Analysis and summary of the public consultation for ESF 2007-2013 ex-post evaluation : final report.
Date: 2017-07-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU Member State, European Social Fund, economic and social cohesion, job access, public administration, public consultation, public service, social integration, socially disadvantaged class

Analysis and Summary of the 
Public Consultation for ESF 
2007-2013 Ex-post Evaluation 

Final Report 

Written by Panteia & Metis 
May – 2016 

Social Europe 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Directorate G — Audit and evaluation 

Unit EMPL. G4 - Evaluation & Impact Assessment 

Contact: empl-g4-unit@ec.europa.eu 

E-mail: empl-g4-unit@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Analysis and Summary of the 
Public Consultation for ESF 
2007-2013 Ex-post Evaluation 

Final Report 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
European Social Fund 

2016 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, 

phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of 

the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the 

information contained therein.  

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

ISBN: 978-92-79-60687-8 
doi:10.2767/370416
Please quote this report as: ICF (2015) 2007-2013 Ex-post evaluation of ESF investment into 

human capital, for the European Commission, Directorate -General Employment, Social Affairs 

and Inclusion. 

The opinions expressed are those of  the Contractor only and do not represent the 

Commission’s official position. 

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

Table of contents 

Summary 

1 
1.1 
1.2 
1.3 

2 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 
2.5 

3 
3.1 
3.2 

4 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3 

5 
5.1 
5.2 

6 
6.1 

7 
7.1 
7.2 
7.3 

8 
8.1 
8.2 
8.3 
8.4 
8.5 
8.6 

Introduction 
European Social Fund (ESF) 
Ex-post evaluation and public consultation 
Analysing and summarising the public consultation 

Data analysis methodology 
Preparation of dataset 
Response 
Qualitative analysis (open questions) 
Quantitative analysis (closed questions) 
Interpreting the results 

Relevance 
ESF addresses key challenges 
Economic and financial crisis 

Effectiveness 
Economic and social cohesion 
Support to individuals 
Support to organisations 

Efficiency 
Cost effectiveness 
Administrative requirements 

Coherence 
Complementarity to other EU funds 

EU added value 
Target groups 
Innovation 
Structural reforms 

Analysis and conclusions 
Overall results: five criteria 
Five policy areas 
Individuals versus organisations 
Role in ESF 
Competitiveness, convegence and multi-objective 
Lessons learned 

7 

13 
13 
13 
15 

16 
16 
16 
22 
22 
23 

25 
25 
30 

32 
32 
37 
43 

50 
50 
55 

61 
61 

66 
66 
73 
79 

87 
87 
89 
90 
91 
92 
92 

  5 
  5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary 

This report analyses and summarises the preliminary results of the public consultation 

for  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  programming  period 

2007-2013.  The feedback of  both  recipients  and organisations  delivering/coordinating 

ESF  support,  described  in  this  report,  is  based  on  an  online  questionnaire  that  was 

published on 3 February 2016 and ran until 27 April 2016.  

The  public  consultation  consisted  of  at  most,  20  questions,  depending  on  the  route 

followed  through  the  questionnaire  and  the  number  of  follow-ups  or  sub-questions. 

Most  of  these  were  closed  questions.  Four  questions  were  open  questions,  in  which 

respondents  could  elaborate  on  the  results  achieved  with  the  help  of  the  ESF.  The 

questionnaire  was  available  in  three  languages:  English,  French  and  German. 

Respondents were allowed to answer the open questions in their own language.  

Response 

In total 285 respondents submitted a questionnaire.  Out of these 285 submissions, 29 

were omitted because: 

 

 

The  respondent  indicated  his  or  her  answers  could  not  be  used  for  analysis  and 

publication (10 cases). 
The respondent answered less than 75% of the questions (1 7 cases)1. 

  Respondents filled out the questionnaire twice (2 cases, in both cases  respondents 

filled out the questionnaire partially, closed it and started over later). 

Therefore the response used for the analysis was 256.  

The respondents answered questions for a total of 23  Member States and 3 responded 

for the entire EU. Over half of all responses relate to projects in thr ee countries: Italy 

(31%), Spain (12%) and Germany (11%). The respondents were not asked to indicate 

whether their answers refer to convergence or competitiveness regions. Based on the 

countries with which their answers refer, the following division can be made: 

 

 

 

23  respondents  answered questions for countries  with  (mainly)  competitiveness 

regions (i.e. at most, one convergence or phasing-out region). 

64  respondents  answered  questions  for  countries  with  (mainly)  convergence 

regions (i.e. at most, one competitiveness or phasing-in region).  

166  respondents  answered  questions  for  countries  with  both  competitiveness 

and  convergence  regions.  Among  them  are  the  respondents  from  the  three 

countries  with  most  responses:  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany.   These  responses  were 

combined in a group labelled ‘multi-objective’. 

Of  the  256  respondents,  87  responded  as  individual  citizens  (34%)  and  168  on 
behalf of an organisation (66%)2. A large part of the respondents who answered as 
individual  citizens  were,  in  fact,  part  of  an  organisation,  but  chose  not  to  answer  on 

behalf of their organisation. Furthermore,  45% of the respondents had received ESF-

support, 36% had delivered/coordinated/managed  ESF  support  or was a social 

partner,  and  10%  were  in  both  categories  (the  roles  of  the  remaining  9%  were 

unknown). 

1 The number of responses by these 17 varied between 1 and 16 responses to each individual question. Based 
on the reading of these questionnaires there are no important differences between the 17 and the current sam-
ple. Therefore  it is very unlikely that the respondents not taken into account for the analysis would have an 
effect on the overall results.  
2 One respondent did not indicate whether he/she was responding as a individual citizen or on behalf of an 
organisation. 

  7 
  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Public consultation 

In the  public  consultation,  respondents were asked to  respond to a set of statements 

which  were  formulated  in  a  positive  way.  Therefore,  agreement  with  the  statement 

meant  positive  feedback  for  ESF.  A  recurring  question  was  the  assessment  of  the 

consultees on the results of the ESF for five policy areas: 

  Enhancing  Human  Capital/expanding  and  improving  investment  in  Human 

Capital.  This  includes  increasing  the  adaptability  of  workers,  enterprises,  and 

entrepreneurs  with  a  view  towards  improving  the  anticipation  and  positive 

management of economic change. 

  Enhancing  Access  to  Employment  and  the  sustainable  inclusion  in  the  labour 

market of job seekers and inactive people, preventing unemployment, in particular 

long-term  and  youth  unemployment,  encouraging  active  ageing  and  longer 

working lives, and increasing participation in the labour market. 

  Reinforcing  the  Social Inclusion of disadvantaged people with a  view  towards 

their  sustainable 

integration 

in  employment  and  combating  all 

forms  of 

discrimination in the labour market.  

  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and 

the  efficiency  of  public 

administrations  and  public  services  with  a  view  towards  reforms,  better 

regulation  and  good  governance,  in  particular,  in  the  economic,  employment, 

educational, social, environmental and judicial fields. 

  Promoting  partnerships:  Pacts  and  initiatives  through  networking  of  relevant 

stakeholders to mobilise for reforms in the field of employment and labou r market 

inclusiveness. 

Overall conclusion 

The most important overall conclusion is that most aspects of the ESF were judged 

favourably  by  the  respondents,  or  at  least  there  were  more  respondents  who 

responded  favourably  to  the  statements,  rather  than  unfavourably.  When  looking  at 

the  respondents  as  a  whole,  this  was  the  case  for  every  single  statement,  with  the 

notable  exception  of  the  statement  on  administrative  requirements.  In  that  case,   the 

requirement  of  the  audits  (one  out  of  the  nine  administrative  requirements)  was 

judged  unfavourably  by  respondents,  with  two  additional  requirements  judged 

unfavourably by a substantial number of respondents.  

This conclusion  is  further  detailed  in  the  report, along the  lines  of the  five  evaluation 

criteria Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence, and EU Added Value. 

Relevance 

Most  aspects  concerning  the  relevance  of  the  ESF  were  favourably  judged  by  the 

respondents  of  the  public  consultation.  More  respondents  agreed,  rather  than 

disagreed with the statement that the ESF programmes were designed to address key 

issues in the five policy areas. This was especially the case for:   

  Human Capital: 78% agreed, 5% disagreed. 

  Access to Employment: 79% agreed, 5 % disagreed. 

  Social Inclusion: 81% agreed, 4% disagreed. 

Furthermore, the majority of the respondents agreed with the statement that the  ESF 

helped  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis .  A  total  of 

67% of the respondents agreed with this statement, whereas 14% disagreed. 

  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

Overall, the effectiveness of the ESF was favourably judged by the respondents of the 

public  consultation.  More  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the 

statement  that  the  ESF  interventions  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and 

social cohesion in the five policy areas. Respondents were particularly positive  in the 

following areas: 

  Human Capital: 72% agreed, 6% disagreed. 

  Access to Employment: 69% agreed, 8% disagreed. 

  Social Inclusion: % agreed, 10% disagreed. 

Furthermore,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  that  ESF  support  was 

successful  in  achieving  results  for  individuals  and  organisations.  The  most 

successful results for individuals were: 

  Gaining a qualification: 77% of the respondents agreed that this was the case. 

 

 

Finding  employment  (including  self-employment):  62%  of  the  respondents 

indicated this. 

Improving  the  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and  educators :  indicated  by 

55% of the respondents. 

For  organisations,  the  ESF  was  particularly  successful  in  achieving  results  in 

developing new qualifications, courses, training programmes, standards or systems  by 

organisations. 74% agreed that this was the case. 

Efficiency 

Most aspects of the efficiency of the  ESF were judged favourably by the respondents. 

Firstly,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the  statement  that  the 

ESF was cost-effective in all of the five policy areas.  

Furthermore,  the  respondents  judged  most  administrative  requirements  for 

managing the ESF projects and programmes to be appropriate, rather than too light or 

excessive. The five most appropriate administrative requirements were:  

 

 

 

 

 

communication (as stated by 70% of the respondents),  

implementation of projects (63%),  

the designation of authorities (61%),  

the design of operational programmes (60%), 

the selection of projects (60%).  

The three administrative requirements that are deemed ‘excessive’ most often are :  

 

 

 

audits (as stated by 38% of the respondents),  

set-up of management and control systems (37%),  

reporting (36%).  

However, 

the  number  of  respondents 

judging 

these 

three  requirements  as 

‘appropriate’  is  comparable  in  size  to,  or  greater  than,  the  number  judging  them  as 

‘excessive’.  

Coherence 

More  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the  statement  that  the  ESF 

programmes  were  complementary  with  other  EU  funds  in  all  of  the  five  policy 

areas.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  relatively  large  number  of  respondents  did 

not  provide  an  answer  to  this  question.  This  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  they 

had insufficient experience with other EU funds.  

  9 
  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU added value 

Most  aspects  of  the  EU  added  value  of  the  ESF  were  favourably  judged  by  the 

respondents.  In  the  questionnaire,  three  aspects  of  the  added  value  were  addressed: 

support to target groups, innovative activities and structural reforms.   

More respondents agreed, rather than disagreed, with the statement that the ESF has 

provided  support  to  target  groups  whose  needs  would  have  otherwise  been 

insufficiently  addressed.  The  most  supported  groups  whose  needs  would  otherwise 

have been insufficiently fulfilled were:  

 

 

the unemployed (as stated by 68% of the respondents),  

young people (66%),  

  women (58%), and 

 

long term unemployed (57%) 

The  respondents  indicated,  to  a  lesser  extent,  that  the  following  three  groups  had 

been supported whose needs would have otherwise been insufficiently addressed:   

 

older workers (19% disagreed with the statement),  

  migrants (18%), and 

  minorities such as Roma (16%).  

However,  even  for  the  latter  three  groups,  more  respondents  agreed  rather  than 

disagreed that they were in fact supported. 

More respondents agreed, rather than disagreed, that the ESF allowed the testing and 

implementation  of  innovative  activities  in  the  five  policy  areas.  The  most  support 

for this statement was for the policy areas:  

  Human Capital (60% of the respondents agreed to this),  

  Social Inclusion (59%), and 

  Access to Employment (57%).  

In  addition,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  regard  to 

structural  reforms  that  the  ESF  was  instrumental  in  providing  support  in  the  five 

policy  areas  and,  in  particular,  for  the  policy  area  Social  Inclusion  (52%  of  the 

respondents agreed to this). 

Negative feedback 

Besides  the  mostly  positive  feedback  about  the ESF,  a  limited amount  of respondents 

(21)  provided  some  negative  remarks.  The  most  frequent  negative  feedback  was 

concerning  how  the  funds  were  spent,  which  target  groups  were  supported,  which 

organisations were funded and whether all funds were put to good use. Additionally, it 

was  claimed  that  the  extensive  administrative  requirements  interfered  with  the 

successful  and  efficient  execution  of  projects.  Furthermore,  the  long  term  benefits 

of  the  ESF  were  contested  by  four  respondents,  mostly  because  of  the  circumstances 

in their own organisation or the economic circumstances in the region/country.  Finally, 

the  term  ‘innovation’  was  disputed  by  two  respondents,  who  claimed  that  ESF 

support aimed at innovations could also be used for projects that were not innovative 

at all. 

Subgroups and patterns 

When  analysing  all  of  the  results  and  differentiating  between  different  subgroups,  a  

number of patterns emerge: 

  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy areas 

The  policy  areas  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment  and  Social  Inclusion  are 

judged  more  favourably  than  the  areas  of  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and 

Promoting Partnerships. However, it is important to note that not all respondents were 

involved  in  all  five  of  these  policy  fields.  Substantially  fewer  respondents  have  direct 

first-hand  knowledge  of  the  policy  areas  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and 

Promoting Partnerships. Also, the effects of intervention aimed at the latter two pol icy 

areas take a longer time to become fully visible. 

Organisations versus individuals  

Respondents who filled out the questionnaire on behalf of organisations were generally 

more  positive  about  the  areas  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment,  and  Social 

Inclusion than individual citizens. On the other hand, they were less positive about the 

area  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity.  Furthermore,  individuals  tended  to  judge 

the statements unfavourably more often than organisations. However, their responses  

were mostly positive and not all differences were significant. 

Role in ESF 

Respondents  involved  in  delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support  and  social 

partners  had  more  positive  opinions  about  the  area  Access  to  Employment  than 

respondents who had received ESF support. This finding is substantiated by the replies 

to  statements  about  the  support  for  individuals:  significantly  more  respondents 

involved  in  managing  ESF  indicated  that  ESF  support  helped  in  gaining  employment 

(including self employment) and they also judged the support to  the  unemployed and 

inactive more favourably than the recipients of ESF.  

Recipients  of ESF support,  on the  other hand, appear to  judge the  efforts  in the  area 

of  Human  Capital  more  favourably.  This  might  also  explain  why  recipients  of  ESF 

support also responded more favourably to the statement about whether the ESF was 

successful  in  improving  the  skills  of  teachers  and  educators.  Furthermore,  the 

recipients  acknowledged  the  support  for  NEETs  (young  people  who  are    "Not  in 

Education,  Employment,  or  Training"),  and  the    people  with  secondary  and  higher 

educational attainment, more often than the other group. 

Competitiveness, convergence and multi-objective 
Due  to  the  limited  response  from  countries  consisting  of  competitiveness  regions, 

there  were  hardly  any  significant  differences  in  responses  between  competitiveness 

regions, 

convergence 

regions  and  multi-objective 

countries.  However 

in 

competitiveness  regions  there  did  seem  to  be  a  pattern  in  the  appreciation  of  access 

to  employment  and  for  efforts  aimed  at  individuals  gaining  employment.  In  the 

convergence  regions,  the  ESF  projects  were  favourably  viewed  for  their  lasting 

accomplishments  for  individuals,  with  significantly  more  respondents  favourably 

judging the results for individuals and structural reforms in the area of Human Capital.  

  11 
  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction 

1.1 

European Social Fund (ESF)  

The  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  is  the  EU’s  main  instrument  for  strengthening 

economic  and  social  cohesion.  The  ESF  is  organised  into  seven-year  programming 

periods.  The  main  objective  of  the  ESF  2007-2013  was  to  ‘strengthen  economic  and 

social  cohesion  by  improving  employment  and  job  opportunities,  enc ouraging  a  high 

level of employment and more and better jobs’.  

Actions that could be supported under the ESF 2007-2013 were organised around five 

policy fields:  

  Enhancing Human Capital/Expanding and Improving Investment in Human 

Capital.  This  includes  increasing  the  adaptability  of  workers,  enterprises,  and 

entrepreneurs  with  a  view  towards  improving  the  anticipation  and  positive 

management of economic change. 

  Enhancing  Access  to  Employment  and  the  sustainable  inclusion  in  the  labour 

market of job seekers and inactive people, preventing unemployment, in particular 

long-term  and  youth  unemployment,  encouraging  active  ageing  and  longer 

working lives, and increasing participation in the labour market. 

  Reinforcing the Social Inclusion of Disadvantaged People with a view towards 

their  sustainable 

integration 

in  employment  and  combating  all 

forms  of 

discrimination in the labour market.  

  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and 

the  Efficiency  of  Public 

Administrations  and  Public  Services  with  a  view  towards  reforms,  better 

regulation  and  good  governance  especially  in  the  economic,  employment, 

educational, social, environmental and judicial fields. 

  Promoting  Partnerships:  Pacts  and  initiatives  through  networking  of  relevant 

stakeholders to mobilise for reforms in the field of employment and labour market 

inclusiveness. 

Member  States  differ  in  how  they  address  the  priority  themes,  depending  on  their 

national  and  regional  needs.  Much  also  depends  on  the  size  of  the  ESF  budgets 

available in a Member State.  

Depending  on 

their  economic  situation,  European 

regions  can  either  be 

competitiveness  regions  or  convergence  regions.  The  former  being  strong  and 

economically  developed  regions  and  the  latter  being  in  transition  towards  further 

development.  In  a  number  of the  convergence  regions, the ESF  is  responsible  for  the 

major  part  of  the  investments  in  active  labour  market  policies  or  even  in  social 

policies in general. In many of the  competitiveness regions, ESF only contributes to a 

small percentage of the total active labour market policies. In these countries budgets 

are  often  concentrated  on  a  limited  number  of  priority  themes  that  have  high 

Community Added Value and/or have innovative power.  

1.2 

Ex-post evaluation and public consultation 

Ex-post evaluation 

The  Commission  is  responsible  for  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  ESF.  The  General 

Regulation  (Art.  49.3)  states  that  the  Commission  shall  carry  out  an  ex-post 

evaluation  for  each  objective  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and 

managing  authorities.  The  ex-post  evaluation  shall  cover  all  the  operational 

  13 
  13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes  under  each  objective  and  examine  the  extent  to  which  resources  were 

used,  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  fund  programming  and  the  socio-economic 

impact. It  will  be carried out  for  each  of  the  objectives and aims  to  draw  conclusions 

for  the  policy  on  economic  and  social  cohesion.  It  will  also  identify  the  factors 

contributing  to  the  success  or 

failure  of  the 

implementation  of  operational 

programmes, and identify good practice.  

Part of the ex-post evaluation is an open public consultation. To fulfil this requirement 

the  Commission  issued  a  12-week  internet-based  public  consultation  during  the  first 

quarter  of  2016.  In  this  report,  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  have  been 

analysed and summarised. 

Public consultation 
The  public  consultation  started  on  3  February  2016  and  ran  until  27  April  20163.  EC 
undertook  steps  to  promote  consultation  on  the  websites  and  social  media  managed 

by it. The following channels were used: 

 

Your voice in Europe website 

  Website of the DG EMPL 

  Website of ESF fund 

 

Twitter  (repeated  messages  at  the  launch  and  continued  reminders  by  various 

accounts including Commissioner of DG EMPL) 

 

Yammer (RegioNetwork) 

Information was presented during the meetings of: 

 

 

Employment Committee (EMCO) and Social Protection Committees (SPC)              

ESF evaluation partnership 

The  attendants  of  the  meetings  were  encouraged  to  share  this  information  with  their 

stakeholders. 

Furthermore,  the  Informal  Network  of  ESF  Information  Officers  (INIO)  was  contacted 

with  a  request  to  disseminate  information  on  the  consultation.   And  finally,  various 

Managing  Authorities  were  contacted  by  the  Geographical  units  of  the  DG  EMPL 

and  encouraged to share information on their Websites and Social Media networks. 

The questionnaire consisted of at most, 20 questions, depending on the route followed 

through  the  questionnaire  and  the  number  of  follow-ups  or  sub-questions.  Most  of 

these  questions  were  closed  questions,  with  four  open  questions.  The  consultation 

contained  both  questions  about  the  respondent’s  characteristics  and  their  opinions 

about  the  ESF  2007-2013  programme.  The  questionnaire  was  available  in  three 

languages:  English,  French  and  German.  Respondents  were  allowed  to  answer  the 

open questions in their own language. 

The following background characteristics of the respondents were collected and can be 
used to differentiate between different stakeholder groups 4: 
Response as an individual citizen or on behalf of an organisation 

 

If organisation: type of organisation, 

  Country of origin, 

  Role  in  the  ESF  2007-2013  programming  period  (individual  participant  or 

organisation  receiving  ESF-support,  project  promotor,  managing/certifying/audit 

authority/coordinating body, social member/partner of the monitoring committee), 

3 The questionnaire can be found in the appendix. 
4 Differentiation is only possible if the response is sufficient to distinguish between representative samples. 

  14 

 
 
 
 
 
                 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Member State(s) to which the answers relate. 

The  topics  addressed  in  the  questionnaire  can  be  categorised  along  five  evaluation 

criteria: 

Relevance 

 

 

The challenges addressed by the ESF (closed question). 

The  extent to  which the  ESF  helped  in  mitigating  the  effects  of the  economic and 

financial crisis (closed). 

Effectiveness 

 

The  extent  to  which  the  ESF  contributed  in  strengthening  economic  and  social 

cohesion and in mitigating the effects of the economic an d financial crisis (closed). 

  Results  of  the  ESF  for  individual  participants  and  organisations  ( two  closed 

questions and two open questions to add additional effects). 

Efficiency 

 

The cost-effectiveness of the ESF (closed). 

  Opinions about administrative requirements (closed). 

Coherence 

 

The  extent  to  which  ESF  programmes  were  complementary  to  other  EU  funds 

(closed). 

EU added value 

 

 

 

The support to specific target groups (closed). 

The  extent  to  which  ESF  allowed  to  test  and  implement  innovative  activities  

(closed question with an open question to elaborate upon innovations ). 

The extent to which ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms  (closed 

question with an open question to elaborate upon the reforms ). 

1.3 

Analysing and summarising the public consultation  

In  this  report,  Panteia  and  Metis  have  analysed  and  summarised  the  results  of  the 

public  consultation.  The  data  was  made  available  to  the  researchers  by  the  European 

Commission.  Panteia  prepared  the  dataset  and  extracted  both  quantitative  and 

qualitative  information  from  it  (please  refer  to  Chapter  2  for  methodological 

explanations).  This  information  has  been  illustrated  by  graphs  (Chapters  3-7).  The 

findings are analysed in Chapter 8, in which also some conclusions are drawn. 

  15 
  15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  Data analysis methodology 

2.1 

Preparation of dataset  

Before  starting  the  analytical  work,  a  number  of  important  preparatory  steps  were 

taken.  The  database  was  checked  and  prepared  for  analysis,  which  consisted  of 

recoding  variables,  creating  classifications  for  answers  received,  etc.  Furthermore, 

incomplete  or  inconsistent  cases  were  marked  and  (if  necessary)  filtered  out. 

Incomplete  submissions  were  omitted  if  the  respondent  answered  less  than  75%  of 

the  questions.  The  cut-off  point  of  75%  is  somewhat  arbitrary,  but  was  chosen  to 

allow  for  most  of  the  respondents  to  be  included  in  the  analysis.  The  questionnaire 

design  allowed  respondents  to  refrain  from  answering  questions.  It  can  be  assumed 

for the most part that respondents did not answer when they were unsure about their 

answer, and instead of selecting the option ‘do not know/not applicable’, opted not to 

answer anything at all. About  one third of all replies  contained such missing answers. 

Instead of omitting all of these records, a cut-off point was determined at 75%. 

The  choice  for  a  non-obligatory  general  survey  through  an  online  tool  could  lead  to 

opinion  biases,  as  there  is  no  control  over  who  responds  to  the  survey  and  why  they 

choose  to  do  so.  People who  choose  to  fill  out  the  questionnaire  might have  stronger 

opinions  than those who  do not. Therefore, they  may  feel a  stronger  need  to  express 

their  opinion.  This  could  be  because  they  have  either  a  very  positive  or  a  very 

negative opinion. Moreover, it is not possible to identify who could have responded to 

the  questionnaire,  but  chose  not  to.  Even  though  it  is  not  possible  to  prevent  this 

possible opinion bias, it is necessary to take this possibility into account and to realise 

that a public consultation, such as this one, cannot be 100% representative.   

2.2 

Response 

In total 285 respondents submitted a questionnaire. Out of these 285 submissions, 29 

were omitted because: 

 

 

The  respondent  indicated  his  or  her  answers  could  not  be  used  for  analysis  and 

publication (10 cases). 
The respondent answered less than 75% of the questions (17 cases)5. 

  Respondents filled out the questionnaire twice (2 cases, in both cases  respondents 

filled out the questionnaire partially, closed it and started over later). 

Member States 

After  the  preparation  of  the  data,  the  number  of  questionnaires  completed,  at  least 

75%  or  more,  was  256.  These  respondents  were  from  22  different  countries  (figure 

1).  Countries  with  the  most  respondents  were  Italy  (82),  Spain  (31),  Germany  (25), 

Czech Republic (17) Latvia (14), and Poland (13).  

The respondents could have been involved in ESF projects in other Member States , for 

example  because  they  were  involved  in  several  ESF  projects.  Therefore,  the 

respondents  were  also  asked  to  indicate  which  Member  States  their  answers  referred 

to.  The  answers  referred  mostly  to  their  country  of  origin  (figure 1).  Therefore  the 

distribution  across  the  countries  is  similar  to  the  country  of  origin  of  the  respondent. 

5 The number of responses by these 17 varied between 1 and 16 responses to each individual question. Based 
on the reading of these questionnaires there are no important differences between the 17 and the current sam-
ple. Therefore  it is very unlikely that the respondents not taken into account for the analysis would have an 
effect on the overall results.  

  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  largest  number  of  respondents  answered  their  questions  for  Italy  (85),  followed 

by Spain (33), Germany (25), the Czech Republic (19), Poland (15) and Latvia (14). 

figure 1 

Respondents: country of residence and country/countries to which answers refer 

Italy

Spain

Germany

Czech Republic

Latvia

Poland

UK

France

Bulgaria

Luxembourg

Sweden

Portugal

Austria

Lithuania

Greece

Croatia

Belgium

Finland

Denmark

Romania

Netherlands

Malta

Ireland

Hungary

Country to which answers relate

Origin of respondent

84

82

33

31

25
25

19

17

14
14

15

13

10
10

9

7

7
7

7

5

6

6

6

4
4

4

4

4
3

3

3
3

3
3

2
2

2

0

1
1

1
1

2
1

1
0

1
0

The entire EU

9

Unknown/no answer

3

14

  17 
  17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Member  States  to  which  the  answers  refer  are  by  no  means  evenly  distributed. 

Over  half  (52%)  of  the  responses  concern  three  countries:  Italy  (31%),  Spain  (12%) 

and Germany (9%), whereas 44%of the answers refer to twenty other  Member States 

and  3%  to  the  entire  EU.  There  is  no  clear  explanation  as  to  why  the  response  was 

relatively  high  in  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany.  This  may  partially  be  due  to  the  number 

of ESF projects in these countries or the efforts by project managers in promoting the 

questionnaire. 

In any case, when interpreting the results of the questionnaire, it has to be noted that 

the  results  might  not  be  representative  for  all  EU  Member  States.  And  that  Italy, 

Spain  and  Germany,  in  which  there  are  both  competitiveness  and  convergence 

regions,  are  dominant  in  the  response.  In  order  to  have  a  more  detailed  view  of  the 

answers of these three countries, and to see what the effects of these respondents on 

the  total  response  are,  the  results  for  these  three countries  are  displayed  in detail  in 

appendix 3. 

Although for most respondents, the answers referred to their own country, there were 

a  few  exceptions.  Seven  respondents  indicated  their  answers  concerned  two  or  more 

countries  (table  1).  In  two  cases  this  was  for  as  many  as  six  countries.  Additionally, 

nine  respondents  indicated  their  answers  concerned  the  entire  EU.   Finally,  three 

answers refer to an unknown country. 

table 1 

Country of origin versus country/countries to which the answers refer 

Situation 

Number of cases 

Answers refer to a single country  

Of which:  

          Country of origin

          Unknown country of origin

Answers refer to more than one 
country 

Of which:  

          2 countries

          3 countries

          4 countries

          5 countries

          6 countries

Answers refer to the entire EU 

Answers refer to unknown country 

Total 

237 

222 

14 

7 

1 

3 

1 

0 

2 

9 

3 

256 

The  respondents  were  not  asked  to  indicate  whether  their  answers  referred  to 

convergence  or  competitiveness  regions.  Based  on  the  countries  to  which  their 

answers  (253) referred, the following division can be made: 

 

 

respondents 

(9%)  answered  questions 

23 
competitiveness regions (i.e. at most one convergence or phasing-out region)6. 
64 
convergence regions (i.e. at most one competitiveness or phasing-in region)7.  

respondents  (25%)  answered  questions 

for  countries  with 

for  countries  with  (mainly) 

(mainly) 

6 Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Sweden. 
7 Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania. 

  18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                 
 

respondents 

166 
competitiveness and convergence regions 8. 

(65%)  answered  questions 

for 

countries  with  both 

Although, no conclusive data is available, it is very likely that in the cases of countries 

with  both  competitiveness  and  convergence  regions,  the  majority  of  the  respondents 

were involved in programmes in convergence regions. This assumption is based on the 

fact that the ESF is responsible for the major part of the investments in active labour 

market  policies  in  convergence  regions,  whereas,  the  ESF  only  plays  a  minor  part  in 

these policies in competitiveness regions. 

Organisations and individual citizens 

The  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  they  answered  on  behalf  of  an 

organisation  or  as an  individual  citizen.  Respondents  that  chose  the  latter option,  did 

not  necessarily  all  receive  ESF-support.  Some  respondents  were  part  of  an 

organisation,  but  chose  not  to  answer  on  behalf  of  that  organisation.  In  the  sample,  

about  one  third  answered  as  an  individual  citizen  (87  respondents),  and  two-thirds 

answered on behalf of their organisation (168 respondents). Of the latter group, state 

institutions  were  the  largest  subgroup  (table  2).  One  respondent  did  not  indicate 

whether he/she answered as an individual citizen or on behalf of an organisation.  

table 2 

Respondent: individual citizens versus organisations 

Respondent is  

An individual citizen  

Acting on behalf of an organisation 

  State institution (such as Ministry, Agency, Regional /Local administration)  

NGO 

Other public organisation (such as research institute) 

Commercial Organisation/ company 

Trade union, Business association or federation thereof 

Other organisations (not specified) 

No answer 

Total  

Roles in ESF 

Abs.   % 

87  34% 

168  66% 

  22% 

  11% 

  10% 

9% 

9% 

5% 

1 

 256 

56 

28 

25 

23 

23 

13 

The respondents were asked to indicate their role in the ESF 2007-2013 programming 

period  (figure  2).  Because  the  roles  in  the  ESF  were  not  mutually  exclusive, 

31 respondents indicated they had more than one role in the ESF. The combinations of 

roles  varied.  Most  of  them  had  received  ESF-support,  either  as  an  organisation 

(114 respondents,  or  45%)  or  as  an  individual  participant  (32  respondents  or  13%). 

Other  major  subgroups  within  the  response  were  project  managing,  certifying  or 

auditing  authorities,  intermediate  or  coordinating  bodies  for  ESF  (21%),  and 

promoters  delivering  ESF  support  (20%).  In  some  cases,  respondents  were  both 

organisations  and  individuals  receiving  ESF-support,  as  well  as  acting  as  project 

promotor, managing, certifying or auditing authority,  intermediate  body,  coordinating 

body or social partner. 

8  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Spain,  UK,  Entire  UK.  Among  these  166  respondents  are  also  respondents  who  an-
swered  the  questions  for  more  than  one  country,  among  which  also  combinations  of  countries  consisting  of 
competitiveness or convergence regions. 

  19 
  19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
When  zooming  in  on  the  different  combinations  of  roles,  it  can  be  seen  that   114 

respondents  only  received  ESF-support,  either  as  an  individual  and/or  organisation 

(some  indicated  they  received  support  both  as  an  organisation  and  as  an  individual), 

93  were  only  involved  in  delivering  or  coordinating  ESF  support.  26  respondents  had 

both received ESF support  (as an individual and/or organisation) and played a part in 

promoting,  delivering,  managing  or  coordinating  ESF  support  and/or  as  a  social 
partner9. 

figure 2 

Respondents: Role in ESF 2007-2013 programming period (multiple answers possible) 

Individual participant receiving ESF support (32)

13%

Organisation receiving ESF support (114)

45%

Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority,
Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU funds
(54)

Project promoter delivering ESF support to
individual participants or organisations (51)

Social partner or other member of the Monitoring
Committee (24)

None of the above/no answer (23)

21%

20%

9%

9%

When  the  types  of  respondents  are  compared  to  their  roles  in  the  ESF  (table  3),  it 

appears that the respondents who filled in the questionnaire as individual citizens are 

not  only  individuals  receiving  ESF  support  (23  respondents),  but  are  also  part  of 

organisations  receiving  ESF  support  (25),  project  promotors  (25),  or  managing, 

certifying  or  auditing  authorities,  intermediate  or  coordinating  bodies  (24).  Over  half 

of  the  respondents  who  replied  on  behalf  of  their  organisations,  were  organisations 

receiving  ESF  support  (98  out  of  176  organisations).  Amongst  the  respondents 

answering on behalf of their  organisations there were also 30 managing, certifying or 

auditing  authorities,  intermediate  or  coordinating  bodies,  26  project  promoters,  and 

23 social partners. 

table 3 

Role in ESF versus type of respondent  

Individual participant receiving ESF support 

Organisation receiving ESF support 
Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, 
Coordinating body for EU funds 
Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual 
participants or organisations 

Individual 
citizen 

On behalf of 
organisation 

23 

25 

24 

25 

9 

89 

30 

26 

Total 

32 

114 

54 

51 

Social partner or other member of the Monitoring Committee 
NB: Because the individual citizens and the organisations could have multiple roles in the ESF, the total 
number of respondents listed in the table is more than the total response of 256 

24 

23 

1 

9 An overview of the combination of roles is provided in appendix 2. 

  20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Policy areas 

Six of the ten questions in the questionnaire are statements directly linked to the five 

major policy areas of the ESF: 

  Human Capital,  

  Access to Employment, 

  Social Inclusion, 

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity, 

 

Promoting Partnerships. 

However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  not  all  respondents  were  involved  in  all  five  of 

these  policy  fields.  On  average,  they  were  involved  in  two  of  these  themes,  mostly 

Human Capital  (57%) and  Access  to  Employment  (54%),  followed  by  Social Inclusion 

(46%).  Substantially  less  respondents  have  direct  first-hand  knowledge  of  the  policy 

areas  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  (21%)  and  Promoting  Partnerships  (17%) . 

This  appears  to  be  in  line  with the  level of  funding  for  each theme. Less funding  was 

awarded to the latter two themes, compared to the first three. 

figure 3 

Respondents: Themes in which they were involved (multiple answers possible) 

Human capital (147)

Access to employment (137)

57%

54%

Social inclusion (117)

46%

Institutional capacity (54)

21%

Promoting partnerships (44)

17%

None (6)

2%

n=256, including ‘do not know/no answer’ 

In the questionnaire, the respondents could either indicate that they did not know how 

to  respond  to  a  statement  (‘do  not  know/does  not  apply’),  or  they  could  leave  the 

question ‘blank’ by not checking any of the proposed answers. It can be assumed that 

most  answers  that  were  left  blank  are  due  to  the  fact  that  the  respondent  did  not 

know what to reply and chose not to check any answer, instead of selecting the option 

‘do not know/does not apply’. 

Therefore,  it  was  decided  that  non-response  to  a  question  would  be  added  to  the 

category  ‘do  not  know/does  not  apply’  to  create  one  category  ‘do  not  know/no 

answer’. As a result, the total number for all statements is 256. 

  21 
  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3  Qualitative analysis (open questions) 

The  questionnaire  contained  four  open  questions.  There  was  no  obligation  to  answer 

these  questions.  53  respondents  answered  one  or  more  open  questions.  Not  all 

answers were on the topic of the question. Some respondents used the  open questions 

to comment on the ESF in general. This was negative feedback  in all cases.  

In  the  open  questions,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  (number  of  responses 

between brackets): 

 

Effects  of  the  ESF  for  individuals  (besides  the  effects  already  listed  in  the 

accompanying  closed  question)  (23  responses,  of  which  3  were  about  the  ESF  in 

general). 

 

 

 

Effects  of  the  ESF  for  organisations  (besides  the  effects  already  listed  in  the 

accompanying closed question) (21 responses, of which 7 about ESF in general). 

Examples  of  innovative  activities  supported  by  ESF  (27  responses,  of  which  2 

about ESF in general). 

Examples of structural reforms supported by ESF (18 responses, of which 3 about 

ESF in general). 

The  open  questions  were  answered  by  at  most  27  respondents  per  question. 

Therefore,  it  was  not  necessary  to  use  software  to  recode  the  answers.  A  qualitat ive 

analysis was made of the four open questions by reading and assessing the content.  

All answers to the open questions are provided in appendix 4. 

2.4  Quantitative analysis (closed questions)  

The analysis of the closed questions was done by making frequency tables for the total 

results  and  making  cross  tables,  to  check  for  differences  between  the  following 

groups: 

  Respondents  who  replied  on  behalf  of  an  organisation  or  as  an  individual 

citizen. 

  Respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  versus  respondents  who  were 

involved  in  distributing,  managing,  coordinating  ESF  support  and/or  as  a 

social  partner.  In  this  analysis,  the  respondents  who  had  both  received  ESF 

support  and  were  involved  in  delivering,  managing  and  coordinating  (and 

therefore belonged to both groups), were included in both groups. 

  Respondents from different  Member States were not all analysed individually, as 

the  response  for  most  states  was  limited.  The  three  Member  States  that  received 

the  highest  number  of  respondents,  Italy,  Germany  and  Spain,  were  analysed 

separately.  These are  three  countries with  both  competitiveness and  convergence 

regions.  Most  other  Member  States  were  grouped  into  two  categories:  countries 

with  (almost)  exclusively  competitiveness  regions  and  countries  with  (almost) 

exclusively  convergence  regions  (as  explained  in  section  1.1).  On  both 

accounts, ‘almost exclusively’ means that  there was one region in the country that 
was not a competitiveness or convergence region10. 

A  Pearson’s  chi-square  analysis  was  used  to  analyse  whether  there  are  significant 

differences  between  the  relevant  subgroups.  This  method  enables  the  comparison  of 

categorical  data  (not  related  to  a  numerical  scale),  and  can  be  used  to  determine 

whether  differences  between  groups  are  significantly  different  from  what  would  be 

10 Other countries with both competitiveness and convergence regions, besides Italy, Germany and Spain were 
not analysed separately. This concerned 24 respondents. 

  22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
expected  given  the  distribution  in  the  total  population.  When  the  term  ‘significant’  or 
‘statistically  significant’  is  used,  it  refers  to  the  p≤  0.05  significance  threshold11.  In 
statistics, a result is called significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.  

For  the analysis,  the  number of  responses  for some  of the  subgroups  was  insufficient 

to determine whether all differences of opinion were significant.  In this report we will 

only  mention  those  differences  that  were  significant  either  at  the  p≤0.05  or  the 

p≤0.10 threshold. 

For  the  differentiation  between  respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  versus 

respondents  who  were  involved  in  distributing,  managing,  coordinating  ESF  support 

and/or  as  a  social  partner,  no  test  for  significance  could  be  made,  as  there  was  a 

group  that  had  both  received  and  delivered  ESF  support  that  was  added  to  both 

groups.  The  significance  of  the  differences  between  the  respondents  receiving  and 

delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support  was  tested  by  omitting  the  group  that 

had both received and delivered ESF support from the test. 

2.5 

Interpreting the results 

In  the  chapters  3-7  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  are  presented  in  detail. 

These chapters each discuss one of the following five evaluation criteria: 

  Relevance, 

  Effectiveness, 

  Efficiency, 

  Coherence, 

  EU added value. 

The  different  topics  addressed  in  the  questionnaire  are  illustrated  with  graphs.  Each 

section starts with a description of the overall results, followed by a description of th e 

differences between the following subgroups:  

  Respondents who replied as individual citizens versus respondents who replied on 

behalf of an organisation. 

  Respondents  who  had  received  ESF-support,  either  as  an  individual  or  as  an 

organisation,  versus 

respondents  who  had  been 

involved 

in  delivering, 

coordinating or managing ESF support and social partners. 

  Respondents from  countries  consisting of  competitiveness  or  convergence  regions 

and  the  group  ‘multi-objective’.  The  latter  indicates  that  the  respondent  either 

answered  the  questions  about  a  country  consisting  of  both  competitiveness  and 

convergence  regions,  or  that  the  respondent  answered  for  a  combination  of 

countries, among which both countries with competitiveness regions and countries 

with convergence regions. 

Unless  indicated  otherwise,  all  differences  between  the  subgroups  mentioned  in  the 

text are significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

11 In some cases we will also mention results that are significant on the p≤ 0.10 threshold. 

  23 
  23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3  Relevance 

3.1 

ESF addresses key challenges 

The  first  statement  to  test  the  perceived  relevance  of  the  ESF,  was  about  the  key 

challenges  addressed  by  the  ESF.  The  respondents  were  asked  to  respond  to  the 

following statement:  

During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  ESF  programmes  were  designed  to 

address key challenges in the areas of:  

  Human Capital;  

  Access to Employment;  

  Social Inclusion;  

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity and  

  Promoting Partnerships.  

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point  scale,  containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’  (these  two  categories 

are  combined  in the  explanation),  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’ and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’ (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  chose  not  to  answer  the  question  at  all.  For  the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. A background document was provided 

to the respondents for more detailed descriptions of the five policy areas. 

Total results 

For  three  of  the  five  policy  areas,  most  respondents  agreed  with  the  statement  that 

the ESF addressed key issues (figure 4): 

  For Human Capital, 78% agreed and 5% disagreed; 

  For Access to Employment 79% agreed and 5% disagreed; 

  For Social Inclusion 81% agreed and 4% disagreed; 

  For Strengthening Institutional Capacity 43% agreed and 10% disagreed; 

  For Promoting Partnerships, 47% agreed and 9% disagreed. 

Although,  the  policy  areas  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting 

Partnerships  were  less  recognised  by  the  respondents,  this  does  not  mean  that  the 

majority disagreed with the statement that key issues were addressed by the ESF. In 

comparison  to  the  other  three  areas,  a  relatively  large  group  of  respondents  were 

neutral or did not know what to answer: for Strengthening Institutional Capacity, 29% 

of  the  respondents  answered  ‘neutral’  and  18%  did  not  provide  an  answer  at  all.  For 

Promoting  Partnerships,  28%  of  the  respondents  answered  ‘neutral’  and  16%  did  not 

answer the question. 

The  activities  in  the  policy  fields  of  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment  and  Social 

Inclusion  were  also  the  areas  in  which  most  of  the  respondents  were  involved.  This 

might  explain  why  more  respondents  agreed  with  the  statements,  rather  than 

answering ‘neutral’ or not providing an answer.  

Organisations versus individuals 

In  comparison  to  the  total  results,  there  were  only  minor  differences  when 

differentiating  between  respondents  who  replied  on  behalf  of  an  organisation  versus 

those  who  replied  as  an  individual  citizen  (figure  5).  The  only  statistically  significant 

  25 
  25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
difference  was  with  regard  to  Access  to  Employment:  organisations  agreed  to  a 

greater  degree  (83%  agreed,  1%  disagreed)  than  individual  citizens  that  key  issues 

were addressed in this area (71% agreed, 14% disagreed). At first glance, there also 

appears  to  be  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  area  of  Strengthening  Institutional 

Capacity. However this difference was not statistically significant.  

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

Compared  to  the  overall  results  for  the  question  whether  ESF  programmes  were 

designed  to  address  key  issues  in  the  five  policy  areas,  there  were  mostly  minor, 

insignificant  differences  between  the  respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  and 

those  who  had  delivered,  managed  or  coordinated  ESF  support  or  had  acted  as  a 

social partner (figure 5). 

The  only  significant  difference  was  in  the  area  of  Access  to  Employment.  The 

respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  were  less  inclined  to  agree  with  the 

statement:  75%  of  this  group  agreed,  versus  87%  of  the  respondents  involved  in 

delivering  and  managing  ESF  support.  This  difference  is  mostly  due  to  the  fact  that 

the  group  receiving  ESF  support  answered  ‘neutral’  more  often  (11%  versus  3%)  or 

did not answer the question at all (10% versus 4%).  

The  percentages  of  respondents  who  disagreed  with  the  statement  that  the  ESF 

programmes  were  designed  to  address  key  challenges  in  the  area  of  Access  to 

Employment  were  comparable  between  the  two  groups:  5%  of  the  respondents  who 

had 

received  ESF 

support  disagreed  versus  6%  of 

those 

involved 

in 

delivering/coordinating/managing ESF support and social partners.  

Differences between Member States 

Statistically,  there  were  no  significant  differences  between  the  three  groups  of 

Member  States.  When  zooming  in  on  the  two  homogenous  groups  of  competitiveness 

versus  convergence,  there  was  a  noticeable  difference  in  the  area  of  Strengthening 

Institutional  Capacity  that  was  significant  at  the  p≤0.10  threshold.  Over  70%  of  the 

respondents  from  competitiveness  regions  could  not  agree  or  disagree  with  the 

statement  that  the  ESF  programmes  were  designed  to  address  key  challenges  in  the 

area  of  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  (figure  6).  43%  answered  neutral  and 

26%  could  not  provide  an  answer at all.  Of  the  remaining  29%, 21% agreed  and  8% 

disagreed.  The  opinions  of  the  respondents  from  convergence  regions  regarding  the 

statement  about  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  were  as  follows:  54%  agreed, 

20% was neutral and 11% disagreed. 

Within  the  heterogeneous  group  of  multi-objective  Member  States,  there  were  a 

number  of  significant  differences.  Most  visibly  between  respondents  from  the  three 

largest  subgroups:  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain  (see  appendix  3  for  details).  Overall, 

Italian  respondents  are  generally  positive  about  the  extent  to  which  the  ESF 

programmes were designed to address key issues in the five policy areas: over 50% of 

the  Italian  respondents  answered  positively  for  all  five  areas.  Over  50%  of  German 

and  Spanish  respondents  are  also  positive  about  Human  Capital,  Access  to 

Employment  and  social  inclusion.  For  Access  to  Employment  they  are  even 

significantly  more  positive  that  the  Italians.  They  are,  however,  significantly  less 

positive  about  the  extent  to  which  the  ESF  addressed  key  issues  in  the  areas  of 

Strengthening  Promoting  Partnerships  and  Institutional  Capacity.  The  number  of 

Germans  that  disagree  about  the  extent  to  which  key  issues  were  addressed  in  the 

latter area was the same as the number of respondents that disagree.  

  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 4 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were designed to address key 
challenges in the area of: (responses by total, organisation and individual) 

I strongly agree

I agree Neutral

I disagree I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Human Capital

Access to employment

37

35

41

44

11

3

2

6

8

2

3

8

Social inclusion

29

52

10

2

2

5

Institutional capacity

11

32

29

7

3

18

Promoting partnerships

11

36

28

7

2

16

Human Capital

Access to employment*

39

38

41

45

11

1
1

8

7

0
1

10

Social inclusion

31

53

7

1
1

7

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

8

9

33

29

6

2

22

40

24

7

1

20

Human Capital

34

41

10

6

5

3

Access to employment*

30

Social inclusion

25

41

48

10

5

9

5

15

3

6

2

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

16

16

32

29

30

34

8

5

9

8

3

9

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

  27 
  27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 5 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were designed to address key 
challenges in the area of: (responses by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree I agree Neutral

I disagree I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

Access to employment

37

35

41

44

11

3

2

6

8

2

3

8

Social inclusion

29

52

10

2

2

5

Institutional capacity

11

32

29

7

3

18

Promoting partnerships

11

36

28

7

2

16

Human Capital

44

37

9

1

2

7

Access to employment*

Social inclusion

Institutional capacity

15

Promoting partnerships

14

Human Capital

Access to employment*

36

34

34

37

39

11

1

4

10

48

8

2

2

6

31

33

27

4

2

20

29

4

2

17

44

11

5

0

6

50

3

4

2

4

Social inclusion

25

52

13

3

2

6

Institutional capacity

8

34

30

8

3

18

Promoting partnerships

9

37

28

8

1

18

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

l

i

a
i
c
o
s
&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 6 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were designed to address key 
challenges in the area of (responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence): 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Human Capital

40

39

11

2

2

6

Access to employment

34

Social inclusion

28

44

56

10

2

2

8

8

2

2

4

Institutional capacity

10

33

30

7

2

17

Promoting partnerships

12

37

28

5

2

16

Human Capital

22

57

13

0

4

4

Access to employment

61

35

0
0

4

0

Social inclusion

43

48

4

0

4

0

Institutional capacity

4

17

43

4

4

26

Promoting partnerships

13

43

22

9

0

13

Human Capital

36

42

8

5

2

8

Access to employment

Social inclusion

28

27

45

8

3

6

9

41

16

3

3

11

Institutional capacity

16

38

20

6

5

16

Promoting partnerships

9

28

30

13

2

19

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant  at p≤0.10 

  29 
  29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2 

Economic and financial crisis 

During  the  2007-2013  period  of  the  ESF  programme,  the  European  economy  was 

faced  with  an  economic  and  financial  crisis  that  influenced  most  organisations  and 

many  citizens  in  one  way  or  another.  Therefore,  the  second  statement  about  the 

relevance  of  the  ESF  addressed  the  economic  and  financial  crisis.  Respondents  were 

asked to respond to the following statement: 

The ESF helped to mitigate the effects of the economic and financial crisis . 

Respondents could indicate their answer on a five-point scale, containing the answers 

‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’  (these  two  categories  are  combined  in  the  explanation), 

‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’  and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’  (the  latter  two  are  combined  in  the 

explanation).  Respondents  could  also  choose  the  option  ‘do  not  know/not  applicable’ 

or  chose  not  to  answer  the  question  at  all.  For  the  analysis,  the  latter  two  options 

were combined. 

The  potentially  mitigating  effect  of  the  ESF  on  the  crisis  was  acknowledged  by  all  of 

the  groups  of  respondents  (figure  7).  In  total,  about  two-thirds  of  the  respondents 

agreed with the statement that the ESF helped to mitigate the effects of the economic 

and financial crisis (67%). Only 13% did not agree with this statement.  

Within  the  subgroup,  there  was  only  a  significant  difference  between  organisations 

and  individuals.  This  percentage  of  individuals  that  did  not  agree  with  the  statement 

about  the  mitigating  effects  was  almost  three  times  higher  than  the  percentage  of 

organisations:  23  versus  8%.  There  were  no  significant  differences  between  the 

different groups of Member States, but within the group of ‘multi-objective’ there were 

some  differences between  the three countries  with most  respondents.  Italians  agreed 

to  a  greater  extent  than  Germans  and  Spaniards:  69%  (of  which  23%  strongly 

agreed), versus 60% and 61%. The Germans and Spaniards also disagreed more than 

the Italians: 20% and 21% versus 12% of Italians.  

  30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 7 

The ESF helped to mitigate the effects of the economic and financial crisis 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Total (n=256)

15

52

17

9

4

2

Organisation (n=168)*

15

57

17

7

0
1

Individual (n=87)*

15

44

17

13

10

0

Receiving (n=140)

15

Delivering/coordinating/managi
ng and social partners (n=119)

18

53

52

16

10

4

2

18

5

5

2

Multi-objective (n=166)

15

51

19

10

4

2

Competitiveness (n=23)

23

46

18

7

5

1

Convergence (n=64)

6

55

18

18

3

0

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  31 
  31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4  Effectiveness 

4.1 

Economic and social cohesion 

The first statement that tested the perceived effectiveness of the ESF addressed the 

effects of ESF interventions on the economic and social cohesion, by posing the 

following statement to the respondents: 

During the 2007- 2013 period, ESF interventions contributed to strengthening 

economic and social cohesion in the following areas: 

  Human Capital;  

  Access to Employment; 

  Social Inclusion;  

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity and  

  Promoting Partnerships.  

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point  scale,  containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’  (these  two  categories 

are  combined  in the  explanation),  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’ and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’  (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  chose  not  to  answer  the  question  at  all.  For  the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. A background document was provided 

to the respondents for more detailed descriptions of the five policy areas. 

Total results 

Based  on  the  answers  to  the  statement  on  the  contribution  of  ESF  to  economic  and 

social  cohesion,  effectiveness  was  most  frequently  reported  in  the  policy  areas  of 

Human Capital, Access to Employment and Social Inclusion (figure 8): 

 

 

 

 

 

For Human Capital 72% agreed, 6% disagreed; 

For Access to Employment 68% agreed, 8% disagreed; 

For Social Inclusion 69% agreed, 8% disagreed; 

For Strengthening Institutional Capacity 35% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

For Promoting Partnerships, 44% agreed, 9% disagreed. 

A fairly large number of respondents, answered ‘neutral’ to the statement that the ESF 

contributed  to  strengthening  the  economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the  areas  of 

Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting  Partnerships.  The  ‘neutral’  

category  was selected  by 37% and 34%. This means that, although there was not an 

absolute  majority  that  agreed  with  the  statement,  the  number  of  respondents  that 

agreed  was  larger  than  the  number  of  respondents  that  disagreed.  This  led  to  an 

overall positive view of the effects of the ESF on the economic and social cohesion.  

Organisations and individuals 

With  regard  to  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment  and  Social  Inclusion, 

organisations were significantly more positive about the contribution of the ESF to the 

economic  and  social  cohesion  than  the  individual  citizens.  Of  the  organisations,  73% 

(for  Access  to  Employment  and  Social  Cohesion)  to  75%  (for  H uman  Capital)  agreed 

with  the  statement  that  the  ESF  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and  social 

cohesion,  versus  58%  (for  Access  to  Employment)  to  63%  (for  Human  Capital)  of 

individual citizens. 

  32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not only were individual citizens less positive, they disagreed more with the statement 

that  the  ESF  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and  social  cohesion.   Of  the 

organisations  1%,  4%  and  6%  disagreed  that  ESF  contributed  to  strengthening 

economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the  areas  of  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment 

and  social  inclusion.  Of  the  individual  citizens,  however,  15%,  16%  and  14% 

disagreed. 

The  difference  in  opinion  between  organisations  and  individual  citizens  in  the  area  of 

Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  was  significant  at  the  p≤0.10  threshold.  The 

major  difference  in  opinion  was  specifically  that  organisations  were  more  inclined  to 

refrain from answering: 23% did not provide an answer, compared to 7% of individual 

citizens. Instead, individuals were more inclined to both agree (39% ve rsus 32%) and 

disagree  (19%  versus  8%)  that  the  ESF  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and 

social cohesion in the area of Strengthening Institutional Capacity.  

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

Compared  to  the  overall  results,  there  were  only  minor  differences  between 

individuals  and  organisations  receiving  support  versus  the  respondents  involved  in 

delivering,  managing  and  coordinating  ESF  support  (figure  8).  There  was  only  one 

significant  difference:  those  receiving  support  agreed  to  a  lesser  extent  that  the  ESF 

contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the  area  of  Access  to 

Employment.  65%  of  recipients  agreed  to  this  statement,  versus  74%  of  the  other 

group.  This  means  that,  although  the  recipients  agreed  to  a  lesser  extent,  still  an 

absolute majority agreed with the statement. 

Member States 

At 

first  sight, 

there  seem 

to  be  differences  between 

the  multi -objective, 

competitiveness  and  convergence  Member  States  (figure  10).  However,  these 

differences were not statistically significant.  

There  were,  on  the  other  hand,  significant  differences  between  the  three  Member 

States  with  the  most  responses:  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain.  The  opinions  of  the 

respondents  answering  for  Italy  were  most  in  line  with  the  overall  results.  German 

respondents  were  particularly  positive  about  the  contribution  of  the  ESF  to  economic 

and  social  cohesion  in  the  areas  of  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment  and 

Institutional  Capacity.  Respondents  answering  for  Germany  were  also  more  positive 

than  those  answering  for  Spain  (and  to  a  lesser  extent  those  answering  for  Italy) 

about the contributions of ESF in the area of Promoting Partnerships. Compared to the 

overall  average,  the  respondents  answering  on  ESF  interventions  in  Spain  were  less 

positive  about  the  contributions  of  the  ESF  to  the  economic  and  social  cohesion. 

Particularly  with  regards  to  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting 

Partnerships. 

  33 
  33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 8 

The ESF interventions contributed to strengthening economic and social cohesion in the following 
policy areas (total, organisation and individual) 

I strongly agree I agree Neutral

I disagree I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

20

52

18

4

2

6

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Access to employment

12

Social inclusion

16

56

53

18

5

3

6

18

5

3

4

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

6

6

29

37

8

3

18

38

34

7

2

14

Human Capital*

23

52

17

1
0

7

Access to employment*

13

Social inclusion*

15

60

58

15

4

0

8

14

5

1

7

Institutional capacity**

4

28

37

6

2

23

Promoting partnerships

5

38

34

5

0

17

Human Capital*

14

49

18

10

5

3

Access to employment*

10

Social inclusion*

16

48

43

22

8

8

3

28

6

8

0

Institutional capacity**

9

30

36

13

6

7

Promoting partnerships

8

38

32

9

5

8

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 9 

The ESF interventions contributed to strengthening economic and social cohesion in the following 
policy areas (by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

20

52

18

4

2

6

Access to employment

12

Social inclusion

16

56

53

18

5

3

6

18

5

3

4

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

6

6

29

37

8

3

18

38

34

7

2

14

Human Capital

22

48

19

3

2

6

Access to employment*

11

54

18

5

4

9

Social inclusion

18

50

19

5

4

4

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

5

5

31

34

7

4

19

39

32

6

2

15

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

Human Capital

17

Access to employment*

13

54

61

18

4

1

6

16

6

1

3

Social inclusion

14

51

20

8

2

5

Institutional capacity

6

28

38

8

3

18

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

Promoting partnerships

8

33

37

7

1

15

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  35 
  35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 10 

The ESF interventions contributed to strengthening economic and social cohesion in the following 
policy areas (responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Human Capital

19

56

17

3

2

4

Access to employment

11

57

20

4

1

7

Social inclusion

17

55

19

2

2

4

Institutional capacity

5

27

37

8

3

19

Promoting partnerships

7

39

33

7

2

14

Human Capital

9

43

26

4

4

13

Access to employment

22

65

4

4

4

0

Social inclusion

9

Institutional capacity

0

22

70

48

9

9

4

0

13

0

17

Promoting partnerships

4

35

52

4

0

4

Human Capital

25

42

17

5

2

9

Access to employment

11

52

17

8

6

6

Social inclusion

13

41

22

13

5

8

Institutional capacity

9

36

30

6

5

14

Promoting partnerships

6

34

31

8

2

19

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2 

Support to individuals 

The  effectiveness  of  the  support  to  individuals  was  tested  with  the  following 

statement: 

ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the following re sults: 

  Gaining employment, including self-employment; 

  Gaining a qualification; 

 

 

Improving working conditions of the employed in the labour market ; 

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and educators. 

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point scale, containing the answers ‘I strongly agree’, ‘I agree’ (these two categories 

are combined in the explanation), ‘Neutral’, ‘I disagree’ and ‘I strongly disagree’ (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do not know/not applicable’ or chose not to answer the question at all. For the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. 

Overall results 

The ESF aimed to support both individuals and organisations.  For individuals, it aimed 

to  promote  employment,  to  enable  individuals  to  gain  qualifications,  to  improve 

working  conditions  and  to  enhance  the  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and 

educators  (figure  11).  Out  of  these  four  goals,  most  respondents  particularly 

recognised  the  objective  towards  enabling  participants  to  gain  a  qualification.  The 

percentages of respondents that agreed, or disagreed were as follows: 

  Gaining a qualification: 77% agreed, 4% disagreed; 

  Gaining employment: 62% agreed, 10% disagreed;  

 

 

Enhancing the skills of teachers: 55% agreed, 9% disagreed; 

Improving working conditions: 45% agreed, 17% disagreed.  

This  means  that  for  all  of  the  objectives,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than 

disagreed  that  these  were  met,  and  for  only  one  objective,  less  than  half  of  the 

respondents agreed. 

Organisations versus individuals 

There were two significant differences of opinion between organisations and individual 

citizens.  Most  notable  was  that  30%  of  the  individuals  disagreed  that  ESF  improved 

working  conditions,  versus  only  11%  of  the  organisations.  Furthermore,  individuals 

also  disagreed  significantly  more  than  organisations  that  ESF  support  was  successful 

in  enabling  individuals  to gain  employment:  19%  of  individuals  disagreed,  versus  5% 

of  organisations.  The  latter  group  refrained  more  often  from  answering  than 

individuals (16% versus 5%). 

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

Respondents receiving ESF support agreed to a greater extent with the statement that 

ESF  led  to  improved  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and  educators  than  the 

respondents  involved  in  delivering/coordinating/managing  ESF   support  and  social 

partners:  56%  of  the  recipients  agreed,  versus  47%  of  the  other  group  (figure  12). 

The opposite was true for gaining employment. Of the recipients of ESF  support, 57% 

agreed  that  ESF  achieved  this,  versus  71%  of  respondents  delivering/coordinating/  

managing ESF support and social partners. 

  37 
  37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open question: Other results achieved (21 respondents) 

Other  results  that  were  achieved  directly,  or  indirectly,  through  the  ESF  programme 
were added by 21 respondents12:  
 

Improved education  was mentioned by 10 respondents13. This led to better labour 
market  positions  for  students:  they  were  better  prepared  and  had  more  skills, 

including  life-long  learning  opportunities,  which  helped  in  both  gaining  and 

maintaining  a  job  and  improving  the  income  situation.  Improved  education  also 

led  to  a  decrease  in  course  drop-out.  Furthermore  efforts  were  made  to  establish 

contacts between students and companies.  

  More 

cooperation  between  different 

stakeholders,  both  nationally  and 

internationally  and  Private  Public  Partnerships  (PPPs)  were  mentioned  by  four 
respondents14.  Know-how  was  shared,  and  on  an  international  level  a  better 
understanding of the different cultures within the EU was created.  
Five  respondents15  noted  the  benefits  created  for  specific  groups:  more  equality 

between men and women and new opportunities for ‘those in social exclusion’. 
Four  respondents16  indicated  more  general  benefits  of  the  ESF:  it  helped  to  start 
up projects and/or services  that  had  otherwise  been  financially  challenging  to get 

started,  increased  community  involvement,  and  it  increased  the  awareness  and 

 

 

use of the ESF. 

Member States 

There  were  significant  differences  between  the  three  types  of  Member  States  (figure 

13). Overall most of the results were most favourably judged in convergence regions.  

The  opinions  of  respondents  answering  for  countries  consisting  of  competitiveness 

regions  and  countries  with  convergence  regions  were  quite  similar.  Albeit  that  the 

respondents 

from  convergence  regions  were  a  bit  more  positive  about  the 

achievements.  Respondents  from  competitiveness  regions  were  significantly  less 

positive about whether ESF support to individuals was successful in aiding in gaining a 

qualification  and  improving  the  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and  educators. 

They were, however, more positive about the support in gaining a qualification. 

The  successes  of  the  ESF  were  judged  as  follows:  gaining  employment  was 

acknowledged most in competitiveness regions (69% agreed, 8% disagreed), followed 

by  respondents  from  convergence  regions  (61%  agreed,  9%  disagreed)  and  multi-

objective  regions  (63%  agreed,  12%  disagreed).  Gaining  a  qualification  was  most 

favourably  judged  by  convergence  regions  (82%  agreed,  7%  disagreed),  followed  by 

multi-objective  regions  (77%  agreed,  2%  disagreed)  and  competitiveness  regions 

(69%  agreed,  4%  disagreed).  Improving  the  working  conditions  was  met  with  most 

agreement  in  convergence  regions  (50%  agreed,  18%  disagreed).  In  the  other  two 

types  of  regions  43%  agreed.  In  multi-objective  regions  18%  disagreed  and  in 

competitiveness  regions  13%  disagreed.  Finally,  improving  the  kills  of  teachers  was 

acknowledged  by  61%  of  the  respondents  in  convergence  regions  (6%  disagreed). 

This was a bit more than in multi-objective regions (58% agreed, 10% disagreed) and 

a lot more than in competitiveness regions (22% agreed, 9% disagreed). 

12 The answers of three additional respondents contained negative feedback on the ESF on other topics than the 
support to individuals and are therefore presented in the relevant report section. 
13 From: Italy, Greece, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal and Spain. 
14 From: Czech Republic, Germany, France and one respondent replying for the entire EU. 
15 Answering for projects in Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and Spain. 
16 From Italy, France, Latvia and Sweden 

  38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Within 

the  multi-objective  regions, 

there  were  some  significant  differences. 

Respondents who answered on behalf of Italy were quite positive about the success of 

support to individuals. For every aspect, 50% or more of the respondents agreed that 

ESF  had  been  successful.  The  aspects  ‘improving  the  skills  of  teachers’  (75%)  and 

‘gaining  a  qualification’  (74%),  were  met  with  most  agreement.  Compared  to  Italy, 

respondents  answering  for  ESF  interventions  in  Germany  were  even  more  positive 

about  the  criteria  ‘gaining  an  employment’  (88%  agreed),  ‘gaining  a  qualification’ 

(92%  agreed)  and  ‘improving  working  conditions  of  the  employed  in  the  labour 

market’  (56%  agreed).  However,  they  agreed  less  than  the  Italians  that  ESF  was 

successful  in  improving  the  skills  of  teachers.  Only  44%  agreed  (versus  75%  of 

Italians)  and  20%  disagreed  (versus  4%  of  Italians).The  respondents  who  replied  for 

ESF projects in Spain were less positive than Italians and Germans about the success 

of  ESF  in  gaining  a  qualification  (70%  agreed),  improving  working  conditions  (12% 

agreed,  33%  disagreed)  and  improving  the  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and 

educators (27% agreed, 21% disagreed). 

  39 
  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 11 

ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the following results (total, organisation 
and individual) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Gaining an employment, including self-employment

14

48

16

7

3

12

Gaining a qualification

29

48

11

3

1

8

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market

11

34

27

14

3

12

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators

19

36

22

7

2

14

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

15

49

15

5

0

16

Gaining a qualification

29

46

11

1
2

11

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

12

35

28

11

0

14

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators

17

35

23

7

1

18

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

11

46

18

11

8

5

Gaining a qualification

29

51

10

5

2

3

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

9

31

23

22

8

7

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators

22

40

21

8

2

7

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

  40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
figure 12 

ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the following results (by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Gaining an employment, including self-employment

14

48

16

7

3

12

Gaining a qualification

29

48

11

3

1

8

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market

11

34

27

14

3

12

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators

19

36

22

7

2

14

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

14

43

16

7

4

16

Gaining a qualification

29

48

11

2

1

9

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

14

31

23

16

4

14

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

25

31

20

5

3

16

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

14

57

17

7

2

3

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

Gaining a qualification

31

51

13

3
0
3

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

7

8

39

39

33

13

2

6

28

12

0

13

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference  significant at p≤0.10 

  41 
  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 13 

ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the following results (responses by multi-
objective, competitiveness, convergence) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

13

48

19

8

1

11

Gaining a qualification*

25

52

14

1
2

6

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

9

34

28

16

2

10

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

22

36

22

9

1

9

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

26

43

9

4

4

13

Gaining a qualification*

43

26

4

4

0

22

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

13

30

26

13

0

17

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

13

9

35

9

0

35

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

11

52

14

6

6

11

Gaining a qualification*

34

48

5

5

2

6

Improving working conditions of the employed in the
labour market*

16

34

23

13

5

9

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

13

48

17

3

3

16

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3 

Support to organisations 

The  effectiveness  of  the  support  to  individuals  was  tested  with  the  following 

statement: 

ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the following results: 

  Supporting start-ups; 

  Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises; 

  Developing new qualifications, courses, training programmes, standards or 

systems; 

 

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or efficienc y. 

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point scale, containing the answers ‘I strongly agree’, ‘I agree’ (these two categories 

are combined in the explanation), ‘Neutral’, ‘I disagree’ and ‘I strongly disagree’ (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do not know/not applicable’ or chose not to answer the question at all. For the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. 

Total results 

For  all  of  the  objectives  of  providing  support  to  organisations,  more  respondents 

agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  that  ESF  support  was  successful  in  achieving  the  fol-

lowing results (figure 14): 

  Developing  new  qualifications,  courses,  training  programmes,  standards  or 

systems: 74% agreed, 6% disagreed. 

  Rising  competitiveness  and  adaptability  of  enterprises:  50%  agreed,  10% 

disagreed. 

  Supporting start-ups: 47% agreed, 8% disagreed. 

 

Improving  public  administration,  effectiveness  and/or  efficiency:  43%  agreed, 

18% disagreed. 

Out of the four proposed results of the ESF-support,  only  one was  judged to be  most 

successful  by  an  absolute  majority  of  all  respondents.  This  was  the  objective  to 

develop  new  qualifications,  courses,  training  programmes,  standards  or  systems. 

Between  43%  and  half  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  other  three  objectives 

were  achieved.  There  were,  however  only  limited  amounts  of  respondents  indicating 

that  these  results  were not achieved.  For  three  of  the  four  objectives,  less  than  10% 

disagreed  that  these  were  met.  Only  for  the  objective  of  improving  public 

administration,  effectiveness  and/or  efficiency,  18%  explicitly  stated  that  this  result 

had not been achieved. 

Organisations and individuals 

There  were  only  minor  differences  between  the  perceptions  of  organisations  and 

individual  citizens.  The  only  statistically  significant  differences  concerned  the  support 

of  start-ups  and  the  rising  competitiveness  and  adaptability  of  enterprises.  Most 

notably  of  these  was  the  rising  competitiveness:  organisations  were  more  likely  to 

report  this effect: 53% agreed and  5% disagreed, whereas  45% of individuals agreed 

and 20% disagreed. 

The difference between organisations and individuals on the topic of supporting start -

ups, was that organisations often chose  not to answer this question (23%, versus 9% 

of  the  individuals).  The  Individual  citizens,  on  the  other  hand,  indicated  more  often 

  43 
  43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
than  organisations  that  the  support  of  start-ups  had  not  been  successful:  17%  of 

individuals indicated this, versus only 4% of organisations. 

Open question: other results achieved (12 respondents) 

There  were  twelve  respondents,  who  mentioned  other  results  of  the  support  to 
organisations17. They mentioned the following examples:  
 

an  increase  in  and  better  performance  of  institutional  capacity  of  public 

administration  (Croatia)  and  organisations,  also  helping  organisations  overcome 

difficulties  (Italy,  Sweden),  and  increasing  their  adaptability  and  competitiveness 

 

 

 

 

 

(Germany); 

quality improvement of services (Portugal);  

development  of  equal  opportunities  for  target  groups,  such  as  immigrants ,  older 

people and women (Germany, Italy, Spain); 

new methods to increase employability (Finland);  

new  (European-wide  and  national)  partnerships,  including  transfer  of  know-how 

(Germany, Entire EU);  

The  preparation  for  the  change  of  retirement  system  in  a  specific  sector   (Czech 

Republic). 

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

The only significant difference in opinion between recipients of ESF-support, and those 

involved in delivering or coordinating support or social partners, was on the matter of  

Improving  public  administration  effectiveness  and/or  efficiency  ( figure  15).  Of  the 

recipients  of  ESF  support  48%  agreed  that  this  had  happened,  and  17%  disagreed. 

Among  the  respondents  who  had  delivered/managed/coordinated  ESF  support  or  had 

acted as a  social  partner, only 35% agreed and 21%  disagreed. This  is  interesting as 

the latter group often consists of organisations involved in public administration. They 

perceived  to  a  lesser  extent  that  their  effectiveness  and/or  efficiency  had  improved, 

whereas  the  recipients  of  ESF  support  reported  this  improvement  more  often  with 

public administration. 

Member States 

There  were  a  significant  differences  of  opinion  between  the  three  types  of  Member 

States  about  the  success  of  the  effort  to  support  start-ups  (figure  16).  Significantly 

more respondents from multi-objective regions indicated that the support of start-ups 

had  indeed  been  successful:  52%  indicated  this,  versus  44%  of  respondents  in 

convergence  regions  and  22%  of  respondents  in  competitiveness  regions.  In  all 

regions,  the  respondents  who  indicated  that  the  support  of  start-ups  was  successful 

outnumbered  the  respondents  who  disagreed  with  this. In multi-objective regions 6% 

disagreed, in competitiveness regions 13%, and in convergence regions 12%. 

There  are  a  number  of  differences  between  the  three  Member  States  for  which  the 

most  responses  were  gathered.  Only  two  of  these  are  statistically  significant:  the 

support  of  start-ups  and  improving  the  public  administration  effectiveness  and/or 

efficiency.  Respondents  in  Spain  indicated  more  often  that  the  ESF  had  been 

successful  in  supporting  start-ups:  61%  of  these  respondents  indicated  this,  versus 

49%  of  the  Italian  respondents  and  52%  of  German  respondents.  Significantly  more 

respondents  from  projects  in  Italy  indicated  that  the  objective  of  improving  public 

administration  effectiveness  and/or  efficiency  had  been  met:  58%  of  Italian 

17 There were seven additional respondents, who added negative feedback about the ESF on other topics than 
the support to organisations. These responses are therefore presented in the relevant report sections. 

  44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
respondents  indicated  this  (8%  disagreed),  versus  12%  of  Germans  (20%  disagreed) 

and  27%  of  Spaniards  (36%  disagreed).  Therefore  more  German  and  Spanish 

respondents  disagreed,  rather  than  agreed.  It  is  unknown  whether  this  means  that 

improvements  were  not  achieved,  or  that  improvements  were  not  necessary  in  the 

first place.  

  45 
  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 14 

ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the following results (total, organisations 
and individuals) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Supporting start-ups

9

38

25

5

3

18

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

11

39

26

7

3

14

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

23

51

13

4

2

7

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

11

32

25

13

5

14

Supporting start-ups*

10

37

26

4

0

23

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises*

13

40

29

4

1

14

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

23

54

13

3

1

7

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

11

32

23

14

3

17

Supporting start-ups*

8

40

25

8

9

9

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises*

7

38

21

13

7

15

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

23

45

13

6

6

8

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

10

31

28

11

10

9

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 15 

ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the following results (by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Supporting start-ups

9

38

25

5

3

18

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

11

39

26

7

3

14

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

23

51

13

4

2

7

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

11

32

25

13

5

14

Supporting start-ups

10

37

24

6

3

19

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

12

35

24

8

3

18

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

28

49

11

4

1

7

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency*

14

34

21

9

8

14

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

Supporting start-ups

10

39

25

5

3

17

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

10

43

29

6

2

11

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

16

55

14

5

2

8

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency*

5

30

28

18

3

16

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  47 
  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 16 

ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the following results (responses by multi-
objective, competitiveness, convergence) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Supporting start-ups*

10

42

24

5

1

17

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

10

36

30

7

1

15

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

19

52

13

4

2

11

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

10

30

26

16

4

15

Supporting start-ups*

9

13

35

4

9

30

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

9

48

26

4

4

9

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

26

52

13

4

4

0

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

4

22

35

13

9

17

Supporting start-ups*

8

36

27

6

6

17

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

14

42

17

8

6

13

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

31

48

13

3

3

2

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency

13

39

19

8

9

13

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

  48 

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aimed at wrong groups/misuse of funds (nine respondents) 

In the  questionnaire,  there  were  four  possibilities for  respondents to  provide  answers 

to  open  questions  and  elaborate  upon  their  experiences  with  the  ESF.  However,  nine 

respondents used these questions to provide negative feedback on the ESF.  The most 

frequent  criticism  was  on  how  the  funds  were  spent,  which  target  groups  were 

supported, which organisations financed and whether all funds were put to good use.   

The  most  frequent  negative  feedback  (four  respondents),  was  about  the  way  the ESF 

works and how funds are awarded. One respondent (answering on behalf of projects in 

Austria,  Hungary,  Italy  and  the  Netherlands)  noted  that  for  groups  a  long  way  from 

the  labour  market  or/and  society,  a  two  or  three  year  project  is  too  short,  especially 

since a  follow-up  is  very difficult  without  ESF  funding.  A Polish  respondent  suggested 

that  the  implementation  of  the  ESF  should  be  reformed  to  a  ‘systemic  and  horizontal 

approach  with  regard  to  the  economic  situation  and  trends  in  region. ’  Two 

respondents  from  France  and  the  UK  addressed  the  misuse  of  funds:  the  French 

respondent  wrote  that  some  interventions  were  not  based  on  needs,  but  on  the 

availability  of  money,  while  the  British  respondent  claims  that  the  ESF  has  financed 

fraudulent people, who were awarded fees for non-existent interventions. 

Additionally, three responses addressed the groups that were, or were not targeted by 

the ESF. One respondent from Latvia argues that the funds should be aimed at groups 

who promote economic development, rather than aimed at groups who already are in 

a  disadvantaged  position  in  the  labour  market.  A  respondent  from  France,  on  the 

other  hand,  stated  that  there  was  no  support  for  the  overseas  department  of  France 

and  a  German  respondent  added  that  not  enough  attention  was  paid  to  social 

exclusion  outside  of  labour  market  aspects,  for  example  in  fighting  the  consequen ces 

of poverty and deprivation. 

Finally,  two respondents, from the Czech Republic and Latvia expressed their concern 

with  the  effects  of  ESF  support.  The  Czech  respondent  noted  a  ‘rising  imbalance  of 

competitiveness  among  supported  and  other  enterprises,’  while 

the  Latvian 

respondent  asserted  that  the  money  from  the  ESF  should  not  interfere  with  the 

national programmes and therefore, should not reform their systems at all.  

  49 
  49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Efficiency 

5.1 

Cost effectiveness 

In  order  to  test  the  perceived  efficiency  of  the  ESF,  the  respondents  were  asked  to 

respond to the following set of statements: 

The ESF was cost-effective in the policy areas: 

  Human Capital;  

  Access to Employment;  

  Social Inclusion; 

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity and 

  Promoting Partnerships.  

In this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer for all five items on a 

five-point  scale  containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’,  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I 

disagree’  and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’.  Respondents  could  also  choose  the  option  ‘do  not 

know/not applicable’  or chose not  to  answer  the  question  at all.  For  the analysis,  the 

latter two options were combined. 

Total results 

Regarding  the  cost-effectiveness  (figure  17),  a  majority  of  the  respondents  agreed 

that  the  ESF  was  cost–effective  in  three  of  the  five  areas.  In  all  areas  more  people 

agreed,  rather  than  disagreed  that  the  ESF  was  cost-effective.  The  amounts  of 

respondents  that  agreed  or  disagreed  with  the  statement  that  ESF  as  cost  effective 

were as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

For Human Capital 59% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

For Access to Employment 51% agreed, 13% disagreed;  

For Social Inclusion 59% agreed, 9% disagreed; 

For Strengthening Institutional Capacity 33% agreed, 15% disagreed; 

For Promoting Partnerships, 39% agreed, 10% disagreed. 

About  a  third  of  the  respondents  were  neutral  in  their  reply  to  the  latter  two 

statements and in both cases 18% did not know what to answer. Again, this is in line 

with  previous  observations  that  more  respondents  were  involved  in  the  areas   of 

Human Capital, Access to Employment and Social Inclusion. Therefore, they have less 

knowledge  about  the  areas  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting 

Partnerships. 

Organisations versus individuals 

The responses of organisations and individual citizens differed significantly in  three of 

the  five areas. In all cases, the  respondents  who  replied on behalf of  an  organisation 

were significantly more positive about the cost-effectiveness of ESF than the individual 

citizens: 

  Human  Capital:  64%  of  organisations  agreed  (5%  disagreed),  versus  51%  of 

individuals (21% disagreed)18. 

  Access  to  Employment:  57%  of  organisations  agreed  (13%  disagreed),  versus 

38% of individuals (25% disagreed)19. 

18 Significant at the p≤0.10 threshold. 
19 Significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  50 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Social  Inclusion:  59%  of  organisations  agreed  (9%  disagreed),  ve rsus  47%  of 

individuals (16% disagreed)20. 

Although organisations were significantly more positive about the cost effectiveness in 

these  areas,  more  individuals  agreed  to  the  cost  effectiveness,  rather  than  disagreed 

that the ESF had been cost effective. 

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

Respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support,  either  as  an  organisation  or  as  an 

individual  were  significantly  more  positive  about  the  cost  effectiveness  in  the  area  of 

Human Capital. Of the  recipients 64% judged the ESF to be cost effective in the area 

of  Human  Capital 

(11%  disagreed),  versus  56%  of 

those 

involved 

in 

delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners (9% disagreed). 

With  regard  to  Access  to  Employment,  11%  of  the  recipients  of  ESF  support  did  not 

provide  an  answer  to  the  question  whether  ESF  had  been  cost  effective  in  this  area. 

This resulted in both less positive feedback (50% versus 52% of the other group) and 

less negative feedback (12% versus 15%). 

The  other  differences  between  respondents  receiving  ESF  support  and  respondents 

involved  in  delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support  and  social  partners,  were 

too small to be significant. 

Member States 

The  groups  of  Member  States  consisting  of  competitiveness  regions  judged  the  cost 

effectiveness  of  ESF  much  more  favourably  in  the  areas  Access  to  Employment  and 

Social Inclusions, than their counterparts  from competitiveness regions and also more 

favourably  than  multi-objective  regions.  For  Access  to  Employment,  65%  of  the 

respondents agreed that ESF had been cost effective in competitiveness regions (13% 

disagreed),  versus  40%  of  the  respondents  judging  the  same  matter  in  convergence 

regions  (11%  disagreed)  and  54%  in  multi-objective  regions  (14%  disagreed).  For 

Social  inclusion  the  difference  was  70%  for  competitiveness  regions  (9%  disagreed), 

versus  66%  in  multi-objective  regions  (8%  disagreed)  and  42%  in  convergence 

regions (14% disagreed). 

There  were  also  numerous  differences  in  the  opinions  about  the  cost  effectiveness 

between  the  respondents  from  multi-objective  regions.  The  respondents  judged  the 

interventions  in  Italy  to  be  most  cost  effective  in  the  areas  of  Human  Capital  (70%) 

and  Social  Inclusion  (67%).  In  the  other  three  areas,  slightly  less  than  50%  of  the 

respondents judged the cost effectiveness to be favourable. Compared to the opinions 

about  ESF  interventions  in  Italy,  respondents  were  more  positive  about  the  cost -

effectiveness  with  regard  to  Human  Capital  (84%  agreed  that  this  was  the  case), 

Access  to  Employment  (88%  agreed)  and  Social  Inclusion  (88%  agreed,  statistically 

insignificant).  Respondents  were,  however,  less  positive  about  the  cost  effectiveness 

in  Germany  than  Italy,  with  regard  to  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  (20% 

agreed that ESF was cost effective, 16% disagreed) and Promoting Partnerships (44% 

agreed,  12%  disagreed).Except  for  the  area  of  Access  to  Employment,  the  ESF  was 

judged  to  be  less  cost-effective  in  Spain,  compared  to  Italy.  Compared  to  Germany, 

the  respondents  from  Spain  judged  the  ESF  to  be  less  cost  effective  in  all  areas, 

except  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity.  However,  in  all  areas,  more  respondents 

indicated that the ESF was cost effective, rather than indicating that it was not.  

20 Significant at the p≤0.10 threshold. 

  51 
  51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
figure 17 

The ESF was cost effective in the following policy areas (total, organisations and individuals) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

16

43

21

7

4

9

Access to employment

11

40

28

9

4

8

Social inclusion

13

46

25

5

4

6

Institutional capacity

5

28

33

10

5

18

Promoting partnerships

4

35

33

8

2

18

Human Capital**

18

46

20

4

1

11

Access to employment*

12

46

27

6

1

9

Social inclusion**

13

54

22

5

1

6

Institutional capacity

5

26

35

8

3

23

Promoting partnerships

4

37

32

6

1

21

Human Capital**

14

37

23

13

8

Access to employment*

10

28

31

15

10

Social inclusion**

15

32

31

7

9

6

6

6

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

6

6

32

32

30

33

14

9

9

11

3

14

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 18 

The ESF was cost effective in the following policy areas (by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

16

43

21

7

4

9

Access to employment

11

40

28

9

4

8

Social inclusion

13

46

25

5

4

6

Institutional capacity

5

28

33

10

5

18

Promoting partnerships

4

35

33

8

2

18

Human Capital*

20

44

19

4

5

9

Access to employment*

14

36

28

6

6

11

Social inclusion

16

44

24

5

6

6

Institutional capacity

6

28

35

7

5

19

Promoting partnerships

4

38

31

6

3

18

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

Human Capital*

10

Access to employment*

Social inclusion

9

8

46

43

47

24

31

10

2

8

12

3

3

31

6

3

5

Institutional capacity

3

25

36

13

4

18

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

Promoting partnerships

5

30

38

8

1

18

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  53 
  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 19 

The ESF was cost effective in the following policy areas (responses by multi-objective, 
competitiveness, convergence) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

19

Access to employment*

11

43

Social inclusion*

15

45

51

19

7

4

7

25

11

3

7

23

5

3

4

Institutional capacity

7

28

32

12

4

17

Promoting partnerships

5

36

31

9

2

16

Human Capital

9

43

13

9

0

26

Access to employment*

Social inclusion*

22

22

43

48

13

9

4

9

13

9

0

9

Institutional capacity

0

26

30

4

4

35

Promoting partnerships

4

39

26

4

0

26

Human Capital

13

42

25

6

5

9

Access to employment*

9

Social inclusion*

6

Institutional capacity

3

Promoting partnerships

3

31

36

31

33

41

34

5

6

8

6

8

9

36

8

8

14

38

6

0

20

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

  54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 

Administrative requirements 

Additionally,  the  respondents  were  asked  to 

indicate  how  they 

judged 

the 

administrative  requirements  of  the  ESF  and  its  programmes.  They  were  asked  to 

answer the following question: 

During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  the  administrative  requirements  to 

manage the ESF projects and programmes were ‘too light’, ‘appropriate’, or ‘excessive’ 

in the following domains: 

  Design of Operational programmes; 

  Designation of authorities; 

  Set-up of management and control system; 

  Selection of projects; 

 

Implementation of projects; 

  Reporting; 

  Communication; 

  Audit; 

  Evaluation. 

Besides the three  options  ‘too  light’,  ‘appropriate’,  and ‘excessive’,  respondents  could 

also  choose  the  option  ‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  choose  not  to  answer  the 

question at all. For the analysis, the latter two options were combined.  

Total results 

In  order  to  participate  in  or  manage  the  ESF  programme,  certain  administrative 

requirements  need  to  be  met.  With  the  exception  of  the  set-up  of  management  and 

control  systems  and  the  audits,  50%  or  more  of  the  respondents  deemed  these 

requirements  ‘appropriate’  (figure  20).  For  these  two  aspects,  37%  and  38%  of  all 

respondents 

thought 

the  administrative 

requirements  were  excessive.  The 

respondents  are  also  at  odds  with  each  other  about  the  requirement  on  reporting. 

Both the number of respondents indicating this requirement as ‘excessive’ (36%) and 

the  number  of  respondents  indicating  it  is  ‘appropriate’  (50%)  are  quite  large.  This 

does  mean,  however,  that  none  of  the  requirements  were  judged  ‘excessive’  rather 

than ‘appropriate’.  

Only smaller minorities of the respondents  judged the administrative requirements as 

‘too  light’.  Three  of  the  requirements  were  viewed  as  ‘too  light’  by  10%  of  the 

respondents  or  more:  ‘evaluation’  (14%),  ‘communication’  (12%),  and  ‘selection  of 

projects’ (12%). 

Organisations versus individuals 

In  general,  there  were  little  differences  between  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of 

organisations and individual citizens. The only significant difference was with regard to 

the  selection of projects. Organisations judged these requirements to be ‘appropriate’ 

more often (68% versus 45% of individuals). The individual citizens  were less satisfied 

with the requirements in  the selection of projects. They either judged them to be ‘too 

light’  (21%  versus  7%  of  organisations)  or  ‘excessive’  (23%  versus  17%  of 

organisations). 

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

Both  respondents  receiving  ESF  supports  and 

those 

involved 

in  delivering, 

coordinating  and  managing  ESF  support  and  social  partners  are  very  much  in 

  55 
  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
agreement  about  the  administrative  requirements  (and  therefore  with  the  overall 

results).  The  only  requirement  they  significantly  differ  about  is  the  evaluation.  The 

respondents who  had a  role  in  delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support or  were 

a  social  partner  indicated  that  they  thought  the  evaluation  was  ‘too  light’  more  often 

than  those  receiving  ESF  support:  22%  versus  12%  of  respondents  indicated  this.  In 

turn, slightly more recipients of  ESF support thought  the  evaluation was  ‘appropriate’ 

(57% versus 52%). The number of respondents judging the evaluation excessive were 

comparable between the two groups.  

Member States 

There  were  a  couple  of  significant  differences  between  the  Member  States  with 

convergence, competitiveness or multi-objective regions (figure 22). The requirements 

for  communication  were  judged  significantly  more  favourably  by  respondents  from 

multi-objective  (75%  ‘appropriate’)  and  competitiveness  regions  (78%  ‘appropriate’) 

than  by  respondents  from  convergence  regions  (56%  ‘appropriate’).  Also  concerning 

the audit, the respondents from multi-objective countries and competitiveness regions 

judged  the  requirements  to  be  appropriate  more  often  than  respondents  from 
convergence regions (45% and 43% versus 38%) 21.  

Concerning  the  implementation  of  projects  and  the  designation  of  authorities, 

respondents  from  multi-objective  countries  were  significantly  more  satisfied  than 

respondents  from  competitiveness  and  convergence  regions.  67%  of  the  respondents 

from  multi-objective  countries  indicated  they  thought  the  requirements  for  the 

implementation  of  projects  were  ‘appropriate’  (and  18%  ‘excessive’),  versus  57%  of 

the  respondents  from  competitiveness  regions  (35%  ‘excessive’)  and  56%  from 

convergence  regions  (25%  ‘excessive’).  The  designation  of  authorities  was  judged 

appropriate  by  67%  of  the  respondents  from  multi-objective  countries  (12% 

excessive), versus 52% of respondents from competitiveness regions (30% excessive) 

and 50% from convergence regions (23% excessive). 

Within  the  group  of  respondents  from  multi-objective  countries,  there  were  some 

notable  differences.  All  of  the  administrative  requirements  were  judged  to  be 

‘appropriate’  by  an  absolute  majority  of  respondents  involved  in  ESF  interventions  in 

Italy. Moreover: all of the requirements were judged ‘appropriate’ more often than the 

overall  average.  Contrary  to  most  other  subgroups,  only  about  a  quarter  of  the 

respondents  judged  the  requirements  of  reporting,  set-up  of  a  management  and 

control  system  and  the  audit  to  be  ‘excessive’.  Respondents  answering  for  Germany, 

were 

less  positive  about 

the  administrative 

requirements.  Especially 

the 

implementation  of  projects,  design  of  operational  programmes,  reporting,  set-up  of 

management  and  control  system  and  the  audit  were  judged  significantly  less 
favourably  than  average22.  The  opinions  of  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of 
projects  in Spain  were more  in line  with Italy  than with Germany. There are however 
some  significant  differences23:  Spanish  respondents  were  more  positive  about  the 
implementation  of  projects.  On  the  other  hand,  they  were  less  positive  than  Italians 

(yet  more  positive  than  the  Germans)  about  reporting,  set-up  of  management  and 

control system and the audit. 

21 Significant at the p≤0.10 threshold. 
22  The  differences  concerning  the  implementation  of  projects,  set-up  of  management  and  control  system,  and 
the  audit  are  significant  at  the  p≤0.05  threshold.  The  differences  in  design  of  operational  programmes  and 
reporting are significant at the p≤0.10 threshold. 
23  The  differences  concerning  the  implementation  of  projects,  set-up  of  management  and  control  system,  and 
the  audit  are  significant  at  the  p≤0.05  threshold.  The  differences  in  design  of  operational  programmes  and 
reporting are significant at the p≤0.10 threshold. 

  56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Answers in open questions about administrative requirements  

Although  the  administrative  requirements  of  the  ESF  were  already  part  of  the 

questionnaire  in  a  closed  question,  six  respondents  wanted  to  elaborate  further  upon 

their  opinion  about  these  requirements.  One  German  respondent  called  them 

‘immense  and  ever-changing’,  while  a  French  respondent  called 

them 

‘too 

complicated’. According to  two  respondents from Spain and the UK,  the  drawbacks of 

the  administrative  requirements  are  decreased  efficiency  and  effectiveness.  A 

respondent who answered for projects in the entire EU claimed there is a tendency not 

to  use  ESF  support  anymore,  due  to  the  bureaucracy  and  delay  in  payments.  One 

German  respondent  said  that  the  administrative  requirements  during  the  2007-2013 

programming  period were  actually  less  than  before,  but also  indicated  that  additional 

efforts should be made. 

  57 
  57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 20 

How do you judge the administrative requirements to manage the ESF projects and programmes 
on the following aspects? (total, organisations and individuals) 

Appropriate

Too light

Excessive

Do not know / no answer

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Communication

70

12

11

Implementation of projects

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

Audit

0
0
0
0

Communication

Implementation of projects

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects*

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

Audit

0
0
0
0

Communication

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Implementation of projects

52

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects*

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

55

53

45

46

46

50

46

42

6

36

6

7

37

38

63

61

60

60

58

73

68

58

63

68

61

66

67

7

6

9

21

17

18

18

16

4

5

12

14

19

18

9

9

7

11

12

10

11

20

6

5

7

19

4

4

18

7

14

17

17

18

15

8

8

7

12

11

8

8

15

11

15

25

3

14

7

20

16

18

21

16

23

20

9

11

36

32

11

11

9

10

52

46

44

5

37

3

5

39

40

Audit

39

11

34

15

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 21 

How do you judge the administrative requirements to manage the ESF projects and programmes 
on the following aspects? (by role in ESF) 

Appropriate

Too light

Excessive

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Communication

70

12

11

Implementation of projects

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

Audit

Communication

Implementation of projects

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation*

63

61

60

60

58

50

46

42

6

7

72

64

57

58

62

57

)
6
5
2
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

Reporting

48

4

39

Set-up of management and control system

Audit

42

41

6

7

37

36

9

21

4

5

17

18

18

16

12

14

19

18

6

36

7

6

9

9

7

11

12

37

38

9

18

17

3

4

9

18

12

19

12

9

20

6

7

22

21

11

12

9

15

15

Communication

Implementation of projects

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation*

Reporting

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

Set-up of management and control system

67

61

62

61

55

52

46

43

l

i

a
i
c
o
s
&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

10

6

7

13

22

15

11

7

26

3

16

18

16

14

24

18

8

8

6

8

10

8

38

42

i
l

e
D

Audit

36

8

45

12

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  59 
  59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 22 

How do you judge the administrative requirements to manage the ESF projects and programmes 
on the following aspects? (responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence) 

Appropriate

Too light

Excessive

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Communication*

75

11

8

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities*

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

Audit**

67

67

63

65

58

57

51

45

6

5

10

18

5

12

5

17

16

14

11

16

14

17

6

30

5

7

34

40

8

10

8

10

9

Communication*

78

9

4

9

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities*

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting

57

52

61

61

52

52

Set-up of management and control system

30

0

4

35

4

0

30

0

17

13

17

9

22

39

4

52

17

22

17

9

4

17

Audit**

43

0

48

Communication*

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities*

Design of Operational programmes

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting

Set-up of management and control system

Audit**

56

56

50

55

52

56

16

11

20

25

3

23

6

14

19

25

17

17

23

20

33

38

38

8

11

11

52

38

30

14

22

9

8

8

9

9

8

)
6
6
1
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6  Coherence 

6.1 

Complementarity to other EU funds  

The  ESF  is  not  the  only  fund  of  the  European  Union.  There  are  other  funds  that 

support  similar  or  complementary  activities,  such  as  the  European  Regional 

Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The Commission aims to ensure coherence 

and  complementarity  efforts  in  related  EU-policy  areas,  such  as  trade,  environment, 

migration, employment and agriculture. In order to test whether this was the case for 

the  ESF  programmes,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  respond  to  the  following 

statement: 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were complementary to 

other EU funds (i.e.: European Regional Development Fun d, Cohesion Fund, etc.) in 

the following areas: 

  Human Capital; 

  Access to Employment; 

  Social Inclusion; 

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity; 

  Promoting Partnerships. 

In this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five -point scale, 

containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’,  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’  and  ‘I 

strongly  disagree’.  Respondents  could  also  choose  the  option  ‘do  not  know/not 

applicable’ or chose not to answer the question at all. For the analysis, the latter two 

options were combined. 

Total results 

The  percentages  of  respondents  that  did  not  provide  an  answer  was  significantly 

higher for the topic of complementarity than for the other topics in the questionnaire. 

The  percentage  of  respondents  that  did  not  provide  an  answer  to  the  statements 

ranged  from  22%  (for  Human  Capital  and  Access  to  Employment)  to  32%  (for 

Strengthening Institutional Capacity, figure 23). This is most likely due to the fact that 

not all respondents had experience with other EU funds.  

Of those who did answer, the majority of the respondents agreed with the statements 

that the ESF was indeed complementary to other funds:  

 

 

 

 

 

For the area of Human Capital, 45% agreed, 13% disagreed; 

For Access to Employment 40% agreed, 13% disagreed; 

For Social Inclusion 39% agreed, 13% disagreed; 

For Strengthening Institutional Capacity 27% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

For Promoting Partnerships 33% agreed, 10% disagreed. 

Therefore, although for none of the  policy areas a majority of the respondents agreed 

with  the statement that  the ESF programmes were  compatible to other EU  funds, the 

responses  were  predominantly  positive,  rather  than  negative.  For  every  policy  area, 

there  was  only  a  limited  number  of  respondents  (ranging  from  10%  to  13%)  who 

expressed the opinion that the ESF was not compatible with other EU funds.  

  61 
  61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisations versus individuals 

Individual  citizens  provided  answers  to  the  question  whether  the  ESF  was 

complementary to other EU-funds more often than organisations (figure 23). However, 

the only significant difference (p≤0.10) was in the area of Human Capital.  In this area 

individual  citizens  both  agreed  and  disagreed  more  than  organisations  that  the  ESF 

had  been  complementary  to  other  EU  funds.  Of  the  Individual  citizens,  49%  agreed, 

21%  disagreed  and  18%  was  neutral.  Of  the  organisations,  43%  agreed,  8% 

disagreed and 13% was neutral. 

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

When  asked  whether  the  ESF  was  complementary  to  other  EU-funds,  there  were  few 

differences  of  opinion  between  respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  and  the 

group  of  delivering/coordinating/managing  ESF  and  social  partners   (figure  24). 

Therefore  their  answers  are  in  line  with  the  overall  results.   The  only  significant 

difference was the fact that the recipients of ESF support indicated more often that for 

the  policy  area  of  Human  Capital:  47%  of  recipients  agreed  (11%  disagreed)  versus 

35%  of  organisations  delivering/managing/coordinating  and  socia l  partners  (17% 

disagreed). 

Member States 

There  were  no  significant  differences  between  respondents  from  countries  consisting 

of  competitiveness  regions,  countries  consisting  of  conversion  regions  and  multi -

objective  countries.  However,  there  were  some  significant  differences  of  opinion 

between respondents from the group of multi-objective countries. When zooming in on 

Italy,  Spain  and  Germany,  some  differences  become  apparent.  Yet,  these  are  largely 

due to the number of respondents not providing an answer and/or answering ‘neutral’ 

to  the  statement  that  the  ESF  was  complementary  to  other  EU  funds.  Especially  for 

Spain,  there  were  very  few  respondents  who  responded  to  these  statements.  When 

comparing  Italy  and  Germany,  both  agreed  that  the  ESF  was  compatibl e  to  other  EU 

funds  in  the  area  of  Human  Capital  (for  Italy  61%  agreed,  for  Germany  56%). 

However,  they  were  at  odds  about  Access  to  Employment  (for  Italy  43%  agreed,  for 

Germany 56%) and Social Inclusion (for Italy 59% agreed, for Germany 32%). For the 

policy  areas  of  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting  Partnerships  48% 

or  more  of  the  respondents  answering  for  Germany  did  not  provide  an  answer. 

Therefore, the results on agreement or disagreement are not comparable.  

  62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

figure 23 

The ESF programmes were complementary to other EU funds in the following policy areas: (total, 
organisations and individuals) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

11

34

21

9

4

32

30

25

25

9

4

9

4

23

22

22

20

30

7

4

32

26

28

7

3

29

Access to employment

Social inclusion

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

8

9

7

7

Human Capital**

10

33

23

7

1

26

Access to employment

7

Social inclusion

9

31

30

27

24

9

1

25

9

2

27

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

4

4

20

28

7

2

40

28

27

7

2

32

Human Capital**

13

36

18

13

8

13

Access to employment

10

Social inclusion

10

34

32

23

26

8

9

15

8

9

14

Institutional capacity

13

21

33

9

8

16

Promoting partnerships

14

23

30

8

5

21

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

  63 
  63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 24 

The ESF programmes were complementary to other EU funds in the following policy areas: (by 
role in ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

11

34

21

9

4

32

30

25

25

9

4

9

4

23

22

22

20

30

7

4

32

26

28

7

3

29

Access to employment

Social inclusion

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

8

9

7

7

Human Capital*

14

33

17

7

4

Access to employment

7

31

26

7

3

25

26

Social inclusion

11

32

21

7

4

24

Institutional capacity

7

22

26

6

4

35

Promoting partnerships

9

25

29

5

2

30

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

Human Capital*

5

30

27

13

4

21

Access to employment

8

34

23

11

5

19

Social inclusion

6

24

29

12

6

24

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

4

4

18

32

9

8

26

25

10

5

29

29

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia  (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

figure 25 

The ESF programmes were complementary to other EU funds in the following policy areas 
(responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence):  

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

11

40

19

8

3

19

Access to employment

8

36

Social inclusion

11

33

24

22

9

4

20

10

4

20

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

Human Capital

Access to employment

7

7

4

4

17

34

8

4

30

24

31

9

4

25

13

22

9

4

48

Social inclusion

0

22

26

13

17

30

9

4

4

35

35

Institutional capacity

4

13

26

4

4

48

Promoting partnerships

9

30

22

4

0

35

Human Capital

11

Access to employment

9

27

30

27

25

9

5

22

8

5

23

Social inclusion

6

28

28

5

6

27

Institutional capacity

8

Promoting partnerships

6

28

30

20

20

6

6

31

5

3

36

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  65 
  65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  EU added value 

7.1 

Target groups 

One  of  the  major  objectives  of  the  ESF  is  to  provide  support  to  target  groups  whose 

needs  would  otherwise  have  been  insufficiently  addressed  by  national  or  regional 

programmes or support schemes. The respondents were asked to indicate whether  the 

ESF  had,  indeed,  met  this  objective  for  fourteen  target  groups,  by  responding  to  the 

following statement: 

During 2007-2013 programming period, the ESF has provided support to target groups 

whose  needs  would  otherwise  have  been  insufficiently  addressed  by  national  or 

regional programmes or support schemes: 

  Unemployed; 

 

 

 

Employed; 

Inactive; 

Long-term unemployed; 

  Migrants; 

  Minorities such as Roma; 

  Disabled; 

 

Young people (15-24); 

  NEETs:  young  people  not  in  employment,  education  or  training  (up  to  25 -year-

old); 

  Older workers (55-64); 

  Women; 

 

 

People with educational attainment below secondary level; 

People with secondary and higher educational attainment. 

Total results 

For all of the target groups, more respondents agreed, rather than disagreed  that the 

ESF  has  provided  support  to  meet  their  needs,  that  would  have  otherwise  been 

insufficiently  addressed.  The  exact  percentages  can  be  found  in  the  table  below  and 

figure 26. 

Unemployed 

Young people 

Women 

Long term unemployed 

Disabled 

Employed 

NEETs 

Other disadvantaged 

Inactive 

Educational attainment below secondary level 

Secondary or higher educational attainment 

Migrants 

Older workers 

Minorities 

  66 

Total 

(n=256) 

Agree 

Disagree 

68% 

68% 

58% 

57% 

52% 

52% 

51% 

50% 

47% 

46% 

42% 

38% 

38% 

31% 

11% 

11% 

12% 

12% 

8% 

10% 

13% 

9% 

11% 

12% 

13% 

18% 

19% 

16% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A  vast  absolute  majority  (well  over  50%)  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  in 

particular,  three  of  these  groups  were  supported:  unemployed  (68%,  also  long  term 

unemployed,  59%),  young  people  (66%)  and  women  (58%).  Also  for  disabled, 

employed,  NEETs  and  other  disadvantaged,  50%  or  more  of  the  respondents  were  of 

the opinion that ESF had provided support, whereas their needs would otherwise have 

been insufficiently addressed. 

The  largest  percentages  of  disagreement  were  for  migrants,  older  workers,  and 

minorities, 18%, 19% and 16% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that 

the  ESF  has  provided  support  to  meet  their  needs,  that  would  have  otherwise  been 

insufficiently  addressed.  However,  for  the  same  target  groups  28%  (both  migrants 

and  older workers) and 21%  (minorities)  of  the  respondents  were of the  opinion that 

their needs were, in fact, addressed by ESF. 

When  zooming  in  on  education,  it  appears  that  42%  and  46%  of  all  respondents 

acknowledged  that  ESF  provided  support  to  the  groups  of  those  with  educational 

attainment  below  secondary  level  and  those  with  secondary  and  higher  educational 

attainment. Although these are not an absolute majorities, the number of respondents 

who agreed outnumbered the number of respondents who disagreed. 

Organisations versus individuals 

In general, individuals tended to indicate to a lesser extent that ESF provided support 

to meet the needs of the target groups, that would have  otherwise been insufficiently 

addressed (Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  
* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

figure  27).  Most  noticeably:  they  also  disagreed  more  with  this  statement.  Especially 

their  opinion  about  the  support  to  older  workers  is  noteworthy:  equal  amounts  of 

individuals agreed and disagreed (28%) that the older workers were supported in their 

needs that would otherwise not have been addressed. 

For ten target groups, the differences in opinion between individuals and organisations 
were  statistically  significant24.  These  were  the  following  (highest  percentages  ‘agree’ 
indicated in green; highest percentages ‘disagree’ indicated in red): 

Unemployed 

Young people 

Women 

Long term unemployed 

Disabled 

NEETs 

Inactive 

Educational attainment below secondary level 

Secondary or higher educational attainment 

Older workers 

Organisations  

Individual citizens 

(n=168) 

(n=87) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

74% 

69% 

61% 

60% 

53% 

50% 

50% 

46% 

41% 

43% 

6% 

7% 

8% 

8% 

6% 

8% 

8% 

10% 

12% 

15% 

59% 

64% 

54% 

50% 

51% 

52% 

42% 

44% 

47% 

28% 

18% 

16% 

21% 

20% 

11% 

22% 

17% 

16% 

15% 

28% 

24 Differences concerning educational attainment below secondary level and secondary or highe r educa-

tional attainment are significant at the p≤0.10 threshold, all others at the p≤0.05 threshold.  

  67 
  67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

When  it  comes  to  the  question  whether  ESF  supported  certain  target  groups,  whose 

needs  would  have  otherwise  been  insufficiently  addressed,  there  are  a  number  of 

differences of opinion between respondents who have received ESF support and those 

who  were  involved  in  delivering/managing/coordinating  and  social  partners.  In  some 

cases,  the  former  group  agrees  more,  in  other  cases  the  latter.  The  differences  in 

outcome of  the  question, can  largely  be ascribed  to  the number  of  recipients who  did 

not (or could not) agree, disagree or be neutral. This is probably due to the fact that 

they  have  insufficient  experience  with  certain  target  groups  and  the  way  they  were 

supported by ESF.  

A constant factor in all responses is that there are more respondents who agree, than 

disagree  that  ESF  supported  the  target  groups,  whose  needs  would  have  otherwise 

insufficiently  addressed.  The 

been 
the  seven  significant 
differences25  between  those  who  had  received  ESF  support  and  those  who  were 

table  below  shows 

involved in delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners (highest percentages 

‘agree’ indicated in green; highest percentages ‘disagree’ indicated in red): 

Receiving 

(n=140) 

delivering/managing/ 

coordinating 

& social partners (n=87) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

65% 

54% 

43% 

44% 

37% 

38% 

29% 

9% 

15% 

13% 

12% 

16% 

21% 

14% 

74% 

50% 

57% 

41% 

42% 

40% 

27% 

11% 

9% 

11% 

13% 

20% 

20% 

18% 

Unemployed 

NEETs 

Inactive 

Secondary or higher educational attainment 

Migrants 

Older workers 

Minorities 

Member States 

There  were  a  number  of  minor  differences  between  the  answers  of  respondents 

answering  on  behalf  of  countries  consisting  of  competitiveness  regions,  respondents 

answering  on  behalf  of  countries  consisting  of  convergence  regions  and  multi -

objective countries (figure  28).  In  competitiveness regions,  more  respondents  agreed 

that  the  groups  of  NEETs,  other  disadvantaged  and  migrants  were  supported  in  their 

needs, that would otherwise have  been  insufficiently addressed. The  latter  group was 

also  indicated  by  respondents  from  multi-objective  countries  as  being  supported  by 

the ESF. On the other hand, respondents from competitiveness regions also  disagreed 

more  often  than  other  regions  with  the  fact  that  migrants  were  supported.  Therefore 

there appear to be some intraregional differences.  

Another  interesting  observation  is  the  fact  that  in  convergence  regions,  there  were 

equal  percentages  of  respondents  that  agreed  and  disagreed  that  migrants  were 

supported  in  their  needs,  that  would  otherwise  have  been  insuffici ently  addressed. 

These results are specified in the table below  (highest percentages ‘agree’ indicated in 

green; highest percentages ‘disagree’ indicated in red): 

25  Differences  concerning  secondary  or  higher  educational  attainment  and  minorities  are  significant  at  the 
p≤0.10 threshold, all others at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Multi-objective 

Competitiveness 

Convergence  

(n=166) 

(n=23) 

(n=87) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

NEETs 

Other disadvantaged26 

Migrants 

57 

58 

44 

11 

10 

16 

60 

75 

44 

4 

8 

30 

29 

52 

19 

17 

7 

19 

Judging  by  the  answers  by  those  who  represent  the  three  countries  with  the  most 

responses, there are differences in which target groups were supported, whose needs 

would  have  otherwise  been  insufficiently  addressed.  In  Italy  the  support  to  the 

following  groups  was  acknowledged  by  50%  or  more  of  the  respondents:  young 

people,  unemployed,  women,  other  disadvantaged,  disabled,  NEETs,  people  with 

secondary  or  higher  educational  attainment.  In  all  other  cases  the  respondents 

agreed,  rather  than  disagreed  that  the  target  groups  had  been  supported  in  their 

needs,  that  would  have  otherwise  been  insufficiently  addressed.   Yet  there  was  no 

absolute  majority  for  either  opinion.  In  Germany,  all  but  two  target  groups  were 

recognised  by  an  absolute  majority  as  being  supported  and  whose  needs  would  have 

otherwise been insufficiently addressed. The only two groups that were not recognised 

as  such  were  disabled  and  minorities/  For  both  groups  still  more  respondents  agreed 

rather  than  disagreed  that  they  were  supported.  Spain  deviated  from  the  other  two 

countries  somewhat.  The  support  to  the  following  target  groups  was  acknowledged 

most: Unemployed, Women, Young people, Migrants, and Long term unemployed.  

26 Significant at the p≤0.10 threshold, 

  69 
  69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
figure 26 

The ESF has provided support to target groups whose needs would have otherwise been 
insufficiently addressed (total, organisations and individuals) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

Women

Long Term Unemployed

28

27

19

23

40

39

39

34

Disabled

Employed

NEETs

Other disadvantaged

Inactive

Educational attainment below secondary level

Secondary and higher educational attainment

Migrants

Older workers (55-64 years)

Minorities such as Roma

16

14

18

16

17

12

9

13

12

9

36

38

33

34

30

34

33

25

26

25

28

27

30

22

29

13

Unemployed*

Young people (15-24)*

Women*

Long Term Unemployed*

30

27

22

27

43

42

39

33

75%

13

16

100%

7

4

9

7

4

8

4

7

7

7

4

5

11

4

8

13

2

9

9

4

12

6

3

16

7

4

12

22

20

27

29

25

25

30

9

9

14

12

3

3

4

4

17

16

18

7

13

24

10

5

1

11

14

6

1

10

23

7

1

8

17

7

1

14

24

26

26

22

29

6

0

17

7

1

12

7

1

16

6

1

19

8

0

14

Disabled*

Employed

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged

Inactive*

Educational attainment below secondary level**

Secondary and higher educational attainment**

Older workers (55-64 years)*

Migrants

16

16

18

17

17

13

10

15

13

37

38

32

36

33

33

31

25

30

Minorities such as Roma

8

21

Unemployed*

Young people (15-24)*

25

28

Women*

Long Term Unemployed*

Disabled*

14

16

17

Employed

11

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged

Inactive*

18

15

16

Educational attainment below secondary level**

Secondary and higher educational attainment**

Migrants

Older workers (55-64 years)*

Minorities such as Roma

10

9

9

10

10

26

18

24

40

34

34

34

37

32

26

34

38

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  
* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  70 

25

30

25

27

10

0

11

1

13

2

19

17

21

13

2

16

12

1

31

17

10

8

5

20

8

8

1

26

34

36

18

25

31

34

21

30

10

7

11

13

10

1

6

5

6

10

3

3

13

9

5

6

7

7

10

10

8

8

6

17

11

14

8

9

7

17

6

14

15

11

7

11

32

25

23

29

36

34

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 27 

The ESF has provided support to target groups whose needs would have otherwise been 
insufficiently addressed (by role in ESF) 

I strongly agree I agree Neutral

I disagree I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

Women

Long Term Unemployed

28

27

19

23

40

39

39

34

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

Disabled

Employed

NEETs

Other disadvantaged

Inactive

Educational attainment below secondary level

Secondary and higher educational attainment

Migrants

Older workers (55-64 years)

Minorities such as Roma

16

14

18

16

17

12

9

13

12

9

Unemployed*

Young people (15-24)

30

29

Women

Long Term Unemployed

Disabled

Employed

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged

Inactive*

People with educational attainment below secondary level

People with secondary and higher educational attainment**

Migrants*

Older workers (55-64 years)*

21

21

19

16

21

17

16

14

13

13

14

22

20

27

29

13

16

7

4

9

7

4

8

4

7

7

7

4

5

11

4

8

13

2

9

9

4

12

6

3

16

7

3

4

9

9

14

4

4

12

17

16

18

12

7

13

25

25

30

25

28

27

30

36

38

33

34

30

34

33

25

26

22

29

13

3

24

35

41

39

14

6

14

21

3

6

9

12

4

4

6

6

31

36

37

33

38

26

30

31

24

24

21

8

5

14

14

4

4

6

1

13

24

26

29

23

25

17

10

5

14

21

4

3

9

4

3

3

10

9

2

14

16

17

20

20

26

11

10

16

22

26

l

i

a
i
c
o
s
&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

Minorities such as Roma**

7

22

26

13

1

30

Unemployed*

Young people (15-24)

Women

15

Long Term Unemployed

26

25

26

Disabled

Employed

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged

15

13

15

13

48

40

45

34

37

40

35

36

12

8

3

4

18

7

3

7

7

6

8

8

8

8

4

5

3

10

2

3

8

1

9

20

20

30

31

32

27

8

1

14

Inactive*

17

40

27

8

3

4

People with educational attainment below secondary level

People with secondary and higher educational attainment**

Migrants*

Older workers (55-64 years)*

Minorities such as Roma**

9

4

13

10

12

39

37

29

30

25

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  
* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

29

6

3

15

9

14

4

6

13

12

33

27

34

29

14

15

4

5

6

16

  71 
  71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 28 

The ESF has provided support to target groups whose needs would have otherwise been 
insufficiently addressed (responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence). 

I strongly agree
Neutral

I agree
I disagree

0%

25%

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

Women

Long Term Unemployed

28

30

19

24

Disabled

Employed

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged**

Inactive

Educational attainment below secondary level

Secondary and higher educational attainment

14

16

19

16

17

9

10

Migrants*

16

Older workers (55-64 years)

Minorities such as Roma

9

11

25

21

40

34

38

37

34

32

30

39

37

28

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

35

Women

22

Long Term Unemployed

48

48

Disabled

26

30

Employed

4

NEETs*

Other disadvantaged**

Inactive

Educational attainment below secondary level

Secondary and higher educational attainment

Migrants*

Older workers (55-64 years)

Minorities such as Roma

30

30

26

9

9

22

17

39

43

30

22

35

50%

42

39

75%

12

15

100%

8

3

8

8

2

7

8

4

10

7

4

11

5

2

10

8

2

9

9

2

10

8

2

13

8

2

11

9

2

8

2

14

15

20

19

31

32

21

29

31

27

28

28

12

4

12

34

31

11

6

16

10

3

24

22

13

13

4

0

35

48

22

35

17

17

22

4

4

4

9

4

0

4

4

0

22

4

4

13

17

35

26

30

22

13

26

22

35

17

26

13

0

9

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

13

13

13

9

13

9

9

4

4

4

22

17

4

4

26

26

22

4

13

Unemployed

22

42

14

3

5

14

Young people (15-24)

Women

Long Term Unemployed

Disabled

Employed

16

19

14

19

16

33

44

34

34

44

NEETs*

6

23

36

19

5

8

9

27

9

6

5

23

8

8

20

3

6

14

17

22

11

8

2

9

6

17

Other disadvantaged**

Inactive

Educational attainment below secondary level

11

11

14

30

19

Secondary and higher educational attainment

8

25

23

25

41

20

2

5

22

31

8

6

14

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

11

5

11

3

17

36

28

23

13

27

8

14

2

6

Migrants*

3

16

Older workers (55-64 years)

17

27

25

16

25

Minorities such as Roma

5

23

27

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  
* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2 

Innovation 

The EU added value in terms of innovation was tested with the following statement:  

During the 2007-2013 programming period, the ESF allowed to test and implement 

innovative activities (i.e.: pilot schemes of new types of support, new tools and 

methods of delivering support, new ways of working between stakeholders, etc.) in 

the following areas: 

  Human Capital  

  Access to Employment 

  Social Inclusion,  

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity and  

  Promoting Partnerships.  

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point  scale,  containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’  (these  two  categories 

are  combined  in the  explanation),  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’ and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’ (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  chose  not  to  answer  the  question  at  all.  For  the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. A background document was provided 

to the respondents for more detailed descriptions of the five policy areas. 

Furthermore,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  provide  examples  of  innovations  in  the 

following statement: 

If  you  would  like  to  mention  one  or  several  new  types  of  support  or  delivery 

mechanisms implemented thanks to the ESF, please describe it (them) here.  

Total results 

During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  the  ESF  aimed  to  test  and  implement 

innovative  activities,  such  as  pilot  schemes  of  new  types  of  support,  new  tools  and 

methods  of  delivering  support,  new  ways  of  working  between  stakeholders,  etc. 

(figure  29).  The  majority  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  for  three  of  the  policy 

areas  the  ESF  indeed  facilitated  testing  and  implementation  of  innovative  activities. 

The total results were as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

For Human Capital 60% agreed, 9% disagreed; 

For Access to Employment 57% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

For Social Inclusion 59% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

For Strengthening Institutional Capacity 36% agreed, 12% disagreed; 

For Promoting Partnerships 37% agreed, 10% disagreed. 

For  the  latter  two  areas,  more  than  half  of  the  respondents  were  neutral,  or  did  not 

know whether innovative activities could be tested or implemented.  The fact that less 

respondents  were  involved  in  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting 

Partnerships could explain the substantial part of the respondents who could not agree 

or  disagree  with  the  statements.  In  addition,  it  takes  more  time  before  the  benefits 

can be reaped from the interventions in these areas. 

  73 
  73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open question: Examples of innovation (23 responses27) 
23 respondents added examples of innovations achieved with the help of the ESF28. 

Among those 23 open answers, there were eight examples of efforts for specific target 

groups,  such  as  NEETs,  immigrants,  long-term  unemployed,  youths  with  mental 

disorders,  or  other  disadvantaged  on  the  labour  market.  One  example  that  was 

mentioned  was  an  ‘employability  pipeline  (skills  pipeline)’.  These  efforts  increased 

their  employability  and  their  abilities  to  start  up  a  company.  In  this  context  a  ‘fight 

against discrimination’ was also mentioned. 

Eight  other  respondents29  stated  that  they  benefited  from  new  knowledge  gained  by 
outside  experts,  including  Private  Public  Partnerships.  This  helped  with  the  labour 

market  integration  of  individuals  and  human  resource  development.  Cooperation 

granted possibilities for comparison, exchange and transfer of tools, and new methods 

and  approaches  in  education  training  and  employment.  One  example  mentioned  that 

partnerships  were  made  between  both  employee  and  employer  representatives  and 

associations of voluntary welfare. 

There were also four examples30 of innovative methodologies, such as e-services, new 
communication channels with clients, and mobile social workers.  

Furthermore, one respondent31 mentioned that efforts in bringing balance to work and 
life were made. 

Organisations versus individuals 

There  were  mostly  minor  statistically  insignificant  differences  between  respondents 

replying  on  behalf  of  their  organisation  and  individual  citizens  (figure  29).  The  only 

significant  (at  p≤0.10)  difference  was  in  the  area  of  Human  Capital:  individuals 

disagreed  significantly  more  than  organisations  that  ESF  allowed  to  test  and 

implement  innovative  activities  in  this  policy  area:  19%  of  individuals  indicated  that 

these  innovations  had  not  taken  place,  versus  6%  of  organisations.  On  the  other 

hand,  there  was  also  a  majority  of  the  individuals  (59%)  that  indicated  that,  in  their 

opinion, the testing and implementation of innovative activities had taken place.  

Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

There  were  no  significant  deviations  from  the  overall  results  for  the  two  groups  of 

respondents  who 

had 

received 

ESF 

support 

and 

those 

involved 

in 

delivering/managing/coordinating ESF support and social partners (figure 30). 

Member States 
There was only one significant difference 32 between all three groups of Member States. 
from  competitiveness  regions 
Concerning  Access  to  Employment,  respondents 

answered  significantly  more  often  that  the  ESF  allowed  to  test  and  implement 

innovative  activities:  86%  of  the  respondents  indicated  this,  versus  61%  of 

respondents from convergence regions and 52% of countries with multiple objectives. 

27 From Belgium, Germany, Italy, Malta, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
28 Additionally, two respondents added negative feedback on the topic of innovation, these are presented sepa-
rately, further on in this section. 
29 From Belgium, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Spain and Sweden. 
30 From Croatia, France Germany and Latvia,  
31 From Germany 
32 At p≤0.10. 

  74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Furthermore,  there  was  also  a  significant  difference  between  conversion  regions  and 

competitiveness  regions  to  be  noted.  Respondents  from  competitiveness  regions 

agreed  significantly  more  often  than  those  representing  conversion  regions  that 

innovation  had  taken  place  in  the  area  of  social  inclusion:  78%  of  respondents  from 

competitiveness  regions  agreed  to  this,  versus  49%  in  convergence  regions  (figure 

31). 

The extent to which ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities  in the five 

policy  areas  seemed  to  vary  between  the  three  Member  States  with  the  most 

responses.  In  Italy,  in  all  but  one  policy  area  over  50%  of  the  respondents  indicated 

that innovative activities indeed had been tested and implement ed. The exception was 

Access to Employment. Respondents answering for  projects in  Germany were positive 

about the testing and implementation of innovative activities, made possible by ESF in 

the  policy  areas  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment,  and  Social  Inclusion.  For  the 

other  two  areas,  however,  a  large  number  of  respondents  could  not  provide  an 

answer.  In  Spain  the  opinions  were  very  mixed.  The  opinion  that  ESF  allowed  to  test 

and implement innovative activities was not supported by an absolute majority in any 

of the five policy areas. In the areas Institutional Capacity and Promoting Partnerships 

the  number  of  respondents  indicating  that  no  innovations  had  taken  place  exceeded 

the  number  of  respondents  indicating  that  there  had  been  innovations.  In  the  other 

three  areas  the  number  of  respondents  that  agreed  that  innovations  had  taken  place 

was (slightly) larger than the number of respondents that disagreed. 

Innovations in Poland 

In  the  open  questions,  two  respondents,  both  from  Poland,  criticised  the  use  of  the 

term  ‘innovative’,  as  they  thought  that  the  definition  of  ‘innovative’  was  unclear  and 

too many non-innovative projects also qualified for funding. 

  75 
  75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 29 

The ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities in the following policy areas (total, 
organisations and individuals): 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

Access to employment

17

17

43

40

19

7

2

13

19

9

2

12

Social inclusion

19

40

18

8

3

11

Institutional capacity

7

29

27

8

4

26

Promoting partnerships

10

27

30

7

3

23

Human Capital**

Access to employment

19

18

40

43

21

4

1

15

19

7

0

13

Social inclusion

23

39

17

7

1

13

Institutional capacity

5

25

29

8

2

31

Promoting partnerships

8

26

33

6

1

26

Human Capital**

13

46

15

13

6

8

Access to employment

14

Social inclusion

11

Institutional capacity

10

Promoting partnerships

14

34

41

34

28

20

14

7

11

21

9

8

9

23

26

9

9

7

7

16

16

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 30 

The ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities in the following policy areas (by role 
in ESF): 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

Access to employment

17

17

Social inclusion

19

43

40

40

19

7

2

13

19

9

2

12

18

8

3

11

Institutional capacity

7

29

27

8

4

26

Promoting partnerships

10

27

30

7

3

23

Human Capital

21

44

14

9

1

11

Access to employment

17

38

19

9

2

15

Social inclusion

21

43

15

8

2

11

Institutional capacity

8

Promoting partnerships

10

31

28

24

6

4

29

29

6

2

26

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

Human Capital

10

44

22

10

2

13

Access to employment

13

Social inclusion

14

48

40

18

12

1

8

21

11

2

12

Institutional capacity

4

29

30

11

3

24

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

l

a
i
c
o
s

i

&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

Promoting partnerships

10

24

33

10

3

21

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; **  Difference significant at p≤0.10 

  77 
  77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 31 

The ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities in the following policy areas 
(responses by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence): 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

18

43

18

7

2

12

Access to employment**

15

37

22

10

2

14

Social inclusion

20

42

18

7

3

10

Institutional capacity

6

29

28

8

3

26

Promoting partnerships

9

32

29

7

3

20

Human Capital

17

35

22

0

4

22

Access to employment**

43

43

4

4

4

0

Social inclusion

30

48

4

13

4

0

Institutional capacity

9

30

26

0

9

26

Promoting partnerships

17

22

30

4

9

17

Human Capital

13

Access to employment**

11

47

50

19

16

11

2

9

9

3

11

Social inclusion

13

36

23

8

3

17

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships

9

9

27

23

11

5

25

16

34

9

2

30

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3 

Structural reforms 

The EU added value in terms of structural reforms was tested with the following 

statement: 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, the ESF was instrumental in supporting 

structural reforms in the following areas: 

  Human Capital;  

  Access to Employment; 

  Social Inclusion; 

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity and  

  Promoting Partnerships.  

In response to this closed question, respondents could indicate their answer on a five-

point  scale,  containing  the  answers  ‘I  strongly  agree’,  ‘I  agree’  (these  two  categories 

are  combined  in the  explanation),  ‘Neutral’,  ‘I  disagree’ and  ‘I  strongly  disagree’ (the 

latter two are combined in the explanation). Respondents could also choose the option 

‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  chose  not  to  answer  the  question  at  all.  For  the 

analysis, the latter two options were combined. A background document was provided 

to the respondents for more detailed descriptions of the five policy areas. 

Furthermore, the respondents were asked to provide examples of structural reforms in 

the following statement: 

If there were structural reforms supported by the ESF you wish to mention, please fill 

the line below. 

Total results 

Although  the  ESF  programming  period  ran  from  2007  to  2013,  the  results  should  be 

observable long after its conclusion. The ESF aimed at supporting structural reforms in 

the  five  policy  areas.  When  asked  whether  the  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting 

structural  reforms  (figure  32),  there  were  more  respondents  who  agreed  rather  than 

disagreed with this statement. The percentages differed between the five policy areas.  

  Social Inclusion: 52% agreed, 10% disagreed;  

  Human Capital: 49% agreed, 11% disagreed;  

  Access to Employment: 48% agreed, 13% disagreed;  

  Strengthening Institutional Capacity: 32% agreed, 11% disagreed; 

 

Promoting Partnerships: 33% agreed, 10% disagreed.  

Organisations versus individuals 

Relatively  more  organisations  than 

individual  citizens  agreed 

that  ESF  was 

instrumental  in  supporting  structural  reforms.  Additionally,  the  individuals  disagreed 

more  that  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting  structural  reforms.  In  four  of  the  five 
policy areas the differences were significant33: 
 

For  Human  Capital,  49%  of  organisations  agreed  and  6%  disagreed,  versus  49% 

of individuals that agreed and 21% that disagreed. 

 

For  Access  to  Employment,  50%  of  organisations  agreed  and  7%  disagreed, 

versus 43% of individuals that agreed and 27% that disagreed. 

33 The differences in the area of Promoting Partnership were significant at the p≤0.10 threshold, all others were 
significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  79 
  79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

 

For Social Inclusion, 52% of organisations agreed and 6% disagreed, versus 49% 

of individuals that agreed and 18% that disagreed. 

For  Promoting  Partnerships,  34%  of  organisations  agreed  and  6%  disagreed, 

versus 30% of individuals that agreed and 17% that disagreed. 

The differences for Strengthening Institutional Capacity were statistically insignificant.  

Open question: examples of structural reforms (11 respondents)34 
Eleven  respondents  added  specific  examples  of  structural  reforms.  Two  examples 

specifically  mentioned  the  reforms  in  law  or  monitoring  of  social  funds:  in  Romania, 

the  draft  law  on  social  economy  was  started  through  a  project  financed  by  the  ESF. 

Another  positive  contribution  directly  due  to  the  application  of  ESF  rules  was 

mentioned by a Spanish respondent. It involved the establishment of a more frequent 

follow-up  and  control  of  public  aids  awarded  by  the  Employment  Agency  to  self -

employed who set up their own  business. Before being co-financed by ESF, the check 

whether  the  beneficiary was still  working  in  the  granted activity  was only  made three 

years  after  having  paid  the  public  grant.  However,  after  applying  ESF  criteria,  the 

Public  Body  had  to  implement  a  more  sophisticated  control  system,  which  clearly 

improved the effectiveness of the controls and accelerated the recovery of unduly paid 

grants. 

The  recognition  of  acquired  skills  and  an  increased  employability  was  mentioned  by 

two  respondents,  from  Italy  and  the  UK.  One  respondent  praised  a  project  in  which 

Spanish workers could be employed in Germany. 

One  respondent  from  France  praised  the  increasing  equal  opportunities  between  men 

and  women  and  other  disadvantaged  groups,  and  the  strengthening  of  transnat ional 

networks  towards  exchanging  experiences  and  best  practices.  Another  from  Germany 

praised  the  involvement  of  voluntary  welfare  services  in  decision-making,  evaluation 

and  implementation  structures  for  ESF,  which  have  proven  successful  and  will 

continue in the new programming period. 

Furthermore,  two  respondents  from  Italy  noted  structural  reforms  in  schools,  e.g. 

supporting  high  school  student  competencies,  supporting  university  students  in 
experiences  abroad,  and  supporting  chemistry,  physics,  reverse  engineering35,  and 
mathematical  applications  to  ICT.  One  respondent  from  Latvia  specifically  added  that 

health care personnel was re-educated in accordance with structural changes in health 

care.  

Finally, one elaborate example was provided by a Swedish respondent: ‘To counter the 

crisis  2008-2009  in  the  automotive  industry,  the  project  created  an  educational 

framework  from  2009  to  2011  for  employed  and  unemployed  in  the  technological 

sector, with both the perspectives of business development and individual possibilities 

as driving forces. A comprehensive partnership assured asset management, leading to 

cost effectiveness and stability. The project has changed the educational structures of 

local  authorities.  Thanks  to  the  project  it  is  now  possible  for  adults  to  access 

secondary  education  provided  by  other  local  authorities  than  in  the  place  of 

residence.’ 

34 Additionally 7 respondents provided negative feedback on the ESF in general. These comments are presented 
further on in this section and in other appropriate sections in this report. 
35 The act of copying the product of another company by looking carefully at how it is made (source: the Cam-
bridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, Cambridge University Press) 

  80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Receiving versus delivering/managing/coordinating and social partners  

There  were  only  minor,  statistically  insignificant  differences  between  the  overall 

results  and  the  opinions  of  respondents  who  had  received  ESF  support  and  those 

involved  in  delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support  and  social  partners  (figure 

33).  The  only  significant  (at  p≤0.10)  difference  was  in  the  area  of  Institutional 

Capacity,  in  which  the  delivering/managing/coordinating  parties  and  social  partners 

disagreed somewhat more that  ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms 

(14% versus 8%). 

Member States 

The  opinion  of  countries  consisting  of  competitiveness  regions  differed  significantly 

compared to countries consisting of convergence regions  and multi-objective countries 

on  the  matter  whether  the  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting  structural  reforms  in 

the area of Human Capital (figure 34). Respondents from convergence regions agreed 
significantly36  more  often  that  the  ESF  was  indeed  instrumental  in  this  matter:  64% 

agreed  (11%  disagreed),  versus  46%  of  respondents  from  multi-objective  countries 

(11%  disagreed)  and  35%  of  respondents  from  competitiveness  regions  (18% 

disagreed). 

Within  the  group  of  multi-objective  countries,  the  following  differences  of  opinion 

occurred:  an  absolute  majority  of  the  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of 

interventions  in  Italy  indicated  that  for  Human  Capital  (59%)  and  Social  Inclusion 

(62%)  this  was  indeed  the  case.  Compared  to  the  overall  average,  relative ly  large 

amounts  of  respondents  also  indicated  that  the  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting 

structural  reforms  in  the  areas  of  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  (46%)  and 

Promoting  Partnerships  (44%).  In  Germany,  there  was  no  majority  of  respondents 

agreeing that the ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms in any of the 

policy areas. On the other hand, only a small number of respondents claimed that ESF 

was  not  instrumental,  except  for  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity,  for  which  8% 

agreed  with  the  statement  and  12%  disagreed.  Over  half  of  the  respondents  did  not 

provide  an  answer  for  this  area,  though.  In  Spain  the  contributions  of  ESF  to 

structural  reforms  were  most  recognised  in  the  area  of  Access  to  Employment  (51% 

agreed),  although  this  did  not  deviate  significantly  from  the  overall  average  of  48%. 

Of  the  three  countries,  respondents  disagreed  most  that  ESF  was  instrumental  in 

supporting  structural  reforms,  especially  in  the  area  of  Institutional  capacity:  18%  of 

the  respondents  answering  for  Spain  indicated  that  the  ESF  was  not  instrumental  in 

supporting  structural  reforms  (versus  18%  claiming  that  the  ESF  was  indeed 

instrumental). 

36 At the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  81 
  81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Difficulty to gain long-term benefits and regional complexities 
Four  respondents37  indicated  that  it  was  difficult  for  them  to  secure  long-term 
benefits,  mostly  because  of  the  circumstances  in  their  organisation,  for  example  due 

to a lack of continuity in policy or funding. Others indicated that the current situation 

in  their  country  or  region  or  country  does  not  allow  for  structural  reforms.  One 

respondent stated: ‘Currently, the working conditions in Spain are worse than in 2008. 

The  phenomenon  of  poor  workers  started  a  few  years  ago  and  [despite  the]  ESF  we 

have not been able to avoid it.’ Other respondents mentioned social inactivity and the 

fact  that  NGOs  are  not  funded  properly  and  purely  dependent  on  ESF.  Another 

respondent was disappointed to see that a report with lessons learned was ignored by 

the national ministry.  

37 Answering on behalf of Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain 

  82 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
figure 32 

The ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms in the following policy areas (total, 
organisations and individuals) 

I strongly agree I agree Neutral

I disagree I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

11

Access to employment

9

38

39

25

7

4

15

23

8

5

16

Social inclusion

13

39

28

6

4

11

Institutional capacity

7

Promoting partnerships

6

25

27

32

8

3

25

36

7

3

22

Human Capital*

10

Access to employment*

7

39

43

27

24

5

1

18

6

1

18

Social inclusion*

10

42

29

5

1

14

Institutional capacity

Promoting partnerships**

4

4

25

30

30

8

2

30

35

5

1

26

Human Capital*

13

36

21

11

10

9

Access to employment*

14

29

21

13

14

10

Social inclusion*

17

32

25

8

10

7

Institutional capacity

11

25

34

8

6

15

Promoting partnerships**

9

21

37

10

7

16

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
8
6
1
=
n
(

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

)
7
8
=
n
(

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

  83 
  83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 33 

The ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms in the following policy areas (by role in 
ESF) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital

11

Access to employment

9

38

39

25

7

4

15

23

8

5

16

Social inclusion

13

39

28

6

4

11

Institutional capacity

7

Promoting partnerships

6

25

27

32

8

3

25

36

7

3

22

Human Capital

11

40

24

6

4

16

Access to employment

9

38

20

7

6

20

Social inclusion

15

39

23

5

5

14

Institutional capacity**

7

Promoting partnerships

6

26

28

32

4

4

27

36

5

3

23

)
6
5
2
=
n
(

l

a
t
o
T

)
0
4
1
=
n
(

i

i

g
n
v
e
c
e
R

)
9
1
1
=
n
(

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

Human Capital

10

Access to employment

8

Social inclusion

9

34

43

36

28

9

2

17

21

12

4

13

33

8

3

12

Institutional capacity**

7

24

32

13

1

Promoting partnerships

6

24

39

6

2

24

24

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia  (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

l

i

a
i
c
o
s
&
g
n
g
a
n
a
m
/
g
n
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
c
/
g
n
i
r
e
v

i

i
l

e
D

  84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 34 

The ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms in the following policy areas (responses 
by multi-objective, competitiveness, convergence) 

I strongly agree
Neutral

I agree
I disagree

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital*

11

Access to employment

10

35

36

31

7

4

13

28

7

4

15

Social inclusion

13

39

32

6

3

8

Institutional capacity

5

24

34

9

2

25

Promoting partnerships

8

27

37

6

2

19

Human Capital*

0

35

13

9

9

35

Access to employment

4

57

9

4

9

Social inclusion

4

43

17

9

9

17

17

Institutional capacity

0

17

35

9

9

30

Promoting partnerships

0

30

30

4

9

26

Human Capital*

14

50

14

8

3

11

Access to employment

9

42

16

13

6

14

Social inclusion

14

39

22

5

5

16

Institutional capacity

13

30

27

6

5

20

Promoting partnerships

3

25

34

9

2

27

)
6
6
1
=
n
(

e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
-
i
t
l
u
M

)
3
2
=
n
(

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

)
4
6
=
n
(

e
c
n
e
g
r
e
v
n
o
C

Source: DG Employment, Social affairs and inclusion, Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  85 
  85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8  Analysis and conclusions  

In  this  concluding  chapter,  a  number  of  observations  on  the  outcomes  of  the 

questionnaire  will  be  put  together,  in  order  to  gain  an  overall  view  of  how  the 

stakeholders experienced the ESF 2007-2013  programming period. Without repeating 

all  numbers  and  percentages,  mentioned  in  the  previous  chapters,  certain  patterns 

are derived from the results that have previously been described in chapters 3 to 7.  

In this chapter the overall results will initially be reviewed, along the lines of  the five 

evaluation  criteria:  Relevance,  Effectiveness,  Efficiency,  Coherence,  and  EU  Added 

Value.  Secondly,  the  five  policy  areas  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment,  Social 

Inclusion,  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting  Partnerships  will  be 

reviewed.  Subsequently,  the  patterns  emerging  in  the  answers  by  the  subgroups 

consisting  of 

individuals  versus  organisations,  and 

roles 

in 

the  ESF  and 

region/member  state,  will  be  elaborated  upon.  Finally,  a  number  of  lessons  learned 

and areas for improvements will be presented. 

8.1  Overall results: five criteria  

The most important overall conclusion is that most aspects of the ESF were 

judged favourably by the respondents, or at least there were more respondents 

who responded favourably to the statements, rather than unfavourably. When looking 

at the respondents as a whole, this was the case for every single statement, with the 

notable exception of the statement on administrative requirements. In that case, the 

requirement of the audits (one out of the nine administrative requirements) was 

judged unfavourably by respondents, with two additional requirements judged 

unfavourably by a substantial number of respondents. 

This  report  was  structured  along 

the 

five  evaluation  criteria  -  Relevance, 

Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence, and EU Added Value.  

Relevance 

More  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the  statement  that  the  ESF 

programmes  were  designed  to  address  key  issues  in  the  five  policy  areas. 

Furthermore, the majority of the respondents agreed with the statement that the ESF 

helped  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis.  Overall,  the 

relevance  of  the  ESF  was  favourably  judged  by  the  respondents  of  the  public 

consultation. 

Effectiveness  

Overall, the effectiveness of the ESF was favourably judged  by the respondents of the 

public  consultation.  First,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the 

statement  that  the  ESF  interventions  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and 

social cohesion in the five policy areas.  

Second,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  that  ESF  support  to 

individuals was successful in achieving the following results: 

  Gaining a qualification; 

 

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and educators; 

  Gaining employment and 

 

Improving working conditions of the employed in the labour market. 

  87 
  87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Third,  with  regard  to  support  to  organisations,  more  respondents  also  agreed, 

rather  than  disagreed,  that  ESF  support  was  successful  in  achieving  the  following 

results: 

  Developing  new  qualifications,  courses,  training  programmes,  standards  or 

systems. 

  Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises. 

  Supporting start-ups. 

 

Improving public administration, effectiveness and/or efficiency. 

Efficiency  

Overall,  the  efficiency  of  the  ESF  was  favourably  judged  by  the  respondents  of  the 

public  consultation,  with  some  negative  feedback  on  the  administrative  requirements 

of the audits, the set-up of management and control systems and reporting. 

More respondents agreed, rather than disagreed, with the statement that the ESF was 

cost-effective in all five policy areas.  

Furthermore,  the  respondents  judged  most  administrative  requirements  towards 

managing  the  ESF  projects  and  programmes  as  appropriate,  rather  than  too  light  or 

excessive.  A  majority  of  all  respondents  judged  that  the  following  administrative 

requirements were ‘appropriate’: 

  Communication; 

 

Implementation of projects; 

  Designation  of  Authorities  (Managing  Authority,  Certifying  Authority,  Audit 

Authority and Intermediate Bodies); 

  Design of operational programme; 

  Selection of projects; 

 

Evaluation. 

The three administrative requirements deemed ‘excessive’ most often are audits, se t-

up  of  management  and  control  systems  and  reporting.  However,  the  number  of 

respondents  judging  the  latter  two  requirements  ‘appropriate’  is  comparable  in  size, 

or  greater  than,  the  number  judging  them  ‘excessive’  or  ‘too  light’.  The  only  aspect 

on  which  the  amount  of  negative  feedback  was  greater  than  the  amount  of 

respondents judging the requirement ‘appropriate’ was the audit.  

Very  few  respondents  judged  the  requirements  to  be  ‘too  light’.  The  three 

requirements most often judged as ‘too light’ are: evaluation, communication, and the 

selection  of  projects.  These  requirements  were  never  judged  too  light  by  more  than 

14% of the respondents. 

Coherence  

Overall,  the  complementarity  of  the  ESF  with  other  EU-funds  (and  therefore,  the 

coherence)  was  judged  favourably  by  the  respondents  of  the  public  consultation. 

However,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  relatively  large  number  of  respondents  could  not 

agree  or  disagree  with  the  statements.  This  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  they 

had  no  experience  with  other  EU-funds.  Of  those  that  did  provide  an  answer,  more 

respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the  statement  that  the  ESF 

programmes were complementary with other EU-funds in the five policy areas. 

EU Added Value 

Overall,  the EU added value of ESF  was  judged  favourably by the  respondents  of  the 

public  consultation.  Respondents  were  asked  to  express  their  opinion  on  three 

matters. 

  88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
First,  more  respondents  agreed,  rather  than  disagreed,  with  the  statement  that  the 

ESF has provided support to  target groups whose needs would have otherwise been 

insufficiently  addressed.  When  categorising  the  target  groups  into  three  groups  ‘well 

addressed’,  ‘sufficiently  addressed’  and  ‘addressed  to  a  lesser  extent’,  the  following 

groups appear: 

Well addressed (> 55% agreement that support was provided) 

  Unemployed, 

 

Young people (15-24), 

  Women, 

 

Long-term unemployed. 

Sufficiently addressed (40-55% agreement) 

  Disabled, 

 

Employed, 

  NEETs (young people not in employment, education or training, up to 25 years 

old), 

  Other disadvantaged, 

 

 

Inactive, 

Educational attainment below secondary level, 

  Secondary and higher educational attainment. 

Addressed to a lesser extent (<40% agreement) 

  Migrants, 

  Older workers (55-64), 

  Minorities (such as Roma). 

Therefore, the groups considered to be the most supported, that is those whose needs 

would  otherwise  have  been  insufficiently  fulfilled,  were  the  unemployed  (also  long 

term  unemployed),  young  people  and  women.  The  respondents  agreed  to  a  lesser 

extent that  the ESF  has  support  older workers,  migrants and  minorities  whose  needs 

would  otherwise  have  been 

insufficiently  addressed  by  national  or  regional 

programmes  or  support  schemes.  However,  even  for  the  latter  three  groups,  more 

respondents agreed rather than disagreed that they were in fact supported. 

Second, more respondents agreed, rather than disagreed, that the ESF facilitated the 

testing and implementation of  innovative activities  in the five policy areas.  Several 

examples  of  innovations  were  mentioned.  Most  of  these  referred  to  activities  for 

specific  target  groups,  such  as  NEETs,  immigrants,  long-term  unemployed  and  other 

disadvantaged.  Furthermore  collaboration  with  outside  experts 

lead 

to  new 

knowledge. 

Additionally, more respondents agreed, rather than disagreed, that the ESF was 

instrumental in supporting structural reforms in the five policy areas. Examples of 

structural reforms were reforms in law and the monitoring of funds, reforms in 

schools, acquired skills and increased employability, and increasing equal 

opportunities for target groups on the labour market. 

8.2 

Five policy areas 

Six  statements  in  the  questionnaire  specifically  referred  to  the  five  policy  areas 

Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment,  Social  Inclusion,  Strengthening  Institutional 

Capacity and Promoting Partnerships. These were the following statements: 

  During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  ESF  programmes  were  designed  to 

address key challenges in the [five policy] areas. 

  The  ESF  interventions  contributed  to  strengthening  economic  and  social 

cohesion in the [five policy] areas. 

  89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The ESF was cost-effective in the [five policy] areas. 

  During 

the 

2007-2013 

programming 

period, 

ESF 

programmes  were 

complementary to other EU funds […] in the [five policy] areas. 

  The ESF allowed for testing and implementation of innovative activities in the 

[five policy] areas. 

  The  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting  structural  reforms  in  the  [five  policy] 

areas. 

As indicated in the description of the response (§2.2), it is important to note that not 

all respondents were involved in all five of these policy fields. On average, they were 

involved  in  two  of  these  themes,  mostly  Human  Capital  (57%)  and  Access  to 

Employment  (54%), 

followed  by  Social  Inclusion  (46%).  Substantially 

fewer 

respondents  have  direct  first-hand  knowledge  of  the  policy  areas  Strengthening 

Institutional Capacity (21%) and Promoting Partnerships (17%).  

The  amount  of  experience  the  respondents  had  with  the  five  policy  fields  is  also 

reflected  in  their  answers.  Without  exception,  the  areas  Strengthening  Institutional 

Capacity and Promoting Partnerships were judged less favourably than the other three 

areas. This was largely due to the fact that respondents could not provide an answer 

for  these  areas.  They  therefore  often  chose  to  reply  ‘neutral’,  indicated  ‘do  not 

know/not applicable’, or left the question blank.  

Besides  the  reason  of  having  less  experience  with  the  areas   Strengthening 

Institutional  Capacity  and  Promoting  Partnerships,  a  second  reason  why  these  areas 

scored  less  favourably  could  also  be  that  the  effects  take  longer  to  become 

noticeable. 

When  the  amount  of  favourable  replies  to  the  six  statements,  mentioned  above,  are 

placed  side  by  side,  a  pattern  emerges  (table  4):  the  efforts  in  the  areas  Human 

Capital  and/or  Social  Inclusion  are  always  judged  most  favourably.  The  three  policy 

areas Human Capital, Access to Employment, and Social Inclusion are never far apart. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  area  of  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  is  judged  least 

favourably for all statements. 

table 4 

Comparison policy areas (highest percentages favourable per statement indicated in green, 
lowest percentages favourable per statement indicated in red) 

Statement 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Policy area 

Human Capital 

Access to Employment 

Social inclusion 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

78% 

79% 

81% 

43% 

47% 

72% 

68% 

69% 

35% 

44% 

59% 

51% 

59% 

33% 

39% 

45% 

60% 

40% 

39% 

27% 

33% 

57% 

59% 

36% 

37% 

49% 

48% 

52% 

32% 

33% 

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

8.3 

Individuals versus organisations  

There  are  some  noticeable  differences  between  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of 

their  organisations  and  those  answering  as  individual  citizens.  Although  not  all  of 

these differences are statistically significant, a number of patterns emerge. 

 

Individual citizens are more inclined to provide an answer to the statements. More 

often  than  the  citizens,  respondents  replying  on  behalf  of  organisations  chose  to 

select  the  option  ‘do  not  know/not  applicable’  or  to  leave  the  answer  ‘blank’. 

  90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Individuals,  on  the  other  hand,  tend  to  judge  the  statements  unfavourably  more 
often than organisations38, although their responses are mostly positive.  

  When  responding  to  statements  about  the  policy  areas,  organisations  were 

generally  more  positive  about 

the  areas  Human  Capital,  Access 

to 

Employment,  and  Social  Inclusion.  This  was  the  case  for  the  statements  about 

(1)  whether  the  ESF  was  designed  to  address  key  challenges  in  these  areas,  (2) 

whether the ESF contributed to strengthening the economic and social cohesion in 

these  areas,  (3)  whether  the  ESF  was  cost  effective  in  these  areas,  (5)  whether 

the  ESF  allowed  the  testing  and  implementation  of  innovative  activities,  and  (6) 

whether  the ESF was  instrumental  in supporting structural  reforms.  The exception 

to  this  rule  was  the  statement  (4)  whether  the  ESF  was  complementary  to  other 

EU  funds.  This  is  mostly  due  to  the  fact  that  more  organisations  chose  not  to 

respond to this statement. 

 

Individual citizens, on the other hand, judge the  Strengthening of Institutional 

Capacity more favourably than organisations. This is true for all of the statements 

concerning  the  five  evaluation  criteria,  and  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that 

respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  organisations  refrain 

from  answering 

statements about Institutional Capacity more often than individual citizens. 

 

In  the  statements  about  the  support  to  individuals  and  organisations,  individual 

citizens judged the results less favourably than organisations. 

8.4 

Role in ESF 

When  the  respondents  who  received  ESF  support  are  compared  to  those  involved  in 

delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support,  or  who  acted  as  a  social  partner,  two 

noteworthy observations can be made.  

  With  regard  to  the  five  policy  areas,  those  involved  in  in  delivering/managing/ 

coordinating ESF support and social partners had more positive opinions about the 

area Access to Employment. In all six statements where the policy areas were a 

topic  of  interest,  the  respondents  involved  in  delivering/coordinating/  managing 

ESF  support  agreed  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  recipients  that  the  proposed 

results were achieved.  

 

This  finding  is  substantiated  by  the  replies  to  statements  about  the  support  of 

individuals:  significantly  more  respondents  involved  in  managing  ESF  indicated 

that  ESF  support  helped  in  gaining  employment  (including  self-employment). 

Furthermore, those involved in delivering/managing/coordinating ESF support and 

social  partners  judged  the  support  to  unemployed  and  inactive  people  more 

favourably than the recipients of ESF. 

  Also concerning the five policy areas, recipients appear to judge the efforts in the 

area  of  Human  Capital  more  favourably.  Relatively  more  recipients  responded 

favourably  to  most  statements  about  Human  Capital  than  those  involved  in 

delivering/managing/coordinating  ESF  support  and  social  partners.  The  exception 

to this was the statement whether the ESF contributed to strengthening economic 

and social cohesion. 

 

This  might  also  explain  why  recipients  of  ESF  support  also  responded  more 

favourably  to  the  statement  whether  the  ESF  was  successful  in  improving  the 

skills  of  teachers  and  educators.  Furthermore,  the  recipients  recognised  the 

support  of  NEETs  and  the  people  with  secondary  and  higher  educational 

attainment more often than the other group.  

38 These differences are not always significant. 

  91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However, recipients of ESF support did not agree as much as the other group that  the 

ESF  was  successful  in  its  efforts  to  help    individuals  to  gain  a  qualification  (this  was 

statistically insignificant).  

8.5 

Competitiveness, convergence and multi-objective 

Due  to  the  limited  response  from  countries  consisting  of  competitiveness  regions, 

there  were  hardly  any  significant 

results 

for 

the  differentiation  between 

competitiveness regions, convergence regions and multi-objective countries. However 

a number of observations can be made: 

  Respondents from competitiveness  regions were  significantly  more positive about 

the  results  achieved  for  individuals  in  gaining  employment.  This  finding  was 

substantiated by the fact that they were also positive about the cost effectiveness 

of  Access  to  Employment  and  the  innovative  activities  that  were  implemented  in 

the  area  of  Access  to  Employment.  Concerning  the  different  target  groups,  they 

were  especially  positive  about  NEETs,  which  is  a  group  of  unemployed  young 

people not in education, employment or training. 

  Respondents from convergence regions were particularly positive about all results 

achieved by  the ESF for individuals: gaining employment, gaining a qualification, 

improving  working  conditions  and  improving  the  skills  of  teachers.  They  also 

indicated  significantly  more  often  that  the  ESF  was  instrumental  in  supporting 

structural  reforms  in  the  area  of  Human  Capital.  Therefore,  it  can  be  concluded 

that,  in  the  convergence  regions,  ESF  projects  were  favourably  viewed  for  their 

lasting achievements for individuals. 

 

Two aspects that stood out as judged favourably by  the group coming from multi-

objective countries was the positive feedback on the achievements of ESF projects 

to  support  start-ups  and  their  positive  feedback  on  administrative  requirements. 

However,  when  focusing  on  the  three  countries  from  which  most  of  the 

respondents in this group came (Italy, Spain and Germany) it appeared that there 

were  a  lot  of  significant  differences  between  these  three.  Therefore,  the 

respondents  from  multi-objective  countries  appeared  to  be  a  very  heterogeneous 

group.  

8.6 

Lessons learned  

This  chapter  started  off  by  indicating  that  almost  all  aspects  of  the  ESF  were  judged 

favourably rather than unfavourably. However, this does not mean that there were no 

critical comments. Of the five policy areas  Promoting Partnerships and (especially) 

the  Strengthening  of  Institutional  Capacity  were  evaluated  to  be  less  successful 

than the other three areas.  

Additionally,  a  couple  of  statements  that  were  met  with  relatively  high  levels  of 

negative  feedback  concerned  the  administrative  requirements  and  the  extent  to 

which  ESF  provided  support  to  target  groups,  whose  needs  would  otherwise  have 

been insufficiently addressed. These were the following:  

  Audits; 

  Set-up of management and control systems; 

  Reporting; 

 

 

ESF  provided  support  to  older  workers  (55-64),  whose  needs  would  have 

otherwise been insufficiently addressed; 

ESF  provided  support  to  migrants,  whose  needs  would  have  otherwise  been 

insufficiently addressed; 

  92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ESF  provided  support  to  minorities  (such  as  Roma),  whose  needs  would  have 

otherwise been insufficiently addressed. 

In their responses to open questions, administrative requirements were singled out by 

six  respondents.  It  was  claimed  that  the  extensive  requirements  interfered  with  the 

successful and efficient execution of projects. 

Subgroups 

Furthermore,  the  subgroups  analysed  in  this  report  did  not  always  agree  on  the 

successes and effects of the ESF:  

 

Individual  citizens  were  somewhat  less  positive  about  the  policy  areas  Human 

Capital, Access to Employment, and Social Inclusion than organisations (although 

also more individuals were positive rather than negative). 

  Recipients  of  ESF  support  were  somewhat  less  positive  about  the  policy  area 

Access  to  Employment  and  the  successes  for  the  appropriate  target  groups  of 

unemployed  and  inactive.  This  was  also  particularly  noticeable  for  respondents 

answering for Italy. 

 

In Spain, most efforts for individuals and organisations were not often recognised 

or deemed successful. Also they did not acknowledge the support to most of the 

target groups, with the exception of migrants, minorities and unemployed. 

 

In Germany, respondents especially criticised the administrative requirements. 

Other remarks 

Finally,  in  the  answers  to  the  open  questions,  21  respondents  made  critical 

comments.  

  Nine  respondents  claimed  in  some  way  or  another  that  not  all  funds  were  put  to 

good  use.  According  to  them,  funds  were  spent  on  the  wrong  target  groups  or 

organisations  and  there  were  even  claims  that  fraudulent  organisations  that 

profited from the ESF, without putting the funds to good use. 

 

The  long  term  benefits  of  the  ESF  were  contested  by  four  respondents,  mostly 

because of the nature of their own organisation or the economic circumstances in 

the  region/country.  Worries were expressed that  projects would not be continued 

without ESF support. 

 

The  term  ‘innovation’  was  disputed.  Two  respondents  claimed  that  ESF  support 

aimed  at  innovations  could  also  be  used  for  projects  that  were  not  innovative  at 

all. 

  93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 1: Questionnaire

  94 

 
 
 
  95 

 
 
 
 
 
  96 

 
 
 
  97 

 
 
 
 
 
  98 

 
 
 
  99 

 
 
 
 
 
  100 

 
 
 
  101 

 
 
 
 
 
  102 

 
 
 
  103 

 
 
 
 
 
  104 

 
 
 
  105 

 
 
 
 
 
  106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 2: Multiple roles of respondents in ESF 

table 5 

Roles of respondents in ESF 

Number 
of roles  Role(s) 

1  Individual participant receiving ESF support 
   Organisation receiving ESF support 
   Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating  body for EU 

funds 

   Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations  
   Social partner or other member of the Monitoring Committee  
2  Individual participant receiving ESF support;  

Organisation receiving ESF support 

   Individual participant receiving ESF support;  

Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations  

   Organisation receiving ESF support;  

Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or  organisations 

   Organisation receiving ESF support; 

Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU 
funds 

   Organisation receiving ESF support;  

Social partner or other member of the Monitoring Committee  

   Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations;   

Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU 
funds 

3  Individual participant receiving ESF support; 

Organisation receiving ESF support; 
Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU 
funds 

   Organisation receiving ESF support; 

Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations;  
Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU 
funds 

   Organisation receiving ESF support; 

Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations;  
Social partner or other member of the Monitoring Committee  

4  Individual participant receiving ESF support; 

Organisation receiving ESF support; 
Project promoter delivering ESF support to individual participants or organisations;  
Managing, Certifying or Audit Authority, Intermediate Body, Coordinating body for EU 
funds 

0  None of the above 
   No answer 
   Total 

response 

25 

86 

45 

28 

18 

3 

1 

12 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

4 

2 

20 

3 

256 

  107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 3: Germany, Italy and Spain 

Relevance 

figure 35 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were designed to address key 
challenges in the area of: (Germany, Italy and Spain) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

Human Capital*

Access to employment*

56

56

Social inclusion**

32

Institutional capacity*

4

16

32

32

50

Promoting partnerships*

8

Human Capital*

Access to employment*

Social inclusion**

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

29

31

13

12

Human Capital*

12

45

45

45

28

8

0
0

8

44

0
0
0
0

4

0
0

4

8

8

0

28

28

60

12

24

35

7

4

2

2

36

17

4

1

14

52

11

1

2

2

26

26

2

2

11

1

1

14

24

3

0

15

Access to employment*

24

61

6

0

3

6

Social inclusion**

18

Institutional capacity*

9

Promoting partnerships*

6

12

18

39

58

48

9

3

3

9

15

0

24

12

0

15

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF programmes were designed to address key challenges 

in the area of39: 

Germany 

Italy 

Spain 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Human Capital 

Access to Employment 

Social Inclusion 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

84% 

100% 

92% 

20% 

30% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

20% 

8% 

85% 

65% 

83% 

58% 

57% 

6% 

5% 

3% 

4% 

2% 

57% 

85% 

76% 

21% 

24% 

3% 

3% 

6% 

15% 

12% 

39 Differences significant at the p≤0.05 threshold, except for ‘Social Cohesion’, which are significant at p≤0.10 

  108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
figure 36 

The ESF helped to mitigate the effects of the economic and financial crisis (Germany, Italy, 
Spain) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / No answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Germany

4%

56%

20%

12%

8%

Italy

23%

46%

18%

7%

5%

1%

Spain

6%

55%

18%

18%

3%

0%

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

figure 37 

The ESF interventions contributed to strengthening economic and social cohesion in the following 
policy areas (Germany, Italy, Spain) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

Neutral
Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

Human Capital*

Access to employment**

Social inclusion*

24

28

24

Institutional capacity*

4

12

Promoting partnerships*

8

Human Capital*

29

Access to employment**

8

32

48

49

72

68

64

4

0

48

8

4

0

32

0
0
0

4

4

0
0
0

8

0
0

4

49

17

1

4

1

25

5

1

12

Social inclusion*

23

50

21

1

4

1

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

Human Capital*

3

Access to employment**

Social inclusion*

10

10

6

6

Institutional capacity*

0

18

Promoting partnerships*

3

18

36

42

55

61

58

45

48

36

6

4

10

33

5

1

10

24

6

0

12

18

9

0

6

18

9

0

9

12

3

21

18

0

12

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

The percentage of respondents per country that agreed or disagreed to the 

statements that the ESF interventions contributed to the economic and social 
cohesion in the five policy areas are as follows 40: 

Germany (n=25) 

Italy (n=84) 

Spain (n=33) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Human Capital 

Access to Employment 

Social Cohesion 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

96% 

96% 

88% 

16% 

56% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

78% 

57% 

73% 

46% 

52% 

5% 

6% 

5% 

10% 

6% 

58% 

67% 

64% 

18% 

21% 

6% 

9% 

9% 

15% 

18% 

40 Differences significant at the p≤0.05 threshold, except for ‘Social Cohesion’, which are significant at p≤0.10 

  110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

figure 38 

ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the following results (Germany, Italy, 
Spain) 

I strongly agree

I agree Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

28

60

8

0
0

4

Gaining a qualification**

40

Improving working conditions of the employed in the labour
market*

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

4

4

52

52

20

8

0
0
0

12

0

12

40

20

20

0

16

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

7

43

25

11

1

13

Gaining a qualification**

19

55

17

2

2

5

Improving working conditions of the employed in the labour
market*

13

37

27

11

2

10

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

37

38

20

2

0
2

Gaining an employment, including self-employment*

9

58

15

0
3

15

Gaining a qualification**

15

55

12

0
3

15

Improving working conditions of the employed in the labour
market*

0

12

36

33

0

18

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and
educators*

3

24

27

21

0

24

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
figure 39 

ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the following results (Germany, Italy, 
Spain) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Supporting start-ups*

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

20

20

20

32

16

0
0

32

56

12

0
0

12

40

4

12

0

24

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency*

8

4

28

20

0

40

Supporting start-ups*

12

37

33

5

1

12

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

12

30

36

6

1

15

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency*

21

18

55

12

4

1

7

40

25

6

2

8

Supporting start-ups*

3

58

12

9

0

18

Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises

3

30

33

12

0

21

Developing new qualifications, courses, training
programmes, standards or systems

12

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or
efficiency*

0

27

52

21

21

0
3

12

36

6

9

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

  112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

figure 40 

The ESF was cost effective in the following policy areas (Germany, Spain, Italy) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital*

Access to employment*

32

28

Social inclusion

20

52

60

68

8

0
0

8

12

12

0
0
0

0
0
0

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

8

8

12

24

16

0

40

36

12

12

0

32

Human Capital*

25

45

Access to employment*

7

38

26

Social inclusion

19

48

17

13

23

7

4

2

2

13

5

4

2

Institutional capacity*

11

Promoting partnerships*

6

37

42

33

33

8

4

7

5

4

11

Human Capital*

0

42

27

9

3

18

Access to employment*

Social inclusion

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

6

6

0

0

24

24

42

48

30

12

6

3

27

6

3

9

30

15

3

27

39

12

3

21

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

The shares of respondents per country that agree and disagree to the statements that 
the ESF was cost effective in the five policy areas, are as follows 41: 

Germany (n=25) 

Italy (n=84) 

Spain (n=33) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Human Capital 

Access to Employment 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

84% 

88% 

20% 

44% 

0% 

0% 

16% 

12% 

70% 

45% 

48% 

48% 

11% 

15% 

12% 

9% 

42% 

48% 

24% 

24% 

12% 

18% 

18% 

15% 

41 Differences significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
figure 41 

How do you judge the administrative requirements to manage the ESF projects and programmes 
on the following aspects? (Germany, Italy, Spain) 

Too light

Appropriate

Excessive

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Communication

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes**

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting**

48

56

56

44

40

76

76

0

0

8

Set-up of management and control system*

32

0

Audit*

20

0

0

8

16

44

8

4

8

32

0

24

20

0

12

12

28

48

56

68

20

12

12

12

Communication

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes**

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting**

Set-up of management and control system*

77

70

71

75

64

64

67

64

Audit*

58

7

Communication

Implementation of projects*

Designation of authorities

Design of Operational programmes**

Selection of projects

Evaluation

Reporting**

88

79

73

73

55

58

52

Set-up of management and control system*

Audit*

42

36

3

6

39

45

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10 

11

7

12

12

5

6

2

14

12

4

12

10

12

13

4

4

15

15

23

24

26

8

7

7

8

8

9

0

3

3

12

18

6

6

3

9

12

24

6

12

21

9

12

27

9

12

9

15

12

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

  114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coherence 

figure 42 

The ESF programmes were complementary to other EU funds in the following policy areas: 
(Germany, Italy, Spain) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human Capital*

8

Access to employment**

16

48

40

12

8

0

24

20

4

0

20

Social inclusion*

12

20

20

16

0

32

Institutional capacity*

4

0

28

8

4

Promoting partnerships*

4

20

8

16

4

56

48

Human Capital*

17

Access to employment**

5

38

Social inclusion*

17

44

42

19

8

4

8

31

8

2

15

23

6

4

10

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

11

11

29

29

32

38

10

4

15

5

4

14

Human Capital*

0

24

30

6

0

Access to employment**

3

21

18

12

6

Social inclusion*

0

12

Institutional capacity*

0

3

30

45

12

3

3

3

Promoting partnerships*

0

12

36

9

0

39

39

42

45

42

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

  115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU added value 

figure 43 

The ESF has provided support to target groups whose needs would have otherwise been 
insufficiently addressed (Germany, Italy, Spain) 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree
0%

25%

Neutral
Do not know / no answer
50%

75%

100%

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

40

36

Women

28

52

44

52

12

12

0

4

0

4

0
0

8

4

0

4

Long Term Unemployed**

40

44

4

8

0

4

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

Disabled

Employed

NEETs

Other disadvantaged

Inactive*

People with educational attainment below secondary…

People with secondary and higher educational…

Migrants*

Older workers (55-64 years)*

Minorities such as Roma

20

20

20

32

12

16

12

12

16

28

8

Unemployed

Young people (15-24)

19

26

Women

Long Term Unemployed**

Disabled

Employed

NEETs

Other disadvantaged

Inactive*

15

17

14

17

14

19

15

People with educational attainment below secondary…

7

People with secondary and higher educational…

Migrants*

Older workers (55-64 years)*

Minorities such as Roma

13

11

7

11

Unemployed

27

Young people (15-24)

Women

Long Term Unemployed**

18

15

21

36

42

30

Disabled

Employed

6

6

NEETs

12

36

30

24

Other disadvantaged

3

18

People with educational attainment below secondary…
0

People with secondary and higher educational…
0

Migrants*

Inactive*

9

21

33

24

24

20

32

12

0

16

56

44

8

8

0

12

4

0

8

8

16

8

0

16

4

0

4

20

12

0
0

16

4

0

20

20

56

4

12

0
0

20

4

0

16

16

4

36

18

11

4

12

42

15

8

2

6

19

7

5

13

26

6

6

17

31

2

2

10

33

21

7

1

10

4

13

13

40

60

52

48

48

20

37

40

29

40

29

38

36

24

7

2

12

25

36

37

20

21

19

30

31

27

8

4

18

8

2

2

6

4

14

7

6

15

14

18

19

12

2

24

33

39

32

42

18

15

21

39

45

36

12

9

3

6

15

15

15

0

12

3

3

9

9

3

3

12

9

3

6

15

0

12

9

0

21

15

0

9

24

21

27

0

12

15

9

3

0

6

48

45

30

39

30

Older workers (55-64 years)*

0

18

27

30

12

12

Minorities such as Roma

6

30

30

3

6

24

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

  116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  differences  between  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany  were 
statistically  significant42,  when  responding  to  the  statement  that  the  ESF 
had  supported  these  groups,  whose  needs  would  have  otherwise  been 
insufficiently  addressed  (highest  percentages  ‘agree’  indicated  in  green; 
highest percentages ‘disagree’ indicated in red): 

Long term unemployed 

Inactive 

Education below secondary 

Education secondary or higher 

Migrants 

Older workers 

Germany (n=25) 

Italy (n=84) 

Spain (n=33) 

Agree  Disagree 

Agree  Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

84 

72 

68 

60 

84 

60 

8 

4 

0 

4 

12 

4 

46 

40 

43 

50 

31 

28 

12 

12 

10 

8 

18 

13 

51 

30 

33 

24 

54 

18 

18 

15 

24 

21 

15 

42 

figure 44 

The ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities in the following policy areas 
(Germany, Italy, Spain): 

I strongly agree
I disagree

I agree
I strongly disagree

0%

25%

Human Capital*

24

Access to employment*

Social inclusion*

40

40

Institutional capacity*

4

16

Promoting partnerships*

16

16

24

Neutral
Do not know / no answer
100%

75%

8

0

4

0

8

8

16

0

0

12

12

4

52

50%

48

40

36

12

0

16

4

0

40

Human Capital*

24

Access to employment*

12

35

Social inclusion*

23

50

48

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

11

8

42

44

19

4

1

2

30

7

1

15

18

6

1

5

27

29

5

2

13

5

2

12

Human Capital*

3

24

18

18

3

36

30

18

24

33

3

15

21

15

3

21

Access to employment*

Social inclusion*

6

6

Institutional capacity*

0

9

Promoting partnerships*

3

12

36

33

15

3

15

3

36

33

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

42  Differences  for  long  term  unemployed  are  significant  at  the  p≤0.10  threshold,  all  others  at  the  p≤0.05 
threshold. 

  117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
The shares of respondents per country that agree and disagree to the statements that 
the ESF allowed to test and implement innovative activities, are as follows43: 

Germany (n=25) 

Italy (n=84) 

Spain (n=33) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Human Capital 

Access to Employment 

Social Inclusion 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

72% 

80% 

76% 

20% 

40% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

12% 

4% 

74% 

47% 

71% 

53% 

52% 

5% 

8% 

7% 

7% 

7% 

27% 

42% 

36% 

9% 

15% 

21% 

24% 

18% 

18% 

18% 

figure 45 

The ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms in the following policy areas 
(Germany, Italy, Spain) 

I strongly agree

I agree

Neutral

I disagree

I strongly disagree

Do not know / no answer

0%

Human Capital*

8

25%

36

Access to employment

12

32

50%

75%

100%

32

36

4

0

20

4

0

16

Social inclusion*

16

32

36

4

0

12

Institutional capacity*

4

4

Promoting partnerships*

16

28

16

12

0

52

28

8

0

32

Human Capital*

17

42

32

5

2

2

Access to employment

13

33

27

7

4

15

Social inclusion*

18

44

29

4

4

2

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

7

8

39

36

33

42

6

1

13

1

2

11

Human Capital*

3

27

21

Access to employment

6

45

Social inclusion*

Institutional capacity*

Promoting partnerships*

36

3

3

3

15

18

27

30

9

9

9

24

15

6

33

12

6

21

15

3

18

3

3

36

36

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016) 

* Difference significant at p≤0.05; ** Difference significant at p≤0.10  

)
5
2
=
n
(

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

)
4
8
=
n
(

l

y
a
t
I

)
3
3
=
n
(

i

n
a
p
S

43 Differences significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
The shares of respondents per country that agree and disagree to the statements that 
the ESF was instrumental in supporting structural reforms, are as follows44: 

Germany (n=25) 

Italy (n=84) 

Spain (n=33) 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Agree 

Disagree 

Human Capital 

Social Inclusion 

Institutional Capacity 

Promoting Partnerships 

44% 

48% 

8% 

32% 

4% 

4% 

12% 

8% 

59% 

62% 

46% 

44% 

7% 

8% 

7% 

3% 

30% 

39% 

18% 

21% 

15% 

18% 

18% 

12% 

The differences in opinion about Access to Employment were statistically insignificant . 

Conclusions about Italy, Spain and Germany 

Most  of  the  respondents  answering  for  Italy  were  recipients  of  ESF  and  little  over  a 

quarter  were  involved  in  delivering/coordinating/managing  or  acted  as  social 

partners. About a third of the respondents for Germany and Spain were recipients and 

over half of the respondents who answered for the latter two countries, were involved 

in delivering/coordinating/managing ESF support or acted as social partners.  

Furthermore  the  division  for  Italian  respondents  between  individual  citizens  and 

organisations  was  largely  in  line  with  the  total  sample,  whereas  the  organisations 

were somewhat overrepresented in Germany and Spain. 

table 6 

Roles in ESF of respondents for Italy, Spain and Germany 

Role 

Receiving 

Delivering/coordinating/managing/social partners 

Both receiving and delivering/coordinating/managing 

None 

Unknown 

Individual citizen 

Organisation 

Unknown 

Germany 

Italy 

Spain 

Total sample 

32% 

56% 

12% 

58% 

27% 

4% 

10% 

1% 

16% 

84% 

36% 

64% 

33% 

55% 

9% 

3% 

24% 

73% 

3% 

45% 

36% 

10% 

8% 

1% 

34% 

66% 

0% 

Total (abs) 

25 

84 

33 

256 

Source: DG Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion; Panteia (2016)  

Italy 

Given  the  relative  overrepresentation  of  recipients  in  the  composition  of  the  national 

samples,  it  could  be  expected  that  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  Italian 

interventions  share  a  number  of  traits  with  recipients  of  ESF  support  and/or 

organisations.  

Indeed,  it  seems  to  be  the  case  that  (just  like  the  recipients  of  ESF  support) 

respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  Italy  are  less  satisfied  about  the  results  in  the 

area  of  Access  to  Employment.  This  aspect  gained  relatively  fewer  positive 

responses  than  the  responses  for  Germany  and  Spain  on  almost  all  statemen ts, 

except the statement regarding the complementarity to other EU funds (yet this result 

was not significant).  

44 Differences significant at the p≤0.05 threshold. 

  119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Furthermore  just  like  organisations,  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  ESF 

interventions  in  Italy  seemed  to  be  quite  satisfied  about  the  efforts  in  the  areas 

Human  Capital  and  Social  Inclusion.  In  all  of  the  six  statements  concerning  the 

policy areas, the Italians responded positively for Human Capital and Social Inclusion.  

Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  respondents  who  answered  f or  the 

Italian ESF projects, indicated the following positive results/aspects of the ESF (not all 

are statistically significant): 

 

 

 

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and educators; 

Improving working conditions of the employed; 

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or efficiency; 

  Support to people with secondary and higher educational attainment; 

  Administrative requirements were often judged to be ‘appropriate’ . 

Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  following  achievements  of  the  ESF  left 

room for improvement (not all are statistically significant): 

  Gaining an employment by individuals; 

  Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises; 

  Support to unemployed; 

  Support to inactive; 

  Support to migrants; 

  Support to older workers. 

On  a  number  of  topics,  the  input  provided  by  the  respondents,  who  answered  on 

behalf  of  ESF  interventions  in  Italy,  is  in  line  with  the  input  of  recipients  of  ESF.  For 

example:  less  positive  feedback  on  Access  to  Employment,  support  to  unemployed 

and  inactive.  On  the  other  hand,  they  gave  more  positive  feedback  about  Human 

Capital,  improving  the  skills  and  competences  of  teachers  and  educators,  and  the 

support to people with secondary and higher educational attainment. 

An  aspect  that  seems  to  be  specific  for  Italy  is  the  positive  attitude  towards  the 

administrative requirements. 

Spain 

The  respondents  who answered  on  behalf  of  the ESF  interventions  in Spain are  often 

less  positive  about  the  achievements  in  the  five  policy  areas.  Especially  the 

appreciation  for  efforts  in  the  areas  Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity  and 

Promoting Partnerships seems to be lower than average. This is largely due to the 

fact  that  the  groups  of  respondents  answering  for  Spain  often  did  not  provide  an 

answer  or  indicated  they  were  ‘neutral’  on  these  matters.  The  low  scores  for 

Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Promoting Partnerships are noticeable for all 

statements involving the five policy fields. 

The group of respondents answering for Spain was also relatively negative, regarding 

the  achievements  of  the  ESF  for  individuals,  organisations  and  most  target  groups. 

Almost  all  of  the  achievements  were  judged  less  favourably  than  average  (although 

not all results were significant). 

Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  respondents  who  answered  for  the 

Spanish ESF  projects,  indicated  the following  positive  results/aspects  of  the ESF  (not 

all are statistically significant): 

  Supporting start-ups; 

  Requirements for communication; 

  Requirements for the implementation of projects; 

  120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Requirements for the designation of authorities; 

  Requirements for the selection of projects; 

  Support to migrants; 

  Support to minorities. 

Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  following  achievements  of  the  ESF  left 

room for improvement (not all are statistically significant): 

  Gaining a qualification; 

 

 

Improving the working conditions of the employed; 

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and educators; 

  Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises; 

  Developing  new  qualifications,  courses,  training  programmes,  standards  or 

systems; 

 

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or efficiency; 

  Requirements for the design of operational programmes; 

  Requirements for the audit; 

  Support  to  all  target  groups,  with  the  exception  of  migrants,  minorities  and 

unemployed. 

Germany 

Respondents answering on behalf of ESF projects in Germany were generally positive 

about  three  of  the  five  policy  areas:  Human  Capital,  Access  to  Employment,  and 

Social  Inclusion.  This  was  the  case  for  the  statements  about  (1)  whether  the  ESF 

was  designed  to  address  key  challenges  in  these  areas,  (2)  whether  the  ESF 

contributed  to  strengthening  the  economic  and  social  cohesion  in  these  areas,  (3) 

whether  the  ESF  was  cost  effective  in  these  areas,  and  (5)  whether  the  ESF  allowed 

to test and implement innovative activities. 

On  the  contrary,  respondents  answering  for  Germany  were  not  very  positive  (and 

relatively  negative)  about  the  achievements 

in  the  area  of  Strengthening 

Institutional Capacity. This  was partially due to the fact that they were not able to 

respond  to  the  statements.  However  the  respondents  that  did  respond  were  often 

quite  equally  divided  between  being  positive  and  negative  about  the  area  of 

Strengthening Institutional Capacity.  

Most  of  the  respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  German  ESF  projects  were  very 

positive  about  the  support  to  target  groups  whose  needs  would  have  otherwise 

been insufficiently addressed. With the exception of disabled and minorities, all of the 

target  groups  were  recognised  by  a  great  majority  as  being  supported  by  the  ESF. 

The  respondents  were  less  enthusiastic  about  the  administrative  requirements. 

Five  of  the  nine  requirements  were  judged  less  favourably  than  average  by  the 

respondents for Germany.  

Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  respondents  who  answered  for  the 

German ESF  projects,  indicated  the following  positive  results/aspects  of  the ESF  (not 

all are statistically significant): 

  Gaining an employment by individuals; 

  Gaining a qualification; 

 

Improving the working conditions of the employed; 

  Rising competitiveness and adaptability of enterprises; 

 

The requirements for the selection of projects; 

  All target groups, except disabled and minorities. 

  121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Compared  to  the  overall  average  results,  the  following  achievements  of  the  ESF  left 

room for improvement (not all are statistically significant): 

 

Improving the skills and competences of teachers and educators; 

  Developing new qualifications, courses, training programmes, standards or 

systems; 

 

Improving public administration effectiveness and/or efficiency; 

  Requirements for the implementation of projects; 

  Requirements for evaluations; 

  Requirements for reporting; 

  Requirements for the set-up of management and control system; 

  Requirements for the audit; 

  Support to disabled; 

  Support to minorities. 

  122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 4: Answers to open questions 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF support to individuals was successful in achieving the 
following results (other results): 
They have helped our students to choose the University most suitable to them as well as improved their life long 
learning abilities 

support equality between man and women 

Strengthening international cooperation, ex-change know-how with international partners 

Strengthening of individual understanding of other cultures, fostering the European Union of the people!  

renforcement de la palette d'offres 
Not enough attention was paid to social exclusion outside of labour market aspects, e.g. in fighting the 
consequences of poverty and deprivation. 
Most of the resources are spent in the target groups who are not cognitively able to develop. Residents who a re able 
to push economic development, do not get support or it is insufficient. Funding has been  channelled not 
understandable aims and interests. 

It was increased the didactic and relational competences of the teachers and students  

Increase awareness about European Social Fund, access to further support in looking for jobs or training.  

Inclusion des publics fragilisés sur le marché de l'emploi  

il ritardo dei tempi di applicazione delle misure e la 
Heranführung von arbeitsmarktfernsten Menschen an eine Beschäftigungsfähigkeit Verbesserung von Strukturen: a.) 
Aufgreifen und Weitergabe der vielen finanztechnischen Probleme von Projektträgern und Einsatz für konstruktive 
Lösungen b.) Ermöglichung von Kontakten zwischen Entscheidungsträgern aus Ministerien und NBank und der 
Zielgruppe ‘arbeitsmarktfernste Menschen’ (Organisation von Projektbesuchen) c.) Heranführung mehrerer neuer 
Einrichtungen an den ESF (angesichts des immensen und sich ständig ändernden Verwaltungsaufwands will 
allerdings keiner erneut ein ESF-Projekt durchführen!) 

Giving students the chance to gain and/or improve their skills and competences 
Gaining additional competencies specially of unemployed for better inclusion on the labour market, raising their 
employability and possibilities to stay employed 

Fighting school leaving; reinforce school success; rise school certificate level of active population  

Expansion of training for pupils. Professional development for teachers.  
Establish initial contacts between young unemployed and entrepreneurs, through practices in companies according 
to received Training 
Educating the society of cities about effects of the funding on habitants, creating a platform for habitants to discuss 
about public consultation when creating new projects 
Developing new working methods to support those in social exclusion to  open new gates and create new 
opportunities. (LLP Grundtvig) 
Currently in Spain the working conditions are worse than in 2008. The  phenomenon of poor workers started few 
years ago and neither with ESF we have been able to avoid it. 
Contributing to the social inclusion of people in risk of becoming excluded, and supporting the employment 
opportunities of disabled people 
Best practices in development of tools and methodologies to help strengthen employment and social cohesion. 
Creation of public-private partnerships to contribute to these goals.  
All procedures are too complicated, especially for people in emerging regions. There is a huge gap between reality 
and how E.U sees it. 

increase community involvement 

During the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF support to organisations was successful in achieving the 
following results (other results): 
A step forward in developing cooperation with NGO and civil society. Develop  interest for transnational cooperation 
at different level within the organisation. Better performance of institutional capacity as prerequisite for better 
result in matching and social exclusion might be financed by ESF. Using ESF in a strategic way within the 
organisation has been one of the main issue under the 2007 -2013. We have obtained positive response and results 
at the end of the program and a better understanding for shaping the work under the 2014 -2020 program. 
Are you or anybody working for your organisation aware that the European Social Fund is financing Fraud on an 
Industrial Scale within companies contracted to The English Government's Department of Work and Pensions ? I 
personally have given evidence at three Trials here in Berkshire involving *** or ***as they are now known, the 
frauds usually involve billing the Government for courses not attended by individuals or even more blatantly simply 
inventing names and claiming fees for non existent individuals. I  have attended courses funded by the European 
Union's Social Fund at ***, ***and more recently *** and not once have seen anybody from the European Social 
Fund either administering these schemes or checking/ auditing for malpractice., this amounts to an open invitation 
to Fraud and I would like to see the figures for the year ending April 2016 or is that something you refuse to publish 
?  

NB: Names deleted in this answer 

capacitating organizations, reinforce quality of services, developing social economy  

developing new items for municipalities to get people to work 
Die Umsetzung des Partnerschaftsprinzips hat ganz neue Kontakte außerhalb unseres sozialen Sektors ermöglicht. 
Gegenüber Ministerien, NBank und den Partnern im Begleitausschuss hat sich Freien  Wohlfahrtspflege als 
konstruktiver und engagierter Gestalter der Umsetzung des ESFs profiliert.  

European-wide partnerships helped to learn from each other, and select best practices.  

Helping immigrants to integrate into the host society 
I am quite sceptical about the added value of the European Funds to the improvement of public administration 
effectiveness and/or efficiency. Although the ESF and ERDF Funds explicitly pretend to optimize the functioning of 

  123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regional Public Administrations and their outputs for citizens and companies, they do not achieve those goals most 
times. In my opinion, the main reason could be related to the heavy administrative burden introduced by the 
governance system, as well as the lack of legal certainty that affects some aspe cts of the implementation of Funds. 

Improving their ability to front difficulties 
In der Förderperiode 2007-2013 wurden erste Schritte zur Verwaltungserleichterung für die Projektträger eingeführt 
und erfolgreich erprobt (z.B. Pauschalen bei den indirekten Sachausgaben). Diese Erleichterungen sind weiter 
auszubauen, um den Verwaltungsanteil in geförderten Projekten auf ein erträgliches Maß zu beschränken. 
Vorstellbar sind Pauschalen bei Personalkosten, direkten und indirekten Sachkosten und ggf. die Festl egung weiterer 
Standardeinheitskosten. Bezüglich der Erfassung der Teilnehmerstammdaten sollte eine genaue Beobachtung und 
Auswertung der bisher angewendeten Instrumente vorgenommen werden. Einige Projektträger aus der 
Förderperiode zeigen an, dass diese Erfassung zunehmend Verwaltungskapazitäten benötigt. 
In Ergänzung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Anpassungsfähigkeit der Unternehmen werden durch die geförderten 
Maßnahmen im Bereich der Aus- und Weiterbildung auch die individuellen Kompetenzen der Teilnehmer gefördert 
und weiterentwickelt. Hierdurch entstehen deutlich verbesserte Einsatzmöglichkeiten am Arbeitsmarkt und häufig 
auch eine Verbesserung der Einkommenssituation. 

L'employabilité des personnes âgées de plus de 45 ans, surtout de sexe  féminin. 
Public administration was strengthened in capacity, but there is more need for capacity building of operative 
structures. Also there is further need to build capacities of beneficiary institution that is the concern of national 
administration and it was less of the attention of national administration. more attention was made on operating 
structures, which is important, and as mentioned needs more capacity building in management and implementation 
of the whole process. 

Rising imbalance of competitiveness among supported and other enterprises. 

Sector`s preparation for the change of retirement system with the aid of social dialog 

Stimulate legality, transparency and equal opportunities 
The follow up is very difficult for NGO's like EAPN NL and our colleagues since there is to little understanding 
(experience) of our work and our results, that are based on the long run and not on a today basis.  
The significant burden of administration, audit and  evidencing which increased during the 07-13 Programme, in my 
view, had a negative effect on public administration and efficiency for those acting as lead partners in multi -partner 
ESF programmes despite the objective of improving public administration effectiveness and efficiency as a key 
objective. Indications so far are that this will become even more of a burden in the 14 -20 programme, because 
despite the use of financial simplified costs, there is a very significant increase in the evidencing and admin burden 
of participant files. 
There have been some positive activity, however, is not designed base - supports the structure of the population 
understood. In addition, a large part of the funding wasted useless.  
très sincèrement le mécanisme tel qu'il est un soutien indirect au financement de grosses stru ctures (ou de leurs 
sous traitants) de formation qualification car les règles de gestion sont disproportionnées  
Unfortunately ESF was not only a support for organisations/SMEs. Overall the tendency in Europe is not using these 
funds anymore due to bureaucracy and delay in payments and also due to corruption cases at national level. There 
was a general tendency of mistrusting the implementing and contracting authorities, thus the ESF is not seen as a 
real fund and this also due to a lack of transparency (ex . transparency problems in the Croatian National Audit 
agency); it is worth mentioning that the structure of the ESF allowed only big organization to participate. In France 
and in Slovenia small and medium organisations or SMEs do not apply anymore for ESF ’s calls due to the extreme 
complexity of the procedures, of the bureaucracy and of the pre -financing rules that may be really risky for them. 
In Austria the main problem was related to compliance issues; for this reason the national public employment 
service is not using anymore such funds. In this programming period, 2007 -2013, in order to solve the problem 
concerning the pre financing procedures, the tendency was the one of asking for a loan to the bank using the 
contract with the EC as a guarantee. Unfortunately the loans produced some interest’ rates that the organisations 
had to pay to banks and that were not eligible so couldn't be covered with the budget of the project.  

If you would like to mention one or several new types of support or delivery me chanisms implemented 
thanks to the ESF, please describe it (them) here. 
‘Projekt Hundra’ / ‘Project Hundred’ Project Hundred was a cooperation between the public and private sectors. The 
objective was to match unemployed in the city districts of Bergsjön and Kortedala in Göteborg with the labor needs 
in local companies. Through an individual approach vis -à-vis the companies and the unemployed, the project 
managed to support the inclusion of many long-term unemployed in to the work-force. Project owner: The City of 
Göteborg (districts Bergsjön and Kortedala) Partners: business associations, the national unemployme nt agency, 
cooperatives Total EU-budget: 650 000 EURO Total budget: 1, 6 million EURO Exchange rate: 1 EURO =9, 50 SEK 
‘Framtidsbussen’/’The Safety Net’ The Safety Net offered individual education for young women and men who could 
not go to regular school, because of psychosocial problems. Instead of trying to get the youth to come to school, 
the project went to them in a bus. In the bus there was a teacher and a social worker. The project managed to 
motivate many young women and men to go back to school. Project owner: The City of Göteborg Total EU-budget: 
230 000 EURO Total budget: 570 000 EURO Exchange rate: 1 EURO =9, 50 SEK  

A preventative policy which recommends an action plan to prevent social cases in the future  
Define cooperation process tackling Neet, involving several stakeholders at local level. Analysing a best practice 
methods for tackling youth employment working locally  

Development of innovative methodologies and pilot projects.  
Asse V- Progetti di cooperazione transnazionale e interregionale - Azioni innovative a carattere pilota per la 
comparazione, lo scambio e il trasferimento di strumenti, metodi e approcci nel campo dell'istruzione della 
formazione e del lavoro, in ottica di miglioramneto continuo e mututo apprendimento.  
During the 2007-2013 programming period, we managed as Intermediate body three ESF Global grants. These three 
Global grants has reached remarkable results, hence we consider this delivery mechanism very useful to guarantee 
efficiency, effectiveness and celerity to ESF expenditure, especially for integrated, multiannual operations at 
regional level. In particular the Intermediate body  – in comparison with the ROP Managing Authority – can operate 
closer to program’s target groups and usually allocate funds fas ter. In our opinion Global grant (Regulation (EU) No 
1303/2013 - Article 123 Designation of authorities) should be used more frequently during the 2014 -2020 
programming period, especially in those Regions that had more problems and delays in spending ESF r esources. 
Eine Förderung der Einbindung von Freier Wohlfahrtspflege neben den beider Sozialpartnern als  ‘Europa-Büros’ - 
einschließlich deren Mitarbeit im ESF Begleitausschuss  - war neu - und erfolgreich! Für die Arbeitsmarktintegration 
arbeitsmarktfernster Menschen sowie für betriebliche Fort- und Weiterbildung waren ‘modellhafte Projekte’ möglich. 

  124 

 
 
 
 
Allerdings führte die Bewilligungsstruktur dazu, dass kaum wirklich modellhafte neue Wege möglich waren. 
Erfahrungen konnten nur mit methodischen Änderungen und kleineren Abweichungen vom Regelförderprogramm 
gesammelt werden. 

e-servicies, mobile social workers in rural areas 
For groups who have a very long distance to either the labour market or/and society a 2 or 3 year project is too 
short, especially since a follow up is very difficult. We start new processes and than have to see how the further 
development is not available since the lack of money. 
Im ESF des Bundes in Deutschland ist der partnerschaftliche Ansatz in zwei Programmlinien erfolgreich umgese tzt 
worden: Arbeitnehmer- und Arbeitgebervertretung und die Verbände der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. Im Ergebnis 
konnten für die Verbände der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege durch bottom up -Ansätze relevante Instrumente in der 
Personalentwicklung für Einrichtungen in  der Sozialwirtschaft, insbesondere bei der Gewinnung und der Bindung von 
Personal entwickelt und erprobt werden. Darüber hinaus konnten diese Ansätze untereinander durch 
Netzwerkbildung und Aktivitäten zwischengeschalteter Stellen überverbandlich verbreit et werden. Der 
partnerschaftliche Ansatz in der Entwicklung, Gestaltung und Umsetzung der Operationellen Programme sollte auch 
in den folgenden Förderperioden der EU-Strukturfonds gestärkt werden, um die Bedarfe und die Zuwendung an die 
Begünstigten vor Ort zu stärken und somit die Marke ‘ESF’ bei den Bürger/innen noch sichtbarer zu machen. 
Im Rahmen eines Projektes über innovative Arbeitszeiten konnten zwei Informationsveranstaltungen zu flexiblen 
Arbeitszeiten bzw. zur Fachkräftesicherung im Handwerk dur chgeführt werden, auf deren Basis in der Folge ein 
Projekt zur Work-Life-Balance als Chance zur Fachkräftesicherung entstand, bei dem das Handwerk als 
Kooperationspartner auftrat. Die Handwerkskammer für München und Oberbayern ist zudem am Projekt power_m 
zur Förderung des beruflichen Wiedereinstiegs nach der Familienphase als strategischer Partner beteiligt.  
Improving own capacities from original countries and the new ones got from the destination country (Spain) in order 
to start up a business. 
In one Belgian project the partners elaborated a tailored support service for the disadvantaged workers of Work 
Integration Social Enterprises. This support service helped the workers to enhance access to employment and job 
stability. In Romania some projects allowed the creation and development of social enterprises and the development 
of masters courses and postdoctoral. In Poland there were hundreds of so called  ‘innovative projects’ in ESF in 
2007-2013 period. Unfortunately, only few of them were really  innovative and only a small part of this few 
‘innovative projects’ were really implemented in mainstream activities. 
In Scotland, the new employability pipeline (skills pipeline) emerged as a new way of supporting people into work 
and promoting better partnerships. This started on a small scale (12 Local Authorities) and was rolled out by P5 to 
an additional 4(?) Local Authorities and was so successful that it will be rolled out further across all Local 
Authorities in Scotland in the new ESF programme. 

Management of a formative simulated enterprise and alternate work / school  activities in other regions and abroad. 
Multicompetent team targeting neet in cooperation with municipalities and local actors have been used and are 
nowadays being implemented trhough the ESF project Unga In (now Ungkomp). 
New career guidance tools for individuals, new communication channels with clients eg. e -channels, new services to 
clients, education and specialization of public administrators in delivery of services.  

Permit the use of outside experts to all users of the program and give opportunity for discussion and growth.  

Regional zugeschnittene faire Integration von mobil Beschäftigten in den Arbeitsmarkt.  
souvent la novation est un moyen de s'assurer des maintiens de f inancements nécessaires pour une quantité 
importante de publics concernés; c'est plus un argument qu'une réalité et ceci peut être pernicieux  

Stimulate legality, transparency and equal opportunities 
Support does not exist in reality in overseas department of France (French Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe). 
People who work for E.U funds don't even know how it works. support and delivery mechanisms are jocks.  

Support for start-ups. 
termin innowacja jest tak mglisty ze pozwala realizowac project  ktore nie sa innowacyjne. badzo czesto sa to 
repliowane pomysly. element innowacyjny powinien byc usuniety z EFS -u 
Thanks to ESF support, multistakeholder public private partnerships has been developed in the framework of 
transnational cooperation specially in Spain, in the framework of a multiregional OP  ‘Fight against Discrimination’. 
This kind of Partnerships should be enhanced in the 14-20 Programming Period. 
To train immigrants in social skills, job search and an occupation, what the educational system or the labor (training 
public employment system) do not offer this group. 
Within the heath care human recourse development activity aid for attracting foreign lectors was provided as well as 
aid for exchange of experience with foreign colleagues. 

If there were structural reforms supported by the ESF you wish to mention, please fill the line below.  
‘VästKraft’/’West growth’ To counter the crisis 2008-2009 in the automotive industry, the project West growth 
created from 2009 to 2011 an educational framework for employed and unemployed in the technological sector, 
both the perspectives of business development and individual possibilities as driving forces. A comprehensive 
partnership assured asset management, leading to cost effectiveness and stability. The project has changed the 
educational structures of local authorities. Thanks to the project it is now possible  for adults to access secondary 
education provided by other local authorities than where the adult is resident. Project owner: The Göteborg Region 
Association of Local Authorities. Partners: unions, business and local authorities. Total EU -budget: 5, 3 million EURO 
Total budget: 5, 3 million EURO Exchange rate: 1 EURO =9, 50 SEK ‘Sam Kraft’/’Grow together’ West growth 
initiated a co-operation between other ESF-projects targeting the automotive industry. Six projects exchanged 
experience and know-how in a large geographical area. The five other projects were Aurora (Association of Local 
Authorities Fyrbodal), Comiflex (Association of Local Authorities in Region Borås), Industrikompetens in Väst 
(Göteborg’s Technical College), Fordon och Framtid GP (IDC West Sweden) and FKG 09 (Region Blekinge). 
A mio parere è una buona iniziativa favorevole per più campi e persone ....ma non adeguata alla situazione 
disastrosa in cui ci troviamo ...sarebbe a dire l alto tasso di inoccupazione sociale  
certains ‘essais’ont été financés comme des exercices de consommation de reliquats de crédits ou de lignes 
budgétaires que comme des besoins réels. 
Asse Capitale Umano- Interventi sperimentali, preceduti da un'azione di ricerca, volti ad individuare processi 
linguaggi e strumenti utili alla costruzione di un sistema regionale di riconoscimento, validazione e certificazione 
delle competenze comunque acquisite dal cittadino. 
Die Einbindung von Freier Wohlfahrtspflege in Entscheidungs -, Bewertungs- und Umsetzungsstrukturen zum ESF hat 
sich sehr bewährt (- und wird in der neuen Förderperiode fortgesetzt). Mit Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse aus 17 
modellhaften Projekten darüber, wie eine Arbeitsmarktintegration von arbeitsmarktfernsten Menschen gelingen 

  125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
kann, wurde ein Bericht vorgelegt und daraus ein denkbares Förderprogramm abgeleiteten. In der 
Programmplanung zur neuen Förderperiode fand beides keine Berücksichtigung, und es wurde auf Seiten des 
Ministeriums auch nicht das Gespräch dazu gesucht. Wozu wurde man in einer Förderperiode da mit beauftragt, 
Erfahrungen in modellhaften Projekten zusammenzutragen, wenn auf Landesebene niemand an den Ergebnissen 
interessiert ist? Zumindest in einzelnen Jobcentern floss der Bericht in Diskussionen ein. 
I think the main structural reforms related to the ESF, they aimed at promoting equal opportunities between men 
and women and disadvantaged group, and the strengthening of transnational networks to exchange experiences and 
best practices. 
Im Bereich der Sozialen Innovation konnten durch den ESF in Bayern neue Impulse gesetzt werden, so z. B. durch 
ein Projekt zur Gewinnung spanischer Fachkräfte für das Handwerk in Oberbayern.  

In Romania, the draft law on social economy was started through a project financed by the ESF.  

More striving promoting partnerships 
NGO's that work with the most disadvantaged our most of the time as poor  as the target groups themselves and do 
not find local or national authorities to support their process. We are depending on what the ESF may or may not 
offer us. That should be changed. 
niby dlaczego EFS mialby reformowac system?! najwieksza porazka to KRK  - pieniadze bez sensu wydane. Oglnie 
idea KRK I EU ram jest glupia i nie przyczyni sie do lepszego zarzadzania umiejetnosciami.  
One positive contribution directly due to the application of ESF rules has been establishing a more frequent follow -
up and control of public aids awarded by the Employment Agency to self -employers who set up their own business. 
Before being co-financed by ESF, the check about whether the beneficiary was still working in the granted activity 
was only made three years after having paid the public grant. However, after applying ESF criteria, the Public Body 
had to implement a more sophisticated control system, which clearly improved the effectiveness of the controls and 
accelerated the recovery of unduly paid grants. 
Policy fields in supporting high schools students competencies; Policy fields in supporting university students in 
experiences abroad; Policy fields in supporting Chemistry - Physics - Reverse Engineering - Math applications to I. 
C. T. 
Polish way for the implementation of the ESF should be reformed. In the current version approved of the 
strengthening of the economic deficit and delaminate human capital; The solution is systemic and horizontal 
approach with regard to the economic situation and trends in region  

Schools 
The ‘Scottish’ approach to addressing employability was significantly changed as a result of the employability 
pipelines, and ESF was a direct catalyst for this. The pipeline model has reformed employability support across 
Scotland. 
Within the heath care human recourse development activity health care personal was re -educated in accordance 
with health care structural changes. 
You and those administering The European Social Fund appear to be in denial as to what's happening to the funds 
you are busy giving out to companies and organisations who specialise in Fraud in this Country.   

  126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

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

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 

(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  

from the delegations in non-EU countries 

(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  

by contacting the Europe Direct service 

(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, 

phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

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

Priced subscriptions: 

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

  127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
E
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
6
3
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2767/370416