Special Report No 25/2012 ‘Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?’
Date: 2013-03-06
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU control, European Social Fund, implementation of the budget, older worker, project evaluation

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

2
1
0
2

5
2
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

ARE TOOLS IN PLACE TO MONITOR THE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF EUROPEAN SOCIAL 
FUND SPENDING ON OLDER WORKERS?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 25 

 2012

ARE TOOLS IN PLACE TO MONITOR 
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EUROPEAN 
SOCIAL FUND SPENDING ON OLDER 
WORKERS?

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 25 

 2012

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

ISBN 978-92-9241-115-2
doi:10.2865/61059

© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

3

CONTENTS

Paragraph

ABBREVIATIONS

I–V 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1–8 

1–2 

3–6 

7–8 

INTRODUCTION

EUROPEAN UNION EMPLOYMENT GOALS AND THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND SHARED MANAGEMENT

MEASURING PERFORMANCE

9–13 

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14–59 

OBSERVATIONS

14–39 

CONTENT OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

15–21 

IN THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES THE ‘OLDER WORKERS’ DEFINITIONS ARE NOT COHERENTLY APPLIED AND 
THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION GIVEN IS DEFICIENT

22–32 

THE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND TARGET VALUES IN PLACE ARE INADEQUATE

33–35 

36–39 

THE RESULT AND SPECIFIC IMPACT TARGETS OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES ARE NOT SYSTEMATICALLY 
INCORPORATED IN THE PROJECT CONDITIONS

THE COMMISSION DOES NOT SATISFACTORILY DOCUMENT ITS APPRAISAL OF THE CONTENT OF THE 
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

40–59 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS

41–48 

THE MONITORING SYSTEMS DO NOT ALWAYS ALLOW VERIFICATION OF THE PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS THE 
INTENDED OBJECTIVES

49–54 

SHORTCOMINGS EXIST IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATIONS

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

 
4

55–59 

 THE COMMISSION PRIORITISES FINANCIAL ISSUES IN ITS APPRAISAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL 
SYSTEMS

60–64 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

5

ABBREVIATIONS

AIR: annual implementation report

ESF: European Social Fund

EU: European Union

IT: information technology

MA: managing authority

OJ: Official Journal of the European Union

OP: operational programme

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.
The European Social Fund (ESF) is a key financial instru -
ment at the disposal of the European Union (EU) to 
assist Member States in the field of employment. Over 
the programming period 2007–13 ESF spending will 
amount to over 75  billion  euro, representing around 
8 % of the total EU budget.

II.
The goal of this audit is to verify whether and to what 
extent the Member States and the Commission devel-
oped and used the tools required to assess whether 
the objectives planned have been achieved. To this 
end, the Court selected one of the main disadvan-
taged groups, namely older workers.

III.
The Court found shortcomings concerning the design 
of the operational programmes (OPs) as well as the 
monitoring and evaluation systems. Furthermore, it 
observed that the Commission does not have consist-
ent data at EU level on operational goals, indicators 
and allocated funds.

IV.
As a result, despite the fact that increasing the employ -
ment rate of older workers is part of the EU’s strategic 
goals, neither the Member States nor the Commission 
are in a position to establish how many older workers 
have gained new qualifications, or found or kept a job 
,after having benefited from an action funded by the 
ESF. Furthermore, the amounts spent on this kind of 
action are also unknown.

V.
The Court recommends that the Commission should:

(a)  require Member States to design their OPs in such 
a way that the performance of the ESF funds can 
be measured. The target populations should be 
unambiguously  defined  and  relevant,  quanti-
fied operational goals and indicators should be 
defined to measure outputs, results and specific 
impacts at target population group level. Inter-
mediate milestones should be set and a hierarchy 
of target values established; 

(b)  require Member States to design monitoring and 
evaluation systems able to measure and explain 
at appropriate intervals the progress towards all 
target values set; 

(c)  obtain consistent and reliable information from 
the Member States in order to be able to provide 
appropriate information on the means mobilised 
and the results achieved by the ESF; 

(d)  ensure an in-depth analysis of performance issues 
when assessing and monitoring Member States’ 
management and control systems; and

(e)  improve the documentation of its checks by en-
suring that there is an audit trail that allows the 
extent  and  consistency  of  these  checks  to  be 
assessed.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

INTRODUCTION

7

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EUROPEAN UNION EMPLOYMENT GOALS AND THE 
EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND

In 2000 the Heads of State or Government approved the Lisbon agenda1 
and in 2010 the Europe 2020 strategy 2, on both occasions setting the 
economic and social strategies of the European Union (EU) for the fol-
lowing 10 years. Both strategic documents include action plans for more 
growth and jobs and set goals in several fields, in particular regarding 
employment. 

The European Social Fund (ESF) is a key financial instrument designed to 
help the Member States achieve EU employment policy objectives. Its 
aims are to promote the integration in the labour market of the unem-
ployed and disadvantaged, primarily by supporting training activities. 
Over the programming period 2007–13 ESF spending will amount to 
over 75 billion euro, representing around 8 % of the total EU budget.

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND SHARED 
MANAGEMENT

The  ESF  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  through  shared  man-
agement. This means that certain tasks are delegated to the Member 
States, while the Commission retains ultimate responsibility for all EU 
expenditure3. 

The ESF is put into action through multiannual operational programmes 
(OPs) prepared by the Member States, negotiated with the Commission 
and adopted in the form of Commission decisions4. An OP is a strategic 
document. It analyses the problems and needs of the geographical area 
covered; it identifies the disadvantaged groups which need assistance 
and it sets the goals to be achieved with ESF funds.

1  The aim of the Lisbon 
agenda was to make the 
EU ’the most competitive 
and dynamic knowledge-
based economy in the 
world capable of sustainable 
economic growth with more 
and better jobs and greater 
social cohesion’ by 2010. 

2  Europe 2020, launched 
in 2010, replaces the Lisbon 
agenda. It is about delivering 
smart, sustainable, and 
inclusive growth. The strategy 
focuses on five goals to be 
achieved by 2020 in the areas 
of employment, innovation, 
education, poverty reduction 
and climate/energy. 

3  Article 17(1) of the Treaty 
on European Union and 
Article 317 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the 
European Union (OJ C 115, 
9.5.2008, p. 1). 

4  The OP is a document 
that is produced following 
a lengthy and detailed 
negotiation process involving 
stakeholder consultations, 
an ex ante evaluation and 
bilateral meetings between 
the Commission and the 
Member States.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

8

FIGURE 1

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME: DIAGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMMING, 
IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING

Programming and implementation

Reporting

Member State

Preparation 
of 
the operational programme

European Commission

Analysis and approval 
of 
the operational programme

Preparation of annual implementation 
Analysis and appraisal
reports including aggregated monitoring 
of
information and evaluation results
the annual implementation reports

Managing authority (or intermediate body)

Selection
of
the projects or project providers

Preparation of annual implementation 
reports including aggregated monitoring 
information and evaluation results

Project providers

Implementation
of
the projects

Provision
of 
monitoring information on projects

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

To manage and implement the OPs, the Member States designate man-
aging authorities (MAs) having the key responsibility for making sure that 
the programme is effectively and correctly implemented. To this end, 
MAs establish and maintain adequate financial management and control 
systems to carry out the tasks of programming, controlling, monitoring 
and reporting. The MAs can decide to delegate part of the implementa-
tion work to one or more intermediate bodies. The projects are carried 
out by providers selected by the MAs or the intermediate implement-
ing bodies. The provider supplies them with monitoring information on 
project progress and the MAs send aggregate information to the Com-
mission in the form of annual implementation reports5.

Figure 1 sets out in simplified terms the main aspects of the program-
ming, implementation and reporting processes for ESF actions.

MEASURING PERFORMANCE

As for any item in the EU budget, the implementation of the ESF must 
comply with the EU’s Financial Regulation and in particular with the 
fundamental principles of sound financial management6: economy, ef-
ficiency and effectiveness7. This requirement has been incorporated into 
the Structural Funds regulation8. 

For the MAs to be able to report on the results achieved it is essential 
that the OPs specify, from the outset, quantified operational objectives 
(target  values)  and  indicators  to  measure  the  progress  made  in  the 
course of the OP. Furthermore, adequate systems need to be set up to 
monitor and evaluate the implementation of the OP.

9

5  The institutional set-up 
is completed by a certifying 
authority, whose function is 
to certify to the Commission 
that the expenditure being 
declared for reimbursement 
is accurate, results from 
a reliable accounting system 
and is compliant with 
applicable EU and national 
rules. An audit authority 
audits the effectiveness of 
the functioning of the control 
systems and is responsible for 
the closure declaration and 
the report to the Commission.

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

7  The principle of economy 
requires that the resources 
used by the institution for 
the pursuit of its activities 
shall be made available in 
due time, in appropriate 
quantity and quality and at 
the best price. The principle of 
efficiency is concerned with 
the best relationship between 
resources employed and 
results achieved. The principle 
of effectiveness is concerned 
with attaining the specific 
objectives set and achieving 
the intended results. 

8  Articles 14 and 60 of  
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 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 25) 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

10

9. 

10. 

11. 

The goal of the audit was to verify whether the Member States and the 
Commission have set up and implemented the tools required to assess 
the effectiveness of the ESF actions addressed to older workers during 
the programming period. It focused on the content of the OPs and in 
particular on the quantified operational objectives and indicators as well 
as on the monitoring and evaluation systems.

Older workers are one of the groups highlighted by the EU multiannual 
strategies. The Lisbon agenda set a specific employment target for this 
population and it is still a key population for the achievement of the 
Europe 2020 strategy employment objective9. 

There were 117 ESF OPs for the 2007–13 programming period, of which 
63 addressed older workers in at least one of the following aspects:

(a) 

The OP explicitly identifies older workers as a target group.

(b)  The OP defines specific indicators to monitor the progress made 

for this group.

(c) 

Funds were allocated for measures encouraging active ageing and 
prolonging working life, i.e. EU priority theme 6710.

12. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  audit  the  Cour t  selected  six  OPs 11  amongst 
these 63. They account together for 222 million euro, i.e. 22 %, of the 
 total amount earmarked for EU priority theme 67 (1 billion euro) and cov -
er four Member States (Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom).

9  The EU 2020 strategy does 
not include a specific target 
value for the employment 
rate of the older worker 
population. However, to 
reach the sole EU quantified 
employment objective, 
namely 75 % overall of 
the 20–64 year-olds to be 
in employment, it will be 
necessary to have a higher 
proportion of the population 
remaining in work until 
a later age. Furthermore, the 
employment rate of older 
workers is being monitored 
by the Commission as an 
element contributing to the 
Europe 2020 targets in the 
annual activity report of DG 
Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion.

10  Annex IV to Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006 provides 
a list of numbered themes, 
ranging from employment 
in number 62 ('Development 
of life-long learning systems 
and strategies in firms; 
training and services for 
employees to step up their 
adaptability to change; 
promoting entrepreneurship 
and innovation') to 
number 74 ('Developing 
human potential in the field 
of research and innovation, in 
particular 
…

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

13. 

The audit covered the 2007–13 programming period up to May 2011. 
For  each  OP  selected,  the  Court  analysed  the  management  systems 
and carried out checks on their functioning, by examining on the spot 
a number of projects ranging from two to four, depending on the case. 
At the Commission, the auditors conducted interviews with the staff 
responsible and carried out desk reviews. In addition, for the 63 OPs 
including those visited on the spot, a survey was organised in order to 
obtain information from the respective MAs regarding the systems they 
use and how they assess the assistance given by the Commission12.

11

… 
through post-graduate 
studies and training of 
researchers, and networking 
activities between 
universities, research centres 
and businesses'). Priority 
theme 67 is titled ‘Measures 
encouraging active ageing 
and prolonging working lives’. 
The regulation requires the 
MAs to provide in their OPs 
a breakdown of the ESF funds 
they plan to spend on these 
themes, and in their annual 
implementation reports the 
cumulative sums committed 
for these themes. The 
estimate of the funds to be 
spent is indicative, meaning 
that the MAs are not bound 
by it. 

11  The OPs covered are Emilia 
Romagna (Italy), England and 
Gibraltar (UK), Poland, Puglia 
(Italy) and Saxony-Anhalt and 
Thüringen (Germany).

12  The survey was launched 
in May 2011 and concluded 
in September 2011.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

OBSERVATIONS

12

CONTENT OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 

14. 

This section deals firstly with the definitions of older workers used and 
the supporting information provided and secondly with the different ele-
ments necessary for performance assessment (targets, indicators and tar-
get values). The third part concerns the connection of the project goals 
with the OPs’ ones. The last one is about the Commission’s appraisal.

IN THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES THE ‘OLDER WORKERS’ 
DEFINITIONS ARE NOT COHERENTLY APPLIED AND THE SUPPORTING 
INFORMATION GIVEN IS DEFICIENT

INCOHERENT DEFINITIONS OF ‘OLDER WORKERS’

While the Lisbon agenda defined an older worker as any person of work-
ing age between 55 and 64 years old13, the survey shows that many MAs 
use in their OPs different age groups, (i.e. 45-plus and 50-plus to 55-plus, 
with or without an upper age limit). That may be explained by different 
socioeconomic and demographic situations.

Nevertheless, the definition of older workers is not consistently applied 
throughout the whole document without justification. This was the case 
in four of the six OPs selected14. In particular, the age group used in the 
needs analysis differed from the age group used in the priority axes15 
and/or in the related actions and targets (see Box 1 ).

15. 

16. 

BOX 1

13  Definition used by the 
2001 Stockholm European 
Council complementing the 
Lisbon agenda.

14  The exceptions are the OPs 
of England and Gibraltar and 
of Poland.

15  In each OP, the MA defines 
the priorities on which it 
will spend ESF funds (e.g. 
adaptability of the workforce, 
access to employment, 
technical assistance). These 
priorities are called priority 
axes and comprise, at a lower 
level, operations and actions 
that will be implemented by 
providers through projects.

THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME DEFINITION OF ‘OLDER WORKERS’ IS NOT COHERENTLY 
APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT

(a)  In the Emilia Romagna OP, the one target value set and the measures planned for older workers relate to the 
45-plus age group but the description of the situation (including statistical data) and of the needs focuses 
on the 55–64 age group.

(b)  In the Puglia OP, the operational objectives at OP priority axis level and the measures planned relate to the 
45-plus age group. However, the description of the situation (including statistical data) and of the needs 
relates solely to the 55–64 age group.

(c)  In the Saxony-Anhalt OP and in the Thüringen OP, the 55–64 age group is used in the description of the 
situation and for the target values set at OP level for older workers. However, the schemes targeting older 
workers are open to the 50-plus age group.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

13

17. 

18. 

19. 

DEFICIENT SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The absence, to a greater or lesser degree, of quantitative data in the 
needs analysis made it difficult to apprehend the national or regional 
background. In particular, context indicators providing quantified in-
formation on the socioeconomic situation of the area (e.g. activity rate, 
unemployment rate) are not used in three of the six OPs selected. 

16  The current regulatory 
framework requires the 
setting of specific goals only 
at priority axis level.

17  Of the six audited OPs, 
this was only possible for the 
England and Gibraltar OP.

The Court found that none of the OPs selected made explicit the causal 
link between the actions described and the objectives pursued. This 
hinders the verification of the programmatic consistency between the 
needs identified, the strategy chosen and the specific goals set at priority 
axis level16.

Although identified in the selected OPs as a disadvantaged group and in 
line with the employment objective of the Lisbon agenda and the Europe 
2020 strategy, it is an exception to find financial information on actions 
targeting ‘older workers’ as a specific group 17. The current regulatory 
framework provides for financial data at priority axis level only. None of 
the OPs selected has a priority axis specifically for ‘older workers’. 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

20. 

The OPs also include an indicative breakdown of the ESF financial appro-
priations across the different EU priority themes18. However, no priority 
theme covers specifically the actions in favour of older workers. The EU 
priority theme 67 ‘encouraging active ageing and prolonging working 
lives’ is by its wording the most likely to include actions focusing on 
older workers 19, but the different MAs have various interpretations of 
the content of the priority theme 67 (see Box 2). 

21. 

Consequently, it is not possible to know how much funding has been 
allocated in the OPs to the increase of the employment of older workers.

THE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND TARGET VALUES IN PLACE ARE 
INADEQUATE

22. 

Targets, indicators and target values should enable the objectives of an 
OP to be understood and its achievement to be measured. In order to 
verify the effectiveness of their interventions, the MAs ought to define 
in their OPs output, result and specific impact indicators and quantified 
goals for the different populations they chose to assist with ESF funds.

14

18  According to the model 
set out in Annex XVI to the 
Corrigendum to Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 
of 8 December 2006 
setting out rules for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
laying down general 
provisions on the European 
Regional Development 
Fund, the European Social 
Fund and the Cohesion 
Fund and of Regulation 
(EC) No 1080/2006 of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council on the European 
Regional Development Fund 
(OJ L 45, 15.2.2007, p. 3).

19  In a 2012 European 
Commission publication 
(Demography, active ageing 
and pensions, Social Europe 
guide,Volume 3, p. 31), 
active ageing is described as 
‘encouraging older people 
to remain active by working 
longer and retiring later, 
by engaging in volunteer 
work after retirement and 
by leading healthy and 
autonomous lives’. This 
definition clearly goes 
beyond any employment 
goal for the 55–64 age group.

BOX 2

VARIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENT OF EUROPEAN UNION PRIORITY THEME 67

(a)  In the Saxony-Anhalt OP, priority theme 67 covers the ‘Active to retirement’ actions. Other actions aiming 
to improve older workers’ adaptability and their access to employment are presented under other priority 
themes.

(b)  In the Emilia Romagna OP, priority theme 67 covers many different actions not necessarily focusing on older 

workers.

(c)  In the England and Gibraltar OP, priority theme 67 does not cover specified actions. In fact, the amount al-

located to this priority theme is an estimation of all costs linked to participants older than 50.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

15

23. 

Figure  2  provides  additional  information  on  the  different  elements 
needed for a  proper performance assessment together with illustrative 
examples.

FIGURE 2

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL TARGETS, INDICATORS 
AND TARGET VALUES

PRIORITY AXES 
OF
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME
Action to train unemployed people to bring them
back to employment

Target groups:
Disadvantaged
Population

Target

Indicators

Target value

.
.
.

s
t
n
e
r
a
p
e
l
g
n
i
S

l

d
e
y
o
p
m
e
n
u
m
r
e
t
-
g
n
o
L

e
l
p
o
e
p
d
e
l
b
a
s
i
D

s
r
e
k
r
o
w

r
e
d
O

l

Output:
Refers to the activity

Result:
Relates to the direct
and immediate
effect on participants
brought about the
action

Specific impact:
Refers to the effects
occuring after a
certain lapse of time
but which are
nonetheless directly
linked to the action

To organise training
courses

Number of training
courses

100 training courses
organised

To train people

Number of participants
in training courses

2 000 participants
enrolled in training
courses

To get successful
participants (who
have gained specific
skills)

People changing 
status from 
unemployment 
to employment

Number of successful
participants

1 500 successful
participants

Percentage of 
participants 
gaining specific skills

75 % of participants 
gaining specific
skills

Number of successful
participants changing
status

1 000 participants
changing status

Percentage of 
successful
participants 
changing status

66 % of successful
participants changing
status

Source: European Court of Auditors based on the definitions withheld by the Commission in its indicative guideline on ‘evaluation 
methods: monitoring and evaluation indicators’ (Working Document No 2 of August 2006).

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

 
 
 
 
16

LACK OF SPECIFIC INDICATORS AND TARGET VALUES FOR OLDER WORKERS

24. 

In the OPs selected, older workers, although identified as a group to be 
assisted, did not necessarily have their own indicators or target values. 
Consequently, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of the actions 
addressing their needs (see Box 3).

BOX 3

LACK OF SPECIFIC INDICATORS AND TARGET VALUES FOR OLDER WORKERS

(a)  In the England and Gibraltar OP, there are specific output target values regarding older workers in each prior-
ity axis addressing them (e.g. for priority axis 1, of all unemployed and/or inactive participants 18 % should 
be aged 50 or over). However, result and impact target values are set by priority axis for the participants as 
a whole and not specifically for older workers (e.g. for priority axis 1, 22 % of the participants should be in 
work on leaving the project).

(b)  The Puglia OP mentions older workers explicitly in two priority axes. However, only one of them includes 
a specific target value, in this case a specific impact indicator (33,3 % of the older workers and migrants are 
to be in employment a year after the end of the project). All other indicators given are general and limited 
to outputs (e.g. number of projects).

(c)  In the Saxony-Anhalt OP, unemployed older workers are a target group under the priority axis addressing 
the long-term unemployed and some disadvantaged unemployed groups at risk of becoming long-term 
unemployed (priority axis C). For older workers only two specific quantified indicators were defined under 
this priority axis, one output indicator (11 % of the participants are unemployed and 55 or over) and one 
macroeconomic indicator (reduce by at least one quarter the difference between the regional ratio and the 
national average ratio of the percentage of those unemployed in the 55-plus age group to all unemployed 
persons).Neither result nor specific impact indicators (in line with the definition given in Figure 2) were 
defined for them.

(d)  In the Thüringen OP, older workers are an identified target group, falling under the priority axes A and C. 
Only priority axis A has specific target values for the older workers, notably two quantified output target 
values (12 000 older participants are to be admitted to courses to gain qualifications; the coverage rate of the 
older worker population is 10 %) and a macroeconomic one (stabilisation of the labour force participation 
rate for the over-55s at 43,3  %). Neither result nor specific impact target values (in line with the definition 
given in Figure 2) are indicated.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

17

The  Court  observed  also  that  indicators  refer  mostly  to  outputs  and 
results and not to specific impacts. Although finding a job can be seen 
as the ultimate proof of success of an action aimed at increasing the em-
ployment of its participants, such a goal is not systematically quantified 
and measured in the OPs selected for the different target populations 
(see Box 3).

20  The OPs Saxony-Anhalt 
and Thüringen.

21  The current OPs run from 
2007 to 2013. As the MAs 
have an extra 2-year wrap-up 
time at their disposal, the 
real time span of the OPs is 9 
years.

GOALS AND INDICATORS NOT ALWAYS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL 
FUND ACTIONS 

Some of the goals and indicators used in the audited actions have no 
direct connection with the ESF interventions, thus making it difficult to 
assess performance. 

This is the case for the macroeconomic targets set in the OPs (e.g. obtain 
by 2013 a target employment rate for the 55–64 age group) because 
success or failure in respect of the achievement of these goals is beyond 
the control of the ESF actions, as it depends to a very large extent on 
external factors (e.g. the economic conditions, the social system and 
pension scheme in place, local investment). Two 20 out of the six OPs 
selected contain such global impact targets for older workers and 34 of 
the 63 OPs surveyed contain global impact indicators. 

The same problem of relevance may arise when the MA uses indica-
tors that encompass actions other than the ESF ones alone. This was 
observed in the Poland OP where an output indicator refers to all par-
ticipants of all support measures regardless of the measures’ source of 
finance (ESF funds or other funds). 

ABSENCE OF INTERMEDIATE MILESTONES AND HIERARCHY

The OP goals should be achieved by the time of the closure of the pro-
gramme, i.e. 9 years later 21. Setting intermediate (annual or biennial) 
milestones would allow the MAs to identify deviations in the implemen-
tation of the OP at an early stage and give them an opportunity to take 
timely corrective actions. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

18

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

None of the OPs selected included intermediate milestones. However, in 
Poland the MA sets objectives to its implementing bodies to be reached 
at the end of the following year. In the England and Gibraltar OP there is 
provision for two periods for the conclusion of contracts with the provid-
ers (2007–10 and 2011–13) so that changes in the economic prospects 
and results already achieved can be taken into consideration. 

Having a hierarchy allows the policymakers to make clear their highest 
priority and helps the implementing bodies to act accordingly. Without 
a hierarchy there is a risk of conflict between goals (e.g. open the training 
course to very disadvantaged people vs high percentage of participants 
finding a job) and of the implementing bodies making an inappropri -
ate choice. None of the OPs selected established a hierarchy between 
the different quantified goals and only seven of the 63 MAs surveyed 
reported to have done so. 

22  Corrigendum to  
Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 
sets out in Annex XXIII 
the quantitative data on 
participants the MAs need 
to communicate to the 
Commission by priority axis. 
The data relate to the number 
of participants, to be broken 
down by gender, by status 
in the labour market, by age, 
by vulnerable group and by 
educational attainment.

23  In Poland job effectiveness 
rates were established in 
2011 for some measures to 
be introduced at project 
level. However, at the time of 
the audit visit in May 2011, 
no projects had yet been 
launched under this new 
procedure.

NO COMMON INDICATORS 

Finally, in the absence of mandatory common indicators for all OPs and 
with the exception of the output data regarding the participants22, the 
Commission has no standardised performance data at its disposal that 
could be aggregated at EU level. On this basis, the Commission is not 
in a position to report on the overall results and impacts of the actions 
funded by the ESF addressing the older workers.

THE RESULT AND SPECIFIC IMPACT TARGETS OF THE OPERATIONAL 
PROGRAMMES ARE NOT SYSTEMATICALLY INCORPORATED IN THE 
PROJECT CONDITIONS

For five of the six OPs selected, the Court found that projects usually 
contain only quantified output goals (e.g. number of participants). Ob-
taining a  certain result or specific impact is rarely imposed on the pro-
viders. The exception here is the England and Gibraltar OP, where the 
result target values set in the OP are systematically incorporated in the 
project conditions23.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

34. 

35. 

BOX 4

19

When OP goals are not incorporated in the projects, the risk exists that 
these goals will not be met at the end of the programming period or 
that the projects chosen do not contribute to them at all, even when 
the projects are successful according to their own criteria (see Box 4).

Moreover, incorporating into the project agreements result or specific 
impact goals to be met by the provider open the way to a management 
alternative. It allows the MAs to link the amount of their payments to 
the providers to the performance of the projects and no longer solely 
to the actual costs. Of the six OPs selected, this technique is currently 
systematically applied only by the England and Gibraltar MA but two 
others used this approach in a limited way and one was considering 
a move in that direction 24.

24  Poland is considering 
introducing such an 
approach in the future. At 
the time of the audit visit 
in May 2011, however, no 
projects had been launched 
yet under this new procedure. 
For the Emilia Romagna 
OP, the payments for some 
training courses — not falling 
under EU priority theme 
67— are in a way linked to 
the successful participation 
of the trainees. For the Puglia 
OP in some projects covering 
+/- 390 women, payments 
were dependent on 75 % of 
the participants finding a job.

INCONSISTENCIES IN TARGET VALUES BETWEEN THE PROJECTS AND THE OPERATIONAL 
PROGRAMMES

(a)  For the Emilia Romagna OP, the invitations to tender do not contain any target values and the contracts with 
the providers only contain the number of participants to be met. The one outcome25 target value quanti-
fied at OP level (64 % of the participants over 45 years are to find a job within a year of the closure of the 
intervention) has not been taken up in the contracts.

(b)  For the Puglia OP, the one outcome target value set in the OP covering older workers and that can be 
incorporated in the project is the gross rate of integration of the participants in employment (33,3  % of 
immigrants and older workers participating in projects are to find a job within a year of the closure of the 
intervention). However, this has not been done.

(c)  In Saxony-Anhalt, the participation rates laid down in the OP for the different target groups are not reflected 
in the project decisions. The explanation given was that all the projects have their own distinctive targets. 
Furthermore, the participation rates and placement quotas included at funding scheme level26 are not bind-
ing for the implementing bodies and the provider because it is considered virtually impossible to forecast 
these with any precision over the 7 years of the OP.

25  Outcome is used here in the sense of result or specific impact.

26  In Germany, ESF OPs are implemented through regional (Land) administrative funding schemes. These define the conditions for 
funding, the kind of actions and the administrative procedures to follow. It is not necessary for the MA or the implementing body to 
launch their own ESF funding schemes; existing ones can be used.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

20

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

THE COMMISSION DOES NOT SATISFACTORILY DOCUMENT ITS 
APPRAISAL OF THE CONTENT OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 

The role of the Commission27 is to verify that the OP contains all the in-
formation required and that it is in line with other strategic documents28. 
Once these analyses are completed, the Commission adopts the OPs.

The Court noted that the Commission verifies the submission and the 
quality of the data supplied in the OPs. In 2006, in order to ensure a con -
sistent approach by its services, it established a manual 29 containing 
operational advice on all the main aspects relating to the 2007–13 pro-
gramming. For transparency reasons, it made it available to the Member 
States.

However, from an audit trail perspective, the Commission does not docu-
ment in a satisfactory way the controls it performs on the OPs. In order to 
verify that the required information is provided (called the admissibility 
check) the Commission’s officers use a common checklist. The checklist 
is succinct and in most cases there is not any underlying control pro -
gramme or documentation of the controls carried out. Moreover, for the 
qualitative assessment of the data provided30, no checklist exists.

As a result, the controls performed by the Commission’s services on the 
six OPs selected can be only indirectly identified by going through the 
recommendations and questions raised. Consequently, it is not possible 
to judge the extent of the verifications done, or that the same approach 
was systematically applied.

27  Article 32 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006.

28  The other strategic 
documents in question 
are the national strategic 
reference framework and the 
Union strategic guidelines 
on cohesion. These two 
documents, the first 
prepared by the Member 
States and the second 
by the Commission, link 
the Structural Funds and 
cohesion policy to the 
achievement of the Lisbon, 
and now Europe 2020, goals.

29  European Commission, DG 
Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion, ‘Programming 
period 2007–13: Aide-
Mémoire for the desk officers’, 
November 2006.

30  It should be noted however 
that for the Saxony-Anhalt 
OP and the Thüringen OP, the 
Commission wrote a report 
with comments on the 
different sections of the OP. 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

21

MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS

40. 

This section deals firstly with the monitoring systems and then with 
the planning and the implementation of the evaluations. The last part 
concerns the Commission’s appraisal of the implementation of the OPs. 

THE MONITORING SYSTEMS DO NOT ALWAYS ALLOW VERIFICATION OF 
THE PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS THE INTENDED OBJECTIVES 

It is the role and the responsibility of the Member States to monitor the 
implementation of the OPs. In order to follow the progress made towards 
the goals set in the OP, the MAs need either to have access to complete, 
reliable and timely data at participant level that allows them to launch 
all the necessary queries or have at their disposal the necessary aggre-
gated information provided to them by the intermediate implementing 
bodies.

The monitoring data are collected through the providers or come from 
other external sources (e.g. employment ministries or statistical offices). 
It is of the utmost importance for the sake of consistency that the MA 
defines upfront the content of the data to be collected and also ensures 
that the quality is or can, at least, be checked.

For the OPs selected, the MAs usually defined clearly the data they re-
quired, although cases were identified of incomplete monitoring data 
(see Box 5).

41. 

42. 

43. 

BOX 5

INCOMPLETE MONITORING DATA

(a)  For the Saxony-Anhalt OP, it was only in the first quarter of 2009 that the MA defined the full content of the 
data to be collected by the providers regarding participants and projects. For the projects which started 
before, data are missing.

(b)  The Thüringen OP includes two indicators regarding the gross employment effectiveness rate which cover 
older workers, amongst other groups: the first relates to the transition into employment of the participants 
within 4 weeks of finishing the project and the second to the sustainability of the participants’ jobs after 
6 and 12 months. For the second indicator, there is no definition of the exact content and as such no data 
have been collected.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

22

Shortcomings in the method used for data collection can have an ad-
verse effect on the reliability of the data collected. This is the case when 
the provider does not have to document or justify its data or when the 
MA has no possibility even to cross-check their reliability. Data protec-
tion laws in particular may prevent employment agencies in Member 
States from divulging information about a participant in an ESF project, 
even to the MAs31 (see Box 6 ). 

31  This is the case for the MAs 
for Poland, Saxony-Anhalt 
and Thüringen. A possibility, 
currently not explored by 
the MAs, might be to obtain 
from the employment 
services aggregated (hence 
anonymous) data for the ESF 
participants as a group.

When an independent third party has the responsibility to provide the 
monitoring data, the data collection method chosen by some of the MAs 
audited is inadequate, as the information is collected too late for the MA 
to obtain a timely update on the situation (see  Box 7).

QUESTIONABLE MONITORING DATA

In Saxony-Anhalt and Thüringen, the participant in an ESF project is not legally obliged to deliver the correct 
information and the provider does not have to document or justify the employment status communicated by 
the participant at the end of the project. Because data protection laws prevent the MA and the intermediate 
bodies from having access to the employment agencies’ databases, they cannot check the reliability of this data.

44. 

45. 

BOX 6

BOX 7

SHORTCOMINGS IN THE EXTERNAL DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

For the Puglia OP, although the MA has an integrated IT monitoring system and the capacity to check the em-
ployment status of all participants in an ESF project against the employment database, it was decided that the 
data for the indicator ‘finding employment for ESF participants’ would be collected through surveys organised 
at national level by the statistical office. Up to the audit visit on the spot (May 2011) no such data had yet been 
supplied to the MA.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

23

46. 

47. 

The audit highlighted that not all IT systems have built-in controls check-
ing the timeliness, completeness and plausibility of the monitoring data 
introduced. This increases the risk that the MAs do not have at their 
disposal the exhaustive and reliable information needed for monitoring 
the OP (see Box 8 ).

It was also observed that MAs did not put to their full use the data col-
lected in a different context, thus missing an opportunity to enhance 
the monitoring information at negligible cost (see Box 9).

BOX 8

FLAWS IN THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING SYSTEM 

(a)  For the Poland OP, the use of spreadsheets by some intermediate implementing bodies to monitor their 
projects increases the risk of errors. The MA receives consolidated data limited to output. In addition, the 
two IT systems containing respectively the financial and the participant data are not interlinked.

(b)  For the Saxony-Anhalt OP, the intermediate organisations use spreadsheets to follow up the individual pro -

jects, as they judge the data in the monitoring system to be incomplete and inaccurate.

BOX 9

AVAILABLE DATA NOT USED 

The accreditation procedure in place for the Emilia Romagna OP stipulates that, in order to retain accredited 
status, providers must meet two predetermined threshold values set by the MA: a 70 % effectiveness rate (being 
the percentage of project participants who, 12 months after the end of the project, are in employment or are 
still studying) and a 50 % related employment effectiveness rate (being the number of participants working in 
jobs related to the training they have received as a percentage of the number of participants in employment). 
The providers send these data to the MA, which checks their reliability. However, the MA does not use these 
data at its disposal to follow up any employment effectiveness indicator because the OP has made provision 
for this indicator to be followed up using information from national surveys organised by the statistical office.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

24

32  Article 67 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006.

33  Articles 37, 47 and 48 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
stipulate that the OPs must 
contain a description of 
the evaluation system and 
that evaluations need to be 
carried out before, during 
and after the programming 
period by experts or bodies 
functionally independent 
of the ESF certifying and 
audit authorities and that 
the Member States should 
provide the resources 
necessary for carrying out 
evaluations, organise the 
production and gathering 
of the necessary data and 
use the various types of 
information provided by the 
monitoring system. 

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

52. 

Finally, the MAs, in general, and the Commission are not in a position to 
establish what has been spent on either older workers or on other target 
groups. The MAs provide financial data in their annual implementation 
reports  for  the  OP  priority  axes  (amounts  spent)  and  the  EU  priority 
themes (amounts allocated)32, but not at the level of the target groups 
(see also paragraph 19). Moreover, the figures given for the EU priority 
themes are not of a consistent nature (see paragraph 20) and for some 
MAs allocated amounts means committed amounts, while for other MAs 
it means paid amounts.

SHORTCOMINGS EXIST IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 
THE EVALUATIONS 

It is the role and the responsibility of the Member States to evaluate 
the implementation of the OPs. Evaluation should assist the managers 
in understanding and explaining why and how specific actions have 
helped to contribute to the goals set or why they have failed to make 
any difference.

The continuous and timely assessment of a programme’s progress re -
quires not only an ongoing evaluation activity that is built in from the 
start but also the selection of evaluation topics and approaches that 
enable an assessment of the effectiveness of the different actions for 
the different populations. 

When an OP specifies target groups, quantified goals and indicators, the 
assessment of the effectiveness of the actions for these groups, targets 
or indicators should be a key evaluation topic. Otherwise, the MA misses 
the opportunity to obtain an in-depth feedback on its OP’s performance. 

The regulatory requirements regarding the evaluations imposed on the 
MAs are very general33. They do not lay down a  minimum set of topics 
to be covered, nor is it compulsory to produce an evaluation plan. 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

25

53. 

54. 

The Commission issues non-mandatory guidance notes to assist the 
Member States in implementing the OPs. With regard to the evaluation 
issue, the Commission has emphasised the importance of having an 
evaluation plan, using indicators, performing ongoing evaluations and 
collecting data34. Also, it has been promoting since 1997 the measure-
ment of the net employment effects of the OP35 as the ultimate tool to 
assess the effectiveness of employment actions. The updated guidance 
note mentioned above sets out step by step how to estimate the direct 
employment effects at programme level and this involves the use of 
monitoring data on projects. 

According to the Commission36, there was a variable use of its guidance 
across the Member States in estimating the employment impact of the  
2000–06 programmes. Regarding the programming period 2007–13, it 
was observed by the Court that the MAs of the OPs selected opted for 
the minimum approach: what is not compulsory is not done. Conse-
quently, inadequacies exist in the evaluation approach in respect of the 
OPs selected (see Box 10).

34  Working paper No 2 — 
Indicators for monitoring and 
evaluation (August 2006) 
and Working paper 
No 5 — Evaluation during 
the programming period 
(April 2007).

35  Working document 
No 6 — Measuring structural 
funds employment effects 
(March 2007).

36  Working document 
No 6 — Measuring structural 
funds employment effects 
(March 2007, p. 3).

BOX 10

INADEQUACIES IN THE EVALUATION APPROACH

(a)  For the Puglia OP and the Emilia-Romagna OP, no evaluation reports were available at the time of the Court’s 

audit visit in May 2011 (in the 5th year of implementation).

(b)  Except for the England and Gibraltar OP37 and the Polish OP38, no evaluations had been planned or performed 

to assess the impact of the actions on older workers as a specific target group.

(c)  Of the six OPs selected, the net employment effect of the actions carried out was only quantified for the 
England and Gibraltar OP39. For the other five OPs, the evaluators had no plans to make such a calculation.

37  The evaluators of the England and Gibraltar OP discuss in their report findings at an overall level and at the level of the different 
populations targeted by the actions, including the older workers group. This is particularly the case in the gender equality and equal 
opportunities study, the cohort studies and the ‘Early impacts of the European Social Fund 2007–13’.

38  For the Poland OP, two reports were issued by intermediate implementing organisations after the audit visit of May 2011 regarding the 
impact of certain actions on the professional activity of older workers (in one report the 45-plus age group and in the other report the 
50-plus age group). A third report covering the 55-plus group is planned to be carried out in 2012.

39  The evaluators for the England and Gibraltar OP published in May 2011 a calculation of the ESF net employment effects (‘Early Impacts 
of the European Social Fund 2007–13), albeit using a different method from the one recommended by the Commission.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

26

40  Articles 14, 67, 68 and 
72 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006.

41  The Member States set 
up for each OP a monitoring 
committee. Its main task 
is the supervision of the 
implementation of the OP by 
the MA.

42  Annual report concerning 
the financial year 2010 (OJ 
C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 131).

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

59. 

THE COMMISSION PRIORITISES FINANCIAL ISSUES IN ITS APPRAISAL 
OF THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The regulation40 requires the Commission to check the existence and 
the proper functioning of the management and control systems put in 
place by the Member States, to verify the annual reports on the imple-
mentation of the OPs (AIRs) and to examine the progress made over the 
previous year. 

For the examination of the implementation of the OP, the Commission 
has a multitude of information at its disposal. Its officers receive a copy 
of all finalised evaluation reports, participate in the meetings of the 
monitoring committees41, carry out on-the-spot visits and controls and 
discuss with the MAs at least once a year the progress made. Finally, they 
verify the AIRs. 

When assessing the management and control systems put in place in 
the Member States, the Commission’s emphasis is on the financial man-
agement and the legality and regularity of the actions and not yet on 
the performance monitoring and evaluation processes. The main goal 
is clearly the reduction of the financial impact of the errors. The same 
orientation is evident in the guidance given by the Commission to the 
MAs regarding their responsibilities in this domain.

The Commission is aware that analysing the added value of EU funding, 
instead of the input or costs incurred, requires a stronger emphasis on 
non-financial monitoring data42. However, this has not been observed 
for the 2007–13 programming period.

Furthermore the documentation by the Commission of its appraisal of 
the implementation of the OPs suffers from the same main weakness as 
that of its appraisal of the content of the OP (see paragraphs 38 to 39), 
namely the lack of a sufficient audit trail. In particular, as the Commission 
did not develop a standardised format to register the follow-up given to 
its written observations on the AIRs that were sent to the MAs, it is not 
possible for the Commission to demonstrate the quality of the process.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

27

60. 

61. 

Despite the fact that increasing the employment rate of older workers 
is part of the EU’s strategic goals, neither the MAs nor the Commission 
are in a position to establish how many older workers have gained new 
qualifications  or  found  or  kept  a job  after  having  benefited  from  an 
action funded by the ESF. The necessary tools to provide relevant and 
reliable information in this respect have not been put in place by most 
MAs. Furthermore, the amounts spent on this kind of action are also 
unknown.

In the OPs selected, the inability to demonstrate the performance of the 
ESF funds has two main reasons. Firstly, although output target  values 
were generally set, feasible and relevant results and specific impact goals 
were not systematically set at OP and at project level. Secondly, short-
comings existed in the collection and registration of the monitoring data 
and in the organisation of an ongoing evaluation activity. Not having 
access to reliable, verifiable and timely performance data and assess-
ments of the different actions impedes the drawing of conclusions for 
current and future decision-making.

62. 

Several of these weaknesses regarding the design of the OP and the 
monitoring process were already identified by the Court in its Special 
Report No  17/2009 ‘Vocational training actions for women co-financed 
by the ESF’ covering the previous (2000–06) programming period.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

28

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Commission should require Member States:

(a) 

(b) 

to design their OPs in such a way that the performance of the ESF 
funds can be measured. The target populations should be un-
ambiguously defined and relevant, quantified operational goals 
and indicators should be drawn up to measure outputs, results 
and specific impacts at target population group level. Interme-
diate milestones should be set and a hierarchy of target values 
established. The OPs’ result and specific impact goals should be 
incorporated at project level, as this would assist achievement 
of  the  OP  target  values  and  enable  payments  to  be  linked  to 
performance;

to design their monitoring and evaluation system in such a way 
that the progress towards all target values set can be measured in 
a timely and understandable way, at appropriate intervals, there -
by allowing corrective actions to be taken and lessons learned 
for future decision-making. Such a design requires the timely 
collection of relevant and verifiable data, the proper functioning 
of electronic data processing systems, ongoing evaluations, also 
at target group level, and, for the ESF actions aimed at increasing 
employment, the measurement of the net employment effect. 

63. 

With regard to the Commission, it was found that it does not have at its 
disposal consistent and reliable performance data on target values and 
funds that could be aggregated at EU level, thereby providing overall 
information on the achievements of the ESF and a fortiori  on the attain-
ment of the EU’s strategic employment objectives. The information gap 
is mainly caused by three facts. Firstly, the legislator has not yet defined 
the precise content of the EU priority themes, so MAs give a  different 
interpretation to their content; secondly, every MA currently has the 
possibility to define its own indicators and target values; thirdly, none 
of the selected OPs provides data on the funds allocated to the different 
target groups. 

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

29

RECOMMENDATION 2 

For the Commission to provide appropriate data on the means mo-
bilised and the results achieved by the ESF it must obtain consistent 
and reliable information from the Member States. More specifically, 
the Commission should issue mandatory common indicators to be in-
cluded by the Member States in their OPs; the EU priority themes should 
be in line with EU strategies and their content clearly defined by the 
legislator.

64. 

The Commission’s assessment of the management and control systems 
in the Member States is currently oriented towards payments and finan-
cial compliance and not yet towards performance. The main goal of the 
controls is the reduction of the financial impact of the errors and the 
same orientation is contained in the guidance given by the Commission 
to the MAs regarding their responsibilities in this domain. Furthermore, 
the verifications carried out by the Commission should be better docu-
mented. The lack of a sufficient audit trail makes it very difficult to judge 
the extent and the consistency of the controls.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Commission should:

(a) 

(b) 

analyse in depth performance issues when organising the assess-
ment of the management and control systems; and

improve the documentation of its checks by ensuring that there 
is an audit trail that allows the extent and consistency of these 
checks to be assessed.

This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Harald NOACK, 
Member  of  the  Cour t  of  Auditors,  in  Luxembourg  at  its  meeting  of 
12 December 2012.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

30

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

V. (b)
The  draft  regulations  presented  by  the  Commission  for 
2014-2020 set out that Member States shall provide the 
resources  necessar y  for  carr ying  out  monitoring  and 
evaluation,  and  ensure  that  procedures  are  in  place  to 
produce  and  collect  the  data  necessary  for  evaluations, 
including data related to common and, where appropri-
ate, programme-specific indicators . The Commission has 
worked with Member States two years on common indica-
tors before tabling its proposals for the future program-
ming  period. The  Commission  has  also  prepared  guid-
ance  documents  for  Member  States  on  monitoring  and 
evaluation 2014-2020, as well as guidance on the ex-ante 
evaluation. It has held several learning seminars with ESF 
evaluation capacities, has prepared a practical guidance for 
ESF Managing Authorities for carrying out counterfactual 
impact evaluations and is preparing a technical note on 
programme-specific indicators.

V. (c)
For  2014-20  the  Commission  has  inser ted  in  the  draft 
cohesion regulations mandatory output and result com-
mon  indicators,  which  have  been  elaborated  in  fruitful 
cooperation with the Member States and cover the most 
frequently funded target groups and entities. Programme 
monitoring by Member States shall always use common 
indicators  and  may  use  programme  specific  indicators 
where appropriate.

2  During the programming period, Managing Authorities shall carry 
out evaluations including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency 
and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan. At 
least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess 
how support from the Funds has contributed to the objectives for each 
priority. Furthermore Managing Authorities shall establish a system to 
record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary 
for monitoring, evaluation, financial management, verification and audit, 
including data on individual participants in operations, where applicable; 
they shall ensure that the data is collected, entered and stored in the system, 
and that data on indicators is broken down by gender where required by 
Annex I of th ESF Regulation. Article 5 of the draft ESF regulation requires 
Member States to submit these data electronically in structured form for 
each investment priority.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

III.
The  Commission  underlines  the  fact  that  its  scope  for 
action is conditioned by the provisions of the legal frame-
work. The objective of the Legislator (see Art. 37 of Reg. 
1083/2006) was to come to shorter, more strategic, pro-
gramming documents.

IV.
The Legislator has consciously chosen to have Program-
ming documents with relatively broad priorities in order to 
allow for more flexibility. 

The current regulatory framework only imposes the collec-
tion of financial data at priority axis level, not at the level 
of target groups. This would also not be possible as most 
ESF actions are addressed to different age groups and the 
composition might change.

Overall results and impacts of the actions funded by ESF 
can be measured by evaluations. An example of this is the 
evaluation of the ESF support to Lifelong Learning, final-
ised in July 2012, which focuses inter alia on Older workers.

V. (a)
Monitoring tools already exist in Member States and allow 
checking  on  deviations  from  the  target  on  an  on-going 
basis, allowing the Managing Authorities and the European 
Commission to identify the necessary corrective measures 
on a timely basis. 

The  Commission  nonetheless  recognises  that  there  is 
room for further improvement. It has therefore proposed 
adequate regulatory provisions to ensure that in the next 
programming period 2014-2020, Operational programmes 
will be more performance and result-oriented (including a 
performance framework, in particular a mid-term perfor-
mance review of the implementation of the operational 
programmes)1. 

1  This concerns the design of the OPs as well as of the monitoring and 
evaluation systems. The OPs shall set out for each priority axis the common 
and specific output and result indicators, with where appropriate a baseline 
value and a quantified target value; a description of actions to be supported 
including the identification of the main target groups, specific territories 
targeted and types of beneficiaries where appropriate and the planned 
use of financial instruments; the corresponding categories of intervention; 
a performance framework with milestones.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

31

V. (d)
The proposal of regulation for the 2014-2020 programming 
period  contains  provisions  to  improve  the  performance 
assessment  of  operational  programmes.  However  the 
assessment of performance is a separate exercise from the 
assessment by the Commission services, of management 
and control systems which essentially aims at checking the 
legality and regularity conditions of the national manage-
ment and control systems.

V. (e)
The Commission is committed to further improve the com-
pleteness of the audit trail in ex-ante checks.

INTRODUCTION

3.
Although the Commission is ultimately accountable for the 
implementation of the EU budget towards the Discharge 
authority  within  the  regulator y  framework,  adopted  by 
the Council and the European Parliament, applicable to 
the shared management of the structural funds, the main 
implementation, financial, control and audit obligations lie 
with the Member States.

7.
The implementation of ESF must comply with the require-
ments of the Financial Regulation as well as the sectoral 
legislation. In assessing the performance of the use of ESF 
funds, the Commission is necessarily limited by the regula-
tory framework in place, notably the limited requirements 
set by Annex XXIII of Reg. (EC) No 1828/2006 on the collec-
tion of data on participants to funded operations. 

OBSERVATIONS

15.
The  different  approaches  chosen  by  the  Member  States 
reflect the different situations of older workers in the areas 
concerned. Indeed older people in need of support can 
belong  to  different  age  groups  (45+/50+/60+).  Further-
more the current regulatory framework does not provide a 
basis for harmonization. Lastly, the Commission underlines 
that what is important is that Member States receive the 
tools, within their own institutional context, to address the 
issues at stake. The use of a flexible age group definition 
does not in any way undermine the achievement of ESF 
goals. 

16.
The current regulatory framework provides only limited 
powers to the Commission in terms of ensuring coherent, 
complete and consistent data collection approaches across 
the Operational Programmes 

T h e   g u i d a n c e   o n   A n n e x   X X I I I   t o   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )  
No  1828/2006  (‘Data  on  participants  in  ESF  operations’) 
leaves Member States flexibility to adapt the age bracket 
as  regards  the  implementation  of  a strategy/priority  to 
their particular situation as regards older workers.

Data  collected,  on  the  basis  of  Annex  XXIII,  does  in  any 
case provide information on the 55-64 age group partici-
pation, and hence allows providing information in accord-
ance with the definition set by the Stockholm European 
Council.

The  Commission  aims  at  addressing  these  issues  in  the 
next programming period 2014-2020. In particular, partici-
pants aged above 54 years remain a compulsory reporting 
category for 2014-2020 (ESF common indicators). Further-
more, as foreseen in the new regulations, poor data quality 
may lead to suspension of payments to the Member State.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION32

Box 1 (a)
Emilia Romagna: The specific targeting of 45+ workers is 
substantiated by an adequate analysis that underlines the 
necessity to implement active policies to avoid the exclu-
sion of people over 45 years old from the labour market. 

The Commission will nonetheless raise again the impor-
t a n c e   o f   q u a n t i f y i n g   i n d i c a to r s   w i t h   t h e   m a n a gi n g 
authority.

Box 1 (b)
Puglia: The specific targeting of 45+ workers in Puglia is 
substantiated by an adequate labour market analysis. 

The Commission will nonetheless raise again the impor-
tance of quantifying indicators with the managing author-
ity within regular contacts with national authorities, not-
ably monitoring committee meetings. 

Box 1 (c)
The description of the situation and the reporting about 
the  participants  follows  the  definition  provided  by  the 
Stockholm European Council. The experience shows that 
placement of the age group 50-55, once unemployed, is 
already difficult and therefore the German authorities start 
having a particular attention on the group of unemployed 
above 50 years.

17.
Article 37(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 refers to 
‘an’ analysis of the situation, which is not, as such, a  limit-
ing requirement as regards the quality of the analysis pro-
vided by Member States. 

In  the  future,  the  Commission  will  consider  indicating 
‘a common set of required information’ within the existing 
legal framework, and considering the principle of subsidi-
arity, to ensure that the socio-economic analysis descrip-
tion in the OP is focused. Diagnoses need to be focused. 

18.
The OPs follow a structure which stems from the require -
ments  laid  down  in  the  regulations  (Regulation  (EC )  
No 1081/2006, Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). While OPs 
may have a  broader objective, the specific goals set are at 
the level of the OP priority axes and intervention areas, and 
their achievement is measured through the programme-
specific indicators set. 

19.
Most of the older participants in ESF operations are also 
part of other target groups specified in the OPs, e.g. unem-
ployed people or employed people. The actions foreseen 
for such groups however do not necessarily fall under pri-
ority theme 67 ‘encouraging active ageing and prolonging 
working lives’.

Concentrating actions towards older workers in a specific 
priority would be too restrictive.

20.
The legislator has made the choice to have programming 
documents with relatively broad priorities in order to allow 
for more flexibility.

The financial allocations to priority themes are established 
at Member State level.

21.
The ESF funding is allocated at OP level. Member States are 
responsible for fund allocations, which includes the assess-
ment of costs and budgetary needs. Moreover older work-
ers are also concerned with actions financed under other 
priority themes than priority theme 67.

Box 2 (a)
Saxony-Anhalt: One project can only be allocated to one 
priority theme. Only the scheme ‘Active until retirement’ 
can be assigned to priority theme 67 in the programming 
phase. During the implementation phase other projects 
might be assigned to priority theme 67, but this depends 
on the main accent of the project, in particular the shares 
of  the  different  age  groups.  Furthermore  older  workers 
may have benefited from projects grouped under other 
project ‘priority themes’.

Box 2 (b)
Active and healthy ageing is not the equivalent of actions 
targeting older workers. Actions in favour of active ageing 
should often start before the worker is already ‘ageing’3. 

The actions foreseen by the MA of Emilia Romagna region 
are flexible in order to tackle the problems of the evolving 
socioeconomic and demographic situation.

3  See paragraph 36, EPSCO Council conclusions of 7 June 2010: "…
active ageing is to be regarded from the wider perspective of sustainable 
employability of women and men throughout the whole working life…"

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION33

Box 2 (c)
Specific actions are not detailed in the England and Gibral-
tar OP because it is not designed for delivery on a project-
based approach. Only a series of indicative actions which 
may be included are outlined in the OP. As the OP is man-
aged  and  delivered  on  a programme  basis,  it  is  outputs 
and results that are monitored, not amounts allocated or 
budgeted to target groups. 

25.
The  Commission  refers  to  its  reply  to  paragraph  24  and 
notes that the current regulatory framework only provides 
that the OPs shall contain information on the priority axis 
and their specific targets (Article 37 (1) (c) of Regulation 
(EC)  No 1083/2006). Those targets should be quantified 
using  a limited  number  of  indicators  for  outputs  and 
results.

22.
There is no regulatory requirement to define quantified 
goals  for  every  subgroup. There  are  main  target  groups 
for  which  goals  are  defined,  e.g.  unemployed  people, 
employed people, early school leavers, etc.

24.
The current regulatory framework does not require that 
all  target  groups  listed  in  the  operational  programme, 
like older workers, are covered by a specific indicator and 
quantified  target  value  and  leaves  this  decision  to  the 
national authorities implementing the programme.

Changes  in  policy  domains,  such  as  older  workers,  are 
influenced  by  many  factors  such  as  legal  changes  (for 
example  to  the  pension  system),  global  economic  and 
social developments, policy initiatives and public and/or 
private investment (for example by adapting workplaces 
to make them more suitable for older workers) and demo-
graphic change itself. Impact indicators are therefore con-
sidered to be imprecise and unreliable, as the source of the 
impact cannot be properly identified. For example, experi-
ence has shown that it is very difficult to allocate (parts of ) 
impacts to various parts of integrated policies. Research 
also  suggests  that  global  impacts  may  often  be  greater 
than the sum of individual components. For these reasons 
the  Commission  has  been  reluctant  to  pursue  actively 
impact  indicators,  notably  for  operational  programmes 
which  provide  only  a limited  contribution  compared  to 
global public investment in the priorities covered. 

Box 3 (a)
The  OP  contains  tables  for ‘indicators  without  targets’ 
where a number of achievements are monitored for older 
workers under each priority axis. These are reported annu-
ally in the annual implementation report. Achievements 
are clearly shown and can be assessed against correspond-
ing participants’ targets.

Box 3 (b)
The managing authority provides the number of partici-
pants in absolute terms, but does not provide the target 
values.

29.
The  Commission’s  proposals  for  2014–20  provide  for 
a  per formance  framework  consisting  of  milestones  for 
2016 and 2018 and targets established for 2022. 

30.
I ntermediate  targets  are  not  required  by  the  current 
regulation. 

The Polish system allows rapid reaction when deviations 
from targets are identified. Annual adjustment of targets 
ensures both reaction to challenges and systematic stock-
taking of results achieved up to date.

31.
There is no regulatory basis for the structure of OPs to be 
based on a hierarchy of measures/goals. 

Selection  criteria  requiring  targeting  at  most  vulner-
able groups and imposing job efficiency of ESF measures 
(including  for  the  most  disadvantaged)  are  established 
every year and take into account up-to-date performance 
and remaining challenges.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION34

35.
The proposal must be seen in the context of the national 
and European (eligibility) rules. 

The Commission’s proposal for the Structural Funds regula-
tion 2014–20 foresees the possibility of payments to ben-
eficiaries based on performance and not on actual costs in 
some specific cases.

38.
Assessment  of  the  OP  proposal  consists  in  a complex 
assessment of the strategy. Similarly assessment of the per-
formance goes far beyond the formal check of the annual 
reports, requiring regular monitoring by the Commission. 
Therefore,  the  task  of  assessment  of  the  OP  proposal  or 
per formance  cannot  be  solely  per formed  according  to 
uniform checklists. The way the Commission organises this 
task depends on the complexity of programmes.

As  a rule,  the  geographical  desks  of  the  Directorate -  
General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the 
European Commission keeps minutes of bilateral meetings 
with Member States. Letters are an official tool of commu-
nication with Member States.

Box 5 — Common reply for (a) and (b)
Participants’ employment status after leaving the project is 
followed up in the course of individual evaluations.

44.
The Commission underlines that national data protection 
legislation  often  goes  beyond  the  requirements  estab-
lished by Directive 95/46/EC, with regard to the processing 
of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

With the aim to improve data collection and prevent data 
protection issues interfering with the monitoring in the 
future programming period, the Commission has organ-
ized several exchanges of experience and seminars with 
MS evaluation capabilities. It has also involved the Euro-
pean Data protection Supervisor in this exercise.

As  many  participants  are  subject  to  multiple  disadvan-
tages, a hierarchical structure would prove to be less flex -
ible. Establishing clear eligibility criteria rather than a rigid 
hierarchy of targets is considered to be more effective in 
ensuring good participation and good outcomes.

32.
Overall results and impacts of the actions funded by the 
ESF can be measured by evaluations. An example of this is 
the evaluation of the ESF support to lifelong learning, final-
ised in July 2012, which focuses inter alia on older workers.

Annex  XXIII  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1828/2006  is  a list  of 
common output indicators for all OPs. They are monitored 
at  priority  axis  level  and  have,  when  comparing  to  the 
2000–06  period,  significantly  improved  data  availability 
and comparability.

The Commission’s proposals for regulations for 2014–20 
contain  a list  of  mandator y  common  output  and  result 
indicators for the ESF.

33.
The  negotiated  targets  concern  the  different  t ypical 
actions. The  targets  cannot  be  broken  down  by  project 
because this would create too small entities. Reaching the 
agreed targets is observed on an aggregated basis. Insist-
ing on targets on project level would have as result the risk 
that no courses would be offered in difficult regions. The 
possibility of linking payments to beneficiaries to projects' 
performance varies from one Member States to another.

34.
Within the current regulatory framework, it is the task of 
the monitoring committee to satisfy itself as to the effec-
tiveness and quality of the implementation of the opera-
tional programme4. 

Box 4 — Common reply for (a) and (b)
Incorporating target values at project level is not a regu-
latory  requirement  under  the  current  regulatory  frame-
work. In any case, other instruments exist to check to what 
extent integration into employment has been reached and 
the relevant target at OP level has been met. 

4  Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION35

Box 6 
The strategic evaluation was executed in such a way that 
despite the incomplete data it could be assessed which 
elements lead to the success of an action. 

In  Germany  the  task  to  collect  the  personal  data  of  the 
participants is given to the beneficiary, which however is 
depending on the information given by the participants. 
If  the  Commission  wants  more  reliable  data,  this  would 
imply additional costs for the beneficiary that can declare 
its costs only during the eligibility period. The regulations 
don't allow new cost items for this research work.

Box 7 
The Commission agrees with the Court’s opinion that the 
ESF  evaluation  process  in  the  Puglia  region  is  lagging 
behind. The Commission will continue to recall the impor-
tance of setting up an effective monitoring system as it 
already did in the context of evaluations and on the occa-
sion of the adoption of the annual implementation reports 
(AIRs) by the monitoring committee.

Box 8 (a)
Though  the  system  might  require  some  improvements, 
payments  under  the  Polish  OP  are,  since  the  mid-term 
review, executed against targets set in projects. Therefore, 
the role of selection criteria, which every year put some 
requirements in terms of targeting, is very important. Link-
ing IT systems containing financial and participant data 
would  not  be  sufficient  to  ensure  that  the  OP  responds 
to challenges. Anticipating measures should be taken to 
ensure the right targeting during implementation. Selec-
tion criteria play this role under the Polish OP.

Box 8 (b)
Although the use of Excel brings the disadvantages men-
tioned by the Court, it has so far proved helpful.

47.
The Commission refers to its reply to Box 9.

Box 9 
For  Emilia  Romagna,  the  Commission  agrees  with  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  that  the  evaluation  process  of  the 
ESF in the region could be strengthened. The Commission 
regularly reiterates to the managing authority the important 
role of evaluation and it will continue to do so.

48.
The current regulatory framework imposes the collection 
of  financial  data  only  at  priority  axis  level.  Many  of  the 
older participants in ESF operations are also part of other 
target groups specified in the OPs, e.g. unemployed people 
or employed people. 

52.
The Commission can suggest a minimum set of topics, but 
cannot impose them. 

Moreover, the evaluation plan is not compulsory according 
to Article 48(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

54.
The Commission regularly reminds Member States to carry 
out evaluations in accordance with the regulatory require-
ments and guidance.

The Commission is limited by the list of output indicators 
under Annex XXIII of Reg. 1828/2006.

Member States provide a range of important qualitative 
information regarding the effectiveness of measures also 
as part of AIR.

Box 10 (a)
Puglia: The evaluation process only started after the Court’s 
visit and evaluation results so far cover only a limited num -
ber of issues.

Emilia Romagna: Two relevant thematic evaluation reports5 
have been presented in the 2011 annual implementation 
report, and approved in the monitoring committee held in 
Bologna on 21 June 2012.

Box 10 (c)
The Commission has provided guidance and advice but 
Member States are free to choose whichever evaluation 
method they wish. 

5 

‘Quality of lifelong learning’ and ‘Activities for unemployed and workers 

in mobility’.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION36

57.
The Commission has, on the basis of the annual reports 
of the Court of Auditors, set as a strategic goal the attain -
ment of a ‘positive DAS’. For the ESF substantial progress 
has been made on the issue of financial management.

The Commission has put a stronger emphasis on perfor -
mance in its proposed regulations for the new program-
ming period 2014–20, in which the provisions for a perfor -
mance framework and a performance review will require 
that  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  dedicate 
more attention to the monitoring of non-financial data.

58.
The Commission considers non-financial data very impor-
tant and scrutinises them closely. The follow-up of non-
financial monitoring data is carried out both at OP man-
agement  level,  based  on  the  annual  implementation 
reports and in the context of annual review meetings and 
monitoring committee meetings, as well as on the audit 
level. 

The  compliance  assessment  checklist  used  by  auditors 
does include references to auditing non-financial data and 
indeed  significant  gaps  in  the  Member  States’  manage-
ment and control systems for reporting on non-financial 
data have been an argument for non-approval of compli-
ance assessment documents. This has been followed up by 
ESF audits specifically on the management and informa-
tion systems which also generate non-financial data.

59.
On the basis of the existing substantial documentation6, 
the Commission is committed to further improve the audit 
trail on the ex ante checks.

6 

In particular as contained in the SFC database, which is the official IT 
communication channel between the Commission and the Member States 
on the implementation of operational programmes (Article 39 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1828/2006). 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

60.
The legislator has consciously chosen to have program-
ming documents with relatively broad priorities in order to 
allow for more flexibility. 

Indeed, the situation of ageing workers varies widely from 
one Member State to another. Moreover the category of 
older workers can be included in larger categories or in 
other kinds of disadvantaged groups targeted by the ESF. 
Therefore, the current regulatory framework only imposes 
the collection of financial data at priority axis level, not at 
the level of a priority theme. Neither is the breakdown of 
the funds requested for the different groups according to 
Annex XXIII of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 on the provi-
sion of data on participants to ESF operations. Nor would 
it be possible as most ESF actions are addressed to people 
of varying ages.

61.
The current regulatory framework only imposes the collec-
tion of financial data at priority axis level, not at the level 
of target groups. This would also not be possible as most 
ESF actions are addressed to different age groups and the 
composition might change.

Information  on  results  and  in  par ticular  impact  can  be 
obtained through evaluations. An example of this is the 
evaluation of the ESF support to lifelong learning, finalised 
in July 2012, which focused inter alia on older workers. The 
Commission  estimates  that  data  available  are  useful  to 
draw conclusions on the effectiveness of ESF intervention. 

62.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   m o s t   o f   t h e   w e a k -
nesses identified in the Court’s special report have been 
addressed in the period 2007–13.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION37

Recommendation 1 (a)
Monitoring tools already exist in Member States and allow 
checking  on  deviations  from  the  target  on  an  ongoing 
basis, allowing the managing authorities and the European 
Commission to identify the necessary corrective measures 
on a timely basis. However, the Commission confirms its 
willingness to put a stronger emphasis on performance in 
its proposed regulations for the new programming period 
2014–20, in which the provisions for a performance frame -
work and a performance review will require that the Mem -
ber States and the Commission dedicate more attention to 
the monitoring of non-financial data.

Recommendation 1 (b)
A number of provisions regarding monitoring and evalu-
ation arrangements in the new legislative package for the 
Cohesion and Structural Funds post-2013 have been fore-
seen with the aim of enhancing the role of monitoring and 
evaluation.

In  par ticular,  common  provisions  for  all  Cohesion  and 
Structural Funds in this area7 extend to the role and com-
position of the monitoring committee, annual implementa-
tion reports, annual review meetings, progress reports on 
the implementation of the partnership contracts and ex 
ante and ex post evaluations. In particular, evaluation plans 
will need to be developed for all operational programmes 
and the monitoring committees will need to be informed 
on a regular basis on the progress made in the implemen -
tation of these evaluation plans and of the follow-up of 
evaluation findings.

The role of evaluation in the assessment of the impact of 
the policy is also clarified.

7  Articles 41 to 50 and 100 to104,  Common Provisions Regulation 
proposal; the Annex to ESF Regulation proposal.

63.
For  2014–20  the  Commission  has  inser ted  in  the  draft 
cohesion regulations mandatory output and result com-
mon  indicators,  which  have  been  elaborated  in  fruitful 
cooperation with the Member States and cover the most 
frequently funded target groups and entities. Programme 
monitoring by Member States shall always use common 
indicators  and  may  use  programme -specific  indicators 
where appropriate. In addition to monitoring and evalu-
ation arrangements, the proposed regulations for 2014–20 
provide  for  other  mechanisms  to  steer  implementation 
towards a performance-based approach: joint action plans 
(sets  of  agreed  results-based  measures),  per formance 
review and performance reserve allocated on the basis of 
achieved mid-term milestones and targets, etc.

Recommendation 2
The Commission’s proposal for the Structural Funds regu-
lations for the programming period 2014–20 provides for 
a system of mandatory common indicators put in place to 
ensure that essential data on the achievements of cohe-
sion policy is available in standardised form and can be 
aggregated at EU level. 

Moreover common and programme-specific result indica-
tors relate to the priority axes or to investment priorities 
addressed by a  priority axis. Baselines for result indicators 
shall use latest available data. Cumulative quantified target 
values shall be fixed by 2022.

Result indicators will be strengthened in order to meas-
ure results when a participant leaves the supported opera -
tion: (e.g. participant gaining a qualification, or in employ -
ment), as well as results 6 months after leaving (persons in 
employment, in self-employment, with an improved labour 
market situation).

64.
The Commission has, on the basis of the annual reports 
of the Court of Auditors, set as a strategic goal the attain -
ment of a ‘positive DAS’. For the ESF substantial progress 
has been made on the issue of financial management.

The Commission considers non-financial data very impor-
tant and scrutinises them closely.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSION38

The Commission has put a stronger emphasis on perfor -
mance in its proposed regulations for the new program-
ming period 2014–20, in which the provisions for a perfor -
mance framework and a performance review will require 
that  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  dedicate 
more attention to the monitoring of non-financial data.

Recommendation 3 (a) 
The  compliance  assessment  checklist  used  by  auditors 
does  include  references  to  auditing  non-financial  data. 
This has been followed up by ESF audits specifically on the 
management and information systems which also generate 
non-financial data.

The proposal on regulation for the 2014–20 programming 
period  contains  provisions  to  improve  the  performance 
assessment  of  operational  programmes.  However  the 
assessment of performance is a separate exercise from the 
assessment by the Commission services of the manage-
ment and control systems, which essentially aims at check-
ing the legality and regularity conditions of the national 
management and control systems.

Recommendation 3 (b)
On the basis of the existing substantial documentation, the 
Commission is committed to further improve the audit trail 
on the ex ante checks.

Special Report No 25/2012 – Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

REPLY OF THE  COMMISSIONEuropean Court of Auditors

Special Report No 25/2012
Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2013 — 38 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9241-115-2
doi:10.2865/61059

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at	the	European	Union’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union  
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):

•	

via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
2
-
0
2
5
-
E
N

-
C

THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND IS A KEY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT FOR HELP -

ING THE MEMBER STATES IN THE FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT. OVER THE PERIOD 

2007–13 THE SPENDING WILL AMOUNT TO OVER 75 BILLION  EURO OR 8  % 

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BUDGET. 

FOR ONE DISADVANTAGED GROUP, OLDER WORKERS, THE COURT VERIFIED 

WHETHER THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION HAD SET UP AND 

IMPLEMENTED THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 

THEIR ACTIONS TOWARDS THIS GROUP. 

SHORTCOMINGS WERE FOUND IN THE DESIGN OF THE OPERATIONAL PRO-

GRAMMES AND IN THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS.

THE COURT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS WITH AN AIM OF IMPROVING THE 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND SPEND-

ING ON SPECIFIC TARGET GROUPS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS