ACB  support  beyond  Convergence  regions.    Future  ACB  support 
would  be  conditional  and  become  part  of  the  development  and  investment  partnership 
contract. 

Report on the focus group discussion on Proportionality, financial engineering and the 
involvement of local actors in the ESF post 2013  

(Finalisation pending) 

Between  November  2010  and  February  2011,  Deloitte  organised  on  behalf  of  DG  EMPL  5 
focus  group  discussions  on  the  wider  application  of  the  proportionality  principle,  use  of 
financial  engineering  and  the  involvement  of  local  actors  in  the  ESF  post  2013.  Each  focus 
group  meeting  was  underpinned  by  an  issue  paper  which  formed  the  basis  for  a  discussion 
with  experts  representing  beneficiaries,  managing  authorities  and  the  Commission.  The 
groups were kept deliberately small to facilitate discussions (maximum 10 persons). The ESF 
Committee Ad hoc group of the future of ESF was given a feed back of the discussions on the 
occasion of its 3 February 2011 meeting.  

Proportionality 

There was a general support for a wider use of the proportionality especially as far as audits 
are  concerned.  Some  divergences  appeared  on  the  need  for  a  general  framework  for 
proportionality  (that  is  more  flexible)  rather  than  a  detailed  operational  framework  that 
provides for more legal certainty. However both approaches are compatible.  

As far as the strategic programming is concerned the main proposals were related to avoid the 
duplication of parts of documents and to simplify the content of the Operational Programme. 
For example the description of the Management and Control system is part of the compliance 
assessment  and  should  not  be  repeated  in  the  Operational  Programme;  the  part  on 
communication  could  be  included  in  the  Operational  Programme  and  the  Communication 
plan  suppressed.  The  Operational  Programme  itself  should  be  short,  with  only  what  is 
necessary (and no new requirements). It could eventually be split in two parts: a committing 
one  and  a  second  one,  more  detailed,  for  information  (modifiable  without  decision  of  the 

xxviii

 
 
 
 
Commission). The opportunity of the DIPCO was contested: additional layer of negotiation, 
unclear link with the NRP. 

 Some simplifications were discussed. In addition to those presented by the Commission some 
experts proposed: to pay Technical Assistance as a flat rate of the Operational Programme; to 
simplify treatment of revenues; to introduce amounts or rates of simplified costs options in the 
Regulation, eventually by relying on Eurostat data but it should not undermine Member States 
prerogative  to  define  rates  and  unit  costs;  to  set  a  minimum  threshold  for  irregularities;  to 
maintain  eligibility  of  non  recoverable  VAT,  to  have  a  better  alignment  with  national  rules 
and procedures; to restrict the use of actual expenditure thanks to public tender and simplified 
costs. 

There  were  also  exchanges  about  the  opportunity  to  implement  clearing  houses.  It  is 
considered as one of the tools for simplification but as a risky one: required data should be 
known well in advance. However based on its own experience, one of the experts underlined 
that  in  theory  clearing  houses  were  an  excellent  idea  but  that  in  practice  the  number  of 
documents to be handled made it very difficult to implement. 

Keeping of timesheets was considered as a problem by some of the experts. It was proposed 
to  share  experience  on  this  issue  during  one  of  the  next  ESF  informal  Technical  Working 
Group. 

Financial engineering 

The focus group examined the following three options for future financial engineering:  

•  Policy based guarantee allowing credit enhancement for sovereign, regional and local 
borrowing  in  order  to  increase  the  available  resources  for  carrying  out  structural 
reforms in the areas of employment, social protection and inclusion;  

•  Secondary market (securitization) for micro and small loans for business creation  

•  Comprehensive  package  of  services  for  providers  of  microfinance  comprising 

institutional building measures and lending products 

The participants of the focus group expressed their support for the policy based guarantee and 
for designing comprehensive packages of services for providers of microfinance. They found 
that developing secondary markets would require more detailed knowledge and capacity from 
managing authorities. 

xxix

 
 
 
 
Involvement of local actors 

•  The  question  of  the  involvement  of  local  actors  in  the  ESF  programmes  is  closely 
interlinked with the issue of partnership. Most Many focus group members shared the 
opinion that the current regulations leave too much room for national interpretations of 
the  partnership  principle  and  suggested  experts  consider  that  there  is  no  need  for 
additional  requirements  in  terms  of  partnership  in  the  regulations.  There  are  many 
ways  to  implement  the  principle  of  partnership  according  to  Member  States 
specificities, at local, regional and national level. Sufficient flexibility should therefore 
be  left  to  Member  States.  One  participant  expressed  a  different  opinion,  considering 
that  huge  differences  in  the  implementation  of  the  partnership  principle  calls  for  a 
clearer definition of this principle, more stringent requirements in the regulations and ,  
the establishment of a code of good practice (soft law approach). A majority of experts 
in  the  ad  hoc  group  disagreed  with  this  recommendation,  considering  that  sufficient 
flexibility  should  be  left  to  Member  States  and  no  need  additional  requirements  are 
thus  needed  in  the  regulations.  They  also  highlighted  the  specific  role  of  the  social 
partners should also be highlighted in the context of ESF interventions. 

•  Technical  assistance  is  already  used  in  some  Member  States  to  facilitate  the 
involvement  of  small  organisations  in  the  implementation  of  the  programmes.  There 
was  a  strong  support  among  the  focus  group  members  for  extending  this  use,  in 
particular  for  those  organisations  who  do  not  have  the  organisational  scale  and 
financial resources of technical knowledge to be a solid partner. On the contrary, most 
members  of  the  Ad  Hoc  group  consider  that  the  current  provision  is  well  adapted 
giving  MA  the  possibility  to  use  such  a  mechanism  if  they  deem  it  necessary. 
Technical assistance should remain distinctively separated from institutional capacity 
the  pure 
building  which  provides  support 
implementation of the fund. 

institutional  capacity  beyond 

to 

•  A majority of experts in the focus group was critical about the idea to create a specific 
ESF  heading  priority  for  local  pacts  and  initiatives  or  to  require  a  compulsory 
territorial priority axis. They expressed their opposition to a compulsory priority axis 
dedicated to the promotion of the territorial dimension in the ESF. These ideas seems 
to  be  at  odds  with  the  transversal/  multi-sectoral  features  of  local  initiatives,  the 
principle  idea  on  concentrating  on  fewer  priorities  and  the  notion  of  results  based 
management  by  promoting  the  means  rather  than  the  end.  The  experts  in  the  ad  hoc 
group  expressed  their  opposition  to  a  compulsory  priority  axis  dedicated  to  the 
promotion of the territorial dimension in the ESF. A few experts were not opposed to 
reflect further on this idea of a dedicated priority axis, as a horizontal mechanism to 
implement  some  policy  priorities  set  up  in  the  Operational  Programme  priority 
(following the model of Austria). 

•  The  results  of  local  initiatives  and  small  projects  driven  by  NGOs  are  not 
demonstrated.  There  is  no  evaluation  evidence  that  NGOs  and  local  actors  are  any 
better at helping people into work than public bodies or private sector organisations. 
They  often  raise  important  difficulties  in  terms  of  control  and  audit.  A  few  experts 
were  not  opposed  to  reflect  further  on  this  idea  of  a  dedicated  priority  axis,  as  a 
horizontal  mechanism  to  implement  some  policy  priorities  set  up  in  the  Operational 
Programme priority (following the model of Austria). 

•  Except for one expert, there was not support expressed for a specific earmarking of the 
fund (a minimum percentage defined in the regulation) for territorial initiatives in the 
focus group and in the ad hoc group, since it will infringe the necessary flexibility in 

xxx

 
 
the  programming  of  the  funding  according  to  the  needs  identified  and  the  priorities 
decided  by  national  authorities.  Even  "soft"  earmarking  such  as  calling  for  a 
significant / an appropriate / a reasonable amount" should be avoided as it triggers in a 
latter stage lengthy and inconclusive discussions between the Member States and the 
Commission. 

•  There was no consensus in the focus group on the need for stringent provisions with 
regard to in-kind contributions, pre-financing or global grants. Most experts in the ad 
hoc  group  had  strong  reservations  about  any  specific  funding  arrangement  for  local 
initiatives  and  small  projects.  The  use  of  global  grants  often  leads  to  administrative 
complexity and burden for the intermediary body and sometimes high error rates. "In 
kind" contributions raise important audit issues mainly due to poor record keeping. A 
differentiated co-financing rate for different types of projects is administratively very 
difficult and has led to financial corrections in some cases. 

xxxi

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6.  SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES  

ACORD  International  sa  /  G.E.A.  mbH,  Begleitung  und  Bewertung  des  Europäischen 
Sozialfonds, Ziel 2, im Zeitraum 2007-2013 in der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft Belgiens, 
Bewertungsbericht 2009, 2010. 

Dieses  Dokument  stellt  den  dritten  Bewertungsbericht  der  Umsetzung  des  Operationellen 
Programms  für  den  Europäischen  Sozialfonds  in  der  Deutschsprachigen  Gemeinschaft 
Belgiens für den Zeitraum 2007-2013 dar. 

Er ist in zwei Teile gegliedert: 

(cid:153)  Der erste Teil umfasst die Bewertung der Umsetzung des ESF in der DG im Jahr 2009 

(cid:153)  Der  zweite  Teil  geht  insbesondere  auf  die  Aspekte  ein,  die  gemäß  Lastenheft  im 
Zweijahres-Rhythmus  untersucht  werden,  d.h.  einerseits  die  Zufriedenheit  der 
Teilnehmer/innen in laufenden Projekten und ihre Information zum Projekt und zum ESF 
und  andererseits  die  Dokumentation  bewährter  Praktiken  bei  der  Umsetzung  der  
horizontalen Prioritätsachsen in der DG. 

Altavilla,C., F. E. Caroleo, 2006. Evaluating the Dynamic Effects of Active Labour Policies in 
Italy; LABOUR, Volume 20, Issue 2, pages 349–382, June 2006.  

This  paper  aims  at  analyzing  whether  Active  Labour  Market  Programs  (ALMP)  could  have 
different  effects  on  unemployment  and  employment  dynamics  according  to  the  particular 
region  where  the  program  is  implemented.  To  this  end,  the  research  analyses  alternative 
theoretical and econometric models thought to capture the possible effects that active labour 
market  policies  might  have  on  labour  forces  dynamics.  The  econometric  methodologies 
implemented  are  the  Generalized  Method  of  Moment  (GMM)  and  the  Panel  Vector 
Autoregression  (P-VAR).  The  evidence  emerging  from  the  GMM  models  suggests  that  the 
effects of ALMP on unemployment are not similar across the Italian regions. It follows that 
some active programs are likely to exert a greater effect in the South than in the North. The 
results of the P-VAR estimated models are synthesized in the impulse response analysis and 
the  forecast  error  variance  decomposition.  The  impulse  response  analysis  suggests  that  an 
increase  in  ALMP  lead  to:  (i)  a  decrease  in  the  unemployment  rate,  and  (ii)  significant 
increase  in  labour  force  participation.  More  interestingly,  results  obtained  from  the  error-
variance  decomposition  analysis  show  that  unemployment  movements  are  not  driven  by 
shocks  in  the  ALMP  and  that,  especially  in  the  northern  regions,  atypical  contracts  shocks 
account for a substantial portion of unemployment dynamics. 

Becker, S.; P. H. Egger and M. von Ehrlich, 2010. Too much of a good thing? On the growth 
effects of the EU's regional policy. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8043.  

This  paper  focuses  on  the  estimation  of  the  response  of  average  annual  GDP  per  capita 
growth to changes in the intensity of regional transfers provided by the European Commission 
under the auspices of the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund programmes. We use NUTS3 
data,  the  most  disaggregated  regional  data  available,  covering  the  two  most  recent  EU 
budgetary periods 1994-99 and 2000-06. Nonparametric generalized propensity score analysis 
allows us to estimate the causal effect of different levels of EU transfers on GDP growth. 

xxxii

 
 
 
 
 
 
Our  results  point  to  an  optimal  transfer  intensity  of  0.4  percent  of  target  region  GDP  and  a 
maximum desirable intensity of 1.3 percent. Transfers to regions below a transfer intensity of 
0.4 percent enhance aggregate efficiency as they exhibit a multiplier above one. Regions with 
EU transfer intensity below 1.3 percent of their beginning-of-period GDP could grow faster 
by  further  EU  transfers.  Regions  with  a  transfer  intensity  of  more  than  1.3  percent  of  GDP 
could  give  up  EU  transfers  without  experiencing  a  significant  drop  in  their  average  annual 
per-capita income growth rate. For a certain range of transfer intensities, we detect a trade-off 
between aggregate efficiency and regional cohesion. Reducing the transfers to regions below 
the maximum desirable transfer intensity significantly harms their growth prospects but may 
enhance aggregate efficiency, if the transfer intensity was above the optimal level. 

Redistribution  of  EU  transfers  from  the  18  percent  of  regions  that  receive  more  than  1.3 
percent of initial GDP as EU transfers to regions below that threshold would be efficient and 
could boost regional convergence. 

Blanden,  J.,  F.  Buscha,  P.  Sturgis  and  P.  Urwin,  2010.  Measuring  the  Returns  to  Lifelong 
Learning.  CEE  discussion  papers,  CEEDP0110.  Centre  for  the  Economics  of  Education, 
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. 

Abstract:  

This paper investigates the returns to lifelong learning, which is interpreted as the attainment 
of qualifications following entry into the labour market. For a number of reasons our analysis 
of  the  British  Household  Panel  Survey  (BHPS)  represents  an  important  addition  to  the 
existing evidence base. We allow for financial and non-financial returns to lifelong learning 
by  using  as  dependent  variables  both  (i)  hourly  earnings  and  (ii)  CAMSIS  score.  A  fixed 
effects  specification  counters  the  potential  biases  that  arise  from  unobserved  individual 
heterogeneity  and  the  inclusion  of  lags  allows  estimation  of  how  the  returns  to  lifelong 
learning evolve over a ten year period after the qualification is obtained. We find evidence of 
earnings  and  occupation  status  returns  using  a  broad  categorisation  of  lifelong  learning  for 
both  men  and  women,  but  more  variability  in  returns  when  disaggregated  NVQ-equivalent 
categories  of  qualification  are  considered.  Our  findings  are  broadly  in  line  with  existing 
evidence within the UK, which is mostly based on the analysis of cohort studies. 0f particular 
interest is the finding that returns to women materialise much sooner after the attainment of a 
qualification, than is the case for their male counterparts. 

Conclusions: 

The  analysis  of  the  returns  to  any  form  of  lifelong  learning  suggests  there  are  significant 
positive returns for men and women, in terms of both earnings and CAMSIS. The magnitude 
of effect is similar for both genders, with men and women experiencing a 20 per cent increase 
in  hourly  earnings  10  years  after  gaining  a  lifelong  learning  qualification.  With  respect  to 
CAMSIS,  both  genders  experience  a  10  per  cent  return  over  the  same  period.  However, 
interpretation of the time dynamics imply that women experience returns from an investment 
in  lifelong  learning  sooner  than  men,  as  we  observe  a  significant  increase  in  earnings  four 
years after the event; compared to six years for men. Considering changes to CAMSIS arising 
from participation in lifelong learning the difference is only one year and returns to women 
materialising  after  one  year.  The  implication  for  the  wider  literature  is  that  social  status 

xxxiii

 
 
 
 
 
 
returns  seem to be more  immediate for both sexes, but  for  women  both pecuniary and non-
pecuniary returns are realised sooner than is the case for their male counterparts. […] 

Car,  D.,  J.  Kluve  &  A.  Weber,  2010.  Active  Labour  Market  Policy  Evaluations:  A  Meta-
Analysis. Economic Journal, 120 (November), F452–F477. 

This article presents a meta-analysis of recent microeconometric evaluations of active labour 
market policies. We  categorise 199 programme impacts from 97 studies conducted between 
1995  and  2007.  Job  search  assistance  programmes  yield  relatively  favourable  programme 
impacts,  whereas  public  sector  employment  programmes  are  less  effective.  Training 
programmes  are  associated  with  positive  medium-term  impacts,  although  in  the  short  term 
they  often  appear  ineffective.  We  also  find  that  the  outcome  variable  used  to  measure 
programme  impact  matters,  but  neither  the  publication  status  of  a  study  nor  the  use  of  a 
randomised design is related to the sign or significance of the programme estimate. 

Cubie,  A.,  O.  Baker  European  Social  Fund  Objective  3:  The  2005  beneficiary  survey  for 
England, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 376, 2006.  

The  researchers  carried  out  two  waves  of  longitudinal  research  among  beneficiaries  of 
European Social Fund (ESF) training. The first wave drew on the views of 4,682 beneficiaries 
while  they  were  enrolled  on  an  ESF  course  and  the  second  wave  involved  interviews  with 
2,063 of the same beneficiaries once they had left their course.  

Deeke,  Axel,  2010.  Arbeitsmarktpolitik  mit  dem  Europäischen  Sozialfonds  –  Analysen  zur 
Umsetzung  und  zu  den  Wirkungen  der  Ergänzung  des  SGB  III  aus  Mitteln  des  ESF  – 
Endbericht der Begleitforschung zum ESF-BA-Programm 2000 – 2008. IAB Juni 2010. 

Ein  erheblicher  Teil  der  ESF-Mittel  des  Bundes  wurde  seit  dem  Jahr  2000  bis  zum  Herbst 
2008  in  Verbindung  mit  der  individuellen  Arbeitsförderung  nach  dem  SGB  III  im  Rahmen 
des  bundesweiten  ESF-BA-Programms  eingesetzt.  Das  Programm  sollte  die  gesetzliche 
Arbeitsförderung qualitativ ergänzen. 

Das Programm sollte die Beschäftigungsfähigkeit von Arbeitslosen im Verhältnis zum SGB 
III  zusätzlich  bzw.  verstärkt  fördern,  um  Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit  zu  verhindern  und  vom 
Ausschluss vom Arbeitsmarkt bedrohte Personengruppen zu unterstützen.  

Das  Programm  setzte  bei  einigen  Förderlücken  des  SGB  III  an,  erweiterte  den  von 
Arbeitsförderung  (bei  beruflicher  Qualifizierung)  erreichbaren  Personenkreis  und  sollte  das 
Wirkungspotential  der  ergänzten  gesetzlichen  Förderinstrumente  steigern.  Da  sich  die 
Problemlage  auf  dem  Arbeitsmarkt  nicht  geändert  hatte  und  weil  die  Umsetzung  des 
Vorläuferprogramms „AFG-Plus“ als relativ erfolgreich eingeschätzt wurde, gab es aus Sicht 
der Verantwortlichen keinen Anlass, das neue Programm grundsätzlich anders zu schneiden.  

xxxiv

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dieser Bericht dokumentiert die Begleitforschung, die über die gesamte Laufzeit hinweg als 
ein  Verbund  mehrerer  Teilprojekte 
ablaufbedingt  mit 
unterschiedlicher  Intensität  und  Schwerpunktsetzung  durchgeführt  wurden.  Sie  beinhalteten 
insbesondere: 

erfolgte.  Diese  wurden 

(cid:153)  den  Aufbau  und  die  Fortschreibung  einer  Individualdatenbank  mit  den  relevanten 

administrativen Daten der BA zu geförderten Personen und Vergleichsgruppen,  

(cid:153)  Erhebungen und Analysen zur Implementation des Programms als zentraler Baustein der 

Evaluation auf Programmebene, 

(cid:153)  Erhebungen und Analysen zur Zielgruppenerreichung, 

(cid:153)  Verbleibsanalysen im regionalen Vergleich, 

(cid:153)  mikroanalytische  Wirkungsuntersuchungen  zu 

Instrumenten  und  Leistungen  des 

Programms 

Deeke,  A.,  C.  Ohlert,  2009.  Qualifizierungsmaßnahmen  während  Kurzarbeit  nach 
endgültigem  Arbeitsausfall  –  Analysen  zur  Förderung  im  Rahmen  des  ESF-BA-Programms 
2000 bis 2006 und zum Verbleib nach der Teilnahme. IAB Forschungsbericht 3/2009. 

In  the  case  of  definite  loss  of  employment  because  of  substantial  works  alteration, 
establishments can implement short-time work according to regulations in the SGB III. Short 
time  compensations  could  be  approved  for  a  duration  of  up  to  two  years  until  2003 
(Strukturkurzarbeitergeld)  and  since  2004  with  a  duration  of  up 
to  one  year 
(Transferkurzarbeitergeld). The establishments are encouraged by the law to take care of the 
placement of the short-time workers in new jobs and for this purpose to provide measures of 
vocational training if necessary. These measures could be subsidized in the framework of the 
ESF-BA-program  from  2000  to  summer  2008  and  since  then  by  the  new  ESF-federal-
program. Thus for the evaluation of this promotion by the ESF the question arises, in how far 
the chances for the short-time workers to find a new job, increase with the participation in the 
training measures.  
An  impact  analysis  of  vocational  training  during  short-time  work  is  not  possible  with  the 
available  data.  The  data  bases  of  the  BA  lack  person  and  establishment  specific  data  on 
characteristics  and  dates  of  the  short-time  work  and  the  short-time  compensation.  The  few 
individual-related  data  on  participations  in  training  measures  subsidized  by  the  ESF  have 
several deficits and are therefore inadequate for elaborate analyses. Nevertheless, analyses on 
the  structures  and  the  amount  of  the  subsidies  and  most  notably  on  the  status  of  the 
participants after leaving the training measures and the short-time work are presented. Even 
though under some reservations, basic information can be given on the results of the training 
measures. This includes the finding that more than forty percent of the participants are in non-
subsidized employment liable to  social security  one  year  past  the  training  measure  and  also 
two years later. Besides this and other empirical evident results, conclusions are drawn with 
respect  to  the  difficult  situation  with  the  data.  Recommendations  are  given,  which  could 
alleviate  the  upcoming  evaluation  of  the  subsidy  of  training  during  short  time  work  in  the 
framework of the ESF-federal-program that just started and runs until 2013. 

xxxv

 
 
 
 
 
 
Deeke,  A,  R.  Cramer,  R.  Gilberg,  D.  Hess  &  M.  Baas,  2009.  Evaluation  der  Förderung 
beruflicher  Weiterbildung  im  Rahmen  des  ESF-BA-Programms.  IAB  Forschungsbericht 
1/2009 

The  promotion  of  further  vocational  training  for  unemployed  persons  according  to  SGB  III 
was supplemented by the European Social Fund (ESF) from the beginning of 2000 to autumn 
2008.  80  per  cent  of  the  total  of  116,000  promoted  cases  is  allocated  to  the  years  2000  to 
2002. An impact analysis is presented in this report covering the population participating in 
these years. Outcomes subsequent to participation are measured, firstly, by the fact whether 
participants  entered  into  employment  at  all  and,  secondly,  by  transition  into  non-subsidized 
employment  liable  to  social  security.  Unemployed  non-participants  and  participants  without 
additional  ESF-funding  serve  as  comparison  groups.  Separate  analyses  were  run  for 
subgroups where possible (West/East Germans, non-recipients of benefits according to SGB 
III,  male/female  participants  and,  in  an  excursus,  migrants  with  and  without  additional 
language courses). 

The analysis is empirically based on the longitudinal data from representative panel surveys 
of ESF-funded participants and comparison groups whose samples were drawn on the basis of 
exact  pre-matching  with  process-produced  data.  The  method  of  event  history  analysis  was 
applied  throughout  the  study  (partly  supplemented  by  propensity  score  matching,  which, 
however,  can  estimate  status  probabilities  but  not  probabilities  of  transition).  First  of  all, 
transition rates for the overall observation period of six years were compared (Kaplan-Meier 
estimator).  In  the  following  the  effect  of  participation  was  estimated  in  a  Cox  regression, 
taking into account further explanatory factors (such as personal characteristics, regional and 
program-related heterogeneity, job-seekers' behaviour). Since, other than earlier studies, this 
analysis  was  conducted  with  longitudinal  survey  data  using  more  elaborate  methods,  the 
results  of  preliminary  findings  are  obsolete  now.  In  contrast  to  earlier  findings,  a  clearly 
positive effect of supplementary ESF-funding on individual benefits can be found. Compared 
to  unemployed  nonparticipants,  participants  supported  by  the  ESF  were  more  successful  on 
the labour market in the medium and long run (especially participants in West Germany and 
the group of non-recipients of statutory benefits). With reference to further vocational training 
without ESF-funding, the results point to positive outcomes as well. 

Dmitrijeva,  J.,  2009.  The  employment  effects  of  public  training  programme:  evidence  from 
Latvian micro and macro data. 

During  the  transition  to  market  economy  and  the  accession  to  the  EU  Central  and  Eastern 
European  countries  have  witnessed  remarkable  changes  in  the  structure  and  functioning  of 
national  economies.  The  aim  of  this  paper  is  to  investigate  the  role  of  active  labour  market 
policy  (ALMP)  programmes  in  smoothing  the  consequences  of  transitional  shock  and 
improving  the  performance  of  the  labour  market.  We  evaluate  the  employment  effects  of 
publicly  provided  unemployed  training  programme  in  Latvia  from  both  micro  and 
macroeconomic perspectives. 

First, the individual effects of the programme are assessed. Using the individual data provided 
by  State  Employment  Agency  of  Latvia,  we  investigate  the  impact  of  participation  on 
unemployed  transitions  to  jobs,  examine  heterogeneity  of  treatment  effects  across  different 
socio - demographic and regional groups and examine the empirical link between targeting of 

xxxvi

 
 
 
 
 
the programme and  its  efficiency. We  also test the sensitivity of our  results to the so-called 
”hidden” bias. 

Next,  the  aggregate  impact  on  the  outflows  from  unemployment  to  jobs  is  analyzed  using 
monthly panel data (1999-2006) data from 33 Latvian districts. The analysis is performed by 
estimating  the  augmented  matching  function,  where  the  correct  specification  of  the  hiring 
process  is  obtained  by  allowing  for  stock-flow  matching.  The  results  allow  to  quantify  the 
aggregate outcomes of training and to assess temporal evolution in programme efficiency (by 
comparing  pre  EU  accession  to  post  accession  periods)  or  its  regional  distribution.  The 
estimation results are further employed to perform a costs-benefit analysis of the programme. 

Generally,  the  effects  of  unemployed  training  are  confirmed  to  be  positive  at  both 
macroeconomic  and  individual  levels:  involvement  of  unemployed  in  training  increases 
aggregate  outflows  from  unemployment  to  jobs  and  increases  individual  employability  of 
participants. 

Dickinson,  P.  and  R.  Lloyd,  2010.  DWP  research  Report  666:  European  Social  Fund  - 
Support for In-Work Training research  

The projects complemented a range of sub-regional, regional and national agendas, with the 
fit appearing closest amongst the Convergence Priority 5 projects in Cornwall, where explicit 
reference  was  made  to  a  range  of  local  strategic  drivers  and  priority  activities.  There  are  a 
number  of  possible  reasons  for  this,  including  existing  familiarities  between  the  actors 
involved,  the  focus  on  a  smaller  number  of  providers  available  within  the  county,  and 
previous  experienced  and  strategic  awareness  resulting  from  the  previous  Objective  1 
programme. 

The  Priority  2  projects  had  a  more  implicit  strategic  fit,  which  is  likely  to  be  due  to  the 
influence  of  co-financing  (where  the  ‘contracting’  model  addresses  many  of  the  wider 
strategic  parameters  in  advance),  and  may  also  explain  why  fewer  examples  of  strategic 
partnerships were identified. However, operational partnerships were plentiful, and served to 
broaden  the  range  of  provision  (sectorally  and  geographically),  enhance  progression  routes, 
and provide expertise. 

In  both  cases,  it  was  too  early  (and  sample  sizes  did  not  allow)  for  clear  conclusions  to  be 
drawn  regarding  the  influence  of  strategic  alignment  with  project  performance  and  impact. 
However,  in  many  cases  the  projects  were  positioned,  and  able  to  articulate  their 
expectations,  in  terms  of  making  real  contributions  to  local,  regional  and  national  priority 
areas. 

In  terms  of  the  targeting  of  project  activities,  most  employers  were  targeted  on  the  basis  of 
their  sector  or  location.  Whilst  the  projects  were  working  with  a  broad  range  of  learner 
groups, the targeting of individuals by specific characteristics was limited.  Here  Priorities 2 
and 5 projects appear  to  differ from  those under Priority 1 – not least as the engagement is 
with the employer rather than the individual. 

innovative  projects, 

there  were  examples  of 

Whilst 
the  Innovation  and 
Transnationality project studied, most provision was conventional. This is likely to be due to 
the more prescriptive nature of contracts under co-financing, and because activities tended to 
be delivered by experienced providers, to existing customers, and complementing mainstream 
provision. Most provision therefore operated within certain parameters defined by CFO plans 
and tenders, qualification structures (e.g. NVQs), and years of experience as to what worked. 

including 

xxxvii

 
 
 
 
Most  engagement,  assessment  and  provision  tended  to  be  undertaken  by  the  providers 
themselves, only bringing in partners to recruit and work with employers and learners in new 
sectors or areas. 

High  levels  of  satisfaction  were  expressed  by  both  the  employers  and  learners  interviewed 
(although it should be noted that the contact details of employers and learners were supplied 
by  the  providers  in  question).  Providers  believe  they  have  developed  flexible,  relevant  and 
high quality provision, and this was reflected in the views of the employers and learners, who 
valued the responsiveness, pertinence and calibre of the training offered. 

However,  the  progression  and  aftercare  stage  of  the  participant  journey  seems  the  least 
developed. Most providers, employers and learners had little to say about this stage. For some 
this was because they had only just embarked on the training, and most employers expected 
this  discussion  to  happen.  However,  some  learners  had  been  disappointed  by  the  lack  of 
further information, advice and guidance offered, even when they had asked for it. 

The  monitoring  of  ESF  projects  appears  to  be  light  touch;  however,  this  does  not  seem  to 
have impacted on performance as indicated by the high satisfaction levels of employers and 
learners who could find little wrong with the provision. Providers, employers and learners all 
identified the same range of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ impacts, i.e. addressing skills needs, improving 
confidence  and  increasing  productivity.  Some  providers  believed  that  this  was  due  to  ESF 
funding as it helped them to develop or enhance existing provision, support harder to reach 
learners  and  employers,  and  develop  innovative  and  flexible  provision.  However,  providers 
believed  that  ESF  paperwork  was  still  too  excessive,  and  there  was  an  issue  over  the 
definition  of,  and  collecting  evidence  for,  job  outcomes  for  Response  to  Redundancy 
providers.  

Drever, E., C. Llyod, 2010. DWP Research Report 709: European Social Fund Cohort Study - 
Wave 2   

The majority of participants (94 per cent) had finished their course when they took part in the 
Wave 2 ESF Cohort Study.  

The study found that the rate of unemployment among Priority 1 and 4 participants fell from 
69 per cent in the week before the course to 43 per cent at the time of the Wave 2 interview, 
while the employment rate rose from six per cent to 27 per cent in the same period. However, 
the  rate  of  unemployment  at  the  time  of  interview  was  similar  to  the  rate  among  these 
participants  12  months  before  the  course  (42  per  cent).  As  the  courses  funded  by  the  ESF 
programme by definition target a group of the population that have become unemployed and 
have been identified as potentially benefiting from these courses, this is not unexpected. It is 
also important to note that interviews took place during the economic recession, which may 
also account for this. Participants with a disability or LTLI were less likely than other groups 
to have moved into work. 

Of those participants who were in employment at the time of the interview and who had been 
out of work in the week before the course, 22 per cent said that someone on the course had 
suggested  that  they  apply  for  their  current  job,  while  a  similar  proportion  (22  per  cent)  had 
used contacts from the course when applying for their current job. 

Of  those  participants  who  were  unemployed  at  the  Wave  2  interview,  most  had  made  job 
applications  (69  per  cent)  since  the  Wave  1  interview  while  over  half  had  been  to  job 
interviews (56 per cent). Thirty-three per cent of unemployed participants had used contacts 

xxxviii

 
 
 
 
from  the  course  in  their  job  search,  while  28  per  cent  said  that  someone  on  the  course  had 
suggested that they apply for particular jobs.  

Fifty-five per cent of those participants who were employees said that, since they had been on 
the  course,  they  had  improved  their  job  security.  Of  these,  a  high  proportion  (87  per  cent) 
agreed  that  the  course  had  helped  them  in  this  area.  The  course  also  seemed  particularly 
beneficial to those employees who had taken on higher skilled work for an existing employer 
(34  per  cent)  –  with  87  per  cent  acknowledging  that  the  course  had  helped  them  to  do  this 
work. 

Kasemets,  L.,  K.  &  K.  Klaas,  2008.  Evaluation  of  the  Results  of  Labour  Market  Projects 
Funded  by  the  European  Social  Fund,  Directed  to  Workers  Declared  Redundant  and  their 
Applicability in Labour Market Policies, MindPark Llc, Talinn, 2008.  

Objectives and scope of the evaluation 

(cid:153)  Immediate  objective  of  the  assessment  was  to  analyse  the  results  of  the  labour  market 
projects  directed  to  workers  declared  redundant,  financed  by  the  European  Social  Fund 
measure  1.3  „Equal  opportunities  in  the  labour  market“.  For  fulfilling  the  aim,  project-
based  analysis  of  target  groups,  applied  measures,  costs  of  the  measures  and  achieved 
results was conducted. This analysis was complemented by highlighting best practices and 
making  proposals  for  improving  the  quality  and  impact  of  labour  market  services.  Also 
assessment on their broader applicability in labour market policies was conducted. 

(cid:153)  Implemented  labour  market  measures  as  well  as  competitiveness  and  motivation  drivers 
of the target group formed the core of analysis. All labour market project financed by ESF 
measure 1.3 in 2004-2007 were analysed. In total, 6 projects were evaluated, out of which 
5 projects, with 1830 participants, have been finalised. 1 project, planning to support 360 
laid-off employees is ongoing at the time of evaluation. 

(cid:153)  Evaluation consisted of 3 phases. First phase of the assessment was based on the analysis 
of  project  documentation.  In  the  second  phase  comprehensive  package  of  in  depth 
interviews  were  conducted.  Interviews  were  held  with  members  of  the  project  teams, 
representatives  of  enterprises  and  laid-off  employees  who  had  participated  in  these 
projects.  Selection  of  participants  was  representative  comprising  of  workers  being 
targeted  by  both  individual  and  collective  redundancy,  having  different  educational 
background, belonging to various age groups etc. The third phase tied the outcomes of the 
previous evaluation phases into comparative study. Based  on that the main  findings and 
recommendations  were  formulated  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  projects  and  measures 
provided as well as on their broader applicability in labour market policies. 

Kluve,  Jochen;  RWI  Essen  and  IZA  Bonn,  2006.    The  Effectiveness  of  European  Active 
Labour Market Policy 

Measures of Active Labour Market Policy are widely used in European countries, but despite 
many  econometric  evaluation  studies  no  conclusive  cross-country  evidence  exists  regarding 
"what  program  works  for  what  target  group  under  what  (economic  and  institutional) 
circumstances?  This  paper  results  from  an  extensive  research  project  for  the  European 

xxxix

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission  aimed  at  answering  that  question  using  a  meta-analytical  framework.  The 
empirical  results  are  surprisingly  clear-cut:  Rather  than  contextual  factors  such  as  labour 
market institutions or the business cycle, it is almost exclusively the program type that matters 
for  program  effectiveness.  While  direct  employment  programs  in  the  public  sector  appear 
detrimental,  wage  subsidies  and  "Services  and  Sanctions"  can  be  effective  in  increasing 
participants' employment probability. 

Lindley,  J.,  McIntosh,  S.,  Roberts,  J.,  Murray,  C.C.  and  Edlin,  R.  (2010)  Using  Financial 
Incentives and Improving Information to Increase Labour Market Success: A Non-Parametric 
Evaluation  of  the  'Want2Work'  Programme.  Working  Paper.  Department  of  Economics, 
University of Sheffield 

The `Want2Work´ programme was designed to help individuals back into work. This article 
uses propensity score matching to evaluate the success of a policy that cannot otherwise be 
evaluated  using  standard  parametric  techniques.  Using  a  range  of  estimation  methods,  sub-
samples  and  types  of  job,  the  scheme  was  successful.  Our  most  conservative  estimates 
indicate that participants were 4-7 percentage points more likely to find employment than a 
control  group  of  non-treated  job-seekers.  Effects  were  even  stronger  for  Incapacity  Benefit 
recipients.  Moreover,  there  is  little  evidence  that  participants  were  placed  in  low  quality  or 
temporary jobs.  

Lücke,  C.  &  L.  Heyn,  2010.  Ad-hoc-evaluierung  der  Aktion  A.5  „Förderung  des 
Unternehmergeistes“ im Rahmen des ESF-OP Hamburg 2007- 2013. 

"10.1 Zusammenfassung 

…. 

zeichnen 

sich  die  ESF-geförderten  Projekte 

Insgesamt 
zur  Unterstützung  der 
Migrantenökonomie dadurch aus, dass sie einen Mehrwert bzw. eine Zusätzlichkeit gegenüber 
bestehenden  Maßnahmen  der  Freien  und  Hansestadt  Hamburg  bieten,  auf  spezifische 
Bedarfslagen und ungenutzte Potenziale reagieren und zur Stärkung des Unternehmertums in 
der  Freien  und  Hansestadt  Hamburg  beitragen.  Die  drei  geförderten  Projekte  unterstützen 
Migranten,  durch  die  Etablierung  eines  Unternehmens  dauerhaft  am  Marktgeschehen 
teilzunehmen  und  auf  diese  Weise  das  wirtschaftliche  Potenzial  durch  die  Schaffung  neuer 
Arbeitsverhältnisse  und 
langfristig  auch  Ausbildungsverhältnissen  auszubauen  und 
auszuschöpfen. …." 

McNaughton  Nicholls,  C.;  M.  Mitchell,  A.  Brown,  N.  Rahim,  E.  Drever  and  Cheryl  Lloyd, 
2010.  DWP  research  Report  667:  Evaluation  of  Gender  Equality  and  Equal  Opportunities 
within the European Social Fund  

The  focus  of  the  Gender  and  Equal  Opportunities  within  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF) 
research is on equal opportunities as a cross-cutting theme, looking at how equal opportunities 
are integrated into all aspects of the programme. The study aims to examine the effectiveness 

xl

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of equal opportunities policy and practice within ESF, in the context of helping to tackle the 
barriers  experienced  by  each  of  the  equality  groups  including  examining  organisational 
policies within projects as they relate to equal opportunities and the mainstreaming of equal 
opportunities,  drawing  upon  research  on  participation  and  outcomes  of  different  equality 
groups and examining the factors affecting participation, including discrimination and making 
recommendations for good practice to encourage equal opportunities on ESF projects. 

" substantial progress has been made, however work still needs to be done in order to make 
mainstreaming even more effective, including: clarification of what specific work should be 
undertaken by CMs and providers to promote Gender Equality and Equal Opportunities; the 
application of consistent measures of progress and good practice in relation the promotion of 
Gender Equality and Equal Opportunities (such as Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)); and 
further dissemination of information relating to these measures."  

Reinowski, Eva; Schultz, Birgit, 2006. Micro-econometric Evaluation of Selected ESF-funded 
ALMP-Programmes.  Halle Institute for economic research, September 2006 

The  study  evaluates  different  ESF-funded  labour  market  programmes  by  comparing  the 
labour  market  status  at  different  points  in  time  after  the  treatment.  In  order  to  solve  the 
selection  problem  we  employ  a  standard  matching  algorithm  with  a  multi-dimensional 
distance measure. The effects of the analyzed programmes (wage subsidies, start-up subsidies 
and qualification measures for recipients of social welfare) are very heterogeneous. It can be 
observed that the direct integration into the regular labour market provides an advantage for 
the  supported  individuals.  Its  lasting  effects,  however,  strongly  depend  on  the  group  of 
persons being supported, the type of treatment and the employers’ financial share. 

Rothgang, Michael, 2008. Evaluating the efficiency of the ESF — What can we learn from the 
German experience? Society and Economy, vol.30, n°2,, pp. 227-244. 

In Europe, the new member states face the challenge to implement and evaluate EU-funded 
policies. This paper sketches the experiences in evaluating policy instruments funded by the 
European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  in  Germany  and  discusses  lessons  to  be  learned  from  the 
comprehensive  evaluation  of  ESF-funded  policy  measures  in  Germany  in  the  programming 
period 2000–2006. It presents the matching procedure we used to estimate the net effect of the 
projects  scrutinised.  The  experiences  from  the  evaluation  not  merely  comprise  the 
methodological  aspect  (how  to  evaluate  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  labour-market 
policies), but also consequences that can be drawn in respect to the institutional background. 

Verschraegen, G.;   B.  Vanhercke  and  R. Verpoorten, 2010. The  European Social Fund and 
domestic  activation  policies:  Europeanization  mechanisms.  Journal  of  European  Social 
Policy, 0958-9287; Vol. 21(1): 1–18. 

This  article  analyses  the  effects  of  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  on  domestic  activation 
policies in the three Belgian regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. We argue that over the 
last  decade  the  ESF  has  had  a  catalytic  impact,  first  on  the  innovation  of  activation 

xli

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instruments, second on the governance of employment policies and third on policy framing. 
We explain how three different mechanisms (leverage, conditionality and learning) generate 
these  effects  and  how  they  can  account  for  a  differential  influence  in  different  regions.  We 
conclude by summarizing our research findings and framework, suggesting its usefulness for 
analyzing other domestic settings and European policy instruments. 

Wagner, G.,  2009. Begleitende Evaluierung für den Europäischen Sozialfonds im Freistaat 
Sachsen 2007-2013 – Evaluierung der Prioritätsachse A, ISW Halle/S., Sept. 2009. 

By introducing accompanying evaluation of the Operational Programme (OP) of ESF Saxony 
2007-2013 a general survey was provided about the state of the implementation of the OP and 
the available databases. This first period of the OP Evaluation was finalized in March 2009. 

Following up the introduction, key evaluation and monitoring issues of the OP were presented 
on several programme  levels  of  the  priority axes (PA) starting with priority axis A  (PA  A). 
The  evaluation  will  be  taken  up  as  an  evaluation  of  several  measures  co-financed  by  ESF 
(“thematic  evaluation”)  and  from  measure-wide  perspective  (“programme  evaluation”).  The 
main references are the graded-questions of the evaluation plan fixed within the OP.  

The  programme  evaluating  report  for  the  PA  A  contains  the  following  key  evaluations  in 
particular: 

(cid:153)  the improvement of general conditions for the implementation of PA A (chap. 2) 

(cid:153)  strategic adjustment/ development of the OP as well as the goals and the indicators for 

the PA A (chap. 3) 

(cid:153)  the specification of the strategy in single measures and the state of implementation of 

these measures (chap. 4) 

(cid:153)  the results and impacts of the intervention (chap. 5)  

xlii

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7.  MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS OF THE ESF SCOPE OPTIONS 

The Impact Assessment (IA) of the legislative proposal on the future ESF Regulation presents 
a  set  of  objectives  and  policy  options,  which  are  not  likely  to  be  assessed  by  traditional 
quantitative methods for evaluation (like cost benefit-analysis) because are not quantifiable in 
monetary  terms.  Most  of  them  are  not  even  quantifiable  in  other  units  (making  also 
impossible a cost-effectiveness analysis).  

This represents a typical case of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) where we cannot 
assume  the  availability  of  measurement  of  the  main  variables  to  be  considered.  The  model 
which  could  best  fit  our  needs  is  the  Analytic  Hierarchy  Process  (AHP).  Using  the  AHP 
involves  the  mathematical  synthesis  of  numerous  judgments  about  the  decision  problem  at 
hand. 

The AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analysing complex decisions, based on 
mathematics.  It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision 
problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall 
goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.  

The  analysis  is  done  in  a  number  of  steps.  The  first  is  to  define  a  hierarchy  of  criteria  on 
which  the  assessment  of  the  different  options  can  be  based.  Once  the  hierarchy  is  built,  the 
options are assessed by comparing them to one another, two at a time, with respect to their 
impact  on  each  criterion.  The  AHP  converts  these  evaluations  to  numerical  values  to  be 
processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority 
is  derived  for  each  element  of  the  hierarchy,  allowing  diverse  and  often  incommensurable 
elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. 

In  the  final  step  of  the  process,  numerical  priorities  are  calculated  for  each  of  the  decision 
alternatives.  These  numbers  represent  the  alternatives'  relative  ability  to  achieve  the 
objectives. 

1.  Criteria 

From a logical point of view, it seems reasonable to use the Specific Objectives identified in 
the previous sections of the IA also as the criteria to assess the contribution of each one of the 
four options. These criteria will thus be: 

- 

Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) 

-  Employment (EMP) 

-  Education (EDU) 

-  Social Inclusion (INC) 

2.  Options 

The four scope options identified are: 

-  Option  1.1:  no-policy  change,  it  corresponds  to  an  ESF  covering  policies  and  actions 

leading directly or indirectly to employment and enhancing inclusion; 

-  Option  1.2:  the  ESF  is  narrowly  focussed  on  policies  and  actions  leading  directly  to 

employment; 

xliii

 
 
-  Option  1.3:    the  ESF  has  a  broad  scope  for  interventions  covering  policies  and  actions 

leading directly or indirectly to employment or social inclusion; and  

-  Option 1.4: broad scope for ESF as in option 3, but covers also income support. 

3.  Hierarchy of criteria 

The basic assumptions here are that: 

-  EMP is the main objective of the ESF, representing it "core business".  

-  EDU and INC are equally important, on a second level of priority compared to EMP, but 

are certainly more relevant than ICB. 

This results in the following matrix. 

INC 

ICB 
EMP  EDU 
1.000  0.167  0.250  0.250 
6.000  1.000  2.000  2.000 
4.000  0.500  1.000  1.000 
4.000  0.500  1.000  1.000 

ICB 
EMP 
EDU 
INC 

The  resulting  ranking  of  the  criteria  is  as 
follows: 

1. EMP 
2. INC 
3. EDU 
4. ICB 

0.451 
Employment 
0.242 
Inclusion 
0.242 
Education 
Institutional Capacity Building  0.065 

4.  Contribution to the Specific Objectives/Criteria 

In  this  section  the  contribution  that  each  option  brings  to  the  achievement  of  the  specific 
objectives is quantified and ranked. These are used as the criteria to assess the options. The 
process  of  calculating  the  contribution  to  the  objectives  is  based  on  a  set  of  assumptions 
described below, and explained in the previous sections of the Impact Assessment. 

a.  Contribution to Institutional Capacity Building 

to 

Assumptions:  Option  3  is  the  one  which 
best  contributes 
the  ICB  criterion, 
followed  by  option  1,  then  option  4,  and 
last is option 2, which excludes this type of 
interventions 
employment 
services. 

except 

for 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Options  1.1 
1.1 
1.2 
1.3 
1.4 

1.000  3.000  0.500  2.000 
0.333  1.000  0.250  0.500 
2.000  4.000  1.000  3.000 
0.500  2.000  0.333  1.000 

The  resulting  contribution  of  each  option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 

Institutional Capacity Building 
Option 1.1 
Option 1.2 
Option 1.3 
Option 1.4 

0.277 
0.096 
0.466 
0.161 

xliv

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b.  Contribution to Employment 

Assumptions: Option 1.2  is the  one which 
best  contributes  to  the  EMP  criterion,  by 
the  resources. 
concentrating  on 
Option 1.1 is the second best, followed by 
option  1.3,  and  last  is  option  1.4,  which 
risks  dispersing  the  effort  of  employment, 
through many other types of interventions. 

it  all 

The  resulting  contribution  of  each  option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 

Employment 
0.277 
0.466 
0.161 
0.096 

Option 1.1 
Option 1.2 
Option 1.3 
Option 1.4 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Options  1.1 
1.1 
1.2 
1.3 
1.4 

1.000  0.500  2.000  3.000 
2.000  1.000  3.000  4.000 
0.500  0.333  1.000  2.000 
0.333  0.250  0.500  1.000 

c.  Contribution to Education 

Assumptions:  Options  1.1  and  1.3  are 
equally contributing to this objective, more 
than option 1.4, which faces the same risks 
of  dispersion  previously  explained,  and 
much more than option 1.2. 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Options  1.1 
1.1 
1.2 
1.3 
1.4 

1.000  4.000  1.000  2.000 
0.250  1.000  0.250  0.500 
1.000  4.000  1.000  2.000 
0.500  2.000  0.500  1.000 

The  resulting  contribution  of  each  option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 

Option 1.1 
Option 1.2 
Option 1.3 
Option 1.4 

Education 
0.364 
0.091 
0.364 
0.182 

d.  Contribution to Inclusion 

the  one 
Assumptions:  Option  1.3 
inclusion 
contributing  most 
objective, followed by option 1 and then 4. 
Option  1.2 
type  of 
interventions. 

is 
the 

excludes 

this 

to 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Options  1.1 
1.1 
1.2 
1.3 
1.4 

1.000  2.000  0.333  0.500 
0.500  1.000  0.250  0.333 
3.000  4.000  1.000  2.000 
2.000  3.000  0.500  1.000 

The  resulting  contribution  of  each  option 
to this specific objective/criterion is: 

Inclusion 

Option 1.1 
Option 1.2 
Option 1.3 
Option 1.4 

0.161 
0.096 
0.466 
0.277 

xlvi

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Comparison of the Options 

According to the values calculated above, the overall score for each option can be determined 
as follows: 
X = Σ (KX * Kr ) 
Where  X  is  the  option,  KX  is  the  value  of  the  criterion  K  for  the  option  X,  and  Kr  is  the 
relative weight of this criterion. 

The final ranking and scores of the four options is: 

Final Scores 
Option 1.3  0.304 
Option 1.1  0.270 
Option 1.2  0.261 
Option 1.4  0.165 

The  option  which  best  contributes  to  our  overall  objective,  broken  down  into  weighted 
specific objectives, is 1.3. 

xlvii

 
 
 
ANNEX 8.  PROPOSED COMPULSORY COMMON INDICATORS FOR ESF CO-FINANCED 
ACTIONS 

Total number of participants144 (calculated on the basis of output indicators) 

Output indicators for participants145 
Breakdown of participants by gender, by people entering and leaving support 
These data are to be provided in the annual implementation reports as set out in Art. 57(1) and 
(2) of the General Regulation.  
•  Unemployed, including LTU*  
•  LTU* 
• 
Inactive*  
• 
Inactive, not in education or training*  
•  Employed, including self-employed* 
•  Below 25 years* 
•  Above 54 years* 
•  With primary (ISCED 1) or  lower secondary education (ISCED 2)* 
•  With upper secondary  (ISCED 3) or post-secondary education  (ISCED 4)* 
•  With tertiary education (ISCED 5 and 6)*  
•  Migrants, people with a foreign background, minorities (including marginalised 

communities such as the Roma)** 

•  Disabled**  
•  Other disadvantaged** 

Output indicators for entities 
These data are to be provided in the annual implementation reports as set out in Art. 57(1) and 
(2) of the General Regulation.  
•  NGOs 
•  SMEs  

Participants refer to direct beneficiaries who can be identified and asked for their characteristics, and for 

144  
whom specific expenditure is earmarked.  
145 The arrangements for data processing put in place by the Member States shall be in line with the provisions of 
the Directive 95/46 of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal 
data and on the free movement of such data, in particular with Article 7 and 8 thereof.  
Data reported under the indicators marked with * is personal data according to Article 7 of the above Directive. 
Its processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject (Article 7(c)). 
For the definition of controller see Art. 2 of the above Directive.  
Data  reported  under  the  indicators  marked  with  **  is  a  special  category  of  data  according  to  Article  8  of  the 
above Directive. Subject to the provision of suitable safeguards, Member States may, for reasons of substantial 
public interest, lay down exemptions in addition to those laid down in paragraph 2 (ob the same Article) either 
by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority (Art. 8. 4). 

xlviii

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Immediate result indicators 
Breakdown of participants by gender 
These data are to be provided from 2017 onwards in the annual implementation reports as set 
out in Art. 57(1) and (2) of the General Regulation.  
• 
•  Participants newly in education/training upon leaving 
•  Participants gaining a qualification upon leaving  
•  Participants newly in employment upon leaving  

Inactive participants newly in job searching upon leaving 

Longer-term result indicators 
Breakdown of participants by gender 
These data are to be provided in the annual implementation report and the final report set out 
in Art. 57 (4) of the General Regulation.  
•  Participants in employment 6 months after leaving  
•  Participants in self-employment 6 months after leaving  
•  Participants with improved labour market situation 6 months after leaving 

xlix