FEAD mid-term evaluation report : final report.
Date: 2019-04-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU Member State, aid evaluation, aid to disadvantaged groups, food aid, fund (EU), poverty, social assistance, social policy, social problem, socially disadvantaged class

FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation 
Final Report 

VC/2016/0664 

Written by Metis GmbH in cooperation with Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini and Panteia 
July – 2018 

Social 
Europe 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
Unit G4 — Evaluation and Impact Assessment 

Contact: Unit G4 

E-mail:  Andris.Skrastins@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation 
Final Report 

VC/2016/0664 

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

July 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

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

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

© European Union, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

ISBN 978-92-79-92604-4              doi:10.2767/41799                        KE-04-18-712-EN-N

Please quote this report as: Metis (2018) FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation, Final Report 

The opinions expressed are those of the Contractor only and do not represent the Commission’s 
official position. 

FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

List of abbreviations 

AIR  

AMIF 

AROPE 

Annual Implementation Report 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

At  Risk  of  Poverty  or  Social  Exclusion  (refers  to  the  situation  of  people 
either  at  risk  of  poverty,  or  severely  materially  deprived  or  living  in  a 
household with a very low work intensity) 

BMA 

Basic material assistance 

DG EMPL 

Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

ESF 

ESIF 

EQ 

European Social Fund  

European Structural and Investment Funds 

Evaluation question 

FEAD 

Fund for European Aid to the most Deprived 

IB 

IP 

MA 

MDP 

MS 

MTE 

NHFI 

NRP 

OP 

OPC 

PO 

SPSI 

SFC 

TO 

ToR 

Intermediary Body 

Investment Priority 

Managing Authority 

Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons 

Member State 

Mid-term evaluation 

Housing First Network for Homeless 

National Reform Programme 

Operational Programme  

Open Public Consultation  

Partner Organisation 

Social  protection,  social  inclusion  and  the  reduction  and  prevention  of 
poverty 

Electronic  data  exchange  system  used  by  Member  States  and  the 
Commission for official exchanges of information concerning the FEAD 

Thematic Objective 

Terms of Reference 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Table of Contents 

Executive summary ........................................................................................... 9 
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 17 
The evaluation context ................................................................................ 18 
1 
1.1  Evaluation requirements under Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 and contractual 

deliverables ............................................................................................... 18 
1.2  The evaluation questions and sub-questions .................................................. 18 
1.3  Evaluation methodology and indicators ......................................................... 19 
1.3.1  Common output and result indicators ............................................................... 19 
1.4  Data and information collection methods ....................................................... 20 
1.4.1  Programme and monitoring data (secondary data) ............................................. 20 
1.4.2  Primary data and information collection ............................................................ 20 
1.5  Limitations and approach to address them ..................................................... 21 
The role and impact of FEAD support ............................................................ 23 
2 
2.1  Summary of budgets and types of support offered by FEAD OPs ...................... 23 
2.1.1  Allocations to type I OPs ................................................................................. 23 
2.1.2  Allocations to type II OPs ................................................................................ 26 
2.2  Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 27 

2.2.1  To what extent does the FEAD contribute to national and EU objectives of achieving 

poverty reduction and social inclusion? ............................................................. 28 
2.2.2  How are the various types of assistance delivered? ............................................. 51 
2.2.3  How robust are good practice cases identified by MAs and Partner Organisations? .. 56 
2.3  Coherence ................................................................................................. 58 
2.3.1  What role does FEAD play in the national system of poverty alleviation? ............... 58 
2.3.2  To what extent is FEAD support coherent with EU policies and complementary to 
support provided by other European Union instruments, in particular the ESF and 
AMIF? ........................................................................................................... 61 

2.3.3  Has the FEAD contributed to supplement or to displace national (public or private) 

interventions and financial resources used with similar or complementary 
objectives? .................................................................................................... 65 
2.4  Efficiency .................................................................................................. 67 

2.4.2  To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the outputs/impacts that have 

been achieved? .............................................................................................. 70 
2.4.3  What type of operations for which target group proves to be most cost-effective and 
efficient and why? .......................................................................................... 75 
2.4.4  What is the feasibility of alternative delivery mechanisms and support modes for the 
provision of support to the most deprived (e.g. shared management, indirect 
management, budget support)? ....................................................................... 78 

2.4.5  Does the procedure for identifying the end recipients facilitate access to FEAD 

assistance? .................................................................................................... 80 

2.4.6  Does the use of flat rates under OP I simplify the implementation of operations by 

Partner Organisations? .................................................................................... 81 
2.4.7  Is there any scope for simplification? ................................................................ 82 
2.5  European added value ................................................................................ 86 
2.5.1  What kind of EU added value is resulting from the FEAD support volume, scope, role, 
and process) and how significant is it? .............................................................. 87 
2.5.2  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping the FEAD support? ......... 98 
2.6  Relevance ............................................................................................... 104 
2.6.1  How relevant is the aid to the target groups? How well does it respond to their 

needs? Are there any gaps? ........................................................................... 104 
3  Conclusions and lessons learned ................................................................ 112 

5 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

3.1  Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 112 
3.2  Coherence ............................................................................................... 113 
3.3  Efficiency ................................................................................................ 113 
3.4  European added value .............................................................................. 114 
3.5  Relevance ............................................................................................... 115 
4  Good practice .......................................................................................... 116 
4.1  Identification of good practice .................................................................... 116 
4.2  Good practice related to improved effectiveness ........................................... 116 
4.3  Good practice related to coherence ............................................................. 120 
4.4  Good practice related to improved efficiency ................................................ 121 
4.5  Good practice related to European added value ............................................ 123 
4.6  Good practice related to relevance ............................................................. 125 
Annexes ........................................................................................................ 126 
Annex 1: Information sources .......................................................................... 127 
Annex 2: Overview of national FEAD Operational Programmes ............................. 142 
Annex 3: List of common indicators .................................................................. 144 
Annex 4: Intervention logic of the FEAD ............................................................ 147 
Annex 5: List of indicators ............................................................................... 148 
Annex 6: Evaluation questions and sub-questions per evaluation criterion ............. 176 
Annex 7: Evaluation tools used in the 28 Member States ..................................... 178 
Annex 8: Results of the structured survey ......................................................... 179 
Annex 9: Comments and Lessons learned concerning the structured survey .......... 182 
Annex 10: Additional statistical analysis ............................................................ 184 
Annex 11: Consequences of stopping FEAD support ............................................ 187 
Annex 12: Extent and occurrence of OP changes and amendments in MS .............. 188 

6 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Tables, Figures and Boxes 

  Sources of information for the Mid-term evaluation deliverables ............. 18 
  Definition of evaluation criteria ........................................................... 18 
  Overview of success factors and bottlenecks ........................................ 57 
  Overview to what extent FEAD support is complementary to support provided 
by  other  European  Union  instruments,  in  particular  the  ESF  and  AMIF,  by 
MS. ................................................................................................. 61 
  Unit cost of food distributed in Euro (2016) .......................................... 71 
  Cost per person of basic material assistance in EUR (2016) .................... 72 
  Cost per person of OP II assistance in EUR (2016) ................................ 74 
Target groups of OP II (2016) ............................................................ 77 
  Amount of food distributed and evolution 2014-2016 ............................ 88 
  Volume effects per person ................................................................. 91 
  Illustrative examples of the Added Value of FEAD in the Member States 100 
  Overview of EU added value by Member State and effects ................... 102 
  Overview of good practice cases ....................................................... 116 
  Overview of good practice cases ....................................................... 120 
  Overview of good practice cases ....................................................... 121 
  Overview of good practice cases ....................................................... 123 
  Overview of good practice cases ....................................................... 125 
  Overview of national FEAD Operational Programmes ........................... 142 
  List of indicators ............................................................................. 148 
  Evaluation question and sub-questions per evaluation criterion ............. 176 
  Evaluation tools used in the 28 Member States ................................... 178 
  Results of the structured survey ....................................................... 179 
  Consequences of stopping FEAD support ............................................ 187 
  Extent and occurrence of OP changes and amendments in MS .............. 188 

  Share  of  FEAD  funding  for  food  support  (FS)  by  OP  I  MS  and  target 
group .............................................................................................. 24 
  Share of FEAD funding for material assistance (MA) by OP I MS and target 
group .............................................................................................. 24 
  FEAD absolute allocation by types of support (in EUR) ........................... 25 
  OPs’  allocation  of  accompanying  measures  as  part  of  food  support,  by 
MS .................................................................................................. 25 
  FEAD allocation for type II OPs ........................................................... 26 
  FEAD financial progress by type of intervention for OP I ........................ 29 
  FEAD financial progress, by MS as at 31/12/2016 ................................. 29 
  Total quantity of food distributed (2014-2016), by MS ........................... 31 
  Overall  quantity  of  food  distributed  relative  to  overall  allocation  for  food 
support (2014-2016), by MS .............................................................. 32 
  Overall value of goods distributed (2014-2016), by MS.......................... 33 
  Value of goods distributed over the MS total allocation for material support, 
by MS .............................................................................................. 33 
  Progress of common output indicators for type II FEAD OPs, by MS (absolute 
values and %) .................................................................................. 34 
  Progress of programme-specific output indicators for type II OPs, by MS . 34 

7 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Difficulties faced in getting the assistance ............................................ 36 
  Difference the FEAD assistance made to the end recipients .................... 37 
  Usefulness of accompanying measures ................................................ 38 
  FEAD  allocation  relative  to  people  AROPE  and  to  the  national  target  for 
poverty reduction (2016) ................................................................... 40 
  FEAD’s food support coverage and intensity, by MS (2016) .................... 42 
  Person receiving the assistance .......................................................... 44 
  Coverage of basic material assistance by target group (2016) ................ 45 
  Value of goods distributed by target group ........................................... 46 
  Progress of programme-specific result indicators in Type II OPs, by MS ... 47 
  Share  of  POs  providing  no  accompanying  measures  and  share  of 
accompanying measures provided by frequency, by MS ......................... 54 
  Efficiency of basic material assistance for children (2016) ...................... 76 
  Total quantity of food support distributed in 2016 (in %) ....................... 89 
  Percentage of AROPE in total population and funding per AROPE ............. 92 
  Correlation  between  the  share  of  food  support  in  each  OP  and  financial 
progress (expenditure approved/total allocation) ................................ 184 
  People receiving food support and amount of food distributed per person, by 
MS (2016) ..................................................................................... 184 
  Persons receiving food support by target group and MS (2016) ............ 185 
  Correlation between the extent to which FEAD has made a difference to end-
recipients and the share of POs providing accompanying measures (scatter 
plot) .............................................................................................. 186 

ESF and FEAD complementarity in Greece ............................................ 63 
FEAD contribution to mutual learning in Spain ...................................... 97 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Executive summary  

Poverty  reduction  is  one  of  the  headline  targets  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  The 
concrete target is "at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social 
exclusion by 2020". Although a very small fund by EU standards (almost EUR 3.8 billion 
for 2014-2020 EU-contribution; almost 4.5 billion including national co-financing), the 
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) has been set up to contribute to 
achieving this target. The specific objective of FEAD is to alleviate the worst forms of 
poverty in the EU and to promote the social inclusion of the most deprived persons. The 
Fund complements actions that are funded under the ESF as social inclusion activities, 
while  exclusively  supporting  the  most  deprived  persons.  It  also  ensures  coordination 
with  other  relevant  Union  policies,  strategies  and  instruments,  in  particular  Union 
initiatives  in  the  field  of  public  health  and  against  food  waste.1  The  Fund  provides 
material support and social inclusion measures to the target group. 

The  Fund  supports  two  types  of  operational  programme  that  complement  national 
poverty eradication and social inclusion policies which remain the prerogative of Member 
States:  

  OP  I:  'food  and/or  basic  material  assistance  operational  programme'  means  an 
operational programme supporting the distribution of food and/or basic material 
assistance  to  the  most  deprived  persons,  combined  where  applicable  with 
accompanying  measures,  aimed  at  alleviating  the  social  exclusion  of  most 
deprived persons; 

  OP  II:  'social  inclusion  of  the  most  deprived  persons’  operational  programme' 
means  an  operational  programme  supporting  activities  outside  active  labour 
market measures, comprised of non-financial or non-material assistance. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  FEAD  is  required  by  Article  17(1)  of  the  FEAD 
Regulation.2 This report is the Final Report of the mid-term evaluation. It is structured 
according to the evaluation questions in the Terms of Reference and mainly follows a 
theory-based approach covering effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, European added 
value and relevance.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  uses  desk  research,  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities 
(MAs) and Partner Organisations (POs), focus groups at EU and national level, the Open 
Public Consultation (OPC) and the structured surveys as sources of information.  

With regard to overall achievements, the number of end recipients increased over the 
years, from 8 million in 2014 to 14 million in 2015 and 15 million in 2016. Care should 
be  taken  with  these  figures  as  these  are  a)  estimations  and  b)  may  include  double 
counting (i.e. multiple participations of a same individual). On average, 0.3 million tons 
of food were distributed each year.  

The food distributed includes both food packages3 and meals4, with the distribution of 
food packages being three times as high as the distribution of meals.  

Basic  material  assistance  was  provided  in  six  Member  States  (Austria,  the  Czech 
Republic, Luxembourg, Latvia, Greece and Slovakia) for about 700,000 people. With the 
exception of Austria, this was provided in combination with food aid during the reporting 
period.  

Accompanying  measures  are  an  obligatory  part  of  OP  I.  They  include  advice  and 
information on social services or other types of public and private assistance that are 
available,  basic  counselling  activities  and  workshops,  e.g.  on  managing  a  household 
budget, nutrition and sport, and cooking classes. While some countries, e.g. Belgium, 

1 Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2014 on the Fund 
for European Aid to the Most Deprived 
2 ibid 
3 380,486,907 food packages distributed from 2014-2016. 
4 121,911,498 meals distributed from 2014-2016. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Cyprus,  Estonia,  France,  Hungary  and  Romania  did  not  draw  on  the  EU  budget  for 
accompanying measures and financed them with their national budget, others found the 
amount too small. This was found to be the case in particular for Member States with a 
large number of distribution centres or with small FEAD budgets. This meant that many 
Partner Organisations at the local level had to rely on their own resources to provide 
accompanying  measures.  Nevertheless,  accompanying  measures  were  found  to  be 
highly relevant as food or material aid alone does not address the underlying causes of 
poverty.  Participants  in  the  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  on  the  FEAD  Mid-Term 
Evaluation  and  in  the  focus  groups  called  for  them  to  be  strengthened.  Conversely, 
respondents  also  stressed  that  accompanying  measures  can  only  lead  to  social 
integration  once  the  initial  needs  related  to  food  and  material  deprivation  have  been 
addressed. 

The Social Inclusion (OP II) programmes successfully managed to fill gaps in national 
coverage  of  the  most  deprived  in  terms  of  target  groups.  The  social  inclusion 
programmes are considered important as there is a consensus that food and material 
aid  is  not  enough  to  effectively  combat  poverty  in  the  long-term  and  social  inclusion 
action is an essential factor, in both the OP programmes.  

With  regard  to  spending,  from  2014  to  2016  EUR  912  million  of  eligible  public 
expenditure was incurred by beneficiaries and paid in implementing operations in the 
28 MS, out of which 99.5% was spent in OP I programmes. Three out of four of the OP 
II programmes started in 2015 and one in 2016 representing 3% of the FEAD budget.  

In a number of Member States, implementation was delayed due to the late approval of 
the  OPs.  Although  22  OPs  were  adopted  within  four  months  of  submission,  six 
(Germany, France, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom) were adopted 
more than four months after submission. According to the data reported by MS in the 
AIRs, food was distributed in 8 OPs in 2014 (Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania and Slovenia). Some OPs, in particular Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia 
and  the  Netherlands,  needed  an  extended  start-up  phase  to  establish  the  necessary 
infrastructure to comply with legal requirements. 

With regard to the evaluation criteria, the following conclusions can be drawn based on 
the available evidence. 

Effectiveness 

The evaluation concludes that overall FEAD is an effective fund. Despite its limited scale, 
it  is  a  key  tool  for  both  end  recipients  and  organisations  working  in  the  field.  It  is 
particularly effective in reaching out to the most deprived, including those who are not 
reached by existing forms of social assistance or who need immediate basic support. 

In terms of financial progress, expenditure declared to the EC at the end of 2016 is on 
average slightly below 10%. This rises to 20% for expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and  to  nearly  30%  for  approved  expenditure.  The  overall  financial  progress  can  be 
considered acceptable, with the approved expenditure being lower – but close to – the 
yearly  financial  plans  included  in  the  OPs.  However,  implementation  rates  vary 
significantly  across  countries  with  10  MS  still  significantly  below  the  EU  average.  At 
present, there are no clear indications that the financial progress is insufficient, although 
the situation should be closely monitored especially as regards the implementation of 
material  assistance  measures  and  with  respect  to  a  few  countries  that  by  the  end  of 
2016 had not entered the full implementation stage of the OPs (e.g. other than the UK, 
also Croatia and Hungary, where there was yet no expenditure incurred). 

If  we  look  at  output  indicators,  under  OP  I,  nearly  one  million  tonnes  of  food  were 
distributed in 20 MS from 2014 to 2016. The delivery of material support (e.g. school 
material or hygiene articles) is slower than that of food support, mostly due to delays 
in implementation in Italy and Greece that account for four fifths of the overall allocation 

10 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

of  material  support  as  well  as  to  the  “novelty”  of  these  measures  which  were  only 
introduced  with  the  current  programming.  Under  OPII,  FEAD  reached  approximately 
23,000 individuals in 2016, the majority of them (21,660) in Germany and is generally 
on track to achieve the targets on specific output indicators, except for the Netherlands.  

Concerning  the  Fund’s  effectiveness  in  terms  of  contributing  to  alleviating  the  worst 
forms  of  poverty,  there  was  a  broad  agreement  among  respondents  to  the  OPC 
concerning FEAD’s ability to make a difference for the end recipients by alleviating food 
deprivation  and  contributing  to  their  social  inclusion.  Such  results  are  on  average 
confirmed for OPI by the survey on end-recipients, with FEAD being considered to make 
a difference by the vast majority of respondents who also provided a generally positive 
appraisal of accompanying measures.    

Needs coverage (a way of looking at FEAD’s effectiveness in the absence of target values 
in the monitoring system) is promising, if compared with the figures on food insecurity, 
especially  for  countries  such  as  Spain,  Slovenia,  Luxembourg,  France,  Portugal  and 
Romania. The share of food insecure individuals reached by FEAD in these countries is 
above 80%, with an intensity of support at around 20kgs per participant per year (with 
the exception of Luxembourg). Poland also shows good results, with a lower coverage 
but a strong intensity of support (48kg per participant per year).  

Overall,  food  support  has  reached  different  target  groups.  Beyond  the  general  target 
group of the most deprived, specific target groups such as children at risk of  poverty 
have been targeted most often, with over 30% of FEAD end-recipients being children 
(and covering on average 60% of children experiencing food insecurity in Europe). This 
is followed by the elderly and migrants. 

Regarding the effectiveness of the four type II OPs, the social inclusion programmes are 
considered important as there is a consensus that food and material aid is not enough 
to effectively combat poverty in the long-term and social inclusion action is an essential 
factor.  On average  Germany  exceeded its targets for the  specific result indicators.  In 
Denmark, the two projects funded by FEAD have reached 33.9% of the targeted 1,400 
vulnerable homeless people in 2016 so far. This gap can be attributed to the fact that 
the  two  community  organisations  only  received  the  funding  in  mid-2016.  In  the 
Netherlands, reaching the most vulnerable group of senior individuals has proven to be 
a challenge, with just over 5% of the numbers foreseen having received support at the 
end of 2016. This is also due to the late start of the interventions (mid-2016), which 
nevertheless show good take up rates. The FEAD in Sweden is directed towards inactive 
people who have resided in the country for less than three months. During 2015–2016, 
582 individuals received support from projects funded by the FEAD (one-sixth to one-
eighth of the estimated eligible population).  

Field  research  has  shown  that  FEAD  support  achieves  important  “soft”  results  that 
cannot  be  measured  directly  through  the  monitoring  system.  Amongst  other,  it 
represents a significant proportion of food aid distributed in MS and indirectly supports 
many  Partner  Organisations  that  would  otherwise  risk  disappearing.  FEAD  improves 
partnerships and knowledge sharing at the local level both among institutions, Partner 
Organisations and social services, and across different Partner Organisations. Both the 
OPC  and  the  focus  groups  emphasised  the  importance  of  the  FEAD  as  a  broad  scope 
and easy-to-access programme, which ensures a good coverage of end recipients.  

Yet,  despite  its  widely  acknowledged  positive  results,  there  appears  to  be  room  for 
improvement  with  respect  to  implementation  rates  in  some  MS  (both  in  terms  of 
financial as well as progress of delivery), the provision of accompanying measures, and 
the support for end recipients towards further inclusion. 

Some  difficulties  were  reported  for  POs  in  providing  accompanying  measures  of  an 
adequate  quality  and  breadth  to  support  end  recipients  in  making  a  decisive  step 
towards  further  inclusion.  This  is  because  accompanying  measures  are  resource-
intensive  and  can  only  be  reimbursed  at  a  maximum  of  5%  of  purchasing  costs; 
combined with the fact that some POs may lack the capacity and training to adequately 

11 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

provide them. Nevertheless, accompanying measures were found to be very relevant as 
food  or  material  aid  alone  does  not  address  the  underlying  causes  of  poverty.  Data 
warns about a possible correlation, however weak, between the coverage of provision 
of accompanying measures by POs and the extent to which FEAD has made a difference 
to the lives of the end-recipients.  

Further  than  strict  “effectiveness”  judgments,  further  issues  tackled  by  this  study 
confirm that FEAD OPs have proved to be relatively flexible regarding types of food and 
items distributed. In several instances, the composition of food packages was changed 
in response to feedback from end recipients.  

However,  some  rigidity  in  the  forms  of  support  that  are  allowed  under  the  FEAD 
regulation means less room for manoeuvre which, in turn, may reduce some potential 
for increasing the effectiveness of the fund. Horizontal principles are broadly complied 
with and have been valuable to the implementation of the programme, especially with 
respect  to  the  partnership  principle.  Nevertheless,  there  would  be  merit  in  further 
encouraging efforts towards reducing food waste. 

Finally, the FEAD Network which was launched in September 2016, plays an important 
role  in  supporting  mutual  learning  at  European  Union  level,  through  networking  and 
dissemination  of  good  practices  in  the  area  of  non-financial  assistance  to  the  most 
deprived persons.  

Coherence 

Overall,  FEAD  is  found  to  be  coherent  with  national  schemes  and  other  EU  support 
programmes, notably the ESF and the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). 

Regarding national schemes, it plays both a complementary and supporting role, most 
notably by complementing national poverty alleviation strategies, e.g. in those Member 
States that do not have national non-financial assistance programmes or where these 
do not cover the full spectre of most deprived (e.g. EU migrants not targeted by AMIF). 
It supports existing aid programmes at national or local level (sometimes becoming a 
key food provider), including through fostering dialogue and coordination among third 
sector organisations and public social assistance actors. It also promotes registration in 
state support schemes for the most deprived individuals. 

FEAD  shows  important  complementarities  both  with  other  EU  funds  and/or  national 
measures. There is no evidence of FEAD displacing MS funding and there are concrete 
examples  of  complementarity  between  FEAD,  ESF,  and  AMIF.  FEAD  appears  to  be 
complementary  to  the  support  provided  by  other  European  Union  instruments,  in 
particular the ESF and AMIF with regard to the target groups supported and the support 
measures provided. In most of the MS, FEAD and ESF are mainly focused on different 
target groups: FEAD on the most deprived and the ESF on people whose basic needs 
are met and are closer to the labour market. When overlaps between these two target 
groups exists, the programmes mostly offer different types of support (basic support or 
social inclusion vs active integration measures). With regards to AMIF, there is likely to 
be some level of overlap in terms of the target groups covered (third country migrants, 
refugees and asylum seekers).  However, the type of support provided differs as with 
FEAD is focused on basic need support in OP I countries. In OP II countries, in particular 
Germany, FEAD offers social inclusion measures for EU migrants that would be otherwise 
left out of AMIF support. 

The  fact  that  a  common  Managing  Authority  to  the  ESF  and  FEAD  programmes  have 
been  established  in  the  majority  of  MS  leads  to  the  better  coordination  between  ESF 
and FEAD and prevents double funding. Further synergies with the ESF, especially with 
respect  to  FEAD  accompanying  measures  and  integrated  pathways  towards  social 
inclusion, are desirable but should be sought under specific conditions.  

In particular, stakeholders broadly agreed that any future revisions of the framework 
within which the ESF and the FEAD are delivered should acknowledge and preserve the 

12 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

specificities  of  FEAD.  In  particular  that  the  aim  of  support  cannot  always  be 
employability, particularly in cases where people are no longer of working age and/or 
unable to work due to  specific circumstances,  the universality of the  FEAD approach; 
and the monitoring system, which should be kept relatively simpler than that of the ESF 
and take full account of the specificities of the FEAD end recipients and avoid steering 
them away. 

According to monitoring data for OP I, overall food support has reached a satisfactory 
number  of  deprived  people  in  the  Member  States  and  has  reached  different  target 
groups of the most deprived.  

Efficiency 

FEAD is a useful fund for contributing to the alleviation of poverty and social exclusion 
but  it  is  administratively  burdensome.  This  is  mostly  due  to  self-imposed  burden 
stemming from national regulations and requirements (gold plating), such as inter alia 
recording  more  data/information  on  operations  and  end  recipients  for  monitoring 
purposes  than  that  required  by  the  EU  Regulation,  lengthy  documentation  for 
procedures  and  instructions  and  excessive  procedures  for  the  verification  of  end 
recipients (i.e. for checking whether they meet the criteria for receiving assistance). 

There  is  a  variation  of  unit  costs  in  both  OP  I  and  OP  II  programmes,  e.g.  cost  per 
person in OP I countries ranging from EUR 12 to EUR 61 and cost per person in OP II 
countries ranging from EUR 167 to EUR 2,048, which is explained by the different type, 
content  and  frequency  of  support.  In  order  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  costs  are 
justified  for  the  results  produced,  a  longer  term  follow-up  of  end  recipients  would  be 
necessary.  The  structured  surveys  of  end  recipients  provides  a  first  insight  into  the 
immediate effects of the support. Counting only the number of persons receiving support 
and the amount or value of support received is not enough to inform us on the cost-
effectiveness of the support. Any cost effectiveness exercise should take into account 
a)  the  direct  benefits  of  FEAD  in  view  of  its  size  (1%  of  the  EU  budget  for  cohesion 
policies attending 15 million in 2016) and b) the significant indirect effects of FEAD that 
cannot  be  quantified  (e.g.  solidarity,  cohesion,  leverage  effects  from  volunteering, 
strong commitment from the civil society, prevention of humanitarian and health crises). 

In OP I programmes, certain forms of food support are more cost-effective and efficient 
for certain target groups, such as food packages for families with children, warm meals 
in social canteens for the homeless and people experiencing the worst forms of poverty, 
and  home  delivery  of  food  for  the  elderly.  In  OP  II,  where  each  country  addresses  a 
different  target  group,  the  main  success  factors  for  reaching  target  groups  efficiently 
are local cooperation and the capacity to address social inclusion needs.  

Criteria for defining the target group in OP I are often based on level of income. This is 
an objective criterion to facilitate access to assistance as it is based on registered data 
and/or  on  assessments  of  social  services.  However,  some  target  groups  who  cannot 
prove their situation of poverty may remain outside the system. Outreach activities are 
the main channel for identifying end recipients in OP II. However, the following methods 
for  identifying  the  end  recipients  have  proved  successful in  both  OP  I  and  OP  II:  the 
assessment of end recipients’ needs, the use of different types of delivery organisations 
specialised  in  catering  for  specific  target  groups,  using  local  networks  with  good 
knowledge of end recipients. 

The  efficiency  of  FEAD  can  be  improved  through  proposed  simplifications  related  to 
reducing excessive national requirements, notably reducing the amount of paperwork, 
reducing the governance layers to make delivery leaner, simplifying the procurement 
processes, and simplifying the verification requirements for end recipients. With regard 
to  flat  rates,  if  these  are  maintained  in  OP  I,  then  accompanying  measures  should 
become more focused or narrowed down (e.g. to the provision of information on social 
inclusion support services), while establishing a visible link with ESF.  

13 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

There is scope to further improve efficiency through inter alia mutual feedback between 
the different types and levels of control and alternatively reducing the levels of control 
and  promoting  the  single  audit  principle,  capacity  building  for  programme  authorities 
and especially delivery organisations, rationalisation of evaluation through an indicator 
system  that  is  result  oriented  and  focused  on  people  rather  than  quantities  while 
respecting  the  dignity  and  privacy  of  end  recipients,  greater  involvement  of  local 
NGOs/social services in the identification of end recipients, and the verification of their 
situation  of  poverty  and  the  simplification  of  delivery  through  a  voucher  system  or 
similar. 

Finally, there are strong arguments for keeping the FEAD delivery mechanism of shared 
management,  mainly  because  of  its  simplicity,  the  accumulated  experience  and  the 
national and regional knowledge of poverty and social exclusion challenges and needs. 

Should a new umbrella fund be introduced, shared management can still be maintained 
while ensuring a closer link and cooperation between the different funds, proximity to 
the needs of end  recipients and safeguarding the low threshold nature of FEAD while 
ring-fencing  funding  for  FEAD  measures,  for  instance  through  the  establishment  of 
minimum percentages. 

European added value 

There are clear volume effects in a number of MS where the FEAD fills a gap in national 
coverage. In Finland, Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia, FEAD is the only source of publicly 
financed  food  aid.  Even  in  MS  with  established  channels  for  food  aid,  FEAD  is  an 
additional source of funding and can bring additional products to the end recipients and 
has leverage  effects when  combined with existing support.  In  Germany and Sweden, 
the  FEAD  helps  cope  with  the  steady  influx  of  migrants  from  Eastern  Europe  and 
provides essential funding for advisory services.  

With regard to scope effects, according to the OPC, the majority of respondents (90% 
of  OP  I and 80%  of OP II) agreed that FEAD support is needed to  expand types and 
volumes  of  assistance.  83%  of  OPC  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the 
statement  that  the  FEAD  contributes  to  expanding  assistance  to  groups  that  would 
otherwise  not  receive  it  and  69%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the 
statement  that  the  FEAD  contributes  to  testing  new  activities.  Within  the  present 
budget, FEAD’s scope should not be extended to cover e.g. financial assistance for utility 
bills or housing as this would syphon off too much of the funding. 

There  is  less  evidence  of  a  role  effect,  as  it  is  not  yet  known  whether  FEAD  will  be 
mainstreamed into the national systems. Only Malta set up a national scheme mirroring 
FEAD to cover additional target groups. 

There is evidence of process effects in the improved partnerships between NGOs and 
central administrations for the delivery of food and material aid. The additional volume 
of  food  to  be  distributed  also  means  that  Partner  Organisations  have  both  expanded 
their capacity and increased their range of skills to include accompanying measures.  

Mutual learning is one of the major process effects to be observed with new partnerships 
and networks forming at horizontal level (e.g. between different ministries, or between 
local  NGOs)  and  at  vertical  level  (between  ministries  and  Partner  Organisations, 
between local NGOs and supermarkets or other donors). There is also the added effect 
of  the  transnational  FEAD  Network  where  Managing  Authorities  and  Partner 
Organisations have the opportunity to network. 

In the case of OP II, entirely new procedures have been set up to deal with, e.g. newly 
arrived EU-migrants. This also generates scope and process effects. 

73% of OPC respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the FEAD 
contributes to raising awareness and 78% that the FEAD contributes to mutual learning. 
74%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the  statement  that  the  FEAD 

14 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

contributes to the creation of partnerships and 71% agreed that the FEAD contributes 
to engaging new organisations. 

Relevance 

In  almost  all  MS,  the  relevance  of  FEAD  was  considered  high  due  to  the  fund’s 
contribution  to  tackling  poverty  across  the  EU.  The  OPC  results  concurred  with  the 
findings of the interviews and desk research with nearly 94% of respondents agreeing 
or strongly agreeing that food is the most important type of assistance to alleviate the 
worst forms of poverty. However, food and material support cannot alleviate poverty in 
the long-term and accompanying measures are therefore considered useful, even if they 
are  restricted  and  limited  to  5%  flat  rate  financing.  The  OPC  responses  state  that 
covering  basic  needs  is  essential  to  human  dignity  and  over  90%  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed that the direction to competent services is essential in alleviating the worst forms 
of  poverty.  These  findings  are  corroborated  by  the  structured  survey  results. 
Psychological support and therapeutic measures were also considered important (86% 
agreed or strongly agreed), as was advice on managing a household budget (84%). 

A  further  finding  of  the  OPC  was  that  the  limited  resources  within  FEAD  restrict  the 
quality and scope of accompanying measures. Some Partner Organisations struggle to 
provide  accompanying  measures,  for  example  to  rent  the  necessary  premises  or  find 
qualified human resources as volunteers are not always qualified to provide counselling 
and advice on available measures.  

Social inclusion initiatives under OP II were considered highly relevant as they catered 
for target groups that would otherwise not receive support, e.g. EU migrants in Germany 
and Sweden, older people in the Netherlands and the homeless in Denmark. 

Good practice 

Effectiveness 

The  FEAD  has  been  able  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  food  aid  provision  in  many 
Member States, through ensuring a more consistent and stable provision of food through 
the year (e.g. Spain), better meeting the needs of the target groups (e.g. Latvia) and 
helping supplement existing offers (e.g. Luxembourg and France). The support of social 
inclusion includes good practice in terms of improved effectiveness in both OP I and OP 
II programmes: in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic end recipients work as volunteers; 
in Greece a Helpdesk facilitates access of very low income recipients to information and 
support;  in  Slovenia  the  Red  Cross  expands  the  social  network  and  skills  of  end 
recipients;  in  France  solidarity  reception  centres  offer  holistic  approaches  to  social 
inclusion; in Malta FEAD is used as a gateway to social inclusion through education; in 
Germany (OP II) projects integrate EU migrants through integration counsellors; in the 
Netherlands  (OP  II)  the  FEAD  helps  elderly  people  to  become  more  active;  and  in 
Belgium end recipients achieve social inclusion through labour market inclusion. As well 
as the good practice examples in social inclusion, the FEAD has contributed to horizontal 
principles, in particular the reduction of food waste, with Ireland connecting businesses 
with surplus food and the FEAD programme, thus reducing food waste and benefiting 
end recipients.  

Coherence 

The  FEAD  supports  coherence,  with  evidence  of  good  practice  establishing  links  with 
other programmes, in particular the ESF. This illustrates the potential for accompanying 
measures to bridge FEAD support with social inclusion support from ESF. In Bulgaria the 
FEAD  provided  tailored  counselling  and  advice  to  help  end  recipients  access  ESF 
assistance, in Italy the ‘Housing First Network for Homeless is an example of FEAD and 
ESF working in tandem, and in Slovakia the FEAD directing end recipients to ESF funded 
projects and vice versa. 

15 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Efficiency 

In terms of efficiency, there are good practices that show the use of innovative delivery 
methods,  tools  and  cooperation  approaches  supporting  delivery,  time  saving  and 
economies  of  scale:  in  Spain  the  coaching  of  delivery  organisations  and  fostering  of 
cooperation  between  them  has  improved  their  capacity  and  achieved  economies  of 
scale;  in  Spain  and  Greece  innovative  IT  tools  to  facilitate  and  monitor  delivery  has 
resulted  in  time  savings;  in  Greece  innovative  processes  contributed  to  improved 
transportation,  storage  and  purchasing  in  terms  of  cost  and  quality.  There  has  been 
good practice in reaching end recipients and accessing the most vulnerable groups, with 
Finland applying innovative delivery methods and Slovenia creating new solutions for 
severely  materially  deprived  people.  Finally,  there  is  good  practice  in  terms  of 
supporting  and  training  volunteers,  with  Lithuania  organising  structured  training  for 
volunteers to prepare them for their work in food distribution teams, thus making the 
delivery of food more efficient. 

European added value 

FEAD demonstrated substantial good practice in terms of volume effects, especially in 
countries  that  did  not  previously  have  national  food  programmes  or  where  the  FEAD 
could produce leverage effects. In France, a leveraging effect was achieved through the 
campaign to recruit volunteers and mobilise local resources. FEAD also includes good 
practice  that  demonstrates  strong  scope  effects  in  terms  of  reaching  groups  not 
addressed by other programmes: in Latvia a change in FEAD legislation led to increased 
access  to  people  that  would  otherwise  not  have  engaged  with  FEAD;  in  Poland  the 
accompanying measures target homeless who are not reached by other programmes; 
and in Germany counselling and support services were offered to EU migrants who are 
either unaware of or not eligible for other sources of funding. In terms of scope effects, 
the FEAD can support new activities, as in the Netherlands where the FEAD reaches out 
to the ‘Elderly in the Neighbourhood’ and provides new activities. FEAD can show role 
effects by developing new mechanisms prior to mainstreaming, as in Malta where the 
FEAD  was  used  as  the  basis  upon  which  a  nationally  funded  scheme  that  allowed  a 
further  20,000  households  to  be  reached.  There  is  also  good  practice  related  to 
supporting mutual learning and networking, with the FEAD leading to administrations 
coordinating with each other for the first time in Spain. 

Relevance 

In terms of relevance, there is good practice that illustrates the mechanisms through 
which  FEAD  ensures  support  are  highly  relevant  to  the  needs  of  end  recipients.  In 
Belgium  the  need  for  a  balanced  diet  is  addressed  through  a  highly  collaborative 
process,  in  Sweden  they  apply  a  knowledge  creation  process  in  order  to  better 
understand the needs of end recipients and adjust accordingly, in Austria a partnership 
process involving schools and parents helps develop the content of support suitable to 
school children’s needs, and in Croatia strict selection criteria are used to address the 
needs of children at risk of malnutrition. 

16 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Introduction 

This  Final  Report  has  been  prepared  for  the  FEAD  Mid-Term  Evaluation  (contract  no. 
VC/2016/0664) in the framework of the Multiple Framework Contracts for the provision 
of  services  related  to  evaluation,  evaluative  studies,  analysis  and  research  work, 
including  support  for  impact  assessment  activities  Lot  N°1,  Identification  N°  41 
(VT/2016/013).  The  contractor  is  Metis  GmbH,  in  cooperation  with  Fondazione  G. 
Brodolini and Panteia. 

The purpose of the contract is to “carry out an evaluation  study which will assess the 
achievements  of  FEAD  programmes  to  alleviate  the  worst  forms  of  poverty”5  as 
requested by Article 17 of Regulation 223/2014. The study will serve as input for a Staff 
Working Document and will ultimately feed into a Communication of the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council. 

The  report  is  structured  according  to  the  evaluation  questions  set  in  the  Terms  of 
Reference (ToR) and elaborated on in the Inception Report. Following this introduction 
and a chapter on the context and background of the FEAD intervention, the evaluation 
questions and methodology are briefly presented. The main section of the report is the 
answering of the evaluation questions in Chapter 2. This is preceded by a section on the 
allocated funds and an  overview of the aggregation of the structured  surveys carried 
out among end recipients in the Member States to date. The conclusions by evaluation 
criterion are presented in Chapter 3 and the Good Practice, also by evaluation criterion 
in Chapter 4.  

The main sources of information for the Final Report are the Operational Programmes 
(OPs),  ex-ante  evaluations  and  other  programme  documents,  SFC2014/Annual 
Implementation Reports for the year 2016 (submitted in June 2017), the Open Public 
Consultation  (OPC),  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  (MAs)  and  Partner 
Organisations (POs) and seven focus groups in the Member States and two at EU level. 
The Final report also includes the results of the 22 structured surveys submitted so far. 
A full list of interviews for all Member States is included in the Annex. The information 
has been collected at Member State level in the form of Country Fiches. These will be 
put at the disposal of the Commission along with the Final Report.  

The methods used across the Member States are shown in the table in the Annex. 

5 Contract no. VC/2016/0664 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

1 

The evaluation context 

This chapter describes the evaluation requirements for the FEAD Mid-term evaluation, 
the elaboration of the intervention logic, the analysis of the evaluation questions and 
sub-questions,  the  indicators,  the  data  collection  methods  and  the  limitations  and 
approach  to  address  them.  Chapter  2  then  addresses  the  evaluation  questions  under 
the five evaluation criteria. 

1.1 

Evaluation requirements under Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 
and contractual deliverables 

Article 17 of the FEAD Regulation states that the Commission shall present a Mid-term 
evaluation of the Fund to the European Parliament and to the Council by 31st December 
2018.  This  contract  was  awarded  to  Metis  GmbH  in  cooperation  with  Fondazione 
Giacomo Brodolini and Panteia on 13th October 2016. The end date of this contract is 
16th May 2018.  

The contract includes an Inception Report, an Interim Report and a Final Report as well 
as a report on the Open Public Consultation. The Interim Report was submitted in August 
2017, later than in the ToR on the request of the Commission, in order to include the 
2016 data from the Annual Implementation Reports submitted in June 2017.  

The  evaluation  draws  on  the  Annual  Implementation  Reports  (AIR),  the  Operational 
Programmes (OPs), ex-ante evaluations and other programme documents, interviews 
with  Managing  Authorities  (MAs)  and  Partner  Organisations  (POs),  22  national 
structured  surveys  and  six  evaluations.  The  information  has  been  synthesised  at 
Member State level in the form of Country Fiches. It also draws on the results of Open 
Public Consultation and the results of the focus groups carried out between August 2017 
and March 2018 at national and EU level. 

The table below shows the sources used for the three reporting phases. 

  Sources of information for the Mid-term evaluation deliverables 

Sources 

Inception report 

Interim report 

Final report 

Operational Programme 
Ex-ante evaluation 
SFC data 
AIR 
Country fiche 
OPC 
Evaluations 
Focus group reports 
Structured Survey 

1.2 

The evaluation questions and sub-questions 

The  evaluation  questions  provided  by  the  Terms  of  Reference  (ToR)  constitute  the 
backbone of this evaluation. They are structured according to five evaluation criteria: 
effectiveness,  coherence,  efficiency,  European  added  value  and  relevance.  The  table 
below provides definitions of these criteria. 

  Definition of evaluation criteria 

Evaluation criteria 
Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Efficiency 

The evaluation of the effectiveness shall assess… 
The extent to which FEAD has progressed towards its general 
objectives 
The extent to which the Fund's activities have been coherent 
with other interventions with similar objectives 
The extent to which the intended outputs and outcomes of 
FEAD have been achieved efficiently, and to what extent 
flexibility, adjustment and follow-up conditions are being set 

18 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Evaluation criteria 
European added value 

Relevance 

The evaluation of the effectiveness shall assess… 
The additional value resulting from the fund compared to 
what could be achieved by Member States at national, 
regional and local levels 
The relationship between the needs in society and the 
objectives of FEAD 

The main evaluation questions provided by the ToR are further broken down into sub-
questions for greater precision. We have coded the evaluation questions according to 
the main evaluation criterion they address in Table 20 in Annex 6. 

1.3 

Evaluation methodology and indicators 

As  explained  in  the  Inception  Report,  we  apply  a  theory-based  evaluation  approach. 
This allows us to identify the logical connections between inputs, outputs, results and 
impacts. It also allows us to identify the reasons for these results, and the factors that 
contribute to the success or failure (or limited success) of certain approaches in different 
situations. This evidence should allow us to draw conclusions on what works and what 
does not work – or has not worked to date - for different types of operation and target 
group on quantitative and qualitative dimensions. 

Given FEAD’s nature as enabling fund, the support to the most deprived under OP I is 
expected to improve their situation but will, in most cases, not directly lift them out of 
poverty; rather, it is expected to provide basic needs support to enable end recipients 
to escape the poverty trap or move towards social inclusion. This has an impact on the 
way  effectiveness  is  understood  and  subsequently  assessed  for  the  purposes  of  the 
present  study.  For  OP  I,  in  particular,  which  aims  at  providing  immediate  relief  to 
situations of material deprivation, effectiveness will be measured in the first place by 
measuring support that has been provided, i.e. number of individuals reached by the 
interventions  and  the  goods  distributed  –  this  will  be  done  by  relying  mainly  on 
monitoring  data  and  triangulating  them  with  evidence  collected  through  the  country 
analyses.  Effects  on  other  dimensions,  such  as  delivery  modes,  compliance  with 
horizontal principles and recipients’ satisfaction, will be assessed mainly by relying on 
qualitative findings of the country analyses to be supported, when relevant, by evidence 
from monitoring data.  

1.3.1  Common output and result indicators 

A  comprehensive  selection  of  output  and  result  indicators  have  been  provided  in  the 
Regulation6  for  the  food  support  distributed  and  for  the  basic  material  assistance 
provided in OP I and output indicators for the  social inclusion assistance in OP II. MS 
opting for an OP II are also requested to propose programme specific indicators, which 
need to have baseline and target values. MS have to explain the contribution of their 
outputs to the achievement of expected results.  

These  indicators  can  be  linked  to  the  nine  specific  objectives  and  to  the  long-term 
objectives of the Fund. Overall there are three Common Input indicators for OP I/II, ten 
output  indicators  for  food  support  distributed  associated  with  one  result  indicator 
differentiated  by  target  groups,  four  output  indicators  and  result  indicators  for  basic 
material assistance and finally one output indicator for OP  II again broken down into 
target  groups.  These  indicators  are  collected  by  the  Member  States  and  fed  into 
SFC2014 in the form of Annual Implementation Reports. The current Draft Final Report 
of the Interim Evaluation of the FEAD uses the data from 2016 uploaded by the Member 
States at the end of June 2017. 

6 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1255/2014 

19 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

1.4 

Data and information collection methods 

1.4.1  Programme and monitoring data (secondary data) 

The  first  source  of  information  for  the  answering  of  the  evaluation  questions  are  the 
monitoring data. This means an analysis of SFC2014 and the AIRs from 2014 to 2016. 
A careful check of the monitoring data was carried out and discrepancies between data 
tables in SFC and the AIRs followed up. It was agreed with the Commission to wait until 
the publication of the 2016 AIRs in order to use the 2016 data before submitting the 
Interim Report. The same data is used in the Draft Final Report.  

Both OP I and OP II 2016 and 2021 AIRs and the Final implementation report (FIR) in 
2022  include  an  informative  section  on  the  contribution  of  the  OP  to  achieving  the 
specific and global objectives of the FEAD. 

The  evaluators  also  screened  the  ex-ante  evaluations  of  the  OPs  and  other  national 
evaluations and surveys that were available at the time of writing. The publications of 
the FEAD Network, e.g. the Thematic Dossier 1 on FEAD’s contribution to sustainable 
social  inclusion  and  Thematic  Dossier  2  on  Supporting  a  diverse  population  through 
FEAD  initiatives  were  screened.  The  FEAD  Network’s  selection  of  good  practice7  was 
used to complement the section on Good Practice for example. 

National evaluations on the progress and achievements of the OP are a further source 
of  evidence  but  so  far  rather  scarce.  The  following  national  evaluations  have  been 
communicated to us by the EC: 

  Austria - presentation shared (evaluation not public) 

  Czech Republic study on school lunches support schemes in the Czech Republic  

  France - étude comparée des choix de produits FEAD achetés par Etat-membre  

  France Modalités de distribution de l'aide alimentaire et l'accompagnement réalisé 

dans ce cadre en région Ile de France  

  Germany: Ongoing evaluation – some initial results have been made available to 

the evaluators 

  Greece: Unavailable at the time of writing Draft Final Report 

  Italy Pilot survey on the FEAD first implementation year (2015)  

  Lithuania: Structured evaluation of the end recipients and Partner Organisations 

of Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived (FEAD)  

The availability of other evaluations by March 2018 is rather uncertain, as: 

  OP I: evaluations are only voluntary 

  OP II: at least one evaluation shall be carried out by 2022 

1.4.2  Primary data and information collection 

In addition to the monitoring data and the ex-ante and national evaluations, a number 
of primary data collection methods were used. These are: 

  Open public consultation (OPC) 

  Interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  and  Partner  Organisations  in  the  Member 

States (see Annex 1a)  

  Participation  in  the  FEAD  Network  Meetings  (all  meetings  with  the  exception  of 

one) 

  EU-level focus groups with Managing Authorities (26th October 2017 and 2nd March 

2018) 

7 FEAD case studies 2017 

20 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Focus groups in seven Member States (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, 

Romania and Spain)  

  Structured  Survey  of  end  recipients  carried  out  in  2017  and  2022  in  the  OP  I 

Member States (22 received at the time of writing8). 

The results of the interviews and desk research have been collated in country fiches in 
each  Member  State.  In  the  seven  countries  where  focus  groups  were  conducted,  the 
results also fed into the country fiches. The  country fiches have been  submitted with 
this Report. 

The  OPC,  interviews  and  insights  gained  during  the  focus  groups  and  FEAD  Network 
meetings have been used in this Final Report. The results of the structured surveys on 
end recipients have also been analysed and triangulated with the other sources. 

The structured surveys were carried out for end recipients of OP I in 2017 and will be 
again in 2022, in accordance with the template adopted by the Commission on 18 April 
2016 (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/594). The sample should cover 
various  types  of  Partner  Organisations  and  types  of  assistance  being  delivered.  The 
respondents are both the Partner Organisations at the level of the distribution point and 
the FEAD end recipients. The latter have normally been interviewed face-to-face. The 
questions  cover  the  scope  of  assistance  provided  to  end  recipients  by  the  Partner 
Organisation,  the  socio-economic  background  of  the  end  recipients  including  age, 
gender, family and employment situation, type and frequency of  assistance  received. 
The MAs submitted the survey results to the Commission and the latter forwarded them 
to  the  mid-term  evaluation  team  who  aggregated  the  findings  for  use  in  this  report, 
whereby the filling in across Member States is not uniform in the type of data provided.  

According to feedback at the Evaluation Partnership meeting on the 27th April 2018, the 
surveys help the Managing Authorities to draw lessons on the implementation of FEAD 
assistance and get a more detailed picture of the end recipients. Managing Authorities 
generally  found  the  questions  relevant  and  only  had  a  few  suggestions  for 
modifications.9  Most  Managing  Authorities  contracted  the  survey  out  to  external 
contractors. These sometimes trained the interviewers specially to ask the questions in 
a consistent and empathic way that is appropriate to the end recipients. Some countries 
added  questions  to  the  structured  survey  in  order  to  find  out  more  or  modified  the 
questions  slightly  to  make  them  more  understandable  for  their  end  recipients.  The 
Commission  requested  this  information  from  the  Managing  Authorities  in  order  to  be 
able to use the suggestions for the next programming period. 

1.5 

Limitations and approach to address them 

FEAD  is  a  relatively  simple  fund  with  good  monitoring  data  on  amounts  of  food  and 
material assistance distributed (OP I) and social inclusion measures delivered (OP II). 
A  number  of  limitations  arise  related  to  the  numbers  of  participations  (which  the 
Regulations only require to be based on estimations) and the lack of indicators covering 
the accompanying measures under OP I. The accompanying measures are an important 
component of the FEAD and have been assessed mainly on the basis of interviews with 
stakeholders, the focus groups and the AIRs.  

Neither  baseline  nor  target  values  were  requested  from  and  set  by  MAs  under  OP  I, 
which  makes  it  harder  for  the  evaluators  to  gauge  the  level  of  progress  towards  the 
achievement  of  the  OP  objectives  and  more  generally  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes.  The  most  robust  evidence  of  progress  is  therefore  the  implementation 
rate  and,  in  those  countries  that  provide  baselines,  the  expected  numbers  of 
participations. In Austria, for example, the school start packages go to the registered 
recipients  of  the  minimum  income.  Therefore,  very  exact  estimations  of  the  baseline 

8 Structured surveys were only a requirement for OP I (24 MS). None were received for the UK and BG. 
9 The recommendations for modifications to the structured survey have been included in the Annex. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

can be made. A very high percentage of those eligible register for a school start package 
and a high percentage of those registering come and pick it up. 

In  the  absence  of  a  pre-defined  benchmark  to  examine  progress  of  indicators, 
formulating  a  judgment  on  FEAD  performance  becomes  quite  challenging.  Hence  the 
present study estimates benchmarks against which to compare progress of output and 
results indicators. One measure that has been used to this end is that of FEAD coverage 
of the reference population and the intensity of support (in terms of food packages 
and/or meals distributed per end recipient).  

22 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2 

The role and impact of FEAD support 

This  section  responds  to  the  evaluation  questions  under  the  five  evaluation  criteria: 
effectiveness,  coherence,  efficiency,  European  added  value  and  relevance.  First,  an 
overview  of  the  allocation  of  FEAD  resources  (2.1)  is  given.  This  provides  a  broad 
overview of FEAD allocations across countries and type of OP as well as types of support. 
Estimations of allocations across target groups are also given.  

2.1 

Summary of budgets and types of support offered by FEAD OPs 

Key findings 

  Overall, the available budget for FEAD interventions over the 2014-2020 period 
is  EUR  4.49  billion  (including  national  co-financing  of  674.4  million  and 
excluding technical assistance).  97.56% is allocated to OP I and the remaining 
2.44% to OP II, adopted by 24 and 4 MS respectively. Food support accounts 
for the larger share of FEAD allocations, with all OP I MS but Austria declaring 
they intend to provide food support to the most deprived under FEAD and with 
10 OP I countries allocating their entire FEAD budget to food support (Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Malta  and  the 
United Kingdom). The MS with the larger allocation of funds are Italy, Spain, 
France,  Poland  and  Romania  and  the  most  prevalent  target  group  of  the 
interventions is children.  

  14 MS provide material assistance, the most significant in terms of budget being 
Greece and Italy. Assistance in these Member States is mainly directed towards 
children and the homeless.  

  Accompanying measures are foreseen in all OP I MS and reimbursed at a level 
of 5% of the overall budget. In some cases, support measures  - such as re-
orientation  towards  social  services  and  guidance  for  a  healthier  diet  -  are 
provided to end-recipients by Partner Organisations using their own resources.  

  With  regard  to  type  II  OPs,  Germany  accounts  for  the  larger  share  by  far  of 
relevant FEAD funding, with Denmark and the Netherlands having chosen the 
minimum allocation set out in the FEAD regulation. 

The overall budget for FEAD in the 2014-2020 period is EUR 4.49 billion (including EUR 
674 million national co-financing and excluding EUR 154 million of technical assistance). 
97.56% is allocated to OP I and the remaining 2.44% to OP II. Material assistance under 
OP I accounts for 14.10% of the overall funding allocated. 

2.1.1  Allocations to type I OPs  

In the figures below, we distinguish between food support and material assistance 
measures and provide the relative allocation. An estimated reclassification of funding 
per measure has been carried out according to priority target groups identified in the 
OPs. The allocation by categories of target groups reflect with some adaptation10 those 
identified by FEAD’s monitoring system. 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 below illustrate how MS compare in this respect, between forms 
of  support  aimed  at  alleviating  food  deprivation  (Figure  1)  and  material  deprivation 
(Figure 2), as well as by the relevant target groups addressed.  

10 Funding has been classified according to the description of the types of support given by each MAs in the 
OP. Where relevant, also target groups’ identification criteria have provided input to draw such a distinction. 
When several target groups are addressed by the OP, the funding has been considered as allocated evenly 
across them. Data include the national co-financing but exclude Technical assistance. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Share of FEAD funding for food support (FS) by OP I MS and target group 

Source: own elaborations based on FEAD OPs 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that 10 OP I countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, 
Finland, France, Poland, Slovenia, Malta and the United Kingdom) devote 100% of their 
FEAD allocation to food support. The remaining countries also devote funds to material 
support,  except  for  Austria  that  allocates  resources  only  to  material  support.  Food 
support  measures  cover  the  largest  share  of  overall  FEAD  funding  at  the  EU  level, 
reaching nearly 85% of the total OP I allocation (and 83.4% of total FEAD allocation). 

  Share of FEAD funding for material assistance (MA) by OP I MS and target 

group11 

Source: own elaborations based on FEAD OPs 

Figure 2 shows that material support measures account for the remaining 14% of the 
total  allocation  and  play  a  significant  role  especially  in  Austria,  Greece,  Cyprus  and 
Luxembourg. Children – and households with dependent children – are the target group 
attracting the largest share of funding for material assistance. 

It is interesting also to look at this allocation in absolute values, to better interpret, e.g., 
progress of output indicators (see Figure 3). 

11 Ibid.  

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  FEAD absolute allocation by types of support (in EUR) 

Source: SFC2014 

Five countries have distinctly higher allocations of FEAD funding, namely Italy, Spain, 
France, Poland and Romania. These are followed by Greece and Portugal, at over EUR 
200 million, while the remainder is at around or, more often, below EUR 100 million. It 
is important to underline that FEAD allocation was decided by each MS and deducted 
from the Member State Structural Funds allocation. Only the minimum and maximum 
allocation was defined at the EU level. 

Type I OPs have to provide accompanying measures, except in cases where  “[...] the 
food  and/or  basic  material  assistance  is  provided  solely  to  most  deprived  children  in 
childcare or comparable facilities”12. These may consist of, for example, guidance on a 
balanced  diet,  budget  management  advice  or  re-orientation  towards  social  inclusion 
services.  

  OPs’ allocation of accompanying measures as part of food support, by MS 

Source: SFC2014 

Figure 4 shows that a budget for accompanying measures is foreseen in most OPs with 
the exception of Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Malta and Romania, which 
provide the accompanying measures from their own budgets.  

In Belgium, the POs direct end recipients towards further social integration services. In 
Estonia, end recipients are provided with information on, e.g., healthy recipes that could 

12 FEAD regulation, art 7(4) 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

be  prepared  with  the  food  packages  provided  as  well  as  brochures  on  further  social 
integration services. Being registered for support from the local government is a pre-
requisite for obtaining food in Estonia, which means that individuals reached by FEAD 
are  already  involved  into  mechanisms  for  further  social  inclusion.  Not  including  the 
accompanying  measures  in  the  FEAD  budget  concentrates  more  resources  for  the 
purchase and distribution of food and material assistance.  

2.1.2  Allocations to type II OPs  

Type II OPs account for a very modest share of the overall FEAD allocation, reaching 
just under 2.5% of the overall budget. Figure 5 shows their absolute allocation, by MS. 

  FEAD allocation for type II OPs 

Source: SFC2014 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.2 

Effectiveness 

Key findings 

FEAD can be considered an effective fund overall. This is confirmed by the results of 
fieldwork and by monitoring data, although some limitations apply to the latter due 
to the lack of targets and benchmarks in OP I. 

The monitoring data and information in the implementation reports show that 

  In  general,  food  support  measures  seem  to  benefit  from  well-established 
implementation mechanisms, while difficulties tend to occur in the setting up 
of  the  new  measures  introduced  by  FEAD,  such  as  material  assistance 
measures. 

  Result indicators for OP II show on average very good achievements.  

  In  2016,  food  support  was  distributed  to  around  15  million  people  in  20 
countries,  basic  material  assistance  was  provided  in  six  countries  to  an 
estimated  660,000  individuals  and  OP  II  measures  reached  approximately 
23,000 individuals. 

  Although financial values indicate that FEAD implementation is lagging  behind 
compared  to  the  planned  implementation  of  the  programme,  the  pace  of 
financial progress has increased over time. 

Information collected during the fieldwork complements monitoring data with a more 
qualitative analysis and converges towards a positive assessment of FEAD: 

  The vast majority of respondents to the OPC and the structured survey of end 
recipients  believes  that  FEAD  has  made  a  difference  to  the  lives  of  the 
most deprived. There was broad agreement among respondents to the OPC 
with regard to FEAD’s ability to alleviate food deprivation and to contribute to 
social inclusion. 

  Given its scope and its relatively low financial allocation when compared to the 
needs it seeks to address, FEAD can only provide a limited contribution to 
lifting people out of poverty. Nevertheless, FEAD represents a cornerstone 
of  food  and  material  support  across  the  EU,  especially  in  those  countries 
that  do  not  have  comparable  national  support  programmes.  Such  support  is 
not only key to human dignity of the most deprived but can also represent a 
stepping stone towards social integration. 

  FEAD  is  a  low  threshold  programme  and  ensures  a  good  coverage;  it  is  a 
powerful tool in reaching out to the most deprived,  especially those that are 
“invisible” to the existing social protection systems. 

  FEAD also represents a stable support for Partner Organisations that can thus 
continue  their  (mostly  voluntary)  work;  it  also  promotes  dialogue  and 
cooperation  between  them  and  the  social  services  as  well  mutual  learning 
through networking and dissemination of good practices organised by the FEAD 
Network. 

Areas where the potential of the FEAD may be further exploited are the provision 
and  monitoring  of  accompanying  measures  –  and  more  broadly  its  result 
orientation towards further  social inclusion  – as well as the possibility to  fund only 
the collection, transport and storage of food donations, to further leverage on these.  

The  assessment  of  FEAD’s  effectiveness  is  articulated,  in  this  study,  in  two  main 
questions, which, in turn, are broken down into a number of sub-questions. The main 
questions are: 

1.  To what extent does the FEAD contribute to national and EU objectives of achieving 

poverty reduction and social inclusion? 

2.  How are the various types of assistance delivered? 

27 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

The evaluation enquires if FEAD has progressed towards its general objectives of, under 
OP I, providing food and material assistance to the most deprived and, under OP II, of 
providing  social  inclusion  services.  It  also  seeks  to  ascertain  whether  the  types  of 
support are fit for purpose, and if good practices have emerged.  

The  following  chapter  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  evidence,  broken  down  by 
specific evaluation questions. 

2.2.1  To what extent does the FEAD contribute to national and EU 

objectives of achieving poverty reduction and social inclusion? 

The  first  broad  question  of  effectiveness  refers  to  FEAD’s  current  contributions  to  its 
objectives.  

2.2.1.1  To what extent are the FEAD objectives on track to be achieved and has 

assistance reached the most vulnerable groups and does it help them move 
further towards inclusion? 

The first sub question on effectiveness is arguably the broadest and is concerned with 
the  overall progress  of  FEAD towards its objectives.  In  the  absence  of  concrete 
targets (for OP I) and operational objectives against which to assess FEAD objectives, 
this  assessment  starts  with  an  analysis  of  available  monitoring  data  (analysis  of 
expenditure,  output  and  result  indicators  –  the  latter  only  available  for  OP  II), 
triangulated with qualitative analysis of results emerging from the fieldwork (interviews, 
focus groups and structured surveys). 

The first judgment criterion adopted to assess progress is spending. It is drawn from 
FEAD’s  input  indicators  and  further  complemented  with  descriptive  and  normative 
judgments  of  relevant  stakeholders,  which  help  interpret  reasons  for  over  or 
underperformance.13  OPC  results  are  included  throughout  the  analysis  (especially  for 
results), as well as those stemming from the structured survey and focus groups. 

2.2.1.2  Input indicators – financial progress 

The first level of analysis is the financial progress of FEAD across the EU, taking into 
account the main dimensions derived from the AIRs and OPs respectively:  

Total FEAD allocation (according to OP);  

Total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  approved  in  the  documents  setting  out 
the conditions for support of operations (committed) – input indicator 1; 

Total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by  beneficiaries  (spent)  and 
paid in implementing operations – input indicator 2; 

Total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  declared  to  the  Commission  –  input 
indicator 3. 

Clearly the pace of financial progress has increased steadily over time, with a significant 
acceleration between 2014 and 2015.  

13 For a better presentation of findings relating to sub-questions 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, these are presented jointly, 
as sub-question 1.1.2 asks about the extent to which assistance has reached the most vulnerable groups [..] 
and it is, thus, mainly a breakdown of the achievement of FEAD objectives by target group. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  FEAD financial progress by type of intervention for OP I 

Source: own elaborations based on AIR2016 

In order to understand whether this is in line with expectations or whether performance 
is lagging behind initial plans we compare cumulative values with the overall allocation 
as set out in the OPs. Against the total FEAD allocation, expenditure declared to the 
EC at the end of 2016 at the EU-28 level is slightly below 10%. This level rises 
to  20%  for  expenditure  incurred  by  beneficiaries  and  paid  in  implementing 
operations and to nearly 30% for approved expenditure (Figure 7). 

  FEAD financial progress, by MS as at 31/12/2016 

Source: own elaborations based on AIR2016 

Approved  expenditure  tends  to  lag  slightly  behind  the  financial  plans  in  the 
OPs, with an expectation14 of over 40% of the total expenditure to be approved by 2016 
and actual values below 30%. This however should not affect the implementation 
as  an  annual  commitment  may  be  spent  up  to  3  years  after  the  year  when  it  was 

14 The “expectation for 2016” is computed as three sevenths of the overall FEAD allocation by MS, as per 
FEAD financial plan, including by indexing values for a yearly inflation rate set at 2% by the FEAD 
regulation. Exact values are drawn from FEAD OPs.  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

committed. Furthermore, this value varies between MS and may be due to the relatively 
early stage of implementation of the operations.  

In terms of cross-MS variations, countries with comparatively small programmes 
such  as  the  Netherlands  and  Malta  have  already  approved  the  entirety  of  their 
funding and, on  average, OP  II funds show a much  higher average approved 
expenditure than OP I (55% vs 31%). However, type II OPs’ performance in terms 
of expenditure declared to the commission is still low. 

The second dimension that can be observed relates to the share of payments incurred 
(spent  by  beneficiaries)  over  approved  expenditure  (committed  by  MA).  This  is  a 
measure of how well the implementation unfolds once the expenditure is approved by 
the authorities. Overall, in the first three years of implementation (2014 to 2016), EUR 
912  million  were  spent  in  the  28  MS,  out  of  which  95%  were  spent  in  OP  I 
programmes. This results in an overall share of payments incurred over the approved 
expenditure  of  69%  from  2014  to  2016.  This  rate  varies  significantly  across  Member 
States,  but  also  within  a  single  Member  State  from  year  to  year.  Again,  important 
variations can be observed across  countries with 9 MS showing implementation rates 
well below the EU average. In particular share of payments incurred by UK, IE, DE, HU, 
SK, HR, CY, SE, GR and DK is below 8% - for UK, HR and HU the value is 0. 

The reason for this relatively slow start of the programme in terms of financial progress 
can  be  attributable  to  several  reasons,  amongst  which  the  late  approval  of  the 
programme and therefore late implementation (e.g. in Sweden15), programming issues 
(Denmark), or an extended start-up phase (e.g. in the Netherlands, Hungary, Croatia, 
Slovakia), due to the fact that the programme management infrastructure, such as the 
registration system, was not yet in place. In the case of Denmark, the delays reflect the 
architecture of the programme that planned the launch of projects in 2016 and again in 
2019. In some of the programmes having experienced a slow start up phase (e.g. in 
Sweden,  the  Netherlands,  Slovakia)  the  implementation  gap  has  been  decreasing 
throughout the years.  

The mix of support types envisaged in each OP appears to affect the pace of approval 
of expenditure, and, notably, the possible correlation between the share of general food 
support and progress of expenditure. This is relevant for type I OPs.  

A simple regression model (see Annex 9, Figure 29) allows testing the hypothesis of a 
positive correlation among the two: the higher the share of food support the higher the 
share of expenditure approved on total FEAD allocation, highlighting how general food 
support measures seem to benefit from well-established implementation mechanisms, 
whereas difficulties may lie in the setting up of new measures introduced with FEAD, 
such  as  material  assistance  measures.  This  is  the  case  of,  e.g.,  Italy,  where  more 
traditional  interventions  for  immediate  relief  through  food  support  show  significant 
progress  while  those  relating  to  provision  of  material  support  (school  projects  and 
initiatives targeted at the homeless) are still in the starting phase. This is partly due to 
compliance problems with FEAD regulations for these more “innovative” measures (e.g., 
the provision of a pre-paid card to accommodate individual specific needs). On the other 
hand, this relates to the complex institutional set-up that is involved in more articulated 
measures  aimed  at  medium  to  long  term  social  integration  of  the  most  deprived 
(involving for examples collaboration of difference governance levels and services). 

Another  issue  that  should  be  taken  into  account  for  better  understanding  financial 
performance and which has been reported in several instances during fieldwork relates 
to  that  fact  national  procurement  procedures  that  are  applicable  to  the  purchase  of 
goods and services may not be fully suitable for the procurement of food products within 

15 In Sweden, an OP II MS, implementation was delayed due to difficulties with participants’ registration, 
including participants reluctant to provide their personal data, and project organisation difficulties – as many 
of the Partner Organisations lack the experience for implementing large-scale EU-funded projects; these 
problems have been highlighted by the evaluation carried out in 2017 and procedures are now being 
revised. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

the FEAD design, given the nature of the support, which is aimed at providing immediate 
relief to people experiencing the worst forms of poverty. This may also slow down the 
pace of implementation. 

Conclusion:  The  overall  financial  progress  can  be  considered  acceptable,  with  the 
approved expenditure being lower – but close to – the yearly financial plans included in 
the  OPs.  At  present,  there  are  indications  that  the  financial  progress  is  sufficient, 
although  the  situation  should  be  closely  monitored  especially  as  regards  the 
implementation of material assistance measures (which tend to have a lower financial 
implementation  rate  vis  à  vis  food  assistance),  and  with  respect  to  Hungary,  Croatia 
and the UK. 

2.2.1.3  Output indicators 

a.  Type I OPs - Food support 

The  analysis  of  common  output  indicators  for  OP  I  reveals  that,  overall,  nearly  one 
million tonnes of food were distributed in 20 MS16 from 2014 to 2016. 

  Total quantity of food distributed (2014-2016), by MS 

Source: SFC2014 

Spain, Romania, France, Poland and Italy are the countries with the highest quantity of 
food distributed (90% of the total amount), ranging from around one hundred thousand 
to over two hundred thousand tonnes of food. These are also the countries with higher 
allocations of funds for this form of support, thus the progress of output indicators tends 
to match the expectations.  

Overall,  performance  of  food  distribution  reflects  the  relatively  slow  performance  in 
terms of expenditure: in 2014, food was distributed only in eight MS, namely Belgium, 
Spain,  France,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovenia.  These  countries 
managed a smoother transition between the Food Distribution programme for the Most 
Deprived Persons (MDP) and the new FEAD, sometimes through ad-hoc measures, such 
as in Spain with a dedicated budgetary line funded by the MS to ensure continuity of 
food support, but more generally by relying on the already existing framework for food 
support. This has meant in some instances that the innovations brought about by FEAD 
were  gradually  embedded  through  successive  refinements  of  the  OPs.  In  the  case  of 
Portugal, for example, a full recast of the programme to better serve the purposes of 

16 AT and OP II MS (DK, NL, SE and DE) do not distribute food. Due to late implementation, no food was 
distributed in CY, HR, HU and UK. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD took place in 2016, which was a transition year with no implementation. This also 
explains why more innovative interventions aimed at providing basic material assistance 
have experienced a slower start.  

Figure  9  shows  the  progress  of  each  OP  relative  to  its  overall  financial  allocation 
dedicated  to  food  support  measures  (dividing  the  tonnes  of  food  distributed  by  the 
overall  financial  allocation).  This  is  to  give  an  indication  of  how  much  food  has  been 
distributed  over  the  respective  financial  allocation.  Low  levels  may  be  due  to  low 
efficiency, to comparatively more expensive typologies of food products provided but, 
importantly, also due to delays in the distribution of food support.  

  Overall quantity of food distributed relative to overall allocation for food 

support (2014-2016), by MS 

Source: own elaborations based on AIR2016 

From  this  perspective,  it  is  confirmed  that  –  independently  of  the  size  of  their  POs  – 
France,  Romania,  Spain,  Italy  and  Poland  perform  well  in  terms  of  financial  and 
implementation  progress,  along  with  countries  with  lower  overall  allocation  such  as 
Slovenia, Lithuania and Belgium. Conversely, Portugal and Bulgaria seem to be lagging 
somewhat behind (they appear in the right-hand side of the graph), also in view of their 
relatively large allocation of funds. The high value showed by Luxembourg is probably 
due to the leveraging effect from food donations. The low performance of Portugal can 
be explained by the fact that 2016 was a transition year, fully devoted to setting the 
strategy  for  the  years  to  come  with  no  implementation.  For  Bulgaria,  the  low 
performance  is  explained  by  delays  in  the  start-up  phase,  with  the  implementation 
phase having started only in 2015 due to delays in carrying out procurement procedures. 
Malta, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the other countries on the right-hand side of the 
graph have shown somewhat modest performance both in absolute and relative terms. 
In all cases this is due to the delayed start of the programmes, which started to register 
progress only in 2016.  

b.  Type I OPs – basic material assistance 

As to OP I material support, six out of the 14 MS that choose this form of support in 
their  OPs  have  registered  progress  of  the  relevant  output  indicators.  In  three  MS 
(Cyprus,  Croatia,  Hungary)  delays  in  implementation  mean  that  no  indicator  yet 
registers progress. In other countries, e.g., Italy, actions dedicated to material support 
tend to remain behind schedule, as anticipated also in the analysis of expenditure.  

32 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Overall value of goods distributed (2014-2016), by MS  

Source: SFC2014 

In absolute terms, Austria accounts for half of the overall material support provided in 
type I OPs, and together with Greece, accounts for the majority of FEAD EU expenditure 
on  material  support,  reaching  together  over  8.3  of  the  EUR  10.1  million  of  goods 
distributed.  

Again, this data should be interpreted in relative terms to better appraise progress. This 
is  particularly  suitable  here  as  both  values,  i.e.  value  of  goods  distributed  and  the 
financial allocation, are expressed in monetary terms. The  share  of goods distributed 
over the allocation for food support measures is shown in Figure 11. 

  Value of goods distributed over the MS total allocation for material support, 

by MS 

Source: SFC2014 

In this perspective, the performance of Austria is remarkable, while particularly Greece 
remains at a rather low level of output given the dedicated resources. No progress in 
the  distribution  of  goods  is  registered  in  Cyprus,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Lithuania,  Portugal  and  Romania.  One  striking  indication  that  emerges  is  that  the  EU 
average of goods distributed amounts to only 1.73% of the overall dedicated allocation. 
This result is explained by a number  of  factors: first of all the delays experienced by 
Italy for material assistance due to administrative difficulties and regulatory rigidities 
encountered  in  setting up  “new”  measures,  and  Greece  (also  on  food  support)  which 
account  alone  for  nearly  78%  of  total  allocated  funding,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  in 
Croatia and Hungary the implementation has not yet started and problems have been 
experienced  by  Romania  (procurement  procedures)  and  Portugal  (whose  programme 
for 2014 and 2015 carried over the framework of the previous programming period and 
only in 2016 set up a newly devised FEAD strategy). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Conclusion:  Food  support  measures  show  a  higher  implementation  rate  (in  terms  of 
expenditure) vis à vis material support, highlighting how general food support measures 
seem to benefit from well-established implementation mechanisms, whereas difficulties 
may lie in the setting up of new measures introduced with FEAD 

c.  OP II 

Figure 12 shows the progress of common output indicators – number of recipients - for 
OP II in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden in absolute and relative terms 
(left-hand side and right-hand side of the graph respectively). 

  Progress of common output indicators for type II FEAD OPs, by MS 

(absolute values and %) 

Source: SFC2014 

Note: the right hand graph shows the number of recipients as a share of the overall allocation, for each 
country in order to compare OP’s outreach capacity 

Germany shows the most considerable progress both in absolute and relative terms. 

By  definition,  the  programme-specific  indicators  cannot  be  aggregated.  Furthermore, 
Sweden has not selected a programme-specific indicator for output, but only for result.  

Germany  has  selected  four  specific  indicators,  while  a  single  indicator  is  selected  by 
Denmark and the Netherlands. These indicators relate to specific target groups covered 
by the programmes. 

  Progress of programme-specific output indicators for type II OPs, by MS 

Source: SFC2014 

From this perspective, three out of six programme-specific indicators (two in Germany 
and  one  in  Denmark)  seem  on  track  to  achieve  their  targets.  For  Germany  result 
indicators  far  exceeded  the  expectations  (see  next  section).  The  low  result  in  the 
Netherlands can be attributed to difficulties in identifying participants. Mutual learning 
activities among the cities participating in the Dutch programme were foreseen to take 

34 

 
 
  
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

place  in  2017  and  an  overall  increase  of  the  efforts  in  outreach  activities  was  also 
foreseen. 

2.2.1.4  Results (indicators and stakeholders’ views) 

The results of FEAD can be only partially captured through the progress of the indicators, 
as  these  do  not  have  target  values.  However,  the  fieldwork  (focus  groups  and 
interviews), OPC results as well as results of the structured survey on end recipients of 
type  I  OPs  can  provide  an  important  backdrop  against  which  to  interpret  monitoring 
data and assess them in a more qualitative perspective.  

In  the  first  place  both  the  surveys  and  OPC  show  a  positive  assessment  of  FEAD  by 
stakeholders and end recipients. 

In  terms  of  the  OPC  results,  overall,  48.18%  of  the  respondents  believe  that  FEAD 
support  makes  a  difference  to  the  most  deprived  in  their  country,  without  significant 
differences between respondents from OP I and OP II. Additionally, 44.46% report that 
FEAD partially makes a difference to the most deprived in their country and only 3.28% 
stated that they do not think FEAD made a difference to this group of people.  

When asked about the main reasons for this,  a large group of respondents express a 
positive general assessment of FEAD’s capacity to effectively support the most deprived 
in  their  country  –  mostly  in  Belgium,  Italy  and  Spain.  Positive  elements  that  were 
mentioned include good cooperation with other actors, and a good coverage of 
the  target  groups.  FEAD’s  food  aid  is  considered  a  stable  support  for  families  and 
individuals in need. Additionally, FEAD is also an important form of (stable) support for 
the Partner Organisations themselves. 

in  management  and 
Furthermore,  over  80%  of  OPC  respondents 
implementation of FEAD find the delivery of assistance is appropriate concerning types 
of  support,  its  suitability  and  quality.  Some  disagreement  was  voiced  regarding  the 
frequency and the quantity (respectively about 18 to 16%). 

involved 

The  structured  survey  reports  overwhelming  consensus  on  the  difference  FEAD 
support has made to the lives of the OP I end recipients (see Figure 14 and Figure 15).  

35 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Difficulties faced in getting the assistance 

Source: own elaborations on end recipients’ structured surveys 

36 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Difference the FEAD assistance made to the end recipients  

Source: own elaborations on end recipients’ structured surveys 

The picture – still positive – looks comparatively less bright in some countries, especially 
in Spain. It also shows that end recipients have not encountered significant obstacles in 
accessing support – showing that FEAD is overall effective in reaching out to the most 
deprived. 

As  for  the  effectiveness  of  the  accompanying  measures  (figure  below),  the  picture  is 
somewhat more shaded, with increasing shares of respondent that either do not wish 
to answer or do not understand the question. Such percentages, much higher than in 
previous instances, may signal that the perception on the usefulness of accompanying 
measures  as  they  are  now,  while  still  positive,  is  not  as  favourable  as  it  was  for  the 
FEAD material assistance. This may be explained, however, by the fact that nearly 30% 
of  POs  (amongst  the  16  MS  for  which  data  is  available)  declare  not  to  provide  any 
accompanying measure (see section 2.2.2.3 for more details). 

37 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Usefulness of accompanying measures  

Source: own elaborations on end recipients’ structured surveys 

It is also interesting to notice that a correlation may be found17 between the degree of 
satisfaction of end-recipients with FEAD support18 by MS and the share of POs having 
provided accompanying measures by MS.19 This correlation, which is also controlled for 
the intensity of food provided,20 means that in MS where accompanying measures are 
provided less extensively, the overall satisfaction with FEAD support is somewhat lower, 
which, in turn, suggests a non-negligible role of accompanying measures when it comes 
to the effectiveness of the FEAD. 

Conclusions:  The  underlying  sentiment  of  respondents  and  interviewees  is  that  FEAD 
makes a difference to the most deprived by supporting through OP I their immediate 
need for food and other basic goods. It is clear however from both desk and field 
research that although FEAD support, including accompanying measures, is deemed as 
a valuable first step in supporting the most deprived, it cannot play a determining 
role in lifting recipients out of poverty. This is due to its limited budget (for OP I 
and OP II), relative to the extent of the problems it seeks to address, as well as to the 
typology itself of support provided which, in the case of OP I, is not specifically targeted 
at  active  integration  measures.  Food  and  material  support  can  only  play  a  marginal, 
albeit  essential,  contribution  to  fighting  the  worst  forms  of  poverty  and  additional 
support  would  be  needed  beyond  foodstuffs,  material  assistance  and  accompanying 
measures.  They  can  however  represent  a  stepping  stone  for  accessing  further  social 

17 OLS multivariate regression. P-value for the share of accompanying measures: 0.0 23; statistically 
significant at the 95% confidence interval. Adjusted R-square 0.295: medium explicative power. 
18 As expressed in question B11 of the survey on end-recipients: “has FEAD made a difference to you”; 
yes=2 partly=1 no=0 
19 As expressed in question A2 of the survey on end-recipients, quantitative data are available only for 16 
MS, see section 2.2.2.3. 
20 Kgs of food per participant, by MS, 2016 SFC data. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

inclusion and activation measures and breaking the “poverty trap”. This can happen for 
instance by facilitating the entry of homeless individuals in sheltered housing which can 
then lead to entering more structured pathways for socio-economic integration, or by 
freeing up resources from household budgets that can be spent on more “sustainable” 
measures such as education, training or healthcare.  

This appraisal on FEAD results is confirmed also in the focus groups, which help better 
frame how effectiveness should be interpreted within the FEAD by highlighting a number 
of additional indirect results, notably:  

 

 

 

it is a gateway for personalised support and a tool to alleviate the worst forms of 
poverty  even  beyond  what  social  services  can  do,  e.g.  the  delivery  of  food 
packages can be the opportunity to get in contact with people experiencing the 
worst forms of poverty who were previously unnoticed) (OP I);  

it helps build confidence in end-recipients through interactions with associations 
and favourable relationships to solve issues (OP II and to a lesser extent OP I); 

it is a broad audience/ easy to access programme, which reaches a broad range 
of target groups, including those that are most likely to be excluded from the 
national welfare policies, including newly arrived migrants, homeless and other 
groups not eligible for other forms of support (OP I and OP II) 

Conclusion:  Positive  outcomes  are  not  only  registered  for  end-recipients,  but  include 
more “systemic” improvements (for OP I and OP II alike). 

Examples of such “systemic” or “soft” improvements are: 

  better  networking,  partnerships  and  knowledge  sharing  at  the  local  level  both 
among institutions, Partner Organisations and social services, as well as across 
different Partner Organisations; 

  better monitoring of the worst forms of poverty and information about the needs 

of the most deprived; 

  awareness raising within society; and 

  representing  a  stable  support  for  PO  that  would  otherwise  face  difficulties  in 

operating and contributing to building their capacity. 

A number of issues can also be identified that hamper the achievement of better results, 
such as: 

  bureaucracy  and  a  certain  rigidity  of  the  programme  in  some  areas  (e.g. 
limitations in the use of vouchers, limitations to the types of goods that can be 
purchased) and other national level factors (e.g. procurement procedures) have 
slowed down the implementation, eventually leading to lower results (mostly OP 
I).  

  POs’ limited capacity to provide the extensive support and counselling, FEAD being 
delivered in many countries mostly thanks to the work of volunteers, which may 
lack the specific skills that are needed (OP I);  

 

 

limited  role  of  accompanying  measures,  which  are  resource  intensive  activities, 
but the funding allocated to them is only a small proportion of the total. However, 
the play a pivotal role for social inclusion (OP I);  

limited use of FEAD to cover only the costs of collection, storage and distribution 
of food donations, which would increase the leverage effect, improve the respect 
of the horizontal principle on food waste and increase the POs’ capacity (OP I); 
and 

Conclusion: Main obstacles in the implementation of FEAD relate to difficulties in setting 
up  measures  or  complying  with  regulatory  requirements  both  at  the  EU  (FEAD 
Regulation) and MS level as well as the, sometimes, limited capacity of PO. 

39 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Against this backdrop, attention is now turned to results monitoring data, to see how 
they match with the views of the stakeholders as well as to analyse in detail how MS 
compare. As per the monitoring data, as already explained, in the absence of targets 
for result indicators for OP I we will refer to the analysis of the coverage rate of FEAD 
support  (i.e.,  number  of  people  benefitting  from  FEAD  support  over  total  number  of 
potential end recipients) together with that of its intensity (i.e., quantity of food or food 
packages  and/or  meals  distributed)  to  provide  a  preliminary  measure  of  FEAD’s 
effectiveness. Limitations to the reliability of monitoring data for result indicators were 
also  extensively  recalled  by  stakeholders,  thus  results  should  be  interpreted  with 
caution.  

Having already shown how MS have allocated funding across different forms of support, 
Figure 17 provides an overview of how funding is distributed in terms of FEAD per-capita 
allocation measured both against the national 2020 target for poverty reduction as set 
out in the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) of 201521 and against total population 
in each MS. This provides an indication of the expected role of FEAD in each country’s 
framework  for  alleviating  poverty  and  better  appraise  the  picture  described  further 
below by FEAD’s result indicators. 

  FEAD allocation relative to people AROPE and to the national target for 

poverty reduction (2016) 

Source: SFC2014, EUROSTAT (2016), NRP 

Conclusion: Concerning an assessment of FEAD expected role across MS based on the 
number  of  end  recipients  projected  against  the  national  EU2020  poverty  reduction 
targets and against the total population, significant variations are registered among MS. 
Countries  such  as  Lithuania,  Portugal  and  Romania  appear  to  invest  relatively  more 
resources in relation to both their population at risk of poverty and social exclusion and 
their poverty reduction target, thus highlighting the relatively important role FEAD plays 
in  their  strategies  to  fight  the  worst  forms  of  poverty/material  deprivation.  At  the 
opposite  end  of  the  graph,  the  per-capita  allocation  of  countries  such  as  Austria,  the 
Netherlands, Finland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom indicates the relatively smaller 
role that FEAD is expected to play in these countries. Importantly, all OP II countries lie 
in  the  right-hand  side  of  the  chart,  far  below  EUR  10  allocation  per  person  at  risk  of 
poverty and EUR 500 per person to be lifted out of poverty as defined in the relevant 
national poverty reduction targets. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  is  not  to  gauge  how  much  a  country  is  investing  in  poverty 
prevention/alleviation, but rather to interpret  FEAD  results across countries that may 
have a very different mix of relevant policies and may be reliant on FEAD interventions 

21 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/annexii_en.pdf 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

to  differing  degrees.  These  data  should  in  fact  be  offset  against  spending  on  social 
inclusion and poverty alleviation out of national budgets. 

a.  Type I OPs – food support 

We now examine FEAD’s coverage rate, by FEAD target group, and the intensity of 
support.  

In 2016, food support was distributed to around 15 million people in 20 countries, mostly 
in France, Romania, Italy, Spain and Poland. However, there is a great variation in terms 
of intensity of food support (from 174 kgs/pp in Luxembourg to 3 Kgs/pp in Ireland). 

In  Spain,  for  example,  the  number  of  participants  reached  is  much  lower  than  in 
France. However, Spain provides each participant with a much higher quantity of food 
per  year.  This  is  consistent  with  the  Spanish MA’s  estimates  of  providing  around  2 
meals per day for around 150 days per year to its participants and may be favoured 
by the very widespread network of  small organisations (over 6,000) that distribute 
food  aid  through  FEAD.  Somewhat  surprisingly,  Spain  is  also  the  country  with  the 
most consistent share of respondents to the structured survey saying that the FEAD 
has only partially made a difference to their life. This may raise the question on the 
extent  to  which  a  programme  that  is  delivering  food  with  comparatively  high 
performances should be equally considered very effective. In both Greece and Poland, 
despite having lower levels of food per person, a larger consensus was found among 
end recipients on the effectiveness of the FEAD. One possible explanation for this may 
stem from the comparatively negative experience on accompanying measure that was 
reported  during  the  focus  groups  by  Spanish  stakeholders  (which  is  only  partially 
reflected in the views of the end recipients, according to the survey (see question 15). 
Whatever  the  reason,  this  is  an  indication  that  only  focusing  on  the  provision  of 
foodstuffs may not suffice to ensure full effectiveness of the FEAD. 

The  following  chart  provides  an  estimation  of  the  coverage  rate,  counted  as  people 
addressed by the interventions compared to people in need of food support (according 
to  the  food  deprivation  indicator  provided  by  Eurostat).  This  is  accompanied  by  the 
intensity  of  support,  expressed  as  amount  of  food  support  per  participant,  to  better 
appraise the extent to which such need is actually being addressed on a daily basis.  

41 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  FEAD’s food support coverage and intensity, by MS (2016) 

Source: Eurostat EU-SILC and SFC 2014 

In interpreting coverage rates, clearly the intensity of support plays an important role. 
A country such as Finland, with the highest registered coverage of people that are food 
insecure, provide them with less than 7 kg of food aid per year. If we assume that a full 
meal weights no less than 200 grams, this makes for 35 meals per year, that is, less 
than 20 days of food provision that are covered by FEAD. A similar reasoning applies to 
Ireland and Italy, to a smaller extent. This, again, may raise the question on whether 
the  requirement  set  out  in  the  EC  FEAD  monitoring  guidance  ‘each  person  receiving 
support  under  FEAD  should  be  counted  only  once’  has  actually  been  consistently 
followed  and  its  application  monitored  by  Managing  Authorities.  In  some  instances, 
however, it may be the case that food support was not provided on a continuous basis. 
In  Finland,  for  example,  there  is  a  large  prevalence  of  food  distributed  through  food 
packages. These are assumingly collected by families in need on a more intermittent 
basis.  

Conclusion:  End-recipient  coverage  for  food  support  is  quite  high,  especially  for 
countries such as Spain, with over 120% of those in need of food support addressed22 
and  an  average  intensity  of  62kgs  per  year,  Slovenia,  Luxembourg,  France,  Portugal 
and  Romania.  The  coverage  rate  of  these  countries  is  above  80%,  with  intensity  of 
support at around 20kgs per participant per year (with the exception of Luxembourg). 

Poland also shows good results, with a lower coverage but a strong intensity of support 
(48kgs per participant per year). Countries on the right-hand side of the graph (Croatia, 
Hungary, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Slovakia) see their performance affected by the 
aforementioned delays in the implementation of the programmes. 

22 The coverage rate is calculated by dividing the number of people receiving food support through the 
number of people that are unable “to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every 
second day” - EU-SILC survey [ilc_mdes03)). Although there is undoubtedly double counting of participants, 
in the case of Spain, the amount of food distributed per “participant/participation” is above average, which 
suggests a somewhat more reliable figure. 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

This analysis is confirmed by the OPC findings according to which 86% of respondents 
agree or strongly agree that FEAD support alleviates food deprivation. It is interesting 
to  notice  how,  according  to  the  OPC  results,  FEAD  is  seen  as  a  means  to  make  a 
difference  for  the  most  deprived  also  in  countries  such  as  Ireland  (despite  the  low 
intensity  of  food  support),  Latvia  (despite  rather  low  coverage),  Bulgaria  (with  low 
coverage and medium intensity) and especially Croatia, where the implementation had 
not yet produced any outputs nor results as of 2016.  

We now examine coverage rates of FEAD support by target group. 

According to the OPC, agreement or strong agreement to the question “has the FEAD 
made a difference to the following target groups” is highest regarding  FEAD’s support 
to children  affected by or at  risk of poverty (78.64%), to  workless households or 
households with low working intensity (76.74%), as well as regarding support to 
single parents (74.21%). 

Respondents  disagree  or  strongly  disagree  comparably  more  with  FEAD’s  support  to 
persons suffering from addictions (15.30%), to ex-offenders (13.27%), to marginalised 
communities such as Roma (13.27%), to migrants (12.52%), as well as to persons with 
disabilities (11.89%). 

As per monitoring data,  women make  about  half  of the total number of people 
receiving food support (47% at over 7 million). Children cover about 30%, followed 
by people aged 65 years or over, migrants and other minorities, homeless and, finally, 
disabled. This is consistent with the opinions expressed in the OPC.  

The structured survey also asked who was receiving the assistance (question B5) and 
who will also benefit from this assistance (B6). 

Overall it can be concluded that in most of the MS it is not only the end recipient that 
benefits from the food and material assistance but also other people from all age groups, 
but especially children. In Austria, school bags are provided to children, which explains 
the large number of 6 to 15 years old people benefitting from the FEAD. 

43 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Person receiving the assistance 

Source: own elaborations on end recipients’ structured surveys 

Given  the  significant  variations  among  MS,  we  look  at  coverage  rates  of  each  target 
group (see Annex 9, Figure 31).  

As anticipated at the beginning of the analysis, the target population considered is the 
number  of  those  that  are  food  insecure,  using  the  Eurostat  Data  on  individuals  who 
cannot  afford  a  full  meal  every  second  day,  where  available,  or  a  proxy  of  this  rate 
based on the rate of material deprivation by target group. Data for the homeless are 
drawn from OECD. 

The cross-MS situation is analysed bearing in mind also the intensity of  coverage, as 
well as the limitations connected to using kgs of food per person as a proxy.  

It is nevertheless clear that coverage rates for most countries are rather high. 

A considerable share of homeless and migrants, for instance are addressed in Italy and 
the same applies to migrants in Spain and Belgium to some extent, as well as to persons 
with disabilities in Poland and Romania.  

Important variations in estimated coverage rates for food support – within and across 
countries – is found, although it should be noted that according to FEAD regulation MS 
choose the food and basic material assistance on the basis of objective criteria, taking 
into account the real need of the most deprived and the current situation in each MS, 
as well as the target groups eligible for receiving aid under FEAD. 

That said, two key issues appear:  

  some  countries  are  lagging  behind;  among  these  some  have  somewhat  lower 

performances both in terms of coverage rates and intensity of support; 

  there is high variation in the coverage rates by target groups. Some target groups 

in some countries remain largely uncovered by FEAD support;  

44 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

As per the first point, countries with lower coverage rates are Latvia, Greece, Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Slovakia,  Czech  Republic,  Cyprus  and  especially  Croatia  and  Hungary  (no 
progress for the latter two). While for Latvia, Greece and Belgium to some extent, lower 
coverage rates are accompanied with high to medium intensity of support, the situation 
of  Bulgaria,  Slovakia,  Czech  Republic  and  Cyprus  appears  as  more  worrisome.  For 
Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Cyprus this may be explained, amongst other, by the low 
share  of  FEAD  funding  relative  to  their  AROPE  levels.  This  is  not  quite  the  case  for 
Slovakia,  which  may  be  expected  to  have  a  better  performance  in  the  light  of  his 
allocation/AROPE ratio.  

As per the analysis by target groups, countries such as Italy, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, 
Poland and Lithuania seem to reach out relatively more to the homeless. Less so for the 
countries  with  low  coverage  rates  mentioned  above  but  also,  e.g.,  for  Luxemburg, 
Romania,  France,  Portugal  and  Malta.  A  similar  reasoning  applies  for  migrants  and 
minorities in France, Latvia, Romania, Portugal and Greece. 

It should be reiterated that such differences in performance may be due to deliberate 
choices made by MS in identifying those that are most in need based on the real needs 
of  the  most  deprived.  Yet,  the  benchmarking  with  Eurostat  and  OECD  data  provides 
important insights also for MS as they define their objectives and target groups.  

The issue of the FEAD target group was also discussed critically amongst stakeholders, 
with sometimes diverging views. On the one hand, it is advocated that the FEAD should 
be  universal;  on  the  other  hand,  some  said  that  it  would  be  best  to  focus  where  the 
added value is highest, e.g., on the homeless, and that the FEAD as it is risks dispersing 
resources and not reaching effectively to those who are most in need.  

Most  participants,  however,  shared  the  view  that  it  is  important  to  keep  a  certain 
flexibility concerning the identification of target groups, as poverty is a multidimensional 
concept and consequently the categories of end recipients should be kept quite broad.  

b.  Type I OPs – Basic material assistance 

Basic  material  assistance  has  been  provided  in  six  MS,  as  per  the  analysis  of  output 
indicators. 

  Coverage of basic material assistance by target group (2016) 

Source: SFC2014 

Greece is the MS with the highest number of end recipients, despite the limited progress 
of its programme. This is because the scale of the programme is much larger than other 
MS shown in the graph and because basic material assistance is distributed in the form 
of hygiene products which are less expensive than other forms of support, such as for 

45 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

example school bags.  Greece is followed by Slovakia (hygiene products), and Austria 
(school bags).  

Conclusion:  In  terms  of  target  groups  for  the  distribution  for  basic  material 
assistance, women and children are currently the main recipients of goods distributed, 
at  over  300,000  each.  Migrants  follow  at  over  50,000,  the  elderly  at  20,000  and  the 
homeless with approximately 10,000. Persons with disabilities is the category of most 
deprived that shows the lowest figures, at nearly 7,000. In terms of the value of goods 
distributed, it is interesting to notice that children account for the largest share of goods 
distributed, followed by other target groups and the homeless. 

  Value of goods distributed by target group 

Source: SFC2014 

This is explained also by the performance of Austria which shows the highest level of 
progress and provides schoolbags and stationery, exercise books and other equipment 
required  in  schools,  which  is  relatively  more  expensive  than  other  basic  material 
assistance goods. Luxembourg is the only OP I MS in which migrants, participants with 
foreign background, and minorities (including marginalised communities such as Roma) 
are the largest target group (43%) and they are provided with emergency goods. This 
target group is however also addressed in Austria and the Czech Republic (21% of the 
end recipients), through school bags and hygiene products respectively. Homeless, on 
the other hand, are mainly targeted by the Slovak and the Czech FEAD OP I programmes 
and receive hygiene products. Hygiene products, which are by far the category of basic 
goods  more  commonly  selected  by  MS,  are  provided  also  to  the  elderly  in  the  Czech 
Republic and Greece. 

Interestingly, no MS currently provides other categories of goods foreseen by the FEAD 
monitoring system such as sleeping bags, clothes, sport equipment, household linen or 
layettes.  

c.  OP II 

The  issue  of  needs  coverage  for  OP  II  allows  for  a  much  more  straightforward 
assessment of the progress towards the targets set.  

46 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Progress of programme-specific result indicators in Type II OPs, by MS 

Source: SFC2014 

As  shown  in  Figure  22,  in  Sweden  and  Germany  the  progress  is  currently  above 
expectations.  For  the  Netherlands,  conversely,  there  is  no  progress  registered,  given 
the  early  stage  of  the  programme  and  the  fact  that  results  will  be  gathered  through 
exit-interviews after a one-year participation to the programme’s activities. Interviews 
with agents in charge of the implementation have confirmed a positive early feedback 
from  participants.  As  for  Denmark,  the  indicator  measures  the  number  of  people 
directed towards other social assistance services after having been supported through 
FEAD.  The  current  rate  of  achievement  is  close  to  30%  of  the  2023  target,  thus 
suggesting that the target is on track to be achieved. 

Conclusion: Result indicators for OP II indicate that progress has been made in terms 
improved living conditions, empowerment, socio-economic integration of end recipients. 
These  results  are  overall  in  line  with  expected  progress  and  in  some  cases  have 
exceeded expectations.  

2.2.1.5  Are adjustments possible/made when needs change or new needs emerge? 

Adaptability and responsiveness of FEAD to newly emerging needs in terms of changes 
to the OP or to the design of the operations is one additional dimension of effectiveness. 
This  was  analysed  on  the  basis  of  fieldwork,  mostly  through  in-depth  country  level 
analysis. 

Overall, nine MS amended their OPs while almost half of MS changed some elements in 
the  design  of  interventions  without  amending  the  OPs.  The  most  frequently  reported 
adaptation  relates  to  fine  tuning/revision  of  target  groups/targeting  of  end 

47 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

recipients (BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, LT, LV, PL, RO), with a view for example to extending 
it to new segments of the population or revising eligibility criteria for better targeting. 
Adjustments and changes to the composition of food packages is also recorded in 
several MS (BE, IE, LU, LV, MT, PT and RO), with a view to ensuring yearly updates or 
a more balanced diet and attractive products, or to meeting the needs of target groups. 
A  couple  of  MS  developed  processes  that  allowed  to  change  and  adapt  programmes 
where  necessary  but  are  still  working  on  the  implementation  of  these  changes. Some 
other did not yet encounter new and emerging needs (for more details see Annex 11). 

Austria  faced  the  challenge  of  late  delivery  of  ordered  school  support  packages  and 
offered vouchers for school articles (paid for out of national resources) as a temporary 
alternative. This was a quick response which was actually not taken up much as people 
realised  that  their  value  was  lower  than  what  they  would  have  received  with  the 
standard school bags. This however helped smooth out the effects of the delay. Latvia 
found another solution to the same challenge with school bags and prolonged the period 
where packages could be received in order to accommodate the delay. 

Belgium,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Portugal  and  Romania  reported  that  for  OP  I 
changing needs could be accommodated with changes in the type of food products and 
in how they were offered (e.g. in Romania in 2014 vouchers were sent to eligible people, 
which enabled them to  collect the  food package. This way proved not to be  effective 
and the delivery mechanism was adapted.). 

In Denmark, Greece and Romania the management of FEAD and responsibility for the 
implementation changed for example from Ministries to other actors (in Denmark to the 
National Board of Social Science and in Romania to the local level). Also in HU an OP 
change was made in order to better define the role of the partners as well as eligibility 
criteria. 

In  Spain  the  accompanying  measures  were  changed,  shifting  from  the  distribution  of 
informative material towards more customised accompanying measures. 

Other  changes  relate  to  improvements  in  the  implementation  of  the  fund.  In  Latvia 
eligibility criteria were changed so as to enable the same end recipients to receive hot 
meals and food packages. In Belgium, delivery points have been centralised along with 
a  better  definition  of  eligibility  criteria.  Some  MS  introduced  new  implementation 
processes:  stakeholder  workshops  to  assess  effectiveness  of  the  interventions 
(Germany), home visits to fine tune food packages (Malta), revisions of the monitoring 
and evaluation plan (Sweden). 

Regarding  changes  in  target  groups,  eight  MS  implemented  changes  to  respond  to 
emerging needs and to fine tune FEAD (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, 
Lithuania,  Poland  and  Romania).  Similarly,  Finland,  Portugal  and  Slovenia  stress  that 
changes are possible but have not yet been introduced.  

Overall, OP changes took place in Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, 
Denmark,  Hungary,  Lithuania  and  Romania,  also  in  order  to  face  some  of  the  issues 
described above, especially the updating of eligibility criteria and targeting, as  well as 
of food products.  

Conclusion:  In  summary,  the  evidence  available  so  far  shows  that  adjustments  are 
possible  and  MS  have  undertaken  actions  to  adapt  to  changing  needs  by  introducing 
changes to the delivery, the targeting and the selection criteria. 

Findings  from  OPC  would  seem  to  point  to  the  fact  that  stakeholders  involved  in  the 
management and implementation of FEAD are not fully satisfied with the flexibility of 
FEAD:  while  over  60%  of  respondents  agrees  or  strongly  agrees  that  changes  are 
possible, one-fifth replies that they disagree with FEAD’s capacity to adapt to changing 
needs.  Respondents  interpreted  flexibility  as  being  responsive  in  covering  additional 
beneficiaries, which was seen as success. They also interpreted it as the flexibility of the 
overall future setup of the fund, which is seen as rather rigid with regard to OPs.  

48 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.2.1.6  Are horizontal principles such as reducing food waste complied with (Article 5 

of FEAD regulation)? 

The FEAD regulation identifies horizontal principles in Article 5(13)23. We address the 
level of consistency of actions promoted within FEAD OPs with the EU’s principles in the 
field  of  reducing  food  waste,  promoting  public  health,  equality  between  men  and 
women,  and  anti-discrimination.24  We  also  give  evidence  of  the  ways  in  which  the 
partnership  principle  was  applied.  The  judgment  criteria  refer  to  what  extent  the 
requirements set out in Article 5 are complied with and have been answered based on 
desk and field analysis. 

The  analysis  of  how  reduction  of  food  waste  was  promoted  has  been  carried  out 
drawing  a  distinction  between  FEAD’s  coverage  of  cost  for  transport,  storage  and 
delivery of food donated as set out by FEAD regulation and other principles employed 
in the implementation of the fund (e.g., the purchase of food products with a long shelf 
life, a careful planning of number and needs of beneficiaries etc.). The measures that 
were mostly implemented by MS are as follows: 

  Purchasing  food  products  with  a  long  shelf-life,  such  as  flour  and  rice  or  tinned 

food products 

  Transporting, storing and delivering the food appropriately. Through these actions, 

food waste can be prevented from the onset. 

  Another approach to prevent food waste already at the planning phase and regards 
the  careful  anticipation  of  end  recipients  and  their  needs  to  tailor  the  orders 
accordingly. 

  Some MS introduced additional measures such as Malta that developed a national 
education  waste  management  plan  and  Greece  that  adopted  a  “Good  Practice 
Guide on Food Handling” to prevent food waste.  

  Finally,  activities  related  to  the  use  of  food  donations  by  funding  its  costs  of 
transport, storage and delivery, even though this was financed, as of 2016, only 
by  Luxembourg.  Slovakia  has  plans  to  implement  this  in  the  near  future 
(discussed more extensively in section 2.2.2.1). 

In  the  OPC,  the  food  waste  reduction  principle  is  only  viewed  as  being  properly 
implemented  by  71%  of  respondents  and  by  66%  in  case  of  the  contribution  to  a 
balanced diet. A large share  of respondents  of  OP  I MS,  Belgium, Greece,  Latvia and 
Spain expressed their disagreement or strong disagreement with regard to the proper 
implementation  of  food  waste  reduction.  Furthermore,  respondents  stated  that  very 
large quantities create unnecessary waste and that direct links between supermarkets 
and food banks could contribute to food waste reduction.  

Conclusion: MS implement the principle of food waste reduction in differing degrees and 
through  different  approaches,  highlighting  the  possibility  to  further  reinforce  the 
implementation of this principle across MS. 

Finally, it is important to stress the indirect value that the FEAD has in reducing food 
waste  through  allowing  the  continuing  existence  of  and  support  for  Partner 
Organisations, whose daily food collection activities are a key lever to reduce food waste.  

Little evidence was gathered on how the gender equality principle was implemented, 
although this is a principle to which MAs generally referred to throughout interviews. 
Several  of  them  highlighted  the  importance  of  gender  mainstreaming  and  the 
integration  of  equal  opportunities  in  their  OPs.  About  86%  of  the  respondents  of  the 
OPC believe that this principle was respected. 

23 Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European 
Aid to the Most Deprived, L72/1, 11 March 2014, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0223&from=EN. 
24 Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European 
Aid to the Most Deprived, L72/1, 11 March 2014, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0223&from=EN. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

According  to  the  OPC,  87%  of  the  respondents  agree  that  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination is complied with. It is supported in FEAD implementation through, e.g. 
setting non-discriminatory of eligibility criteria (Bulgaria). 

The  partnership  principle  refers  to  the  creation  of  synergies  between  stakeholders 
and organisations involved in the implementation of the Fund; this has taken place for 
example through regular meetings and exchanges that took place in the majority of MS 
(see  e.g.  Italy)  and  across  several  MS  good  cooperation  and  collaboration  between 
actors  managing  and  implementing  FEAD  is  reported.  82.99%  of  respondents  of  the 
OPC  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  the  partnership  principle  is  being  properly 
implemented. Until recently, MS have relied on pre-existing networks and the legacy of 
the PEAD. Further steps have been taken to enlarge such platforms, as the partnership 
principle  is  broadly  viewed  as  a  key  lever  to  properly  assess  the  needs  of  the  most 
deprived and deliver ever more targeted actions. In this light, during the latest focus 
group  and  in  relevant  position  papers  on  programming post-2020,  a  more  significant 
role of, e.g., civil society organisations, was advocated. Similarly, partner organizations 
in several MS expressed their wish for more balanced partnerships and decision-making 
between governmental (e.g. MAs) and non-governmental actors.  

Conclusion: One of the most relevant “soft” effects of FEAD is increased networking and 
partnerships  among  PO  and  between  them  and  the  institutional  bodies  in  charge  of 
social assistance policies and delivery. There is room for improving involvement of Civil 
Society Organisations across MS including at the level of the design of the measures as 
well as their delivery.  

The principle of respect for the dignity of end recipients refers primarily to efforts in 
preventing  their  stigmatisation:  this  seems  to  be  an  overarching  guiding  principle  of 
FEAD  delivery,  especially  at  the  level  of  the  PO  working  in  direct  contact  with  them. 
Practical examples refer to the planning of adequate delivery modes; or the provision 
of high quality goods (as in case of Austrian school starter packages that included long 
lasting brand items as well, for example, to food tastings in France to ensure the quality 
of food packages).  

2.2.1.7  Are there unintended results? Is there any evidence of impacts yet? 

According to FEAD’s character as enabling fund, as described above, expected impacts 
are understood as improvements in the living conditions of the end recipients but also 
in terms of higher participation in social inclusion support programmes, ESF measures, 
and other formal and non-formal training activities. Possible indicators for impacts would 
be  for  example  end  recipients  registering  in  social  services  programmes  upon 
participation  in  FEAD  interventions,  end  recipients  entering  ESF  measures  upon 
participation  in  FEAD  interventions,  or  in  terms  of  end  recipients  taking  part  in 
formal/non  formal  training,  acquiring  basic  skills,  searching  for/getting  a  job  upon 
participation in FEAD interventions. 

At this stage of FEAD’s implementation, only preliminary answers are provided, as there 
is only little and scattered evidence, namely: 

  In terms of impacts, it was acknowledged that food and material aid plays a role 
not only as an emergency support operation but also to the extent to which it frees 
financial  resources  of  the  end  recipients  that  can  be  spent  on  other 
goods/services25. 

  FEAD  supports  the  capacity  and  professionalization  of  PO  as  well  as  of  the 
organisations involved in the distribution of assistance: this was particularly the 
case for Member States like France and the Netherlands where FEAD was found to 
contribute to the professionalization and capacity building of POs; likewise in Italy 
FEAD  plays  an  important  role  in  keeping  the  Italian  network  of  food  assistance 
operative,  especially  in  Southern  Italy  where  it  relies  most  on  FEAD  support  to 
continue its activities and, together with food support, provides important social 

25 FEAD structured survey on end-recipients. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

inclusion and support services to the most deprived. Finally, in Sweden the FEAD 
Operational Programme, which focused on women as a target group, contributed 
to  raising awareness on gender equality and issues affecting the most deprived 
women,  and  created  knowledge  on  the  target  group  of  most  deprived  migrants 
through researcher’s meetings. 

  In  the  Czech  Republic,  85%  of  schools  providing  support  through  FEAD  report 
significantly better attendance, performance and concentration in teaching, as well 
as improvement of learning results of children. 

The positive experience of the FEAD Network is clearly a positive impact engendered by 
the FEAD especially for mutual learning.26  

One notable unintended effect was the increased administrative burden of registration 
of end-recipients imposed by most Member States (mostly at the level of the partner 
organisation).  While  the  FEAD  regulation  does  not  foresee  specific  eligibility  criteria, 
most Member States have introduced them with a view to improving the targeting of 
resources,  for  example  being  a  recipient  of  social  welfare  or  registered  with  social 
services.  

There are a few other examples of unintended effects: 

  In  Slovenia  two  end  recipients  who  received  support  through  food  aid  and 
accompanying measures were inspired to set up a library and a cooking workshop 
for  fellow  FEAD  recipients,  thereby  showcasing  that  accompanying  measures 
strengthen the empowerment of individuals from vulnerable groups and can also 
activate and trigger further supporting activities. 

  In Germany interviewed stakeholders noted how migrants might develop a certain 
dependence on their counsellor, while greater independence would be desirable, 
especially since the number of counselling sessions is limited.  

There  are  also  many  indirect  effects  and  "soft"  results  that  cannot  be  assessed  fully 
(e.g. solidarity and cohesion, self-esteem and sense of belonging, prevention of social, 
health and humanitarian crises, leverage effects through volunteering and commitment 
of  thousands  of  civil  society  organisations).  Such  results  nevertheless  increase  the 
effectiveness of the fund. 

Conclusion: Although it is too early to observe impacts, there is evidence that the FEAD 
provides  emergency  support  but  also  frees  financial  resources  that  can  be  spent  on 
other goods/services. FEAD supports the capacity and professionalization of PO as well 
as  of  the  organisations  involved  in  the  distribution  of  assistance.  There  is  also  some 
evidence of FEAD support helping to empower individuals. 

2.2.2  How are the various types of assistance delivered? 

2.2.2.1  What are the types of assistance delivered, including those related to food 

donations and awareness raising activities? 

As it has already been shown, the vast majority of OP I MS provide some kind of food 
support:  only  Austria  provides  material  assistance  only  (although  in  Cyprus  the 
distribution has not yet started, and OP has just been amended to include food support). 
Food support accounts for 85% of the overall FEAD allocation for type I OPs, with the 
remaining 15% being accounted for by 14 MS which provide basic material assistance. 

Food support comes in the form of both food packages and/ or (hot) meals, including 
school  lunches.  In  most  countries  both  forms  of  food  support  are  provided  (with  the 
exception  of  Estonia  and  Romania  where  only  food  packages  are  delivered).  The 
composition  and  distribution  of  packages  varies  widely  across  countries  and  in  some 
instances  it is  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  recipients  who  can  select  the  type  of  food 
they  require  most,  such  as  for  example  in  the  case  of  Ireland  where  charitable 

26 9th FEAD Network Meeting, Meeting report (2018) 

51 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

organisations in charge of their delivery have  the possibility to pre-select the type  of 
food  to  receive  (in  this  way  also  saving  on  storage  costs  and  at  the  same  time 
strengthening the relationship with the end recipients). Food packages are distributed 
in predefined locations, mostly within the premises of the organisations organising their 
delivery; in the case of elderly or disabled people a drop-off system can be organised. 
In Slovenia, the collection of food at social stores is organised in a way to respect the 
dignity of the end recipients by limiting the number of people that can come and pick 
up food in the same day. 

Material support is also an important type of assistance provided through FEAD by at 
least  14  type  I  OPs,  plus  Belgium  where  this  is  funded  entirely  by  the  national  co-
financing.  The  most  commonly  provided  material  relates  to  school  items  (Austria, 
Croatia, Latvia, and Romania), baby and infant products (Belgium, Cyprus, Greece) and 
personal care/hygiene (Slovakia, Lithuania, Belgium).  

Conclusion:  Food  support  accounts  for  85%  of  the  overall  FEAD  allocation  for  type  I 
OPs.  Food  support  comes  in  the  form  of  both  food  packages  and/  or  (hot)  meals, 
including  school  lunches.  In  most  countries  both  forms  of  food  support  are  provided. 
The composition and distribution of packages varies widely across countries and in some 
instances  it is  tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  recipients  who  can  select  the  type  of  food 
they require most. The most commonly provided material assistance relates to school 
items, baby and infant products and personal care/hygiene. 

FEAD  OPs  shall  also  promote  food  donations  by  funding  the  collection,  storage  and 
distribution  of  food  donations  and  surplus.  According  to  monitoring  data  only 
Luxembourg  used  OP  resources  to  this  end,  with  44%  and  51%  (in  2016  and  2015 
respectively) of food distributed for which FEAD only covered the collection, storage and 
distribution.  This  also  explains  the  very  high  values  of  food  distributed  per  euro  of 
allocation that Luxembourg shows. Slovakia has plans to implement such activity, but 
it has not yet started.  

This issue was discussed during the focus groups, as well as in the context of the 7th 
FEAD Network meeting. A need for better arrangements in order to train volunteers also 
for the transport and storage of the food, as well as to build a better infrastructure that 
serves  this  purpose  (transport  vehicles,  warehouses  and  fridges)  was  highlighted.  A 
certain  reluctance  has  been  encountered  when  discussing  the  possibility  to  further 
exploit funds for the collection, storage and distribution of food donations as these are 
seen to potentially draw resources from the purchase of foodstuffs, eventually putting 
at  risk  the  work  of  Partner  Organisations.  A  better  communication  in  this  sense  may 
help emphasise the benefits of this form of FEAD support, which, rather than reducing 
the quantity of food distributed, can substantially increase the leverage of FEAD funding, 
as it is the case with Luxemburg.  

Nevertheless, despite being part of different schemes, the issue of food donation as a 
means to reduce food waste, is at the centre of the attention also in other MS. In France 
food donations are incentivised by tax exemptions, while in Ireland for example surplus 
food is collected through FoodCloud Hubs (food.cloud), the primary Partner Organisation 
working with food businesses nationwide who have volumes of surplus food, for example 
from farms, manufacturers and distributors to manage ad-hoc and regular supplies of 
surplus 
to  other  Partner  Organisations 
(beneficiaries/charities) at three Hubs (in Dublin, Cork and Galway) for distribution to 
the end recipients. In Estonia, the national food bank is the Partner Organisation that 
has  been  selected  for  the  distribution  of  food  aid  and  in  Italy  the  national  food  bank 
association is one of the leading Partner Organisations. All of these are concerned with 
collecting and distributing food that is donated. 

then  made  available 

that 

is 

Criteria  for  eligibility  of  the  most  deprived  persons  vary  from  country  to  country  and 
include  for  example  individuals  who  are  recipients  of  social  welfare  support,  or 
registered with social services. The homeless are also frequently targeted by FEAD food 
support – that in some instances is delivered directly to shelters. Children or families 

52 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

with children are  other  important target groups.  In the Czech Republic,  Italy and the 
United Kingdom food aid is delivered through school lunches or at schools (in the case 
of Italy and the United Kingdom this type of support has not yet been implemented). 

Conclusion: While the FEAD Regulation does not foresee specific eligibility criteria, most 
MS have introduced them with a view to improving targeting of resources – these criteria 
vary from country to country and include for example individuals who are recipients of 
social  welfare  support,  or  registered  with  social  services.  In  some  instances,  better 
targeting has been matched by an increase in the administrative burden (mostly at the 
level of the PO) due to additional efforts needed for screening purposes. 

Awareness raising activities are carried out extensively in type II OPs and as a form of 
accompanying measures in type I OPs. A full description of these is provided below.  

2.2.2.2  What are the types of accompanying measures (OP I) and social inclusion 

activities (OP II) delivered? 

2.2.2.3  OP I – accompanying measures 

MS  providing  food  and  material  support  also  provide  some  sort  of  accompanying 
measures, as discussed above. For most of them, the allocation is formally included in 
their OPs. Information collected through monitoring data or end recipients survey does 
not  allow  to  assess  in  a  comparative  manner  the  effectiveness  or  extent  of  these 
measures vis à vis their expected role of alleviating social exclusion and tackling social 
emergencies.  From  the  information  collected  however  it  would  seem  that  the  role  of 
such measures is relevant but at the same time constrained by lack of resources and 
also  probably  by  their  very  nature  of  providing  a  “complement”  to  food  and  material 
assistance. 

in  different 

forms,  such  as 

Accompanying  measures  come 
information  and 
communication material providing contact details -- for example of social services and 
other  types  of  public  and  private  assistance  for  those  most  in  need,  or  advice  for  a 
healthy diet. In some instances, meetings and consultations are offered as well as basic 
counselling activities; cooking classes and trainings have also been implemented. The 
provision  of  information  was  in  most  cases  verbal  and  took  place  through  volunteers 
offering the assistance. In brochures and leaflets, recipients could take the information 
home  and  refer  to  it  when  needed.  While  the  implementation  of  the  distribution  of 
leaflets  is  comparably  easy  and  can  be  done  with  limited  budget,  its  impact  remains 
difficult to assess.  

In  several  instances  awareness  raising  initiatives  have  been  organised  such  as 
workshops or seminars. They cover topics like nutrition and cooking, health and sport, 
household budget management, child rearing, counselling, cultural activities, services 
against  the  abuse  of  alcohol  and  its  consequences,  and  many  more.  Accompanying 
measures take place mainly at the point of delivery of food packages or warm meals, 
as well as upon order or pickup of material assistance. 

In terms of effective offer accompanying measures, Finland reported that the ability to 
deliver  accompanying  measures  is  one  selection  criterion  for  Partner  Organisations. 
Since  FEAD  funding  for  these  activities  is  limited,  the  selection  already  ensures  that 
measures can be financed through POs instead. 

During  fieldwork,  some  issues  about  the  general  purpose  and  effectiveness  of 
accompanying measures were raised. In those MS that adopt eligibility rules following 
some  forms  of  means-testing  applied  for  example  to  access  social  security  schemes, 
most recipients are already “in the system”. They might not be aware of all assistance 
available  to  them  but  the  redirection  to  relevant  social  services  appears  to  be  more 
relevant for target groups such as homeless people who are usually not yet integrated 
in the regular social security system.  

Field research highlighted that organisations distributing food support provide some sort 
of  support/accompanying  measure  as  part  of  their  own  activities/funds  in  addition  to 

53 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD’s provision which is otherwise limited up to 5% of cost of support distributed. This 
is the case, for instance, of Belgium that have placed an obligation upon POs to direct 
end  recipients  towards  further  social  integration  services.  Likewise,  in  Estonia,  end 
recipients are provided with information on, e.g., healthy recipes that could be prepared 
with the food packages provided as well as brochures further social integration services. 

The first FEAD Network Meeting in September 2016 found that challenges to providing 
accompanying  measures  are  “a  lack  of  trained  volunteers”  because  they  usually 
distribute food or material assistance rather than offering for example cooking classes 
or skills development.27 Other points refer to “the size and heterogeneity of the target 
group” which means it is difficult to offer measures that are suitable for the entire target 
group of a specific FEAD project.28 Another challenge is that these measures are only 
loosely defined and that it is important not to stigmatise end recipients.29 Solutions to 
improve  the  provision  of  accompanying  measures  include  mapping  available  social 
services and creating a network between their providers, training FEAD volunteers and 
improving  the  links  to  ESF  initiates.30  These  findings  have  been  confirmed  during 
fieldwork interviews/focus groups as well as by the OPC. 

Accompanying measures are also  subject  of the survey  on FEAD  OP  I end recipients. 
The  first  section  of  the  questionnaire  asks  PO  what  form  of  accompanying  measures 
they have provided. However, figures cannot be fully compared across MS as the criteria 
used to fill the questionnaires are not consistent across MS. In some cases, it was the 
MAs to answer either qualitatively or by putting a cross in the relevant box for all POs, 
which  makes  any  aggregations  and  comparisons  across  MS  meaningless.  The  two 
groups  of  countries,  those  for  which  answers  at  the  level  of  each  sampled  POs  have 
been  retrieved  and  those  for  which  it  was  the  MA  to  answer,  are  therefore  treated 
separately. 

  Share of POs providing no accompanying measures and share of 

accompanying measures provided by frequency, by MS 

27 EC, Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived: FEAD’s contribution to sustainable social inclusion, 
Thematic Dossier 1, September 2017. 
28 Ibid. 
29 Ibid.  
30 Ibid.  

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Source: own elaborations on OP I survey on end recipients data 

In conclusion, all MS concerned with OP I implementation have provided accompanying 
measures  -  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  this  was  set  out  in  their  FEAD  budget. 
However,  the  type  and  coverage  of  accompanying  measures  differ  quite  significantly 
across  them.  Among  the  MS  reporting  quantitative  data  on  the  provision  of 
accompanying  measures,  nearly  30%  of  POs  sampled  do  not  provide  accompanying 
measures. In Cyprus, Spain and Greece, this percentage rises well above 50%.  

Survey  data  also  shows  that,  amongst  the  accompanying  measures  most  frequently 
provided, are: 1. advice on food preparation and 2. storage and redirection to competent 
services.  The  accompanying  measure  which  was  less  selected  is  psychological  and 
therapeutic support at 7.5%. 

Conclusions: Accompanying measures are quite limited in scope and role. They vary in 
scope  and  content,  with  the  most  frequent  type  of  measure  related  to  provision  of 
information and advice (health, food preparation) and redirection to competent services. 
As  such  the  measures  provided  Obstacles  in  their  delivery  mainly  related  to  limited 
financial resources and lack of adequate competences by PO staff. Information collected 
through  monitoring  data  or  end  recipients  survey  does  not  allow  to  assess  in  a 
comparative  manner  the  effectiveness  or  extent  of  these  measures  vis  à  vis  their 
expected role of alleviating social exclusion and tackling social emergencies. From the 
information collected however it would seem that the role of such measures is relevant 
but at the same time constrained by lack of resources and also probably by their very 
nature of providing a “complement” to food and material assistance. 

2.2.2.4  OP II – social inclusion 

Specific  activities  carried  out  include  street  work,  and  various  forms  of  outreach,  to 
sensitise,  e.g.,  parents  on  the  importance  of  education  and  schooling  and  provide 
counselling  to  migrants.  In  addition,  Germany  offers  networking  one-day  anti-
discrimination and awareness raising workshops for administrations to fight prejudice 
and support staff in providing needed support, especially to newly arrived EU migrants. 
These workshops were considered to be very useful. Additionally, the use of local co-
trainers added regional relevance and sustainability to the workshops.  

In Sweden, the focus is mainly on preventive measures, such as reproductive and dental 
health,  along  with  basic  social  information  regarding  the  Swedish  society.  The 
intervention logic is based on an assumption that increased knowledge and improved 
health at the individual level will lead to increased conditions for social participation and 
empowerment among the participants. 

In  Denmark,  awareness  raising  activities  are  included  in  the  project  as  street-based 
social workers, social workers in the basement apartment of the project Locker  room 
and the shelter and social service Kompasset promotes a clarification of the life situation 
of vulnerable homeless and therefore promotes next steps to improve on life conditions. 

The Dutch OP addresses elderly people with low incomes and at risk of marginalisation 
offering them information on the type support they can access, social networking and 
empowerment activities. The latter includes workshops and coaching to improve skills 
(e.g. digital skills). 

Conclusion: In OP II, the main activities funded by the programmes are aimed at funding 
staff  costs  such  as  counsellors  in  existing  or  new  counselling  centres  to  support  the 
integration of disadvantaged EU migrants and homeless people. This is seen as a way 
to bring end recipients closer to national assistance services. 

2.2.2.5  Overview of success factors and bottlenecks 

In  the  following  table  we  present  an  overview  of  the  main  success  factors  and 
bottlenecks that have emerged from the analysis on the effectiveness of FEAD, together 
with an indicative list of the types of measures that have proved to bring about a positive 
effect. 

55 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.2.3  How robust are good practice cases identified by MAs and Partner 

Organisations? 

There are many examples of good practice demonstrating robustness in terms of: 

  Providing consistent and stable support throughout the year 

  Using FEAD as a gateway to social inclusion 

 

Improving capacities of delivery organisations 

  Facilitating the access of the most vulnerable to FEAD assistance 

  Leverage effects, e.g. by mobilising local resources 

  Using  local  cooperation  effectively  in  order  to  reach  the  most  vulnerable  and 

respond to most pressing needs. 

Chapter 4 presents examples of good practice  based on selection criteria that ensure 
the robustness of each example. 

56 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Overview of success factors and bottlenecks 

More successful interventions 

Success factors 

Bottlenecks 

For OPI : 
  Food support measures show higher implementation rates 
(in terms of expenditure) vis à vis material support; these 
measures seem to benefit from well-established 
implementation mechanisms (OPI) 

  The existence a (consolidated) 
network of local level  Partner 
Organisations for distribution of 
support ensures quick and 
effective delivery of aid (OPI) 

  Administrative obstacles (such as lengthy 
procurement procedures) and a certain 
rigidity of the Fund in the type of support 
that can be provided, especially for OPI 

  A positive example of the longer-term benefits of FEAD 
assistance, in the Czech Republic, schools providing 
support through FEAD report significantly better 
attendance, performance and concentration in teaching, 
as well as improvement of learning results of children 
(OPI) 

For OPII: 
  Health-related preventive measures – possibly leading to 

increased conditions for social participation and 
empowerment among the participants. 

  Street work, and various other forms of outreach 
  Information and sensitisation (e.g., towards parents on 

the importance of education and schooling) 

  Awareness raising workshops for public administrations to 

fight prejudice; 

  Coaching activities, counselling 

For OPI and OPII 
  « Low threshold » support measures represent an 

important means to reach out to individuals who would be 
otherwise left out of national/local social assistance 
measures 

  FEAD is particularly effective when targeting children 

affected by or at risk of poverty, workless households or 
households with low working intensity as well as 
regarding support to single parents (OPI and OPII) 

Source: own elaboration 

  Collaboration between the MA or 
social assistance organisations 
and the Partner Organisations 
ensures that support provided is 
well targeted and appropriate 
(OPI and OPII) 

  Accompanying measures are 

deemed as a valuable first step 
in supporting the most deprived 

  FEAD supports the capacity and 
professionalization of PO as well 
as of the organisations involved 
in the distribution of assistance 

  Adjustments are possible and 

MS have undertaken actions to 
adapt to changing needs by 
introducing changes to the 
delivery, the targeting and the 
selection criteria. 

  Lengthy set-up procedures, e.g. in terms of 
the set-up of new Management Information 
Systems or compilation of beneficiaries’ lists 

  Lack of adequately trained human resources 
in POs (that in many instances are mostly 
based on volunteers’ work) limits the role 
and scope of accompanying measures (OPI) 

  limited use of FEAD to cover only the costs of 
collection, storage and distribution of food 
donations, which would increase the leverage 
effect, improve the respect of the horizontal 
principle on food waste and increase the POs’ 
capacity (OP I) 

  In some instances, better targeting of 

support measures has been matched by an 
increase in the administrative burden (mostly 
at the level of the PO) due to additional 
efforts needed for screening purposes. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.3 

Coherence 

Key findings 

  Overall FEAD is coherent and complementary with poverty alleviation efforts in 
Member  States:  the  Fund  plays  an  important  role  in  alleviating  food  and 
material deprivation, as it reaches out to target groups that would not otherwise 
be covered by national or local measures and provides assistance that would 
not otherwise be provided, at least not with the same intensity and coverage. 

  FEAD  supports  and  is  coherent  with  EU  policies  tackling  poverty,  such  as  the 

Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Pillar of Social Rights. 

  FEAD  is  complementary  to  support  provided  through  other  European  Union 
instruments, in particular the ESF and AMIF. This complementarity is both at 
the level of the actions funded as well as of the target groups reached. FEAD 
provides basic needs and social inclusion support to the most deprived, while 
the ESF focuses on groups who are closer to the labour market and provides 
more targeted support towards active socio-economic inclusion. AMIF supports 
a narrowly defined target group of refugees, asylum seekers and third country 
migrants and is tailored to their needs. 

  Further efforts are desirable concerning the use of synergies especially between 
the FEAD and the ESF, with a view to helping end recipients, especially those 
of working age, to reduce the distance to the labour market. 

  In several MS, ESF and FEAD implementation falls under the same MA or within 
the  same  Ministry/Department.  This  facilitates  coordination,  avoidance  of 
double funding and ensures the exchange of experiences and cross-fertilisation. 
Strengthening the coherence between European Funds contributes directly to 
achieving the overall targets of combating poverty and social inclusion. 

The evaluation question refers to the extent to which FEAD interventions are coherent 
with  other  EU,  national  and  regional  interventions  that  have  similar  objectives.  The 
judgement criteria follow Article 5(2) of the FEAD Regulation, which state that the EC 
and  MS  shall  ensure  that  the  Fund  is  consistent  with  the  relevant  policies  and 
priorities  of  the  Union  and  is  complementary  to  other  instruments  of  the 
Union.31 

The main reference EU priorities are the Europe 2020 Agenda and the European Pillar 
of Social Rights. Relevant instruments are, at EU level, primarily the ESF and the AMIF, 
although other EU initiatives such as the Health and the EaSI Programmes might also 
show  some  interesting  complementarity,  and  at  MS  and  regional  level,  a  variety  of 
national and regional poverty alleviation and social inclusion interventions. 

Complementarity  is  intended,  in  this  study,  as  the  capability  of  two  or  more 
interventions  to  produce  joint  outcomes  that  exceed  their  individual  sum.  This  also 
entails  the  adoption  of  a  holistic  approach  that  is  centred  on  end  recipients’  needs, 
including by leveraging on initiatives funded through multiple support schemes. Thus, 
synergies  at  the  design,  organisational  and  operational  level  are  needed,  and  will  be 
assessed accordingly.  

2.3.1  What role does FEAD play in the national system of poverty 

alleviation? 

This  question  aims  to  assess  whether  FEAD  works  in  synergy  with  MS  policies  (at 
national or local level) aimed at alleviating poverty and if OP initiatives are appropriately 
linked to national policies (as set out in Article 7(5) of the FEAD regulation). 

31 Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European 
Aid to the Most Deprived, L72/1, 11 March 2014, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0223&from=EN. 

58 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD’s coherence and role in MS poverty alleviation systems can be better grasped in 
light of the following considerations: 

  Altogether 19 Member States took part in the previous food aid programme. These 
were  largely  those  that  adopted  an  OP  I,  except  for  Austria,  Cyprus,  Croatia 
(which was not yet a member of the EU), Slovakia and the United Kingdom. As 
such  in  the  former  countries  food  support  related  activities  funded  through  EU 
resources have been integrated into the national context for several years. 
The  current  OP  II  countries,  Germany,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden 
did not participate in the previous programme.  

  OP I Member States have different poverty alleviation strategies in place, these 
however for the most part do not cover well-structured food and material 
support  programmes.  This  support  is  often  provided  at  subnational  level 
through  local  authorities  or  third  sector  organisations  (NGOs,  charities,  faith-
based organisations) which may lack a comprehensive and coordinated approach 
which is instead a feature of FEAD interventions in MS. 

  Food and material aid support programmes, even when they are in place, do not 
ensure full coverage of the most deprived individuals and can leave out important 
segments of the population that FEAD might seek to address. 

  Last but not least, the FEAD support significantly strengthens the network of NGOs 
and  public  actors  engaged  in  poverty  alleviation  activities,  by  ensuring  stable 
support on which POs can build upon.  

In  the  following  paragraphs  some  examples  of  how  this  complementarity  works  in 
practice across the different MS are presented: 

  Complementarity in the types of services/products provided with a view to 
increasing the coverage of needs addressed. This is the case of Austria, where 
FEAD  provides  school  starter  packages  that  are  not  included  in  the  national 
support to the most deprived, or in Bulgaria, where the provision of warm meals 
complements a nationally funded measure by covering the summer season (the 
national  programme  only  covers  the  winter).  Likewise,  in  France,  the  FEAD 
supports an extensive and diversified food aid strategy based on peoples’ needs, 
freedom of choice and nutritional balance. 

  Complementarity  in  terms  of  target  groups  with  a  view  to  increasing  the 
coverage of different groups of the most deprived. In Hungary, the largest share 
of the FEAD budget goes to families with children aged between 0-3 who are not 
covered  by  state  childcare.  Likewise,  OP  II  MS  Denmark  uses  the  FEAD  to 
support  non-Danish  residents,  mostly  EU  migrants  who  would  risk  otherwise 
being  left  at  the  margin  of  national  social  assistance  measures.  In  the 
Netherlands, the FEAD caters to the needs of the elderly with low incomes and 
socially  excluded  people.  It  represents  a  complementary  measure  to  locally 
funded actions (no national programme being specifically foreseen for this specific 
target  group).  In  Sweden,  it  covers  people  not  entitled  to  support  under  the 
Social Services Act and it focuses on a limited number of municipalities where the 
highest number of potential recipients is expected (temporary residents). 

  Complementarity in terms of supporting the work already done by local 
public and private organisations. In the Czech Republic, FEAD complements 
existing measures that are primarily carried out by the third sector and acts as 
important  support  for  these  organisations.  In  Romania,  the  FEAD  provides  a 
much-needed complement to both state and third sector operated interventions. 
In Greece, the FEAD plays a central role as it represents the main nation-wide 
measure for food supply. Although Greece can count on an extensive network of 
locally based organisations (mainly charities) providing similar support (Cyprus 
is a similar case), these activities are not coordinated at the national level and 
FEAD  supports  the  adoption  of  a  more  systematic  approach.  Additionally,  it 

59 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

creates  synergies  between  actors  by  promoting  the  networking  of  FEAD 
partnerships. A similar assessment can be made for Italy. 

  Complementarity  in  terms  of  integration  with  and  strengthening  of  national 
support policies. In Ireland, where there is no dedicated national scheme for the 
distribution of food or basic material assistance to deprived persons, food poverty 
is  tackled  through  the  social  protection  system  and  a  statutory  programme  for 
the provision of emergency provision (Supplementary Welfare Acts). This includes 
meals-on-wheels  and  school  meal  services.  Here,  FEAD  is  integrated  into  the 
National Action Plan for Social Inclusion with a particular focus on strengthening 
end  recipients  and  charities  who  support  vulnerable  groups.  In  Finland,  FEAD 
support in the form of food packages complements the support provided through 
the  national  social  security  system,  especially  for  people  affected  by  material 
deprivation. Here, church-based organisations play an important role in collecting 
and  distributing  food  aid.  In  Lithuania  and  Latvia,  where  the  national  social 
assistance system focuses on the provision of small financial aid, FEAD is the main 
public food support programme. In Latvia social services are concretely involved 
in  the  implementation  of  FEAD  by  participating  in  the  distribution  of  food 
packages. In Lithuania, together with national services, it provides the first level 
of material assistance, with accompanying measures as an important addition. In 
Estonia, FEAD expands the geographic coverage of the national system of food 
support. 

As it can be seen from the above examples, the FEAD complements poverty alleviation 
strategies in Member States by reaching out to segments of the population that would 
otherwise be left out of public assistance and through increasing the number of persons 
that are reached (coverage effect). It also supports existing measures by expanding the 
“basket” of goods and services provided and making it more varied and appropriate to 
the  needs  of  end-recipients.  Finally,  it  contributes  to  improving  the  “social 
infrastructure” by promoting coordination among different actors and strengthening the 
capacities  of  third  sector  organisations  involved  in  providing  support  to  the  most 
deprived.  In  many  countries  where  it  has  been  implemented  for  several  years,  FEAD 
plays a key role in food poverty alleviation measures: here it can count on a tested and 
working  mechanism  for  provision  of  food  support  relying  on  networks  of  Partner 
Organisations ensuring a capillary distribution of aid and good knowledge of final end 
recipients´ needs. 

Thus, the main way in which FEAD is coherent with national or local level measures is 
by strengthening and complementing assistance to the most deprived and strengthening 
the measures that are already in place. 

The findings of the desk research and interviews are corroborated by the responses to 
the open public consultation. Over 70% of all respondents to the OPC agreed that FEAD 
was  complementary  to  national  and  regional  poverty  alleviation  schemes.  73%  also 
found  that  the  FEAD  was  complementary  to  activities  carried  out  by  non-profit 
organisations  (nearly  87%  of  OP  II  respondents  and  76%  of  OP  I  respondents).  The 
structured  survey  shows  that  on  average  22%  of  the  respondents  and/  or  other 
members  of  the  household  receive  assistance  from  other  organisations,  mostly  food 
(average of 47%), clothes (23%) and meals (21%). 

Conclusion:  FEAD  complements  poverty  alleviation  strategies  in  Member  States  by 
reaching out to segments of the population that would otherwise be left out of public 
assistance and through increasing the number of persons that are reached (coverage 
effect).  It  also  supports  existing  measures  by  expanding  the  “basket”  of  goods  and 
services provided.  

60 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.3.2  To what extent is FEAD support coherent with EU policies and 
complementary to support provided by other European Union 
instruments, in particular the ESF and AMIF? 

This  section  focuses  on  the  level  of  coherence  and  complementarity  of  support  from 
FEAD  with  relevant  EU  policies,  such  as  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  the  European 
Pillar of Social Rights, and with other EU instruments such as ESF and AMIF and other 
small programmes, in terms of design, operational coordination and human resources 
management. 

FEAD is clearly fully coherent with the Europe 2020 Strategy, by explicitly contributing 
of its headline targets of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty. Likewise it is 
coherent  with  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  particularly  with  regards  to  the 
different aspects of the Social Rights dimension, such as: 

  Childcare  and  support  for  children:  FEAD  funds  in-kind  benefits  for  the  most 

deprived children supporting school enrolment and attendance; 

  Minimum income: it is a complementary support to minimum income schemes; 

  Healthcare: it supports access to basic healthcare for the most deprived through 
the  referral  to  social  services  and  other  accompanying  and  social  inclusion 
measures provided 

  Housing assistance for the homeless: it targets its support to the most deprived 
and in particularly the homeless but providing basic needs such as food and basic 
goods and directly and indirectly promoting a housing first approach. 

FEAD appears to be complementary to the support provided by other European Union 
instruments, in particular the ESF and AMIF, with regard to the target groups supported 
and the support measures provided. 

  Overview to what extent FEAD support is complementary to support 

provided by other European Union instruments, in particular the ESF and 
AMIF, by MS.  

61 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Source: Desk research and interviews at MS level 

In most MS, the ESF and AMIF share similar objectives (social inclusion and cohesion) 
while addressing different target groups or needs. 

In most of the MS, the FEAD and  ESF are mainly focused  on different target groups, 
illustrating  the  complementarity  of  the  funds.  FEAD  support  is  focused  on  the  most 
deprived,  while  the  ESF  focuses  on  people  whose  basic  needs  are  met  and  who  are 
closer to the labour market. When overlaps between these two target groups exists, the 
programmes mostly offer different types of support. FEAD provides material and food 
aid (OP I) or “basic” social inclusion measures (OP II), while the ESF focuses on socio-
economic  integration  services  aimed  at  the  activation  of  individuals  and  encouraging 
their participation in the labour market. 

In Poland for example,  FEAD educators (conducting workshops) are obliged to inform 
participants  about  other  assistance  programs,  e.g.  about  the  ESF  programmes.  As  a 
result, participants receive the first support (reinforcement) in the FEAD program and 
then can take part in another directed at social inclusion. In this respect it becomes key 
that  information  on  support  provided  by  different  programmes  are  available  from  a 
unique source, to facilitate dissemination and integration of services (which is not always 
the case). In Greece there is a clear complementarity between the two Funds as they 
inform  each  other’s  end  recipients,  e.g.  FEAD  end  recipients  receive  information  on 
further support they can get from ESF, while ESF informs its beneficiaries about the food 
support that is available through FEAD (see Box 1 below). 

With  regards  to  AMIF,  there  is  likely  to  be  some  level  of  overlapping  in  terms  of  the 
target groups covered (third country migrants, refugees and asylum seekers). However, 
the type of support provided differs with FEAD being focused on basic need support in 
OP I countries. In OP II countries, in particular Germany, FEAD offers social inclusion 
measures for EU migrants that would be otherwise left out of AMIF support. 

The results of the OPC show that 70% of both OP I and OP II respondents agree that 
FEAD complements the ESF while 48% agree that it complements the AMIF. 

62 

MSDifferent target groups & different measuresShared MA and institutional cooperationShared objectives e.g. ESF TO 9Recipients can receive support from more than one FundFunds were drafted to be complementaryFirst recipients participate in FEAD and then in ESFFunds have limited complementarityAT11BE111BG1CY11CZ11DE11DK1EE1EL11ES111FI111FR111HR11HU111IEIT111111LT1111LU1LV111MT1111NL11PL1111PT1111RO1111SE111SI1111SK11 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

A second theme analysed is the cooperation between key stakeholders and the creation 
of common MAs. In several MS, the FEAD MA is shared or directly connected (e.g. within 
the same Ministry or even Department) with the ESF MA so it is able to leverage shared 
experiences  and  ensure  complementarity  in  the  programmes  offered  and  financial 
resources used.  

A common MA is present in Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary and 
Romania.  While  most  MS  ensure  the  close  cooperation  among  them  through,  for 
example, regular meetings (e.g. Belgium, Greece, Finland, Malta, Sweden, Poland). This 
contributes  to  ensuring  complementarity,  exchanging  good  practices,  methods  and 
strategies  and  planning  joint interventions  (Italy).  The  coordination  between  funds  is 
important to prevent double funding or the duplication of activities. Strengthening the 
coherence among European Funds contributes directly to achieving the overall targets 
to combat poverty and social inclusion. 

ESF and FEAD complementarity in Greece 

According  to  Focus  Group  participants,  in  Greece  there  is  a  clear  complementarity 
between  the  two  Funds  as  they  inform  each  other’s  end  recipients,  e.g.  FEAD  end 
recipients receive information on further support they can get from  ESF, while ESF 
informs its beneficiaries about the food support that is available through FEAD. 

Good practice examples of how this is done include: 

  A  Helpdesk  in  the  Region  of  Central  Macedonia  that  directs  end  recipients  to 

other types of support, including ESF. 

  The group of professionals involved in the delivery of accompanying measures 
in  the  Kavala  PO  (psychologist,  physical  trainer,  social  workers,  etc.)  have 
referred end recipients to ESF. 

is  that  of  “promoting  social 

improving  employability;  (ii)  socio-economic 

Another  area  where  complementarity  between  FEAD  and  other  European  Funds  was 
reported concerns the strategic direction of the different funding instruments. Article 9 
of the Common Provisions Regulation states that one of Thematic Objectives of the ESI 
Funds 
inclusion,  combating  poverty  and  any 
discrimination”.32 The ESF Regulation lists fund specific investment priorities (IP) of this 
thematic objective 9 in Article 3 describing the scope of ESF actions as follows: (i) active 
inclusion,  including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal  opportunities  and  active 
participation,  and 
integration  of 
marginalised communities such as the Roma; (iii) Combating all forms of discrimination 
and promoting equal opportunities; (iv) Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and 
high- quality services, including health care and social services of general interest; (v) 
Promoting social entrepreneurship and vocational integration in social enterprises and 
the  social  and  solidarity  economy  in  order  to  facilitate  access  to  employment;  (vi) 
Community-led  local  development  strategies.33  Clearly  these  IP  are  very  relevant  for 
FEAD  and  several  MS  explicitly  refer  to  the  ESF  IP  9i  and  several  others  in  order  to 
outline  their  commitment  to  fighting  against  poverty  and  social  exclusion.  Spain  for 
example  integrated  social  inclusion  interventions  in  its  ESF,  FEAD  and  EAFRD 
programmes, thereby contributing to their complementarity.  

32 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, 
the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN.  
33 Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on 
the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1304&from=EN.  

63 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Details on complementarity were also found with regard to the eligibility of recipients 
for  funding  from  multiple  Funds.  Bulgaria  for  example  reports  that  FEAD  could  be 
perceived as complementary to ESF and AMIF since end recipients included in measures 
under the ESF might, as well as migrants supported by AMIF, be part of the FEAD target 
group.  The  Lithuanian  MA  mentioned  that  with  regard  to  FEAD  and  AMIF  the  food 
support of both programmes is coordinated in order to prevent duplications.  

Another way to improve the complementarity of Funds is to ensure complementarity in 
the drafting of the programmes. In Germany, existing ESF measures were taken into 
account when drafting the FEAD OP. Similarly, Sweden planned FEAD to complement 
national efforts as well as ESF measures in this area and Greece did the same, while 
integrating  complementarity  in  the  monitoring  of  both  Funds.  In  Latvia,  FEAD  is 
complementary to AMIF since it was developed building on FEAD experiences.  

Complementarity can also take the form of integrated support provided by the different 
funds. FEAD  social inclusion and accompanying measures act as a stepping stone for 
accessing social services, including those provided through the ESF. In Germany, FEAD 
support is seen as “preliminary step to ESF support” for example by helping recipients 
access language courses offered through ESF. In Finland, the Partner Organisations are 
encouraged to disseminate information on ESF-financed social inclusion projects as an 
accompanying  measure.  In  France,  associations  benefiting  from  the  FEAD  carry  out 
integration  projects,  some  of  which  are  co-financed  by  the  ESF.  In  Italy,  a  joint 
ESF/FEAD action is foreseen, supporting a Housing first initiative for the homeless. Also, 
Hungary  foresees  an  important  integration  between  ESF  and  FEAD.  In  Belgium, 
accompanying measures consist in referring end recipients to Public centres for Social 
Welfare  (PCSW).  This  step  can  be  seen  as  a  guarantee  to  integration  with  national 
schemes and as an enabler to access ESF interventions. 

Despite the good examples of complementarity, concerns remain as to whether further 
efforts  should  be  sought  to  link  FEAD  support  up  with  fully  social  inclusion-oriented 
activities germane to the ESF. More attention would be needed, e.g., on the training of 
POs  operators  who  deliver  accompanying  measures  and  are  sometimes  not  equipped 
with  adequate  skills  for  this.  During  the  focus  groups,  it  was  also  reported  that  the 
transition from FEAD to the ESF may sometimes be very slow for end recipients.  

Interestingly,  a  need  for  more  integrated  approaches  towards  social  inclusion  was 
expressed by stakeholders involved both in type I and type II FEAD OPs. The budget for 
accompanying measures was often considered insufficient and the complementarity with 
the  ESF  not  fully  exploited  --  although  good  practices  do  exist.  At  the  same  time, 
accompanying measures are resource-intensive activities that require adequate skills to 
be carried out, which risks excluding from the network organizations that are specialized 
in providing food aid but may lack ‘social inclusion oriented’ competences. 

Finally,  FEAD  shows  positive  complementarities  and  synergies  with  other  EU 
instruments,  such  as  centrally  managed  programmes  like  the  Health  and  the  EaSI 
Programmes. 

The EU is required to ensure, and to work with EU countries to improve public health, 
prevent human illness and eliminate sources of danger to physical and mental health. 
The Health Programme answers to the EU requirement of ensuring that human health 
is protected across all policy areas and is complementary to FEAD in its drive to promote 
health, prevent disease and foster healthy lifestyles including an adequate and balanced 
diet. 

Likewise,  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI)  programme  is  a  financing 
instrument at EU level to promote a high level of quality and sustainable employment, 
guaranteeing  adequate  and  decent  social  protection,  combating  social  exclusion  and 
poverty  and  improving  working  conditions.  Through  its  PROGRESS  component,  EaSI 
funds pilot and mutual learning interventions aimed at developing and promoting the 
uptake of innovative policies and measures tackling social inclusion and fighting poverty. 
Likewise, through its microfinance component, EaSI promotes social entrepreneurship 

64 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

and ventures focusing on achieving social impacts and returns which might contribute 
to addressing the needs of the most deprived. 

Conclusion:  FEAD  appears  to  be  complementary  to  the  support  provided  by  other 
European Union instruments, in particular the ESF and AMIF with regard to the target 
groups supported and the support measures provided. In most of the MS, the FEAD and 
ESF  are  mainly  focused  on  different  target  groups:  FEAD  is  focused  on  the  most 
deprived,  while  the  ESF  focuses  on  people  whose  basic  needs  are  met  and  who  are 
closer to the labour market. When overlaps between these two target groups exists, the 
programmes mostly offer different types of support (basic support or social inclusion vs 
active integration measures). With regard to AMIF, there is likely to be some level of 
overlapping in terms of the target groups covered (third country migrants, refugees and 
asylum seekers). However, the type of support provided differs with FEAD being focused 
on food and basic material assistance in OP I countries. In OP II countries, in particular 
Germany, FEAD offers social inclusion measures for EU migrants that would be otherwise 
left out of AMIF support. 

2.3.3  Has the FEAD contributed to supplement or to displace national 

(public or private) interventions and financial resources used with 
similar or complementary objectives? 

This  sub-question  addresses  the  additionality  of  FEAD  and  whether  FEAD  displaced 
public  or  private  interventions  and  if  the  FEAD  has  triggered  or  supported  initiatives 
which attracted additional national funds (both public and private). The FEAD Regulation 
clearly says that “The Fund is not meant to replace public policies undertaken by the 
Member  States  to  fight  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  in  particular  policies  which  are 
necessary to prevent the marginalisation of vulnerable and low-income groups and to 
avert the increased risk of poverty and social exclusion”. 

Based on available evidence it is not possible to say whether FEAD has created or might 
create some possible displacement of national funds towards other measures. Given the 
relatively small size of interventions however it is unlikely that it should have caused a 
significant reorientation of public funds towards other measures. At the same time, it 
should also be acknowledged that support provided by FEAD would fall in principle under 
basic assistance which should be the prerogative of MS. 

In  the  previous  paragraphs  it  was  illustrated  how  for  the  majority  of  MS  FEAD 
contributed  to  supplement  national  public  and  private  interventions  and  financial 
resources that were used with similar or complementary objectives. 

For a few MS, it was found that FEAD enabled the development of new interventions. 
This is the case in Austria, where two Federal States provided financial support to the 
most  deprived  at  the  beginning  of  the  school  year  but  FEAD  now  offers  material 
assistance  with  a  broader  geographical  scope.  FEAD  added  a  food  programme  to  the 
Estonian support for the most deprived, since no similar support was available before 
the  implementation  of  FEAD.  Malta  also  reported  additional  interventions  that  were 
enabled through FEAD support. In this case, an additional food distribution scheme that 
is  entirely  funded  through  national  resources  was  introduced  to  address  households 
which  are  not  eligible  under  the  FEAD  Programme  (reaches  out  to  about  20,000 
households). The Swedish experience is similar to Austria in that the MS set up FEAD 
support  under  OP  II  that  supplements  national  interventions  because  it  did  not  exist 
prior to FEAD. 

In Portugal, national funding supplemented FEAD before the order defining the OP could 
be published. Once EU-level funding arrived the contribution from the State budget was 
replaced. In Denmark FEAD projects might have been able to generate private funding 
too as the project holders to the two projects receiving funds from FEAD could possibly 
have applied for funds in a national private foundation. 

Conclusion, FEAD support plays an important role in supplementing national and local 
interventions, funded through public as well as private (third sector) resources. Through 

65 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

the supporting and strengthening of third sector organisations involved in distribution 
of  aid,  FEAD  also  plays  an  important  leveraging  role  by  supporting  the  collection  of 
additional  (private)  resources.  It  is  possible  that  a  displacement  effect  of  national 
funding  might  have  taken  place  in  a  few  instances,  although  clear  evidence  of  this 
cannot be gauged and would need further inspection and analysis. 

66 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.4 

Efficiency 

Key findings 

Gold plating 

  There is some evidence of excessive requirements for monitoring, management 
and control, in particular related to capturing data/information on operations 
and end recipients for monitoring purposes, lengthy documentation procedures 
and instructions, excessive procedures for the verification of end recipients and 
difficult financial procedures. 

Extent to which costs are justified 

  Overall,  FEAD  is  a  small  fund  (1%  of  EU  budget  for  cohesion  policy)  but  an 
essential  response  to  poverty  (reaching  15  million  people  in  2016,  double 
counting  included)  especially  for  people  who  cannot  obtain  other  forms  of 
support.  

  There  are  large  variations  in  the  unit  cost  per  person  and  per  kilo  in  OP  I 

programmes.  

  There  are  large  variations  also  in  the  cost  per  person  of  basic  material 
assistance, with some high costs possibly due to the content of support.  

  Accompanying measures have a low financial allocation (flat rate of 5%) but the 

potential for generating further results.  

  In many OP I countries, administrative costs for the distribution and delivery of 
food support are considered high by Managing Authorities, especially in relation 
to  the  budget  available  through  FEAD  and  for  the  number  of  end  recipients 
attended. 

  In OP II countries there are large variations in costs due to the different target 

groups and types of social inclusion measures these countries offer. 

  The FEAD generates indirect effects that cannot be costed (e.g. solidarity and 
cohesion, self-esteem and sense of belonging, prevention of social, health and 
humanitarian crises, leverage effects through volunteering and commitment of 
thousands of civil society organisations). 

Efficiency of operations for target groups 

  In OP I food support is the most common type of assistance and has been cost-
effective in alleviating food deprivation, especially for women and children, and 
has  also  been  cost-effective  in  addressing  the  homeless.  Food  packages  are 
more efficient when focusing on the needs of families with children, warm meals 
in social canteens for the homeless and people experiencing the worst forms of 
poverty and home delivery of food for the elderly.  

  In relation to basic material assistance, targeted individual school materials for 
school children and personal hygiene items for babies are more efficient.  

  Accompanying measures can be cost-effective in helping target groups towards 
social  inclusion,  especially  if  they  keep  their  ‘accompanying’  character,  i.e. 
offered together with food support. 

  In OP II social inclusion activities are cost-effective.  

  The capacity to address target group needs, local delivery and cooperation are 
key factors for the cost-effectiveness of operations in both OP I and OP II. 

Identification of end recipients 

  OP  I programmes use  mainly income eligibility criteria and end recipients are 
either registered already in minimum income support database or they have to 
accredit their situation of poverty through income statements and/or interviews 
with  social  services  or  similar  organisations.  Some  countries  undertake 

67 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

proactive  outreach  approaches  to  reach  end  recipients  who  are  at  risk  of 
remaining outside the system (e.g. homeless, Roma).  

  In  OP  II,  outreach  activities  are  the  main  channel  used  to  identify  the  end 

recipients.  

  In both OP I and OP II, local coordination and local networks play an important 

role in helping end recipients access FEAD support. 

Flat rates in OP I 

  Although flat rates under OP I simplify the activities of Partner Organisations, 

there are indications that the actual administrative costs are higher than 5%. 

  The flat rate of 5% for accompanying measures is also considered low by most 
countries although the potential of these measures for social inclusion is high. 

Scope for simplification 

  There are proposed simplifications encompassing all stages of the programming, 
from the set-up of management and control systems, the choice of selection 
criteria though to implementation, reporting and audit/evaluation.  

  Some  of  the  simplifications  are  related  to  the  EU  requirements,  notably, 
introducing  some  flexibility  in  the  flat  rates  for  logistics,  reducing  and 
simplifying reporting requirements. 

  Other simplifications are related to reducing gold plating on the side of Member 
States,  for  instance,  reducing  the  amount  of  paperwork,  reducing  the 
governance  layers  to  make  delivery  leaner,  simplifying  the  procurement 
procedures, simplifying the verification requirements for end recipients. 

  There  are  also  a  number  of  other  simplifications  proposed.  For  instance,  to 
increase  mutual  feedback  between  the  different  types  and  levels  of  control; 
greater use of information systems for better control of who the end recipients 
are,  what  they  receive  and  when;  to  offer  capacity  building  to  programme 
authorities  and  especially  to  delivery  organisations;  and  to  increase  the 
involvement  of  local  NGOs/social  services  in  selection  and  verification 
processes. 

  Simplifications  in  relation  to  evaluation  focus  on  the  rationalisation  of  data 
collection  (minimum,  accurate,  non-stigmatising  and  result  oriented).  In 
relation to audit, simplifications focus on reducing the number of controls and 
promoting the single audit principle. 

  The  current  system  of  shared  management  appears  to  be  working  well  and 
should be maintained, mainly due to its simplicity. Factors contributing to this 
are:  know-how  and  capacity  gained  during  previous  food  aid  programmes; 
good cooperation between the central/national and the local delivery level; the 
extensive network to reach those in need all over the country; the involvement 
of volunteers. 

  The  accumulated  experience  and  the  national  and  regional  knowledge  of 
poverty, social exclusion challenges and needs are also extremely valuable.  

  Should  a  new  umbrella  fund  be  introduced,  shared  management  should  be 
maintained while ensuring a closer link and cooperation between the different 
Funds,  proximity  to  the  needs  of  end  recipients  and  safeguarding  the  low 
threshold  nature  of  FEAD,  while  ring-fencing  funding  for  FEAD  measures  by 
establishing minimum percentages for instance. 

  The  flexibility  of  the  FEAD  allows  each  Member  State  to  adapt  it  to  the  local 
context by choosing to implement the most relevant programme to meet the 
needs of the most deprived.  

The  assessment  of  efficiency  takes  into  account  the  limitations  encountered  in  the 
process of evaluation, most notably the lack of suitable comparable data for comparing 

68 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD  with  similar  EU  and  national initiatives.  In  addition,  it has  not  been  possible  to 
assess the efficiency of accompanying measures in quantitative terms as there are no 
common indicators to allow for a comparative analysis. Furthermore, the quantification 
of administrative burdens is difficult as it is not an exercise that Member States have 
previously undertaken and therefore comparative quantitative evidence is scarce. 

Therefore, the analysis of efficiency is centred on: 

  The  operational  efficiency  of  food  support  under  OP  I  by  relating  inputs  to  the 
quantity  of  food  produced  across  Member  States.  For  this  SFC  data  on 
expenditure and output indicators were used. 

  Cost-effectiveness  of  FEAD  OP  I  by  comparing  its  two  principal  interventions, 
namely  food  support  and  basic  material  assistance.  For  this  SFC  data  on 
expenditure and result indicators were used. 

  The  operational  efficiency  of  social  inclusion  assistance  under  OP  II  by  relating 
inputs to the number of persons receiving assistance across Member States. For 
this SFC data on expenditure and output indicators were used. 

2.4.1.1  Is there any evidence of gold-plating34 at MS level in implementing the FEAD? 

Gold-plating is defined as the “administrative obligations going beyond the requirements 
set  at  EU  level.  It  encompasses  an  excess  of  norms,  guidelines  and  procedures 
accumulated at European, national, regional and programme levels interfering with the 
expected  policy  objectives”.  Gold-plating  tends  to  increase  administrative  costs  and 
burdens and should therefore be avoided. 

To assess gold-plating in the context of FEAD, we have aimed to identify areas where 
Member States tend to create additional requirements beyond what is stipulated by the 
relevant EU Regulations35. 

Based  on  the  information  provided  by  Member  States  on  the  procedures  and 
requirements they apply and through comparing these to the FEAD Regulation, we find 
no indication of gold plating in some MS  (BE, DE, DK, FI and LT). In these countries, 
the  selection  and  implementation  processes  do  not  increase  costs  beyond  what  is 
deemed necessary for the programme stakeholders.  

For other Member States, there is evidence of gold plating in the following areas: 

a) Monitoring the delivery of assistance. According to the FEAD Regulation, the MA 
should make available to the intermediary bodies (IB) and beneficiaries all the 
necessary information for the implementation of operations and record data on 
each operation36, while also developing several procedures for management and 
control of the programme.37 It does not specify the length of these documents or 
the  number  and  type  of  forms/tables/etc.  with  information  on  each  operation. 
Some countries require excessive documentation from Partner Organisations for 
recording information about end recipients and operations, for example: 

  In Austria, Slovenia, Romania and Slovakia, there is excessive paper trail 

through for instance filling in several (often lengthy) forms with information 
about the assistance delivered and the end recipients. A lot of this could be 
simplified with the use of the database or with sampling visits. 

  In Malta and Poland, additional reports are produced concerning personal data 
protection. Although the Regulation38 expects the processing of personal data 

34 Gold-plating is an expression which refers to Member States going beyond what is strictly required by EU 
legislation when they implement it at national level. This may enhance the benefits but can also add 
unnecessary costs for businesses and public authorities which are mistakenly associated with EU legislation. 
35 FEAD Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 and Common Provisions Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
36 Article 31 (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 
37 Annex IV, (3) of Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 
38 Article 19 (7) of Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 

69 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

to comply with the relevant Directive39, it does not require the production of 
additional reports on this matter. 

  The OPC results reveal complaints about very long questionnaires, demands 

to provide invoices and about the frequency of reporting. 

Registration of end recipients. In Greece for instance the requirement to register online 
creates an unnecessary burden while it may exclude some categories of end recipients 
(e.g. the homeless). 

Procedures and instructions about the programme. Some countries have produced long 
manuals, application packs and instructions although the Regulation does not  require 
the production of lengthy procedures and documents, e.g. in the Czech Republic a very 
long  application  pack  (19  documents  and  a  total  of  395  pages)  and  instructions  to 
applicants (140 pages), while the methodology for the delivery of assistance includes 
67 steps. Similarly in Greece, there is a very long procedures document (150 pages). 

Verification of the situation of end recipients. In Spain, Slovakia and Italy, the procedure 
to accredit one’s situation of poverty has imposed a heavy burden on scarcely equipped 
social services. Programme authorities consider this a non-necessary burden given that 
the delivery of food is done by ground level organisations that are (a) selected based 
on specific criteria and (b) close enough to the target group to be able to assess whether 
someone actually merits the support. In addition, the costs of verification may exceed 
the  amount  of  support  (e.g.  in  Italy,  verification  costs  EUR  20,  plus  costs  for  other 
certificates,  against  EUR  26.5  of  support  per  person  –  thus  FEAD  support  risks  to  be 
counterbalanced by administrative burden). The findings in Italy are backed up by the 
OPC  where  respondents  criticised  the  eligibility  rules  for  target  groups,  such  as  the 
verification based on a standardised income indicator. The OPC results further confirm 
the  issue  that  strict  verification  procedures  may  limit  the  capacity  of  FEAD  to  help 
everyone who is in need. 

National  public  procurement  rules.  The  Regulation  states  that  the  food  and/or  basic 
material assistance may be purchased by a public body and made available to Partner 
Organisations free of charge and should not unduly delay delivery of the goods and/or 
products to the Partner Organisations.40 However, in Greece, the national level public 
procurement  rules  make  public  purchases  too  lengthy  (they  take  approximately  2-3 
months, causing delays to the delivery of assistance). 

Conclusion:  Although  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  gold-plating  and 
administrative  burden,  there  is  some  evidence  of  excessive  requirements  for 
recording 
monitoring,  management  and  control, 
data/information on operations for monitoring purposes, lengthy documentation with 
procedures  and  instructions,  excessive  procedures  for  the  verification  of  end 
recipients and difficult financial procedures. 

in  particular 

related 

to 

2.4.2  To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the 

outputs/impacts that have been achieved? 

To assess the justification of costs, the following judgment criteria have been used: 

  FEAD interventions have alleviated material deprivation of individual target groups 

at a justifiable cost.  

  The unit costs for the provision of FEAD assistance are justified. 

  The administrative costs of the Member States administrations are justified.  

It  is  difficult  to  assess  the  FEAD  cost  per  person  given  that  (a)  the  programme 
management  involves  staff  costs  which  are  covered  by  salaries  of  public  sector 
organisations and not by FEAD, (b) the delivery often relies on volunteers whose costs 

39 Directive 95/46/EC 
40 Article 23 (4) of Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 

70 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

cannot be captured and (c) the quantity and frequency  of assistance also need to be 
taken into account.  

However,  given  existing  SFC  data  it  is  possible  to  analyse  the  costs  entailed  in  the 
delivery of FEAD assistance. The analysis looks first at OP I and second at OP II costs. 

OP I costs 

In relation to food support, we have analysed the unit cost (see table below) based on 
the following calculations: 

  Cost per kg = Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food support (input 
indicator 2a) / total quantity of food support distributed (common output indicator 
11).  

  Cost  per  person:  Total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by 
beneficiaries and paid in implementing operations  relating to provision of  food 
support  (input  indicator  2a)  /  total  number  of  persons  receiving  food  support 
(common result indicator 14) 

  Unit cost of food distributed in Euro (2016) 

Note: Number of persons in thousands 

Source: AIR2016 

Based on these calculations41, the average cost of food support is EUR 1.73 per kg of 
food  distributed  and  EUR  34  per  person  receiving  food  support.  There  are  important 
variations between Member States, with the cost per kg being expensive in Ireland (EUR 
5.35) and very cheap in Luxemburg (EUR 0.20). However, when looking at the cost per 
person, Ireland has one of the lowest costs (EUR 16) and Luxemburg has the average 
cost (34 EUR). Estonia, Latvia and Spain have amongst the highest costs per person but 
close to average cost per kg, while Spain has an even lower cost (just under EUR 1 per 
kg) and Romania and Slovenia have a low cost per kg and per person. 

Comparing some of the biggest EU countries, it can be seen that Spain with the highest 
cost  per  person  (EUR  61)  has  assisted  1.5  million  people,  while  France  and  Romania 
with a cost that is four times lower (EUR 16) have attended many more people (4.3 and 
3.3 million people respectively). Likewise, Poland with a close to average cost per person 
(EUR 39) has assisted 1.2 million people. Therefore, given that all these counties have 
a similar (relatively low) cost per kg (less than EUR 1), it can be inferred that in Spain 
the cost per person has been relatively high for the results produced. This is also partly 
explained by the higher quantity of food distributed in Spain (95,000 tonnes) than in 
France (80 thousand tonnes) or Romania (70,000 tonnes). 

Other interesting cases are the Baltic countries (Estonia Latvia, Lithuania). They all have 
a high cost per person (much higher than the average) and a similar cost per kg, but 
have  assisted  different  numbers  of  end  recipients:  Lithuania  has  assisted  219,000 
people, Latvia 61,500 and Estonia 29,500. 

41 Estimate based on the eligible costs divided by the amount of distributed aid and number of supported 
persons. In practice costs include also all expenses paid for accompanying measures and for technical 
assistance.  

71 

CountryLUSIROPLFRESSKGRCZITEELVBELTFIBGMTIEAverageCost per kg0.200.670.770.810.850.971.491.581.631.651.871.901.921.931.952.483.065.351.73    Cost per person34171639166126371220506142521345541634No of persons11.71813,2861,1834,3981,52814241059.82,77829.561.530121929027317.154.6 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

When looking at the composition of food support for a selected number of countries, it 
is  difficult  to  draw  conclusions  on  whether  high  or  low  costs  in  some  countries  are 
justified because of the composition of food support. For instance, there are high cost 
countries  that  focus  their  support  on  flour,  bread,  potatoes,  rice  and  other  starchy 
products (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria), but also low cost countries that have focused 
their support on the same items (e.g. Czech Republic, Finland). 

  At a cost of EUR 61 per person, Spain has principally provided milk (59%), followed 
by convenience food (18%), fruit and vegetables (17%), flour/bread/rice (15%), 
oils (7%) and meat/eggs (5%).  

  With  the  same  high  cost  of  EUR  61  per  person,  Estonia  has  provided  mainly 
flour/bread/rice (37%) and also meat (22%), while Latvia with also a high cost 
of 50 EUR per person has provided the bulk of support in flour/bread/rice (65%). 

  At EUR 37 per person, Greece provides mainly fruit and vegetables (41%), meat 

(13%) and flour (12%). 

  At the lower cost levels, at EUR 12 per person, the Czech Republic provides half 
of the support in convenience food and flour/bread/rice and Finland with 13 EUR 
per person provides the bulk of support in flour/bread/rice (70%). 

The analysis of this data in light of qualitative evidence from interviews reveals some 
factors that contribute to justifiable costs for the outputs achieved: 

  Ordering in bulk achieves a lower price per article purchased (EE, GR, ES, IT); an 

economies of scale effect. 

  Quality  control  at  various  stages  of  the  items  purchased  (purchase,  transport, 
distribution) ensures high quality is delivered for the cost involved (GR, ES, EE, 
and LV) – value for money effect. 

In relation to basic material assistance, the cost per person has been calculated as: 

Total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by  beneficiaries  and  paid  in 
implementing  operations  relating  to  provision  of  basic  material  assistance  (input 
indicator 2b) / Number of persons receiving basic material assistance (result indicator 
19) 

  Cost per person of basic material assistance in EUR (2016) 

Source: SFC2014 

*Slovakia does not report data for indicator 2b 

The  cost  of  basic  material  assistance  per  person  is  highest  in  Austria  and  lowest  in 
Greece and the Czech Republic. The content of basic material assistance is school bags 
and  school  items  in  Austria  and  hygiene  items  -  mainly  for  babies  -  in  the  other 
countries, with Latvia offering both hygiene items and school packages.  

The  low  cost  in  Greece  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  reports  the  same  number  of  end 
recipients  as  for  food  assistance,  although  not  all  of  them  in  practice  receive  basic 
material assistance42. The high cost in Austria (EUR 70.8 per person) may be justified 
by  the  content  of  basic  material  assistance  focusing  exclusively  on  school  bags  and 
school  items  (rather  more  costly  than  hygiene  items).  This  may  also  explain  the 
relatively high cost for Latvia (EUR 35.7), which also includes school items in its basic 
material assistance. Comparing the Czech Republic and Luxemburg which deliver similar 
items (basic hygiene), the Czech Republic shows a lower cost per person while assisting 

42 This figure should be corrected in future SFC reporting. 

72 

CountryATCZGRLULVSK*Cost per person 70.788.588.2813.1235.67n/aNumber of persons40,99441,417410,00011,72819,657112,059 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

a  higher  number  of  persons  than  Luxemburg.  This  difference  in  costs  may  be  due  to 
differences in the content and frequency of support. 

In relation to the costs of accompanying measures, they are delivered at a flat rate 
of 5% of the costs of purchasing food and other basic material assistance.43 Although 
the Regulation leaves room for manoeuvre in terms of content of such measures 44, the 
5% allocation does not allow for more substantial support (e.g. psychological support, 
labour  market  itineraries,  social  inclusion  skills,  etc.),  therefore  most  Member  States 
have  chosen  to  deliver  information  and  advice  (through  e.g.  leaflets),  cookery  and 
healthy  eating  courses,  and  in  some  cases  also  more  direct  support  such  as 
referrals/orientation and direct social service support.  

The results of interviews reveal a clear need to offer deprived people, in addition to food 
and  basic  material  assistance,  the  tools  necessary  to  exit  out  of  poverty  and  social 
exclusion.  Therefore,  the  link  between  FEAD  accompanying  measures  and  other 
instruments (e.g. ESF) that offer such type of support should become stronger. At the 
moment, even though accompanying measures provide information and advice on social 
services and other delivery mechanisms, there are no follow-up process to assess the 
extent  to  which  end  recipients  have  actually  used  this  information  to  obtain  further 
assistance from social services. 

In relation to administrative costs for distribution and delivery, these are considered 
high by programme bodies. The evidence shows: 

  High monitoring costs related to paper trail (e.g. long application packs in the CZ, 
lengthy  documents  with  evidence  on  end  recipients  in  AT,  SI,  RO,  lengthy 
procedures manuals in GR, etc.). This results in too many forms have to be filled 
in and databases updated – bureaucratic procedures increase costs. 

  High distribution costs from the IBs to Partner Organisations (ES, CY, GR. RO. SI) 
due  to  several  layers  involved  (e.g.  purchase  by  IBs,  transport  to  Partner 
Organisations,  storage  in  Partner  Organisation  premises,  packaging  and 
distribution to delivery points) resulting in organisation intensive distribution.  

  High delivery costs from Partner Organisations to end recipients (AT, GR, ES, BG, 
EE, SI, LT, RO, SI) due to the need for several people (staff and volunteers) to 
hand  out  food  items/packages  and  basic  material  assistance  (clothes,  school 
articles, personal and hygiene items, etc.). In countries that offer the option to 
deliver  food  at  home  (e.g.  EE)  the  delivery  costs  are  even  higher  –  resource 
intensive delivery. In countries with a limited volunteering culture (e.g. GR), the 
cost  of  public  resources  delivering  food  to  end  recipients  is  relatively  high.  In 
Romania,  the  costs  of  FEAD  are  high  for  relatively  small  effects  (3.2  million 
attended in 2016, when 42% of the population is at risk of poverty and social 
exclusion). National programmes in this country provide financial aid with less 
logistics and implementation costs. 

Overall, although administrative costs have scope for reduction, the delivery costs are 
considered high but necessary in order for assistance to reach those most in need.  

OP II costs 

In OP II countries which offer social inclusion support, the cost per person was calculated 
as: 

The  total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by  beneficiaries  and  paid  in 
implementing operations (input indicator 2) / Total number of persons receiving social 
inclusion assistance (common output indicator 20). 

43 Article 26 (2) (e) of Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 
44 They are additional activities aiming at alleviating social exclusion, such as guidance on a balanced diet, 
budget management advice (Article 1 (11)), reorientation towards competent services (Article 8), etc. 

73 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Cost per person of OP II assistance in EUR (2016) 

Source: SFC2014 

Germany has a relatively low cost per person offering street-work, outreach activities 
and  individual  counselling  to  migrants  and  to  homeless  and  specific  activities 
(workshops, leisure and educational activities) for migrant parents and their children in 
order  to  improve  the  access  of  these  children  to  education.  Germany  is  currently 
organising a cost-benefit analysis as part of its ongoing evaluation45. 

Denmark follows Germany with a higher cost per person offering outreach activities to 
homeless people (to attract them to shelters for instance) but also more specific social 
initiatives to help them break out of isolation (e.g. networking, social clubs). 

Sweden,  with  a  cost  of  almost  EUR  700  per  person,  addresses  socially  excluded 
foreigners residing in Sweden for less than 3 months, offering them social orientation 
(language,  information  on  their  rights,  directing  them  to  shelters,  social  events)  and 
health  promotion  (information  on  personal  hygiene  and  protecting  from  illness) 
activities. 

Finally, the Netherlands, with a relatively high cost per person, addresses elderly people 
offering  them  awareness  raising  on  the  support  they  can  access,  social  networking 
activities  with  further  capacity  building  activities  that  may  explain  the  relative  higher 
cost. The latter includes workshops and coaching to improve skills (e.g. digital skills). 
The programme in the Netherlands started late, therefore more information in the future 
may enlighten further the reasons for the relatively high cost per person. 

High costs in OP II type programmes may be acceptable at the beginning due to people 
taking up existing offers but social integration of target groups would in the long-term 
reduce the costs to the public purse. The issue with assessing the cost effectiveness of 
OP  II  activities  is  that  results  can  only  be  seen  by  following  up  the  individual  end 
recipients by going with them to the regular services. Otherwise, it is very difficult to 
know whether for instance the  counselling or the workshop lead to better integration 
and further knock-on effects. 

Conclusions:  In  conclusion, in  OP  I  countries,  there  are  large  variations  in  the  unit 
cost per person and per kg. There are large variations also in the cost per person of 
basic  assistance,  with  some  high  costs  possibly  due  to  the  content  of  support. 
Accompanying measures have a low allocation but potential for more results. In many 
OP I countries, administrative costs for the distribution and delivery of food support 
are considered high, especially in relation to the budget available through FEAD and 
for the number of end recipients attended. 

In  OP  II  countries  there  are  large  variations  in  costs  possibly  due  to  the  different 
target groups and types of social inclusion measures these countries offer.  

Overall it can be argued that although FEAD is not in itself self-sufficient to deal with 
the gravity of the EU’s social problems (it receives only 1% of the funds allocated to 
the EU’s cohesion policy), it is still an essential response to poverty. FEAD provides 
support to millions of people living in poverty and in many cases unable to access any 
other  form  of  assistance.  In  2016,  FEAD  supported  the  food  needs  of  15  million 
people, for instance it enabled assistance for 4.4 million people in France, 1.5 million 
in Spain, 3.3, million in Romania and almost 2.8 million in Italy.  

In addition, there are many indirect effects that cannot be costed and which contribute 
to  the  benefits  of  FEAD  (e.g.  social  solidarity  and  cohesion  in  local  communities, 

45 Results to be included in the final report. 

74 

CountryDEDKNLSECost per person167.21478.952,047.65697.31No of persons21,614474281582 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

increased  self-esteem  and  sense  of  belonging  for  deprived  people,  prevention  of 
social, health and humanitarian crises, leverage effects through the extensive use of 
voluntary action and commitment of thousands of civil society organisations). 

2.4.3  What type of operations for which target group proves to be most 

cost-effective46 and efficient and why? 

To answer this question, we analyse the target groups and content of support as well 
as the factors that contribute to effectiveness and efficiency. 

OP I – Food and basic material support and target groups 

Food support is the most common type of assistance and absorbs the bulk of FEAD 
funds  (EUR  407  million  compared  to  EUR  7.5  million  for  basic  material  assistance47). 
This has proved effective in alleviating food deprivation, especially for people in extreme 
conditions, such as homeless people and those experiencing the worst forms of poverty. 

As already described in the effectiveness chapter (2.2), in terms of target groups, there 
is generally a high share of women (47%) and children (almost 30%%), although other 
target  groups  are  significant  in  some  countries,  e.g.  migrants  in  Luxemburg  (almost 
70%) and Italy (38%), the homeless in Czech Republic (25%),  old people in Bulgaria 
(38%) and Romania (25%).  48In the  countries that addressed more homeless people 
(CZ, IE, SI, IT) it is evident that to make the assistance more cost-effective, qualified 
personnel are required. 

In terms of the content of food support for different target groups, food packages are 
cost-effective  for  covering  a  large  number  of  end  recipients,  especially  families  with 
children, while warm meals cover a smaller number but are cost-effective for addressing 
end recipients who need food on a daily basis, i.e. people experiencing the worst forms 
of poverty.  

In  relation  to  basic  material  assistance,  the  main  recipients  are  also  women  and 
children.  SFC  gives  the  monetary  value  of  goods  for  children  which  enables  us  to 
calculate the value per child in the countries that offer basic material assistance. The 
results are depicted in the figure below.  

Greece shows the highest efficiency by addressing over 100,000 children at the lowest 
cost (EUR 5.12 per child). Slovakia is also efficient supporting 66,500 children at a cost 
of  EUR  3.72  per  child).  At  the  other  end  is  Austria  which  supported  almost  34,000 
children at a high cost (EUR 79 per child), followed by Latvia which supported 14,400 
children at EUR 42 per child. In terms of the content of basic material assistance, school 
material is effective for students and personal hygiene items for babies. 

46 The evaluation question in the terms of reference refers to effectiveness but as we are dealing in these 
chapters with efficiency, we have actually analysed cost-effectiveness. 
47 AIRs 2016 
48 The figures are not cumulative, i.e. one category may include another, e.g. women may include 
immigrants, old people, etc…. 

75 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Efficiency of basic material assistance for children (2016) 

Source: SFC2014 

The interviews identified certain factors that contributed to the  efficiency of food and 
basic material assistance in OP I countries, notably the capacity to address very specific 
needs of target groups and tailor the type of delivery to these conditions/needs, e.g.: 

  Food  and  basic  material  assistance  for  homeless  people  was  more  efficient  if 
delivered  in  social  canteens  where  they  can  access  on  a  daily/frequent  basis 
rather than if delivered to delivery points where food is distributed in packages 
(homeless people do not cook, while social canteens offer cooked food). 

  Delivery  of  food  and  basic  material  assistance  for  families  to  local  branches  to 

spare them transport costs. 

  Home  delivery  of  food  to  elderly  people  and  groups  in  extreme  situations.  In 
addition, elderly people are less prone to ask for help because of a stronger sense 
of  shame,  therefore  it  is  better  not  to  make  them  go  out  to  receive  their  food 
packages. 

  Delivery of targeted individual school material for children and personal  hygiene 

items for new born children in deprived families. 

  Delivery  of  cooked  meals  for  people  who  need  immediate  support.  Latvia,  for 
instance, has successfully implemented the ‘soup kitchens’  which offer cooked 
meals  available  for  consumption  or  to  take  away.  This  has  proved  efficient  in 
reaching persons in crisis or emergency situations (status granted by the local 
government). 

The OPC results show a higher cost-effectiveness of actions to alleviate food deprivation 
(75% of OP I respondents). Activities striving to reduce basic material deprivation were 
cost-effective but not as much as food support (42.5% of respondents).  

OP I - Accompanying measures and target groups 

In  relation  to  accompanying  measures,  the  provision  of  psychological,  social  and 
other support suggests that accompanying measures may be cost-effective in enabling 
target groups to move towards social inclusion. With the 5% flat rate assigned to these 
measures for instance, Spain can provide inter alia personalised support and orientation 
to  the  appropriate  social,  educational  and  employment  services  and  other  actions  as 
pathways to employment (labour market intermediation, training). These services were 
formalised by Royal Decree in 2016. In Greece, one of the partnerships hired specialists 
(speech  therapist,  psychologist,  dietary  advisor)  following  a  needs  assessment  based 

76 

79.2111.675.1242.063.720102030405060708090020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000ATCZGRLVSKValue per childNumber of childrenBasic material assistance for childrenNumber of children aged 15 years or belowValue per child 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

on  a  consultation  with  municipalities.  They  offer  psychological  support  and  dietary 
advice to end recipients according to their needs.  

These accompanying measures proved to be cost-effective when tailored to the needs 
of  different  target  groups.  For  instance,  more  social  type  activities  for  the  homeless, 
language  support  and  socialising  events  for  the  integration  of  immigrants,  speech 
therapists for children, psychological support for poor families with dependent children, 
etc.  In  relation  to  labour  market  needs,  people  in  poverty  are  either  not  able  or  not 
allowed  to  work.  Social  activities  organised  through  FEAD  offer  viable  alternatives  to 
develop personal and professional skills to reintegrate into society and find employment. 

It is early to assess the actual results of these measures. Although it would seem that 
efficiency is low in accompanying measures, it is actually the low level of funding that 
prevents the production of substantial results.  

Accompanying  measures  in  the  content  of  FEAD  should  not  be  offered  in  isolation  to 
food support. Food aid is an important entry point for providing further social support 
services. People who come to receive food aid often have more substantial underlying 
social issues and providing them with access to support services which can help them 
address  these  more  structural issues.  This  is  key  in  helping  them  out of  poverty  and 
ultimately fully reintegrating them into society. 

OP II – target groups 

OP  II  social  inclusion  activities  are  targeted  to  specific  target  groups  in  each  country 
(grey cells in the table below): migrants in Germany and Sweden, homeless in Denmark 
and to some extent also in Germany and elderly (retired people) in the Netherlands. Of 
these, a significant proportion are women, except in the case of Denmark which deals 
with  homeless  people  who  are  mostly  men.  Children  are  significant  only  in  Germany 
(10%), notably the children of migrants. 

Target groups of OP II (2016) 

Source: SFC2014 

This  targeted  support  is  expected  to  be  cost-effective  in  contributing  to  the  social 
inclusion  of  these  groups  (it  is  still  early  to  see  significant  results).  The  low  cost-
effectiveness of the Netherlands compared to the rest may be due to the fact that it is 
the only MS implementing activities for strengthening the skills and competences of the 
elderly  (retired  with  a  low  disposable  income).  The  others  offer  mainly  networking, 
outreach, counselling and leisure activities. 

The OPC results showed a high cost effectiveness of social inclusion activities (78.85% 
of  respondents),  especially  amongst  German  respondents  (81%),  which  confirms  the 
results above of a low cost per person supported in Germany. 

The interviews revealed that the main success factors are cooperation at the lowest, i.e. 
local,  level  which  may  bring  the  best  results  (Germany)  and  the  capacity  to  address 
target group social inclusion needs (e.g. reproductive health needs for women in Sweden 
or early education needs of migrant children in Germany). 

Conclusions:  In  conclusion,  in  OP  I,  food  support  is  the  most  common  type  of 
assistance and has been cost-effective in alleviating food deprivation, especially for 
women  and  children,  and  has  also  been  cost-effective  in  addressing  the  homeless. 

77 

CountryChildrenElderlyWomenMigrants, minoritiesDisabledHomelessCost per personDE10%2%48%71%3%24%167DK0%5%14%99%0%100%479NL0%100%75%31%1%0%2,048SE2%0%62%100%0%99%697Total9%3%48%72%3%27% 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Food packages are more efficient for the needs of families with children, warm meals 
in  social  canteens  for  the  homeless  and  people  experiencing  the  worst  forms  of 
poverty and home delivery of food for the elderly.  

Basic material assistance has benefited mainly women and children, while in terms of 
content, targeted individual school material for school children and personal hygiene 
items for babies are more efficient.  

There  are  indications  that  accompanying  measures  can  be  cost-effective  in  helping 
target  groups  towards  their  social  inclusion,  especially  if  they  keep  their 
‘accompanying’ character, i.e. offered together with food support. 

In OP II, social inclusion activities are cost-effective, especially in Germany, due to 
the low cost per person. In all OP II countries the activities are expected to be cost-
effective in contributing to social inclusion.  

The  capacity  to  address  target  group  needs  and  local  delivery  and  cooperation  are 
key factors for the cost-effectiveness of operations in both OP I and OP II. 

2.4.4  What is the feasibility of alternative delivery mechanisms and support 

modes for the provision of support to the most deprived (e.g. shared 
management, indirect management, budget support)? 

FEAD  is  implemented  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  shared  management.  This 
means that the implementation tasks of FEAD are delegated to Member States.  

In practice, FEAD OPs are implemented through ‘Partner Organisations’, namely public 
bodies and/or non-profit organisations that deliver food and/or basic material assistance 
to  the  most  deprived  combined,  where  applicable,  with  accompanying  measures  (OP 
type I) or that will carry out activities aiming at the social inclusion of the most deprived 
persons (OP type II).  

The analysis of the FEAD delivery system based on shared management has identified 
the following success factors49: 

  Building on experiences and lessons learned from previous food aid programmes; 

  Good cooperation between the central/national and the local delivery level; 

  Extensive network to reach those in need all over the country; 

  Involvement of volunteers given that resources are not always sufficient to cover 

the human resources needs, especially at the delivery stage; 

  Adaptation to the conditions of the end recipients, such as: delivery of prepared 
meals  in  the  street  or  social  canteens  for  homeless  people;  delivery  of  food 
packages to people who can cook; home delivery to people with disabilities; and 
self-service at delivery centres to put the end-recipient in a consumer situation. 
Well trained staff at the delivery points so they can listen to the end recipients’ 
problems  and  redirect  them  to  other  types  of  assistance  they  may  need  (e.g. 
social services). 

Alternative delivery mechanisms that could be considered include indirect management, 
direct  management,  a  combination  of  direct  and  indirect  management  and  budget 
support. The feasibility of these alternative delivery mechanisms has been analysed in 
the focus groups that took place at EU level and in selected Member States. There was 
almost  unanimous  support  for  the  current  system  of  shared  management.  The 
arguments for maintaining the shared management of FEAD include: 

  Accumulated experience with shared management. Shared management is a well-
established system and Partner Organisations have become familiar with it. There 
are clear requirements and infrastructure in place which should not be lost.  

49 Source: interviews 

78 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  National and regional know-how essential. The Member States are more aware of 
the  poverty  and  social  inclusion  challenges  in  their  countries  and  in  a  better 
position than the EU to decide where help is most needed and what works best. 
In OP II in particular, municipalities are also involved in the shared management 
structure  and  have  responsibilities  in  programme  implementation  and  adapting 
the FEAD structure into their regular system. This should be maintained.  

  Indirect management is not pertinent. There are too many regional differences to 
apply indirect management, while it would not allow FEAD to align with national 
policies. The national level knows the reality better than the EC and can identify 
target groups more easily.  

  Direct management is not pertinent either. It entails the weakness of the EC not 
being close to local realities, which is very important in the case of FEAD where 
the needs of end recipients need to be well known in order to deliver the optimal 
quantity and quality. 

  Budget  support  is  not  pertinent.  Budget  support  would  not  help  achieve  the 

objectives of the programme and would be more open to misuse. 

  A combination of shared management and budget support may also work. It would 
give more flexibility and budget for accompanying measures and for particular 
measures responding to real needs of end recipients. 

Welfare organisations and NGOs involved in FEAD welcome an increase in efficiency and 
the  strengthening  of  support  chains  should  a  closer  link  between  FEAD  and  ESF  be 
established in the form of an  ESF+  for instance.  However,  funding for ESF and FEAD 
measures in this case, need to be ring-fenced according to a pre-determined minimum 
percentage. 

FEAD could only work with the ESF through a common management and control system 
under the condition that the relatively low administrative burden and the low threshold 
of  FEAD  are  maintained.  Otherwise,  FEAD  should  not  be  combined  with  ESF  for  the 
following reasons: 

  It would make FEAD more complex since the ESF is much more bureaucratic. 

  The FEAD and ESF target groups are not the  same;  if they were to be merged, 

some end recipients may not be reached. 

  The flexibility to choose the FEAD target group would be lost. 

  However,  synergies  between  FEAD  and  ESF  should  increase,  especially  for 
accompanying  measures  under  OP  I  and  for  social  inclusion  measures  under 
OP II. 

The FEAD network meeting of November 2017 introduced the possibility of establishing 
a human capital umbrella fund that would cover all the existing funds: ESF, FEAD, EaSI, 
and YEI. This human capital fund would be managed in shared management or directly, 
and  would  unite  the  social  inclusion  aspects  of  the  ESF  and  the  FEAD.  It  would 
apparently not have an overall strategy but be mainly guided by the  country specific 
recommendations. It would also have fewer indicators. If such an umbrella fund is to be 
introduced, there are certain elements that would be important to maintain or introduce: 

  Improving the link between the different funds; 

  Ensuring that the low threshold nature of the FEAD measures is maintained; 

  Ensuring that there are fewer rather than more indicators; 

  Ensuring  greater  communication  between  the  ESF  and  FEAD  monitoring 

committees; 

  Encouraging European solutions to European problems; 

  Ensuring  that  sight  is  not  lost  of  the  end  recipients  in  the  devising  of  the 

programmes. 

79 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Conclusion: There are strong arguments for keeping the FEAD delivery mechanism of 
shared  management,  mainly  because  of  its  simplicity,  the  accumulated  experience 
and the national and regional knowledge of poverty and social exclusion challenges 
and needs. This view is shared by interviewees, focus group participants as well as 
participants in the FEAD Network meeting in November 2017. 

Should  a  new  umbrella  fund  be  introduced,  shared  management  can  still  be 
maintained while ensuring a closer link and cooperation between the different Funds, 
proximity to the needs of end recipients and safeguarding the low threshold nature of 
FEAD  while  ring-fencing  funding  for  FEAD  measures  by  establishing  minimum 
percentages for instance.  

2.4.5  Does the procedure for identifying the end recipients facilitate access 

to FEAD assistance? 

OP I 

The identification of end recipients in OP I is based mainly on income criteria, except for 
the homeless who are reached mainly with the help of social services. When these are 
used, income is checked through income statements that end recipients must supply to 
the  relevant  authorities  or  through  the  databases  of  national  or  local  authorities 
(including  databases  on  recipients  of  social  benefits  or  minimum  guarantee  income). 
These are the cases of Spain, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Romania 
and Austria. 

In some other countries, a more global assessment of one’s situation is carried out to 
identify end recipients, including the following examples: 

  In France and Luxemburg, the individual situation of each person is analysed by 
Partner Organisations / social services with the help of external social workers. 
This  assessment  determines  the  appropriate  type  and  provision  of  support.  In 
France,  there  is  also  the  possibility  to  receive  emergency  support  where  no 
identification is necessary. 

  In Romania, end recipients do not need to register or provide anything. The lists 
with the beneficiaries qualifying for aid are prepared by the local authorities. 

  In Finland, the approach is even more open as there is no procedure for identifying 
the end recipients. As the FEAD support is based on open access and equality, 
the  definition  of  end  recipients  is  a  subjective  one.  This  means  a  person  who 
feels that they need food aid will receive FEAD food aid at the food aid distribution 
event / location. The aim is to lower the threshold for food aid so that everyone 
in need of food aid can receive it and be guided to supporting services. 

There is therefore a diversity of procedures to identify end recipients. For some of them, 
access to FEAD assistance is not easy  as they cannot be reached by  these processes 
(e.g. homeless, Roma). This is why some countries have undertaken steps to facilitate 
access to the most difficult to reach target groups, including:  

  Longer  delivery  periods.  In  order  to  reach  more  isolated  target  groups  such  as 
homeless people and minorities such as Roma, the delivery periods in Greece last 
longer so as to give time to partners to find and inform these end recipients that 
their support has arrived. 

  Use of local networks. The organisations involved in FEAD in Slovenia and Spain 
use  comprehensive  networks  and  centres  throughout  the  country  in  order  to 
reach vulnerable groups. Local networks have the advantage that they are well 
known  to  target  groups,  while  the  support  of  volunteers  enhances  their 
accessibility to target groups. 

  Use  the  right  typologies  of  organisations  for  outreach.  In  Finland  and  Ireland, 
different types of organisations reach different categories of target groups, e.g. 

80 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

mental  health  associations  for  people  with  disabilities,  association  for  the 
unemployed for unemployed people, etc. 

There are however still some drawbacks that programme authorities need to address, 
including: 

  The  potential  ‘re-ranking  effect’.  For  example,  a  family  in  Italy  with  a  2,999 
composite family indicator will receive help, whereas another one with 3,001 will 
not  be  eligible.  As  a  consequence,  the  FEAD  effect  will  trigger  re-ranking,  i.e.: 
after the effect of the policy, the poorer family before the treatment becomes the 
richer one afterwards. 

  The broad definition of target groups may not  facilitate access to those most in 

need. 

  Proving  the  eligibility  criteria is  complicated  and  partly  bureaucratic,  raising  the 
question whether some people in real need may not have proof to comply with 
eligibility criteria and are being excluded from the support system as a result. 

Against  this  background,  the  access  of  end  recipients  to  FEAD  assistance  can  be 
facilitated in the future if programme authorities undertake actions that aim to digitalise, 
individualise  and  simplify  the  verification  process  of  end  recipients  (see  below  3.5.7 
suggestions for simplification). 

OP II 

In  OP  II type programmes, proactive approaches have been used to  identify the  end 
recipients. 

In the countries that target immigrants (Germany, Sweden), the identification of end 
recipients is primarily based on outreach activities. This includes the creation of meeting 
or  gathering  places  in  Sweden  where  local  municipalities  can  collaborate  with  civil 
society. In addition, mobile teams perform outreach work in the street and in temporary 
settlements, both in Sweden and Germany. 

In  the  Netherlands,  which  targets  pensioners  with  very  low  income,  the  approach  of 
using hostesses to approach the target group is considered to be one of the key success 
factors of the project and therefore facilitates access to FEAD assistance. On the other 
hand, the absence of an unambiguous working definition of the target group, seems to 
make  it  more  difficult  for  the  hostesses  to  identify  whether  or  not  a  senior  person 
belongs to the target group. 

Conclusions:  In  conclusion,  OP  I  programmes  use  mainly  income  eligibility  criteria 
and end recipients are either registered already in minimum income support database 
or they have to accredit their situation of poverty through income statements and/or 
interviews  with  social  services  or  similar.  Some  countries  undertake  proactive 
outreach approaches to reach end recipients who are at risk of remaining outside the 
system  (e.g.  homeless,  Roma).  In  OP  II,  outreach  activities  are  the  main  channel 
used to identify the end recipients. In both OP I and OP II, local coordination and local 
networks play an important role in helping end recipients access FEAD support. 

2.4.6  Does the use of flat rates under OP I simplify the implementation of 

operations by Partner Organisations? 

A flat rate as defined in Article 26(2)(c) of Regulation is used to cover the administration, 
transport and storage costs for the Partner Organisations. The evidence overall suggests 
that the use of flat rates for OP I simplifies implementation of operations in most Member 
States (AT, BG, EE, ES, FR, GR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK). The advantages of 
flat rates include: 

  An accountable system with legal certainty; 

81 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  They  contribute  to  reducing  the  administrative  burden  through  simplifying  the 

process and reducing the production of documents; 

  They simplify the calculation of the amount to be paid to Partner Organisations. 

However, 5% is considered a low rate by most countries (AT, BG, EE, ES, FR, GR, HU, 
LU, LT, MT, PL, PT, SK), given the high administrative burden, while also the increasing 
number  of  end  recipients  increases  overheads.  More  specifically,  the  administrative 
costs for transport, logistics and controlling50 are higher than the flat rate allows, so a 
higher flat rate or a rate based on real costs would be more appropriate. 

The 5% allocated to the accompanying measures51 is far too low for these measures to 
achieve their expected result of contributing to the social inclusion of deprived people. 
The accompanying measures are  resource-intensive activities that need specific skills 
and good planning, which is why they have not been used much by Member States so 
far. However, their potential for contributing to social inclusion is widely recognised. If 
the flat rate does not increase, a different approach should be adopted to encourage the 
use of accompanying measures. For instance, focus on specific measures closely tailored 
to the needs of individual end recipients. The FEAD Network meeting of November 2017 
also  stressed  the  importance  of  individualised  support  for  families  and  of  taking  into 
account the different social systems across Member States in the EU. Another option 
may  be  to  focus  accompanying  measures  on  the  provision  of  effective  and  detailed 
information on further social assistance and encourage end recipients to access other 
sources of social inclusion support such as ESF and other national programmes. 

Conclusion:  Although  flat  rates  under  OP  I  simplify  the  activities  of  Partner 
Organisations, the actual administrative costs do not justify a rate of only 5%. The 
flat  rate  for  accompanying  measures  is  also  considered  low  by  most  countries 
although  the  potential  of  these  measures  for  social  inclusion  is  high.  The  scope  of 
accompanying measures could be narrowed in order to cope with the low flat rate. 

2.4.7 

Is there any scope for simplification? 

Scope for simplification has been identified in most countries. Proposals for simplification 
are offered  along the FEAD delivery process,  from its set up to evaluation and audit. 
The following common steps were assessed: 

Management and control systems, including information systems: For some countries, 
especially those new to the Fund, setting up management and  control systems was a 
challenge (IR, HR, HU, MT, and LU). Suggestions for simplifications include: 

a)  The  management  calendar  to  coincide  with an  annual  planning  that  takes  into 
account the peak periods, e.g. in winter months there is a higher need for food and 
for certain basic material assistance items. 

b)  Reduce  the  amount  of  paperwork  required  for  management  and  control 
purposes, e.g. reduce the requirement to show each individual proof of payment for 
material  costs,  reduce  the  number  of  documents  to  be  verified.  Some  Red  Cross 
branches for instance have resorted to hiring help for the paperwork. In Spain too, 
some  volunteers  are  discouraged  from  participating  as  they  want  to  be  helping 
people and not filling in endless forms. 

c)  Avoid duplications. Given the large numbers of end recipients, especially in the 
larger MS (ES, PL, RO, FR, IT), duplications may occur where end recipients access 

50 According to Article 26.2.c of the FEAD Regulation, eligible costs include administrative, transport and 
storage costs at a flat rate of 5%. 
51 According to Article 26.2.e of the FEAD Regulation, eligible costs include the costs of accompanying 
measures at a flat rate of 5% of the costs of purchasing food and other material assistance. 

82 

Evaluation/AuditReportingImplementation, e.g. procurement, flat ratesSelection criteria, operations, POsSet of MCS incl. Info systems 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

more than one delivery point. One approach to  resolve this is via an  information 
system  to  record  and  control  delivery  process.  There  is  however  the  issue  of 
personal data protection to take into account but many large Partner Organisations 
(e.g. national level associations and food banks) already have such tools in place. 
Another approach is to merge delivery points in the same area and gain economies 
of scale as well as well as reduce the risk of duplication of support. This approach 
has already been implemented successfully in the municipality of Barcelona in Spain 
where delivery organisations (food banks) cooperate to ensure effective access of 
end recipients to the FEAD support.  

d)  Increasing  mutual  feedback  between  the  different  types  and  levels  of 
control, (e.g. with controls by intermediary bodies and by Partner Organisations, 
administrative/financial  and  quality  controls)  and  potentially  also  reducing  the 
number of first level controls. 

e)  Simplifying  governance,  especially  in  countries  with  too  many  layers  involved 
(Spain, Italy) or involvement of a high number of stakeholders lacking capacity and 
ownership  (Czech  Republic).  Reducing  these  governance  layers  would  make  the 
delivery  leaner  and  coordination  simpler.  In  small  countries  in  particular  (e.g. 
Belgium),  it  may  be  more  efficient  to  have  a  leaner  governance  system,  with  no 
intermediary bodies or different departments having to manage different parts of 
the  programme.  In  larger  countries  (e.g.  Spain)  it  may  be  more  efficient  to  rely 
where possible on organisations that already have a network and distribution and 
delivery experience across the country (e.g. the Red Cross, food banks, etc.). 

Selection criteria (for operations, Partner Organisations, end recipients):  

a)  Better  focus  on  those most  in  need.  This  could  be  done  by  introducing  some 
filters or additional criteria in order to address specific groups of end recipients, for 
instance  single  parent  families.  A  social  research  study  in  each  country  can  be  a 
good source of information to this end. 

b)  Greater involvement of local NGOs / flexibility in the identification of end 
recipients.  The  advantages  of  this  is  the  individualised  assessment  and  trust 
between NGOs and end recipient, which makes the process more flexible and less 
stigmatising. The FEAD Network meeting in November 2017 reinforced this option 
by underlining the importance  of trusting the Partner  Organisations  – who are in 
direct  contact  with  end  recipients  on  a  daily  basis.  It  involves  empowerment  of 
frontline workers on the ground to actively address poverty and social exclusion. 
Some local authorities/social services already run their own social programmes and 
FEAD may just add to this help and complement on costs and diversity.  

c)  Improving the content of the food  basket according to  different needs  of 
end  recipients  -  one  option  may  be  a  survey  amongst  delivery  organisations  to 
determine  needs  and  thus  the  optimal  content  of  the  food  basket.  Consider  also 
simpler  food  items  such  as  pre-cooked  food,  easy  to  open  cans,  packaged  food, 
etc., while ensuring a balance that reduces the generation of large undelivered stock 
(food waste). 

Implementation  of  assistance.  This  involves  the  purchase  and  delivery  of  food,  the 
verification  of  end  recipients,  and  the  use  of  flat  rates.  This  is  an  area  with  further 
suggestions for simplification: 

a)  Simplify  the  purchase  of  food.  The  purchase  of  food  is  based  on  public 
procurement  rules  which  tend  to  be  complex  and  lengthy  and  are  especially 
burdensome for non-profit organisations (CY, GR, FR, SK, RO, and CZ). The model 
of a ‘framework contractor’, possible under existing procurement rules, should be 
followed  so  that  the  Partner  Organisations  can  focus  on  managing  the  operation 
overall and ensuring the delivery to end recipients. 

b)  Simplify verification requirements. In some countries (ES, GR, HU, IT, SI), the 
request  to  accredit  one’s  condition  of  deprivation  increases  the  administrative 
burden  and  causes  delays  in  delivery.  Simplification  may  involve  unification  of 

83 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

verification  through  a  unique  body  in  each  municipality  (suggested  in  Spain)  or 
providing verification through ‘Helpdesks’ that cover several Partner Organisations 
in the same geographical area (suggested in Greece).  

c)  Introduce more flexibility in flat rates. Although flat rates work generally well, 
there  is  some  scope  for  flexibility.  For  instance,  Germany  (OP  II)  uses  flat  rates 
(e.g. 13% for administrative costs) to pay Partner Organisations for administrative 
costs such as rent and in this way reduces the need for detailed information and 
supporting  documents  in  the  statement  of  expenditure  and  helps  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden.  Slovakia  also  uses  a  lump-sum  rate  to  reimburse 
administrative  costs  associated  with  the  distribution  of  food  donations.  Spain 
proposes the introduction of more flexibility in flat rates so that Member States can 
establish them (within a range) according to their different realities and needs. 

d)  Simplify  delivery.  Although  not  eligible  under  the  current  rules  of  the  FEAD 
because they represent monetary support and mean that the end recipients do not 
necessarily  have  contact  with  the  Partner  Organisations,  the  use  of  vouchers  is 
suggested in several countries (BG, EE, GR, FI, PT, RO). This could work as a system 
of personalised vouchers or ‘solidarity cards’ with bar codes for eligible items to be 
exchanged for food and basic material in selected ‘FEAD’ supermarkets. This system 
could work with a network of supermarkets associated to FEAD against a predefined 
set of articles (food and other basic material). The advantages of vouchers are: 

  Economic  efficiency  by  reducing  operational  costs  and  simplifying  stock 

management; 

  Food quality by allowing the purchase of fresh food; 

  Inclusiveness, eliminating most of the stigmatization that may result from being 

recipient of the programme; 

  Social benefits to end recipients allowing them to ration food purchases according 

to their daily needs; 

  Economic benefits to local markets by boosting the role of local supermarkets. 

The disadvantages, however, of the use of vouchers include the need to identify 
the end recipients, the possibilities of not using vouchers as intended, the need to 
include  supermarkets  in  the  audit  trail,  while  it  is  not  clear  how  accompanying 
measures will be provided. At the same time, the role of Partner Organisations will 
diminish  if  vouchers  are  used,  so  Member  States  would  need  to  balance  the 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  a  voucher  system.  A  recent  experience  from 
Poland  where  vouchers  were  used  (outside  FEAD),  showed  that  the  public 
procurement for printing and delivering the vouchers increased both the costs and 
the duration of the delivery (lower efficiency). 

Monitoring and reporting. Suggested simplification options include: 

a)  The replacement of reporting tables with online forms (although, local organisations 
operating with volunteers may not be familiar with online reporting) (Finland); 

b)  Reducing the extensive list of data to be recorded and stored in computerised form 
in the monitoring system (Annex 1 of Commission’s delegated regulation (EU) No 
532/2014) (Germany); 

c)  The  use  of  electronic  tablets  at  delivery  points  so  the  stock  is  updated  fast  and 
online,  from  Malta  the  development  of  a  barcode  on  entitlement  letters  to  end 
recipients (Greece); 

d)  The production of reports that fully reflect the real counselling situation in Germany. 
A  questionnaire  should  include  content  related  questions  and,  with  regard  to  the 
appointments with the end recipients, it would be good if there were the possibility 
to write a short text per appointment. It would also be useful to be able to state the 
reason for an unsuccessful referral. This would have a learning effect (Germany). 

Evaluation and audit are different activities and should not be mixed up.  

84 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

a)  In relation to audit, this is difficult to carry out because FEAD relies on the ground 
on volunteers to a large extent (there are exceptions where volunteers are not used 
such as in Greece). Simplification of audit procedures should take this into account. 
Simplification of audit would also imply the recognition of national audits by the EC. 
This prevents the same beneficiary being audited by different national and European 
organisations  and  increases  confidence  in  Member  States  (and  in  line  with  the 
shared  management  principle).  The  single  audit  principle  may  therefore  be 
pertinent.  While  for  smaller  amounts,  German  welfare  organisations  recommend 
the introduction of “de minimis” rules”. 

b)  In  relation  to  evaluation,  overall  the  guidance  received  by  the  European 
Commission  is  deemed  to  be  adequate.  There  is  however  a  certain  lack  of 
experience and the challenge will be to distinguish between ESF and FEAD results 
in terms of social inclusion and poverty (net effects of FEAD). Capacity building for 
improving and using M&E systems would be useful. 

c)  In addition for evaluation, existing indicators can be revisited to focus more 
on people and less on quantities, while a number of limited result indicators can be 
added in order to assess the difference that FEAD makes to people’s lives and to 
the territories themselves. Simple steps can be taken for instance by measuring the 
number of people that come back or whether they access social services. It is also 
relevant to allow for flexibility in cases where there is simply no impact apart from 
the mere provision of support (this is both an output and a result indicator). The 
overarching  principle  in  the  collection  of  data  should  always  be  to  safeguard  the 
dignity and privacy of end recipients. 

d)  The  overall  conclusion  is  that  data  collection  must  be  rationalised  (minimum, 

accurate, non-stigmatising and result oriented) 

In  addition  to  simplification,  efficiency  can  improve  through  better  information 
provision  and  capacity  building  of  programme  authorities  (MA,  IBs  and  Partner 
Organisations).  In  some  cases,  the  administrative  burden  is  high  due  to  lack  of 
experience of programme authorities and partners (Romania). In such cases, the issue 
is not simplification but better capacity building and information provision. For instance, 
information sessions offered to Partner Organisations increases their understanding of 
the programme requirements and avoids any unnecessary time and resources spent on 
implementing these requirements. Likewise, better skilled delivery organisations would 
be able to address target groups that are not easily reached such as the homeless and 
immigrants.  Another  option  is  the  elaboration  of  a  FEAD  manual  or  road  map  (as  in 
Malta) for the provision of information and the effective and efficient implementation of 
the programme. 

Conclusion:  There  are  proposed  simplifications  encompassing  all  stages  of  the 
programming from the  set-up of the management and control system and selection 
criteria to implementation, reporting and audit.  

85 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.5 

European added value 

Key findings 

  The FEAD provides additional funding (volume effects), new types of support for 
new target groups (scope effects) and support for new ways of doing things 
(role  effects).  Significant  process  effects  can  also  be  noted  in  the  field  of 
networking and building partnerships.  

Volume effects 

  The vast majority of Member States experienced a sometimes significant volume 

effect from the FEAD. 

  The FEAD added to national or local initiatives and filled gaps, sometimes to the 
extent  of being the main or  only national  food support programme (OP I) or 
programme offering social inclusion support in such a form (OP II). 

  There are significant differences in the volume effect per country and per person 
assisted linked to the Member States decisions on how much money to allocate 
to FEAD and the selection of target groups and types of assistance. 

  The FEAD had a leverage with regard to further sources  of food and  material 
assistance  (donations)  and  to  the  mobilisation  of  local  organisations  and 
volunteers. 

Scope effects 

  The main scope effect is in the inclusion of new target groups in the provision 
of  non-financial  support.  In  eight  Member  States,  the  FEAD  had  a  different 
target  group  than  national  policies.  Three  of  them  are  OP  II  countries 
(Germany,  Denmark  and  Sweden)  and  five  of  them  OP  I  Member  States 
(Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Austria, and Romania).  

  In  OP  II  MS,  the  FEAD  supports  vulnerable  groups  (EU  migrants,  homeless 
people and older people) in accessing existing services. Without FEAD, these 
groups would possibly not be able to access these services. 

  FEAD had a strong scope effect in reaching the poorest and most rural regions 

and in covering all the territory. 

  The FEAD also provided assistance throughout the year in some countries, thus 

extending the coverage. 

  In a  few countries, the  scope  effect was considered small as the same target 
groups were covered by similar support to national support (e.g. school meals 
in the Czech Republic). In these cases, there was nevertheless a volume effect. 

Role effects 

  Three  quarters  of  Member  States  agreed  that  FEAD  contributed  to  raising 

awareness for the needs of the most deprived. 

  Little evidence of mainstreaming effects was noted in half of all Member States. 

  In those Member States where potential for mainstreaming was noted, it was 
not yet possible to say whether this would be extended after the potential end 
of FEAD. 

Process effects 

  One  of  the  main  process  effects  was  mutual  learning:  Mutual  learning  in  the 
form  of  improved  cooperation  between  the  authorities  and  NGOs,  between 
social services and local organisations, between Partner Organisations on the 
ground, and between individual stakeholders.  

  Although outside the scope of this evaluation, mutual learning in the framework 
of  the  FEAD  Network  meetings  was  also  an  added  value  for  Partner 
Organisations  that  do  not  normally  have  the  opportunity  to  exchange  at 
European level. 

86 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Partner Organisations, particularly at the local level, profited from FEAD in terms 

of building new forms of cooperation and networking. 

  Partner  Organisations  also  had  to  become/became  more  efficient  and 

professional due to the added workload and new activities. 

Consequences of stopping FEAD support 

  The interviews, focus groups and OPC results showed that the consequences of 

discontinuing FEAD would be severely felt by the most deprived.  

  In  eight Member States, the  specific support measures provided by the FEAD 
would probably stop without being replaced. In seven further Member States, 
state/local authorities would not be able to provide a similar level of support to 
the  one  provided  by  the  FEAD.  FEAD  target  groups  in  four  Member  States, 
namely Germany, Denmark, Malta and France, would not have access to aid 
anymore, while for other Member States, the intensity of the aid or coverage 
of target groups would be affected. 

  Stopping  FEAD  would  also  have  spatial  and  temporal  consequences:  it  would 
have a high impact on rural areas in Finland and Latvia, while it would lead to 
an uneven access to food in Estonia. 

2.5.1  What kind of EU added value is resulting from the FEAD support 

volume, scope, role, and process) and how significant is it? 

It is stated in the FEAD regulation that the fund is not meant to “replace public policies 
undertaken  by  the  Member  States  to  fight  poverty  and  social  exclusion”.  Given  the 
presence of existing national policy frameworks, the aim is to understand what added 
value FEAD is providing (in terms of volume, scope, role, and process effects) in addition 
to existing policies. Available national legislation and public policies to fight poverty and 
social exclusion were described under 2.3.1.  

The four forms of European added value are described below. 

Volume effects – FEAD funding adds to existing actions, either by supporting national 
action  in  general  or  specific  areas  of  national policy.  On  the  downside,  there  may  be 
examples of FEAD overlapping with or displacing other interventions not co-financed by 
FEAD. 

Scope  effects  –  FEAD  action  broadens  existing  action  by  supporting  groups  or  policy 
areas that would not otherwise receive support. 

Role effects – FEAD action supports local/regional innovations in social policies that are 
taken up at national level or ‘mainstreamed’.  

Process effects – FEAD action has lasting effects on processes in the MS, observed in 
terms  of  improved  systems  or  methods,  or  for  instance  in  improved  cooperation 
between various public sector actors.  

With  the  national  policy  backgrounds  in  mind,  we  look  at  the  extent  to  which  added 
value results from FEAD support, starting with the extent to which FEAD adds to existing 
actions. 

2.5.1.1  To what extent does FEAD add to existing actions, either by supporting 

national action in general or specific areas of national policy (volume effect)? 

OP I 

Increasing amount of food distributed despite a late start in some Member States 

In  spite  of  initial  delays  in  starting  FEAD  activities  in  some  Member  States  in  2014 
(Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Malta, Slovakia and Finland) and delays in Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, 
Malta  and  Slovakia in  2015,  and  continued  delays  in  Cyprus,  Croatia  and  Hungary  in 
2016,  FEAD  had  already  had  significant  volume  effects  across  the  EU  by  the  end  of 

87 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2016.  The  delays  nevertheless  explain  some  discrepancies  in  the  appreciation  of  the 
added value of the FEAD in general and of its volume effect in particular. 

Quantitatively speaking, after this delayed start, the food distribution in OP I countries 
has  been  continuously  increasing  in  ten  Member  States:  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 
Estonia, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Finland. It slightly 
decreased between 2015 and 2016 in Belgium (minimally), Italy, Portugal and Romania. 
In  Italy,  it  decreased  by  about  60%  although  the  number  of  people  receiving  food 
support remained stable. The reason for this is that the food distributed in 2015 also 
included food bought in 2014 and the distribution in 2016 was delayed by the fact that 
that  tenders  for  the  buying  of  the  food  were  delayed  for  administrative  reasons 
(introduction  of  a  new  public  tenders  legislation).  In  Portugal,  the  OP  was  revised  in 
2016 - including the definition of the concept of economic need, of the food basket and 
of  the  information  system  -  and  there  was  no  food  distribution  under  FEAD.  During 
2016,  the  Portuguese  government  reinforced  its  action  regarding  other  measures, 
mainly the social canteens, in order to mitigate the absence  of FEAD  intervention. In 
Romania,  the  distribution  has  been  quite  low  per  person  and  the  distribution  rather 
infrequent.  One  reason  for  this  is  that  due  to  a  change  in  Government  at  the  end  of 
2016,  there  was  a  modification  in  the  governance  of  the  FEAD  OP.  The  Ministry  for 
European  Funds  was  incorporated  into  the  Ministry  for  Regional  Development,  Public 
Administration  and  European  Funds  (MDRAPFE).  Hence,  the  FEAD  MA  is  under  the 
responsibility of the MDRAPFE and the beneficiary is the MDRAPFE. The money spent in 
2016 was actually from the 2015 budget. However, the new FEAD OP has been approved 
and is being implemented since 2017.  

  Amount of food distributed and evolution 2014-2016  

Source: SFC2014 

By  the  end  of  2016,  three  countries  (Cyprus,  Croatia  and  Hungary)  had  still  not 
distributed  food  support.  Austria  distributes  only  material  assistance  and  Denmark, 

88 

201420152016BE4,6096,6826,538BG04424,907CZ07432EE0708790ES48,77981,57895,189FI05981,918FR65,86074,08780,176GR009,553IE00162IT087,51733,762LT3,3305,9255,915LU01,1742,047LV01,3411,975MT00301PL4,53360,22756,917PT7,7078,2500RO19,38677,33669,676SI2351,8844,637SK002,507(11) Total quantity of food support distributed.EvolutionMS 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are OP II countries. The UK has not yet launched 
the programme.  

Distribution of volume of food distributed 

In 2016, five Member States were distributing more than 90% of the food distributed 
overall under FEAD programmes in the EU. These Member States are Poland, Romania, 
Italy, France and Spain. The distribution across Member States of the total amount of 
food distributed is shown in the figure below. 

  Total quantity of food support distributed in 2016 (in %) 

Source: SFC 2014 

Complementarity with national actions 

The vast majority of Member States experienced a volume effect from the FEAD in their 
countries, often significant. Their effects can be divided into two distinct categories:  

  Member States in which the FEAD was adding to national or local initiatives  

  Member States in which the FEAD was filling a gap in the aid already provided.  

In seven OP I Member States, the FEAD was adding to national public programmes and 
policies. These  countries are Bulgaria (warm soups distribution), Italy, Malta, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. In Italy, the Managing Authority noted an overlap with 
other projects, especially with those under ESF (and related to TO9). Nevertheless, the 
FEAD is pivotal to allow territorial Partner Organisations to operate on a regular basis 
as it provides a regular food supply. Similarly, many leading Partner Organisations would 
cease to exist in the absence of FEAD support.52 This finding is corroborated by the OPC 
where the majority of respondents (90% of OP I and 80% of OP II) agreed that FEAD 
support is needed to expand types and volumes of assistance. 

In Poland, the FEAD OP was considered complementary to national policy, particularly 
in the area of social assistance. The focus group participants agreed that it would have 
been impossible to cover such a large number of people without the FEAD.53  

In Romania, the target groups of FEAD are the same as those of the national schemes. 
However, there is a very limited risk of overlapping because the social inclusion actions 
in the Romanian Human Capital OP aim at combating social exclusion of people, families 
and vulnerable groups and the FEAD at providing food aid and basic material assistance 
for children. There is no national food support programme. The fact that the FEAD and 
the national funds share the same Managing Authority (Management Authority of the 

52 Italian Focus group, 20.11.17, Rome 
53 Polish Focus group, 30.10.17, Warsaw 

89 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

OP Human Capital (AM POCU) facilitates the coordination of the two funds, reduces the 
risk of double funding and facilitates complementarity. 

In Bulgaria, Spain, Malta and Slovakia, FEAD co-financed food products make up 100% 
in  the  total  volume  of  food  distributed  by  the  Partner  Organisations.  In  Lithuania, 
Slovakia,  Finland  and  Italy,  the  FEAD  is  now  the  main  food  aid  provider.  In  Estonia, 
Greece  and  Finland,  the  FEAD  is  the  only  nationwide  regular  food  aid  delivery 
programme.  In  France  and  in  Spain,  there  was  a  clear  volume  effect  according  to 
interviewees. 

In  six  OP  I  Member  States,  the  FEAD  was  adding  to  local  initiatives:  Belgium,  Czech 
Republic (SO II and SO III), Greece, Spain, Latvia and Slovakia. In these countries, the 
aid is organised at local level only, often by municipalities, private actors or NGOs.  

FEAD is the first food aid programme coordinated at national level in Greece, which not 
only  gives  it  a  considerable  impact  but  also  creates  new  challenges  for  stakeholders. 
Initially, the FEAD was implemented without cooperation with the national food banks 
which led to inefficiency. Now, the national food banks have been brought on board. 

In the Czech Republic, a distinction was drawn between the Specific Objective (SO) I 
(lunches  at  school)  which  was  reported  not  to  have  a  volume  effect  because  of 
administrative burdens  and an overlap with national programmes, and the SO  II and 
SO III (Food and Material deprivation of persons and households in serious social need) 
which had such an effect. 

The  OPC  found  that  73.39%  of  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  FEAD 
contributes  to  activities  of  non-profit  organisations  (such  as  NGOs).  With  72.50% 
and 72.09%, the second and third highest share of agreement or strong agreement, are 
found in connection to regional and national activities. 

The Structured Survey also showed that an average of 73% of the Partner Organisations 
(ranging from 27% in Hungary to 100% in e.g. Austria) involved in FEAD also provide 
material assistance to end recipients that is not co-financed by FEAD and that FEAD is 
therefore complementary. On average 22% of the end recipients and/or other members 
of the household (ranging from 4% in Austria to 69% in Estonia) get other support from 
other organisations, mainly food (average of 47% of the end recipients), clothes (23%) 
and meals (21%). 

The table below shows that the funding per person suffering severe material deprivation 
ratio differs a lot between Member States:  from EUR 1 (the United Kingdom) to  EUR 
438  (Luxembourg).  These  figures  show  that  the  volume  effect  per  person  at  risk  of 
poverty  varies  between  Member  States,  e.g.  Luxembourg  receives  the  highest  FEAD 
funding  according  to  this  criterion,  EUR  216  more  than  the  second  member  in  this 
ranking (Spain), although its rate of persons suffering severe material deprivation is not 
the highest in the EU. Bulgaria receives about half of the average funding per person 
suffering severe material deprivation (EUR 46), although it has the highest percentage 
of persons suffering severe material deprivation in the EU (32%).  

90 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Volume effects per person 

Source: Eurostat and SFC2014 

Leverage effect 

A further volume effect to be noted was a leverage effect in mobilising local resources. 
Local  social  resources  are  mobilised  and  utilised  effectively,  especially  through  the 
network  of  delivery  organisations.  In  Spain,  local  public  and  private  resources  are 
integrated to serve the requirements of FEAD delivery. In France, FEAD facilitates the 
recovery  of  unsold  products  and  allows  a  real  multiplier  effect  through  the  support  it 
provides to associations in gathering unsold food products. In Luxembourg, the FEAD is 
combined  with  the  supply  of  low  priced  foods  donated  to  the  ‘social  groceries’  by 
supermarkets.  Partner  Organisations  are  keen  to  increase  the  coordination  of  food 
donations and FEAD in order to avoid food waste and provide a consistent and varied 
supply.54  

OP II 

Two out of four OP II countries have used the minimum amount of FEAD stipulated (EUR 
3.9 million) and Sweden has a budget of EUR 7.9 million. Germany has a budget of EUR 
93 million (FEAD + national co-financing). All four OP II countries also have among the 
lowest  percentages  of  FEAD  funding  per  person  at  risk  of  poverty  (around  EUR  5  for 
2014-2020) in the EU.  

54 2nd EU level Focus Group, 02.03.18, Brussels 

91 

MSFEAD FundingPopulation (2016)FEAD funding per capita (2014-2020)Number of persons reached within FEAD in 2016People suffering severe material deprivation (2016)Percentage of people affected by severe material deprivation in total population (2016)FEAD funding per person suffering severe material deprivation (2016)AT18.032.7348.690.076€ 240.994257.0003,0%€ 70BE73.821.50411.311.117€ 7300.526623.0005,5%€ 118BG104.815.2647.153.784€ 15272.5212.285.00031,9%€ 46CY3.944.660848.319€ 52.500115.00013,6%€ 34CZ23.329.84910.553.843€ 259.759497.0004,8%€ 47DE78.893.21182.175.684€ 121.6143.015.0003,7%€ 26DK3.944.6605.707.251€ 1474147.0002,6%€ 27EE8.002.0261.315.944€ 629.51661.0004,7%€ 131EL280.972.53110.783.748€ 26410.0002.388.00022,4%€ 118ES563.410.22446.445.828€ 121.528.4792.659.0005,8%€ 212FI22.540.9165.487.308€ 4289.824120.0002,2%€ 188FR499.281.31566.759.950€ 74.397.8132.775.0004,4%€ 180HR36.628.9904.190.669€ 90518.00012,5%€ 71HU93.882.9219.830.485€ 1001.567.00016,2%€ 60IE22.766.3274.724.720€ 554.605305.0006,5%€ 75IT670.592.28560.665.551€ 112.778.2077.312.00012,1%€ 92LT77.202.6412.888.558€ 27218.769391.00013,5%€ 197LU3.944.660576.249€ 711.7289.0001,6%€ 438LV41.024.4691.968.957€ 2161.497248.00012,8%€ 165MT3.944.660434.403€ 917.05119.0004,4%€ 208NL3.944.66016.979.120€ 0281435.0002,6%€ 9PL473.359.26037.967.209€ 121.183.2272.507.0006,7%€ 189PT176.946.20110.341.330€ 170865.0008,4%€ 205RO441.013.04419.760.314€ 223.286.4664.707.00023,8%€ 94SE7.889.3219.851.017€ 158280.0000,8%€ 99SI20.512.2352.064.188€ 10180.920108.0005,4%€ 190SK55.112.5435.426.252€ 10142.349432.0008,2%€ 128UK3.944.66065.382.556€ 003.353.0005,2%€ 1Key<3<5%<10 €3 to 95% to 10%10 to 91 €10 to 1911% to 19%92 to 190 €20 to 3020% to 32%191 to 438 € 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Percentage of AROPE in total population and funding per AROPE 

Source: SFC 2014 and Eurostat 

However, even if the volume of funding per person is low, the targeted use of the FEAD 
in all countries has led to a volume effect in those areas. In Germany and Sweden, the 
volume  effect  is  demonstrated  in  the  fact  that  without  the  FEAD  the  support  for  EU 
migrants would be severely diminished. In the Netherlands and Denmark, the activities 
for the respective target groups (isolated pensioners and homeless people) would also 
be compromised. 

Conclusion: There is evidence of a volume effect in nearly all Member States. FEAD 
adds  to  existing  initiatives  (without  overlap)  either  on  national  level  (nationwide 
policies and programmes) or on local level (municipalities, NGOs). In several Member 
States, the FEAD is the only nationally coordinated food support programme and/or 
the main food aid provider. The fact that FEAD is sometimes the only source of food 
aid  underlines  how  indispensable  it  has  become.  It  has  also  mobilised  local  and 
national resources and had both leverage and multiplier effects. 

2.5.1.2  To what extent does FEAD broaden existing action by supporting groups or 

policy areas that would not otherwise receive support (scope effect)? 

Evidence  from  17  MS  shows  that  the  FEAD  had  a  scope  effect,  while  in  nine  MS  the 
scope effect has been modest so far.  

Inclusion of new target groups 

The main scope effect is in the inclusion of new target groups in the provision of non-
financial support. In eight Member States, the FEAD had a different target group than 
national policies. Three of them are OP II countries (Germany, Denmark and Sweden) 
and five of them OP I Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Austria, and Romania). 
The most mentioned groups were homeless people and EU citizens from other countries. 
In  Romania,  marginalised  people  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  authorities,  in 
particular the town hall social services in the larger towns and Bucharest, through FEAD. 
These people received information about their rights and the services they were entitled 
to. They also received counselling for various situations they were facing.55 

In Germany, the low threshold nature of the measures also represents a scope effect in 
that it offers a hitherto unavailable service to newly arrived EU citizens and helps them 

55 Romanian Focus Group, 17.10.17, Bucharest 

92 

 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

gain access to existing social services. By low threshold, we mean services that are very 
easy to access and attractive for people who otherwise avoid ‘official’ services.  

The German focus group56 discussed the added value of the FEAD in throwing light on 
the sensitive issue of freedom of movement of the very poor. This has led to difficult 
consequences  both  for  the  people  concerned  and  for  the  social  services  in  the  target 
countries such as Germany. FEAD has enabled attention to be paid to these issues and 
the development of new tools for dealing with them, e.g. mother tongue counselling, 
outreach work, offers for parents and children, and low threshold offers for homeless 
people.  

Two Member States, Poland and the Netherlands, said the target groups supported by 
the FEAD would have been helped anyway but on a smaller scale. In Poland, the Partner 
Organisations were nevertheless able to identify more precisely the number of people 
in need as they established contact with them in their daily work. These organisations 
were also able to reach those who for some reason are not covered by the social welfare 
system. In the Netherlands, the target group of isolated older people in the four largest 
cities  was  reached  and  supported  with  social  integration  activities  through  their  local 
libraries.  

In Italy, the focus group discussions revealed that better targeting of end recipients was 
possible through the FEAD. 

The results of the structured survey showed that not only the end recipients themselves 
were  benefiting  from  the  support  but  also  other  people  and  especially  children,  as 
illustrated in Figure 19 in section 2.2.1. 

The  OPC  corroborates  these  findings  with  83%  of  respondents  agreeing  or  strongly 
agreeing  with  the  statement  that  the  FEAD  contributes  to  expanding  assistance  to 
groups  that  would  otherwise  not  receive  it.  88.46%  of  respondents  related  to  OP  II 
agreed or strongly agreed, while 81.89% of respondents related to OP I responded that 
way.  Moreover,  the  agreement  that  FEAD  contributes  to  the  establishment  of  new 
delivery modes was stronger among respondents related with to OP II (both 76.92%) 
compared to those related with OP I (both 65.28%). 

Geographic coverage 

The FEAD had a strong scope effect in the poorest and most rural regions in Finland and 
Italy.  In  Spain,  France  and  Italy,  it  was  noted  that  the  FEAD  ensures  food  support 
throughout the territory, which was not the case of purely national food support.  

FEAD  also  allows  a  consistent  provision  of  food  throughout  the  year.  Food  support  is 
regular and stable over time and of a consistent quality. It often complements national 
food  support  allowing  a  wider  range  of  products  to  be  delivered,  e.g.  in  Greece.  In 
Bulgaria, the FEAD was the only programme that provided meals all year long since the 
national programme only distributed warm meals during winter. 

New activities 

New activities were supported in both OP I and OP II countries. In OP I countries, the 
new  activities  could  include  setting  up  a  food  bank  or  supplementing  activities  of  an 
existing  one  or  finding  new  delivery  modes.  Testing  and  implementing  new  activities 
was seen by OPC respondents as something FEAD contributes to by 72.63% related to 
OP I. 

The  accompanying  measures  often  represented  a  new  activity  for  both  Partner 
Organisations and target groups. While the activities were often considered a beneficial 
complement to the food and material assistance, respondents to the OPC, e.g. in Spain, 
were also concerned that there was a lack of qualified human resources to carry out the 
accompanying measures. Having said that, successful cooking/culinary workshops were 

56 German Focus Group, 16.11.17, Berlin 

93 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

carried out in Spain as they were tailored to the target group, provided by specifically 
trained instructors, provided parallel child care and were set up in an attractive format 
(e.g.  including  physical  exercise  and  attractive  teaching  aids).57  In  France,  cooking 
workshops  and  information  on  nutritional  balance  were  provided  under  the 
accompanying  measures.  Also  in  Slovenia,  the  accompanying  measures  were  an 
appreciated new activity. Concerning non-food assistance, the FEAD provided specific 
support filling a gap in terms of types of material aid provided (Luxembourg, Austria, 
Slovenia and Slovakia). For instance, in Austria the school start package and in Slovakia 
the distribution of toiletries would not have been provided without the FEAD.  

These  findings  are  corroborated  by  the  OPC  in  which  69%  of  respondents  agreed  or 
strongly agreed with the statement that the FEAD contributes to testing new activities. 
These were partly things like founding new food banks or being able to get in touch with 
hard  to  reach  target  groups  (e.g.  homeless  people,  ex-offenders  and  drug  addicts) 
through  the  food  and  material  assistance  (OP  I)  and  guide  them  towards  further 
assistance.  The  majority  (66%)  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the 
statement that the FEAD supported new delivery modes. 

Almost  all  OPC  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  FEAD  expands  types  and 
volumes of assistance delivered (90 % agree or strongly agree), and assistance to the 
groups that otherwise would not receive support (agree or strongly agree 82%). Similar 
numbers of OP I and OP II respondents (over 90 and over 80% respectively) agree with 
the  statement  that  FEAD  support  is  needed  to  expand  types  and  volumes  of  the 
assistance delivered.58 

There is some evidence, however, that in several Member States the scope effect was 
limited. Spain, Slovakia and Czech Republic found the scope effect to be small because 
the target groups were the same as for the other sources of support. Local initiatives 
have  a  wider  scope  in  Greece  as  the  aid  is  provided  to  everyone  wanting  it.  MAs  in 
France  and  Italy  claim  the  PEAD  already  had  the  same  scope  as  the  current  FEAD 
programme. No scope effect could yet be found in Ireland and Hungary, two Member 
States in which the programme has just started or is about to start and Portugal. 

Conclusion: The scope effect of the FEAD was mainly in terms of new target groups 
and activities, greater territorial coverage and consistency of support throughout the 
year. Two thirds of Member States were able to include new target groups such as 
homeless people and EU citizens. FEAD also contributed to testing new or expanding 
existing activities. Six Member States (Ireland, Hungary, Greece, France, Italy, and 
Portugal) have not yet noted a scope effect, either because the scope is the same as 
the one of national initiatives or because of the late start of the programmes. 

2.5.1.3  To what extent does FEAD support local/regional innovations that are taken 

up at national level or national innovative actions that are then 
‘mainstreamed’ (role effect)? 

Concerning  the  role  effect  of  the  FEAD,  Member  States  had  mixed  views.  In  thirteen 
Member  States,  there  was  no  evidence  of  FEAD  resulting  in  a  mainstreaming  of 
activities. Interviews in the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy confirmed that there were 
initiatives  but  it  was  sometimes  difficult  to  assess  whether  these  would  be  extended 
after the end of the FEAD or would be taken up on national level. Only in Malta did the 
FEAD lead to a national initiative being created along similar lines to provide support for 
people not covered by the FEAD.  

Conclusion: There is not yet much evidence of the role effect of the FEAD. Regarding 
mainstreaming effects, half of the Member States suggested that it is too early in the 
FEAD implementation for clear effects to emerge.  

57 FEAD Mid-term evaluation, Report on the Open Public Consultation, p. 40 
58 FEAD Mid-term evaluation, Report on the Open Public Consultation, p. viii 

94 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.5.1.4  To what extent does FEAD influence Member State administrations and 

organisations involved in the programmes (process effect)? 

FEAD is administered in shared management between the Commission, the MA and the 
PO. Process effects can be observed at the level of both MA and PO.  

Effects on Managing Authorities 

In two Member States (Belgium and Malta), the effect on the administrations was limited 
because the systems used prior to the FEAD were the same as those required by the 
programme. In the Netherlands, Slovakia and Cyprus, there was also no influence on 
the national administration. Managing Authorities in three  Member States  stated that 
the  FEAD  was  creating  an  administrative  burden  (Luxembourg,  Czech  Republic  and 
Estonia). 

The  FEAD  was  however  considered  to  have  a  good  influence  on  administrations  in 
several  Member  States.  There  was  increased  cooperation  between  regional/local 
authorities  and  NGOs  in  Germany,  Greece,  Slovakia  and  Italy.  In  Spain,  the  FEAD 
allowed  three  ministries  to  work  together  for  the  first  time  (Employment,  Agriculture 
and Health). 

Organisational skills (database, accounting, public procurement procedure, monitoring, 
auditing etc.) were increased in several Member States (Austria, Finland, France, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Romania). 

Effects on Partner Organisations 

In two Member States (Denmark and Ireland), the FEAD was mainly implemented by 
local organisations and had a positive effect on the latter, explicitly in Ireland.  

The  FEAD  was  also  considered  to  have  positive  effects  on  Partner  Organisations  in 
several  Member  States.  In  Greece,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Finland  there  was  a  deeper 
cooperation  between  Partner  Organisations  due  to  implementation  requirements.  In 
Poland, the new structure allowed the NGOs to look for different sources of food, such 
as food collections. In France, the focus group also confirmed that chains of solidarity 
link all stakeholders: the partners for the implementation of food distribution activities, 
local authorities that provide premises, businesses by donations or loans of equipment, 
agro-businesses  foodstuffs  or  distribution  providing  foodstuffs,  individuals  on  the 
occasion of donations and volunteers essential to the functioning of food aid schemes. 

Overall, this enhanced cooperation has a positive effect beyond the implementation of 
the FEAD, as it allows organisations to provide all types of support more effectively and 
will continue after the end of the programme. 

The professionalization of Partner Organisations, especially of local branches, was noted 
in  some  Member  States.  In  the  Netherlands,  Partner  Organisations  (i.e.  libraries) 
completely changed their organisation and focus in order to implement the FEAD and 
they have hired additional staff. 

Mutual learning 

Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  Slovenia  highlighted  the  exchange  of  good 
practices between organisations. Germany, Estonia and Sweden also said there was a 
deeper  cooperation  between  Partner  Organisations  and  local  or  national  authorities. 
Estonia,  Luxembourg  and  Germany  pointed  to  a  visibility  effect,  for  instance  through 
television interviews on the topic of food waste in Estonia. The OPC corroborates this 
finding with 73% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement that 
the FEAD contributes to raising awareness. 

Details on some of the mutual learning results are provided below:  

  A  pilot  soup  project  is  being  run  on  national  level  after  being  suggested  by  a 
member  of  a  Partner  Organisation  during  one  of  the  meetings  which  are  held 

95 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

every  three  months  on  programme  level  in  Belgium.  The  soup  is  made  with 
leftovers from food used within the programme. This idea was introduced during 
one  of  these  three  monthly  meetings  by  someone  from  one  of  the  Partner 
Organisations  and  is  now  being  piloted  nationwide.  This  shows  that  local 
initiatives  or  ideas  have  a  chance  at  being  taken  up  nationally  in  the  FEAD 
programme. 

  In the framework of  OP  II in Germany, the local networking approach is a core 
aspect of FEAD in Germany. The cooperation with municipalities is a mandatory 
aspect which has to be proven right from the start of each project. Beneficiaries 
explicitly have to describe their local networking which is also seen as an essential 
contribution to ensure  sustainable and effective  results. Mutual learning is also 
assured through two annual networking events, so-called transfer workshops, at 
national level. The workshops are meant to raise the awareness of municipal staff 
for migrant issues. They are also meant to help identify good practice and explore 
how these can be transferred to municipal structures and national legislation. It 
is  hoped  (by  the  MA  and  Partner  Organisations)  that  the  FEAD  lessons  can  be 
carried over into mainstream policy after the end of the programme. 

  In Estonia, campaigns for the collection of food donations were able to take place 
as  a  result  of  the  increased  cooperation  between  organisations  and  local 
authorities.  The  project  manager  of  the  food  bank  has  established  cooperation 
and partnerships with the local municipalities that assist in administering the food 
aid.  The  heads  of  rural  parishes  have  also  taken  part.  During  the  swine  flu  in 
2016, the food bank received canned pork and this was helpful for the food bank 
and for the people. The representatives of the food bank have been invited to the 
crises  commission  in  order  to  discuss  the  involvement  of  the  food  bank  during 
potential crises. The television has shown interest in the topic of food waste and 
has done interviews with FEAD stakeholders. 

  In  Slovenia,  the  exchange  of  best  practices  allowed  organisations  to  offer  new 
types  of  accompanying  measures  to  end  recipients.  The  Red  Cross  also  has 
regular meetings among the local coordinators in order to exchange experiences 
and to learn from  each other. Successful new  seminar topics, for instance, are 
then taken up also by others. Currently, seminars on health issues and various 
skills are very successful. 

  The Swedish stakeholders highlighted that the meetings organised within the FEAD 
OP allowed all players to have a better understanding of the target group’s needs. 
These networks provide a platform for the production of knowledge regarding the 
needs of the target group. The FEAD can to some extent be seen to contribute to 
further role effects in that health promotion interventions for the target group are 
developed  in  collaboration  between  public  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations.  However,  as  the  operations  implemented  within  the  FEAD  are 
based on temporary partnerships not included in national policy, the chances for 
mainstreaming of local and regional innovations are slim.  

  In  Poland,  the  experience  of  creating  and  developing  a  network  of  Partner 
Organisations  across  the  whole  country  has  had  a  significant  impact  on 
strengthening  these  organisations.  In  addition  to  food  distribution,  they  are 
trying  to  develop  other  forms  of  support,  such  as  obtaining  food  from  other 
sources, e.g. by establishing cooperation with food producers. Cooperation has 
also been developed at the local level, both with local authorities and the local 
community. This is primarily accomplished through accompanying measures. 

Also during the focus groups, the mutual learning effects were emphasised. In Romania, 
participants  agreed  that  FEAD  brings  together  local  administrations  and  other  public 
institutions  to  share  information  on  issues  and  make  proposals  for  the  benefit  of  the 
programme and its end recipients. 

During the focus group in Spain, various types of mutual learning were noted. These 
are described in the box below. 

96 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD contribution to mutual learning in Spain 

FEAD contributes to mutual learning through: 

Horizontal cooperation: Between the three Ministries involved in the programme, 
Ministry of Employment and Social Security (MA), Ministry of Agriculture (IB for food 
support) and  Ministry of Health, Social Services and  Equality (IB  for accompanying 
measures), which were not used to cooperating before FEAD. Regular meetings and 
exchange fora have brought these Ministries closer. 

Vertical cooperation: Between the different management layers of the programme 
which are a very specific feature in Spain (national level intermediary bodies, Partner 
Organisations, their regional/provincial offices and local delivery organisations). There 
are several levels of control, exchange fora, meetings and exchange of good practice 
amongst them which have brought them closer to the  reality of end recipients and 
have promoted team work and better public-private coordination. 

Greater  involvement  of  local  social  services:  Social  workers  of  municipalities 
have become more involved in addressing food deprivation issues and have engaged 
into cooperation with NGOs. 

Integrated  assistance:  Despite  the  weaknesses  in  the  delivery  of  accompanying 
measures for reasons already described, the combination of food support and social 
support  measures  offer  an  innovative  integrated  approach  to  food  deprivation  and 
social exclusion. 

Participation: Individual actors have also learned more, simply by participating. This 
is  the  case  of  delivery  organisations  which  have  increased  their  experience  and 
knowledge on poverty and social exclusion issues. 

There  has  also  been  a  learning  effect  for  end  recipients  who  have  raised  their 
awareness on the support offered by FEAD and the differences from other types of 
support and initiatives. 

Tips/Suggestions for the future: 

  Maintain  the  cooperation  structure  of  FEAD  in  the  future  and  build  on 

institutional synergies created 

  Increase the capacity of delivery organisations to learn from each other through 

networking 

Although  outside  the  scope  of  this  evaluation,  the  exchange  between  Partner 
Organisations from different countries in the framework of the FEAD Networking events 
was highly praised as it offered an unprecedented opportunity to meet people involved 
in similar activities in other Member States. 

These  mutual  learning  effects  are  corroborated  by  the  OPC  where  mutual  learning  is 
seen as one of the main fields of added value. 78% of respondents agreed or strongly 
agreed  with  the  statement  that  the  FEAD  contributes  to  mutual  learning.  74%  of 
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the FEAD contributes to 
the creation of partnerships. 71% agreed or  strongly agreed with the  statement that 
the FEAD contributes to engaging new organisations.  

Conclusion: The process effect of the FEAD is mainly in terms of greater cooperation 
between Partner Organisations and national and regional administrations and other 
stakeholders (e.g. Red Cross), between Partner Organisations themselves (in order 
to meet the requirements of FEAD implementation) and between national authorities. 
Valuable learning effects, which resulted in an increased efficiency of administrations 
and  in  a  professionalization  of  Partner  Organisations  were  appreciated  in  several 
Member States.  

97 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.5.2  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping the FEAD 

support? 

OP I 

Taking  into  account  some  double  counting,  the  FEAD  has  provided  food  support  to 
around eight million people in the EU in 2014, 14 million people in 2015 and 15 million 
in 2016. The number of end recipients has continuously increased since the start of the 
programme  in  all  Member  States,  except  for  Spain,  Italy  (minimal),  Lithuania,  and 
Portugal.  

In Italy, the PO claims that most of the network would collapse without FEAD funding, 
especially in Southern Italy. The PO reports that in the gap period between PEAD and 
FEAD, the whole system was at risk, and special measures had to be taken. Special food 
drives were organised to collect food from supermarkets, companies were asked to help 
out, and the new special National Fund for foodstuffs  for the most deprived provided 
around EUR 10 million in support. The system only held out because the period between 
the programmes was relatively short and because the launch of FEAD was considered 
imminent.  

In France, the FEAD accounts for more than a third of the food distributed,  therefore 
the number of food insecure people would increase if the FEAD was to stop. The choice 
would be either to reduce the share of food distributed to an equal number of people, 
or to restrict access to food aid in France by, e.g. providing assistance only to the most 
vulnerable (e.g. the homeless). 

In  Romania,  it  is  estimated  that  stopping  the  FEAD  support  would  contribute  to  a 
decrease in the quality of life of those supported. 

In Spain, the most likely consequence is that food support would no longer be delivered 
to the most deprived on this scale. It would remain a local level, smaller scale initiative 
promoted by the private and third sectors and to some extent by the public sector. 

In Poland, food aid would be continued as it is the part of national policy on eradicating 
poverty; however, the range of support would be reduced.  

The  FEAD  provides  substantial  amounts  of  food  support  in  comparison  to  material 
assistance  (the  latter  only  accounts  for  1%  of  the  total  amount  of  eligible  public 
expenditure incurred by beneficiaries and paid in implementing operations from 2014-
16). Material goods were distributed in 2015 in Austria, Luxembourg and Latvia and in 
2016  in  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Luxembourg,  Latvia  and  Slovakia.  In 
Austria, the most likely consequence of the FEAD stopping would be that the school start 
package  would  no  longer  be  on  offer.  In  Luxembourg,  there  would  be  fewer  free 
products and the range of the products would be smaller. In Latvia, the consequences 
would  particularly  affect  the  more  remote  regions.  In  Slovakia,  food  and  material 
assistance  would  be  provided  on  a  much  smaller  scale  through  existing  NGO  and 
community initiatives. There are no other food aid mechanisms of this scale and volume 
in the country. Poor households would have to spend more on food and basic toiletries, 
which could lead to a further aggravation of their material distress. In the absence of 
the  FEAD  accompanying  measures,  many  recipients  would  likely  be  left  without 
information about social benefit entitlements, possibilities to enter the labour market or 
participate in activities financed from other funds (such as the ESF). 

Eight Member States said the specific support measures provided by the FEAD would 
stop  without  being  replaced.  Seven  other  Member  States  explained  that  state/local 
authorities would not be able to provide a similar level of support to that provided by 
the FEAD.  

In some Member States, Partner Organisations would still continue providing some aid 
(e.g. soup kitchens). However, the extent and consistency of support and the coverage 
of the target groups would be affected.  

98 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Respondents from six Member States said the support provided would not completely 
stop,  but  there  would  be  a  scale  reduction  in  food  distribution  (e.g.  only  local  level 
initiatives would remain). This is also related to the fact that many Member States do 
not  have  a  food  support  programme  on  a  national  scale.  Luxembourg  and  Hungary 
pointed out that the quality and diversity of food distributed would decrease. The end 
of  the  FEAD  would  therefore  mean  a  scale  and  quality  reduction  in  several  Member 
State. 

The spatial and temporal consequences of the end of the FEAD were also highlighted by 
some Member States: it would have a high impact on rural areas in Finland and Latvia, 
while  it  would  lead  to  an  uneven  access  to  food  in  Estonia.  Bulgaria’s  national 
programme only provides warm meals during winter and end recipients would be left in 
severe food deprivation the rest of the year if the FEAD was to stop.  

In  some  Member  States  on  the  other  hand,  the  end  of  the  FEAD  would  not  be  as 
dramatic. In Poland, it would not mean a complete end of food aid as food distribution 
is considered a priority for national policy. In Ireland, the impact on most end recipients 
and  charities  would  be  “strong  but  not  fatal”,  while  on  the  other  hand,  Italy’s  PO 
manager said it would be a “blood bath”. The other Member States in which the end of 
the FEAD would not have a strong impact are Member States in which programmes have 
just started (e.g. Croatia).  

The  results  of  the  focus  groups,  both  at  EU  level  and  in  the  seven  Member  States59 
corroborate this evidence. In Spain, it was agreed that the discontinuation of the FEAD 
would lead to volume losses, losses in quality of the food provision, losses in terms of 
people supported by an estimated 1.5 million people. In addition, the local character of 
FEAD  food  delivery  would  also  be  lost.  End  recipients  would  also  lose  access  to 
information  about  other  types  of  support  and  social  services;  this  information  is 
currently offered by the delivery organisations as part of the accompanying measures. 
The  discontinuation  of  FEAD  would  lead  to  socio-economic  losses  as  FEAD  generates 
economic  benefits  in  terms  of  structures  created  and  human  resources  employed 
(supply,  transport,  logistics,  social  organisations)  as  well  as  people  engaged  in 
volunteering. The Spanish results were corroborated by the results of the EU-level focus 
group  which  also  estimated  that  there  would  be  losses  in  quantity,  quality,  and 
reliability. Both end recipients and Partner Organisations would be very disappointed if 
a support on which they have come to rely was no longer available. 

OP II 

The four OP II countries received relatively little aid in financial terms (5% of the total 
from 2014-2016) but used it for target groups who would otherwise not receive support 
(EU migrants in Germany and Sweden, homeless people in Denmark and Germany, and 
isolated older people in the Netherlands).  

In  Germany,  the  municipalities  would  be  very  disappointed  if  the  FEAD  funding  was 
stopped and the EU migrants would no longer receive the support services they currently 
receive in this form. It is too early to say whether they would be continued with national 
resources but participants in the German Focus Group felt this was highly unlikely as EU 
migrants are not a national or Länder priority.  

In Sweden, the most likely consequences would be that people would no longer benefit 
from  preventive  health  and  social  orientation  measures,  although  they  would  still  be 
eligible for emergency aid. The civil society organisations engaged in the partnerships 
that have been formed at OP as well as project level would be very disappointed and 
the  knowledge  production  on  the  target  group  and  how  best  to  integrate  them  into 
Swedish society would be lost.  

In Denmark, the retraction of support would endanger the outreach work by community 
organizations and NGO’s to vulnerable homeless to help them access existing services. 

59 France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain 

99 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Many  of  the  homeless  covered  by  FEAD  are  non-Danish  nationals  whose  protection 
would be compromised.  

In the Netherlands, it is likely that in absence of the library playing a role in connecting 
older people to activities, the former (especially those without digital skills) would have 
trouble finding activities that suit their needs. The personal attention given to them by 
the  ‘hosts’,  including  invitations  to  participate  in  activities  that  might  suit  them,  is 
considered a key success factor of the project. Without this ‘host’ role, it is likely that a 
considerable portion of the target group would not take part in existing activities and 
therefore no longer build up their social network and competences.  

The OPC corroborates these findings with just under 30% of respondents stating that 
the cessation of the FEAD would have a critical effect on networks, types and volumes 
of assistance and target groups. A further 50% stated that the effects would be severe. 
Interestingly, slightly more OP II respondents than OP I respondents felt that the effect 
on types of assistance and target groups would be severe.  

Conclusion: Discontinuing FEAD would lead to a significant drop in food and material 
assistance  as  well  as  social  inclusion  measures  available  to  the  most  deprived.  It 
would mean tighter household budgets. The territorial coverage and stability in the 
supply of food and material assistance would also be affected. There would also be 
socio-economic  losses  as  FEAD  also  generates  economic  benefits  in  terms  of 
structures created and human resources employed (supply, transport, logistics, social 
organisations)  as  well  as  people  engaged  in  volunteering.  Under  OP  II,  the  FEAD 
support is given to people who would otherwise not receive this support. In the case 
of  the  EU  migrants,  these  would  be  left  to  their  own  devices  and  unable  to  access 
services  for  which  they  are  eligible.  The  homeless  and  at  risk  of  homelessness  in 
Germany and Denmark would receive fewer offers of support and the older people in 
the  Netherlands  who  are  benefiting  from  social  activities  would  be  in  danger  of 
becoming isolated again.  

Table  11  summarises  the  key  aspects  of  the  European  Added  Value  of  the  FEAD 
programmes with reference to specific Member States.   

  Illustrative examples of the Added Value of FEAD in the Member States 

OP I 

Volume effects  
 

FEAD funding adds to 
existing actions, either by 
supporting national action 
in general or specific areas 
of national policy 

  IT (€671m FEAD funding), ES (€563m), FR (€499m), PL 
(€473m) and RO (441m) had the highest FEAD budgets 
across the EU. 

  EL, LT, LV and RO have the highest funding per capita 

(between €27 and €21). 

  ES, LT, LU, MT and PT have the highest funding per 

person at risk of material deprivation (between €197 and 
€438). 

  EU-wide: taking into account some double counting, the 
FEAD has provided food support to around 15 million 
people in 2016. 

  BG, ES, MT and SK: FEAD co-financed food products 

make up 100% of the total volume of food distributed by 
the POs. 

  FI, IT, LT and SK: FEAD is the main food provider. 
  EE, EL and FI: FEAD is the only nationwide regular food 

delivery programme. 

  BE, CZ, EL, ES, LV and SK: FEAD adds to local initiatives. 
  ES: 25.2% of food support across the EU was distributed 
in ES in 2016; 21.2% in FR; 18.5% in RO; 15.1% in PL; 
8.9% in IT). 

  FR: FEAD produces a multiplier effect through the 

support it provides to associations in gathering unsold 
food products. 

  LU: FEAD is combined with the supply of low priced foods 

donated to the ‘social groceries’ by supermarkets. 

100 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

OP II 

  DE: €93m (FEAD + national co-financing) which would 

OP I 

Scope effects 
 

FEAD action broadens 
existing action by 
supporting groups or policy 
areas that would not 
otherwise receive support 

not have ben available at all without FEAD. 

  DK, NL and SE: lowest amount of FEAD funding per 
capita but additional funding for groups that would 
otherwise not have received this support. 

  AT, CY, EE, MT and RO: FEAD addressed different target 
groups than national policies or who fall through the net. 
These were in particular homeless people and EU 
migrants.  

  IT and PL: better targeting of end recipients. 
  FI, IT and LV: support reached the poorest and most 

rural regions not reached by national support. 

  BG: FEAD provided food all year round unlike national 

provision. 

  EU-wide: new food banks and structures set up to 

distribute the food and material assistance. 

  FR and SI in particular: new activities in the framework 

of the accompanying measures. 

  AT, LU, SI and SK: new types of material assistance 

provided. 

OP II 

  DE, DK and SE: FEAD addresses different target groups 

than national policies. 

  DE and SE: low threshold activities represent easy to 

access services previously unavailable to newly arrived 
EU migrants. 

  DK: new type of activity for homeless people. 
  NL: new type of activity for older people.  

OP I 

  MT: new national scheme introduced to complement the 

FEAD. 

  EU-wide: little evidence of activities being able to be 

continued without EU support. 

  DE, DK, NL and SE: awareness-raising for the needs of 
the target group but little evidence of activities being 
able to be continued without EU support. 

OP I 

  BE, CY, MT and SK: explicitly no effect on the public 

Role effects 
 

FEAD action has lasting 
effects on processes in the 
MS, observed in terms of 
improved systems or 
methods, or for instance in 
improved cooperation 
between various public 
sector actors 

OP II 

Process effects 
 

FEAD action has lasting 
effects on processes in the 
MS, observed in terms of 
improved systems or 
methods, or for instance in 
improved cooperation 
between various public 
sector actors 

administration. 

  CZ, EE and LU: FEAD created an administrative burden. 
  ES: new cooperation between three national ministries 
(hitherto no cooperation) and between national level 
intermediary bodies, POs, their regional/provincial offices 
and local delivery organisations. 

  EL, IT and SK: increased cooperation between 

regional/local authorities and NGOs. 

  EL, FI, PL and PT: increased cooperation between POs. 
  AT, FI, FR, LT, LV and RO: increased organisational skills 
(database, accounting, public procurement procedure, 
monitoring, auditing etc.). 

  IE: increased capacity of local organisations. 
  FR: chains of solidarity link all stakeholders: the partners 

for the implementation of food distribution activities, 
local authorities that provide premises, businesses by 
donations or loans of equipment, agro-businesses 
foodstuffs or distribution providing foodstuffs, individuals 
on the occasion of donations and volunteers essential to 
the functioning of food aid schemes. 

  PL: creation and development of network of POs across 

the country has led to strengthening of these 
organisations. 

  PL: NGOs looked for different sources of food, such as 

food collections as a result of new structures under FEAD. 

  BE: mutual learning through the exchange of good 

practice between organisations at meetings held every 
three months. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  EE: visibility effect through televised campaigns. 
  SI: exchange of good practice, e.g. between PO and Red 
Cross has led to new types of accompanying measures 
and new seminar topics, e.g. on health. 

OP II 

  DE: increased cooperation between regional/local 

authorities and NGOs. 

  DE: increased mutual learning at all levels (through 
mandatory cooperation with municipalities, local 
networking, bi-annual transfer workshops). 

  DE: visibility effect through FEAD. 
  NL: no effect on public administration. 
  DK: increased capacity of local organisations. 
  NL: POs (i.e. libraries) changed their organisation and 

focus and hired additional staff. 

  SE: meetings organised with the FEAD have led to a 
better understanding of the target group’s needs. 

Based  on  the  above  analysis,  Table  12  attributes  the  amount  of  added  value  (none, 
some (+) and a significant amount (++)) observed in terms of volume, scope, role and 
process per Member State.  

  Overview of EU added value by Member State and effects 

Member State  Volume60 

Scope 

Role 

Process 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

60 ++ is attributed to MS with both the highest levels of funding overall and the highest level of funding per 
capita; 
+ is attributed to the MS with medium levels of funding overall and per capita. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Member State  Volume60 

Scope 

Role 

Process 

SI 

SK 

UK 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Conclusion:  The  most  visible  value  added  effects  are  the  scope  and  process  effects, 
although  the  volume  effects  should  not  be  underestimated  as  the  funding  is  almost 
always significant for the end recipients and activities. There is little evidence so far for 
role  effects  but  the  expected  consequences  of  stopping  FEAD  support  would  be 
significant  thus  suggesting  little  confidence  on  the  part  of  the  stakeholders  that  the 
support would be mainstreamed. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2.6 

Relevance 

Key findings 

  Despite  some  positive  developments,  not  enough  progress  has  been  made 
towards reaching the Europe 2020 headline target of lifting at least 20 million 
people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion. Consequently, there is a 
continuing  need  to  address  poverty  and  social  protection  benefits  including 
material deprivation.  

  .FEAD can provide targeted support in the form of food and material goods and, 
through the accompanying measures and in OP II, social inclusion support. This 
complements the national strategies in combating poverty and social exclusion. 

  In some OP I countries, the FEAD is the only national food programme, in others 
it supplements existing food programmes. In all cases, it is considered relevant, 
if not always efficient.  

  There is evidence of some gaps in the types of food provided in a small number 
of Member States, many of which were closed during the implementation, e.g. 
in Luxembourg with the introduction of additional food products. 

  In  some  countries,  gaps  are  being  addressed  in  the  next  phase  of  the 

programmes, e.g. in Ireland and Portugal. 

  Material assistance in OP I accounts for a fraction of all spending incurred so far 
but there are calls for more provision of hygiene products and other material 
goods for specific needs (babies etc.). 

  The FEAD provides first and sometimes essential steps towards social inclusion 
through  the  accompanying  measures.  This  can  be  through  direction  towards 
existing social services or advice and other social activities (cooking together, 
etc.).  

  Accompanying measures have been found to provide empowerment to the end 
recipients by helping them out of isolation and giving them access to services 
for  which  they  are  eligible.  The  accompanying  measures  also  empower  the 
organisations providing them by helping them develop new services and skills.  

  The limited resources available within FEAD financing (5% flat rate financing of 
purchasing costs) may limit the quality and scope of accompanying measures, 
e.g. volunteers may not be able to provide the kind of advice and counselling 
the target group requires or the funds may not be sufficient to either train the 
former or employ social workers. 

  The  social  inclusion  provided  in  the  framework  of  OP  II  is  filling  a  gap  in  the 
provision of social inclusion measures in the four Member States with OP II. 

2.6.1  How relevant is the aid to the target groups? How well does it 

respond to their needs? Are there any gaps? 

The relevance of a strategy, initiative or programme is defined in the Better Regulation 
Guidelines  as  ‘the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  in  society  and  the 
objectives of an intervention’. In the case of FEAD, it refers to the extent to which the 
support addresses the needs of the people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in the 
different Member States.  

According to the FEAD regulation, the main target group of the fund are “most deprived 
persons”, that is “natural persons, whether individuals, families, households or groups 
composed of such persons, whose need for assistance has been established according 
to the objective criteria set by the national competent authorities in consultation with 
relevant stakeholders”. 

The  question  of  relevance  looks  for  evidence  of  the  extent  to  which  activities  and 
operations implemented through OPs adequately address the needs of persons at risk 
of poverty and social exclusion. 

104 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

In accordance with the above, the questions posed by the evaluation were: 

  How relevant is the aid to the target groups? 

  How well does it respond to their needs? 

  Are there any gaps? 

The analysis draws on the desk research and interviews in each Member State and on 
the  aggregated  SFC2014  data  from  2014-2016.  The  results  of  the  focus  groups, 
structured surveys and the OPC have also been used. 

2.6.1.1  How relevant is the aid to the target groups and how well does it respond to 

their needs? 

With  reference  to  Chapter  1  of  this  report,  poverty  is  an  enduring  problem  although 
there have been positive developments in recent years. Millions of Europeans are still 
at risk of poverty and unable to fully participate in society as a result. According to SILC, 
the number of people at risk of poverty in the EU 28 in 2015 was 119.08 million people, 
or 23.8%, i.e. 0.6 percentage points lower than in 2014. Poverty and social exclusion 
are of course primarily dealt with by national governments. Social protection benefits 
make up a significant proportion of GDP, ranging from just under 15% of GDP in Latvia 
to  nearly  35%  in  France,  whereby  an  average  of  4%  EU-wide  are  actually  spent  on 
combatting social exclusion and housing.61  

Compared  to  national  investments,  the  FEAD  support  is  very  small.  A  significant 
proportion of the population affected by poverty can nevertheless be reached.  

OP I 

Under OP I, FEAD distributed almost one million tonnes of food in 20 MS62 from 2014 to 
2016 to an increasing number of end recipients: 8 million in 2014, 14 million in 2015 
and 15 million in 2016, whereby some multiple counting of individuals should be taken 
into account. Many end recipients of FEAD come repeatedly to the distribution points or 
service centres. E.g. in the structured survey, a far higher percentage of people were 
not  using  FEAD  for  the  first  time  (up  to  94%).  This  makes  it  difficult  for  Partner 
Organisations to estimate the numbers of end recipients.  

In percentages, from 2014-2016, 50% of those benefiting from FEAD food distribution 
in  2016  were  women.  30%  of  those  benefiting  from  FEAD  food  distribution  were 
children, 10% were over 65 year-olds, 12% were people with a foreign background, 5% 
were people with disabilities and 4% were homeless. 

In order to ensure the relevance of the FEAD support, different methods were used by 
Member  States.  At  least63  ten  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Germany,  Estonia,  France, 
Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Austria and Romania) tested the proposed aid 
on  a  sample  of  end  recipients  or  conducted  surveys  of  end  recipients.  At  least  13 
Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  France,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Latvia, 
Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovakia),  additionally  or 
exclusively,  consulted  Partner  Organisations.  Seven  Member  States  (Belgium, 
Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Romania  and  Slovakia)  also  chose  to 
consult  experts,  usually  on  health  and  nutrition  issues.  Several  surveys  and 
consultations are ongoing (Belgium, Germany, Greece). However, for six Member States 
(Denmark, Greece, Spain, Finland, Italy and Slovenia), there is no evidence that they 
have assessed the needs of target groups through a specific procedure. There is also 
limited anecdotal evidence pointing to some misuse of food aid, e.g. selling on of food.  

Notwithstanding, the aid was considered to respond to the identified or assumed needs 
of the target groups in nearly every Member State. In Italy, initially the MA had hoped 

61 Die Presse, 08.12.2017 
62 AT, DK, NL, SE and DE do not distribute food. Due to late implementation, no food was distributed in CY, 
HR, HU and UK. 
63 We say ‘at least’ x MS to indicate that it may be more. 

105 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

to  implement  a  voucher  system  for  food  support  but  this  was  discarded  because  the 
Commission  did  not  approve  of  such  a  system  since  it  meant  a  financial  contribution 
and  the  end  recipient  would  not  necessarily  come  into  contact  with  the  organisation 
dispensing the aid, thus also not benefit from the accompanying measures.  Italy and 
France also highlighted that considering the number of end recipients in these Member 
States  (around  4  million  in  France  and  around  3  million  in  Italy),  no  one  size  fits  all 
policy was possible. In Austria and Luxembourg, the FEAD was said to be relevant but 
not to have a crucial role, given that its budget is relatively low compared to national 
programmes. In Austria, the FEAD is nevertheless used for something that would not 
otherwise be funded (school start package). 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  in  relation  to  school  lunches  for  children  up  to  the  age  of  15, 
FEAD  does  not  respond  to  the  needs  of  all  categories  of  children  who  are  at  risk  of 
poverty and social exclusion. The reason for that is that eligibility for FEAD is linked to 
the social subsidy of material need. Only people in receipt of the social subsidy get free 
school lunches, leaving out others who may also need the support. 

In France, just over half the eight million food insecure people received food aid in 2015. 
There is scope for more eligible people to receive food aid and the communication of 
the  availability  of  the  aid  is  essential.  Nevertheless,  in  France,  during  the  First  Focus 
Group, the Partner Organisations distributing aid highlighted the diversity of the people 
assisted  and  a  certain  evolution  towards  more  and  more  diversification.  The  end 
recipients  are  unemployed  single  people,  but  also  students,  elderly  people,  migrants 
and more and more families. This is the reason why categories of targeted end recipients 
should  not  be  set,  as  it  creates  new  exclusions  and  competition  among  categories  of 
poor people. Unconditional welcome must remain the rule and the principle of action. 

The Second EU-level Focus Group also came down in favour of quite a flexible approach 
to  the  target  groups,  saying  that  the  Member  States  should  be  able  to  choose 
themselves which groups to support. 

The argument against this is that the aid is then not necessarily focused on the  most 
deprived, e.g. the homeless, and therefore perhaps not the most relevant. 

The  FEAD  enables  Partner  Organisations  to  build  a  diversified  and  quality  food  aid 
strategy based on people's needs, freedom of choice and nutritional balance. It offers a 
consistent budget for food and material assistance over a period of years and guarantees 
the stability of their supplies. 

In some countries (e.g. Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania and Slovakia), FEAD is the only or primary source of food aid. In this manner, 
it provides an essential service. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  structured  survey  in  which  a  proportion  of  end  recipients  in 
most MS receives some form of material assistance from other sources but this is quite 
small except in Estonia where it reaches 69%. The most common other service is food 
aid. 

The OPC results concurred with the findings of the interviews and desk research with 
nearly 94% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that food is the most important 
type of assistance to alleviate the worst forms of poverty. A large number of respondents 
stated that food packages should be adapted to the end recipients, depending on their 
age, their religion, their allergies or diseases (diabetes) etc. For these reasons, some 
organisations  prefer  letting  people  choose  their  food  by  themselves.  Several 
respondents  also  explained  their  preference  for  vouchers  when  it  comes  to  food  and 
clothes. 

FEAD  also  provided  EUR  10.1  million  worth  of  material  goods  in  2015  and  2016  (no 
material goods were disbursed in 2014). 700,000 people benefited, among them nearly 
300,000 children. 

106 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

The  OPC  provided  further  details  on  the  provision  of  material  assistance.  Many 
respondents  suggested  providing  non-prescription  medication  and  medication  for 
chronic  diseases.  Often  mentioned  were  also  condoms,  birth  control  pills  and  overall 
family planning support. Some respondents also highlighted the lack of feminine hygiene 
products. Several respondents also addressed the issue of eyeglasses, hearing aids and 
orthopaedic supplies for older people, which can be prohibitively expensive. 

The participants in the Second EU-level Focus Group in March 2018 also discussed the 
inclusion of medication in the FEAD offer. The problem with expanding the offer to more 
expensive  items  is  that  the  budget  will  be  severely  stretched  and  may  no  longer  be 
sufficient for the provision of basic aid. 

The same applies to the utility bills which were also mentioned in the OPC. The most 
frequently suggested material assistance was help with water, electricity and gas bills. 
Many respondents also suggested providing basic domestic appliances (i.e. fridges and 
microwaves),  and  furniture  such  as  tables,  beds  and  chairs.  These  issues  were  also 
discussed  during  the  Second  EU-level  Focus  Group,  whereby  the  argument  against 
utility bills was that they were very expensive and the current budget would be unable 
to cover them. In several MS, utility costs are already provided, either through national 
policies or the third sector. Access to healthcare is particularly relevant, but the focus 
should be on supporting the access to existing healthcare services, e.g. through lobbying 
and advocacy, rather than providing them through FEAD resources. The same goes for 
housing benefits which would also over-stretch the FEAD budget. Worth thinking about 
were, however, household appliances and furniture. These were often things that poor 
households and people moving into new homes cannot afford.64 

Household cleaning products and washing powder were among most mentioned hygiene 
products.  Another  potential  form  of  support  suggested  were  public  transport  tickets. 
Access  to  internet  and  telecommunications  was  seen  as  essential.  Support  for 
administrative  formalities,  for  instance  in  providing  ID  photos  was  also  suggested. 
Finally,  many  respondents,  especially  from  French  speaking  countries,  mentioned 
access  to  culture  as  a  major  issue,  particularly  for  children  and  teenagers.  This  was 
confirmed by the French focus group in which participants underlined the role of FEAD 
providing access to activities for children and young people. 

Conclusion:  The  FEAD  support  is  considered  highly  relevant,  especially  in  those 
Member  States  where  the  FEAD  is  the  only  source  of  food  support  or  material 
assistance. More hygiene products would be useful but assistance with utility bills and 
housing  would  overstretch  the  FEAD  budget  and  take  the  emphasis  away  from  the 
current support. 

Accompanying measures 

In addition to food and material aid, the FEAD provided accompanying measures under 
OP I aimed at helping people onto the first rung out of poverty by informing them about 
existing social services offers at their disposal.  

Indeed, although Managing Authorities were satisfied with the relevance of the aid with 
regard to its quality and to the target groups identified, the sustainability of food aid 
and material support in general was questioned. The interviewees generally concurred 
that the aid helped to alleviate poverty and fulfilled the basic needs of end recipients. 
However, most (15) stated that it was a short-term alleviation, which could not meet 
long-term needs. Many (13) interviewees from OP I Member States said that additional 
structural  and  social  inclusion  support  was  necessary  in  the  form  of  social  inclusion 
measures  in  order  to  achieve  long-term  poverty  alleviation  and  social  inclusion. 
However,  these  can  only  work  if  initial  needs  regarding  food  and  material  assistance 

64 Second EU-level Focus Group, Brussels, 02.03.18 

107 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

have been addressed.  This is confirmed by the findings of the OPC which stated that 
covering basic needs were essential to human dignity.  

Over  90%  of  respondents  of  OPC  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the 
direction  to  competent  services  is  essential  to  alleviate  the  worst  forms  of  poverty. 
Psychological support and therapeutic measures were also considered important (86% 
agreed or strongly agreed), as was advice on managing a household budget (84%). 

According to the structured survey, in 16 out of 22 MS the advice or guidance offered 
under the accompanying measures was considered useful. In these MS, between 40% 
and 80% consider the services as very useful. However, the accompanying measures in 
some MS failed to reach a relatively large proportion of end recipients. 

A  further  finding  of  the  OPC  was  that  the  limited  resources  within  FEAD  restrict  the 
quality  and  scope  of  accompanying  measures  (5%  of  the  budget).  Some  Partner 
Organisations  struggle  to  provide  accompanying  measures,  for  example  to  rent  the 
necessary  premises.  OPC  respondents  were  concerned  by  a  lack  of  qualified  human 
resources as volunteers are not always qualified to provide counselling and advice on 
available measures. Outreach work to the most deprived also takes up a lot of resources 
that may not be available. 

One  counter  argument  raised  at  the  Second  EU-level  Focus  Group  to  increasing  the 
budget for the accompanying measures was that there would then be less budget for 
the food and basic material assistance under OP I and this assistance remains essential. 
Social inclusion  measures  can  theoretically  take  place  under  the  ESF  with  the  caveat 
that the target group of the FEAD is often so far from the labour market that the ESF 
objective of bringing them closer to the labour market is a long way in the future. In a 
future scenario where the two funds might be merged in an ESF+, this argument would 
have to be taken into account.  

One  of  the  OPC  questions  asked  whether  further  types  of  accompanying  measures 
should  be  offered.  There  were  259  responses.  Many  respondents  called  for  activities 
related to health and access to health insurance, family planning and sports.  

The  focus  groups  held  in  seven  Member  States  also  discussed  the  relevance  of  the 
accompanying  measures.  Participants  agreed  that  accompanying  measures  are  an 
important step towards poverty reduction, notably if end recipients use them to access 
social services and get further support that can lift them out of poverty. They are found 
to be particularly helpful for children and elderly people, e.g. in Greece. Similarly to the 
findings of the OPC, the participants found that these are sometimes limited in scope 
and intensity due to budget limitations.  

A  further  aspect  relating  to  the  accompanying  measures  was  empowerment. 
Accompanying measures in particular contribute to the empowerment of end recipients. 
In  addition,  the  delivery  of  FEAD  empowers  delivery  organisations/associations  who 
improve their resource management capacity and the capacity to reach people that need 
help  and  build  relationships  with  them.  Empowerment  is  a  particularly  important 
intermediate  result  of  OP  II,  concerning  the  strengthening  of  basic  life  skills  through 
e.g. basic training (including digital) and support. 

Conclusion: The accompanying measures were considered relevant although they did 
not reach all end recipients. The 5% of the budget foreseen poses a problem in some 
Member  States  as  the  Partner  Organisations  struggle  to  provide  qualitative 
accompanying  measures  with  such  a  small  budget.  However,  the  social  inclusion 
aspect  of  the  accompanying  measures  was  considered  essential  as  it  is  this  that 
makes  the  FEAD  a  ‘people  programme’65  as  opposed  to  a  food  programme.  When 
balancing  out  the  findings  from  the  various  sources  of  information,  we  can  deduce 
that  relevant  accompanying  measures  are  those  that  can  realistically  (with  the 
available  financial  allocation)  provide  a  first  step  towards  social  inclusion  through 

65 Second EU-level focus Group, Brussels, 02.03.18 

108 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

softer type activities such as information, guidance and counselling and basic health, 
leisure and family advice. The natural link with ESF should be promoted to provide 
more intensive social inclusion as well as labour market integration support.  

OP II 

In Germany, the FEAD support gives EU migrants, their children, homeless people and 
people at risk of homelessness access to their fundamental right to shelter and a certain 
service. The support helps the target groups access the national services to which they 
have a right. These groups belong to the most disadvantaged people in Germany and 
therefore correspond to the FEAD target population.66  

While  the  advice  and  transferral  of  people  to  the  relevant  services  works  well  in 
Germany, there is a problem in that the services to which the migrants are directed are 
sometimes not available or full (e.g. German courses or kindergarten places). This is a 
problem  for  the  FEAD  as  it  raises  questions  about  the  sense  of  directing  people  to 
services that are full anyway. 

The continued relevance of the FEAD support was discussed at both the German Focus 
Group and at the Second EU-level Focus Group. EU migrants will continue to come to 
Germany (often according to the revolving door principle as they theoretically have to 
go  back  to  their  country  of  origin  after  three  months  if  they  are  unable  to  support 
themselves) and the municipalities need financial support from the European Union to 
be able to deal with them as the target group is not a priority for national or regional 
governments and the social budgets stretched as it is.  

In  Denmark,  the  outreach  work  provided  by  street  workers,  meals,  shelters/storage, 
minor  employment  opportunities  and  possible  repatriation  all  appear  relevant  for  the 
target  group  of  vulnerable  homeless  that  are  not  ordinarily  in  contact  with  existing 
national  services  and  interventions  –  and  particularly  so  for  those  homeless  that  are 
non-Danish nationals in Denmark. 

The OPC brought up another issue which is health advice for the OP II target groups. 
98% of OP II respondents agreed with the provision of health advice. OP II respondents 
also support the offer of education for migrant children (94% agree or strongly agree) 
and  the  social  integration  of  migrants  (92%),  corroborating  the  evidence  from  the 
interviews and desk research. 

Conclusion: The FEAD plays an essential role in the four OP II Member States as the 
services provided are highly relevant and fill a gap in social inclusion support in the 
Member States.  

2.6.1.2  Are there any gaps? 

Gaps in the implementation of the FEAD were identified in most Member States, except 
Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  and  Luxembourg.  In  Austria,  the  gaps  were  closed  by 
testing the list of articles on a sample of families (children) before launching the scheme 
for everyone. In Belgium, the Managing Authority contracted experts in poverty and/or 
social exclusion to help with identifying possible gaps in the food list. 

The  gaps  in  other  countries  were  in  a  number  of  areas,  such  as  the  quality  of  food 
provided, its quantity, its variety, the amount of material assistance provided, the reach 
of the accompanying measures, the territorial coverage of the FEAD and the availability 
and access of services for FEAD end recipients. These are described below. 

OP I 

Interviewees from a number of Member States said there were some gaps in the type 
of  food  provided:  the  variety  of  food  was  considered  insufficient  (e.g.  lack  of  fresh 

66 Ex-ante Evaluation of the German FEAD OP, p. 3-4 

109 

 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

food), and dietary restrictions were not taken into account. In France, the associations 
cannot always provide people with what they need, depending on their state of health, 
age, and eating habits but regularly carry out surveys to try to ensure that products to 
take account of religious practices and cultural norms. Interviewees from Greece, Spain 
and  Finland  said  the  food  packages  do  not  cover  all  the  nutritional  needs  of  the 
recipients. Some food packages were also found incomplete, with oil and sugar missing 
(Bulgaria). Luxembourg was quick to supplement the gaps, e.g. with oil. 

In Latvia, the Food and Veterinary Service, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre and 
the Health Inspectorate were consulted concerning the food packages. Products were 
selected  taking  into  account  each  product's  nutritional  value  and  suitability  for 
distribution, expiration date, and if a  special storage temperature  regime is required. 
Assessment was carried out of the comparison between the food aid intensity and daily 
dietary energy value. 

In  Finland,  where  the  FEAD  is  the  only  source  of  food  support  in  rural  areas,  it  was 
particularly important that the aid provided had high nutritional value.  

The quantity of the food was seldom criticised.  In  Greece, the food packages  were 
criticised for not offering sufficient food to a family for every day of the year but it was 
agreed that this would be too ambitious. On account of criticism regarding the quantity 
of  food  in  Portugal,  the  new  model  to  be  introduced  in  2017  aims  at  providing  food 
support ensuring 50% of the person’s nutritional needs. The food baskets will now be 
22 kilos of food per month per person, compared to the previous food support of 1.4 
kilos per month, so significantly more. 

There  was  uneven  coverage  of  the  territory  in  at  least  three  Member  States  (the 
Czech Republic, Ireland and Italy) due to shortcomings in the implementation. In the 
Czech  Republic,  some  regions  showed  low  interest  in  the  specific  objective  1,  school 
lunches, due to the high administrative burden associated with the FEAD support. There 
are similar support mechanisms financed by state and private funds where the delivery 
mechanism is easier and more children are eligible. In Ireland, the analysis of FEAD’s 
initial operation over six months in 2016 shows that the number of recipients reached 
in  some  rural  areas  is  rather  small  and  this  needs  to  be  reviewed  and,  if  necessary, 
addressed, for instance by engaging additional end recipients/charities in those areas. 

Evidence from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta and Poland shows that some target 
groups were not reached by the FEAD food aid. In the Czech Republic, eligibility for the 
FEAD  is  linked  to  the  national  system  of  social  support.  Some  categories  of  the 
population  do  not  qualify  for  the  national  social  support  and  therefore  not  for  FEAD. 
These  are  single  parent  families,  households  with  three  or  more  children,  and  single 
people. In Estonia, large families living in in-work poverty, single-parent families, and 
elderly people living alone would need food aid, especially when they have health issues, 
but  do  not  qualify.  In  Malta,  specific  vulnerable  groups  mentioned  were  people  with 
disabilities who may be dependent on the household and who are over the age of 16 
and single person households, especially elderly. However, in Malta, these target groups 
are being reached by the new nationally funded food distribution scheme. In Poland, the 
gaps in coverage are being gradually reduced (to date, from 38% to 10% of people not 
covered).  The  demand  sometimes  still  exceeds  the  offer  resulting  in  smaller  food 
packages. 

Material  assistance  accounted  for  1%  of  the  total  spending  incurred  in  2016.  In  a 
number  of  countries,  material  assistance  was  requested  in  addition  to  food.  For 
example, in Slovenia more material goods (e.g. hygiene products, washing powder etc.) 
were needed and in France, associations reported an increasing demand for non-food 
products (hygiene products, products for young children and even intangible goods). In 
Romania, winter clothes were needed but not distributed under the FEAD. They were 
not included in the OP and distributing them would mean a change in the OP which is 
currently not being considered. In Slovakia there is evidence that it might be that the 
food and material assistance does not sufficiently cover all needs. All in all, however, 

110 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FEAD seems to provide adequate support with respect to its goals, available resources, 
administrative limitations, and the needs of target groups. 

Conclusion:  Most  OP  I  Member  States  managed  to  close  the  gaps  in  the  provision  of 
food and material assistance although some gaps remain in the quality of food provided, 
its quantity, its variety, the amount of material assistance provided, the reach of the 
accompanying measures, the territorial coverage of the FEAD and the availability and 
access of services for FEAD end recipients. 

OP II 

The gaps identified in Germany were not so much in the FEAD but in the regular system 
of  social  welfare  to  which  FEAD  end  recipients  are  referred.  The  regular  assistance 
system  is  sometimes  oversubscribed  and  people  cannot  actually  get  places,  e.g.  on 
German courses, in kindergartens, etc. This is something that needs to be addressed if 
FEAD  is  to  be  judged  successful.  No  gaps  were  identified  to  date  in  the  other  OP  II 
countries Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. 

Indeed,  in  Denmark,  the  provision  of  information  through  outreach  work,  meals, 
shelters/storage, minor employment opportunities and possible repatriation appears to 
be relevant for the target group of vulnerable homeless that are not ordinarily in contact 
with national existing actions and interventions – and particularly so for those homeless 
that are non-Danish nationals in Denmark. 

In the Netherlands, preliminary case studies of the libraries in Amsterdam and Den Haag 
show  that  participants  are  enthusiastic  about  the  activities  organised  by  the  library: 
they meet new people and are no longer alone at home.  

In Sweden, the aid provided by the Swedish FEAD OP is relevant, but limited in relation 
to the objectives of the programme and the size of the target group. There is no other 
support offered to the target group in regular national policy. 

Conclusion: No notable gaps were reported to date in the provision of FEAD support 
in the OP II Member States. 

111 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

3 

Conclusions and lessons learned 

3.1 

Effectiveness  

The Overall, the FEAD is an effective fund. Despite its limited scale, it provides much 
needed support to a large number of end recipients, in particular families with children 
at risk of poverty, older people on low pensions, homeless people and people who are 
not reached by public services, such as migrants. It reaches out to the most deprived, 
including those that may remain excluded from other forms of social assistance or who 
need a different approach. 

The FEAD provides basic food and material assistance, accompanied by support 
measures such as information about available social services (OP I) or social inclusion 
support (OP II). It represents a cornerstone of food aid and provides solid and regular 
support to many Partner Organisations which would otherwise not be able to provide 
such stable services to the most deprived.  

FEAD material support is not sufficient to help people escape poverty. Accompanying 
measures in OP I therefore play an important role although their financial allocation is 
comparatively small. Accompanying measures  may be provided to  OPI  end recipients 
up to a maximum flat rate of 5% of the allocation to food and material support. This 
has so far not been fully used by MS and some have chosen to rely only on their own 
resources  to  fund  the  accompanying  measures.  They  are  often  resource-intensive 
activities that need specific skills and resources. The scope of accompanying measures 
under OP I could be better defined with a view to fully exploiting the potential of the 
FEAD. Furthermore, the capacity to deliver accompanying measures could be improved 
by  encouraging  the  MA  to  provide  Partner  Organisations,  staff  and  volunteers  with 
adequate training (e.g. through Technical Assistance). 

Horizontal principles are complied with and the implementation of the partnership 
principle is viewed positively by all stakeholders. There is less evidence of the FEAD 
contribution to food waste reduction, both in terms of reducing waste derived from 
unused  purchased/collected  food  for  distribution  and  in  terms  of  promoting  food 
donations by covering costs associated to their collection, storage and distribution. 
Better  use  should  be  made  of  the  possibility  to  use  FEAD  funding  for  the  collection, 
storage and distribution of food donations, through better communication on its benefits 
as well as strengthening capacity of Partner Organisations. 

The FEAD has achieved several systemic results that are not directly measurable in 
terms  of  poverty  alleviation  but  that  play  a  key  role  towards  this  goal.  They  include 
improved  cooperation,  partnership  and  networking,  improved  empowerment 
of  PO  and  end  recipients,  awareness  raising.  They  were  highly  valued  by 
programme stakeholders. 

The level of financial progress of FEAD programmes is satisfactory overall, with some 
substantial variations across MS. OP II MS show better financial progress than OP I MS. 
This is due to the on target implementation of the four OP II programmes and the late 
start of some of the OP I programmes due to delays caused by the procurement process 
and setting up new structures. Three out of the four OP II programmes are financially 
among the smallest programmes and therefore also perhaps easier to implement. There 
is room for improvement, especially in terms of speeding up implementation of material 
assistance, and overall financial implementation in some countries.  

Targets  are  only  required  in  OP  II  for  specific output  and  result  indicators.  Thus,  the 
FEAD monitoring system does not allow the full assessment of the fund’s performance 
or  effectiveness.    The  FEAD  would  benefit  from  minor  adjustments  in  the  monitoring 
and evaluation system, such as introducing indicators on, e.g. the number of individuals 
being directed towards social inclusion services and/or the number of people to whom 
accompanying measures have been provided, whilst keeping a focus on simplification 
to  avoid  an  increase  in  the  administrative  burden  on  Partner  Organisations  and 
Managing Authorities as well as to safeguard the dignity of end recipients. 

112 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

3.2 

Coherence 

Overall, the FEAD is coherent and complementary to the national systems for poverty 
alleviation. It widens the number and type of end recipients reached and provides 
forms of support which would not otherwise be available to the most deprived or specific 
population groups. It also complements other EU funds, notably the ESF and AMIF 
by targeting different groups or providing complementary measures. Further synergies 
with the ESF, especially with respect to FEAD accompanying measures and integrated 
pathways  towards  social  inclusion  are  desirable,  for  example  by  further  aligning  the 
FEAD  and  ESF  so  as  to  allow  further  simplification  and  and  potential  pathways  from 
basic support and social inclusion support to active labour market integration measures. 

If the human capital funds are merged in future, a ring-fencing of resources for the 
FEAD should be envisaged, to avoid the risk of discontinuing FEAD fundamental support 
to a vital network of organisations providing immediate support to the most deprived. 

3.3 

Efficiency 

The  FEAD  is  reasonably  lean  in  its  implementation  but  it  is  has  been  found  to  be 
administratively burdensome in some countries, mostly through the combined and 
excessive  burden  stemming  from  additional  national  requirements  on  top  of  EC 
regulations and requirements (so-called ‘gold plating’). Member States can be advised 
to  follow  closely  the  Regulation  while  also  sharing  the  experiences  of  those  Member 
States which implement the programme without adding excessive requirements to what 
is already foreseen in the Regulation. A good context for such exchanges and awareness 
raising are the FEAD Network meetings. 

The  identification  of  end  recipients  by  MAs  (which  is required  for  OP  II)  has 
imposed  a  heavy  burden  on  the  capacities  of  the  organisations  that  carry  out 
verifications, while in some cases, the cost of verification is also high. Some countries 
undertake  proactive  outreach  approaches  to  reach  end  recipients  who  are  at  risk  of 
remaining outside the system (e.g. homeless, Roma). In OP II, outreach activities are 
the main channel used to identify the end recipients. 

Programme authorities can consider options to simplify the registration requirements 
for end recipients, such as (a) designate one organisation for verification of status 
with  regard  to  material  deprivation  and  potentially  also  coordinate  with  verification 
required for other types of support and/or (b) offer capacity building to organisations 
involved in verification to improve their skills in this field and carry out the process more 
efficiently. In both OP  I and OP II,  local coordination and local networks play an 
important role in helping end recipients access FEAD support. What has worked best is 
the assessment of end recipients’ needs as well as the use of different types of delivery 
organisations specialised in specific target groups and organisations with local networks 
which have good knowledge of end recipients. 

National  public  procurement  rules  in  some  countries  are  complex  and  lengthy 
causing undue delays in the delivery of assistance (while the Regulation stresses that 
food purchases should not unduly delay the delivery of the food products to the Partner 
Organisations). These could be streamlined and improved.  

There are large variations in unit costs in both OP I and OP II programmes that are 
explained by the different contents of support, e.g. school bags and school items are 
more  expensive  than  hygiene  items  for  babies.  It  is  not  possible  to  make  conclusive 
comparisons due to the different contexts and different composition of material 
support in OP I and social inclusion support in OP II. There are also significant indirect 
benefits  that  cannot  be  costed  (improved  cohesion,  solidarity,  prevention  of 
humanitarian  crises,  leverage  effects  of  volunteering  and  commitment  of  civil  society 
organisations).  Savings  could  possibly  be  made  in  delivery  and  distribution,  e.g.  by 
merging delivery points. Evaluations of cost effectiveness could also take into account 
the  indirect  benefits  in  terms,  e.g.  of  improved  cohesion,  solidarity,  prevention  of 

113 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

humanitarian  crises,  leverage  effects  of  volunteering,  etc.  with  the  use  of  qualitative 
evaluation approaches. 

There are indications that accompanying measures can be efficient in helping target 
groups  towards  their  social  inclusion,  especially  if  they  keep  their  ‘accompanying’ 
character, i.e. offered together with food support. 

There  are  strong  arguments  for  keeping the FEAD delivery mechanism  of  shared 
management. Moreover, its leaner management and control system (compared to the 
ESF) are an asset and should not be abandoned in the case of a potential merging with 
the  ESF.  Indeed,  the  simplicity,  the  accumulated  experience  and  the  national  and 
regional knowledge of poverty and social exclusion challenges and needs of the FEAD 
should be maintained.  

The  various  levels  of  control  may  create  situations  where  the  same  beneficiary  is 
audited  by  different  national  and  European  organisations,  thus  causing  unnecessary 
delays in implementation. It should be ensured that the single audit principle is more 
comprehensively applied. 

3.4 

European added value 

The FEAD has a notable volume effect in nearly every Member State. In the framework 
of  OP  I,  it  adds  to  existing  food  and  material  assistance  initiatives  either  on  national 
level or on local level or fills a gap in provision, particularly in rural and remote areas. 
It provides stable, all-year-round support which is accessible across the country and for 
all  eligible  target  groups.  It  has  become  an  indispensable  part  of  national  food  and 
material  assistance  provision  in  many  Member  States  having  both  a  leverage  and 
multiplier effect. While Type II OPs account for a very modest share of the overall FEAD 
allocation, there is nevertheless a modest volume effect as this funding would otherwise 
not have been available at all for these target groups. 

The scope effect of the FEAD can be clearly observed in terms of new target groups 
and new activities and greater territorial coverage. Two thirds of Member States were 
able to include new target groups such as homeless people and migrants from within 
the  EU  in  their  provision  of  support,  especially  in  OP  II  countries  where  the  support 
would  most  likely  not  have  been  provided  otherwise.  In  OP  II  countries,  FEAD  also 
contributed to testing new or expanding existing activities. This was also the case in OP 
I  countries  where  existing  support  was  expanded  and  enriched  with  accompanying 
measures  or  new  initiatives  were  started,  especially  in  remote  and  rural  regions.  Six 
Member States have not noted a significant scope  effect,  either because the scope is 
the  same  as  the  one  of  national  initiatives  or  because  of  the  late  start  of  the 
programmes. 

In terms of role effects, there is little evidence so far of mainstreaming using national 
funding. The future of FEAD-type support after the end of the the current programming 
period  is  also  somewhat  uncertain  until  the  new  regulations  are  approved.  However, 
there were reports of a significant visibility effect in that the general population is aware 
of FEAD in a number of countries.  

There  is  also  evidence  of  considerable  process  effects  in  terms  of  mutual  learning. 
Several Member States have greater cooperation between national and local authorities 
and  Partner  Organisations,  and  between  Partner  Organisations  and  delivery 
organisations  themselves.  There  is  also  a  learning  effect  and  professionalization  of 
Partner  Organisations  and  local  authorities.  The  FEAD  network  also  contributed 
significantly to the exchange of good practice and mutual learning and thus increased 
the added value of the FEAD. 

In the light of the evidence, the discontinuation of the FEAD would have significant 
consequences in many Member States. In several Member States, the FEAD is the main 
food and material assistance provider, e.g. in Finland, Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia. It 
provides unique services to target groups in the OP II countries who would otherwise 
receive no comparable support. 

114 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

3.5 

Relevance 

Given the EU 2020 target of reducing poverty by 20 million and the persistence of 
poverty across Member States, there is a continued need for sustained anti-poverty 
strategies and measures. Social protection benefits are largely provided by national 
governments but the FEAD provides essential targeted support in the form of food and 
material goods and social inclusion support for those who may otherwise fall through 
the net.  

FEAD provides first and sometimes  essential steps towards  social inclusion through 
the accompanying measures in OP I. These measures also provide empowerment to the 
end  recipients  and  to  a  certain  extent  to  the  organisations  themselves  in  that  they 
expand their range of services and skills. 

The social inclusion provided in the framework of OP II fills a gap in the provision of 
social inclusion measures in the four Member States with OP II, especially with respect 
to the target groups (e.g. EU/third country migrants, homeless people or people at risk 
of homelessness and older people above working age) and to the type of measures (e.g. 
health advice or social events to contribute to integration). 

The relevance is further highlighted by the Europe 2020 targets and the principles under 
the new Pillar of Social Rights. FEAD can contribute to the achievement of the targets 
and principles. 

115 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

4 

Good practice 

4.1 

Identification of good practice 

Sources of good practice cases: 

  suggested by the MAs and/or evaluators (e.g. in the case of Germany) 

 

interviews with programme stakeholders (MAs, IBs and Partner Organisations) 

  country level focus groups 

  FEAD network meetings and publications 

Selection criteria: 

  Contribution to increased effectiveness (producing results that contribute to the 
objectives  of  poverty  reduction  and  social  inclusion),  e.g.  through  focused 
targeting, innovative delivery/implementation mechanisms, innovative/effective 
partnerships,  capacity  building  of  stakeholders  involved,  approaches  to  reduce 
stigmatisation 

  Contribution  to  increased  efficiency,  e.g.  minimises  costs,  economies  of  scale, 

facilitating access to assistance 

  Strong evidence of value added, e.g. scope, role and process effects 

  Demonstrates coherence with other policies and programmes 

  Maximises the relevance of support to the end recipients’ needs. 

Disclaimer: This is not an exhaustive list and there may be more cases of good practice 
than those identified in the context  of this evaluation. The FEAD Network events and 
publications for instance, offer a repository of case studies with good practice elements. 

More details on the case studies can be found in the individual country fiches. 

4.2 

Good practice related to improved effectiveness 

  Overview of good practice cases 

Country/OP type 
Latvia (OP I) 

Good practice element 
Provision of food related to 
the needs of the end 
recipients 

Luxembourg (OP I)  Social grocery concept 
Bulgaria (OP I) 
Czech Republic (OP 
I) 
Greece (OP I) 

End recipients working as 
volunteers 

Helpdesk and information 
sessions for end recipients 

Slovenia (OP I) 

France (OP I) 

Malta (OP I) 

Germany (OP II) 

Germany (OP II) 

The Netherlands 
(OP II) 
Belgium (OP I) 

Ireland (OP I) 

Expansion of the social 
network of end recipients 
Solidarity reception centres 
and Solidarity self service 
FEAD support as a gateway to 
education 
Building bridges to support 
structures 
Integration counsellors 

Implementation mechanism 

Work experience 
opportunities for end 
recipients 
Food Cloud Hubs 

Contribution to effectiveness 
People without cooking facilities also 
benefited from FEAD food support 

Reaching those fearing stigmatisation 
Contribution to social inclusion of end 
recipients through volunteering 

Contribution to social inclusion of end 
recipients by facilitating access to 
information 
Contribution to social inclusion of end 
recipients through skills improvement 
Holistic support of social inclusion 

Contribution to social inclusion through 
education 
Contribution to the social inclusion of 
EU migrants 
Contribution to the social inclusion of 
EU migrants 
Make elderly people more social active 
(contribution to social inclusion) 
Contribution to labour market inclusion 
of end recipients 

Reducing food waste (contribution to 
horizontal principles) 

116 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

The FEAD helped improve the effectiveness of food provision in many Member States. 
Through the FEAD, the provision was more consistent and stable throughout the year 
and across the country (e.g. in Spain), it met the needs of the target groups (e.g. in 
Latvia) and helped supplement the existing offer (e.g. in Luxembourg and France). 

  In Latvia, the soup kitchen operation was expanded in response to the needs of 

the end recipients.  

Currently, 18 soup kitchens are operating in Latvia and providing meals to each 
hungry person. Soup kitchen provide support to persons who lack cooking skills, 
as well as to those, who do not have the opportunity to cook due to the lack of 
kitchen, stove, electricity, gas, etc. These people tended to withdraw from the 
food package programme because they did not have the opportunities to use it. 
Soup kitchen solves the use of food packages close to expiration date as well. 
At  the  same  time,  the  soup  kitchen  provides  immediate  support  to  people  in 
crisis. 

  In Luxembourg, the FEAD food support was effectively combined with the social 
grocery  concept  to  provide  a  combined  offer  of  free  and  low-priced  food  and 
hygiene articles. 

FEAD  support  in  Luxembourg  is  delivered  through  ‘social  groceries’  which  are 
like supermarkets with prices approximately one third of the market price. The 
stores are open five days a week and offer a range of items, including food and 
household/hygiene items. After registering with Social Services, end recipients 
obtain a personal customer number and depending on their personal situation 
they  are  entitled  to  spend  a  certain  amount  per  month  over  a  period  of  six 
months. End recipients can pick up their FEAD food packages free of charge at 
the social groceries and supplement these with reduced price food donated by 
supermarkets. The element of choice helps end recipients to receive aid without 
stigmatisation and a loss of dignity. 

There are numerous good practice examples demonstrating the contribution of FEAD to 
the  social  inclusion  of  end  recipients,  not  only  in  OP  II  programmes  where  this  is 
expected but also in OP I programmes: 

  In Bulgaria and the Czech Republic end recipients work as volunteers. 

In Bulgaria, people who receive food packages often become volunteers under 
other activities of the Bulgarian Red Cross. This has had an unexpected impact 
on the social inclusion of end recipients.  

Slezská  Diakonie,  an  NGO  working  in  the  Moravia-Silesia  region  in  the  Czech 
Republic is a FEAD beneficiary and has been thinking how to use the aid not only 
to cover essential needs of deprived people but also to strengthen their social 
competencies. They therefore asked end recipients in the town of Trinec if they 
were willing to cook 60 meals for homeless people (also FEAD end recipients) 
and  distribute  these  meals  in  the  street.  Thus,  the  “Chefs  Without  Borders" 
project was born which showed that it can break the isolation and help people 
come out of exclusion, and that homeless people may not just be end recipients, 
but that they can and they want to help. Street workers of the NGO prepared 
leaflets with information for the homeless and were also present on that day.  

Thanks to this event, the NGO was able to find people living on the street who 
were  not  aware  of  the  street  workers  and  have  contacted  them  and  can  now 
help  them.  Another  benefit  was  the  significant  strengthening  of  the  end 
recipients' confidence, because they were not just recipients, but also donors. 

  In  Greece,  the  creation  of  a  Helpdesk  facilitates  access  of  very  low  income  end 

recipients to information and support. 

117 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Six  Partner  Organisations  in  the  region  of  Central  Macedonia  have  set  up 
Helpdesks  with  a  Call  centre  offering  end  recipients  psychological  and  social 
support and support for the economic and financial management of the family 
budget, as well as information sessions for the dissemination of good practice 
in  these  fields.  As  a  consequence,  young  people  and  children  feel  more 
integrated,  very  low  income  people  have  improved  the  management  of  their 
family budget and there has been an increased awareness of end recipients of 
the opportunities offered by FEAD. 

  In Slovenia, the Red Cross expands the social network and helps improve skills of 

end recipients. 

‘Srečevalnica’,  the  ‘Space  for  encounters’  project  of  the  Regional  Red  Cross 
Association  of  Ljubljana  offers  a  space  for  FEAD  end  recipients,  including 
unemployed women many of whom are single mothers, to meet and be more 
active socially. The project organises weekly events/meetings which represent 
opportunities to develop social skills (communication, team work) and provide 
support for improving practical skills (e.g. sewing, recycling, recovery and reuse 
of materials, introduction to herbs, production of domestic washing powder and 
natural  cosmetics  and  the  techniques  of  relaxation,  etc.).  An  important 
component  of  social  inclusion  is  that  end  recipients  co-create  the  project 
activities and take an active role in the implementation of these activities and 
subsequently become themselves volunteers to help others. 

  In France, solidarity reception centres offer a holistic approach to social inclusion. 

Secours  Populaire  Français  (SPF)  has  set  up  two  particular  services  –  the 
“Solidarity Reception Centres” (PASS) and “Solidarity Self-Service” (LSS). They 
use  FEAD  food  support  as  a  gateway  to  social  inclusion  by  tackling  different 
forms  of  social  exclusion  in  a  holistic  way,  taking  into  account  the  economic, 
social  and  family  circumstances  of  their  end  recipients.  The  work  focuses  on 
helping  people  who  are  experiencing  poverty  to  become  actively  involved  in 
addressing  their  situation,  including  getting  involved  as  volunteers.  As  a 
consequence,  end  recipients  improve  their  professional  skills  and  regain  their 
sense of self-confidence and self-esteem. 

  In Malta, FEAD is used as a gateway to social inclusion through education. 

Many FEAD end recipients in Malta are families with young children. Recognising 
that  education  is  key  to  tackling  social  exclusion,  as  well  as  offering  young 
people opportunities for the future, the Partner Organisation actively sought to 
build  partnerships  with  relevant  stakeholders  to  offer  educational  support  to 
children living in families with low level of education. When families attend the 
delivery centres to receive their food support they are asked if they want to take 
part in a survey which builds the profiles of the individuals’ educational level and 
interests  in  continuing  education,  Following  this  profiling  exercise,  the  PO 
contacts relevant stakeholders to mobilise their services and address the needs 
identified during profiling by linking the participants to potential initiatives. As a 
consequence, FEAD food distribution has been a gateway to address additional 
needs of families, linking up targeted services with people who may not have 
accessed them otherwise. 

  In Germany (OP II), there are good examples of projects that have successfully 

integrated EU migrants with the help of integration counsellors. 

Against a background of a high influx of EU migrants from Eastern Europe who 
do not speak the language, are poorly informed and are at high risk of social 

118 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

exclusion, the ACASA project in Dortmund provides outreach and advice in the 
migrants’ mother tongues. Counsellors provide advice on how to access German 
lessons,  health  care  and  health  insurance,  and  advice  on  their  rights  as 
migrants.  They  support  their  clients  to  gain  access  to  existing  services  and 
support structures. 

Facing  similar  challenges,  the  City  of  Duisburg  has  used  the  FEAD  project 
‘Integration  and  offer  advice’  to  advice  EU  migrants,  including  parents  with 
children, and homeless, using integration counsellors. 

  In the Netherlands (OP II) the implementation mechanism of FEAD helps elderly 

people become more active and contributes to their social inclusion. 

The ‘Living & Learning – Elderly in the Neighbourhood’ project is implemented 
in  the  four  largest  municipalities  in  the  Netherlands  (Utrecht,  The  Hague, 
Rotterdam  and  Amsterdam)  where  the  proportion  of  vulnerable  seniors  is 
highest. The implementation mechanism includes a central project office, local 
libraries  and  a  broad  network  of  providers  of  courses  in  particular  skills  (e.g. 
digital  skills,  language  development  or  mathematics),  as  well  as  activities  for 
particular  groups  (e.g.  through  neighbourhood  or  migrant  associations)  and 
municipal  services.  As  a  consequence  of  participating  in  these  activities  and 
courses, elderly people strengthen their social networks and improve their social 
interaction. 

  In  Belgium,  end  recipients  achieve  their  social  inclusion  through  labour  market 

inclusion. 

The  Public  Social  Welfare  Centre  in  Antwerp  invests  additional  funds  to  offer 
FEAD end recipients the opportunity to gain work experience through a job at 
their  business  centre  through  formal  fixed-term  employment  contracts  (up  to 
24 months) at a minimum wage. They develop their skills in several fields by 
moving  across  different  divisions  and  as  a  consequence  they  improve  their 
employability which subsequently leads to an increased chance of finding a new 
employment opportunity with the help of the PSWC following the termination of 
their contract. 

There  is  also  good  practice  of  FEAD  contributing  to  horizontal  principles,  notably  the 
reduction of food waste: 

  In  Ireland,  Food  Cloud  Hubs  has  developed  a  unique  solution  to  tackling  food 
waste, by connecting businesses with large volumes of surplus food to charities 
that distribute food aid in communities across Ireland. 

FoodCloud Hubs is the main Partner Organisation that provides food assistance 
under the FEAD programme in Ireland It collects surplus food from businesses, 
that is non-perishable and easy to transport and store. This is used to prepare 
meals for FEAD end recipients. As a consequence, food waste is minimised, end 
recipients benefit from food and businesses benefit from reduced waste disposal 
costs and from making a practical contribution to society. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

4.3 

Good practice related to coherence 

  Overview of good practice cases 

Country/OP 
type 

Bulgaria (OP I) 

Italy (OP I) 

Slovakia (OP I) 

Good practice element 

Contribution to coherence 

Tailored counselling and 
support 
Housing First Network for 
homeless 
Linking end recipients to social 
workers 

Links with ESF 

ESF and FEAD working together 

Links with other initiatives, including 
ESF 

Although FEAD has often been criticised for failing to establish a clear link with other 
programmes, notably with ESF, there is evidence of good practice in establishing such 
links. This illustrates the potential of accompanying measures to bridge FEAD support 
with social inclusion support from ESF. 

  In  Bulgaria,  tailored  counselling  and  advice  helps  end  recipients  access  ESF 

assistance.  

Accompanying measures are offered to individuals together with the distribution 
of  food  parcels.  The  majority  of  individuals  were  referred  to  social  services 
financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) (e.g. personal assistants, day care 
centres),  while  others  were  provided  with  other  social  services  in  the 
community.  There  is  also  written  information  on  opportunities  and  services 
available from the  ESF, nutrition, healthcare issues, budget management and 
safety. 

  In Italy, the ‘Housing First Network for Homeless’ is a good example of FEAD and 

ESF working together. 

The ‘Housing First Network for Homeless’ (NHFI) was established with support 
from  the  Italian  Federation  of  Organisations  for  Homeless  People.  The  NHFI 
complements the government campaign for the homeless and has received both 
ESF  and  FEAD  funding.  ESF  funding  goes  assisting  homelessness  services, 
training for social workers and training and employment support for people who 
are homeless4. FEAD complements this assistance by funding material support, 
including  clothes  and  starter  kits  for  housing  including  for  example  cooking 
utensils. 

  In  Slovakia,  there  is  a  two  way  link  between  FEAD  and  ESF,  with  the  former 
directing end recipients to ESF funded projects and the latter helping reach FEAD 
end recipients. 

Food  parcels  are  distributed  by  accredited  social  workers  who  also  provide 
counselling and advice to those who need it. In many cases the social workers 
signpost end recipients to additional non-FEAD services, if they are in need of 
more in-depth assistance. For instance, ESF projects that provide training and 
help  to  access  the  labour  market.  In  some  cases,  social  workers  from  ESF 
financed  projects  help  FEAD  funded  Partner  Organisations  in  Slovakia  by 
reaching  out  to  end  recipients  identified  through  FEAD,  informing  them  of 
upcoming distributions and assisting during these. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

4.4 

Good practice related to improved efficiency 

  Overview of good practice cases 

Country/OP 
type 

Spain (OP I) 

Spain (OP I) 
Greece (OP I) 
Greece (OP I) 

Finland (OP I) 
Slovenia (OP I) 

Lithuania (OP I) 

Good practice element 

Contribution to efficiency 

Coaching and counselling to 
delivery organisations 
Cooperation of local delivery 
organisations 
Innovative IT tools to facilitate 
and monitor delivery 
Innovative purchase, transport 
and storage 
Innovative delivery methods 
Creative solutions for severely 
materially deprived people 
Recruiting and training 
volunteers 

Improved capacity for FEAD delivery 
and economies of scale 

More efficient delivery (time and cost 
savings) 
More efficient delivery (time savings 
and quality guaranteed) 
Facilitating access to assistance 
Facilitating access to support  

Food distribution process runs 
smoothly  

There  is  good  practice  in  the  use  of  innovative  delivery  methods  and  tools  and 
cooperation approaches that contribute to more efficient delivery through cost and time 
savings and economies of scale: 

  In Spain, coaching of delivery organisations and cooperation amongst them has 
improved  their  capacity  and  achieved  economies  of  scale  in  the  delivery  of 
assistance. 

At national level, the Spanish Red Cross Partner Organisation works closely with 
delivery  organisations  to  help  them  understand  the  programme  and  its 
processes through coaching and counselling. As a consequence, the quality of 
service offered by the delivery organisations has improved over time. 

At the local level, the Food Bank in Barcelona organises participative meetings 
with local delivery organisations operating in the same territory, also with the 
participation  of  municipal  social  services.  As  a  consequence,  they  learn  from 
each other and have improved their capacities to deliver FEAD support. 

At the local level, the Food Bank in Sevilla, offers training and advice to local 
delivery organisations to help them improve their skills for better understanding 
the needs of end recipients and direct them to the most relevant social services. 

At regional level, the delivery organisations in the province of Barcelona which 
were  used  to  act  in  a  fragmented  manner  and  with  different  management 
capacities  and  a  large  disparity  in  the  coverage  of  end  recipients,  decided  to 
group  themselves.  Therefore,  102  delivery  organisations  have  formed  24 
groups.  Each grouping now works in a single location with the support of the 
municipality, which offers the space and finances the storage of food. They have 
a  common  electronic  programme  for  stock  management,  common  receipt  of 
information on end recipients from social services and common preparation of 
documentation required by FEAD. As a consequence, this change in the delivery 
model  has  optimised  economic,  administrative,  IT  and  logistic  resources,  by 
reducing  transport  costs  and  increasing  the  capacity  of  local  delivery 
organisations in terms of human, material and economic resources. It has also 
leveraged the amount of food by increasing other sources of food supply. The 
groupings  of  local  delivery  organisations  can  now  receive  more  and  more 
diversified  products  and  have  sufficient  storage  capacity,  thus  achieving 
economies of scale. 

  In  Spain  and  Greece,  the  use  of  innovative  IT  tools  to  facilitate  and  monitor 
delivery  has  contributed  to  time  and  cost  savings,  thus  more  efficient 
implementation. 

121 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

The Red Cross distribution centre of Valencia in Spain has developed an excel 
tool to simplify the delivery of food packages to families. Any mistakes produced 
by  manual  calculations  are  thus  minimised  As  a  consequence,  the  delivery  of 
food  packages  to  families  is  faster,  food  delivery  is  more  equitable  and  it 
facilitates the delivery process to families since the people preparing the food 
packages have unified information and a reduced number of categories of food 
packages. There is also evidence of transferability of this good practice to the 
Baleares islands. 

In  Greece,  electronic  tablets  have  been  provided  at  all  delivery  points.  All 
information about end recipients is uploaded onto an electronic platform and it 
is  updated  every  time  they  attend  a  delivery  point.  As  a  consequence  each 
Partner Organisation is aware at every point in time of how many end recipients 
have  received  their  allocation  assistance,  how  many  have  not  as  well  as  how 
much  food  is  still  left  un-distributed.  Monitoring  is  more  efficient  and  time 
savings achieved. 

  In Greece, the introduction of innovative purchase, transport, storage processes 

contributes to more efficient delivery in terms of costs and quality. 

The  region  of  Central  Macedonia  has  made  compulsory  in  the  procurement 
guidelines that fresh and sensitive food should remain stored in the fridges of 
the  transport  trucks  at  the  delivery  points  for  two  days  until  the  delivery  is 
completed. This results in guaranteeing the quality of fresh food and minimises 
costs associated with the storage of food. 

In addition, the procurement process is organised by groups of products rather 
the  individual  items.  This  speeds  up  the  procurement  process  and  overall 
logistics  and  facilitates  the  delivery  as  products  are  grouped  into  distinct 
categories. 

There is also good practice for reaching end recipients and therefore facilitating access 
of the most vulnerable groups to FEAD assistance: 

  Finland applies innovative delivery methods in order to facilitate the accessibility 

of deprived groups to food and social inclusion assistance. 

Delivery methods that reach those with reduced mobility include a mobile shop 
that visits boroughs to deliver food to people with reduced mobility and home 
deliveries by volunteers to elderly in remote areas. Events are also organised to 
encourage end recipients to attend, thus facilitating their social inclusion. They 
include inter alia, open breakfast events, free clubs and trips, newspapers and 
internet at the food distribution centres, childminding services during meals. 

  Slovenia  has  come  up  with  creative  solutions  for  severely  materially  deprived 

people: 

Employees  and  volunteers  of  Caritas  Slovenia  visit  elderly  people,  sick  or 
disabled  people  and  those  who  are  not  mobile  in  the  countryside  or  in 
mountainous regions and bring them personalised food packages. There was a 
case of an elderly couple living high in the hills who thanks to advice from FEAD 
volunteers used their cow to produce and sell cheese and therefore improved 
the financial and isolated situation. 

Volunteering is the backbone of FEAD food deliveries in several countries and trained 
volunteers  make  an  important  contribution  to  the  efficient  delivery  of  support  in  the 
following good practice: 

122 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Lithuania  organises  structured  training  for  volunteers  to  prepare  them  for 

participating in the food distribution team. 

Due to the large scale of FEAD activities (distributing 60 to 70,000 food parcels 
across 20 municipalities), the Lithuanian food bank (Partner Organisation) relies 
heavily  on  volunteers  at  all  stages  of  the  supply  chain.  In  order  to  ensure  a 
smooth  and  efficient  implementation,  it  engages  first  in  a  campaign  for 
attracting  and  motivating  volunteers  and  second  in  training  them.  Training  is 
thoroughly structured and consists of an introductory meeting, written material 
and on-the-job training offered by experienced volunteers to newcomers. 

4.5 

Good practice related to European added value 

  Overview of good practice cases 

Country/OP type 
France (OP I) 

Latvia (OP I) 

Poland (OP I) 

Germany (OP II) 

The Netherlands 
(OP II) 
Malta 

Spain 

Good practice element 

Contribution to value added 

Campaign for recruiting 
volunteers 
Expanding soup kitchens 

Accompanying measures 
targeted at the homeless 

Access to counselling and 
support services 
Reaching out to isolated 
seniors 
Leverage effect on national 
food support  
Cooperation between 
ministries 

Volume effect: Leverage effect in 
mobilising local resources 
Scope effect: Reaching end recipients 
without need for verification 
Scope effect: Reaching homeless who 
are not assisted by other 
programmes 
Scope effect: Addressing groups 
otherwise not assisted 
Scope effect: reaching people 
otherwise socially isolated 
Role effect: FEAD as a basis for a 
national food distribution scheme 
Process effect: synergies between 
ministries 

The  good  practice  examples  are  presented  in  terms  of  their  volume,  scope,  role  and 
process effects. 

In  terms  of  volume  effects,  although  FEAD  is  a  small  fund,  it  has  provided  volume 
effects,  especially  in  those  countries  that  did  not  previously  have  national  food 
programmes or in those where the FEAD produced significant leverage effects. 

  In  France,  the  process  and  campaign  for  recruiting  volunteers  has  produced  a 

leverage effect by mobilising local resources. 

Volunteering is very developed in France and the Federation of Food Banks has 
capitalised on this volunteering culture to address the human resource needs of 
FEAD  implementation.  A  volunteer  recruitment  campaign  was  designed 
consisting  of  a  video  and  promotional  leaflet  featuring  in  particular  an  image 
that FEAD volunteers can identify with, the ‘Orange Jacket Team’ (an orange life 
vest). Communication tools included social media (for young target groups) and 
newspapers (for older target groups). This media campaign was complemented 
with a parallel campaign to private enterprises (‘skills sponsorship’ campaign) 
who  are  offered  a  tax  incentive  to  send  an  employee  to  do  a  volunteering 
mission in a food bank. In this way, the employees reinforce their skills and the 
company obtains tax savings and improved image. As a consequence, a large 
number of volunteers have been mobilised and participated in FEAD delivery. 

There is good practice that demonstrates strong scope effects in terms of value added 
by reaching groups who are not addressed from other programmes or who refrain from 
accessing FEAD support: 

  In Latvia, a change in the FEAD national legislation has opened up access to people 

that would have otherwise refrained from accessing FEAD.  

123 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

The administrative obstacles or time-consuming procedures to obtain the status 
of being eligible for support prevents some target groups from obtaining FEAD 
assistance.  Soup  kitchens  offer  immediate  and  verification-free  support.  A 
change  in  the  national  FEAD  legislation  allows  FEAD  end  recipients  to  obtain 
food  in  soup  kitchens  without  having  to  accredit  their  situation.  As  a 
consequence  of this legislative change, FEAD  can now  reach people  who may 
not have otherwise accessed support. 

  In Poland, accompanying measures target the homeless who are not reached by 

other programmes. 

Homeless people are amongst the most  vulnerable and hardest to  reach with 
assistance,  especially  those  not  registered  in  social  assistance  centres.  While 
the  most  common  form  of  assistance  to  them  is  food,  clothing  and 
accommodation,  FEAD  accompanying  measures  in  Poland  offer  workshops  on 
healthy nutrition and counteracting food waste, preventing addiction and taking 
care of personal hygiene. An Open Day was also organised for local community 
and the homeless. In addition to attracting the homeless, these measures also 
contribute to making feel part of the local communities. 

  In Germany, counselling and support services are offered to EU migrants who are 

either not aware of or eligible other sources of funding. 

Without the FEAD, deprived EU citizens (migrants) and their children as well as 
homeless people and people at risk of homelessness in Germany would not have 
access to support. Through outreach work and counselling, FEAD advisors help 
EU  migrants  to  access  those  services  for  which  they  are  eligible  (e.g. 
Kindergarten, health services, housing services).  

The FEAD is also demonstrates scope effects in helping to support new activities. 

  In the Netherlands, the FEAD reaches out to the “Elderly in the Neighbourhood” 

and provides new activities for them. 

Libraries act as hubs in four major cities in the Netherlands to contact and work 
with older people. Together with the seniors, the hosts develop a development 
plan for him or her. Subsequently the host brings the older people into contact 
with Partner Organisations already offering activities or the ‘Ouderen in de wijk’ 
(OIDW)  which  organise  special  activities.  In  time,  each  library  is  expected  to 
have the project running in at least two neighbourhoods. 

The FEAD has the potential to have certain role effects by developing new mechanisms 
that can later be mainstreamed. 

  Malta used the FEAD as a basis upon which to build a  nationally funded scheme 

that allows a further 20,000 households to be reached. 

FEAD provides food for specific households that are not covered through other 
schemes.  On  this  basis,  the  government  has  widened  the  category  of  eligible 
households through a nationally funded mechanism which is based on the same 
principle of FEAD and which is accessible to vulnerable households that are not 
eligible under the FEAD programme. The same distribution system is used and 
it is complementary in the sense that it allows for a wider distribution as it covers 
different target groups. Prior to the adoption of the national food aid scheme, 
which  was  launched  in  March  2017  a  nationally  funded  food  scheme  did  not 
exist. 

The FEAD also has process effects by supporting mutual learning and networking.  

  In  Spain,  the  FEAD  led  to  administrations  that  did  not  used  to  cooperate 

cooperating with each other. 

124 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

There has clearly been a process effect achieved in Spain, in particular through 
the  creation  of  synergies  between  three  Ministries  that  had  not  cooperated 
before:  the  Ministry  of  Employment  as  the  programme  MA,  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture and Ministry of Health as intermediary bodies. 

4.6 

Good practice related to relevance 

  Overview of good practice cases 

Country/OP type 

Good practice element 

Contribution to relevance 

Belgium (OP I) 

Sweden (OP II) 
Austria (OP I) 

Collaborative selection 
procedure 
Knowledge creation process 
The partnership process 

Balanced food basket for end recipients 

Addressing the needs of target groups 
Optimal choice of school package 
content, suitable for schoolkids needs 

Croatia (OP I) 

Focused targeting on children  Reduced malnutrition 

There  is  good  practice  illustrating  the  mechanisms  through  which  FEAD  ensures  that 
support is highly relevant to the needs of end recipients: 

  In  Belgium,  the  need  for  a  balanced  diet  is  addressed  through  a  highly 

collaborative process. 

The MA receives input from all relevant stakeholders to create a balanced food 
parcel that stimulates a healthy diet for the end recipients. At the same time it 
seeks  to  broaden  their  awareness  on  different  types  of  food  as  well  as  their 
ability to use them in balanced meals. 

  Sweden applies a knowledge creation process in order to better understand the 

needs of end recipients and adjust the services offered to these needs. 

Sweden  implements  social  inclusion  activities  for  short-term  immigrants  and 
homeless people. There is a general lack of knowledge regarding the needs of 
theses target groups. Researcher networks have therefore been created as an 
arena for learning between researchers, public officials, and practitioners from 
the  civil  society.  The  networks  provide  a  platform  for  the  production  of 
knowledge regarding the needs of the target group, by studying themes such 
as migration and work or minorities, vulnerability and equality. This results in a 
better design and targeting of FEAD activities. 

  In Austria, the partnership process, including cooperation with schools and parents 
helps develop the content of support that is suitable to school children’s needs. 

FEAD distributes school bags and articles (‘school starter packs’) in Austria. In 
order to decide the content, education experts were consulted. Various choices 
were  considered  between  packages  for  primary  and  secondary  school,  and 
between  packages  with  different  themes  (e.g.  drawing,  constructing,  etc.). 
Parents  tested  the  usefulness  of  the  content  of  the  packages  as  well  as  the 
instructions  addressed  to  parents.  As  a  consequence,  an  optimal  content  of 
school material was distributed to end recipients. Additionally, the content was 
of very high quality and included usual high street brands so as not to stigmatise 
the children. 

  Croatia applies very strict selection criteria in order to best address the needs of 

children at risk of malnutrition. 

Against a background of child poverty and risk of malnutrition of primary school 
children, FEAD in Croatia addresses essential nutritional needs of children. To 
ensure  that  support  addresses  the  needs  of  the  children  most  at  risk,  very 
specific  criteria  are  applied  for  the  selection  of  end  recipients.  These  include 
inter  alia  children  of  unemployed  single  parents,  a  family  of  three  or  more 
dependants with children in education, children with developmental difficulties, 
children without parental care, Roma children, etc. 

125 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annexes 

126 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 1: Information sources 

Annex 1a List of interviews 

AT 

Managing Authority 

  Mag.a Andrea Otter, Managing Authority: Federal Ministry of Labour, BMASK Social 
Affairs and Consumer  Protection, Section V  Stubenring 1 A-1010  Wien, Austria 
www.sozialministerium.at (three interviews altogether) 

  Mag.a  Stefanie  Mattes,  Managing  Authority:  Federal  Ministry  of  Labour,  BMASK 
Social  Affairs  and  Consumer  Protection,  Section  V  Stubenring  1  A-1010  Wien, 
Austria www.sozialministerium.at (one interview) 

Partner Organisation: 

  Mag.a Monika Wild, Partner Organisation: Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz, Wiedner 

Hauptstraße 32, 1040 Wien, Austria, 17.01.17 

BE 

Interview  with  Barbara  Cerrato  Barbara  Cerrato  of  the  Managing  Authority  FPS  SI 
(Federal Public Service for Social Integration, fight against Poverty, the Social Economy 
and Urban City Policies). Conducted on May 31st, 2017. 

BG 

Mrs.  Milena  Encheva,  Head  of  MA  -  "International  Cooperation,  Programmes  and 
European Integration” Directorate in Agency for Social Assistance 

Mrs.  Evelina  Milusheva  Head  of  “Social  activities  and  services  Unit  and  Mrs.  Vassilka 
Kamenova Deputy Director General, Head of Financial and Economic Activities Division 
of Bulgarian Red Cross 

Mrs. Dimitrina Kolova, Head of the Social patronage in Montana District 

Mrs. Lilyana Kosovska, Monitoring and Evaluation Department of ASA in Vidin District 

Anonymized social worker from Montana 

CY 

Petros Attas, Manager of EU programmes, FEAD MA 

CZ 

Managing Authority, MoLSA:  

  Mr Robert Jan Hrebicek 

  Mr Ladislav Kucera 

SO I actors: 

  Ms  Miroslava  Salavcova,  Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and  Sports  (member  of 

Working Group) 

  Ms Tereza Volfova and Mr Filip Kuchar, Kapital City of Prague (beneficiary) 

  Ms Jandikova, South Moravian Region (beneficiary) 

  Mr Coufal, Central Bohemian Region (potential beneficiary) 

  Mr Vana, Central Bohemian Region (potential beneficiary) 

  Women for Women 

  Ms Radka Soukupova, government Office, Social Inclusion Agency 

SO II/SO III actors 

  Mr Jiri Bradac, Department 35, MoLSA (beneficiary) 

127 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Mr Milan Vasek, Charita CR 

  Participation in the Meeting of the project partners organised by the Department 
35,  MoLSA  (meeting  of  the  representatives  of  Food  Banks,  NGOs  and 
municipalities within the second project), 21. 04. 2017 

DE 

FEAD MA:  

  Funda Salomon, E-Mail: funda.salomon@bmas.bund.de 

National evaluator 

  Dr. Gerd Walter, SÖSTRA, Torstraße 178, 10115 Berlin, e-mail: walter@soestra.de 

Acasa in Dortmund: 

  "Willkommen  Europa"  -  Ökumenische  Anlaufstelle  für  EU-Zuwandererinnen  und 

Zuwanderer, Bornstr. 64, 44145 Dortmund,  

Duisburg Projekt (pending agreement with the MA):  

  Peter Bitter, Stadt Duisburg, Bismarckplatz 1, 47198 Duisburg (Homberg), e-mail: 

p.bitter@stadt-duisburg.de   

DK 

Interview with MA, June 21 2017 

EE 

Ministry of Social Affairs, Gertu Pöial and Merlin Tatrik 

Estonian Food Bank, Piet Boerefijn CEO of the Food Bank and Kerttu Olõkainen project 
manager of the EU food aid  

EL 

MA, National Institute of Labour and Human Resources:  

  Eleni Lambritzi, (two interviews, in February and in May 2017) 

FEAD partnership municipality of Athens, Social Solidarity and Health Directorate: 

  Eudoxia  Ioannidou,  Head  of  Organisation,  Planning  and  Documentation 

(OPD)department 

  Athanassia Loukoviti, member of the OPD department 

  Stavros Theodoridis, member of the OPD department 

  Costas Karategos, responsible for the delivery of food packages under FEAD 

  Ioanna Kavadia, cooperates with the vice-mayor Maria Stratigaki 

FEAD partnership ASDA (west Athens): 

  Andreas Katopodis 

  Maria Tsakona 

ES 

Marta  Garcia  Rodriguez,  Managing  authority:  Deputy  Directorate  General  of 
Management  of  the  ESF  Spanish  Managing  Authority  (UAFSE  in  Spanish),  Ministry  of 
Employment  and  Social  Security,  Pío  Baroja  6,  3ª,  28009  Madrid.  Spain, 
http://www.meyss.es/uafse/ 

Mª Jesús Gil Meneses, Spanish Red Cross, e-mail: jgm@cruzroja.es,  

Francisco  Greciano,  FESBAL  (Spanish  Federationo  of  Food  Banks),  email: 
francisco@fesbal.org 

128 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

FI 

Sari  T.  Niemi,  Senior  Offier,  Agency  for  Rural  Affairs,  sari.t.niemi@mavi.fi,  interview 
conducted on 19 March 2017  

Ritva  Hakkarainen,  Senior  Officer,  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the  Economy, 
ritva.hakkarainen@tem.fi, interview conducted on 19 March 2017  

Ulla  Pesola,  Food  aid  coordinator,  Kirkkopalvelut,  ulla.pesola@kirkkopalvelut.fi, 
telephone interview conducted on 30 March 2017 

Kristian  Vilkman,  Executive  director,  Via  Dia,  Kristian.vilkman@viadia.fi,  telephone 
interview conducted on 9 April 2017  

Kirsi  Virtanen,  Chair,  Kainuun  Kansalaiskeskus,  kirsi.virtaska@gmail.com,  telephone 
interview conducted on 27 April 2017 

FR 

Ministry of Social Cohesion ( Managing Authority) the department of social and solidarity 
economy (Angèle Archimbaud, Corinne Ehrart and Mathilde Arnal and the new of FEAD 
management unit Jean François Bourdais) 

Franceagrimer (Intermediary Body) (Philippe Merillon, Serena Andre) 

Les restos du cœur (Partner Organisation) the food department (support for food aid, 
supply and logistics). 

Informal exchanges with Le Secours Populaire Français. 

HR 

Managing Authority: MRMS 

The Intermediate body: Ministarstvo demografije, obitelji, socijalne politike i mladih 

European Commission, Representation office in Croatia 

Organisations:  

1.  Crveni križ Zagreb 

2.  Rijeka ljubavi Osijek 

3.  Grad Virovitica 

4.  Karlovačka županija 

5.  Media analysis 

HU 

Annus  Gábor  Social  cooperation  and  FEAD  Department  of  development,  Ministry  of 
Human resources (EMMI) 

Bátori Zsolt , Director General, Directorate General for Social and  

Child Protection (SZGYF) FEAD 

Virág Gábor, Directorate General for Social and Child Protection  

(SZGYF), FEAD project manager 

Kemecsei, Judit, Public Foundation for the Homeless, FEAD project  

professional leader 

IE 

Ronan Harney, Department of Social Protection, FEAD Managing Authority, Tel. +353 
71 9672501, email: ronan.harney@welfare.ie, https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/FEAD-
--EUROPEAN-AID-TO-THE-MOST-DEPRIVED.aspx  (Telephone  interviews,  21.03.2017 
and 26.06.2017, and emails on 8 and 21.03.2017, 24.04.2017 and 26.06.2017) 

129 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Emily Fitzsimons, FEAD Project Coordinator, FoodCloud Hubs; Aoibheann O’Brien, Co-
founder  of  FoodCloud;  Suzanne  Browne,  Chief  Operating  Officer  (Hubs);  Tel.  +353  1 
462  5362,  emily@foodcloud.ie,  aoibheann@foodcloud.ie,  suzanne@foodcloud.ie, 
https://food.cloud/ (Conference call on 09.06.2017 and emails). 

IT 

Cristina Berliri – Ministry of labour and social policies, FEAD Managing Authority  

Patrizia De Felice - Ministry of labour and social policies, FEAD Managing Authority 

Vittore  Mescia  –  Banco  Alimentare  (main  Italian  food  bank  and  one  of  the  Partner 
Organisations 

LT 

Aukse  Duksiene,  Ministry  of  Social  Security  and  LabourAukse.Duksiene@socmin.lt. 
A.Vivulskio 11, 03610 Vilnius 

Kristina Tylaite, Food Bank, kristina@maistobankas.lt 

Vaida Kazlauskaite, Vilnius Municipality Social Support Centre 

LU 

Skype interview with FEAD Managing Authority (‘Ministère de la Famille, de l’Intégration 
et  à  la  Grande  Région’)  on  12.06.17.  Present  at  the  interview:  Marc  Meyers,  Malou 
Kapgen und Brigitte Schmitz. Interview carried out by Isabel Naylon. 

LV 

Lauma  Grafa,  Managing  authority:  Ministry  of  Welfare,  manager  of  FEAD  Managing 
Authority Riga, Latvia, e-mail: Lauma.Grafa@lm.gov.lv 

Ilze Latviete, Managing authority: Ministry of Welfare, senior expert of FEAD Managing 
Authority Riga, Latvia, e-mail: Ilze.Latviete@lm.gov.lv 

Aurika  Stratane,  Managing  authority:  Ministry  of  Welfare,  senior  expert  of  FEAD 
Managing Authority Riga, Latvia, e-mail: Aurika.Stratane@lm.gov.lv 

MT 

Mr. Jonathan Vassallo, Managing Authority, Director General 

www.eufunds.gov.mt 

Mr. George Sultana, Policy Development and Programme Implementation, Ministry for 
Family and Social Solidarity 

www.mfss.gov.mt 

Mr. Stephen C. Vella. Group Senior Manager Corporate Services, FSWS (PO)  

www.fsws.gov.mt 

NL 

Interview with Giovanni Floor and Chantal de Jong-Marsman  

PL 

  Eliza Lipińska, FEAD coordinator 

  Olga Richter, evaluation specialist 

  Małgorzata Szyszka, technical assistance 

  Judyta Witkowska, budget and finance 

PT 

Ana Sampaio 

130 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Executive  Committee  of  the  Directive  Commission  of  the  POAPMC  (Operational 
Programme for the Support of the Most Disadvantaged Population) 

Cristina Rodrigues 

Director of the Unit of Programme Support  

Institute of Social Security, I.P. 

RO 

Claudia Magdalina: Deputy Director General of Management Authority of the OP Human 
Capital (AM POCU), in charge with POAD claudia.magdalina@fonduri-ue.ro, Ministry of 
European Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Susana Georgiu, AM POAD – susana.georgiu@fonduri-ue.ro, Ministry of European Funds 
- www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Nicoleta Mihalcea, Head of Programme Implementation Office – General Directorate for 
European  Projects  Management  and  Structural 
Instruments  Communication, 
nicoleta.mihalcea@fonduri-ue.ro, Ministry of European Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Daniela Barbu, ex-Head of PIU – General Directorate for European Projects Management 
and  Structural  Instruments  Communication,  daniela.barbu@fonduri-ue.ro,  Ministry  of 
European Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Merima  Petrovici,  Director  PIU  for  Structural  Funds,  Ministry  of  National  Education, 
merima.petrovici@edu.gov.ro, www.edu.ro 

Amalia Dobrescu: Deputy Director General of Management Authority of the OP Human 
Capital (AM POCU), in charge with POAD since April 2017; Ms Dobrescu has been also 
involved in the preparation and negotiation of POAD; amalia.dobrescu@fonduri-ue.ro, 
Ministry of European Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Doina  Carol:  Deputy  Director,  Directorate  for  Programme  Management,  Projects 
Evaluation and Contracting, MA POCU, doina.carol@fonduri-ue.ro, Ministry of European 
Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

Mihaela  Dache:  Director,  Directorate  for  Projects  Authorisation,  General  Directorate 
Human Capital European Projects, mihaela.dache@fonduri-ue.ro, Ministry of European 
Funds - www.fonduri-ue.ro 

SE 

National co-ordinator of FEAD. Heidi Knorn, Managing authority: Swedish ESF Council, 
Box 47141, SE-100 74 Stockholm. 

National  co-ordinator  of  FEAD.  Johan  Nordqvist,  Managing  authority:  Swedish  ESF 
Council, Box 47141, SE-100 74 Stockholm. 

SI 

Interview with Kristina Krpan, Managing Authority,  Ministry for Labour, Family, Social 
affairs and Equal opportunities, Office for Cohesion policy implementation, 26 May 2017 

Interview with Jožica Ličen, Caritas Slovenia, 30 May 2017 

Interview with Mateja Lamovšek, Red Cross Slovenia, 1 June 2017 

SK 

Maria Janeckova,  Ivana Stefancikova (Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of 
the Slovak Republic - Managing authority) 

Mariana Lihanova, Renata Reskova (Central Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family 
- Intermediary body) 

Zuzana Rosiarova (Slovak Red Cross - Partner Organisation) 

131 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Marika  Kubikova  (Slovak  Red  Cross,  territorial  unit  Liptovsky  Mikulas  -  Partner 
Organisation) 

UK 

Jackie O’Neil, Department for Education, Healthy Pupils Unit, Post-16 and Disadvantage 
Group, email: Jackie.O'NEIL@education.gov.uk (emails on 09.03.2017 and 29.06.2017) 

Annex 1b List of documentary sources 

EU 

FEAD Network 

FEAD  Network,  2016,  Reducing  deprivation,  supporting  inclusion:  FEAD  case  studies, 
Ecorys 

FEAD  Network,  2017,  FEAD’s  contribution  to  sustainable  social  inclusion:  Thematic 
Dossier 1, Ecorys 

FEAD Network, 2017, Diverse approaches to supporting Europe’s most deprived, FEAD 
case studies, Ecorys 

FEAD  Network,  2017,  Supporting  a  diverse  population  through  FEAD  initiatives: 
Thematic Dossier 2, Ecorys 

AT 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015 

SFC2014 

FEAD Ex ante evaluation, Marcel Fink, 2014 

BE 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014 – 2020 

Annual implementation report 2016.  

Annual implementation report 2015. Available: https://www.mi-is.be/nl/fead-algemeen 

Annual implementation report 2014. Available: https://www.mi-is.be/nl/fead-algemeen 

Belgian FEAD Regulations 2017. Available: https://www.mi-is.be/nl/fead-2017  

Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the council of 11 March 
2014  on  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived.  Available:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0223 

FEAD case studies (2016). Available 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7947  

Ex ante evaluation of the OP 2014 – 2020 concerning the FEAD   

BG 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports – 2014, 2015, 2016 (Draft) 

SFC2014 

CY 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Report 2015 and 2016 

132 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Government decree on the terms and conditions for FEAD beneficiaries, 28 April 2017 

Government decree on the definition of income criteria for FEAD beneficiaries, 5 June 
2015 

Government decree for the definition of partnerships for the implementation of FEAD, 5 
June 2015 

Government decree for the budget distribution of FEAD for 2015-2016, 13 October 2015 

SFC2014 

CZ 

FEAD Operational Programme for Food and Material Assistance 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014/2015, 2016 

Ex ante evaluation of the FEAD OP 

Project Monitoring Reports (SO I – beneficiaries/regional authorities) 

Family Report, MoLSA, 2017 

Czech Statistical Office data and studies 

Evaluation of the set of indicators of the Strategy of social inclusion of the Czech Republic 
2014 -2020. Research Institute of Labour and Social Affairs, Prague 2016. 

DE 

Operationelles  Programm  zur  sozialen  Inklusion  der  am  stärksten  benachteiligten 
Personen - FEAD Deutschland 2014-2020 

Erstellung  der  Ex-ante-Evaluierung  zum  Operationellen  Programm  für  den  Eu-
ropäischen Hilfsfonds  für die am stärksten benachteiligten Personen (EHAP), SÖSTRA 
im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales 

Der europäische Hilfsfonds für die am stärksten benachteiligten Personen in Deutschland 
(EHAP) – Flyer 

Liste EHAP-Projekte, BMAS 

Lebenslagen 
Bundesregierung 

in  Deutschland,  Der  Fünfte  Armuts-  und  Reichtumsbericht  der 

Bartels, Andreas, Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived in Germany, Objectives 
–  Realisation  –  Impact  –  Problems,  PPT  prepared  for  Sofia  Conference:  Investing  in 
People – The way forward, 2018 

Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege, Requirements for the future of 
the European Structural and Investment Funds post 2020 

Schüler, Lisa, German Caritas Association, Briefing on the Implementation of FEAD OP 
II (Social Inclusion), Best Practice Example in Germany 

DK 

SFC 2014 tables provided by June 30, 2017 

FEAD Denmark Annual Implementation Report 2014 

FEAD Demark Annual Implementation Report 2015 

FEAD Demark Annual Implementation Report 2016 

EU SILC data 

The Operational Programme for FEAD in Denmark 

133 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

News announcement about FEAD Denmark, 
https://socialstyrelsen.dk/nyheder/2016/udmontning-af-eu-pulje-til-de-mest-udsatte-
hjemlose, Accessed July 1 2017 

Homepage of MA, https://socialstyrelsen.dk/projekter-og-
initiativer/voksne/udbredelses-og-forankringsprojektet-1. 

Homepage of MA, https://socialstyrelsen.dk/projekter-og-
initiativer/voksne/udbredelses-og-forankringsprojektet-1/copy_of_udbredelse-af-
hjemlosestrategien/om-projektet/udbredelse-af-housing-first 

Homepage of MA, https://socialstyrelsen.dk/projekter-og-
initiativer/voksne/udbredelses-og-forankringsprojektet-1/copy_of_udbredelse-af-
hjemlosestrategien/om-projektet/ungeprojektet 

Homepage of Café Outside, http://udenfor.dk/gadeplans-arbejde/fead/ 

Homepage of DanChurchSocial, 
http://www.kirkenskorshaer.dk/sider/hjeml%C3%B8se-s%C3%A5rbare-eu-migranter 

EE 

Statistikaamet, Eesti Sotsiaaluuring (EL-s EU-SILC). 

Europe  2020 
country/eesti/progress-towards-2020-targets/index_en.htm). 

in  Estonia  (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-your-

Konkurentsivõime kava „Eesti 2020“ (Estonia 2020) 

Statistikaamet (Statistics Office) 

Euroopa Parlamendi ja Nõukogu määrus (European Parliament and Council Regulation) 
(EL) nr 223/2014, 11. märts 2014, http://eurlex.  

europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/?qid=1396253397116&uri=CELEX:32014R0223 

Estonian Social Welfare Act, RT I, 30.12.2015, 5. 

FEAD annual implementation report – OP I 2014 

FEAD annual implementation report – OP I 2015 

FEAD annual implementation report – OP I 2016 

FEAD Annual report 2015. Annex 1.  

FEAD Annual report 2016. Annex 1.  

FEAD Annual report 2016. Annex 2. 

FEAD Financial Plan_Estonia  

Development 

Welfare 
https://sm.ee/sites/default/files/content-
editors/eesmargid_ja_tegevused/welfare_development_plan_2016-2023.pdf 

2016-2023,  Ministry 

Social 

Plan 

of 

Affairs. 

EL 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Report 2015 and 2016 

Government decree on the terms and conditions for FEAD beneficiaries, 28 April 2017 

Government decree on the definition of income criteria for FEAD beneficiaries, 5 June 
2015 

Government decree for the definition of partnerships for the implementation of FEAD, 5 
June 2015 

Government decree for the budget distribution of FEAD for 2015-2016, 13 October 2015 

134 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

SFC2014 

ES 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015, 2016 

SFC2014 

Royal Decree 603/2016, 2 December 2016 

FI 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014 – 2020 for Finland 

Annual Implementation Reports FEAD Operational Programme for Finland 2014, 2015 

SFC2014 

Eurostat 

Payment applications, Agency for Rural Affairs 

Agency  for  Rural  Affairs,  information  on  FEAD  at  http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-ja-
palvelut/jarjesto-seurakunta/Ruoka-apu/Sivut/default.aspx  

Hanssen et al.: Food Redistribution in the Nordic Region: Experiences and results from 
a  pilot  study,  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers,  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers  Secretariat, 
Copenhagen (2015) at             

http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A784307&dswid=-1394 

Ohisalo et al.: Avun tilkkutäkki: suomalaisen ruoka-apukentän monimuotoisuus, RAY, 
Helsinki (2014) at  

http://www2.ray.fi/sites/default/files/Avustukset/Julkaisut/Raportti_Avun_tilkkutakki_
2014.pdf 

Ohisalo  and  Saari:  Kuka  seisoo  leipäjonossa,  Kunnallisalan  kehittämissäätiö,  Helsinki 
(2014) at http://www.kaks.fi/sites/default/files/TutkJulk_83_net.pdf 

FR 

Banques  alimentaires,  Croix  Rouge  Francaise,  Les  Restaurants  du  Coeur,  Secours 
Populaire Francaise, 2017, Dealing with European Poverty, The Fund for European Aid 
to the Most Deprived(FEAD), An ambitious basis for social integration 

HR 

Annual Implementation Report 2014 

Annual Implementation Report, 2015 

Annual Implementation Report 2016 (draft report) 

Ex ante evaluation of the FEAD OP 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Stubbs,  P.,  M.  Ledić,  I.  Rubil  and  S.  Žrinščak  (2017),  Child  Poverty  and  Household 
Coping Strategies in Croatia, Zagreb: EIZG and ADRIS. 

Šućur,  Z.  et  al  (2015),  Siromaštvo  i  dobrobit  djece  predškolske  dobi  u  Republici 
Hrvatskoj (Poverty and well-being of pre-school children in Croatia), Zagreb: UNICEF 
Office for Croatia. 

HU 

Annual Implementation Reports, 2014-2016 

135 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

IE 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020  

AIR 2016 

Programme implementation data provided by the Department of Social Protection, FEAD 
Managing Authority by email. 

Ex-ante evaluation of the FEAD OP, Mel Cousins & Associates, 11.09.2014  

Updated National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2015-2017 

SFC2014 

IT 

Agea (2014), “ISTRUZIONI OPERATIVE n. 22 - Oggetto: richiesta prodotti alimentari da 
distribuire  agli  indigenti.  Regolamento  (UE)  n.  223/2014.  Fondo  di  Aiuti  Europei  agli 
Indigenti  (FEAD).  Programma  Operativo  sugli  aiuti  alimentari  e  l’assistenza  materiale 
(PO1). 
at: 
http://www.agea.gov.it/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/4462205.PDF  

Available 

2015”. 

2014 

Anni 

e 

Esser,  I., T. Ferrarini, K. Nelson, J. Palme,  O.  Sjöberg, Unemployment Benefits in EU 
Member  States,  Report  for  European  Commission.  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  & 
Inclusion. Brussels: European Comission, 2013. 

FEAD Annual Implementation Report – OP I 2014, 2015, 2016. 

ISFOL,  2014,  “Programma  Operativo  per  la  fornitura  di  prodotti  alimentari  e/o 
assistenza materiale di base (PO I) – FEAD 2014 – 2020, Rapporto di valutazione ex-
ante” 

Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali, Approvazione dei criteri di selezione delle 
Organizzazioni Partner e identificazione degli indigenti, D.D. marzo 2017 

Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali. Disposizioni in sede di prima applicazione 
relative  ai  criteri  di  selezione  delle  Organizzazioni  Partner  e  di  identificazione  degli 
indigenti,  

Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali, OP I Fead Survey on the first implementation 
year (2015), presentation at the FEAD Evaluation Partnership, April 2017 

Ministero  del  lavoro  e  delle  politiche  sociali,  Survey  on  homelessness  (2015), 
presentation at the FEAD Evaluation Partnership, April 2017 

European  Commission,  FEAD  Meeting  report,  SIXTH  NETWORK  MEETING:  Adopting  a 
“Whole person approach’ in FEAD Support Activities”, 2017 

European  Commission,  FEAD  reducing  deprivation,  supporting  Inclusion:  FEAD  case 
studies, 2016 

Europe 2020 targets by country 

Eurostat 

FEAD Meeting report, SIXTH NETWORK MEETING: Adopting a “Whole person approach’ 
in FEAD Support Activities”, 2017 

World Bank, 2015, “EU Regular Economic Report 2  – Sustaining Recovery, Improving 
at: 
Living 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/312771468178188378/pdf/102089-
REVISED-WP-PUBLIC-Box394828B-151217-WorldBank-Brochure-LD-DEF1.pdf  

Standards, 

Available 

2015”. 

Fall 

www.camera.it  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

136 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

https://www.eventi.polimi.it/events/prevenzione-dello-spreco-alimentare-i-primi-
risultati-del-progetto-reduce-ricerca-educazione-e-comunicazione/  

www.gazzettaufficiale.it 

http://www.lavoro.gov.it/Amministrazione-Trasparente/Bandi-gara-e-
contratti/Pagine/PON-Inclusione-e-PO-I-FEAD-Avviso-3-ottobre-2016-per-la-
presentazione-di-Proposte-di-intervento-per-il-contrasto-alla-grav.aspx  

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/46502/per-il-reddito-di-inclusione-arriva-un-buon-
memorandum/ 

Fondazione Banco Alimentare Onlus, A cohesive Europe today is the future of Europe 

LT 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015, 2016 

Ex ante evaluation of the FEAD OP 

LU 

Evaluation ex-ante du Programme opérationnel 2014 – 2020 pour la mise en oeuvre du 
Fonds européen d’aide aux plus démunis (FEAD), Laurence Klopp – Conseil économique, 
2014 

Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived  -  Reducing  deprivation,  supporting 
inclusion: FEAD case studies, European Union, 2016 

Programme  opérationnel  d'aide  alimentaire  et/ou  d'assistance  matérielle  de  base  – 
Luxembourg - 2014LU05FMOP001 

Rapport Annuel de mise en oeuvre du FEAD PO I, 2014 

Rapport Annuel de mise en oeuvre du FEAD PO I, 2015 

Rapport Annuel de mise en oeuvre du FEAD PO I, 2016 

Support to asylum seekers under the European Social Fund and the Fund for European 
Aid to the Most Deprived, European Commission, 2015 

http://www.mfi.public.lu/ 

https://www.buttek.lu/ 

http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/actualites/2016/03/22-population-
luxembourg/index.html 

LV 

Food and basic material assistance Operational Programme in the programming period 
2014-2020. Riga, 2014. 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/eng/301014_lv_fead_operational_program_en_final.pdf  

FEAD Ex ante evaluation, 2014 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/aktualitates/null/dp_1_pielikums_ex-ante.pdf  

Annual Implementation Report 2014 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/aktualitates/null/zinojums_v2014_1.pdf ,  

Annual Implementation Report 2015 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/publikacijas/1/zinojums_2015_gala.pdf  

Annual Implementation Report 2016  

http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/publikacijas/1/gada_zinojums_2016.pdf  

European  Commission.  Investing  in  children:  Breaking  the  cycle  of  disadvantage,  A 
study of National Policies, Country report – Latvia, Tana Lace, Riga Stradins University, 

137 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

2013. 
http://csdle.lex.unict.it/Archive/LW/Data%20reports%20and%20studies/Reports%20
%20from%20Committee%20and%20Groups%20of%20Experts/20140505-
112305_NetworkIESI2013-2_LATVIA_report_April14pdf.pdf  

Cabinet  of  Ministers  Regulations  No  727  on  FEAD  implementation,  2014.  [Ministru 
kabineta  noteikumi  Nr.727  ,  Rīgā  2014.gada  25.novembrī  (prot.  Nr.65  41.§)Darbības 
programmas  "Pārtikas  un  pamata  materiālās  palīdzības  sniegšana  vistrūcīgākajām 
personām 
noteikumi] 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/270789-darbibas-programmas-partikas-un-pamata-materialas-
palidzibas-sniegsana-vistrucigakajam-personam-2014-2020-gada-planosanas  

2014.–2020.gada 

īstenošanas 

plānošanas 

periodā" 

FEAD  Management  Law,  2014.  [Eiropas  atbalsta  fonda  vistrūcīgākajām  personām 
2014.—2020.gada plānošanas perioda vadības likums, Saeimā pieņemts: 25.09.2014. 
Stājas spēkā: 09.10.2014.] https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=269369  

Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No 833 on FEAD supervision, 2014. [Ministru kabineta 
noteikumi Nr.833 , Rīgā 2014.gada 23.decembrī (prot. Nr.72 47.§) 

Darbības  programmas  "Pārtikas  un  pamata  materiālās  palīdzības  sniegšana 
vistrūcīgākajām  personām  2014.–2020.gada  plānošanas  periodā" 
īstenošanas 
uzraudzības noteikumi] https://likumi.lv/ta/id/271375-darbibas-programmas-partikas-
un-pamata-materialas-palidzibas-sniegsana-vistrucigakajam-personam-2014-2020-
gada-planosanas  

European Commission. Minutes of the 2016 Annual Review Meeting (ARM) of the FEAD 
OP. Riga, 25 November 2016. 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/esf/a/minutes_25112016_final.pdf 

Ministry of Welfare, 2013. Informative report. Proposals for improvement of the social 
security system. 
http://www.lm.gov.lv/upload/aktualitates/null/soc_dros_sist_priekslikumi_en_fin.pdf 

MT 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

ESF Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Report 2014, 2015 and 2016 

Ex-ante Evaluation of the FEAD OP 

Research Study on the minimum essential budget for a decent living for 2016 (Caritas 
Report) 

A Framework for Poverty Reduction and for Social Inclusion 2014 – 2024, MFSS 

Food and Nutrition Policy and Action Plan 2015 -2020, Ministry of Health 

Piscopo,  Suzanne,  McKay,  Leonid,  Bonello,  André,  A  Minimum  Essential  Budget  for  a 
Decent  Living  –  2016,  A  research  study  focusing  on  three  low-income  household 
categories, Caritas Malta 

NL 

Operational 
https://www.agentschapszw.nl/subsidies-en-regelingen/e/efmb-europees-fonds-voor-
meest-behoeftigen 

Netherlands. 

Programme 

Available: 

Subsidy 
regelingen/e/efmb-europees-fonds-voor-meest-behoeftigen 

Regulation. 

Available: 

https://www.agentschapszw.nl/subsidies-en-

Implementation report 2014+2015 

Project  plans  (national  and 
2016/financial report 2016 [not clear if these are public/can be used] 

local)/  national  midterm  report/progress  report 

138 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

PL 

FEAD OP  

Guidelines for Sub-programme 2015 

Guidelines for Sub-programme 2016 

Guidelines for Sub-programme 2017 

Poverty in Poland 2013-2014, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2015 

Ex ante evaluation of the FEAD OP 

AIR 2015 

AIR 2016 

Publication about good practices 

PT 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 (Programa Operacional de Apoio às Pessoas 
mais Carenciadas - POAPMC) 

Ex-ante evaluation report 

GEP – Gabinete de Estratégia e Planeamento (2014), Programa Operacional de Apoio 
às Pessoas mais Carenciadas – Relatório de Avaliação Ex Ante – Versão Final – Setembro 
2014. 

Annual implementation reports 

FEAD Annual implementation report 2016 (Relatório Anual de Execução do FEAD — PO 
I 2016), available at: 

FEAD Annual implementation report 2015 (Relatório Anual de Execução do FEAD — PO 
I 
at: 
http://poapmc.portugal2020.pt/documents/27821/30774/Implementation+report_201
4PT05FMOP001_2015_0_pt+%287%29.pdf/0d109bca-4a38-49ae-a536-
3e63921e32b3 

available 

2015), 

FEAD Annual implementation report 2014 (Relatório Anual de Execução do FEAD — PO 
I 
at: 
http://poapmc.portugal2020.pt/documents/27821/30774/Implementation+report_201
4PT05FMOP001_2014_2_pt.pdf/f68b69ac-5feb-4e79-9eb8-b90d5ea2c5a2 

available 

2014), 

References 

EAPN  Portugal  (2015),  Erradicar  a  Pobreza  –  Compromisso  para  uma  Estratégia 
Nacional, Rediteia 48, EAPN Portugal, Porto. 

EC  –  European  Commission  (2016),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country 
Report Portugal 2016– Including an In-Depth Review on the prevention and correction 
at: 
of  macroeconomic 
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_portugal_en.pdf 

imbalances, 

SWD(2016) 

available 

final, 

90 

Rodrigues,  Carlos  Farinha  (coord.);  Figueiras,  Rita;  Junqueira,  Vítor  (2016), 
Desigualdade  do  Rendimento  e  Pobreza  em  Portugal:  As  Consequências  Sociais  do 
Programa de Ajustamento, Lisboa, Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos, aAvailable 
at: 
https://www.ffms.pt/FileDownload/a98e63bd-0e40-436f-926c-
68e800225fd2/desigualdade-do-rendimento-e-pobreza-em-portugal. 

Legislation 

EU, Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
March 2014 on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, Official Journal of the 

139 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

European 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:072:0001:0041:EN:PDF. 

12/03/2014, 

available 

Union 

at: 

http://eur-

Portugal, Portaria 51/2017, Diário da República, 1.ª série — N.º 24 — 2 de fevereiro de 
2017, 
at: 
http://poapmc.portugal2020.pt/documents/27821/32576/Portaria+51_2017_1+altera
%C3%A7%C3%A3o+Port+190_B.pdf/871293b6-8bd6-4d2f-ab1e-44190d446d2f 

available 

Portugal, Resolução do Conselho de Ministros 73B/2014, Diário da República, 1.ª série 
—  N.º  242  —  16  de  dezembro  de  2014,  available  at:  http://www.poci-
compete2020.pt/admin/images/RCM_73B_2014.pdf. 

Other sources of information 

SFC2014 

RO 

FEAD Operational Programme POAD 2014-2020, http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/poad-2014 

POAD 2014-2020 Evaluation Plan 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015, 2016 

Ex ante evaluation of the FEAD OP 

Eurostat 

SFC2014 

Government Decision (GD) 799/2014 regarding POAD implementation, modified by GD 
80/2015 and GD 627/2015 

SE 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015, 2016. 

ESF-rådet (2015/2017) Principer för uppföljning och utvärdering. 

ESF-rådet (2016) Anteckningar forskarträff, 18 maj 2016. 

ESF-rådet  (2017)  Kommentar  till  prognoser  över  beslutade  och  utbetalade  medel  för 
Fead. 

ESF-rådet  (2017)  Redovisning  av  prognoser  över  beslutade  och  utbetalade  medel  för 
Fead. 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014–2020. ”Operativt program för social delaktighet för 
de personer som har det sämst ställt”. 2014SE05FSOP001. 

Oxford Research (2017) Utvärdering av FEAD – Fonden för de som har det sämst ställt. 
2017. (Eng: Evaluation of FEAD). 

SFC2014 

Sieps  (2015)  EU-medborgares  rörlighet  -  konsten  att  riva  gränser.  Forskarträff  10 
november 2015. 

’Socialstyrelsen  (2014)  Förhandsutvärdering  av  programförslag  angående  fonden  för 
europeiskt bistånd till dem som har det sämst ställt (FEAD). (Eng: Ex ante evaluation 
of FEAD). 

SI 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020 

Annual Implementation Reports 2014, 2015, 2016 

Dr.  Nada  Stropnik,  Predhodna  ocean  Operativnega  programa  Republike  Slovenije  za 
materialno pomoč najbolj ogroženim za obdobje od 2014 do 2020 (Ex-ante evaluation) 

140 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Inštitut  RS  za  socialno  varstvo  (2013)  Ocena  učinkov  izvajanja  nove  socialne 
zakonodaje, 
- 
http://www.irssv.si/upload2/Ocena_ucinkov_socialna_zakonodaja_IRSSV_2013.pdf 

poročilo, 

končno 

p.3 

Rules  of  Caritas  in  Slovenia  (pravilniki  (N)ŠK),  http://www.karitas.si/sklad-za-
evropsko-pomoc-najbolj-ogrozenim/ 

SFC2014 

Eurostat data 

Additional data from the Managing Authority 

  Updated indicators for 2016 

  Realised / planned costs of all Technical Assistance activities (2014-2023) 

  Costs for administration in 2016 

  Type of activity and eligible expenditure in 2016 

SK 

Programme 

Operational 

2014-2020 
FEAD 
FEAD  Annual  implementation  reports  Slovakia,  editions  2014,  2015,  2016  (draft) 
Presentation 
review  meeting  2015,  2016 
Website  of  the  Central  Office  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family,  Internet: 
http://www.upsvar.sk 
Website  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the  Slovak  Republic, 
Internet: http://www.employment.gov.sk 

the  FEAD  OP  Annual 

Slovakia 

from 

UK 

FEAD Operational Programme 2014-2020  

AIR 2016 

SFC2014 

Monitoring poverty and social exclusion, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2016 

Ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  2014–2020  ESF  Programme  for  England,  Dept  for  Work  & 
Pensions, November 2015 

141 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 2: Overview of national FEAD Operational Programmes 

  Overview of national FEAD Operational Programmes 

MS 

AT 

EC 
funds67 
18.0 

Nat. co-
fin68 

3.2 

BE 

73.8 

14.3 

BG 

104.8 

15.0 

HR 

36.6 

6.5 

Target groups 

Material support 

Accompanying measures 

Families with school 
children 

School material  

People affected by 
poverty, children 

Food; material 
assistance to children 
distribution of food, free 
warm meals  
Meals, food packages, 
hygiene products, 
school material and 
sport equipment 
School material 
(clothing and bags)  
Food, material  

Improve their social 
inclusion and tailored advice 
and orientation activities. 
Measures for social 
integration 
Measures for social 
integration 
Counselling on balanced 
nutrition, health care and 
personal hygiene, parenting 
and financial literacy, etc 

Social inclusion activities 

CY 

3.9 

0.7 

CZ 

23.3 

4.0 

DK 

3.9 

EE 

8.0 

0.7 

1.4 

Most deprived students 
in public schools 
People in serious social 
need (families with 
children, homeless 
persons) 
Homeless persons 
(target 200 p.a.)  
Most deprived persons 

Not specified 

Social inclusion activities 

Food, reducing food 
waste 

FI 
FR  

22.5 
499.0 

4.0 
88.0 

Most deprived persons 
Most deprived persons 

Food aid 
Food aid 

DE 

78.9 

13.9 

EL 

280.0 

50.0 

Homeless persons (or 
persons threatened by 
homelessness), most 
deprived EU migrants, 
esp. children 
Most deprived persons, 
esp. Single parent and 
multi-child families, 
homeless persons 

Improving access to 
food aid 

Food packages or 
ready-made meals, 
shoes and clothes, 
school items and baby 
equipment 

HU 

93.8 

16.6 

Most deprived persons 
(children, homeless, 
disabled and/or elderly 
people) 

Food (packages, hot 
meals) and material 
assistance, special 
goods for children 

IE 

22.7 

4.0 

Most deprived people 
without social assistance 

IT 

670.0 

118.0 

Most deprived people, 
families with children, 
homeless persons  

Food, other basic goods 
(hygiene products, 
clothing, footwear and 
school supplies) 
Food (60%), school 
material, equipment for 
children (30%), goods 
for homeless people 

67 In Mio. EUR 
68 In Mio. EUR 

 ESF measures, means of 
ERDF and social services 
foreseen and delivered by 
the state and the local 
municipalities 
yes, not specified 
Guidance and support to 
get out of poverty 
Improving access to 
material support and social 
services, for immigrating 
children to offers of early 
education  
Leaflet with basic 
information on FEAD and 
advisory and support 
services (psychological, 
social and dietary support 
and socialisation activities 
for children) 
Planned: elementary health 
service for psychological 
problems and addicting 
consultation for homeless 
people;  
health and basic lifestyle 
and economic guidance 
Accompanying measures 
(not specified)  

 Accompanying measures 
(not specified) 

142 

 
 
  
  
  
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Target groups 

Material support 

Accompanying measures 

MS 

LV 

EC 
funds67 
41.0 

Nat. co-
fin68 

7.2 

Most deprived persons, 
children 

LT 

77.0 

13.0 

Most deprived persons 

LU 

4.0 

0.7 

Most deprived persons 

MT 

4.0 

0.6 

NL 

3.9 

0.7 

PL 

473.0 

83.5 

Households receiving 
social assistance, having 
at least 2children and a 
revenue below minimum 
wage/ low pensions 
Retired people with a 
low income or 
considerable debts  
People at risk of poverty 
and social exclusion 
(esp. large families, 
homeless persons)  

Food, and hot meals, 
hygiene items, school 
supplies for children. 
Food packages, goods 
for 300,000 people,  
Food and basic material 
assistance 

food packages 

 Accompanying measures 

Social integration measures  

Food advice and other 
forms of advice (debt, 
alphabetisation, language 
courses, legal advice etc.). 
Provision of advice and 
information on budget 
management and/or 
employment 

Food assistance 

PT 

176.9 

31.2 

Most deprived persons 

RO 

441.0 

75.0 

Most deprived persons, 
esp. Children 

Food support and basic 
goods packages 
food support, school 
supplies to children in 
difficulty 

SK  

55.1 

7.7 

Homeless people, 
house-holds relying 
benefits 

food and basic material 
assistance 

SI 

20.5 

3.6 

Most deprived persons 

food aid 

ES 

563.4 

99.4 

Most deprived persons 

food aid 

SE 

7.8 

1.2 

UK 

3.9 

0.7 

Most deprived persons, 
esp. EU-EEA citizens 
without right to social 
assistance 
Most deprived pupils 

Food (breakfast clubs in 
schools) 

Total  3,810.7  664.8 

Workshops, educational 
programmes on financial 
issues and healthy nutrition 
and counteracting wasting 
food 
Social integration measures  

Hygiene and nutritional 
education, help to access 
medical services or juridical 
counselling, orientation to 
the social services and 
guidance and support to 
find a job 
 Social consultations; 
leaflets, which contain 
contact details and 
information about services 
offered by the Partner 
Organisation and other 
relevant social service 
providers. 
Practical information on 
how to use and store the 
supplied food (e.g. recipes) 
and minimise food waste. 
Accompanying measures 
(not specified)  
Social integration measures 
(by Partner Organisations)  
Improve knowledge of 
Swedish society, health and 
illness prevention  

Promoting healthy eating 
habits at young age and 
helping save money to 
families 

143 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 3: List of common indicators 

COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  No  1255/2014  of  17  July  2014 
supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  223/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived by laying down the content 
of the annual and final implementation reports, including the list of common indicators 

COMMON INDICATORS FOR OP I AND OP II 

Input indicators 

(1) Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the documents setting out 
the conditions for support of operations. 

(2) Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by end recipients and paid in 
implementing operations. 

Thereof, where relevant: 

(a)  total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by  end  recipients  and  paid in 
implementing operations relating to provision of food support; 

(b)  total  amount  of  eligible  public  expenditure  incurred  by  end  recipients  and  paid in 
implementing operations relating to provision of basic material assistance. 

(3) Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the Commission. 

These data shall be expressed in euro. 

COMMON INDICATORS FOR OP I 

Output indicators on food support distributed (1) 

(4) Quantity of fruits and vegetables. 

(5) Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood. 

(6) Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products. 

(7) Quantity of sugar. 

(8) Quantity of milk products. 

(9) Quantity of fats, oil. 

(10) Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling under the aforementioned 
categories). 

(11) Total quantity of food support distributed. 

Thereof: 

(a) share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were paid for by the 
OP (in %); 

(b) proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of food distributed 
by the Partner Organisations 

(in %) (2). 

(12) Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP (3). 

(13) Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed by the OP (4). 

(1)  The  indicators  (4)  to  (11)  include  any  form  of  these  products,  e.g.  fresh,  canned 
and frozen foodstuff and should be expressed in tons. 

(2) Values for this indicator shall be established by an informed estimation of the Partner 
Organisations. 

144 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

(3) The definition of what is to be understood as a meal can be provided at the level of 
the Partner Organisation/operation/managing authority. Values for this indicator shall 
be established by an assessment by the Partner Organisations. 

(4) The definition of what is to be understood as a food package can be provided at the 
level of the Partner Organisation/operation/managing authority. Packages do not need 
to be standardised in size or content. Values for this indicator shall be established by an 
assessment by the Partner Organisations. 

Result indicators on food support distributed (5) 

(14) Total number of persons receiving food support. 

Thereof: 

(a) number of children aged 15 years or below; 

(b) number of persons aged 65 years or above; 

(c) number of women; 

(d) number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities  (including 
marginalised communities such as the Roma); 

(e) number of persons with disabilities; 

(f) number of homeless. 

Output indicators on basic material assistance distributed 

(15) Total monetary value of goods distributed. 

Thereof: 

(a) total monetary value of goods for children; 

(b) total monetary value of goods for the homeless; 

(c) total monetary value of goods for other target groups. 

(16) List of most relevant categories of goods distributed to children (6): 

(a) layette; 

(b) school bags; 

(c) stationery, exercise books, pens, painting equipment and other equipment required 
in school (non-clothes); 

(d) sports equipment (sport shoes, leotard, swimsuit, etc.); 

(e) clothes (winter coat, footwear, school uniform, etc.); 

(f) other category — to be specified 

(17) List of most relevant categories of goods distributed to the homeless (6): 

(a) sleeping bags/blankets; 

(b) kitchen equipment (pots, pans, cutlery, etc.); 

(c) clothes (winter coat, footwear, etc.); 

(d) household linen (towels, bedclothes); 

(e) hygiene articles (first aid kit, soap, toothbrush, disposable razor, etc.); 

(f) other category —to be specified. 

(18) List of most relevant categories of goods distributed to other target groups (6): 

(a) categories to be specified. 

Result indicators on basic material assistance distributed (5) 

145 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

(19) Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance. 

Thereof: 

(a) number of children aged 15 years or below; 

(b) number of persons aged 65 years or above; 

(5) Values for these indicators shall be determined based on the informed estimation of 
the Partner Organisations. It is neither expected nor  required that they are based on 
information provided by end‑ recipients. 

(6)  The  list  shall  include  all  relevant  categories  covering  at  least  75  %  of  the  goods 
distributed. 

(c) number of women; 

(d)  number  of  migrants,  participants  with  a  foreign  background,  minorities  including 
marginalised communities such as the Roma; 

(e) number of persons with disabilities; 

(f) number of homeless. 

COMMON INDICATORS FOR OP II 

Output indicators on social inclusion assistance 

(20) Total number of persons receiving social inclusion assistance. 

Thereof: 

(a) number of children aged 15 years or below; 

(b) number of persons aged 65 years or above; 

(c) number of women; 

(d) number of migrants,  participants with a foreign background, minorities (including 
marginalised communities such as the Roma); 

(e) number of persons with disabilities; 

(f) number of homeless. 

These data for OP II are personal data according to Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC. Their 
processing is necessary for compliance with the legal obligation to which the controller 
is subject (Article 7(c) of Directive 95/46/EC). For the definition of controller, see Article 
2 of Directive 95/46/EC. 

146 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 4: Intervention logic of the FEAD 

147 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 5: List of indicators 

  List of indicators 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

AT 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

AT 

and paid in implementing operations 

AT  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

AT  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

AT 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

AT  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
AT  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
AT  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
AT  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
AT  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
AT  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
AT  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
AT  19c  Number of women 
AT  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

AT  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 
AT  19f  Number of homeless 
BE 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

BE 

and paid in implementing operations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

0 

2,910,741 

2,968,957 

5,879,698 

0 

2,302,674 

3,468,847 

5,771,521 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,173,950 

2,901,486 

5,075,436 

0 

2,631,447 

2,631,447 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2,250,523 
2,250,523 
0 
0 
33,213 
30,493 
0 
15,942 
10,628 

2,690,402 
2,690,402 
0 
0 
40,994 
33,965 
0 
20,087 
16,807 

4,940,925 
4,940,925 
0 
0 
74,207 
64,458 
0 
36,029 
27,435 

0 
0 
37,074,100 

0 
0 
12,695,237  13,282,352  11,096,510 

0 
0 

0 
0 

9,799,065 

6,170,521  12,970,034 

28,939,620 

148 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

BE  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

9,687,088 

5,705,688  12,545,524 

27,938,300 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

BE  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

BE 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

BE 
BE 
BE 
BE 
BE 
BE 
BE  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

BE  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
BE  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

BE  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

BE  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
BE  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

BE  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
BE  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
BE  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
BE  14c  Number of women 
BE  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

BE  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
BE  14f  Number of homeless 

0 

0 

516 
582 
776 
0 
2,154 
132 
449 

4,609 
0 

0 

0 

1,101 
390 
1,079 
0 
3,177 
143 
792 

6,682 
0 

0 

0 

1,198 
250 
2,252 
0 
1,816 
423 
600 

6,538 
0 

0 

0 

2,815 
1,222 
4,107 
0 
7,147 
697 
1,841 

17,828 
0 

50 

50 

50 

1,570,522 
1,377,488 

1,136,460 
1,695,777 

1,111,363 
1,702,987 

3,818,345 
4,776,252 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

225,549 
61,168 
14,892 
69,589 
87,018 

273,121 
70,143 
19,241 
89,980 
99,111 

300,526 
75,824 
15,782 
87,331 
93,466 

5,013 
21,349 

5,858 
11,021 

10,611 
10,378 

799,196 
207,135 
49,915 
246,900 
279,595 

21,482 
42,748 

149 

 
 
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

BG 
BG 
BG 
BG 
BG 
BG 
BG  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

BG  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
BG  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

BG  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

BG  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
BG  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

BG  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
BG  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
BG  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
BG  14c  Number of women 
BG  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

BG  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
BG  14f  Number of homeless 
BG 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

BG 

and paid in implementing operations 

BG  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

97 
85 
189 
1 
35 
12 
23 

442 
0 

100 

983 
253 
3,411 
15 
116 
33 
95 

4,907 
0 

100 

1,080 
338 
3,600 
17 
152 
44 
118 

5,348 
0 

100 

466,609 
0 

1,586,388 
265,000 

2,052,997 
265,000 

6,536 
562 
2,094 
3,559 
2,268 

272,521 
5,101 
103,473 
179,707 
49,943 

279,057 
5,663 
105,567 
183,266 
52,211 

22,014 
0 
0 
123 
0  16,645,427  35,235,666 

1,537 
101 

23,551 
224 
51,881,093 

0 

1,756,863  12,935,583 

14,692,446 

0 

1,756,863  12,166,117 

13,922,981 

150 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

BG  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

BG 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

CY 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

CY 

and paid in implementing operations 

CY  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

CY  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

CY 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

CZ 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

CZ 

and paid in implementing operations 

CZ  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

CZ  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

CZ 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6,074,918 

6,074,918 

19,179 

16,107 

17,242 

52,528 

19,179 

16,107 

17,242 

52,528 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

43,049 

43,049 

2,545,308 

4,725,912 

7,271,220 

0 

1,315,924 

1,315,924 

0 

703,700 

703,700 

0 

355,318 

355,318 

0 

1 
2 
1 
0 

1,237,406 

1,237,406 

53 
68 
108 
31 

54 
71 
109 
31 

151 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

CZ 
CZ 
CZ  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

CZ  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
CZ  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

CZ  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

CZ  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
CZ  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

CZ  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
CZ  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
CZ  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
CZ  14c  Number of women 
CZ  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

CZ  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
CZ  14f  Number of homeless 
CZ  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
CZ  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
CZ  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
CZ  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
CZ  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
CZ  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
CZ  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
CZ  19c  Number of women 
CZ  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

CZ  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
1 
1 

7 
0 

50 

0 
1,627 

1,916 
436 
98 
364 
152 

54 
1,015 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

23 
34 
115 

432 
0 

65 

32,848 
85,797 

59,759 
24,740 
4,582 
30,653 
19,776 

3,080 
15,179 
537,393 
225,527 
98,299 
213,567 
41,417 
19,320 
3,361 
22,870 
14,822 

24 
35 
116 

439 

32,848 
87,424 

61,675 
25,176 
4,680 
31,017 
19,928 

3,134 
16,194 
537,393 
225,527 
98,299 
213,567 
41,417 
19,320 
3,361 
22,870 
14,822 

0 

1,384 

1,384 

152 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

CZ  19f  Number of homeless 
DE 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

DE 

and paid in implementing operations 

DE 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

DE  20  Total number of persons receiving social inclusion assistance 
DE  20a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
DE  20b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
DE  20c  Number of women 
DE  20d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

DE  20e  Number of persons with disabilities 
DE  20f  Number of homeless 
DK 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

DK 

and paid in implementing operations 

DK 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

DK  20  Total number of persons receiving social inclusion assistance 
DK  20a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
DK  20b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
DK  20c  Number of women 
DK  20d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

DK  20e  Number of persons with disabilities 
DK  20f  Number of homeless 
EE 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 

number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

7,219 
5,040,850  48,787,171 

0 

7,219 
53,828,021 

8,132 

3,613,977 

3,622,109 

0 

41 
5 
0 
18 
38 

4 
3 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

21,614 
2,132 
346 
10,343 
15,426 

701 
5,162 
266,211 

21,655 
2,137 
346 
10,361 
15,464 

705 
5,165 
266,211 

227,025 

227,025 

192,971 

192,971 

474 
0 
23 
68 
467 

474 
0 
23 
68 
467 

0 
0 
1,365,193 

2 
474 
1,480,675 

2 
474 
2,845,868 

153 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

EE 

2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

EE  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

EE  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

EE 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

EE 
EE 
EE 
EE 
EE 
EE 
EE  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

EE  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
EE  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

EE  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

EE  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
EE  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

EE  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
EE  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
EE  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
EE  14c  Number of women 
EE  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

0 

1,359,647 

1,480,667 

2,840,314 

0 

1,359,647 

1,480,667 

2,840,314 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

519,018 

1,620,014 

2,139,032 

33 
217 
224 
84 
0 
82 
68 

708 
0 

45 

0 
40,050 

26,608 
8,887 
412 
13,503 
4,636 

44 
172 
289 
104 
0 
101 
80 

790 
0 

38 

0 
50,608 

29,516 
10,713 
525 
15,020 
5,101 

77 
389 
513 
188 
0 
183 
148 

1,498 

0 
90,658 

56,124 
19,600 
937 
28,523 
9,737 

154 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EE  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
EE  14f  Number of homeless 
ES 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

ES 

and paid in implementing operations 

ES  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

ES  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

ES 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

ES  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
ES  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

ES  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

ES  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
ES  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

8,888 
2,022 
231,915,984 

0 
0 

5,333 
1,000 
40,340,000  86,754,423  104,821,56
2 

3,555 
1,022 

37,608,029  80,818,407  99,241,041 

217,667,477 

37,402,963  77,334,788  92,674,842 

207,412,593 

0 

0 

5,628 
0 
16,285 
0 
9,588 
0 
17,278 

48,779 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0  155,341,48
8 
16,526 
4,752 
14,739 
0 
35,422 
6,350 
17,400 

11,109 
3,866 
12,445 
0 
27,748 
4,808 
21,602 

81,578 
0 

95,189 
0 

155,341,488 

33,263 
8,618 
43,469 
0 
72,758 
11,158 
56,280 

225,546 

100 

100 

100 

18,322,800  28,694,973  31,590,716 
4,254,261 
3,118,008 

4,240,000 

78,608,489 
11,612,269 

ES  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
ES  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 

number 
number 

2,187,986 
634,145 

1,676,836 
470,689 

1,528,479 
465,873 

5,393,301 
1,570,707 

155 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

ES  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
ES  14c  Number of women 
ES  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

ES  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
ES  14f  Number of homeless 
FI 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

FI 

FI 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

FI 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

FI 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

FI 
FI 
FI 
FI 
FI 
FI 
FI 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

FI 
FI  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

FI  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

FI 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 

150,875 
1,164,009 
626,883 

108,619 
844,635 
442,974 

99,647 
795,107 
332,318 

359,141 
2,803,751 
1,402,175 

40,915 
40,618 
178,354 

32,407 
30,132 
6,405,321 

24,423 
22,995 
4,333,325 

97,745 
93,745 
10,917,000 

0 

1,595,957 

3,903,542 

5,499,500 

0 

1,507,125 

3,737,881 

5,245,006 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1,774,643 

1,774,643 

0 
60 
410 
0 
47 
0 
81 

598 
0 

41 

0 
198 
1,350 
0 
130 
0 
240 

1,918 
0 

45 

0 
259 
1,759 
0 
177 
0 
322 

2,516 

6,608 

60,832 

67,440 

156 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

FI 

13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

FI 
FI  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
FI  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
FI  14c  Number of women 
FI  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

FI  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
FI 
FR 

14f  Number of homeless 
1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

FR 

and paid in implementing operations 

FR  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

FR  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

FR 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

FR 
FR 
FR 
FR 
FR 
FR 
FR  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

FR  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

74,285 

312,491 

386,776 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

113,191 
20,117 
23,011 
34,756 
6,608 

289,824 
36,166 
59,288 
103,248 
21,990 

403,015 
56,283 
82,299 
138,004 
28,598 

5,874 
2,109 
239,772,626 

4,344 
1,805 
76,877,831  79,801,116  83,093,679 

1,530 
304 

0 
0 

38,230,231  67,754,637  68,590,928 

174,575,796 

38,230,231  67,754,637  68,316,097 

174,300,965 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  44,426,884 

0 

44,426,884 

6,231 
2,369 
10,239 
2,603 
37,146 
2,939 
4,334 

7,953 
3,543 
10,925 
2,753 
40,002 
4,047 
4,864 

7,146 
4,758 
9,139 
2,784 
47,347 
2,939 
6,063 

21,329 
10,670 
30,302 
8,140 
124,495 
9,926 
15,261 

65,860 

74,087 

80,176 

220,123 

157 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

FR  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

FR  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

% 

% 

0 

28 

0 

29 

0 

32 

FR  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
FR  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

FR  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
FR  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
FR  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
FR  14c  Number of women 
FR  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

FR  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
FR  14f  Number of homeless 
GR 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

GR 

and paid in implementing operations 

GR  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

GR  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

GR 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

GR 
GR 
GR 
GR 
GR 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

0 
72,781,897  76,616,015  76,252,590 

0 

0 

4,047,812 
1,471,148 
250,801 
2,419,290 
0 

4,216,026 
1,438,335 
183,025 
2,212,815 
0 

4,397,813 
1,561,066 
177,597 
2,307,787 
0 

0 
225,650,502 

12,661,651 
4,470,549 
611,423 
6,939,892 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
1,010,198 
0 
5,792,508  15,799,768 

0 
1,010,198 
21,592,276 

0  18,501,124 

18,501,124 

0  15,107,056 

15,107,056 

0 

3,394,068 

3,394,068 

0  13,245,734 

13,245,734 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

3,932 
1,227 
1,045 
829 
905 

3,932 
1,227 
1,045 
829 
905 

158 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

9  Quantity of fats, oil 

GR 
GR  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

GR  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
GR  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

GR  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

GR  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
GR  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

GR  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
GR  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
GR  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
GR  14c  Number of women 
GR  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

GR  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
GR  14f  Number of homeless 
GR  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
GR  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
GR  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
GR  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
GR  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
GR  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
GR  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
GR  19c  Number of women 
GR  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

GR  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 
GR  19f  Number of homeless 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

631 
985 

9,553 
0 

1 

225,728 
0 

410,000 
108,155 
17,957 
213,566 
5,000 

727 
1,000 
3,405,166 
554,002 
33,168 
2,817,996 
410,000 
108,155 
17,957 
213,566 
0 

631 
985 

9,553 

225,728 
0 

410,000 
108,155 
17,957 
213,566 
5,000 

727 
1,000 
3,405,166 
554,002 
33,168 
2,817,996 
410,000 
108,155 
17,957 
213,566 
0 

0 
1,000 

0 
1,000 

159 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

HR 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

HR 

and paid in implementing operations 

HR  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

HR  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

HR 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

HU 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

HU 

and paid in implementing operations 

HU  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

HU  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

HU 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

IE 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

IE 

IE 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  14,058,518 

14,058,518 

0 

0 

0 

131,885 

131,885 

613 

613 

0 

0 

0 

131,272 

131,272 

14,856,912  15,154,051  15,457,132 

45,468,095 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

910 

910 

0 

0 

0 

0 

910 

910 

883,843 

883,843 

869,000 

869,000 

869,000 

869,000 

160 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

IE 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

EUR 

IE 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

IE 
IE 
IE 
IE 
IE 
IE 
IE 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

IE 
IE  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

IE  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

IE 
IE 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

IE 
IE  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
IE  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
IE  14c  Number of women 
IE  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

IE  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
IE  14f  Number of homeless 
IT 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

48 
0 
49 
28 
7 
0 
32 

162 

0 

0 

48 
0 
49 
28 
7 
0 
32 

162 
0 

24 

266,393 
111,906 

266,393 
111,906 

54,605 
20,000 
7,321 
25,696 
3,647 

54,605 
20,000 
7,321 
25,696 
3,647 

2,709 
7,073 
151,925,000 

161 

2,709 
7,073 
40,000,000  71,500,000  40,425,000 

0 
0 

0 
0 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

IT 

2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

IT 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

IT 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

IT 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

IT 
IT  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

IT  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

IT 
IT 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

IT 
IT  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
IT  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
IT  14c  Number of women 
IT  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

0  52,023,915  55,621,437 

107,645,353 

0  52,023,915  55,621,437 

107,645,353 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0  33,011,947 

33,011,947 

12,197 
1,306 
20,634 
3,777 
33,823 
4,641 
11,140 

87,517 
0 

455 
0 
14,043 
0 
19,264 
0 
0 

33,762 
0 

63 

63 

12,652 
1,306 
34,677 
3,777 
53,087 
4,641 
11,140 

121,280 

0  16,981,240  17,809,135 
0  51,876,352  51,085,610 

34,790,375 
102,961,962 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2,809,131 
856,879 
309,205 
1,334,337 
1,348,383 

2,778,207 
890,560 
248,892 
1,320,000 
1,055,718 

5,587,338 
1,747,439 
558,097 
2,654,337 
2,404,101 

162 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

IT  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
IT  14f  Number of homeless 
LT 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

LT 

LT 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

LT 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

LT 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

LT 
LT 
LT 
LT 
LT 
LT 
LT 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

LT 
LT  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

LT  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

LT 
LT 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

50,564 
112,365 
11,606,522  16,417,000 

0 
0 

50,077 
111,000 
0 

100,641 
223,365 
28,023,522 

3,395,723  13,124,243  11,404,777 

27,924,743 

3,395,723  13,124,243  11,404,777 

27,924,743 

0 

0 

0 
143 
2,389 
371 
0 
427 
0 

3,330 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0  11,004,687 

11,004,687 

75 
186 
3,669 
907 
183 
541 
365 

5,925 
0 

140 
261 
3,487 
677 
334 
611 
408 

5,915 
0 

215 
589 
9,545 
1,954 
516 
1,578 
773 

15,170 

72 

59 

52 

0 
755,660 

0 
1,468,371 

0 
1,220,445 

0 
3,444,476 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

LT 
LT  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 

number 
number 

272,113 
57,273 

250,560 
57,688 

218,769 
60,627 

741,442 
175,588 

163 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

LT  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
LT  14c  Number of women 
LT  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

LT  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
LT  14f  Number of homeless 
LU 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

LU 

and paid in implementing operations 

LU  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

LU  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

LU 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

LU 
LU 
LU 
LU 
LU 
LU 
LU  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

LU  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
LU  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

LU  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

LU  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 

0 
67,208 
996 

9,138 
83,898 
2,616 

13,693 
0 
470,560 

18,866 
566 
582,471 

9,109 
110,086 
3,227 

19,710 
506 
594,052 

18,247 
261,192 
6,839 

52,269 
1,072 
1,647,083 

12,420 

253,907 

631,107 

897,434 

0 

104,020 

400,268 

504,288 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

54,188 

153,827 

208,015 

0 

226,378 

226,378 

120 
50 
106 
38 
169 
44 
647 

167 
371 
176 
65 
324 
113 
831 

1,174 
51 

2,047 
44 

14 

0 

28 

0 

287 
421 
282 
103 
493 
157 
1,478 

3,221 

0 

164 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

LU  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

LU  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
LU  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
LU  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
LU  14c  Number of women 
LU  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

LU  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
LU  14f  Number of homeless 
LU  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
LU  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
LU  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
LU  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
LU  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
LU  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
LU  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
LU  19c  Number of women 
LU  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

LU  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 
LU  19f  Number of homeless 
LV 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

LV 

and paid in implementing operations 

LV  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

8,338 

11,622 

19,960 

9,243 
2,824 
135 
5,008 
6,397 

310 
42 
54,188 
0 
0 
54,188 
9,243 
2,824 
135 
5,008 
6,397 

11,728 
3,513 
185 
6,273 
7,880 

351 
53 
153,827 
0 
0 
153,827 
11,728 
3,513 
185 
6,273 
7,880 

20,971 
6,337 
320 
11,281 
14,277 

661 
95 
208,015 
0 
0 
208,015 
20,971 
6,337 
320 
11,281 
14,277 

0 
0 
6,492,096 

310 
42 
6,621,938 

351 
53 
6,754,377 

661 
95 
19,868,411 

78,864 

3,087,601 

4,751,086 

7,917,551 

0 

2,501,289 

3,750,754 

6,252,043 

165 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

LV  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

0 

274,231 

701,106 

975,338 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

EUR 

LV 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

LV 
LV 
LV 
LV 
LV 
LV 
LV  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

LV  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
LV  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

LV  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

LV  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
LV  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

LV  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
LV  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
LV  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
LV  14c  Number of women 
LV  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

LV  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
LV  14f  Number of homeless 
LV  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
LV  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1,405,538 

5,205,043 

6,610,581 

0 
71 
942 
71 
114 
143 
0 

1,341 
0 

0 
210 
1,292 
141 
147 
184 
0 

1,975 
0 

83 

71 

2,205 
285,362 

204,900 
367,451 

68,876 
17,782 
5,991 
41,036 
1,445 

7,598 
358 
25,675 
17,782 

61,497 
14,652 
6,218 
31,671 
1,084 

6,524 
290 
19,657 
14,407 

0 
282 
2,234 
213 
261 
326 
0 

3,316 

207,105 
652,813 

130,373 
32,434 
12,209 
72,707 
2,529 

14,122 
648 
45,332 
32,189 

166 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

LV  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
LV  19c  Number of women 
LV  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

LV  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 
LV  19f  Number of homeless 
LV  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
LV  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
LV  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
LV  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
MT 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

MT 

and paid in implementing operations 

MT  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

MT  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

MT 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

MT 
MT 
MT 
MT 
MT 
MT 
MT  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

MT  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

number 
number 

number 

number 
number 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
12,565 
804 

917 
0 
191,693 
191,693 
0 
0 
0 

0 
10,123 
554 

760 
0 
605,969 
605,969 
0 
0 
4,640,777 

0 
22,688 
1,358 

1,677 
0 
797,661 
797,661 
0 
0 
4,640,777 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

919,519 

919,519 

919,519 

919,519 

0 

0 

474,961 

474,961 

94 
25 
100 
0 
65 
0 
17 

301 

94 
25 
100 
0 
65 
0 
17 

301 

167 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

MT  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

MT  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

% 

% 

MT  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
MT  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

MT  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
MT  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
MT  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
MT  14c  Number of women 
MT  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

MT  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
MT  14f  Number of homeless 
NL 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

NL 

and paid in implementing operations 

NL 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

NL  20  Total number of persons receiving social inclusion assistance 
NL  20a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
NL  20b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
NL  20c  Number of women 
NL  20d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

NL  20e  Number of persons with disabilities 
NL  20f  Number of homeless 
PL 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
39,680 

0 
0 
4,471,108 

0 

100 

0 
13,828 

17,051 
8,020 
848 
9,486 
1,162 

86 
0 
73,515 

0 

0 

0 
13,828 

17,051 
8,020 
848 
9,486 
1,162 

86 
0 
4,584,303 

39,680 

134,342 

575,391 

749,413 

97,601 

97,601 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

281 
0 
281 
210 
87 

3 
0 
9,299,521  70,801,840  76,406,619 

0 
0 

0 
0 

281 
0 
281 
210 
87 

3 
0 
156,507,980 

168 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

PL 

2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

PL 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

PL 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

PL 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

PL 
PL  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

PL  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

PL 
PL 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

PL 
PL  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
PL  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
PL  14c  Number of women 
PL  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

0  53,225,776  46,193,124 

99,418,901 

0  53,225,776  46,193,124 

99,418,901 

0 

0 

0 
498 
927 
1,247 
1,241 
620 
0 

4,533 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0  74,526,001 

74,526,001 

9,208 
8,786 
16,344 
7,576 
13,842 
4,471 
0 

60,227 
0 

10,658 
9,033 
15,877 
6,117 
10,603 
4,628 
0 

56,917 
0 

19,867 
18,317 
33,147 
14,941 
25,686 
9,718 
0 

121,676 
0 

10 

61 

41 

0 
613,158 

336,668 
6,380,478 

1,320,142 
5,411,258 

1,656,810 
12,404,894 

374,889 
130,890 
20,854 
200,843 
4,474 

1,199,424 
391,103 
63,657 
595,904 
14,118 

1,183,227 
371,034 
63,724 
587,358 
11,554 

2,757,540 
893,027 
148,235 
1,384,105 
30,146 

169 

 
 
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

PL  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
PL  14f  Number of homeless 
PT 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

PT 

and paid in implementing operations 

PT  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

PT  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

PT 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

PT 
PT 
PT 
PT 
PT 
PT 
PT  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

PT  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
PT  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

PT  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

PT  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
PT  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

PT  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
PT  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 

number 
number 

54,475 
7,466 
0 

179,607 
26,670 

184,147 
24,903 
0  23,415,928 

418,229 
59,039 
23,415,928 

0  20,989,839 

20,989,839 

0  20,906,494 

20,906,494 

0 

0 

0 

0  20,906,494 

20,906,494 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1,217 
859 
1,758 
442 
2,510 
921 
0 

7,707 
0 

1,368 
984 
1,928 
539 
2,982 
449 
0 

8,250 
0 

50 

50 

0 
448,686 

0 
408,737 

448,686 
111,522 

408,737 
96,529 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

2,585 
1,843 
3,686 
981 
5,492 
1,370 
0 

15,957 

0 
857,423 

857,423 
208,051 

170 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

PT  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
PT  14c  Number of women 
PT  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

PT  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
PT  14f  Number of homeless 
RO 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

RO 

and paid in implementing operations 

RO  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

RO  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

RO 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

RO 
RO 
RO 
RO 
RO 
RO 
RO  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

RO  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
RO  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

RO  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

45,040 
195,043 
0 

42,630 
173,853 
0 

0 
0 
122,997,38
1 

0 
0 
53,302,288 

7,178,050  100,793,29
3 

7,178,050  100,793,29
3 

0 

0 

0 
4,452 
9,191 
2,872 
0 
2,872 
0 

19,386 
0 

0 
17,758 
36,664 
11,457 
0 
11,457 
0 

77,336 
0 

100 

100 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

87,670 
368,896 
0 

0 
0 
176,299,669 

53,302,288 

161,273,631 

53,302,288 

161,273,631 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4,290,712 

4,290,712 

0 
0 
34,838 
7,918 
0 
15,835 
11,085 

69,676 
0 

85 

0 

0 
22,210 
80,692 
22,247 
0 
30,164 
11,085 

166,398 

0 

171 

RO  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 

0 

0 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

RO  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

by the OP 

RO  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
RO  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
RO  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
RO  14c  Number of women 
RO  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

RO  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
RO  14f  Number of homeless 
SE 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

SE 

and paid in implementing operations 

SE 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

SE  20  Total number of persons receiving social inclusion assistance 
SE  20a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
SE  20b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
SE  20c  Number of women 
SE  20d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

SE  20e  Number of persons with disabilities 
SE  20f  Number of homeless 
SI 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

SI 

SI 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 
2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 
and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

number 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

1,436,019 

5,743,190 

7,917,692 

15,096,901 

612,262 
123,275 
144,028 
285,571 
0 

2,449,049 
493,959 
589,296 
1,142,282 
0 

3,286,466 
660,370 
822,638 
1,451,414 
0 

99,054 
0 
0 

408,627 
0 
5,339,914 

594,021 
0 
63,788 

6,347,777 
1,277,604 
1,555,962 
2,879,267 
0 

1,101,702 
0 
5,403,702 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

59,351 

405,835 

465,186 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

148,037 

148,037 

582 
12 
0 
360 
581 

582 
12 
0 
360 
581 

0 
0 
1,500,000 

0 
0 
5,000,000 

0 
578 
4,248,829 

0 
578 
10,748,829 

1,806 

1,477,073 

3,221,298 

4,700,176 

0 

1,429,656 

3,089,785 

4,519,441 

172 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

SI 

2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

EUR 

SI 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

SI 
SI 
SI 
SI 
SI 
SI 
SI 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 
10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

11  Total quantity of food support distributed 

SI 
SI  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

SI  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

SI 
SI 

12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

14  Total number of persons receiving food support 

SI 
SI  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
SI  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
SI  14c  Number of women 
SI  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

SI  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
SI  14f  Number of homeless 
SK 

1  Total amount of eligible public expenditure approved in the 

documents setting out the conditions for support of operations 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

EUR 

0 

0 

0 
0 
71 
0 
149 
15 
0 

235 
0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,716,674 

2,716,674 

0 
0 
1,087 
0 
665 
132 
0 

1,884 
0 

0 
0 
2,037 
0 
1,993 
354 
254 

4,637 
0 

40 

61 

0 
0 
3,195 
0 
2,806 
500 
254 

6,756 

0 
21,125 

21,125 
3,038 
2,294 
10,716 
337 

0 
794,347 

0 
1,041,386 

0 
1,856,858 

181,699 
41,086 
21,413 
93,469 
16,225 

180,920 
40,265 
26,029 
95,430 
14,324 

383,744 
84,389 
49,736 
199,615 
30,886 

202 
18 
0 

5,667 
1,822 
282,738 

5,946 
3,027 
8,926,006 

11,815 
4,867 
9,208,744 

173 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

SK 

2  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations 

SK  2a  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of food 
support, where relevant 

SK  2b  Total amount of eligible public expenditure incurred by beneficiaries 

and paid in implementing operations relating to provision of basic 
material assistance, where relevant 

SK 

3  Total amount of eligible public expenditure declared to the 

Commission 

4  Quantity of fruits and vegetables 
5  Quantity of meat, eggs, fish, seafood 
6  Quantity of flour, bread, potatoes, rice and other starchy products 
7  Quantity of sugar 
8  Quantity of milk products 
9  Quantity of fats, oil 

SK 
SK 
SK 
SK 
SK 
SK 
SK  10  Quantity of convenience food, other foodstuff (not falling in 

abovementioned categories) 

SK  11  Total quantity of food support distributed 
SK  11a  Share of food for which only transport, distribution and storage were 

paid for by the OP 

SK  11b  Proportion of FEAD co-financed food products in the total volume of 

food distributed by the partner organisations 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

EUR 

tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 
tonnes 

tonnes 

tonnes 

% 

% 

SK  12  Total number of meals distributed partly or totally financed by the OP  number 
SK  13  Total number of food packages distributed partly or totally financed 

number 

by the OP 

SK  14  Total number of persons receiving food support 
SK  14a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
SK  14b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
SK  14c  Number of women 
SK  14d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

4,118,881 

4,118,881 

0 

3,746,540 

3,746,540 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

129,628 

129,628 

296 
291 
1,379 
197 
79 
197 
69 

2,507 
0 

100 

1,468 
197,005 

142,349 
75,549 
4,044 
35,610 
0 

296 
291 
1,379 
197 
79 
197 
69 

2,507 

1,468 
197,005 

142,349 
75,549 
4,044 
35,610 
0 

174 

 
 
  
  
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

MS  ID 

INDICATOR 

MEASUREMENT 
UNIT 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CUMULATIVE 
VALUE 

SK  14e  Number of persons with disabilities 
SK  14f  Number of homeless 
SK  15  Total monetary value of goods distributed 
SK  15a  Total monetary value of goods for children 
SK  15b  Total monetary value of goods for the homeless 
SK  15c  Total monetary value of goods for other target groups 
SK  19  Total number of persons receiving basic material assistance 
SK  19a  Number of children aged 15 years or below 
SK  19b  Number of persons aged 65 years or above 
SK  19c  Number of women 
SK  19d  Number of migrants, participants with a foreign background, 

minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) 

SK  19e  Number of persons with disabilities 
SK  19f  Number of homeless 

Source: SFC2014 

number 
number 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
EUR 
number 
number 
number 
number 

number 

number 
number 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

9,235 
835 
266,136 
247,506 
3,012 
15,618 
112,059 
66,512 
11 
23,239 
0 

2,592 
502 

9,235 
835 
266,136 
247,506 
3,012 
15,618 
112,059 
66,512 
11 
23,239 
0 

2,592 
502 

175 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 6: Evaluation questions and sub-questions per evaluation criterion 

  Evaluation question and sub-questions per evaluation criterion 

Evaluation questions 

Evaluation criterion 

Sub-questions 

EFF1. To what extent does the 
FEAD contribute to national and 
EU objectives of achieving 
poverty reduction and social 
inclusion? 

Effectiveness and 
coherence 

EFF2 How are the various types 
of assistance delivered? 

Effectiveness and 
coherence  

COH1. To what extent are the 
interventions coherent with 
other EU, national and regional 
interventions which have 
similar or complementary 
objectives? 

Coherence and 
effectiveness 

EFFI 1 Are the elements of 
Management and Control 
System (MCS) requirements in 
FEAD set appropriately to 
minimise the administrative 
burden while allowing effective 
and efficient implementation? 

Efficiency and 
effectiveness 

EFF1.1 To what extent are the FEAD objectives (as stated in Article 3 of the FEAD Regulation) on 
track to be achieved? 
EFF1.2 To what extent has assistance reached the most vulnerable groups (homeless, children at risk 
of poverty, etc.) and does it help them move further towards inclusion? 

EFF1.3 Are adjustments possible/made when needs change or new needs emerge? 

EFF1.4 Are horizontal principles such as reducing food waste complied with (Article 5 of FEAD 
regulation)? 

EFF1.5 Are there unintended results? Is there any evidence of impacts yet? 

EFF2.1 What are the types of assistance delivered, including those related to food donations and 
awareness raising activities? 
EFF2.2 What are the types of accompanying measures (OP I) and social inclusion activities (OP II) 
delivered? 
EFF2.3How robust are good practice cases (such as leveraging amount of aid) identified by MAs and 
Partner Organisations? 

COH1.1 What role does FEAD play in the national system of poverty alleviation? 

COH1.2 To what extent is FEAD support complementary to support provided by other European Union 
instruments, in particular the ESF and AMIF? 
COH1.3 Has the FEAD contributed to supplement or to displace national (public or private) 
interventions and financial resources used with similar or complementary objectives? 
COH1.4 How coherent are the OPs internally and among themselves (e.g. multiple support forms, 
delivery methods)? 

EFFI1.1 Is there any evidence of gold-plating at MS level in implementing the FEAD? 

EFFI1.2 To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the outputs/impacts that have been 
achieved? 
EFFI1.3 What type of operations for which target group proves to be most effective and efficient and 
why? 
EFFI1.4 What is the feasibility of alternative delivery mechanisms and support modes for the 
provision of support to the most deprived (e.g. shared management, indirect management, budget 
support)? 

EFFI1.5 Does the procedure for identifying the end recipients facilitate access to FEAD assistance? 

176 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Evaluation questions 

Evaluation criterion 

Sub-questions 

EFFI1.6 Does the use of flat rates under OP I simplify the implementation of operations by Partner 
Organisations? 

EFFI1.7 Is there any scope for simplification? 

EU1.1 To what extent does FEAD add to existing actions, either by supporting national action in 
general or specific areas of national policy?  
EU1.2 To what extent does FEAD broaden existing action by supporting groups or policy areas that 
would not otherwise receive support. 
EU1.3 To what extent does FEAD support local/regional innovations that are taken up at national level 
or national innovative actions that are then ‘mainstreamed’.  
EU1.4 To what extent does FEAD influence Member State administrations and organisations involved 
in the programmes. 

CAV, effectiveness and 
coherence 

CAV, effectiveness and 
coherence 

Relevance and 
effectiveness 

REL1.1 How relevant is the aid to the target groups?  
REL1.2 How well does it respond to their needs?  
REL1.3 Are there any gaps? 

EU1. What kind of EU added 
value is resulting from the 
FEAD support volume, scope, 
role, and process) and how 
significant is it? 

EU2. What would be the most 
likely consequences of stopping 
the FEAD support? 
REL 1 How relevant is the aid to 
the target groups? How well 
does it respond to their needs? 
Are there any gaps? 

177 

 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 7: Evaluation tools used in the 28 Member States  

  Evaluation tools used in the 28 Member States 

Member State 

Country 
fiche 

OPC 

National 
focus 
group 

EU-level 
focus 
group 

Structured 
survey 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

n.a 

1 

1 

 n.a. 

 n.a. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1  

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 n.a. 

1 

1 

1  

1 

 1 

 1 

EU28 

28 

27 

7 

21 

22 

178 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 8: Results of the structured survey 

  Results of the structured survey 

Advice on food preparation 
and storage, cooking 
workshops, educational 
activities to promote healthy 
nutrition, or advice on how to 
reduce food waste 

Personal 
cleanliness 
advice 

Redirection to 
competent services 
(e.g. 
social/administrative) 

Individual 
coaching and 
workshops 

Psychological and 
therapeutic 
support 

Advice on 
managing a 
household 
budget 

Other (to 
be 
specified) 

None 

41.7% 

29.0% 

52.0% 

26.4% 

25.1% 

26.9% 

29.4% 

25.8% 

Yes 

No 

73.1% 

28.2% 

Food packages 

Meals 

Goods distributed to 
children 

Goods distributed 
to the homeless 

Other goods 

73.1% 

36.6% 

51.9% 

38.7% 

42.4% 

Yourself 

Other 

Not wish to answer 

not 
know/understand 

74.3% 

51.5% 

0.5% 

0.5% 

<5 

6-15 

16-24 

25-49 

50-64 

65+ 

Not wish 
to answer 

not know/ 
understand 

15.9% 

31.5% 

14.5% 

19.5% 

11.5% 

6.8% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

Yes 

No 

Not wish to answer 

14.7% 

84.7% 

0.4% 

not 
know/understand 
0.4% 

179 

A2 

A3 

A3a 

B5 

B6 

B7 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

B10 

Yes 

No 

Not wish to answer 

8.5% 

90.0% 

0.6% 

not 
know/understand 
0.9% 

Need to get some papers from 
some national, regional or 
local office 

B10a 

Need to travel a 
long distance 

Psychological hurdles 

Other (to be 
specified) 

Not wish to 
answer 

not know/ 
understand 

27.6% 

19.1% 

15.7% 

29.1% 

6.3% 

3.3% 

B11 

Yes 

Partially 

No 

Not wish to answer 

not 
know/understand 

76.4% 

18.6% 

2.9% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

B11a 

Insufficient quantity of 
food/goods 

Insufficient 
frequency of 
food/goods 
distribution 

Insufficient quality of 
food/goods 

Other type of 
assistance required 
(to be specified) 

Not wish to 
answer 

not know/ 
understand 

38.5% 

28.5% 

16.0% 

26.3% 

6.3% 

8.5% 

B13 

B13a 

B15 

Yes 

No 

Not wish to answer 

not 
know/understand 

21.6% 

76.2% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

Food 

Meals 

Clothes 

47.2% 

21.0% 

22.7% 

Very useful 

Somewhat 
useful 

Not very useful 

Not useful at all 

Not wish to 
answer 

not know/ 
understand 

47.8% 

26.6% 

3.0% 

1.8% 

4.7% 

16.1% 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

B16 

B17 

B18 

B19 

B20 

B21 

B22 

B23 

Yes 

No 

Not wish to answer 

15.1% 

62.2% 

19.8% 

33.5% 

81.3% 

21.7% 

7.4% 

88.6% 

82.2% 

36.2% 

77.1% 

63.2% 

19.3% 

73.6% 

89.0% 

10.8% 

1.0% 

1.3% 

1.6% 

1.7% 

0.2% 

1.3% 

1.0% 

0.5% 

not 
know/understand 
1.7% 

0.4% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

0.1% 

1.9% 

0.9% 

0.2% 

181 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 9: Comments and Lessons learned concerning the 
structured survey 

All MS were requested to conduct a structured survey with the FEAD end recipients in 
2017, based on a minimum set of questions defined in the Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2016/594. While some MS conducted the analysis themselves, others 
contracted external companies to conduct the survey. 

At the time of writing this report, the results of 22 MS were received from the European 
Commission  and  in  a  next  step  analysed  and  included  in  this  report.  The  evaluation 
team received the results in form of pdf or word files and created an excel file based on 
these documents to aggregate the data and to conduct the analysis.  

The process of entering the data into the excel file revealed inconsistencies of reporting 
of a few MS, which led to some difficulties in the analysis: 

  Not all MS provided detailed tables of the results of the survey. 

  Some MS reported only absolute, or only relative values. Only a few included both 

the absolute and relative values.  

  Only  reporting  absolute  values  led  to  the  problem  that  for  multiple  response 
questions the sample size responding a specific question was not  entirely clear 
(e.g. question B14), which led to difficulties calculating relative values. 

  When  reporting  only  relative  values,  it  was  not  possible  to  check  the  data/  the 
calculation method, as  e.g.  for some questions the aggregation of the relative 
values of a specific question did not add up to 100%. 

At the Evaluation Partnership meeting on 27th April, the Member States were asked to 
provide feedback on the conduct of the structured survey on end recipients. This session 
provided useful insights into the implementation of the structured survey in the Member 
States. All MAs found the structures  survey very useful as it provided information on 
their client group that would not have been available otherwise. Many Member States 
also added questions of their own in order to provide further insights, e.g. on financial 
issues, flat rates, cooperation between PO and social assistance, and on accompanying 
measures in Poland. 

Some problems were experienced in the conduct of the survey relating to the wording 
of  the  questions  (sometimes  seen  as  overly  personal  or  offensive  (e.g.  the  option  of 
living in a ‘slum’).  

A  few  Member  States  used  survey  monkey  to  implement  the  survey  and  found  this 
worked very well. 

Training for interviewers meant that the questions were well understood by the latter 
and that they asked the questions in a sensitive manner. 

As many of the end recipients were children, it was difficult to interview them. Some 
Member States did but found the questions too lengthy and difficult.  

In those Member States where food was also delivered at home (HR), it was difficult for 
the interviewers to reach the end recipients. In some cases with a lot of local partners 
helping with the distribution a greater coordination effort was needed to carry out the 
survey. In Finland, the food collection was so quick that the interviewers did not have 
time to interview many people. 

Some Member States were late starting with the implementation of the FEAD and the 
survey  therefore  only  covered  one  type  of  intervention  (PT)  or  omitted  interventions 
that had not yet been started (EL, IE).  

Based on the analysis of the reports of the MS and the statistical analysis in Excel, the 
following recommendations can be made: 

182 

 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  The MS should report the results in a consistent way using tables, including both 
the  absolute  and  relative  values  for  each  answering  option  and  including  the 
sample  size  of  the  question.  This  will  allow  the  evaluation  team  to  make  a 
statistically well-founded analysis, avoiding misunderstandings or problems when 
aggregating data. 

  It should be pre-defined and clearly stated, which questions are single or multiple 

choice. 

  The survey could be conducted online.  

  The survey could be conducted more frequently.  

  Provide simpler version of survey for children. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 10: Additional statistical analysis 

  Correlation between the share of food support in each OP and financial 

progress (expenditure approved/total allocation)69 

Source: FEAD OPs, AIRs 

  People receiving food support and amount of food distributed per person, 

by MS (2016) 

Source: FEAD OPs, AIRs 

69 OLS with error robust for heteroscedasticity; coeff. 0,302 (i.e. 0,302 p.p. of additional progress per each 
additional p.p. in the share of food support), p-value 0,0094 (statistically significant at the 95% level) 4, R2 
0,175 (modest explicative power) 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

  Persons receiving food support by target group and MS (2016)70 

Source: SFC2014 

70 The Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. shows the distribution of FEAD end-b
eneficiaries per target groups. Care should be taken when comparing between countries as the figure shows 
absolute numbers. For example, there is a very large number of women in France but this does not mean 
that women are not also an important group in Greece for instance. In addition, comparison is based on 
estimates provided by MS, which are not always complete, e.g. reporting on migrants, etc. The graph is 
divided into two groups of countries for readability purposes and given the difference in magnitude of FEAD 
across countries. 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

It is also interesting to notice that if one plots the level of agreement to the question 
“has  FEAD  made  a  difference  to  you”  by  MS  with  coverage  data  of  accompanying 
measures,71 there would seem to be a positive correlation between the two (the higher 
the coverage the higher the level of agreement).  

   Correlation between the extent to which FEAD has made a difference to 
end-recipients and the share of POs providing accompanying measures 
(scatter plot) 

Yes 

Partially 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Share of POs providing accompanying measures

Source: authors’ elaboration on survey on end-recipients data 

The correlation, suggested by the graph above, is reinforced and becomes statistically 
significant at the 95% confidence interval if one controls for the level of intensity of food 
aid.72

73  

,

71 Based on question A2 of the survey on end-recipients, calculated as percentage of POs providing any 
accompanying measures.  
72 Kgs of food per participant, by MS, 2016 SFC data.  
73 OLS multivariate regression. P-value for the share of accompanying measures: 0.023; statistically 
significant at the 95% confidence interval. Adjusted R-square 0.295: medium explicative power.  

186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 11: Consequences of stopping FEAD support 

  Consequences of stopping FEAD support 

Consequences of stopping 
FEAD support 

OP I 

  IT: the PO claims that most of the network would collapse 

without FEAD funding, especially in Southern Italy. 

  FR: the FEAD accounts for more than a third of the food 

distributed, therefore the number of food insecure people 
would increase if the FEAD was to stop. 

  RO: stopping the FEAD support would contribute to a 
decrease in the quality of life of those supported. 

  In eight Member States, the specific support measures 

provided by the FEAD would probably stop without being 
replaced.  

  ES: the most likely consequence is that food support would 
no longer be delivered to the most deprived on this scale. It 
would remain a local level, smaller scale initiative promoted 
by the private and third sectors and to some extent by the 
public sector. 

  PL: food aid would be continued as it is the part of national 

policy on eradicating poverty; however, the range of support 
would be reduced. 

  FI, IT and LV: it would have a high impact on rural areas. 
  EE: it would lead to an uneven access to food across the 

country. 

  BG: as the national programme only provides warm meals 
during winter, end recipients would be left in severe food 
deprivation the rest of the year. 

  IE: the impact on most end recipients and charities would be 

“strong but not fatal”. 

  ES: the discontinuation of the FEAD would lead to volume 

losses, losses in quality of the food provision, losses in terms 
of people supported by an estimated 1.5 million people. In 
addition, the local character of FEAD food delivery would also 
be lost. End recipients would also lose access to information 
about other types of support and social services. 
  ES: it would lead to socio-economic losses as FEAD 

generates economic benefits in terms of structures created 
and human resources employed (supply, transport, logistics, 
social organisations) as well as people engaged in 
volunteering.  

  HR: it would not have a strong impact as the programme 

has just started. 

  DE: end recipients would not have access to aid anymore. 
  DK: the retraction of support would endanger the outreach 
work by community organizations and NGO’s to vulnerable 
homeless to help them access existing services. Many of the 
homeless covered by FEAD are non-Danish nationals whose 
protection would be compromised. 

  NL: it is likely that older people (especially those without 

digital skills) would have trouble finding activities that suit 
their needs. The personal attention given to them by the 
libraries, including invitations to participate in activities that 
might suit them, is considered a key success factor of the 
project. 

  SE: the most likely consequences would be that people 

would no longer benefit from preventive health and social 
orientation measures, although they would still be eligible for 
emergency aid. The civil society organisations engaged in 
the partnerships that have been formed at OP as well as 
project level would be very disappointed and the knowledge 
production on the target group and how best to integrate 
them into Swedish society would be lost. 

187 

OP II 

 
 
 
FEAD Mid-term evaluation – Final Report 

Annex 12: Extent and occurrence of OP changes and 
amendments in MS 

  Extent and occurrence of OP changes and amendments in MS 

MS 

Change in OP or 
in the design of 
an intervention? 

AT 

Design changed 

BE 

Design changed 

BE 

Design changed 

BE  OP change 

BG  OP change 
CY  OP change 
CZ  OP Change 
DE  OP change 

DK  OP change 

Design changed 
Design changed 
Design changed 
No change 
Design changed 

EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR  No change 

HU  OP change 

IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 

LV 

Design changed 
No change 
OP change 
Design changed 
Design changed 
Design changed 
Design changed 

MT  Minor changes 
NL 
PL 

No change 
Design changed 
Design changed 
No change 
OP change 
OP change 
OP change 
OP change 
Design changed 
No change 

PT 

RO 

SE 
SI 

SK  Design changed 

UK  No change 

Classification 

Temporary measures financed from the national sources to tackle 
delayed delivery of school packages  
Update food products every year 
Targeting of end recipients: more inclusive definitions, better 
statistics and better scope 
Centralization of delivery points, more inclusive definition of 
eligibility 
Targeting of end recipients: better scope 
Targeting of end recipients: families with new-borns 
Slight simplification to reduce administrative burden 
Targeting of end recipients: new ones can be added 
Change of actors: MA from Ministry of Social Affairs to Nat. Board 
of Social Sciences 
Targeting of end recipients: annually updated 
Update accompanying measures to emerging needs 
Update accompanying measures to be more personal 
Changes are possible but were not yet needed 
Administrative, transport & storage costs revised  

Definition of roles of the Partner Organisations and eligibility 
criteria 
Update food products 
Rigid regulation hinders adjustments e.g. of targeting 
Targeting of end recipients, increased frequency of aid 
Update food products 
Update food products 
School packages, delayed delivery: pickup extended 
Eligibility: food packages & hot meals for end recipients  
Method: PO adapts food packages after home visits 

Targeting of end recipients: elderly newly included 
Update food products: much more comprehensive 
Changes are possible but were not yet needed 
Update food products: switch to food packages 
Update food products: hot meals added 
Targeting of end recipients: add target groups 
Change of actors: switch to local targeting 
Method: revision M&E plan, participant registration etc. 
Changes are possible but were not yet needed 
Method: intermediary bodies and POs suggest changes to MA e.g. 
on targeting 

Source: AIRs, Interviews with Managing Authorities 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

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

copy: 

one 

than 

posters/maps: 
more 
from  the  European  Union’s  representations  (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from 
countries 
in 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or  calling  00  800  6  7  8  9  10  11  (freephone  number  from  anywhere  in  the  EU)  (*). 

delegations 

non-EU 

copy 

the 

or 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 

(*) 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

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

Priced subscriptions: 

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