COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Integration Fund 2011-2013 and 2007-2010 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows'
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU programme, foreign national, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migratory movement

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018  SWD(2018) 333 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Integration Fund 2011-2013 and 2007-2010 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' {COM(2018) 456 final}  - {SWD(2018) 334 final}  - {SWD(2018) 335 final}  - {SWD(2018) 336 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

2 

3 

Background to the initiative ............................................................................................................ 1 

Evaluation questions ....................................................................................................................... 5 

4  Method ............................................................................................................................................ 5 

5 

6 

Implementation state of play .......................................................................................................... 8 

Answers to the evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 11 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

6.6 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 11 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................... 12 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 24 

Sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 27 

Complementarity and Coherence ......................................................................................... 30 

EU Added value ..................................................................................................................... 32 

7 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 33 

ANNEX 1 - Procedural information ........................................................................................................ 36 

ANNEX 2 - Stakeholder consultation ..................................................................................................... 37 

Overview............................................................................................................................................ 37 

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 38 

Relevance ...................................................................................................................................... 38 

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................. 38 

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 39 

Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 39 

Coherence and Complementarity ................................................................................................. 40 

EU Added Value ............................................................................................................................. 40 

ANNEX 3 – Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 42 

Study conducted by external evaluators ............................................................................................... 42 

ANNEX 4 - List of evaluation questions ................................................................................................. 45 

ANNEX 5 - List of abbreviations and country codes .............................................................................. 48 

ANNEX 6 - Ex post evaluation of the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals 
(EIF) for the period 2007-2010 .............................................................................................................. 49 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

This Staff Working Document reports on the results and impacts of actions co-financed by the 

European fund for the integration of third-country nationals (EIF) under the 2011-2013 annual 
programmes  implemented  by  the  26  participating  EU  Member  States1  (MS)  and  the  2010-
2013  Community  Actions.2  The  actions  co-financed  by  the  EIF  during  the  relevant  period 

were  assessed  in  light  of  their  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  sustainability,  coherence 

and complementarity with other EU financial instruments, and the added value of intervening 

at EU level.  

The  results  of  this  evaluation  fed  into  the  mid-term  review  of  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 

Integration  Fund  (AMIF)  national  programmes,  which  took  place  between  2017  and  2018, 

and the interim evaluation of the AMIF carried out in 2017-2018. The results of the mid-term 

review of the national programmes allow the European Commission to take decisions on the 

allocation of additional funding, and agree with Member States on changes in their priorities 

according  to  changes  in  EU  and  national  policies  for  the  remaining  implementation  period 

(2018-2020). The results of the interim evaluation of AMIF contributed to shaping the future 

policies under the responsibility of DG HOME. The results of both processes are beneficial to 

the preparation of the new funding instruments in the framework of the Multiannual Financial 

Framework (MFF) post 2020.  

2  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

The  EIF  is  one  of  the  four  EU  funding  instruments  established  in  2007  as  part  of  the 
Framework  Programme  on  Solidarity  and  Migration  Flows3,  known  as  SOLID  Funds.  The 

EIF  was  designed  to  contribute  to  the  basis  for  a  common  migration  and  integration  policy 

1   AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, 

UK (all the MSs at the time, with the exception of Denmark).  

2   The  previous  funding  period  (2007-2010)  has  already  been  examined  in  previous  evaluations.  See  COM 
(2011)847  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the results achieved and on qualitative 
and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country 
nationals for the period 2007-2009, European Commission, 5 December 2011. 

3   COM  (2005)  123  final,  Communication  establishing  a  framework  programme  on  Solidarity  and  the 

Management of Migration Flows for the period 2007-2013, European Commission, 6 April 2005. 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  to  promote  synergies  and  coordination  of  national  integration  policies  implemented  by 

Member States (principle of subsidiarity). 

The general objective of the Fund was to support the efforts made by the Member States in 

enabling  third-country  nationals  of  different  economic,  social,  cultural,  religious,  linguistic 

and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration 

into European societies. To achieve its general objective, the EIF was designed to pursue four 

specific objectives:  

1.  Facilitation  of  the  development  and  implementation  of  admission  procedures 

relevant to and supportive of the integration process of third-country nationals; 

2.  Development and implementation of the integration process of newly-arrived third-

country nationals in Member States; 

3.  Increase  of  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor  and 

evaluate policies and measures for the integration of third-country nationals; 

4.  Exchange of information, best practices and cooperation in and between Member 

States in developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies and measures 

for the integration of third-country nationals. 

The EIF was designed in 2005-2006 and its specific objectives were formulated as broad as 

possible  to  cater  for  changing  conditions.  Subsequently,  to  foster  a  more  targeted 

implementation  of  the  policy  priorities  the  Commission  adopted  the  Strategic  Guidelines  of 
EIF4, which established a framework for the intervention of the Fund around four priorities.  

According to these priorities, Member States were to determine the most effective distribution 

of  financial  resources  according  to  national  needs  in  terms  of  integration.  Moreover,  when 

preparing their draft multi-annual programmes, Member States were required to target at least 

three  of  the  four  priorities  (with  priorities  1  and  2  being  mandatory)  through  the  use  of 

available resources.  

The four priorities of the fund were broadly aligned with the above specific objectives: 

4   Commission Decision C(2007)3926. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Priority  1:  Implementation  of  actions  designed  to  put  the  "Common  Basic  Principles  for 
immigrant integration policy in the European Union"5 into practice (feeding into objectives 1 

and 2). 

Priority 2: Development of indicators and evaluation methodologies to assess progress, adjust 

policies  and  measures,  and  to  facilitate  co-ordination  of  comparative  learning  (feeding  into 

objectives 3 and 4). 

Priority  3:  Policy  capacity  building,  co-ordination  and  intercultural  competence  building  in 

the  Member  States  across  the  different  levels  and  departments  of  government  (feeding  into 

objectives 2 and 3). 

Priority 4: Exchange of experience, good practice and information on integration between the 

Member States (feeding into objective 4).  

The evaluation found the design of the Fund complex, with priorities falling under more than 

one specific objective. This is a common feature of the SOLID funds, as shown also by the 
results of the ex post evaluation of the three other funds (European Refugee Fund6, External 

5   The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council of 19 November 2004 adopted the Common Basic Principles 
(CBPs)  for  immigrant  integration  policy  in  the  European  Union  (COM(2005)0389  FINAL).  These  eleven 
principles  underline  the  importance  of  a  holistic  approach  to  integration.  Principle  1:  ‘Integration  is  a 
dynamic,  two-way  process  of  mutual  accommodation by  all immigrants and  residents  of  Member  States’; 
Principle  2:  ‘Integration  implies  respect  for  the  basic  values  of  the  European  Union’;  Principle  3:  
‘Employment is a key part of the integration process and is central to the participation of immigrants, to the 
contributions immigrants make to the host society, and to making such contributions visible’. Principle 4: 
‘Basic  knowledge  of  the  host  society’s  language,  history,  and  institutions  is  indispensable  to  integration; 
enabling  immigrants  to  acquire  this  basic  knowledge  is  essential  to  successful  integration’;  Principle  5: 
‘Efforts  in  education  are  critical  to  preparing  immigrants,  and  particularly  their  descendants,  to  be  more 
successful  and  more  active  participants  in  society’;  Principle  6:  ‘Access  for  immigrants  to  institutions,  as 
well  as  to  public  and  private  goods  and  services,  on  a  basis  equal  to  national  citizens  and  in  a  non-
discriminatory way is a critical foundation for better integration’; principle 7: ‘Frequent interaction between 
immigrants  and  Member  State  citizens  is  a  fundamental  mechanism  for  integration.  Shared  forums, 
intercultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and stimulating living conditions 
in urban environments enhance the interactions between immigrants and Member State citizens’; Principle 
8: ‘The practice of diverse cultures and religions is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and 
must  be safeguarded, unless practices conflict with other inviolable European rights or with national law’ ; 
principle 9: ‘The participation of immigrants in the democratic process and in the formulation of integration 
policies and measures, especially at the local level, supports their integration’; principle 10: ‘Mainstreaming 
integration  policies  and  measures  in  all  relevant  policy  portfolios  and  levels  of  government  and  public 
services  is  an  important  consideration  in  public  policy  formation  and  implementation.’;  Principle  11: 
‘Developing  clear  goals,  indicators  and  evaluation  mechanisms  are  necessary  to  adjust  policy,  evaluate 
progress on integration and to make the exchange of information more effective.’ 

6   Decision No 573/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 

2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
Borders  Fund7  and  European  Return  Fund8).  However,  when  preparing  the  current  funding 
instrument, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund9 (AMIF), the Commission took stock 

of the experience with the SOLID funds and designed the AMIF around a general objective to 

which contributed to four specific objectives. 

The EIF was implemented through two types of actions: 

-  National  programmes:  under  the  principle  of  shared  management,  Member  States 

implemented  the  Fund  through  national  annual  programmes  on  the  basis  of 

multiannual  programming  which  reflected  their  specific  needs.    The  annual  national 

programmes  set  out  the  measures  to  be  implemented  in  the  Member  States  and 

specified their purpose, scope, beneficiaries, expected results and budget. 

-  Community  Actions:  at  the  Commission's  initiative,  up  to  4%  of  the  EIF  resources 

were made available to finance transnational actions or actions of interest to the EU as 

a  whole.  These  actions  were  implemented  by  NGOs,  international  organisations  or 

public bodies of the Member States. Priorities and themes for projects were set out in 

the  European  Commission's  annual  work  programmes.  Calls  for  proposals  were 

published and potential beneficiaries could apply and submit their proposals.  

An overview of the financial performance of the EIF is provided in Section 5 Implementation 

state of play.  

7   Decision No 574/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 

2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

8   Decision No 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the European  Return Fund for the period 2008 to 

2013 as part of the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

9   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  evaluation  assessed  the  EIF  against  the  mandatory  evaluation  criteria  laid  down  in  the 

Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines 

(effectiveness,  efficiency, 

relevance, 

sustainability,  coherence  and  EU  added  value). 

In  addition,  sustainability  and 

complementarity  of  the  co-financed  actions  were  also  assessed.  To  do  so,  16  evaluation 

questions were set out in the terms of reference of the evaluation study and related directly to 

the  Fund's  objectives;  they  are  listed  in  Annex  4  and  their  detailed  analysis  is  provided  in 

Section 6. 

4  METHOD  

An ex post evaluation study of the Fund was carried out between April 2016 and December 

2016 by a consulting firm specialised in evaluation. 

The  methodology  combined  desk  research  and  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis.  The 

methodology required a systemic synthesis of the evidence regarding the implementation of 
the Fund. Information was derived mainly  from the 2610 national evaluation reports and the 

annual  work  programmes  of  the  Member  States.  The  annual  work  programmes  set  out  the 

operational objectives for each year and the national evaluation reports provided information 

on outputs, results and impacts of the Fund. All the information contained in the 26 evaluation 

reports  was  first  assessed  to  check  its  completeness,  comparability,  quality  and  reliability. 

Shortcomings  were  found  in  four  national  reports,  where  gaps,  inconsistencies  and  unclear 

statements were identified. Data included in the evaluation reports were crosschecked against 

other  sources  of  information  and  follow-ups  undertaken  with  the  responsible  authorities  in 

Member States. The quantitative data was crosschecked with other sources, including annual 

programmes closure reports, to ensure consistency. The desk research included also relevant 

official  statistics  (i.e.  the  OECD  and  European  Commission’s  Immigrant  Integration 
Indicators11 and MIPEX12)13. 

10    The geographical scope comprises all EU Member States except Denmark and Croatia (26 Member States): 
Croatia was not a member of the EU at the time and Denmark did not participate in the implementation of 
the Fund. 

11   Available on Eurostat and the publication “Integration Indicators 2015: Settling in”, published by the OECD 

in July 2015, based on joint research by the OECD and the European Commission (DG HOME).  

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
Further  information  was  obtained  from  more  than  100  in-depth  interviews  with  EU-level 

stakeholders  (national  Responsible  authorities,  beneficiaries,  EU  officials  and  case  study 
respondents),  eight  case  studies14  and  a  public  consultation.  A  detailed  analysis  of  the 

stakeholder consultation is provided in Annex 2. 

Data on Community Actions funded by the EIF over the period 2011-2013 was collected and 

analysed  through  a  combination  of  desk  research  and  targeted  data  collection.  In  addition, 

Commission  officials  who  coordinated/administered 

the  Community  Actions  were 

interviewed  and  a  phone  survey  was  undertaken  in  relation  to  a  sample  of  projects  funded 

under  the  EIF  2011-2013  (35  beneficiaries,  20  project  managers  and  four  national 

Responsible authorities).  

4.1 

LIMITATIONS 

Assessing  the  coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  Community  Actions  with  National 

Actions as well as the effectiveness of projects proved to be difficult, due mainly to the fact 

that the Responsible Authorities did not have a substantial awareness of Community Actions 

as  they  were  often  not  systematically  informed  by  the  beneficiary  organisations  of  projects 

implemented in this way. This also posed difficulties when assessing the survey carried out on 

the  Community  Actions.  To  partly  overcome  this  difficulty,  the  evaluation  experts  have 

analysed  additional  documentation  on  project  activities,  outputs  and  results  provided  by  the 

Commission. 

Another difficulty was that the original design of the Fund did not foresee the obligation for 

the  Member  States  to  set  a  baseline,  nor  did  it  include  EU  targets  linked  to  operational 

objectives. This made it difficult to measure the results of the EIF. To assess the effectiveness 

of the Fund, the evaluators relied mainly on programme targets set by national authorities and 

interviews with Member States. The lack of quantitative data has also limited the evaluation 

of the efficiency criteria. Furthermore, Member States and beneficiaries did not monitor what 

12   The Migration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in all 

EU Member States as well as some third countries; please refer to www.mipex.eu.  

13   The changes in these OECD/EU and MIPEX indicators cannot be linked to the Fund, so these data cannot 
be used to assess the effectiveness of the Fund. However, they are relevant as they provide an overview of 
factors  surrounding  the  implementation  of  the  Fund.  For  this  reason,  these  data  were  used  to  assess  the 
relevance of the Fund and in the context of the case studies. 

14   BE, FR, DE, IT, LV, PL, ES and SE. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
happened to TCNs after they received support from the EIF, so it is very difficult to quantify 

the extent to which the Fund contributed to the integration of TCNs. These issues are further 

discussed in section 6.3 (Efficiency). Additional information on the methodology is provided 

in Annex 3. 

7 

 
 
 
 
5 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

The  European  fund  for  the  integration  of  third  country  nationals  was  launched  in  2007  and 
implemented  in  two  cycles:  2007-2010  and  2011-2013.  The  initial  budget  of  the  Fund  was 
EUR 825 million, out of which EUR 467 million for the period 2011-2013 were distributed as 
follows: 

-  National programmes (shared management): EUR 447 million15,  
-  Community actions (direct management): EUR 20 million16.  

Implementation through shared management 

The  absorption  rate17  varied  over  time  and  from  a  Member  State  to  another.  Globally,  the 

average absorption rate of EIF 2011-2013 equals 77%, with the highest performance in 2013, 

when  it  reached  83%.  Programmed  EU  financing  rose  progressively  from  2007-2013  by  at 

least 12% per annum, most notably from 2008-2009 (26%) and from 2011-2012 (25%).  

The implementation of the actions under national programmes ran until the end of 201518 and 

for  this  reason  15  national  programmes  out  of  78  were  not  closed  yet  when  the  evaluation 

study was completed at the end of 2016. Implementation statistics presented in this document 
are based on an updated extraction of data from ABAC/SFC19 dated 31/12/2016.  

15   For the period 2007-2010 the provision for national programmes was equal to EUR 326 million. 
16   For the period 2007-2010 the provision for community actions was equal to EUR 18 million. 
17   The absorption rate represents the ratio of actually paid funds over total allocation. 
18   In practice, Member States were given until June 2016 to finish implementing actions under the EIF. 
19   SFC is an online monitoring tool managed by the Commission and used for certain funding programmes, 
where  Member  States  can  upload  implementation  reports  and  financial  information.  ABAC  is  the 
Commission's accrual based online accounting system.   

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
71% 

71% 

63% 

74% 

73% 

75% 

83% 

180

160

140

120

100

U
E

t
e
n
d
n
a

d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

R
U
E
s
n
o
i
l
l
i

m
n
i

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

43 

80

60

40

20

0

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

e
t
a
r
n
o
i
t
p
r
o
s
b
A

2007

2008

Programmed EU contribution

2009

2010
Net EU contribution

2011

2012

2013
Absorption rate

Figure 1: Programmed and net EU contributions and absorption rates by year, EIF Shared Management, 2007-2013. Source: 
European Commission (ABAC) at 31.12.2016 

As  highlighted  in  figure  2,  programmed  and  utilised  EU  financing  was  highest  in  Italy,  the 

United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and France. These five countries accounted for 51% of the 

total programmed and 72% of the total final EU contributions.  

The methodology to calculate the amount of funds to be attributed to each Member State was 

set in the legal base: EUR 500,000 per annum for Member States which would accede to the 

European  Union  during  the  period  from  2007  to  2013  and  the  remainder  of  the  available 

annual resources broken down between the Member States as follows: 

(a)  40  %  in  proportion  to  the  average  of  the  total  number  of  legally  residing  third-country 

nationals in Member States over the previous three years; and 

(b)  60%  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  who  have  obtained  an 

authorisation issued by a Member State to reside on its territory over the previous three years. 

The  allocation  mechanism  based  on  statistics  of  the  three  previous  years  aimed  to  ensure  a 

distribution  of  resources  proportionate  to  the  inflows  registered  by  the  Member  States  and 

thus  the  need  to  provide  integration  support  to  the  target  groups  of  EIF.  However,  the 

allocation system didn't always reflect Member States' short term evolving needs. This lack of 

flexibility  of  the  Fund  (common  to  all  SOLID  Funds)  was  mitigated  by  the  Emergency 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures mechanism and by the possibility for the Member States to modify their NPs at any 

time and to reallocate Funds in the area which required a more important financial support.  

Figure 2: Programmed and net EU contributions and absorption rates by participating country, EIF, 2011-2013. Source: 
ABAC 

Implementation through direct management 

A total amount of EUR 20.8 million was allocated for Community Actions for 2011-2013 to 

finance  cooperation  between  Member  States,  corresponding  to  4%  of  the  EIF.  Despite  the 

very small budget, 35 projects were awarded a contribution (9 in 2011; 15 in 2012 and 11 in 

2013).  They  received  grants  ranging  between  EUR  400,000  and  EUR  1  million,  with  a  

maximum  rate  of  co-financing  set  in  the  annual  work  programmes  at  90%  of  the  eligible 

costs.  The  absorption  rate  varied  between  47%  and  100%,  averaging  90%  in  2011,  78%  in 

2012 and 92% in 2013.  

Beneficiaries 

NGOs  and  research  organisations  were  the  main  beneficiaries.  Dissemination  of  results, 

development of new tools, research and awareness-raising were the predominant subjects of 

the  projects.  Italian  organisations  proved  to  be  very  active  (26  organisations)  along  with 

organisations  from  Spain  (19),  Germany  (16),  Belgium  and  the  UK  (14  each).  Italy  also 

dominated among leading beneficiaries, heading up to 12 of the 35 projects. 

10 

 
 
 
6  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1  Relevance 

EQ13  and  14:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF’s  objectives  correspond  to  needs  related  to  the 

integration  of  TCNs  into  the  European  societies?  To  what  extent  did  the  objectives  of  the 

actions under the EIF correspond to the needs in the field of integration of TCNs? 

Main  conclusion:  The  evaluation  showed  that  the  EIF  was  broad  enough  to  cater  for  the 

various types of needs identified by the Member States, and proved flexible enough to adapt 

to  changing  needs.  However,  the  restrictive  definition  of  the  target  group  was  felt  as  a 

limitation  by  some  Member  States,  whilst  others  pointed  at  the  lack  of  interest  of  local 

administrations and NGOs as an obstacle to the achievement of better results.  

Overall,  the  EIF  responded  to  needs  in  the  area  of  integration  and  the  evaluation  showed  a 

high  level  of  alignment  between  needs  and  actual  results/impacts.  The  large  majority  of 

stakeholders agreed that the objectives of the Annual National Programmes and of the Annual 

work programmes were relevant to the needs not only at the time of their formulation, but also 

during  the  implementation  of  the  Fund,  as  the  objectives  were  formulated  in  a  way  that 

allowed  some  adaptation  of  the  response  to  changing  circumstances  in  Member  States.  For 

instance,  in  Spain,  the  RA  revised  the  Annual  National  Programme  to  be  able  to  support 

TCNs in precarious situations due to loss of employment (and consequent risk of losing their 

resident status) because of the economic crisis.  

However, some issues were identified: 

1.  The need to increase the availability of integration services and measures to cater for 

the necessities of a growing target group; 

2.  The need to target more specifically some vulnerable groups, in particular women and 

children; 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  For  some  Member  States20,  the  need  to  define  better  the  target  group  of  the  Fund, 

given  that  projects  for  asylum  seekers  and  persons  benefiting  from  refugee  and 

subsidiary  protection  status  who  do  not  fall  within  the  Commission’s  definition  of 

third country nationals were not eligible under the EIF.  

The last point refers to a twofold issue: support for integration may be needed also for second- 

and third-generation migrants (already citizens of the destination country),  and according  to 

some Member States it should not be limited to “newly arrived”. Furthermore, the restrictive 

interpretation  of  “newly  arrived”  by  some  Responsible  authorities  was  perceived  as  an 

obstacle by beneficiary organisations. 

Nine Member States21 identified an issue in the lack of interest in contributing to the Fund's 

activities of certain stakeholders and target groups (i.e. local level policy makers, NGOs and 

TCNs), but could not explain the reasons. 65% of the project managers of Community actions 

reported in reply to a survey that their projects corresponded to the identified needs to some 

extent. However, the evaluation did not find evidence of a structured exchange between the 

Commission  and  national  authorities  on  Community  Actions,  so  it  was  not  possible  to 

evaluate  the  extent  to  which  Community  Action  projects  also  corresponded  to  the  needs  at 

national level.  

6.2  Effectiveness 

To assess the effectiveness of the Fund, the evaluation looked at the extent to which the EIF 

2011-2013 actions contributed to the achievement of the general objective of the Fund, which 

was to support the Member States in their efforts to enable TCNs to fulfil the conditions of 

residence  and  to  facilitate  their  integration  into  the  European  societies.  Member  States  and 

beneficiaries did not monitor what happened to TCNs after they have received support from 

the  EIF,  so  it  is  very  difficult  to  quantify  the  extent  to  which  the  Fund  contributed  to  the 

integration  of  TCNs.  Effectiveness  is  measured  in  terms  of  an  overall  increase  in  TCNs 

supported by the Fund rather than as a percentage of TCNs supported out of a total number of 

TCNs. 

20   CY, EE, FI, LU and MT. 
21   DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, LT, MT, RO, and UK. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
Instrumental  to  the  achievement  of  the  general  objective  was  the  progress  towards  the  four 

specific  objectives  set  in  the  legal  base  and  illustrated  in  Section  2.  The  analysis  of  the 

effectiveness  of  the  Fund  is  presented  per  specific  objective,  each  of  them  dealt  with  by 

specific evaluation questions, as shown below: 

Objective  A  -  Facilitation  of  the  development  and  implementation  of  admission  procedures 

relevant to and supportive of the integration process of TCNs: evaluation questions 2 and 3.  

Objective  B  -  Development  and  implementation  of  the  integration  process  of  newly  arrived 

TCNs in Member States: evaluation questions 4 and 7. 

Objective  C  -  Increasing  of  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor 

and evaluate policies and measures for the integration of TCNs: evaluation questions 5 and 8. 

Objective  D  -  Exchange  of  information,  best  practices  and  cooperation  in  and  between 

Member  States  in  developing,  implementing,  monitoring  and  evaluating  policies  and 

measures for the integration of TCNs: evaluation questions 6, 9, 10 and 11. 

The evaluation question 1 provides a global assessment of the effectiveness of the Fund.  

EQ1:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 

objectives  defined  in  Articles  2  and  3  of  Decision  No  2007/435/EC  and  to  the  priorities 

defined by the Strategic Guidelines (2007)3926 of 21/08/2007)? 

Main  conclusion:  Overall,  the  EIF  achieved  progress  towards  its  objectives,  though  to 

varying degrees. The Fund enhanced the direct support to the integration of TCNs and made 

an important contribution to the integration process in the majority of EU Member States. It 

led  to  increased  and  improved  offer  of  services  and  increased  attendance  by  TCNs.  It  was 

effective in putting the Common Basic Principles on Integration into action, but it achieved 

only partially the objective of enhancing cooperation between Member States.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evaluation concluded that the EIF was effective in the development and implementation 

of the integration process of newly-arrived TCNs (specific objective 2), and in increasing the 

capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  monitor,  implement  and  evaluate  policies  and 

measures for the integration of TCNs (specific objective 3). 

Overall, Member States implemented 7 279 projects with EIF support, reaching more than 2.5 

million  TCNs  in  various  ways.  This  included  463  990  TCNs  belonging  to  specific  target 

groups and at least 3 081 minors. In addition to TCNs, end recipients of the Fund were also 

staff working with TCNs, staff in relevant services of other Member States and members of 

the public. Member States implementing the largest number of projects were Italy (883 736), 

Spain (533 028), Poland (228 612), Germany (114 215), France (94 234) and Czech Republic 

(64  579).  The  implementation  of  the  EIF  through  activities  targeting  directly  the  end 

recipients proved to be more efficient than expected. For example, 11 Member States planned 

pre-departure measures to benefit 99 799 TCNs in 53 projects. All projects except one went 

ahead and reached 108 837 end recipients altogether.   

Objective A  -  Facilitation  of the development and implementation of admission  procedures 

relevant to and supportive of the integration process of TCNs   

EQ3:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  facilitation  of  the 

development  and  implementation  of  admission procedures relevant  to  and  supportive  of  the 

integration process of TCNs? 

Main  conclusion:  Both  National  and  Community  Actions  had  limited  impact  on  the 

facilitation of the development and implementation of admission procedures relevant to and 

supportive of the integration process of TCNs. This is due to the fact that only a few Member 

States considered this as a priority, as reflected in their annual programmes, and the focus was 

more on increasing knowledge of admission procedures than directly on their improvement. 

However, the projects carried out under this objective generated some regulatory changes. 

Projects  aiming  to  develop  and  improve  admission  procedures  or  pre-departure  measures 

quasi-achieved or over-achieved their pre-defined targets in terms of the number of projects 

carried out (98%) and TCNs targeted by pre-departure measures (109% with over 9 000 more 

TCNs  reached  than  planned).  However,  the  degree  of  achievement  varied  between  Member 

14 

 
 
 
 
States: Germany, Hungary and the UK over-achieved their objectives in terms of number of 

TCNs, whilst the Netherlands under-achieved them.  

The  projects  carried  out  under  this  objective  generated  some  regulatory  changes  (legal 

amendments):  for  instance,  changes  to  the  regulation  of  admission  procedures  were 
undertaken in 10 Member States22. Changes to the organisation of admission procedures were 
undertaken  too23,  namely  changes  in  the  institutional  set-up  for  immigration  policy24  or  the 
establishment  of  one-stop  agency (Citizenship  and  Migration  Affairs)25.  However, only  five 
Member States26 out of 24 considered that the EIF strongly contributed to the development or 

improvement  of  national  admission  procedures  supportive  of  the  integration  process,  and 
three  Member  States27  considered  this  to  have  a  medium  impact.  12  Member  States28 
indicated that the impact for them was weak and three of them29 indicated that the EIF had not 

contributed  to  the  improvement  of  the  national  admission  procedures.  The  evaluation 

concluded  that  national  actions  supported  by  the  EIF  contributed  to  the  facilitation  of  the 

development and implementation of admission procedures only in those Member States where 

such procedures were established as priorities. 

This trend was confirmed also at EU level, as the Commission did not include the admission 

procedures in the annual work programmes of the Community Actions 2011-2013, in light of 

respect to the principle of subsidiarity.  

EQ2: To what extent did the EIF actions contribute to the integration of newly arrived TCNs? 

Main  conclusion:  The  evaluation  showed  that  the  EIF  National  and  Community  Actions 

contributed  significantly  to  the  integration  of  newly-arrived  TCNs,  especially  through  the 

improvement  of  access  to  services,  employment  and  education  in  the  host  society.  The 

evaluation concluded that this area was the primary focus of EIF.  

22   AT, EL, ES, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, SE and SK. 
23   EL, FI, LV, IE, MT and the UK. 
24   FI and the UK. 
25   LV. 
26   CY, ES, PL, SI and LU. 
27   CZ, IT and HU. 
28   AT, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, LT, LV, MT, SE, SK and the UK. 
29   DE, RO and EE. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  actions  aiming  to  facilitate  the  integration  process  of  newly  arrived TCNs  included  the 
provision  of  general  and  practical  information,  social  and  legal  guidance  and  counselling30, 
language  proficiency32.  These  are  known  as  “introductory 
civic  orientation31  and 
programmes”, and the majority of the Member States  33 acknowledged the strong impact of 

the EIF on the development and improvement of the quality of these programmes.  

In  general, Member States  implementing at  least  one of the above  types of action exceeded 

their targets, as they reached a higher number of TCNs than originally planned.  
Ten Member States34 identified the projects providing language courses as being particularly 

important,  because  they  allowed  newly  arrived  TCNs  to  access  and  understand  other 

important information, which is crucial to understand essential introductory information about 
the receiving society35. 
Projects  implemented  through  Community  Actions36  focused  mainly  on  labour  integration 

and perception/intercultural relations, so TCNs’ access to services, employment and education 

in the host society was facilitated and their knowledge of the receiving society improved.  

Objective B - Development and implementation of the integration process of newly arrived 

TCNs in Member States  

EQ4: To what extent did the EIF actions contribute to the development and implementation of 

the integration process of newly arrived TCNs in Member States? 

Main conclusion: Overall, a majority of Member States (18) considered that the EIF has had 

a strong impact on the development and implementation of the integration process of TCNs, 

30   Activities which provide TCNs with assistance to understand and function within the receiving society were 
implemented in 12 MSs, namely AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, PL, RO, 
SI, ES, SE and the UK.. 

31   Activities which provide TCNs with knowledge of culture, history, institutions of receiving Member States, 
as well as rights and obligations were implemented in 22 MSs : AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, 
IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SI, ES, SE and the UK. 

32   Activities  which  provided  opportunities  for  TCNs  to  learn  the  host  language  or  improve  their  language 
skills, such as language courses, tandems or materials implemented in 22 MSs: AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, 
FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, ES, SE and the UK. 
 CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, PL, RO, SE, SK, SI and the UK. 

33 
34   CY, CZ, DE, EE, HU, IT, PL, RO, LV and the UK. 
35   SK, RO and IT. 
36   27 out of 31 Community Action projects, implemented in the period 2011-2013, and 30 out of 38 projects 

implemented in period 2007-2010. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
as it allowed the national authorities to develop new skills in public and private organisations 

dealing with TCNs, thus enhancing the capacity to respond to diverse and increasing needs. 

At output level, the targets set  in  national  programmes were  often overachieved in terms of 

TCNs reached by the services.   

Three types of actions contributed to the development and implementation of the integration 

process  of  newly  arrived  TCNs.  All  of  them  highly  over-achieved  the  targeted  number  of 

TCNs and staff involved. 
First, public and private services were developed in several Member States37 and included a 

wide range of activities aimed at adjusting or developing existing services. The rate of staff 

involved increased to 136%, hence more than 25,000 additional staff members were involved, 

as compared to the targets set in the national programmes. 
Second, several platforms were organised for TCNs38, offering them the possibility to provide 

feedback and/or proposing developments to the integration process. Although only 56% of the 

planned  projects  were  achieved,  the  participation  rate  reached  111%  (39  562  TCNs  were 

targeted and 44 149 TCNs were actually consulted via the platforms). 

Finally,  actions  on  intercultural  and  inter-religious  dialogue  were  implemented  to  enhance 

and  facilitate  dialogue  between  host  society  and  TCNs,  through  inter-cultural  and  inter-
religious themes.39 In terms of achievement, the average is below the target with 199 projects 

completed out of 329 planned. However, the rate of TCNs reached is 106%. 

The  case  studies  confirmed  that  the  EIF  helped  beneficiary  organisations  testing  innovative 

initiatives, also through the establishment of networks of specialised organisations. 

The results evaluated as very significant by the Member States include the improved access of 
TCNs to public and private goods and services in the Member States40 (training courses for 

TCNs,  access  to  health  services  and  accommodation).  Another  important  result  achieved  is 

the  improved  access  to  information  regarding  the  access  of  TCNs  to  public  and  private 
goods and services (in nine Member States41). Furthermore, the majority of Member States42 

37   AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, ES, SE and the UK. 
38   In 12 Member States, such as BG, CZ, EE, FI, DE, HU, IT, LV, PL, RO, SE and the UK. 
39   This category of activities was implemented in the following Member States: AT, FI, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, 

LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, ES and SE. 

40   CY, DE, EL, FR, IT, LV, LT, MT, PT, RO and SK. 
41   CY, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT and PT. 
42   CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, PL, RO, SE, SK, SI and the UK. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
recognised  the  strong  impact  that  the  EIF  had  on  the  development  and  improvement  of  the 

quality of the introductory programmes. 

However, an obstacle to the implementation of the integration process of TCNs was the fact 

that without a common definition of "newly arrived" TCNs in the legislation, Member States 

interpreted  the  target  group  very  differently.  The  Commission  clarified  that  there  was  no 

intention to limit the target group, but some Member States applied a limited definition (i.e. 

by  applying  the  residency  criterion,  newly  arrived  TCNs  are  all  those  who  have  not  legally 

resided in the  hosting country for more than three years). As a consequence, some Member 

States  targeted  only  newly-arrived  TCNs,  rather  than  second  or  third  generation  TCNs 

needing integration support.  

As  regards Community  Actions  for  the  period  2011-2013,  the  majority  of  project  managers 

and  local beneficiaries confirmed that the projects contributed to the development (65%, 17 

out of 26 sampled projects) and/or implementation (62%, 16 out of 26 projects) of the process 

of integrating newly arrived TCNs to a great and/or certain extent. Slightly less than half of 

the project managers interviewed (46%) also reported influencing Member States’ integration 

processes  to  a  certain  extent.  The  tangible  contribution  of  projects  focusing  on  research-

oriented  topics  to  the  development  and/or  implementation  of  integration  policies  was  very 

difficult  to  assess.  However,  research  was  considered  by  several  stakeholders  as  a  starting 

point  to  facilitate  dialogue  between  policy  makers  in  complementary  areas  and  to  improve 

integration policies. 

EQ7: To what extent did the EIF actions contribute to implementation of actions designed to 

put the "Common Basic Principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union" 

into practice?  

Main  conclusion:  -24  Member  States  focused  on  the  implementation  of  activities  which 

prepared TCNs for labour market participation through training courses, information services 

and assistance to become better acquainted with the host society. Through the implementation 

of  615  projects,  Member  States  reached  nearly  1  million  TCNs  during  the  implementation 

period. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Since the common basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union43 

cover  all  four  priorities  of  the  EIF,  and  hence  are  reflected  in  all  the  evaluation  questions 

under  the  effectiveness  theme  ,  the  assessment  of  this  evaluation  question  draws  on  the 

findings from several other questions (in particular EQs 2, 4, 5 and 8). Notwithstanding the 

categories  of  actions  covered  under  the  other  EQs  mentioned  above,  the  Common  Basic 

Principles are translated into practice by five additional key categories of actions:  

1)  Other forms of education, preliminary actions to facilitate access to the labour market, 

participation  in  employment,  economic  life  and  self-sufficiency:  activities  which 

prepare TCNs for labour market participation through trainings, courses, information, 

and  assistance  with  understanding  the  host  society  labour  market.  The  achievement 

rate for this category of action was high, at 113% for projects (meaning 615 compared 

to  542  planned)  and  101%  for  TCNs  involved  (in  total  90  013  TCNs  were  involved 

compared to 88 949).  

2)  Health care: activities which help improve access to healthcare for TCNs, for example 

through  information  on  rights  or  host  society’s  healthcare  system,  counselling,  or 

interpretation  for  the  purpose  of  healthcare.  At  EU  level,  14  Member  States  had  an 

achievement  rate  of  126%,  meaning  that  36  additional  projects  were  implemented 

compared  to  the  number  planned.  However,  this  did  not  deliver  a  high  achievement 

rate for the involvement of TCNs, which was 93%, meaning that 6 691 fewer TCNs 

were involved than planned. 

3)  Assistance  in  housing  and  means  of  subsistence:  activities  which  support  TCNs  in 

accessing  housing  and  means  of  subsistence.  At  EU  level,  there  was  a  moderate 

achievement rate of 84% for the number of projects, and a good achievement rate of 

96% for the involvement of TCNs. 

4)  Actions  to  promote  meaningful  contact  and  dialogue  with  the  receiving  society, 

involvement of the media: Activities which support TCNs and host society in meeting 

each other, raising awareness of TCNs in host society and other measures to enhance 

the  interactions  between  TCNs  and  host  society.  At  EU  level,  not  all  operations 

planned  to  support  this  were  carried  out,  but  the  achievement  rate  was acceptable  at 

92% (98 fewer operations implemented than planned), and the achievement rates for 

43   Further details on the Common Basic Principles are provided in section 2. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
TCNs  involved  was  101%,  meaning/implying  that  nearly  half  a  million  TCNs  took 

part in such operations. 

5)  Actions targeted at vulnerable groups: activities which target groups such as children, 

youth, women, the elderly, illiterate or disabled, for example by tailoring the activities 

to their needs. At the EU level, there was a very good achievement rate of 103% for 

the  number  of  operations,  with  33  additional  operations  implemented  compared  to 

those  planned.  For  the  TCNs  involved,  the  achievement  rate  was  lower,  at  87%, 

meaning that 35,000 fewer TCNs were involved than planned. 

On  the impact level,  out  of  26  MS,  11  reported  that  the  contribution  received  from  the  EIF 

was  ‘strong’  in  terms  of  improving  TCN’s  access  to  public  and  private  goods  and  services, 

and  enhance  diversity  management.  Six  MS  indicated  the  level  of  contribution  as  medium. 

Influencing factors which prevented Member States from achieving strong contributions from 

the  EIF  in  this  respect  were:  despite  significant  contributions  made  to  the  provision  of 

services for TCNs, the provision of goods was very limited or not addressed by projects at all 

and  while  some  EIF  projects  made  some  strong  contributions,  in  reality  they  made  only  a 

medium  level  contribution  to  already  strong  national  governments’  efforts  in  the  area  of 

integration.  Only  3  Member  States  reported  a  weak  contribution,  mainly  due  to  the  low 

amount of EU funding compared to the national investment in this area.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Objective C  -  Increasing  of  the capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor 

and evaluate policies and measures for the integration of TCNs (evaluation questions 5 and 8) 

EQ5: To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to increasing the capacity of 

Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor  and  evaluate  policies  and  measures  for  the 

integration of TCNs? 

EQ8:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  development  of 

indicators and evaluation methodologies to assess progress, adjust policies and measures and 

to facilitate co-ordination of comparative learning?  

Main  conclusion:  The  EIF  made  a  significant  contribution 

to 

the  development, 

implementation, monitoring and evaluation policies and measures for the integration of TCNs 

in the majority of Member States.  

12 Member States44 assessed the impact of EIF in this area as strong, because it fostered the 

set-up  and/or  the  adaptation  of  integration  strategies,  thus  improving  the  effectiveness  of 

national  integration  measures  and  policies.  8  Member  States  considered  the  impact  as 
medium45and only two46 of them as weak. This is mainly due  to the fact that these MSs did 

not invest EIF funds in this area. 

21 Member States implemented 328 projects to improve data collection and analysis, which 

facilitated  the  development  of  indicators  and  monitoring/evaluation  methodologies  for  their 

integration  policies.  The  number  of  projects  targeted  was  surpassed  in  all  Member  States, 
except  in  Cyprus  and  Finland.  In  12  Member  States47  these  projects  contributed  to  the 

development  of  new  and  increasingly  evidence-based  integration  strategies,  presented  in 

official documents and/or reports.   

In addition, Community Action projects proved to be complementary to the efforts made by 

the  Member  States  through  their  projects  at  national  level,  as  they  targeted  mainly  national 

stakeholders  and  aimed  to  strengthen  their  capacity  to  develop,  monitor,  implement  and 

evaluate policies and measures for the integration of TCNs. 11 out of 20 Community Actions 

44    BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, FR, LT, MT, PL, PT, SI and SK. 
45   AT, EE, FI, HU, IE, IT, LV and RO. 
46   BE and the UK. 
47   AT, BG, CY, CZ, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI and SK. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2011-2013  analysed  in  this  evaluation  focused  on  this  area.  They  included  research,  design 

and delivery of seminars, workshops and training courses, awareness-raising campaigns and 

development of indicators. Examples of indicators developed include the measuring of public 

and  community  attitudes,  behaviours  and  beliefs,  and  the  measuring  of  well-being  in  the 

thematic areas of recreation, work/education, public space and order, family, peers, media and 

culture.      When  discussing  the  impacts  of  the  projects  concerned  with  project  managers, 

responses  were  overall  positive.  Most  projects  of  both  periods  were  reported  to  have 

contributed to a great or certain extent to increasing the capacity of Member States. Examples 

include  seminars  or  other  activities  to  inform  and  exchange  best  practices  among  public 

authorities.  Some  project  managers  were  neutral  and  only  a  very  small  number  of  them 

reported  limited  or  no  contribution.  In  relation  to  these  projects,  similarly  for  both  periods, 

project  managers  referred  to  the  weak  link  between  the  Community  Actions’  activities  and 

national policies. Furthermore, project managers were often unaware of whether their results 

and recommendations were transformed into the development of implementation of national 

capacities or national policies. 

Objective  D  -  Exchange  of  information,  best  practices  and  cooperation  in  and  between 

Member  States  in  developing,  implementing,  monitoring  and  evaluating  policies  and 

measures for the integration of TCNs (evaluation questions 6, 9 and 10). 

EQ6:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  exchange  of 

information,  best  practices  and  cooperation  in  and  between  Member  States  in  developing, 

implementing, monitoring and evaluation policies and measures for the integration of TCNs?  

EQ9:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute to  policy  capacity  building, 

co-ordination and intercultural competence building in the Member States across the different 

levels and departments of government? 

EQ10:  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  exchange  of 

experience, good practice and information on integration between the Member States?   

Main conclusion: The EIF made an important contribution to the exchange of information, 

best  practices  and  cooperation  within  Member  States  in  developing  and  implementing 

monitoring  and  evaluation  policies  and  measures  for  the  integration  of  TCNs  through  the 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
National  Actions.  Conversely,  the  Community  Actions  contributed  to  this  objective  to  a 

limited  extent  as  the  awareness  regarding  the  Community  Actions  was  limited.  Overall,  the 

EIF  contributed  to  policy  capacity  building,  co-ordination  and  intercultural  competence 

building in the Member States across the different levels and departments of government, but 

had only a limited impact on the exchange of experience, good practice and information on 

integration among Member States. 

Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  national  evaluation  reports,  it  appears  that  Member  States 

implemented three times more projects aiming to exchange information internally than those 

promoting  exchange  with  other  Member  States.  This  is  reflected  also  in  the  number  of 

Member States having reported projects in this area: 

-  18 Member States48 reported projects aimed at the exchange of information between 

various actors at national level, be they centralised or decentralised bodies,  

-  only  12  Member  States49  reported  projects  on  exchange  of  information  and  best 

practices with other Member States.   

This    is  explained  by  the  ease  of  dialogue  and  exchange  amongst  organisations  and  public 

bodies within the same Member State, as they operate under common administrative and legal 

frameworks,  and  can  count  on  existing  cooperation  and  exchange  mechanisms  (local 

networks of institutions, NGOs).    

The  activities  implemented  through  the  EIF  national  programmes  focused  mainly  on  the 

following areas: 

-  capacity building of responsible institutions/organisations50  
-  capacity building in public institutions providing services and goods to migrants51  
-  creation and/or improvement of structures for information exchange52 
-  development of indicators for monitoring results53  

48   18 MSs: AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO and SE. 
49   12 MSs: CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LV, MT, PL and SE. 
50   9 MSs: BG, CY, CZ, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO and SK. 
51   10 MSs: DE, EL, HU, IE, LV, LT, MT, PT, RO and SK. 
52  9 MSs: CZ, EL, FI, FR, LT, LV, PL, RO and SK. 
53   3 MSs: FI, FR and RO. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In terms of impacts, 12 Member States54 out of 25 stated that the EIF strongly contributed to 

the improvement of mechanisms for exchange of information, best practices and cooperation 

on the integration of TCNs.  

The Community Actions implemented during the period 2011-2013 contributed to the set-up 

of  structured  approaches  to  sharing  information  and  best  practices,  such  as  networks  or  the 

organisation  of  regular  meetings  of  public  organisations  and  NGOs  active  in  design  and 

delivery  of  integration  services.  Through  cooperation and  exchanges, the  projects  supported 

by  the  Community  Actions  contributed  to  raising  awareness  of  migration  and  integration 

policies,  and  to  improving  knowledge  and  understanding  of  a  variety  of  stakeholders  at 

regional  and  local  level.However,  it  was  shown  that  more  far-reaching  results  such  as 

expanding voting rights or  political representation of TCNs could not  be reached.  National 

policy  makers  were  most  of  the  time  unaware  of  projects  supported  by  the  Community 

Actions, as the cooperation activities took place mainly at the decentralised level.  

6.3  Efficiency 

EQ11: To what extent were the effects of the EIF 2011-2013 actions achieved at a reasonable 

cost in terms of the financial and human resources deployed?  

Main conclusion: The assessment of the efficiency of the EIF actions has been limited by the 

lack  of  quantitative  data  and  common  indicators.  The  evaluation  relied  primarily  on  the 

stakeholders'  assessment  of  the  results  achieved in  terms  of  overheads  and  deployed  human 

resources.  The  vast  majority  of  Member  States  made  a  positive  assessment  of  the  cost  at 

which  EIF  actions  were  achieved  and  provided  suggestions  to  increase  efficiency.  They 

considered that the costs were proportional with the outputs of the projects and that it would 

not  have  been  possible  or  would  have  been  difficult  to  achieve  the  same  results  at  a  lower 

cost. Room for improvement was identified with regard to the speed of cash-flow between the 

Commission  and  the  Member  States  and  with  the  administrative  burden  that  impacted  the 

efficiency of the implementation of the Fund. 

54   12 MSs: BG, CY, CZ, EL, FI, FR, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO and SK. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
As the legal basis of the Fund did not require national Responsible Authorities to collect data 

suitable for the assessment of efficiency, the lack of quantitative data represented a limitation 

to  the  assessment  of  efficiency.  However,  qualitative  information  made  available  by  the 

national  authorities  and the implementing  bodies, in  addition to  the analysis included in  the 

national evaluation reports, have been used as a basis for this part of the evaluation.  
For  19  Member  States55  the  resources  allocated  were  sufficient  to  deliver  the  activities 

supported by the Fund. In some cases, an improvement in efficiency was recognised for the 

2011-2013  period  compared  to  the  previous  one  (2007-2010).  This  can  be  explained  by  the 

increased  familiarity  with  the  procedures  acquired  over  time  by  the  bodies  in  charge  of 

planning and implementing the Fund. 

Overall, the majority of Member States considered the costs incurred to implement the Fund 

proportional  to  the  projects'  outputs.  For  example,  the  design  of  educational  tools  and  the 

counselling activities were considered to be amongst the most cost-effective activities for two 

main reasons:  

- 

the  educational  tools  were  disseminated  to  potential  users  outside  the  boundaries  of 

the financed projects, thus ensuring a larger use of the outputs of the financed projects,   

- 

the  provision  of  counselling  was  seen  as  a  service  allowing  TCNs  to  access  other 

services. 

Some Member States56 tried to assess the costs incurred to implement the EIF against those of 
other  EU  funding  instruments57  or  national  funds.  However,  due  to  the  differences  in  the 

target groups, for the majority of the Member States the comparison  with  other EU sources 

was not appropriate from a methodological standpoint. 
Other Member States58 reported factors/ mechanisms that increased the cost-effectiveness in 

the  project's  implementation.  For  instance,  they  considered  that  the  use  of  the  procurement 

procedure contributed to the efficiency of the process. Moreover, two Member States stated 

55   BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO, SI, SK and the UK. 
56   CY, ES, NL, PL, RO, LU and the UK. 
57   Comparisons were made mainly with the European Social Fund (ES, NL, PL and RO), the Cohesion Fund 
(CY), the European Refugee Fund and the Return Fund (LU, UK, ES). In comparison with the ERF (and 
RF), there were reported accounts that the costs were reasonable and comparable (LU), with two Member 
States even indicating that the costs were more moderate than under the ERF (ES, UK). 

58   HU, SK, IT, LU, MT, SI and NL. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
that  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  projects  was  enhanced  by  the  monitoring  and  audit 
procedures which allowed corrections in due course59.  

With regards to the degree of timely availability of EIF financial resources, according to 14 
Member  States60  the  resources  were  generally  available  on  time;  however,  some  delays  in 
respecting  the  timing  were  reported  by  11  Member  States61.  Hereunder  some  of  the  most 

frequently reported issues: 

-  Pre-financing  period:  several  Member  States  were  dissatisfied  with  the  long  pre-
financing  phase  and/or  reported  delays  in  disbursement62  and  delays  in  advance 
payments63.  Furthermore,  in  some  cases  the  implementing  organisations  have  been 

negatively  impacted  due  to  the  long  delays  in  payment  of  salaries.  It  has  been 

suggested that this problem relates to the Responsible Authorities’ own requirements 

and constraints.  

-  Administrative burden: some Member States stated that the administrative procedures 
reduced the efficient implementation of the projects64. In some cases, organisations did 

not  have  the  experience  required  to  deal  efficiently  with  the  legal  and  financial 

procedures associated with the use of public funds. Some Member States (FR and SE) 

said  that  the  availability  of  resources  was  negatively  affected  by  the  heavy 

administrative constraints.  

When  requested to state if it would have been possible to achieve equal results at lower costs 
by  improving  the  procedures,  14  Member  States65  reported  that  it  would  not  have  been 
possible and four Member States66 argued that reducing the costs would have also reduced the 

volume and the quality of services (and hence the number of beneficiary TCNs). 

Nine Member States 67 provided suggestions to increase efficiency:  

59   NL and PL. 
60   BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, HU, IT, LT, MT, NL, PT, SI and the UK. 
61   AT, EL, FI, FR, IT, LV, LU, PL, RO, SE and SK. 
62   AT, DE, FI, FR, IT, LV, PL. 
63   PL. 
64  FR, PL, and SE. 
65   BE, CY, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IE, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK and the UK. 
66   CZ, EL, PL and LU. 
67   AT, EE, FI, FR, IT, LT, LU, SE and SK. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
-  Higher cost effectiveness could be achieved by putting more emphasis on the creation 

of  synergies  between  projects  with  similar  goals  and  their  consolidation  into  larger 
multiannual projects68.  

-  Cost  efficiency  could  be  achieved  by  paying  more  attention  to  personnel  costs  in 

project budgets (FI).  

-  Setting up more precise indicators would improve the calculation of unit costs (SK).  

-  Standard unit costs and ceiling amounts should be introduced at European level (IT). 

On  the  implementation  of  projects supported  by  the  Community  Actions,  more  than  half  of 

the respondents found that administrative requirements related to project implementation were 

reasonable to a great or to a certain extent (59%, 20 out of 34 responses). Project managers 

stated  that  they  understood  the  need  for  administrative  procedures  to  ensure  that  the  funds 

granted were spent as intended. Projects run by large organisations with previous experience 

in  the  use  of  EU  funds  managed  to  absorb  more  funds  and  did  not  find  the  administrative 

procedures  as  burdensome.  However,  an  issue  was  raised  on  the  time  taken  by  the 

Commission to approve requests for changes in project plans: for instance, changes in smaller 

deliverables  such  as  the  planning  of  seminars  will  be  obsolete  if  the  answer  is  not  received 

quickly.  Some  interviewees  said  that  in  their  experience  the  Commission  took  up  to  two 

months to provide answers, which made the feedback of little or no use in some cases.  

6.4  Sustainability 

EQ12: To what extent have the positive effects of the EIF 2011-2013 actions lasted after the 

interventions were terminated? 

Main  conclusion:  Although  the  positive  effects  of  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  lasted  to  a 

moderate degree after EIF funding for National Actions and Community Actions terminated, 

those  effects  were  important,  as  tools  and  methodologies  developed  with  EIF  support 

remained available for use also in the framework of other initiatives. The evaluation showed 

that only a few projects targeting the delivery of services to TCNs were successful in seeking 

alternative  funds  once  the  support  through  EIF  ceased.  However,  some  of  them  could 

continue under the successor fund (AMIF). 

68   EE, FI, IT, and LU. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                            
A  significant  number  of  Member  States69  reported  that  the  effects  of  the  2011-2013  EIF 
actions  lasted  to  a  great  extent  after  funding  ended,  whilst  for  some70,  the  effects  were  less 

enduring, with the degree of sustainability varying from one project to another. 

The  most  significant  factors  influencing  sustainability  were  networking  and  cooperation 
between  authorities  and  organisations71.  When  these  actions  were  missing,  the  capacity  of 

other  actions  to  have  a  lasting  impact  remained  limited.  Furthermore,  the  nature  of 

activities/projects  implemented  was  also  found  to  have  contributed  significantly  to  ensuring 
sustainability, for example language courses had an important impact on integration72. 
Factors impacting negatively on the sustainability included long pre-financing periods73, the 
limited political commitment and support at national level74 to continue activities previously 
financed by EIF, limited amount of financial resources to complement EIF75, and the lack of 
project monitoring76.  

Concrete  examples  of  sustainable  actions  and  outputs  of  the  EIF  were  the  development  of 

training materials and products which continued to benefit TCNs even after the intervention 
ended77 and electronic platforms developed in the framework of EIF projects78. 

A  majority  of  projects  under  the  Community  Actions  created  positive  effects  which  lasted, 

although many were reduced in scope after the end of EIF's financial support. 

Long-lasting  effects  include  the  use  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  methods  developed  with 

EIF support, and the continued activity of networks developed under the EIF. The evaluation 

found  that  research  projects,  however,  did  not  seem  to  generate  sustainable  effects,  there 

being an apparent lack of political will to make use of the results. 

Project managers suggested that the sustainability of projects could be improved by adopting 

a systematic approach to the dissemination of research results within and by the Commission 

and by adopting longer funding periods. This could allow needs assessments to take place at 

69   BE, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, SI and the UK . 
70   AT, EE, EL, MT, NL, PL, PT and RO. 
71   AT, CZ, DE, EL, HU, IT, LT, SE and FR. 
72   CY, CZ and DE. 
73   AT, EE and RO. 
74   EE, RO and SK. 
75  The UK. 
76  AT. 
77   HU, LT, LV, RO, SE, LU and the UK. 
78   MT and the UK. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                            
the beginning of projects, along with better follow-up and evaluation of activities after project 

implementation.  

The lack of a systematic approach to ensuring sustainability has been addressed under AMIF, 

where  sustainability has been  included in the criteria  for the evaluation of project proposals 

leading to the award decision.  

29 

 
 
 
 
6.5  Complementarity and Coherence 

EQ15: To what extent were the EIF 2011-2013 actions coherent with and complementary to 

other actions related to integration of TCNs, financed by national resources of the Member 

States and other EU financial instruments? 

Main conclusion: Overall, the evaluation did not find evidence of overlaps between the fund 

and  other  EU  funds  or  with  the  actions  carried-out  at  national  level.  Actions  implemented 

under the EIF have been deemed by the stakeholders as coherent with and complementary to 

other actions related to the integration of TCNs which had been financed uniquely at national 

level and by other EU financial instruments. However, the approach used to ensure coherence 

and  complementarity  between  the  Community  Actions  and  national  and  other  EU  level 

actions and projects was not systematic. 

The  majority  of  Member  States79  reported  that  EIF-funded  actions  were  coherent  with  and 
complementary  to  activities  carried  out  at  national  level.  Some  national  authorities80 

indicating that the EIF was actually one of the few sources of funding targeting the integration 

of migrants in their countries.  

The evaluation found that efforts were undertaken at both national and EU level to mitigate 

risks of overlaps and to help ensure coherence and complementarity.    

At EU (Commission) level, complementarity was ensured through coordination and dialogue 

between DG HOME and the other DGs (such as via inter-service consultation), participation 

in technical fora, and consultation at national level. 

Member  States  indicated  various  measures  put  in  place  to  ensure  coherence  and 

complementarity,  for  instance,  coordination  and  cooperation  between  the  authorities 
managing different funds81, and coordination at the central level of different funding sources 
in order to avoid overlap and the risk of double-financing82. 

Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  differences  in  timelines  of  the  relevant  funds 

brought certain challenges with regards to checking and ensuring complementarity, especially 

79   AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, SI, SK, SE, and the UK. 
80   FI, LT, PL and PT. 
81    E.g. ESF and EIF in EL, ES, HU, IT, SE and RO. 
82   AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, LU, LV, LT, MT and RO. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
in relation to the programming of the funds. Several Member States83 indicated that the fact 

that  target  groups  and  the  focus  of  existing  funding  mechanisms  were  different  facilitated 

avoiding overlaps. 

Building synergies between the EIF and other EU instruments was often side-lined as it was 

not a legal requirement and beneficiaries were not permitted to combine different sources of 

EU funding. The EIF provided the basis for integration in the labour market, hence the fund 

contributed to some extent also to the achievement of the objectives of the European Social 

Fund (ESF). However, while the ESF focused  on social inclusion through the integration in 

the labour market, the EIF's ultimate scope was not necessarily the integration in the labour 

market.  Under  the  successor  fund  (AMIF)  synergies  are  promoted  through  meetings  with 

other DGs of the Commission and with the Responsible Authorities of the Member States. 

The general lack of awareness of the Member States' responsible authorities also appears to 

have limited the coherence and complementarity. The evaluation study showed that most of 

the  Responsible  Authorities  interviewed  were  not  aware  of  the  projects  supported  through 

Community  Actions,  and  could  not  estimate  the  extent  to  which  Community  Actions  have 

complemented national actions. Under the successor fund, the Commission should ensure that 

Responsible  Authorities  are  regularly  informed  about  the  activities  implemented  under  the 

Community Actions, to avoid overlaps and to enhance complementarities and synergies. 

Overall,  around 56%  of  the project managers interviewed found  that  the projects developed 

were  linked  to  other  national  actions.  The  project  managers  whose  projects  developed  links 

with national-level activities highlighted the international dimension brought by Community 

Actions. 62% of the project managers reported that there were no overlaps at all.  

The  majority  of  the  Community  Actions  analysed  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  were 

coherent  with  and  complementary  to  other  projects  and  actions  at  EU  level.  Links  were 

created, for instance, through the use of the Migrant Integration Policy Index which measures 

policies to integrate migrants in all EU Member States as well as some third countries . Also, 

cooperation  was  organised  with  other  Community  Actions  and  projects  under  the  European 

Social Fund. More than two thirds of respondents pointed out that they developed links with 

other EU level projects and/or actions.  

83   AT, CZ, DE, EL, LV, MT, NL and PT. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.6  EU Added value 

EQ16: What is the additional value resulting from the EIF 2011-2013 actions compared to 

what  the  Member  States  would  be  able  to  carry  out  through  investments  necessary  for  the 

implementation of the EU policies in the field of integration of TCNs without the support of 

the EIF 2011-2013 actions? 

Main conclusion: Most Member States stated that to a large extent the EIF funds enabled the 

implementation of actions that otherwise could not have been funded from national resources 

because  of  their  innovative  approach  and/or  the  limited  national  resources.  Beneficiary 

organisations  considered  that  the  EU  added  value  laid  in  particular  in  the  setting-up  of 

stronger  networks  at  national  and  European  level  and  the  increase  of  the  visibility  of 

integration activities thanks to the EU support.  

National  evaluation  reports  and  interviews  with  beneficiary  organisations  led  to  a  positive 

assessment of the EU added value of the EIF as it allowed a number of Member States to test 

new  approaches  and  methods  to  foster  integration  and,  for  countries  facing  the  issue  of 

integration of TCNs for the first time, it represented an opportunity to develop new services 

and  tools.  Furthermore,  at  EU  level  there  was  no  other  source  of  funding  targeting  the 

integration of TCNs beyond the support to enter the labour market.  

Member States stated that to a large extent (22), or to some extent (3), the EIF funds enabled 

the  implementation  of  actions  that  otherwise  could  not  have  been  funded  from  national 

resources (scope effects). It was also underlined that the same coverage of actions and scope 

of the projects could not have been possible without the EIF funding, mainly due to budgetary 
constraints  and  limited  national  resources  for  funding  actions  concerning  integration84  also 
due to the economic and financial crisis85.  

Moreover,  in  order  to  illustrate  the  added  value  of  the  EIF,  Member  States  gave  several 

examples  of  projects  and  actions  where  the  EIF  had  an  added  value  in  providing  volume 

84   CY, CZ, EL, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL and RO. 
85   CY, EL, IT, NL, PT and the UK. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
effects.  For  instance,  in  Spain  and  in  France,  the  EIF  enabled  an  increase  in  the  scope  of 

integration  activities  in  terms  of  territorial  scope  and  number  of  beneficiaries  reached.  The 

Czech  Republic  and  Estonia  stated  that  the  EIF  allowed  for  the  expansion  of  integration 

actions and supported innovative activities. 

In addition to financial resources, other benefits were brought about by the EIF. Implementing 

organisations  developed 
through 
professionalization87, improved project management and quality of projects88, development of 
skills89, and gained overall knowledge and capacity in the area of integration90.  

their  performance 

improved 

their  networks86, 

A  number  of  Member  States  (9)  also  mentioned  the  increased  focus  on  vulnerable  target 

groups, which include women, young people, children, and the elderly as a primary benefit. 

For  example,  Italy  provided  support  services 

to  facilitate  attendance  of  women, 

unaccompanied minors and youth to training courses and literacy courses.  

Projects supported by Community Actions were also considered as projects which could not 

have been implemented without the support of the EIF, due to a lack of alternative national 

funds.  

According  to  the  majority  of  the  respondents,  the  EIF  being  a  European  fund,  it  produced 

further  benefits,  namely  enhanced  legitimacy  of  their  organisation  and  activities,  increased 

branding and visibility of the project and the organisations, access to wider networks and the 

possibility for cross-national inspiration and exchange. 

7  CONCLUSIONS 

Despite  the  small  size  of  the  financial  contribution  provided  by  EIF  compared  to  other  EU 

funding instruments such as the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund, the evaluation 

found  that  the  Fund  had  a  significant  value  added  for  the  Member  States.  It  allowed  the 

implementation  of  projects  that  would  not  have been  put  into  effect  with  national  resources 

86   BG, EL, HU, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, SE and SK. 
87   AT and the NL. 
88   AT, BE, BG, EE, EL, FI, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, UK, ES and SI. 
89   PL. 
90   CY, EL, HU, IE, LV, PL, RO, SK, AT, BE, EL, LT and MT. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
alone, and allowed existing projects to expand geographically and reach an increasing number 

of  beneficiary  third  country  nationals.  Some  national  authorities  could  test  new  approaches 

and methods to foster integration, and for countries facing the issue of integration of TCNs for 

the first time, the EIF represented an opportunity to develop new services and tools. At EU 

level there was no other source of funding targeting directly the integration of third country 

nationals  beyond  support  to  enter  the  labour  market.  However,  the  interpretation  of  target 

group  as  "newly  arrived"  limited  the  use  of  the  fund  as  Member  States  defined  the  target 

group in different ways. Improvements have been made under AMIF, since the definition of 

TCNs now includes beneficiaries of international protection, resettled or transferred persons 

and, in particular, vulnerable persons. However, to ensure consistency, a common definition 

should be provided in the next funding instruments.  

The  evaluation  also  demonstrated  that  the  logical  framework  of  EIF  had  not  been  well 

designed: the articulation between general objective and specific objectives, on the one hand, 

and between these  and the priorities on the other hand, led to  a complex intervention logic. 

Whilst the logical framework has been better defined in AMIF, under each specific objective 

there  is  still  the  possibility  for  the  MSs  to  avoid  investments  in  areas  less  "attractive".  This 

should be addressed in the new generation of funds (next MFF-post 2020).   

Another issue identified was the absence of effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, 

common  to  all  Member  States.  The European  Commission  has  addressed  this  for the  2014-

2020  programming  period  by  developing  a  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework 

and  providing  guidance  on  it  to  the  national  authorities.  A  network  of  national  evaluation 

coordinators was set up in 2015 and since then, through technical meetings the Commission 

and its members discuss and exchange information on evaluation matters regularly. A specific 

evaluation  module  has  been  developed  in  an  IT  system  used  for  the  shared  management 

(SFC), to promote consistency of the national evaluation reports. 

The allocation system, designed on the basis of historic trends  (previous  three years),  could 

not reflect Member States' short term evolving needs and may have hindered the flexibility of 

the  Fund  in  this  respect.  However,  some  flexibility  was  ensured  by  the  possibility  for  the 

Member States to modify their national programmes at any time and to reallocate Funds in the 

area  which  required  a  stronger  financial  support.  Under  the  successor  fund  (AMIF),  the 

34 

 
 
 
  
distribution key is still based on the 2011-2013 allocations for the EIF, as well as the Return 

Fund and European Refugee Fund but more flexibility is ensured by a much more important 

budget for emergency assistance. However, the allocation system should be more flexible in 

the future by distributing the available financial resources to long-term activities implemented 

by Member States and actions addressing urgent needs through the quick reaction mechanism 

of the emergency assistance managed by the European Commission. 

Some Member States perceived the administrative burden of the implementation of the Fund 

as relatively high. The 2014-2020 programming period saw some improvements, as a single 

fund covers all migration matters (AMIF), Member States adopt multiannual programmes and 

the eligibility rules are aligned to the national ones. Member States have also been encouraged 

to use the simplified costs options. 

Finally the evaluation found that Responsible Authorities did not have a substantial awareness 

of  Community  Actions  as  they  were  often  not  systematically  informed  by  the  beneficiary 

organisations  of  projects  implemented  in  this  way,  which  limited  the  coherence  and 

complementarity of Community actions with national actions. It also found that the Fund only 

contributed  to  the  improvement  of  admission  procedures  and  to  the  cooperation  between 

Member States to a limited extent.  

The  lessons  learnt  from  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  EIF  will  feed  the 

interim  evaluation  of  AMIF.  The  interim  evaluation  will  be  completed  in  2018  and  is 

expected to have an impact on the implementation of AMIF in the remaining spending period 

(2019-2022). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

Leading DG 
Participating Units of DG HOME 

Participating DGs  

Roadmap approval 
Agenda Planning  
External consulting firm 
specialised in evaluation 

DG HOME 
A2 – Legal Affairs 
B1 – Legal Migration and Integration 
E1 – Union Actions 
E2 – National programmes for South and East 
Europe, evaluation, AMIF/ISF Committee 
E3 - National programmes for North and West 
Europe, budget, MFF, agencies 
Secretariat General, Service Juridique, REGIO, 
BUDGET, EMPL  
October 2015 
2016/HOME/080 
Contract signed in April 2016 with a consortium of 
companies:  

  Ramboll Management Consulting A/S (lead 

partner) 

  PwC EU Services EESV 
  Milieu Ltd 

Number of steering group meetings 
Last deliverable handed in 
Approval of the final report by 
Steering Group 

 5 
15 October 2016 
28 October 2016 

36 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Overview 

In order to inform the ex post evaluation of the European Fund for the Integration of Third 
Country Nationals (EIF) for 2011-2013, several stakeholders were consulted through public 
and targeted consultations conducted by the European Commission on the one hand and by 
the  external  evaluators  on  the  other,  in  the  framework  of  their  contract  with  the 
Commission to provide a study on the ex post evaluation of the implementation of the EIF. 
This annex provides an overview of the consultation processes and the type of stakeholders 
consulted, and presents the results of these consultations. These results have been compiled 
and  summarised  from  the  responses  received  by  the  European  Commission  to  its  Public 
Consultation,  and  from  the  final  ex  post  evaluation  report  of  the  EIF  submitted  by  the 
external evaluators. 

The public consultation conducted by the European Commission 

Between  11  May  2016  and  11  August  2016,  the  European  Commission  held  a  public 
consultation on the EIF 2007-2010 and 2011-2013 in the form of an online questionnaire. 
The  types  of  stakeholders  invited  to  participate  in  this  consultation  were:  individuals 
(experts, beneficiaries), local and national Member State authorities, intergovernmental and 
non-governmental  organisations,  social  partners  and  civil  society,  academic  institutions, 
international  organisations,  and  EU  Institutions  and  Agencies.  The  final  number  of 
respondents  was  small:  24  responses  were  received  from  9  Member  States  (BE,  PT,  MT, 
CY, AT, LV, IE, FI, ES). Given this low response rate, contributions cannot be considered 
as being representative of the targeted stakeholders, but the results may provide additional 
insights  nonetheless  and  will  be  presented  below  together  with  the  findings  of  the  other 
consultations. Another limitation is the fact that the information available on the identities 
of the participants is based on self-reported values which cannot be verified. 

The consultations conducted by the external evaluators 

After  conducting  initial,  explorative  interviews  with  DG  HOME  officials,  the  external 
evaluators conducted three types of targeted consultations with varied types of stakeholders 
and analysed 8 case studies. This section provides an overview of the consultation process 
that took place in this framework. 

1. Interviews and a phone survey in relation to the Community actions: 5 Commission 
officials who coordinated or administered the Community actions were interviewed, along 
with 20 Project Managers and 4 Responsible Authorities (RAs). 

2.  EU-level  interviews  were  carried  out  with  a  small  sample  of  stakeholders  regarding 
both national and Community actions, to assess the complementarity and coherence of the 
EIF  with  other  EU  funding  instruments  that  have  a  potential  impact  on  the  integration  of 
third  country  nationals  (TNCs).  Questions  were  also  asked  about  the  relevance  and 
efficiency of the EIF. At DG HOME 6 officials were interviewed. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
In addition, 4 European Social Fund (ESF) representatives, 1 Eurofound representative, and 
2 European Parliament LIBE Committee members were contacted. None of these persons 
were available for interviewing however. 

3.  Case  studies  were  carried  out  as  part  of  the  evaluation  of  EIF  in  8  Member  States: 
Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Poland,  Spain  and  Sweden.  A  total  of  12  desk 
officers, 21 RAs or delegated authorities, and 59 beneficiaries were interviewed. 

Results 

The most relevant results of the consultations carried out by the European Commission and 
the  independent  experts  are  grouped  in  this  section  and  presented  according  to  the 
following evaluation criteria: relevance and utility, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, 
coherence and complementarity, and EU added value. 

Relevance 

Regarding  the  relevance  of  the  actions  funded  under  the  EIF,  question  10  of  the 
Commission's public consultation asked participants whether, in their opinion, the projects 
and activities supported or financed by the fund in their country of residence addressed the 
needs of the potential beneficiaries. The majority of participants found that the needs were 
addressed to some extent (14 Yes, 9 Yes but with some problems). 

A few problems or difficulties encountered for the EIF 2010-2013 were also highlighted by 
respondents: 

  small  associations  were  said  to  have  difficulty  fulfilling  all  the  requirements  or 

 

 

"rules" of the projects; 
there  was  thought  to  be  a  lack  of  financial  resources  at  times,  for  example, 
sometimes  resources  were  insufficient  in  relation  to  the  number  of  applicants  or 
potential beneficiaries; 
limiting  the  eligibility  for  funding  to  TCNs  was  thought  to  exclude  naturalized 
citizens of immigrant origin. 

In line with the results of the public consultation, EU-level stakeholders interviewed by the 
external contractors as part of case studies generally assessed positively the relevance of the 
EIF, indicating that the EIF had responded to needs in the area of integration. However, 9 
out of 26 Member States (DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, LT, MT, RO and UK) pointed to a lack of 
interest/engagement  among  local  level  policy-makers,  NGOs  and  TCNs.  The  Member 
States generally did not provide firm assessments of why there was a lack of interest. 
Problems  highlighted  regarding  the  relevance  of  the  fund  were  the  varying  degree  of 
relevance of the fund for given Member States, gaps in the covered needs, and the fact that 
the EIF focused largely on only one part of the population with integration needs, namely 
(newly arrived) TCNs. 

Effectiveness 

In  the  area  of  effectiveness,  the  two  most  relevant  questions  for  the  Commission's  public 
consultation  were  questions  2  and  5.  Question  2  asked  participants  whether  the  general 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
objective of the EIF (to support the efforts made by the Member States in enabling third-
country  nationals  of  different  economic,  social,  cultural,  religious,  linguistic  and  ethnic 
backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration into the 
European  societies)  was  achieved.  Question  5  asked  participants  whether,  based  on  their 
experience, the actions financed by the EIF in their country were consistent with the general 
and specific objectives of the fund. Regarding question 2, the majority of participants (20 
answers)  considered  that  the  general  objective  of  the  fund  was  achieved.  For  question  5, 
most participants (21 answers) found that actions financed under the fund were consistent 
with the fund objectives.   

Regarding  the  question  of  whether  the  objectives  of  the  fund  were  achieved  through  the 
actions  implemented,  for  the  facilitation  of  the  development  and  implementation  of 
admission procedures relevant to the integration process of TCNs, the assessments made by 
Member States in their National Evaluation Reports (NERs) show that, considering the EU 
as  a  whole,  the  EIF  only  contributed  to  the  improvement  of  admission  procedures  to  a 
limited  extent.  However,  the  few  Member  States  that  implemented  projects  with  this 
Specific Objective successfully reached the targeted results and impacts. 
In  relation  to  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  integration  process  of  newly 
arrived TCNs in Member States, the EIF was thought to have a slightly stronger impact for 
2011-2013 than in the previous funding period (according to the NERs). This was reported 
as being thanks to a series of measures, such as: the development and improvement of the 
quality  of  introductory  programmes;  concrete  measures  aimed  to  enhance  the  access  of 
TCNs to public authorities and their ability to adjust to the host society; the improvement of 
TCNs' access to public and private goods and services. 

Efficiency 

Regarding the cost-effectiveness of national actions, a total of 19 Member States (BG, CY, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK) indicated that the 
resources allocated were sufficient for the delivery of the activities. In some cases, such as 
in the case of Poland, an improvement in efficiency was noted in contrast to the previous 
period  (2007-2010),  which  was  accounted  for  by  the  increased  familiarity  with  the 
procedures of the parties involved. Some of the most frequently reported issues in this area 
included  difficulties  with  pre-financing  from  national  authorities,  such  as  delays  in 
disbursement  and/or  in  advance  payments  (AT,  DE,  FI,  IT,  LV,  PL),  and  administrative 
constraints,  such  as  lack  of  administrative  capacity  (PL),  reported  excessive  bureaucracy 
(FR,  SE),  a  lack  of  timeliness  for  the  availability  of  resources  (EL),  and  unplanned 
expenses for beneficiaries (DE). 
In  relation  to  Community  actions,  in  response  to  a  survey  carried  out  by  the  external 
evaluators, the vast majority of project managers found that the use of human (85%, 29 out 
of  34  responses)  and  financial  (97%,  33  out  of  34  responses)  resources  was  reasonable 
some extent. 

Sustainability 

Regarding  sustainability,  the  most  relevant  question  in 
the  Commission's  public 
consultation was question 12, where participants were asked whether they considered that 
improved services and procedures (achieved also through the EIF) would continue without 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
EU  financial  support  in  their  country.  The  majority  of  respondents  considered  that 
improved services and procedures would continue to some extent.  

Overall,  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  are  in  line  with  those  of  the  public 
consultations.  Regarding  the  National  Actions,  thirteen  Member  States  assessed  that  the 
positive  effects  lasted  to  a  large  extent  after  the  interventions  were  terminated,  eight  to 
some extent and four to a lesser extent, with the case studies supporting this varied picture. 
The  managers  of  the  Community  Action  projects  surveyed  judged  that  a  little  more  than 
half of the projects continued in their former or a modified form once EU funding ceased, 
while for almost all projects, lasting positive effects were reported after termination of the 
projects.  

Coherence and Complementarity 

Regarding  coherence  and  complementarity  between  national  actions,  the  vast  majority  of 
Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO, 
SI, SK, SE, UK) reported that the complementarity criteria for EIF funding were met. FI, 
LT,  PL,  PT  indicated  that  the  EIF  was  one  of  the  few  sources  of  funding  supporting 
integration  of  migrants  in  their  countries.  All  interviewed  EU-level  stakeholders  also 
expressed  a  positive  opinion  of  the  extent  to  which  the  EIF  national  programmes 
complemented actions at the EU level. Member States in their NERs further confirmed the 
complementarity  of  EIF  funding  with  other  European  funds,  such  as  the  European  Social 
Fund  (ESF),  the  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  and  PROGRESS  (a  financial  instrument 
supporting  the  development  and  coordination  of  EU  policy  in  the  areas  of  Employment, 
Social  inclusion  and  protection,  Working  conditions,  Anti-discrimination,  and  Gender 
equality). 
Challenges highlighted by DG HOME representatives in this area were: differences in the 
timeliness  of  relevant  funds,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  programming  of  the  funds  in 
terms of annual and multiannual programmes (although this is reported to have been solved 
under the subsequent AMIF funds), and gaps in synergies. 

EU Added Value 

Regarding  EU  added  value,  the  most  relevant  questions  from  the  Commission's  public 
consultations  were  questions  1  and  13.  Question  1  asked  participants  whether  they 
considered that the implementation of the EIF in their country had affected positively the 
work of the public administrations in the field of integration. Question 13 asked participants 
whether  they  considered  that  the  contribution  of  the  fund  had  been  crucial  to  the 
implementation  of  EU  policies  regarding  integration  in  their  country.  In  response  to 
question 1, over 50% of respondents considered that the implementation of the EIF in their 
country  had  affected  positively  the  work  of  the  public  administrations  in  the  field  of 
integration  "to  a  great  extent".  In  response  to  question  13,  the  majority  of  respondents 
thought that the contributions of the fund made "a huge difference".  

In their NERs, 22 Member States (AT, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, 
LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SE,  SI,  SK,  UK  )  indicated  that  to  a  large  extent  the  EIF  fund 
enabled  the  implementation  of  actions  that  otherwise  could  not  have  been  funded  from 

40 

 
 
 
 
national resources. This is consistent with the results of the public consultation. The main 
reason why the majority of Member States stated that the same actions could not have been 
developed without EIF financing were budgetary constraints and limited national resources 
for funding actions concerning integration (CY, CZ, EL, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
RO).  Several  Member  States  indicated  that  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  had 
considerable adverse impacts on the availability of resources for actions for integration of 
TCNs (CY, EL, IT, NL, PT, UK). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – METHODOLOGY  

STUDY CONDUCTED BY EXTERNAL EVALUATORS   

The  evaluation  relied  on  a  supporting  study  conducted  by  an  external  company.  It  was 
decided to rely on an external study so as to obtain a robust and impartial overview of the 
Fund. A number of elements ensured the high quality of the study: 

  A  regular  and  transparent  dialogue  took  place  between  the  European  Commission 

sand the external evaluator; 

  The terms of reference of the contract were clearly set out and respected; 
  The Fund's management modes were clearly distinguished in the methodology; 
  The evaluation applied a mixed-methods approach in order to address the evaluation 

questions more fully and to ensure all relevant stakeholders were consulted; 
  All data sources were assessed for validity and presented data are clearly labelled. 
  Triangulation analysis was elaborated. 

Communication between the European Commission and the external company 

The study's progress was followed by an Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) comprised of 
officials from the SG, SJ, DG BUDG, DG REGIO, DG HOME (particularly Units A2, B1, 
E1,  E2  and  E3).  Four  meetings  took  place  between  the  contractors  and  the  ISSG  and 
structured  feedback  (in  both  directions)  was  provided  on  a  weekly  basis  throughout  the 
duration of the contract. This two-way dialogue was enriched by the active participation in 
the  ISSG  of  policy  and  implementation  units  and  shadowed  by  horizontal  units  and  the 
Secretariat  General.  The  quality  assessment  of  the  overall  process  (external  contractor's 
work and report) took place with the participation of the ISSG (attendance by B1, E1, E2 
and E3; the other members were consulted by email).   

Phases 

The  structuring  feature  of  the  external  evaluation  was  the  segmentation  of  the  tasks  into 
clearly defined phases which were closely observed by all parties. These phases had been 
determined  in  the  Terms  of  Reference.  Adherence  to  the  Terms  of  Reference  made  the 
study itself more efficient and transparent. 

Data sources and quality 

The information analysed by the contractors through desk research can be grouped into two 
categories: 

1.  Documentation  relating  to  implementation  –  legal  acts;  high-level  contextual 
documents;  programme  documents  (Annual  work  programmes)  and  addition 
evaluation  documents  (National  evaluation  reports  for  shared  management  and 
technical implementation reports for direct management);  

2.  Statistical data – this includes: 

o  Official  statistics 

from  OECD,  European  Commission's 

Immigrant 

Integration indicators and MIPEX; 

42 

 
 
 
 
o  Financial data extracted from ABAC for EIF and all SOLID Funds in order 
to present Programmed and Net EU contributions and absorption rates;   
o  Financial  data  extracted  from  SFC2007  to  present  the  breakdowns  by 

Priority and Specific Priority;  

o  Financial data extracted from SFC2007 to present Programmed and Net EU 

contributions and absorption rates for Annual Programmes; 

o  Financial  data  for  direct  management  were  provided  by  the  European 
Commission.  Figures  presented  are  the  sum  of  the  cost  claims  minus  the 
ineligible costs. 

Open Public Consultation 

Between  11th  of  May  2016  and  the  11th  of  August  2016,  the  European  Commission  also 
held an Internet-based public consultation in the form of two online questionnaires - one for 
the  2007-2010  period  and  one  for  the  2011-2013  period.  Contributions  were  particularly 
sought  from:  individuals  (experts,  beneficiaries),  local  and  national  Member  State 
Authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-governmental  organisations,  social  partners  and 
civil  society,  academic  institutions,  international  organisations,  and  EU  Institutions  and 
Agencies.  

However,  for  the  2007-2010  period  only  3  replies  were  received,  which  are  too  few  to 
prepare  an  analysis  of  the  data.  For  2011-2013,  there  were  21  respondents  from  eight 
Member  States  (AT,  CY,  FI,  IE,  LV,  MT,  PT  and  ES).  Contributions  are  therefore  not 
representative  of  the  targeted  stakeholders.  All  stakeholders  that  participated  in  the  EIF 
public  consultation  were  representatives  of  public  authorities,  non-profit  organisations  or 
academic/research institutions.  

After  the  closing  of  the  public  consultation,  21  answers  covering  eight  different  Member 
States  had  been  received  from  public  authorities,  non-profit  organizations  and  academic 
institutions.  It  must  be  noted  that  one-third  (7  out  of  21)  of  respondents  were  Portuguese 
public authorities.  Therefore, the representativeness of the sample remains limited. 

Analysis 

Three different levels of analysis were undertaken by the external company: 

1.  Descriptive  analysis,  at  two  levels,  to  provide  context  and  a  basis  for  the 

development of other types of analysis: 

  EU level: Different official documentation, such as the Decision establishing 
the  EIF,  as  well  as  interviews  with  DG  HOME  were  analysed  and  used  to 
describe  the  context  of  the  EIF,  such  as  the  objectives  it  was  aiming  to 
achieve and the type of actions eligible for funding under the EIF.  

  Case  studies:  The  analysis  of  the  data  collected  relating  to  the  national 
actions  as  part  of  the  case  studies  (all  programmatic  documents,  national 
evaluation  reports  and  interview  notes)  was  carried  out  and  described 
according  to  the  intervention  logic  elements,  as  well  as  all  the  evaluation 
criteria in the case study reports. The case studies were selected according to 
four  fixed  criteria  to  improve  representativeness  (Objectives,  Priorities, 

43 

 
 
 
types of intervention); relevance (external borders and migratory pressure); 
solidarity (where investments exceed input) and coverage of the evaluation 
questions in the national evaluation reports. 

2.  Thematic analysis: For this analysis, N-vivo, a qualitative analysis tool, was used to 
encode  and  subsequently  analyse  the  information  from  the  national  evaluation 
reports and relevant interviews (EU level and interviews with RAs). The encoding 
was  done  according  to  a  Coding  Framework  which  included  all  the  different 
intervention logic elements, as well as all the evaluation criteria, and allowed for the 
creation of “sub-nodes” as further themes emerged from the analysis. Through the 
encoding,  trends  and  themes  emerged  across  the  participating  countries  under  the 
different  evaluation  criteria  and  EIF  objectives  and  priorities.  In  addition, 
quantitative  data  collected  was  analysed,  such  as  the  context  and  effectiveness 
indicators  from  the  final  closure  reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States  (as 
presented  in  the  SFC  2007  database)  and  national  evaluation  reports.  This 
quantitative analysis also allowed for key messages to emerge from the data (such 
as type of priority receiving the most funding).  

3.  Comparative  analysis:  Building  on  the  descriptive  and  thematic  analysis,  a 
comparative  analysis  was  undertaken,  comparing  the  findings  from  different 
participating  countries  under  each  of  the  evaluation  criteria.  The  comparative 
analysis allowed the study team to assess the extent to which the research findings 
were  coherent.  The  case  studies  were  also  included  in  the  analysis  and  used  to 
illustrate certain findings.  

4.  Interviews: Over 100 interviews were organized by telephone and in person by the 
contractor  to  gather  additional  input  from  several  stakeholder  groups  (European 
Institutions, EU Agencies, national responsible authorities and other stakeholders).   

Assessing the impacts of the EIF 

Evaluating  the  impacts  of  the  ERF  at  national  level  is  more  complicated  as  it  requires 
experiment  conditions  with  a  matched  control  where  ERF  was  not  utilised.  In  order  to 
mitigate this, the study used information from the case studies and interviews, as well as the 
evaluators’ own judgment. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 - LIST OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Effectiveness  

1.  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives 
defined  in  the  Articles  2  and  3  of  Decision  No  2007/435/EC  and  to  the  priorities  defined  by  the 
Strategic guidelines (C(2007)3926 of 21/08/2007)?91  

2. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the integration of newly arrived third-
country nationals?  

3.  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  facilitation  of  the  development  and 
implementation of admission procedures relevant to and supportive of the integration process of third-
country nationals? 

4. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to development and implementation of the 
integration process of newly-arrived third-country nationals in Member States? 

5. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to increasing of the capacity of Member 
States to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate policies and measures for the integration of third-
country nationals? 

6. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to exchange of information, best practices 
and  cooperation  in  and  between  Member  States  in  developing,  implementing,  monitoring  and 
evaluating policies and measures for the integration of third-country nationals? 

7. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to implementation of actions designed to 
put  the  'Common  Basic  Principles  for  immigrant  integration  policy  in  the  European  Union'  into 
practice? 

8.  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  development  of  indicators  and 
evaluation  methodologies  to  assess  progress,  adjust  policies  and  measures  and  to  facilitate  co-
ordination of comparative learning? 

9. To what extent did the EIF 2011-2013 actions contribute to policy capacity building, co-ordination 
and  intercultural  competence  building  in  the  Member  States  across  the  different  levels  and 
departments of government? 

10.  To  what  extent  did  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  exchange  of  experience,  good 
practice and information on integration between the Member States? 

Efficiency  

11.  To  what  extent  were  the  effects  of  the  EIF  2011-2013  actions  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost  in 
terms of financial and human resources deployed?  

91   Some  questions  are  based  on  the  objectives  of  the  legal  basis,  others  are  based  on  the  priorities  in  the 

Strategic guidelines. For this reason the questions may partially overlap.  

45 

 
 
 
                                                            
46 

 
 
 
 
Sustainability 

12. To what extent have the positive effects of the EIF 2011-2013 actions lasted after the interventions 
were terminated? 

Relevance  

13.  To  what  extent  the  European  Integration  Fund  objectives  corresponded  to  needs  related  to  the 
integration of third-country nationals into the European societies? 

14. To what extent did the objectives of the actions under the European Integration Fund correspond to 
the needs in the field of integration of third-country nationals? 

Coherence and complementarity  

15. To what extent were the EIF 2011-2013  actions coherent with and complementary to other actions 
related to integration of third-country nationals, financed by national resources of the Member States 
and other EU financial instruments? 

EU added value 

16.  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  European  Integration  Fund  2011-2013  actions 
compared to what the Member States would be able to carry out through investments necessary for the 
implementation  of  the  EU  policies  in  the  field  of  integration  of  third-country  nationals  without  the 
support of the European Integration Fund 2011-2013 (or 2007-2010) actions? 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND COUNTRY CODES 

AMIF 
AP 
AWP 
EIF 
ERDF 
ERF  
FTE 
ITech 
MS 
NER 
RA 
TCN 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 
Annual Programme 
Annual Work Programme 
European Integration Fund  
European Regional Development Fund 
European Refugee Fund 
Full Time Equivalent 
Information Technology 
Member State 
National Evaluation Report  
Responsible Authority  
Third Country National  

List of country codes 

AT 
BG 
CY 
DE 
EE 
ES 
FR 
HU 
IS 
LT 
LV 
NL 
PL 
RO 
SI 
UK 

Austria  
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Germany 
Estonia 
Spain 
France 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovenia 
United Kingdom  

BE 
CH 
CZ 
DK 
EL 
FI 
HR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
MT 
NO 
PT 
SE 
SK 

Belgium 
Switzerland 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Greece 
Finland 
Croatia 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Norway  
Portugal 
Sweden 
Slovakia 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 - EX POST EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN FUND FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY 
NATIONALS (EIF) FOR THE PERIOD 2007-2010 

1. Scope and purpose of the report 

The  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals  (EIF)  was  established  by 
Council  Decision  2007/435/EC  for  the  period  2007-2013  and  involved  26  Member  States 
(MS), all EU MS92 excluding Denmark. It is one of four Funds (SOLID Funds) set up under 
the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’93. The aim of this 
General  Programme  was  to  address  the  issue  of  a  fair  share  of  responsibilities  between 
Member States concerning the financial burden arising from the introduction of an integrated 
management  of  the  Union’s  external  borders  and  from  the  implementation  of  common 
policies on asylum and immigration. 

The allocated EU contribution for 2007-2010 under the EIF was equal to EUR 325 872 00094. 
The  EIF  was  designed,  through  different  actions,  to  contribute  to  and  to  facilitate  the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  (TCNs),  one  of  the  primary  concerns  of  the  EU  as  it 
allows for greater social cohesion and sustainable economic growth. In the EU budget, actions 
aimed at the integration of TCNs could be financed through different EU instruments, the EIF 
being  the  only  fund  that  specifically  targeted  TCNs.  To  ensure  the  consistency  of  the  EU's 
response  to  the  integration  of  TCNs,  complementarity  with  these  other  instruments,  mainly 
the European Refugee Fund (ERF) and the structural funds, in particular the European Social 
Fund (ESF), was foreseen through a co-operation and co-ordination mechanism to this end. 

The EIF was implemented through two different management modes: 

National  programmes:  under  the  principle  of  shared  management,  Member  States 
implemented  the  Fund  through  national  annual  programmes  on  the  basis  of  multiannual 
programming  which  reflected  their  specific  needs.  The  annual  national  programmes  set  out 
the  measures  to  be  implemented  in  the  Member  States  and  specified  their  purpose,  scope, 
beneficiaries,  expected  results  and  budget.  In  total,  the  national  programmes  of  the  EIF 
funded 2986 projects for the period 2007-2010.95 

Community  Actions:  under  the  principle  of  direct  management,  at  the  Commission's 
initiative, up to 4% of the EIF resources were made available to finance transnational actions 

92   Croatia had not yet become a Member State of the EU at this moment. 
93   Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing a framework 
programme  on  solidarity  and  management  of  migration  flows  for  the  period  2007-2013,  COM(2005)  123 
final. 

94   For the 2007 annual programme EUR 60 357 000 were allocated (of which EUR 4 543 000 for Community 
Actions); for 2008 EUR 72 075 000 (of which EUR 5 425 000 for Community Actions); for 2009 EUR 90 
675 000 (of which EUR 6 825 000 for Community Actions) and for 2010 EUR 102 765 000 (of which EUR 
7 735 000 for Community Actions). 

95   The  size  and  number  of  projects  varied  between  Member  States,  with  Spain  funding  530  projects  and 

Ireland funding 8, for example. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                            
or  actions  of  interest  to  the  EU  as  a  whole.  These  actions  were  implemented  by  NGOs, 
international  organisations  or  public  bodies  of  the  Member  States.  Priorities  and  themes  for 
projects  were  set  out  in  the  European  Commission's  annual  work  programmes.  Calls  for 
proposals were published and potential beneficiaries could apply and submit their proposals.  

The EIF aimed  to  achieve  four  Specific  Objectives, listed below, and  the EIF contribution, 
could be increased96 from 50% for standard actions to 75% for actions targeting at least one of 
five  Specific  Priorities  (listed  below).  The  Specific  Objectives  and  Specific  Priorities  were 
established in the strategic guidelines adopted by the Commission in August 200797 and were 
developed  from  the  four  Priorities  (listed  below),  which  MS  were  to  consider  when 
elaborating their multi-annual programmes and annual programmes: 

Priorities 
Priority 1: Implementation of 
actions designed to put 
'Common Basic Principles 
for Immigrant Integration 
Policy in the European 
Union' into practice 
(mandatory) 

Priority 2: Development of 
indicators and evaluation 
methodologies to assess 
progress, adjust policies and 
measures, and to facilitate 
coordination of comparative 
learning (mandatory) 

Specific Objectives 
(a) Facilitation of the 
development and 
implementation of admission 
procedures relevant to and 
supportive of the integration 
process of TCNs 

(b) Development and 
implementation of the 
integration process of newly-
arrive TCNs in MS 

Priority 3: Policy capacity 
building, coordination and 
intercultural competence 
building in the MS across the 
different levels and 
departments of government 

(c) Increase of the capacity of 
MS to develop, implement, 
monitory and evaluate 
policies and measures for the 
integration of TCNs 

Specific Priorities 
Specific Priority 1: 
Participation as a means of 
promoting the integration of 
TCNs in society – actions 
involving the participation of 
TCNs in the formulation and 
implementation of national 
policies and measures 
Specific Priority 2: Specific 
target groups – actions, 
including introduction 
programmes and activities, 
whose main objective is to 
address the specific needs of 
particular groups, such as 
women, youth and children, 
the elderly, illiterate persons 
and persons with disabilities 
Specific Priority 3: 
Innovative introduction 
programmes and activities – 
actions developing innovative 
introduction programmes and 
activities, such as enabling 
TCNs to work and study at 
the same time, e.g. part-time 
courses, fast-track modules, 
distance or e-learning 
systems 

96   MS  benefitting  from  the  Cohesion  Funds  for  the  period  2007-2013  were  allowed  to  have  a  75%  EU  co-

financing rate from the Fund. 
97   C(2007)3926 of 21/08/2007. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                            
Priority 4: Exchange of 
experiences, good practices 
and information on 
integration between the MS 

(d) Exchange of information, 
best practices and 
cooperation in and between 
MS in developing, 
implementing, monitoring 
and evaluating policies and 
measures for the integration 
of TCNs 

Specific Priority 4: 
Intercultural dialogue – 
actions aimed at encouraging 
mutual interaction and 
exchange, such as developing 
intercultural dialogue in an 
effort to resolve any potential 
conflict caused by differences 
in cultural or religious 
practices, and thus to ensure 
the better integration of 
TCNs in the societies, values 
and ways of life of MS 
Specific priority 5: 
Involvement of the host 
society in the integration 
process – actions addressing 
effective ways of raising 
awareness and actively 
involving the host society in 
the integration process 

The Decision establishing the EIF requires the Commission to produce an ex-post evaluation 
for  the  period  2007-2010  based  on  national  evaluation  reports  on  the  results  and  impact  of 
actions  co-financed  by  the  Fund98.  This  report  will  outline  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  of 
annual programmes as well as Community Actions for 2007-2010.  

2. Findings 

Overview of the Type of Actions Implemented 

Under  shared  management  the  majority  of  projects  were  funded  under  Priority  1  (2466 
projects) and the least number of projects under Priority 4 (44 projects or 9%). Most projects 

98   See  COM  (2011)847  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the results achieved and on 
qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-
country nationals for the period 2007-2009, European Commission, 5 December 2011. See also European 
Commission  (2011)  Synthesis  of  the  National  Evaluation  Reports  on  Implementation  of  Actions  Co-
Financed  by  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third  Country  Nationals  from  2007  to  2009  and 
Report at European Union Level. Available online at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/financing/fundings/pdf/integration/synthesis_of_the_national_evaluation_repo
rts.pdf  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
were funded under Specific Objective (b) Development and implementation of the integration 
process of newly-arrived TCNs in MS (1354 projects). The types of actions funded via the EIF 
varied between the 26 MS, with a strong link between the challenges noted by individual MS 
in  their  national  programmes  and  the  types  of  actions  ultimately  financed.  The  most-cited 
need – highlighted by 22 MS – was for greater civic orientation and provision of information 
to the host society on TCNs. Improvement of TCN language skills was also a priority, as cited 
by  20  MS.  MS  with  little  or  no  experience  in  the  area  of  integration  of  TCNs  often 
implemented projects which aimed to improve the availability of basic information and civic 
orientation. Those MS with more experience, on the other hand, were more likely than those 
with  less  experience  to  put  actions  in  place  which  targeted  difficulties  faced  by  vulnerable 
groups. 

Regarding  Community  Actions,  during  the  period  2007-2010  38,  Community  Actions  were 
financed, with 10 projects in 2007 and 2010, and 9 projects in 2008 and 2009. The focus of 
Community Actions on priorities changed significantly from one year to the next. In all years, 
the  promotion  and  development  of  integration  strategies  for  specific  immigrant  groups  was 
covered  (in  total  15  projects).  With  the  exception  of  2009,  the  linkage  between 
migration/admission  and  integration  procedures  was  prioritised  in  all  years  (in  total  9 
projects). 

Implementation of the EIF 

10 MS99 assessed the overall implementation of the EIF positively. This was based primarily 
on  the  effective  and  timely  implementation  of  the  projects  and  actions  and  the  successful 
contribution  of  the  EIF  to  the  integration  of  TCNs.  Cooperation  between  MS  and  between 
national and local authorities, meticulous planning before project implementation and support 
of beneficiaries by the Responsible Authority all contributed to the positive assessment made 
by  these  10  MS.  11  MS100  made  a  partly  positive  assessment  of  the  Fund.  These  MS  faced 
some  challenges  during  implementation,  such  as  lack  of  experience  of  those  involved101, 
underspending as a result of delays in approval of annual programmes by the Commission102, 
a  reported  high  administrative  workload103,  and  potential  overlaps  with  European  Refugee 
Fund (ERF) target groups104. 

5 MS105 reported having encountered considerable difficulties with the implementation of the 
EIF,  such  as  delays,  and  high  administrative  requirements.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 

99   BG, CZ, FR, EL, IE, IT, LV, LT, PL, UK. 
100   AT, CY, EE, FI, DE, HU, LU, RO, SK, SI, ES. 
101   EE, HU, LU, RO, SK, UK. 
102   EE, HU, LU, UK. 
103   SK, DE, HU. 
104   HU, LU. 
105   BE, MT, NL, PT, SE. 

52 

 
 
 
                                                            
implementation  of  the  2009  annual  programme  was  found  to  be  more  successful  than  the 
2007  and  2008  programmes  in  Cyprus  and  Hungary,  due  to  greater  experience  and  more 
flexible  requirements.  Indeed,  Implementation  issues  encountered  in  the  first  years  were 
largely  due  to  the  novelty  of  the  Fund  and  new  eligibility  rules  at  European  Commission 
level, which meant that authorities in Member States were not yet fully acquainted with the 
fund's  administrative  requirements  and  implementation  modalities.  Although  19  MS106 
considered the fund effective, some recommendations for improvement were suggested, such 
as  reducing  the  administrative  workload,  clarifying  the  definition  of  the  target  groups  and 
increasing knowledge-sharing between MS. 

17 MS highlighted areas where there was room for improvement, such as the need to enhance 
the capacity of the beneficiary (issues in this area possibly caused by a lack of experience), 
difficulties  in  accessing  the  target  group,  and  challenges  faced  by  the  beneficiaries  when 
trying to maintain their own resources after the start of a project, especially during a financial 
crisis. 

EIF Implementation at Programme Level 

Almost all of the MS107 reported that both the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes were fully 
implemented, although several108 had a budget implementation rate of less than 75%. In a few 
MS109, the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes were implemented as planned and on schedule. 
In  several  MS110  the  implementation  of  annual  programmes  between  2007  and  2009  was 
significantly  affected  by  delays  and  "teething  problems",  especially  in  the  early  stages  of 
implementation.  Different  reasons  for  these  delays  were  reported,  such  as  internal  relations 
and  procedures  within  MS  (adjustment  and  approval  of  national  regulations  and  the 
establishment  of  internal  documents)111;  the  need  for  MS  to  make  more  than  one  call  for 
proposals following a lack of qualified proposals in the first call112 or following programme 
revisions which changed the framework of the projects113; or late approval by the European 
Commission of multiannual or annual programmes114. There were additional issues relating to 
the  administration  and  management  of  the  programmes,  mostly  due  to  a  lack  of  sufficient 
knowledge  and  experience  among  Responsible  Authorities  and  beneficiaries115;  a  lack  of  or 
insufficient  number  of  eligible  project  proposals116;  and  national  regulations  and  policies117. 

106   AT, CZ, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IR, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, ES, UK. 
107   AT, BG, CY, EE, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, SK, ES, UK. 
108   CY, LV, UK. 
109  EE, EL, IT, LT, LV. 
110   AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, HU, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK. 
111   BG, SE. 
112   HU, RO. 
113   AT, DE. 
114   CZ, LU, NL, PL, PT. 
115   BG, CZ, FR, DE, HU, IE, NL, LV, PT, RO. 
116   AT, BE, CY, EL, HU, LU, PL, RO. 

53 

 
 
 
                                                            
Many  MS  were  able  to  deal  with  the  challenges  faced,  which  mitigated  any  issues  arising 
during the implementation of the 2009 annual programmes. However, in some cases problems 
worsened and began to have an impact on the projects implemented for 2009. 

Some projects under the national programmes exceeded the expected outputs. In Romania, for 
example, in addition to the 100 participants expected to take part in language classes, and the 
100 participants of cultural orientation, an extra 40 teachers received training in teaching adult 
TCNs.  A  project  in  Lithuania,  aimed  at  raising  awareness  of  integration  via  a  television 
broadcast, was able to reach three million Lithuanians (3204% of the original target), which in 
turn increased awareness of and active participation in EIF activities. By contrast, the Czech 
Republic  and  the  Netherlands  reported  that  they  did  not  expect  the  aims  of  the  2007 
programmes to be achieved. Slovenia indicated that this would be the case for both the 2007 
and 2008 programmes. 

Over 2007-2010, a total of EUR 18.1 million was allocated to Community Actions. In 2007, 
the average budget implementation rate amounted to 95% while it decreased in 2008 to 94%, 
in 2009 to 92% and in 2010 to 90%. Compared to the 2011-2013 funding period, the budget 
implementation  rate  of  Community  Actions  was  overall  higher  (92%  against  86%  in  the 
following period). 

EIF Implementation at Project Level 

The  majority  of  projects  were  implemented  under  Priority  1,  "Implementation  of  actions 
designed to put 'Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European 
Union'  into  practice".  Indeed,  these  Common  Basic  Principles  were  the  backbone  for 
integration so that a wide spectrum of projects fell within this Priority. The types of projects 
carried  out  under  this  priority  included,  for  example:  language-training  for  TCNs; 
dissemination  of  general  and  practical  information  and  civic  orientation;  improvement  of 
tolerance, awareness-raising and intercultural dialogue; capacity-building for the adaptation of 
public  and  private  services  to  a  multicultural  society;  the  upgrading  of  reception  services; 
preliminary  actions  to  facilitate  access  to  labour  market,  social  counselling,  two-way 
approaches,  research  on  issues  of  third  country  nationals,  analysis  and  evaluation  of 
integration measures and processes. 

Successful  projects  implemented  under  Priority  2  include  a  research  project  conducted  in 
Poland investigating discrimination against TCNs. This project included a sociological survey 
involving  360  TCNs  and  30  experts  on  integration  and  discrimination  against  foreigners  in 
Poland,  participation  in  the  legislative  process,  and  the  organisation  of  seminars  to 
disseminate the results of the research carried out. A project carried out in Slovakia focused 
on  integrating  TCNs  children  into  the  school  system,  with  the  provision  of  new  teaching 

117   FR, LV, ES. 

54 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
materials  and  topics  of  particular  relevance  to  these  children.  A  study  was  undertaken  in 
Lithuania  to  improve  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  TCNs  relating  to  entry  into  the  labour 
market;  the  results  of  the  study  were  then  extensively  taken  up  by  social  groups  and 
institutions. 

Under Priority 3, a successful project in Austria involved the collection of data on migration 
and integration. A website was set up to provide information and tools relating to integration 
of stakeholders, and to facilitate networking. In Cyprus, seminars were organised for teachers, 
which included training on intercultural education and teaching Greek as a foreign language. 
Teachers responded enthusiastically to these seminars, which provided essential information 
on the teaching and perception of TCN children. A successful project in Finland was aimed at 
raising  awareness  of  the  Thai  community,  which  frequently  escapes  the  reach  of  measures 
implemented by the authorities; this project was successful in highlighting issues relevant to 
the TCNs and in promoting cooperation between different groups. 

For CAs, most Community Action projects carried out in 2007-2010 related to furthering the 
capacity of Member States’ stakeholders to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate policies 
and  measures  for  the  integration  of  TCNs.  Types  of  projects  carried  out  related  to  research 
activities,  preparing,  conducting  and  follow-up  of  seminars,  round-tables,  conferences, 
workshops and training; awareness-raising activities; activities for establishing networks; the 
development  of  tools  in  the  field  of  integration;  and  the  development  of  indicators.  Most 
project  managers  provided  positive  reports  of  the  outcomes  of  projects.  The  success  of 
projects  was  often  linked  to  the  use  in  the  projects  of  outreach  activities  or  dissemination 
methods. 

3. Relevance 

All  MS  except  the  Netherlands  and  Poland  found  that  the  EIF's  programme  priorities  and 
actions  were  relevant  to  national  needs  and  aims  in  this  area,  with  particular  relevance  in 
some of the new MS118 with increasing numbers of migrants from third countries. 

In the Netherlands and Poland, programme priorities and actions were considered irrelevant to 
the  national  situation.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  EIF  budget  represented  a  relatively  small 
proportion compared to the national budged for integration; thus, it did not add a real value to 
national  strategies.  In  Poland,  it  was  observed  during  implementation  that  a  wider  range  of 
actions would bring added value to national strategies. Hence, actions had to be reshaped and 
merged in order to address domestic needs. In addition 5 MS119 highlighted problems relating 
to the definition of the target group. Migrants who did not correspond to the legal definition of 

118   BG, CY, CZ, MT. 
119   CY, EE, FI, LU, MT. 

55 

 
 
 
                                                            
TCNs120  were  not  eligible  for  funding,  and  the  interpretation  of  'newly-arrived'  created 
problems  for  beneficiaries.  There  were  also  some  issues  regarding  the  EIF's  relevance, 
specifically  a  lack  of  interest  among  some  stakeholders  and  target  groups,  which  was 
highlighted by 9 of 26 MS121, although reasons for this lack of engagement were not generally 
expanded upon by respondents. 

Regarding  Community  Actions  implemented  during  the  evaluation  period,  all  project 
managers  surveyed  reported  that  their  projects  responded  well  to  the  needs  of  the  Member 
State  in  question,  and  were  able  to  adapt  to  shifting  demands.  15  out  of  20  respondents, 
however, reported that projects could adapt to at least some extent to changing needs between 
2007  and  2010.  DG  HOME  representatives  also  felt  that  the  EIF  had  generally  targeted  all 
integration  needs.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  as  none  of  the  Responsible  Authorities 
interviewed  were  well  acquainted  with  Community  Action  projects,  it  is  difficult  to  assess 
their relevance to national needs. 

4. Effectiveness 

19  MS  reported  that  the  EIF  was  effective  due  to  successful  project  implementation  and 
results  which  were  in  correspondence  with  the  objectives.  7  MS122  felt  it  was  too  early  to 
provide  a  useful  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme.  12  MS123  highlighted 
several significant outputs, including  

  Cultural  events  and  language  courses  for  migrants,  information  campaigns  and 
services for third-country nationals, and  two-way dialogues between nationals of the 
Member State and third country nationals in order to facilitate integration and increase 
awareness 

  Trainings and conferences, as well as cooperation of national and local authorities, in 
order  to  develop  the  skills  of  experts  working  in  the  field  of  integration  and  to 
exchange best practices 

  Research projects, attitude surveys, and evaluation of services involved in integration. 

For the Community actions implemented during the 2007-2010 evaluation period, 8 out of 20 
project managers interviewed reported that their projects helped set the integration process in 
motion without any issues. The Community Actions implemented during this period brought 
about  some  important  developments,  particularly  as  regards  improving  knowledge  and 
application  of  admissions  procedures.  Project  managers  also  indicated  that  Community 

120   Article 1(4) Council Decision of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of third-
country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management 
of Migration Flows’, OJ L 168, 28.6.2007.  

121   DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, LT, MT, RO, UK. 
122   BE, BG, CY, EE, MT, NL, SE. 
123   BG, FR, EL, HU, IT, LV, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, UK. 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Actions  improved  the  ability  of  MS  to  develop,  implement,  monitor  and  evaluate  measures 
relating to the integration of TCNs. 

Feedback  from  project  managers  on  the  impact  of  the  projects  implemented  was  generally 
positive. They found the majority of projects to have improved the capabilities of MS in the 
area  of  integration  to  at  least  some  extent;  only  a  small  number  of  project  managers 
considered there to have been a limited contribution or no contribution at all. Although there 
is evidence that most of the Community Actions contributed to the integration of TCNs and to 
the improvement of integration procedures, they did not always address national needs in the 
individual MS, and so it was not always possible to use their results for the development or 
implementation of national integration policies. Policy makers at a national level were often 
unaware  of  Community  Action  projects  -  an  issue  highlighted  by  project  managers  when 
reporting on the limitations of Community Actions. 

The evaluation indicated that the success of a project was directly attributable to the methods 
of  dissemination  employed,  which  included  conferences,  seminars  and  workshops.  Project 
managers  indicated  that  the  impact  of  Community  Actions  could  have  been  greater  if  there 
had  been  a  standardised  method  of  disseminating  project  results  at  EU  level.  Projects  were 
able to raise awareness of issues relating to migration and integration, but it proved to be more 
difficult to achieve concrete political changes, such as improving political representation. 

5. Efficiency 

14  MS124  found  the  efficiency  of  the  EIF  to  be  satisfactory  and  the  projects  to  have  been 
implemented at a reasonable cost. A lack of quantitative data for the fund's efficiency makes 
assessment difficult, however. 

Finland, Malta and Portugal considered the programme's efficiency to be partly satisfactory as 
the EIF budget was felt to be too limited or the Member State was faced with other challenges 
during implementation. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Italy and Sweden, found the efficiency of 
the  EIF  unsatisfactory  as  administration  and  management  of  the  projects  required  more 
personnel  and  financial  means  than  expected.  Austria  and  Germany  reported  that  it  was 
difficult to assess the programme's efficiency and Ireland and the Netherlands did not provide 
any information on this issue. 

For Community Actions, 85% of project managers interviewed (29/34 responses) found that 
the  use  of  human  resources  was  reasonable  to  at  least  some  extent,  whilst  97%  (33/34 
responses)  found  the  same  for  financial  resources.  Several  project  managers  indicated  that 
more  financial  resources  than  expected  were  required  over  the  implementation  period.  It 
should be noted that projects run by organisations with previous experience of similar projects 

124   BG, CZ, FR, EL, HU, LV, LT, LU, RO, SK, SI, ES, UK. 

57 

 
 
 
                                                            
at  EU  level  found  the  administrative  demands  of  project  implementation  appropriate.  A 
number of project managers also reported that requests for changes, including smaller changes 
– e.g. changes in smaller deliverables such as the planning of seminars - had a long response 
rate  from  the  Commission.  This  meant  that  the  suggested  changes  could  be  irrelevant  once 
approved, or that the project was delayed, e.g. in the case of approving new staff.  

6. Sustainability 

It is difficult to establish to what extent the EIF had a lasting influence on TCNs as no follow-
up was carried out with the individuals themselves. It is particularly difficult to determine the 
impact of projects which provided indirect services to TCNs, such as information campaigns. 

With this limitation in mind, the evaluation found that a large proportion of MS assessed that 
the  positive  effects  of  the  EIF  lasted  to  a  high  extent  after  the  interventions  were 
terminated125;  a  number  of  MS  assessed  that  the  positive  effects  lasted  to  some  extent,  but 
varied from one project to another126. 4 MS indicated that the positive effects of the actions 
under the EIF programmes lasted to a low extent127. 

For projects under Community Actions, 55% of project managers (11 out of 20 respondents) 
reported that, for the 2007-2010 period, their projects continued without EU funding, whether 
in the same or in an adjusted form. Examples of sustained positive effects brought about by 
Community Actions include the continued use of monitoring and evaluation methods which 
were  developed  under  the  EIF  projects,  the  continuation  of  created  networks,  and  the 
dissemination  of  research  project  results,  although  some  project  managers  were  unaware  of 
how research projects had been adopted at a political level or if there was any political will to 
employ  the  results  at  all.  None  of  the  interviewees  reported  using  a  systematic  approach  to 
ensure  sustainability  of  projects.  Commission  officials  also  indicated  that  there  was  not  a 
single,  unified  approach  to  ensuring  project  sustainability,  but  a  variety  of  approaches 
depending on the type of project. 

7. Coherence and Complementarity 

For  the  evaluation  period  2007-2010,  all  MS  reported  that  the  EIF  was  complementary  to 
other funding, with some pointing out that the EIF was the only funding instrument targeting 
the  integration  of  TCNs.  As  the  majority  of  Responsible  Authorities  interviewed  were 
unaware of the Community Actions which were implemented in their respective countries, it 
proved difficult to assess coherence and complementarity adequately. 

125   BE, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, SI, UK. 
126   AT, EE, EL, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO. 
127   FI, IT, SE, SK. 

58 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
73%  of  respondents  for  the  period  2007-2010  (19  out  of  26  respondents)  reported  that  the 
projects implemented led to the development of links with other national-level actions, with 
Community Actions bringing an international dimension to those at national level. The survey 
also showed there were few overlaps with national actions during this period. 

75%  of  respondents  (15  out  of  20)  indicated  that  links  had  been  developed  between  their 
projects  and  others  at  EU  level.  Project  managers  did,  however,  highlight  a  lack  of 
Commission involvement – there was no overview provided of what was taking place in other 
Community  Actions.  5  cases  of  overlap  with  other  EU  projects  were  highlighted  for  this 
period. 

8. EU Added Value 

All  MS,  with  the  exception  of  the  Netherlands  and  Portugal128,  found  that  the  fund brought 
added  value  which  could  not  have  been  achieved  through national  funding  alone. The  most 
significant impacts could be identified in the implementation of projects targeting integration 
which would not have been put in place without EIF funding, the expansion and support of 
actions carried out by NGOs and local authorities, and the exchange of ideas between relevant 
stakeholders. 

The  main  benefits  cited  for  the  period  2007-2010  at  project  level  were  the  development  of 
knowledge  and  skills,  and  the  distribution  of  information  and  best  practices.  All  of  the  20 
project managers  who responded to the telephone survey for the 2007-2010 period reported 
that their  projects could not  have been  carried out  without EIF funding, attributing this to  a 
lack of national funding directed at  projects of this  kind. Additional  benefits highlighted by 
the  respondents  include  greater  legitimacy  of  their  organisation  and  its  activities,  increased 
awareness  of  the  project,  and  a  better  established  national  and  international  network.  As  a 
result,  the  projects  were  able  to  have  a  more  profound  impact  than  they  would  have  had 
without EIF funding. 

22 MSs also made a positive assessment of the benefits brought by the EIF to target groups. 
Examples  provided  were  facilitated  connections  between  target  group  persons  and 
nationals129;  an  increased  focus  on  vulnerable  groups130;  an  increased  awareness  of  services 
available  to  TCNs  and  rights131;  enhancing  the  skills  and  knowledge  of  TCNs132;  increased 
appeal of projects133; and allowing projects to cover a wider scope of integration activities134. 

128   Portugal provided no information regarding this issue, and the Netherlands faced difficulties relating to the 

definition of target groups, the small contribution of the EIF, and the administrative burden. 

129   CZ, FR, LU. 
130   BE, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, SE, SI. 
131   RO. 
132   EE, ES, LV, MT, NL, PL, SE, SI, UK. 
133   CY. 

59 

 
 
 
                                                            
Similar results were found for Community Actions. Most respondents to the telephone survey 
of  project  managers  except  for  one  reported  that  there  were  few  funds  available  at  national 
level  for  cross-national  projects  and  for  projects  of  the  size  and  innovative  character  of  the 
Community  Action  projects.  Additional  benefits  reported  from  the  EIF  were  the  increased 
legitimacy of the organisation and its activities; increased access to key stakeholders; stronger 
networks at national and international level; the possibility for cross-national inspiration and 
exchange; and the possibility to conduct projects and research in topics that may be politically 
sensitive to fund at national level. 

9. Conclusion 

The evaluation offers several  conclusions regarding the various impacts of  the EIF. Despite 
the  financial  contribution  itself  being  relatively  small  compared  to  other  European  funds,  it 
was found that the EIF had a significant impact on the added value brought to the projects by 
the fund. The EIF allowed the implementation of projects which would not have been put into 
effect  with  national  resources  alone  and  also  allowed  existing  projects  to  be  expanded 
geographically  and  to  a  greater  number  of  beneficiaries.  The  secondary  impacts  were  also 
significant,  such  as  increased  focus  on  vulnerable  groups.  The  EIF  had  a  particularly 
noticeable  impact  in  MS  with  little  experience  of  and  limited  funding  for  integration, 
reinforcing the position of integration on the political agenda. 

It was found that the EIF was broad enough to allow specific needs relating to integration to 
be  targeted  at  any  one  time,  allowing  the  fund  a  significant  degree  of  flexibility.  Although 
synergies were addressed to a lesser extent than other priorities, a lack of overlaps indicates 
that projects funded via the EIF were generally coherent with other activities at national and 
EU  level.  However,  as  Responsible  Authorities  were  generally  unaware  of  Community 
Actions, it was difficult to ensure complementarity between projects. 

The evaluation concluded that the actions implemented adhered well to the objectives of the 
EIF. Community Actions led to greater cooperation between different groups across the MS, 
although  there  were  few  exchanges  between  those  implementing  the  projects  and  the 
respective national authorities. 

There was found to be an issue with the definition of the target group, despite the Commission 
stating that there had been no intention to impose limits on it. Some  MS interpreted 'newly-
arrived' TCNs very precisely, whilst others understood it more loosely. This may have limited 
the  EIF's  effectiveness.  In  addition  to  this,  it  is  not  always clear  how  the  results  of  projects 
were  being  taken  up  at  a  political  level.  Project  results  were  not  always  communicated 
effectively and this had an impact on the attention which they received politically in the MS 
and within the Commission, thereby limiting the overall effectiveness of the fund. 

134   CY, CZ, EE, FI, PL. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
As  there  was  no  requirement  to  collect  data  relating  to  costs,  the  assessment  of  the  EIF's 
efficiency was significantly limited. For example, there was no data available to differentiate 
between administrative costs and the costs of the activities themselves, which meant that the 
assessment had to rely on stakeholders' own assessments. Some beneficiaries found that the 
administrative demands of the fund were high. 

The  Commission  did  not  place  a  great  deal  of  emphasis  on  sustainability  during  project 
selection,  and  it  was  found  that  only  a  limited  number  of  projects  were  able  to  source 
alternative funding once the implementation period of the EIF had ended. The extent to which 
impacts  endured  varied  between  projects,  as  did  the  capacity  to  assess  sustainability 
effectively. It is difficult to establish to what extent the EIF had a lasting influence on TCNs; 
no  follow-up  was  carried  out  with  the  individuals  themselves.  It  is  particularly  difficult  to 
determine  the  impact  of  projects  which  provided  indirect  services  to  TCNs,  such  as 
information campaigns. 

Over the course of the implementation period 2007-2010 a number of lessons were drawn. A 
number of MS135 reported the administrative burden as a significant obstacle to the efficient 
implementation of national programmes. It was also felt that the EIF was too limiting when it 
came to making programme revisions and managing eligible and ineligible costs, which added 
to  the  administrative  strain.  A  clarification  of  the  target  group  was  considered  necessary  by 
several MS136. 

135   AT, CZ, DE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, SK, SE. 
136   AT, BE, FR, NL, SK, SE, HU, ES, UK. 

61