COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)
Date: 2019-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, anti-discriminatory measure, employment aid, fight against unemployment, gender equality, humanisation of work, microloan, poverty, social change, social integration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.5.2019  SWD(2019) 182 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION        of the        European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) {COM(2019) 234 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

BACKGROUND TO EASI .................................................................................................................. 5 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .......................................................................................... 9 

4.   METHODOLOGICAL FRAME, LIMITATIONS AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS................ 13 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 14 

5.1.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 15 

5.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 21 

5.3.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 25 

5.4.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 29 

5.5.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 32 

5.6.  Governance ...................................................................................................... 33 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................. 34 

6.1.   Relevance ........................................................................................................ 34 

6.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 35 

6.3.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 36 

6.4.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 36 

6.5.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 37 

6.6.  EaSI governance .............................................................................................. 38 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 40 

ANNEX 2: OVERVIEW OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODS ............... 41 

ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION TOPICS AND QUESTIONS ...................................... 46 

ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDERS’ OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION ......................................................... 49 

ANNEX 5: RELEVANT DOCUMENTS USED FOR THE MID-TERM EVALUATION ........................ 69 

ANNEX 6: EASI MID-TERM EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 83 

1 

 
Abbreviations list 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

COSME 

CSR  

DG 

Programme  for  competitiveness  of  enterprises  and  small  and 
medium-sized enterprises  

Country-specific recommendations 

Directorate-General 

DG EMPL 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

EaSI  

ECoGC 

EEA 

EESSI 

EFSE 

EFSI 

EIB 

EIF 

Employment and social innovation programme 

European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit  

European Economic Area 

Electronic exchange of social security information  

European Fund for South East Europe 

European Fund for Strategic Investment  

European Investment Bank 

European Investment Fund  

EMCO 

Employment Committee 

EPAP 

ESCO 

ESDE 

ESF 

ESIF 

ESPN 

EU 

European Platform against Poverty  

European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations  

Employment and Social Developments in Europe 

European Social Fund  

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Social Policy Network  

European Union 

EURES 

European Employment Services 

GDP 

GFI 

Gross domestic product 

Guarantee financial instruments 

2 

 
 
 
IARC 

ILO 

International Agency for Research on Cancer  

International Labour Organisation  

InnovFin 

EU finance for innovators programme 

ISSG 

KPIs 

MF/SE 

MFF 

Inter-Services Steering Committee 

Key performance indicators 

Microfinance/social entrepreneurship 

Multiannual financial framework  

MISSOC 

Mutual Information System on Social Protection 

NGO 

SLIC 

SME 

SPC 

SWD 

YfEj  

Non-governmental organisations 

Committee Senior Labour Inspectors  

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

Social Protection Committee 

Staff working document  

Your first EURES job  

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  European  Commission  staff  working  document  (SWD)  reports  on  the  mid-term 
evaluation of the Employment and Social Innovation programme for 2014-2020 (EaSI)1 
and  identifies  avenues  for  possible  further  improvements.  It  is  based  on  an  external 
evaluation  report2  and  other  sources  of  evidence,  in  particular  EaSI  performance 
monitoring  reports,  the  annual  management  reports  of  the  Directorate-General  for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and evaluations of previous programmes. The 
objective of the mid-term evaluation, as set out in Article 13 of the EaSI Regulation, was 
‘to  measure,  on  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  basis,  progress  made  in  meeting  the 
programme’s  objectives  to  address  the  social  environment  within  the  Union  and  any 
major changes introduced by Union legislation, to determine whether the resources of the 
Programme have been used efficiently and to assess its Union added value.’ 

The  SWD  summarises  the  main  results  of  the  external  evaluation  and  provides  the 
Commission  with  evidence  and  data  for  improving  programme  performance  in  later 
implementation; assessing whether there is any need to amend the EaSI Regulation; and 
preparing to design the post-2020 programme.  

The findings of the mid-term evaluation feed into the European Commission’s mid-term 
review of the current Multiannual Financial Framework and the preparation of the next 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF  2021  –  2027).  They  also  serve  to  inform  the 
programme’s participating countries, the general public and other stakeholders about the 
performance of EaSI and its achievements. A proposal reflecting the findings and lessons 
learned will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. 

In  compliance  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  evaluation  is  based  on  the 
following criteria: 

  relevance: whether EaSI’s objectives as originally defined remain relevant; 

  effectiveness:  the  effectiveness  of  EaSI  activities  and  the  extent  to  which  EaSI  has 

delivered against its objectives; 

  efficiency: the relationship between the resources used and the changes produced by 

EaSI; 

  coherence: how well EaSI works with other EU and national initiatives; 

  EU added value: value resulting from EaSI activities that is additional to the value 

that would have resulted from other initiatives at national level. 

In addition, a sixth topic was included in order to assess the programme’s governance, 
focusing  on  governing  mechanisms,  accountability  and  transparency.  The  mid-term 
evaluation covered the period of activity from January 2014 to December 2016  and the 
three  axes:  PROGRESS,  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social 
activities  of 
Entrepreneurship.  It  covered  the  programme’s  geographical  scope  and  relevant 

its 

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0238:0252:EN:PDF. 
2ICF  (2017),  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EU  programme  for  employment  and  social  innovation  –  EaSI, 
ICF, 2017, foreseen on https://publications.europa.eu (Catalog number: KE-06-17-495-EN-N; ISBN: 978-
92-79-77292-4; DOI: 10.2767/769704).  

4 

 
 
                                                 
stakeholders,  in  particular  the  EaSI  Committee,  policy  committees,  social  partners, 
national authorities and bodies, and key EU civil society organisations. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO EASI 

The  European  Union  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI)  — 
adopted  in  December  20133  —  is  one  of  four  EU  financial  instruments  in  the  area  of 
employment and social affairs for 2014-2020, together with the European Social Fund 
(ESF),  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  for  the  Most  Deprived  (FEAD)  and  the  European 
Globalisation Adjustment Fund. 

EaSI  is  designed  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  in  the  Member  States  and  the  other 
participating  countries  (EFTA/EEA4,  candidate  and  pre-candidate  countries).  The 
programme  is  partly  managed  directly  by  the  Commission  and  partly  indirectly  (for 
microfinance),  by  entrusting  budget  implementation  tasks  to  the  European  Investment 
Fund5 (EIF).  

The total financial envelope for the programme from 2014 to 2020 is EUR 919 469 000. 

EaSI’s  general  objective  is  to  contribute  to  the  overarching  Europe  2020  strategy, 
including  Europe  2020  flagship  initiatives  such  as  the  ‘European  platform  against 
poverty’,  ‘An  agenda  for  new  skills  and  jobs’,  ‘Youth  on  the  Move’  and  ‘Innovation 
Union’.  The  programme  is  designed  to  complement  the  ESF,  which  operates  under 
shared  management  with  the  Member  States  and  pursues  similar  general  objectives  at 
national level. 

When the new Commission  came into office in  2014, the focus of the programme  was 
steered  towards  the  objectives  defined  in  the  Agenda  for  jobs,  growth,  fairness  and 
democratic  change  (the  Juncker  Commission’s  Political  guidelines).  The  2015  and 
2016 EaSI work programmes were the first adopted by President Juncker’s Commission. 
Three of the political guidelines are particularly important for EaSI: 
  Guideline 1: New boost for jobs, growth and investment; 
  Guideline  4:  Deeper  and  fairer  internal  market  with  a  strengthened  industrial 

base; 

  Guideline 5: Deeper and fairer economic and monetary union. 

2.1 

Structure of the programme 

EaSI has three axes — PROGRESS, EURES and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. 

PROGRESS  supports  policymaking  and  implementation  by:  producing  policy 
evidence,  organising  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning  activities,  creating  better 
conditions for social policy innovations and helping to build capacity for EU and national 
organisations. The types of actions funded by PROGRESS are: 

3 Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013. 
4 Iceland participates in all three axes, Norway participates only in PROGRESS and EURES, Lichtenstein 
does  not  participate  in  EaSI  at  all,  and  Switzerland  participates  only  in  EURES  and  only  at  its  own 
expense. 
5The  EIF  provides  the  EaSI  guarantee  and  counter-guarantee  to  financial  intermediaries  with  the  aim  of 
the  availability  of  microfinance  (http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/microfinance/easi/easi-
increasing 
guarantee-instrument/index.htm). 

5 

 
                                                 
  analytical  activities,  such  as  conducting  studies,  drafting  reports,  and  providing 

technical support for databases; 

  capacity building activities to develop, promote and support EU instruments and 
policies, including outreach to young people, information and awareness raising, 
and support for social networks, conferences and events; 

 

information  sharing and  mutual  learning  activities, such  as organising seminars, 
meetings,  workshops  and  networks  and  producing  guides,  manuals  and 
promotional materials; and 

  support  for  social  innovation,  including  designing  and  implement  social 

experimentations. 

EURES  aims  to  help  workers  move  freely  in  the  EU  by  making  recruitment 
information  more  transparent  and  accessible,  and  by  responding  to  jobseekers’  and 
employers’  requests  for  information,  assistance  and  guidance.  The  EURES  network  is 
composed of various organisations, including public employment services6. The types of 
activities funded under EURES are: 

 

targeted  mobility  schemes  such  as  the  ‘Your  first  EURES  job’  (YfEj)  scheme, 
which  helps  young  people  up  to  35  years  old  to  find  a  job,  traineeship  or 
apprenticeship  under  employment  contract  in  another  Member  State,  and  helps 
employers to find the skills needed for their hard-to-fill vacancies; 

  services  provided  through  the  EURES  job  mobility  portal  such  as  advertising 
vacancies, giving tips on applying for a job, and informing users about companies 
and about EU Member States’ labour markets; 

  services to jobseekers and companies provided by EURES staff  in cross-border 
regions, such as providing information on social security, taxation, education and 
training, living and working conditions, and assisting them with job searching or 
recruitment (through ‘cross-border partnerships’); 

  operational  support  for  the  network,  which  includes  a  common  training 
programme  for  staff,  communications,  analytical  activities  and  mutual  learning 
support.  

Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  aims  to  improve  access  to  finance  for 
vulnerable people (i.e. those at risk of social or financial exclusion), microenterprises and 
social enterprises through funding for financial intermediaries and capacity building for 
relevant  actors.  The  European  Commission  does  not  directly  finance  entrepreneurs  or 
social  enterprises,  but  enables  selected  microcredit  providers  and  social  enterprise 
investors  in  the  EU  to  increase  lending.  The  types  of  activities  funded  under 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship are: 

  providing financial guarantees to financial intermediaries; 

  providing loans, equity and hybrid instruments. 

A  very  important  cross-cutting  aim  of  every  part  of  the  EaSI  programme  is  to  foster 
social  policy  innovation.  A  significant  amount  of  EaSI  funding  is  devoted  to  this 
objective, in particular through calls for proposals for social experimentation projects. 

6The EURES network consists of the EU Member States, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland. Switzerland 
cooperates with the network. 

6 

 
                                                 
2.2  Management of the programme 

EaSI  is  directly  managed  by  the  European  Commission  (DG  Employment,  Social 
Affairs  and  Inclusion)  on  the  basis  of  calls  for  proposals  and  calls  for  tenders. 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship actions (including the EaSI Guarantee Instrument 
and  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Investments  Window)  are  implemented  indirectly:  i.e. 
the  Commission  entrusts  the  budget  to  the  European  Investment  Fund  (EIF).  The 
programme 
is  monitored  by  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion’s 
‘Programming and planning’ unit (Unit F3), which is responsible for formulating EaSI’s 
scope and funding, and for coordinating, monitoring and evaluating its implementation. 
The  unit  is  assisted  by  a  network  of  ‘EaSI  coordinators’  in  the  operational  units  that 
carry  out  programme  activities,  and  by  the  EaSI  Committee  which  advises  on  and 
examines the work done. 

The  EaSI  Committee  is  composed  of  a  chair  from  the  European  Commission  and  a 
delegate from  each Member State. Other countries eligible under EaSI (EEA countries, 
candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries)  may  also  be  represented  on  the  EaSI 
Committee  as  observers.  In  most  cases,  members  of  the  EaSI  Committee  are  from  the 
ministries in charge of labour and social affairs in their country. Members may ask to be 
assisted by external experts on particular matters. The EaSI Committee meets two to four 
times a year. The committee met four times in 2015-2016 and discussed issues such as 
the  monitoring  reports  and  an  update  of  the  performance  monitoring  system,  the  mid-
term  evaluation  results,  good  practice  projects  and  the  annual  work  programmes.  The 
Chair drafts the agenda and sends it to the  members for approval. Committee members 
are  also  consulted  between  meetings.  For  instance,  they  are  consulted  about  the  work 
programme  for  the  year  to  come,  the  various  types  of  activities  to  be  launched,  their 
implementation  and  the  funding  priorities.  Members  have  an  opportunity  to  give  their 
opinion  and  exchange  views  on  items  on  the  agenda.  For  instance,  under  the  advisory 
procedure,  the  committee  discussed  the  roadmap  for  this  mid-term  evaluation.  In  other 
cases, members have a binding vote under the examination procedure, which means the 
Commission  cannot  act  on  a  document  without  their  approval.  This  is  the  case  for 
instance with the adoption of the EaSI’s annual work programmes. 

EaSI  has  a  comprehensive  performance  framework,  with  regular  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  programme  implementation.  A  logical  framework  explains  how  EaSI  is 
expected to  achieve  results and impacts,  laying out  the process  in  detail from  inputs  to 
outputs and outcomes. It also involves a set of key performance indicators, a system for 
gathering  and  storing  information  and  a  methodology  for  analysing  and  disseminating 
information  about  EaSI-funded  projects  and  organisations7.  Mid-term  and  ex  post 
evaluation is also required under the EaSI Regulation8. A baseline report was drafted in 
2014,  and  the  values  of  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs)  observed  before  the 
programme were taken as the baseline. The second EaSI monitoring report — published 
in  autumn  2017  —  focuses  on  the  outputs  delivered  and  benefits  brought  by  the 
programme in 2015-2016. 

7Two monitoring reports are available on the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=2291&furtherNews=yes (2014) and 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=2875&furtherNews=yes (2015-2016). 
Eight reports presenting the projects and organisations supported by EaSI have also been published on 
Europa. 
8The EaSI Regulation states: ‘the Commission shall draw up an initial qualitative and quantitative 
monitoring report covering the first year, followed by three reports covering consecutive two-year periods’. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: EaSI programme intervention logic 

Context 
Economic and financial crisis; Youth and long term unemployment; Growing inequality; Quality of jobs and undeclared work; Intra EU mobility; Poverty  
and social exclusion; Refugees and migrant crisis. 

Relevance 

RATIONALE  
Need for an EU-level 
instrument to promote a high 
level of quality and sustainable 
employment, guaranteeing 
adequate and decent social 
protection, combating social 
exclusion and poverty, as well 
to improving working 
conditions.  

•

•

•

Key EU initiatives and instruments 
•
Europe 2020 Strategy, 
Juncker priorities 
European Employment 
Strategy 
European Platform against 
Poverty and Social Exclusion 
Agenda for New Skills and 
Jobs  
Youth Guarantee. 
Youth on the Move 
Employment, Social 
Investment and Youth 
Employment packages 
European Semester 
EU financial instruments  

•
•
•
•

•
•

Coherence 

•

•

•

•

•

GENERAL OBJECTIVES  
Strengthen ownership 
among policy-makers at all 
levels, and produce 
concrete, coordinated and 
innovative actions . 
Support the development 
of adequate, accessible 
and efficient social 
protection systems and 
labour markets and 
facilitate policy reforms. 
Modernise EU legislation 
and ensure its effective 
application. 
Promote workers' 
geographical mobility on a 
fair basis and boost 
employment opportunitie 
Increase the availability 
and accessibility of 
microfinance for 
vulnerable groups and 
micro-enterprises, and 
increase access to finance 
for social enterprises. 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES  

PROGRESS  
•

Evidence-based EU policies 
and legislation. 
Effective and inclusive 
information sharing, 
mutual learning and 
dialogue. 
Better conditions for social 
policy innovation. 
Greater capacity of 
national and EU 
organizations. 

EURES 
•

•

Transparent labour market 
information. 
Effective services for 
recruitment and placing of 
workers. 
Microfinance and Social 
entrepreneurship 
•

Increased access  to, and 
availability of 
microfinance. 
Improved access to 
finance for social 
enterprises. 
•

•

•

•

•

Stronger 
institutional 
capacity of 
microcredit 
providers. 

INPUTS 

PROGRESS (61%) 
EURES (18%) 
MF/SE (21%) 

€919.5 million  (2014-
2020): 
•
•
•
Stakeholders: 
•
•
•

DG  EMPL services 
EaSI Committee 
Other stakeholders 
:  EC  services/DG, 
EC committees, 
national/regional/lo
cal stakeholders, 
beneficiaries.   

Horizontal Objectives 
pay attention to vulnerable groups; promote equality between men 
and women; combat discrimination; promote sustainable 
employment 

PROGRESS 
•
•

EURES 
•
•

Governance of EaSI 

ACTIVITIES  

Analytical activities; 
Mutual-learning, awareness and 
dissemination activities; 
Financial Support for capacity-
building for organizations, 
networking and cooperation.  
Funding Social Policy 
experimentation projects 

Targeted Mobility Schemes; 
Information, counselling, 
placement and recruitment 
services for cross-border workers. 
Multilingual digital platform for 
clearance of job vacancies and 
applications. 
Information and communication 
activities. 
cross-border partnerships; 
Mutual learning among EURES 
actors & training of EURES 
advisors. 

Information and communication 
activities. 
Capacity-building activities for 
microfinance and 
entrepreneurship actors. 
Increasing access to microfinance;  
•

New financial instrument 
for social entrepreneurship. 

•

•

•

•

•
•

•

•

MF/SE 
•

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

•

•

•
•

OUTPUTS 
Number of  activities  
implemented 
Number of projects 
supported 
Number of beneficiaries 
Number of  countries 
participating  in 
activities/projects 

EU 
Added  
Value 

CHANGES/EFFECTS  
IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES  
Immediate outcomes 
related to specific 
objectives  (e.g. social  
experimentations , EU-
level, networks,  cross-
border partnerships, 
EURES portal/placements, 
loans  etc.) 

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES  
Stronger ownership of EU 
objectives. 
Facilitation of policy 
reforms, convergence and 
capacities for social 
innovation and mutual 
learning. 
Modernisation and 
effective application of EU 
law. 
High quality and inclusive 
EU labour markets open 
and accessible to all. 
Increased access to 
finance for vulnerable 
persons, and micro 
enterprises , support to 
IMPACTS 
Contribution to the 
implementation of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy’s 
objectives and Juncker 
priorities. 
Promoting a high level of 
quality and sustainable 
employment. 
Guaranteeing adequate 
and decent social 
protection. 
Combating social 
exclusion and poverty and 
improving working 
conditions. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Underlying assumptions 
Evidence-based EU policies and legislation, effective and inclusive information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue, better conditions for social policy innovation and greater capacity of 
national and EU organizations will yield better and more successful policies in the areas of employment, social protection, social inclusion and poverty alleviation. 

8 

Source: EaSI mid-term evaluation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 shows EaSI’s  intervention logic, which was  used for the purposes of the mid-
term  evaluation.  There  are  three  main  categories  of  objectives:  alongside  general  and 
axis-specific  objectives,  there  are  cross-cutting  objectives  (i.e.  paying  attention  to 
vulnerable  groups,  promoting  equality  between  men  and  women,  combating 
discrimination and promoting sustainable employment) which are incorporated into each 
programme axis and action. 

The intervention logic describes the interaction between the different components of the 
programme in terms of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, and depicts the 
causal mechanisms or pathways through which the activities are thought  to bring about 
the desired changes (i.e. causes and effect linkages). The outputs should lead to achieving 
the programme’s objectives. The intervention logic also indicates the assumptions made 
about  the  political  and  economic  cycle,  and  about  the  socioeconomic,  institutional  and 
policy environment in which the programme operates, in particular the EU2020 strategy, 
the  Juncker  Commission’s  priorities  and  the  European  Semester  cycle  of  economic 
coordination9. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

EaSI  is  implemented  on  the  basis  of  work  programmes  adopted  every  year.  High 
unemployment,  increased  poverty  rates,  and  increasing  inequalities  between  EU 
countries and among citizens remained the core challenges and issues to be targeted by 
EU policies and programmes, including EaSI. Specifically, the 2014 work programme 
reacted to post-crisis policy challenges such as the high rate of unemployment (especially 
long-term  unemployment),  increased  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  the  rise  in  jobless 
households and the rise in in-work poverty. The 2015 work programme focused on the 
issues emphasised in Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s Political guidelines, 
such  as  ensuring  that  the  job-creation  and  social  aspects  of  the  EU  are  taken  into 
consideration in the European Semester. One of the Commission’s key strategies was to 
enhance convergence of labour markets across the euro area. Social measures were also 
proposed, notably to sustain welfare systems and to make sure that the most vulnerable 
members of society are not left behind. The main objective of EaSI’s work programme 
2016 was to advance work in the areas identified as priorities in the Commission’s 2016 
work programme, including initiatives already planned in 2015, such as the proposal for 
a  Council  recommendation  on  integration  of  the  long-term  unemployed,  to  boost 
integration in the labour market and promote relevant skills. 

As  shown  in  the  intervention  logic  (Figure  1;  Section  2),  the  EaSI  programme  (2014-
2020)  aims  to  achieve  nine  specific  objectives  (see  Figure  2)  —  also  referred  to  as 
immediate or short-term outcomes —  that are expected to contribute to the achievement 
of  the  five  general  objectives  (intermediate  or  long-term  outcomes)  set  out  in  the 
Regulation. The Regulation set no specific targets for each specific objective’s share of 
funding, so the information provided below was collected only for analytical purposes in 
order to better understand programme spending and trends10. 

9 In 2015, the European Semester was streamlined to provide a stronger focus on employment and social 
performance, to improve democratic dialogue, to promote convergence by benchmarking and pursuing best 
practices,  and  to  support  reforms  using  ESIF  (European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds)  and  technical 
assistance (https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/european-semester). 
10 The thematic sections are analysed and indicative shares compared in  Section 5.1.3. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: EaSI specific objectives 

PROGRESS 

EURES 

•Evidence-based 
policies and legislation. 

EU 

• Transparent 
market information. 

labour 

• Effective  and  inclusive 
sharing, 
information 
mutual 
and 
dialogue. 

learning 

• Effective  provision  of 
services  for  recruitment 
and placing of workers. 

• Better 
social policy innovation. 

conditions 

for 

Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship 

• Better  access 
availability 
microfinance. 

to,  and 
of, 

• Better  access  to  finance 
for social enterprises. 

• Stronger 
institutional 
capacity  of  microcredit 
providers. 

• Greater 
national 
organisations. 

capacities 
and 

of 
EU 

Source: EaSI performance monitoring report 2015-2016 

Over the entire 2014-2020 programming period, around EUR 540 million was allocated 
to  PROGRESS,  of  which  41 %  was  planned  to  be  committed  in  the  first  3  years  of 
implementation. 

In  2014  (Figure  3),  the  bulk  of  PROGRESS  funding  was  committed  to  supporting 
effective  and  inclusive  information  sharing,  mutual  learning  and  dialogue  (38 %)  and 
increasing the capacity of national and EU organisations (35 %). 

Figure 3: PROGRESS commitments per specific objective in 2014, 2015 and 2016 

38% 

32% 

28% 

35% 

30% 

26% 

31% 

25% 

18% 

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

20% 

15% 

1% 

2014

2015

2016

Source: Based on performance monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 

A significant share of funding (25 %) was also committed to producing policy evidence. 
Commitments in all the areas mentioned largely reflected initial plans. Some 1 % of the 
overall  budget  was  committed  to  supporting  social  innovation.  A  call  for  proposals  for 
social  experimentation  was  launched  in  2014;  however,  because  the  applications  were 
still being evaluated at the end of 2014, the planned commitments were postponed to the 
following year. 

10 

 
 
 
In  2015,  around  30 %  of  funding  was  committed  to  each  of  the  three  PROGRESS 
objectives, while around 15 % was committed to social policy experimentation. 

In 2016, a smaller share (around 18 %) was committed to evidence-based policy, while 
information  sharing,  mutual  learning  and  capacity  building  objectives  each  received 
greater support (slightly more than 30 % each). Around 20 % of funding was committed 
to social policy experimentation. 
Over  the  entire  2014-2020  programming  period,  around  EUR 159  million11  was 
allocated to EURES, of which 40 % was planned to be committed in the first 3 years of 
implementation. 

Figure 4: EURES commitments per specific objective in 2014, 2015 and 2016 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

74% 

68% 

74% 

26% 

32% 

26% 

2014

2015

2016

Services for the recruitment and
placing of workers

Transparent information on job
vacancies and applications

Source: Based on performance monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 

information  more 

In  2014,  two  thirds  of  commitments  went  to  effective  provision  of  services  for 
recruitment and the placing of workers, while the rest was committed to making labour 
market 
transparent  (Figure  4).  The  distribution  of  EURES 
commitments by objective was very similar in 2015 and 2016. In both years, roughly two 
thirds of funding was committed to services for recruiting and placing workers (including 
cross-border  partnerships),  while  one  third  of  funding  was  committed  to  ensuring  that 
information on job vacancies and applications is made transparent for EU jobseekers and 
employers. 
For 
to 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship.  The  first  year  of  EaSI  implementation  was 
spent negotiating the new funding instruments with the European Investment Fund (EIF), 
so the expenditure planned for 2014 was actually committed in the years after that. Under 
EaSI,  the  Commission  entrusted  the  EIF  with  managing  the  following  financial 
instruments:  

full  2014-2020  period,  around  EUR 193  million  was  allocated 

the 

  the  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument,  to  increase  access  to  finance  for social 

enterprises, microenterprises and  vulnerable groups, and  

  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Investments  Window,  to  build  up  the  institutional 

capacity of microcredit and social finance providers.  

11 See Section 5.1.3. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
To apply for EaSI funding, candidates answer calls for expression of interest on the EIF 
website12. 

Figure 5: Commitments to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship by specific objective in  
2015 and 2016 

76,18% 

100,00%

80,00%

60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%

49,71% 

50,14% 

23,80% 

2015

2016

Access to micro-finance

Development of social enterprises

Source: Performance monitoring report 2015-2016 

Figure  5  shows  commitments  in  2015  and  2016  to  the  two  main  specific  objectives  of 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. Work on the third specific objective, building the 
institutional capacity of microcredit providers, only started in 2017 and so is not covered 
here.  In  2015,  around  76 %  of  funding  was  committed  to  supporting  access  to 
microfinance,  while 
to  Social 
Entrepreneurship  were  roughly  equal.  In  addition,  a  comparatively  small  amount  has 
been  set  aside  for  cross-cutting  objectives,  including  funding  for  communication  and 
publication activities and for launching the new EaSI-MicPro online platform13. In each 
of the two years, the allocations for both Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship were 
fully utilised. 

in  2016  commitments 

to  Microfinance  and 

Among  the  most  significant  benefits  of  EaSI  between  2014  and  2016  were  access  to 
high-quality comparative analytical knowledge and sound evidence, and the opportunity 
to finance projects. Nearly 60 projects were awarded funding each year under the various 
thematic calls for proposals, including 15 social experimentation projects between 2014 
and  2016.  EaSI  also  supported  capacity  building  for  20  EU-level  NGO  networks  each 
year. 

Cross-border partnerships have contributed to better job matching and placement services 
in  cross-border regions.  The EURES job  mobility  portal  —  which  attracted 0.7 million 
visitors  a  month  and  posted  more  than  1  million  vacancies  a  year  —  also  gained 
importance  in  providing  public  information  on  job  opportunities  and  labour  market 
characteristics.  The  number  of  jobseekers  and  employers  registered  on  the  portal  has 
more  than  doubled  since  2014.  Around  3.5 %  of  people  contacting  EURES  advisers 
found a job each year as a direct result of this action. Around 5 000 placements are made 
each year thanks to ‘Your first EURES job’ projects. 

By the end of 2016, around 12 000 enterprises had benefited from EaSI funding. Of those 
supported, 19 % were unemployed or inactive before receiving the microloan. A leverage 

12 http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/microfinance/easi/ 
13The EaSI-MicPro online platform is an application that: (1) enables micro-entrepreneurs to easily access 
information  on  microcredit  providers  in  their  country;  (2)  enables  microcredit  providers  to  present 
information  as  required  by  the  Code  of  Good  Conduct;  and  (3)  assures  investors  and  funders  that 
microcredit  providers  are  operating  to  transparent  and  pan-European  reporting  standards.  See  the  tool’s 
website: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/easi-micpro/application/. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
factor  of  3  was  achieved  each  year,  meaning  that  EaSI  provided  enterprises  with  three 
times more support than the initial amount. 

Incorporation of cross-cutting objectives in EaSI has also increased since 2014. The best 
mainstreamed issue, as seen by EaSI’s stakeholders, was attention to vulnerable groups 
such  as  young  people.  Gender  equality  and  non-discrimination  continued  to  be  well 
integrated in EaSI projects. The monitoring data also indicated improved mainstreaming 
of disability and accessibility aspects across EaSI programme activities. 

4.   METHODOLOGICAL FRAME, LIMITATIONS AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS 

The  mid-term  evaluation  covered  the  five  criteria  laid  down  in  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines:  efficiency,  effectiveness,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value.  An 
evaluation  roadmap14  set  out  the  evaluation  mandate  and  the  specific  contract  for  the 
evaluation included terms of reference15. 

The external evaluation was carried out by ICF and coordinated by the Commission’s 
Directorate-General for Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs, with the support 
of an Interservice Steering Group (ISSG) including other Commission departments. The 
research  process  was  carried  out  in  four  phases  and  triangulated  a  wide  range  of  data 
sources to answer the evaluation questions. 

Evaluation started with a number of scoping interviews held with key actors at EU level 
and analysis of secondary data, including existing evaluations, implementation data and 
contextual  data.  An  open  online  public  consultation  was  then  held  for  12  weeks  in 
order  to  capture  wider  stakeholder  views.  An  online  survey  was  circulated  to 
beneficiaries for feedback. In parallel, 15 case studies were conducted to capture more 
focused and detailed experience of the project selection process and implementation. In 
the  course  of  the  evaluation  as  a  whole,  a  series  of  40  in-depth  semi-structured 
interviews with EaSI project partners and EU officials was carried out. A focus group of 
EaSI Committee members was also organised to capture their opinions on specific issues, 
in particular the programme’s governance16. 

The main limitation of this mid-term evaluation is its timing, as it took place only three 
years  after  the  programme  began.  This  operating  timeframe  was  too  short  for  many 
results and wider impacts to emerge and reduced the explanatory power of the analysis. 
Any  extrapolation  to  the  whole  volume  of  projects  running  under  this  implementation 
period would therefore be risky. Few projects were finished by the end of 2016 and some 
started  in  2015  —  for  instance,  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  activities. 
Moreover, capacity building investment only started in 2017 and so was not evaluated. 

The heterogeneity of EaSI architecture made the evaluation even more problematic. The 
results  and  impacts  of  a  complex  programme  like  EaSI,  operating  in  a  multifaceted 
policy  context,  are  difficult  to  capture:  it  is  difficult  to  determine  what  has  caused  or 
contributed to the changes observed. 

14http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_empl_010_easi_mid-term_evaluation_en.pdf, 
Evaluation Roadmap, November 2015. 
15Call for tenders VT/2015/055. 
16Annex 2 to this staff working document gives a comprehensive description of the process and methods 
applied in the evaluation. The full reports (open public consultation, focus group, beneficiaries survey, case 
studies)  are  available  in  Volumes  I-IV  of  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  report  (November  2017).  The 
synopsis report on the EaSI mid-term evaluation open public consultation is Annex 3 to this staff working 
document. 

13 

 
                                                 
Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks for performance. Worldwide, there is no 
programme similar to  EaSI in  terms  of size, thematic coverage and depth. The form  of 
the programme is quite unique. It ranges from the production of policy evidence through 
information  sharing  and  mutual  learning,  social  policy  innovation  and  experimentation, 
geographical  and  occupational  mobility  and  services  to  jobseekers  and  employers,  to 
facilitating  access  to  finance  for  vulnerable  people,  microenterprises  and  social 
enterprises. EaSI’s performance should thus be seen in the light of its specific role, scope 
and  scale  within  a  wider  support  system,  in  particular  as  regards  its  impact  on  EU  and 
national or regional policy initiatives. 

Finally, the relatively low number of responses to the open public consultation (81) and 
to the beneficiaries survey (159) was also limiting. For this reason, generalisations have 
been  avoided;  the  public  consultation  and  beneficiaries  survey  results  are  used  in 
conjunction with other methods or as examples. 

A  number  of  measures  were  taken  to  overcome  all  these  limitations.  For  example, 
evidence  from  a  variety  of  sources  was  systematically  compared  to  strengthen  the 
findings.  This  included  evidence  gathered  using  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods 
such  as  in-depth  analysis  of  existing  documentation,  the  open  public  consultation  of 
stakeholders,  the  beneficiaries  survey,  the  focus  group  with  EaSI  Committee  members, 
interviews  with  key  informants  and  case  studies.  This  approach  made  it  possible  to 
collect financial and non-financial data and to produce the necessary analysis for the mid-
term evaluation. In particular, multiple case studies were conducted (7 on PROGRESS, 4 
on  EURES  and  4  on    Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship)  in  order  to  capture  more 
focused and detailed experience on completed and ongoing projects. Multiple sources of 
evaluative  evidence  were  cross-checked  and  different  tools  used  in  conjunction  to 
validate  information  across  stakeholders  and  methodologies,  to  identify  common  and 
different views, and to overcome the limitations inherent in each method. 
The  mid-term  external  evaluation17  clearly  indicated  its  data  sources  and  gaps  in  data 
availability.  All  evaluation  results  were  systematically  checked  against  input  from 
stakeholders.  Regular  presentations  were  made  and  progress  checked  against  the 
evaluation’s targets at EaSI Committee meetings. 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  mid-term  evaluation  sought  to  answer  questions  about  five  criteria:  relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. The programme’s governance 
was  also  examined.  Understanding  and  addressing  the  key  issues  of  accountability, 
transparency,  participation  and  inclusion  is  crucial  to  ensuring  that  they  are  fully 
embedded in the programme’s governance. 

Based on the building blocks of EaSI implementation logic, each criterion was detailed 
with questions, judgement criteria and relevant indicators. The evaluation questions were 
grouped into key topics to develop a coherent framework and make the final assessment 
explicit18. 

17ICF  (2017),  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EU  programme  for  employment  and  social  innovation  –  EaSI, 
ICF, 2017, foreseen on https://publications.europa.eu (Catalog number: KE-06-17-495-EN-N; ISBN: 978-
92-79-77292-4; DOI: 10.2767/769704). 
18The synthesis of the topics and key questions is provided in Annex 4. 

14 

 
                                                 
5.1.  Relevance 

EaSI’s relevance was assessed in relation to its general objectives, the specific objectives 
for the three axes and the allocation of resources between them. 

5.1.1.  Continuing relevance of the programme’s general objectives 

The  relevance  of  EaSI’s  general  objectives19  was  examined  in  the  light  of  the  current 
challenging  European  socioeconomic  context.  In  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  and 
economic crisis, GDP growth has been limited, the unemployment rate has risen (8.6 % 
in 2016 compared to 7.2 % in 2007)20, and labour markets are uneven across the EU-28, 
which affects long-term unemployment (4 % in 2016, almost half of total unemployment) 
and particularly youth unemployment (18.7 % in 2016, against 15.9 % in 2007)21.  

The  seventh  edition  of  the  annual  report  Employment  and  social  developments  in 
Europe22 — focusing in 2017 on intergenerational fairness and solidarity — confirms that 
although  there  has  been  moderate  growth  (real  GDP  growth  was  1.9 %  in  the  EU  in 
2016) and solid net job creation since mid-2013, the social and economic situation is far 
from recovering to its pre-crisis levels. So issues such as long-term unemployment, youth 
unemployment and inequalities are among the most pressing problems to be dealt with. 
Moreover,  the  challenges  of  integrating  refugees  and  making  employment  more  secure 
further strengthen the case for EaSI’s relevance. 

One of EaSI’s core aims is help citizens take advantage of the right to free movement 
of workers  in  the  EU. This  has  remained  particularly  important  in  the  current  context, 
with  approximately  2-3  million  job  vacancies  unfilled  throughout  the  European  Union, 
coupled with relatively high unemployment23. Encouraging workers to move for work is 
one  way  of  boosting  employment  opportunities  and  reducing  unemployment.  For 
instance,  although  Germany,  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  have  common  borders,  the 
unemployment rate in Germany in 2016 (at 4.1 %) was far lower than in Belgium (7.8 %) 
or  the  Netherlands  (6 %)24.  This  is  one  reason  why  EU  action  through  EaSI  is  still 
relevant: to help make the labour market more transparent. 

European  Investment Fund (EIF) data for 2016 suggests that microenterprises are more 
prevalent in  countries  with  high unemployment  rates such as Spain,  Portugal,  Italy  and 
Greece,  where  microenterprises  account  for  40-60 %  of  employment25.  These  numbers 
highlight  the  importance  of  microenterprises  in  contributing  to  employment  in  the 
European market and therefore the relevance of supporting them as part of EaSI. 

All  these  socioeconomic  and  labour  market  patterns  in  the  EU  countries  also  make  the 
case  for  the  cross-cutting  objectives  linked  to  gender  equality,  non-discrimination, 
vulnerable groups and sustainable development. 

Analytical  activities  and  social  experimentation/innovation  featured  prominently  in 
the evaluation as activities that were highly appreciated by stakeholders. The evaluation 

19See EaSI Regulation (Article 4) and logical framework (Section 1 of this staff working document). 
20See unemployment series: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/main-tables. 
21See unemployment series: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/main-tables. 
22http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8030&furtherPubs=yes. 
23http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics (Eurostat, 2016  
unemployment statistics). 
24http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&pcode=tipsun20&language=en 
(Eurostat. 2016,  unemployment rate — annual data). 
25http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&pcode=tipsun20&language=en 
(Eurostat. 2016,  unemployment rate — annual data). 

15 

 
                                                 
showed  that  measures  should,  however,  be  taken  to  improve  communication  on  social 
innovation as promoted by PROGRESS, and perceptions of it as an issue that cuts right 
across the programme26. Although social innovation is often a component of EaSI actions 
relating  to  cross-border  partnerships,  microenterprises  and  social  enterprises,  it  is 
impossible to estimate the amounts spent on this issue in each axis and their respective 
impact.  There  is,  however,  broad  agreement  among  stakeholders  that  without  EaSI 
funding, a series of social policy innovations in the programme’s participating countries 
would  not  have  taken  place  (see  also  Section  5.5  on  the  programme’s  value  added). 
Funding opportunities provided by EaSI enabled stakeholders to test innovative solutions 
to  societal  challenges  such  as  ageing  societies,  migration,  poverty  and  social  exclusion 
with different partners across the EU, which might not be possible through only national 
funding. 

Some 20 social experimentation projects were awarded grants between 2014 and 2016 
as  tools  to  design  and  catalyse  social  policy  reforms  for  better  economic  and  social 
outcomes. The evidence collected on the INNOVCare27 project, selected as a case study 
for  the  mid-term  evaluation,  shows  its  relevance  in  addressing  the  unmet social  needs  of 
people living  with  a  rare  disease  and  their  families,  which  affect  their  dignity,  autonomy  and 
fundamental human rights. The proposed holistic, person-centred care pathway for people 
with rare diseases was tested through a pilot project in a Romanian county. The project 
team  intends  to  consolidate  the  work  done  with  financial  assistance  from  from  the 
European Network of Resource Centres and Case Handlers for Rare Diseases, to ensure 
that the network created under INNOVCare continues to operate when the project ends. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  in  its  first  implementation  period,  through  support  for  peer 
reviews  and  other  mutual  learning  activities,  EaSI  also  contributed  to  the  European 
Semester.  The  topics  covered  by  the  2015  and  2016  mutual  learning  activities  —  e.g. 
labour market integration measures for young people, asylum seekers, refugees and long-
term unemployed people, future skills needs — were closely aligned with priorities set in 
the  Employment  Guidelines  and  the  country-specific  recommendations  as  part  of  the 
European Semester28. The European Semester was also supported by other EaSI-funded 
analytical activities, in particular the Employment and social development report and the 
Labour  force  survey.  For  the  remaining  period,  EaSI  could  give  analytical  and  mutual 
learning  activities  even  higher  priority  and  better  link  them  to  policymaking,  including 
the  European  Semester  process.  Disseminating  good  practice  from  different  countries 
more  widely  at  operational  level  creates  awareness  of  innovative  practices  introduced 
across  the  Member  States  and  develops  the  capacity  of  national  and  local  actors  to 
deliver  better  services.  Exchanges  between  countries  participating  in  the  programme 
enable them to develop comparable levels of expertise and ensure that a similar range of 
services is offered to citizens regardless of where they live. 

The gradual improvement of EU economies can be further coupled with recent political 
events likely to impact the EU Member States in the coming years. For instance, with a 
large influx of refugees and immigrants, the share of vulnerable people has increased. In 
the  next  couple  of  years,  integrating  these  groups  will  require  increased  employment 
opportunities and social care. The EaSI programme could play an important role in this 
context by continuing to produce policy evidence, facilitating mobility across the EU and 

26The  concept  of  social  policy  innovation  is  both  common  to  all  EaSI  activities  and  specific  to  the 
PROGRESS calls for proposals promoting social innovation and social experimentation. 
27This project was awarded a grant under the VP/2014/008 call for proposals for social policy innovation 
supporting  reforms  in  social  services.  INNOVCare  ran  from  October  2015  to  October  2018.  For  more 
information, see the project’s website: https://innovcare.eu/. 
28See Performance monitoring report 2015-2016. 

16 

 
                                                 
enabling access to finance for different vulnerable groups should they wish to start their 
own microenterprise, or become employed in a microenterprise or social enterprise. 

5.1.2.  The continuing relevance of the axes’ specific objectives 

The analysis of the programme’s general objectives was complemented by evaluation of 
the three axes’ specific objectives (see Section 1 — Figure 1 and Section 3 — Figure 2). 

The  evidence  gathered  shows  that  PROGRESS  remains  relevant  in  terms  of  its  four 
specific objectives29. Its top priorities remain tackling social exclusion and poverty, and 
implementing  analytical,  mutual  learning  and  dissemination  activities.  Stakeholders  are 
mostly aware of: (i) surveys, studies, analyses, monitoring and evaluation reports; (ii) the 
labour  market  policies  database;  (iii)  common  methodologies,  classifications,  micro-
simulations,  indicators,  benchmarks  and  statistical  data.  The  findings  confirm  that  the 
demand for analytical,  mutual  learning and dissemination activities is  high, particularly 
so for policy evidence outputs on social impact measures mapped through statistics, good 
practice and case studies. 

On this basis, PROGRESS could continue to sustain and promote the exchange of good 
practices  between  policymakers  across  Member  States  by  delivering  mutual  learning, 
awareness  raising  and  dissemination  activities,  and  training.  The  analytical  tools, 
dissemination  events  and  innovative  projects  should  continue  to  focus  on  vulnerable 
groups,  but  also  on  cross-cutting  issues  like  gender  equality.  PROGRESS  should 
continue  to  support  EU-level  NGO  networks  with  the  aim  of  aligning  different  policy 
social  policy 
agendas  across  different 
innovation/experiments with a particular focus on transferability and upscaling. 

levels  of  government,  and 

support 

The  evaluation  research  showed  that  jobseekers  and  employers  have  similar  needs  and 
there  is  great  demand  for  information  on  cross-border  mobility,  recruitment  and 
placement,  and  for  counselling  activities  and  training.  EURES’  specific  objectives30 
address  these  needs  through  provision  of  information  and  counselling  regarding 
opportunities  for  young  people  and  SMEs  across  the  EU.  There  are  currently  around  2 
million  to  3  million  job  vacancies  unfilled  EU-wide,  and  unemployment  is  relatively 
high31. This, together with the fact that young people find it hard to break into the labour 
market,  shows  that  there  is  a  need  to  promote  workers’  mobility  and  encourage 
jobseekers  and  employers  to  consider  opportunities  beyond  their  own  borders.  At  the 
same  time,  around  16  million  Europeans  live  and  work  in  another  country32.  Making 
labour  market  information  and  service  provision  about  living  and  working  conditions 
transparent across the EU appears essential to help them find work. 

The  evidence  gathered  shows  that  EURES’  objectives  continue  to  be  relevant  to 
increasing the transparency of the labour markets in the EU and making them accessible 
to workers and employers. In this respect, the EURES portal is gaining importance as an 
efficient way to share vacancies on one platform throughout Europe. 

Cross-border  partnerships  also  remain  relevant,  given  the  many  commuters  in  cross-
border  regions  (for  example,  in  the  cases  studied  this  number  was  around  20.000  to 
30.000). Cross-border partnerships provide information and counselling on opportunities 

29 Article 15 of the EaSI Regulation. 
30 Article 20 of the EaSI Regulation. 
31 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics. 
32Reflection  Paper  on  the  Social  Dimension  in  Europe,  European  Commission,  Luxembourg,  2017 
(https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-social-dimension-
europe_en.pdf). 

17 

 
                                                 
in the different labour markets and on social security systems in neighbouring countries. 
There are many obstacles to cross-border mobility, mainly because of lack of knowledge 
about  working  environments  and  social  security  systems  in  neighbouring  countries.  In 
terms  of  service  provision,  EURES  is  also  particularly  relevant  to  young  people  who 
qualify for specific help from ‘Your first EURES job’. This scheme allows young people, 
who are more likely to face difficulties accessing the labour market, to find a job; at the 
same time, it helps employers to fill vacancies in key occupations. 

In the light of these findings, EaSI funding could help to further strengthen the role of the 
EURES portal and continue to deliver services targeted at specific groups (as in the case 
of YfEj and cross-border partnerships). 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  addresses  three  specific  objectives33  through 
actions to make microfinance available and accessible for existing microenterprises, for 
vulnerable people  wanting to  start  up a business, and for social  entrepreneurs. The EIF 
does not  provide funding directly to  individuals or enterprises, but  works through local 
financial  intermediaries,  such  as  microcredit  providers,  social  finance,  guarantee 
institutions and banks.  It selects  intermediaries that  have applied under an ongoing call 
for expressions of interest. The application procedure considers factors such as expected 
impact (e.g. volumes and geographical reach), financial standing, financial capacity and 
operational capabilities. 

The  demand-driven  character  of  these  financial  instruments  explains  why,  for  both 
microfinance and social entrepreneurship, most funding was allocated to  countries with 
more  developed  markets  for  micro-enterprises  and  social  enterprises.  For  example,  in 
2016, France, Sweden, Romania and Spain received the largest amounts, while Slovakia, 
Estonia,  Albania  and  Austria  received  the  smallest.  In  terms  of  numbers  of  financial 
intermediaries  supported,  Greece,  Romania  and  Spain  led  with  three  financial 
intermediaries  each34.  Country  coverage  for  social  enterprises  is  similar,  with  France 
receiving 56 % of the budget available, followed by Spain with 15 %, Poland (13 %), the 
United Kingdom (9 %) and Austria (6 %). 

The evaluation shows that Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship has been relevant both 
in terms of its general objectives and stakeholders’ needs. Existing market imperfections 
in both the microfinance and social enterprise markets, along with mismatches in supply 
and  demand  for  finance  in  most  participating  countries,  suggest  the  need  to  keep 
promoting  financial  inclusion  by  increasing  the  availability  and  accessibility  of  finance 
for  vulnerable  people.  In  some  participating  countries,  underdeveloped  markets  for 
lending  to  social  enterprises  are  likely  to  remain  a  key  challenge  to  be  solved  so  the 
sector can develop further. 

Ensuring  a larger focus  on underdeveloped markets  by  creating incentives for financial 
intermediaries to apply — for instance by opening the calls for expressions of interest to 
a particular group of countries for a certain period —  could increase the availability and 
accessibility  of  finance  for  vulnerable  people.  Furthemore,  giving  incentives  to  the 
financial intermediaries to attract funding to replace EIF funding in order to avoid gaps 
and  ensure  sustainability  of  service  provision,  could  address  gaps  between  supply  and 
demand  and  ensure  sustainability  of  the  services’  provision.  Financial  intermediaries 
should be able to attract funding from financial institutions other than the EIF thanks to a 
good track record of involvement in EaSI. 

33 Article 26 of the EaSI Regulation. 
34 EIF. 2016. Semi-annual operational report. 

18 

 
                                                 
5.1.3.  Continuing relevance of resource allocation defined in the EaSI Regulation 

Activities  supported  by  EaSI  are  grouped  in  one  or  more  thematic  sections  listed  in 
Table 1,  which  shows  the  indicative  budget  allocation  for  each  axis  and  indicative 
breakdowns of allocations between the different sections of each axis defined in the EaSI 
Regulation. 

Table 1: The minimum indicative percentages by EaSI axis and thematic section 

Axes/thematic sections 

Minimum 
percentages 

PROGRESS 

a. employment, in particular to fight youth unemployment 

b. social protection, social inclusion and reduction/prevention of poverty 

c. working conditions 

EURES 

a. transparency of job vacancies, applications and related information for applicants and 
employers 

b. services for the recruitment and placing of workers through the clearance of job 
vacancies and applications at Union level, in particular targeted mobility schemes 

c. cross-border partnerships 

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship 

a. microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises 

b. social entrepreneurship 

61% 

20% 

50% 

10% 

18% 

32% 

30% 

18% 

21% 

45% 

45% 

Source: EaSI Regulation 
If  warranted  by  either  socioeconomic  developments  or  the  findings  of  the  mid-term 
evaluation, the EaSI Regulation allows funds to be reallocated between axes or between 
individual  thematic  sections.  This  reallocation  can  exceed  the  indicative  amount  set 
under  the  EaSI  Regulation  up  to  10 %.  The  allocation  is  monitored  every  year  so  the 
European Commission can see where to invest more in subsequent years up to 2020. Any 
remainder  is  allocated  to  one  or  more  of  the  thematic  sections  or  to  a  combination  of 
them. ‘Social policy experimentation’ is not a thematic section, but a cross-cutting issue 
funded from within the EaSI thematic sections. A significant amount of EaSI funding is 
devoted  to  fostering  social  innovation,  in  particular  through  calls  for  proposals  to 
support social experimentation projects35. 

The evaluation proposed that financial resources should be allocated more equitably and 
consistently  between  and  within  the  thematic  sections  of  each  axis  in  order  to  increase 
the  overall  impact  of  the  EaSI  programme.  The  data  on  resource  allocation  must  be 
interpreted taking into account that 2014 was the first  year of EaSI implementation and 

35Article 14 of the EaSI Regulation states: ‘From the overall allocation for the PROGRESS axis, and within 
its different thematic sections, 15 % to 20 % shall be allocated to the promotion of social experimentation 
as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to up-scaling them.’ 

19 

 
                                                 
some  planned  activities  were  postponed  to  subsequent  years,  in  particular  under 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. 

In 2014-2016, PROGRESS’s planned and committed funding mostly matched the share 
of overall funding per thematic section provided for in the EaSI Regulation. However, in 
2014, the bulk of funding (71 %) was committed to employment policy, while the other 
thematic  sections  committed  39 %  of  planned  expenditure.  Compared  to  the  two  other 
axes,  PROGRESS  has  a  slight  tendency  not  to  commit  all  indicative  funding,  which 
might  result  in  some  unused  funding  having  to  be  returned  to  the  EU  budget  (EUR 4 
million  was  not  committed  in  2015  or  2016).  Some  planned  studies  and  events  might 
even become unnecessary in a better social and economic context, which might lead the 
Commission to cancel planned activities and related commitments. 

Overall,  the  amounts  of  funding  committed  in  2014-2016  were  in  line  with  the  EaSI 
Regulation  regarding  the  minimum  proportions  of  funding  to  be  allocated  to  different 
thematic sections of EURES. The planned commitments for the development of EURES 
services  in  2014  were  greater  than  the  percentage  set  in  the  EaSI  Regulation  (42 % 
instead of 30 %). In terms of actual commitments, development of EURES services was 
the largest item (at 55 % of EURES commitments), while ‘transparency of job vacancies’ 
accounted for 43 %. No funding was committed to establishing cross-border partnerships 
in  2014.  Quite  a  lot  more  than  the  minimum  amount  (48 %  instead  of  30 %)  was 
committed  in  2015  to  developing  services  for  recruiting  and  placing  workers.  In  2016, 
commitments  in  the  thematic  section  on  cross-border  partnerships  were  slightly  below 
the  target  set  in  the  Regulation  (around  16 %  of  the  overall  budget,  instead  of  18 %). 
Commitments were also lower than expected in the thematic section on the transparency 
of  job  vacancies  (27 %  versus  32 %).  Once  again,  in  2016,  more  than  the  minimum 
indicative share of funding was committed to developing EURES services. 

Activities  under  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  got  off  to  a  strong  start  in 
2015-2016,  while  its  predecessor  programme  —  the  European  Progress  Microfinance 
Facility — continued until 2016. In 2015, a much larger share of funding was committed 
to  microfinance  (76 %)  than  to  social  entrepreneurship  (24 %).  This  is  understandable, 
since  funding  social  enterprises  was  a  new  activity,  while  microfinance  was  well 
established  because  of  its  predecessor.  This  situation  means  higher  funding  can  be 
expected for social entrepreneurship in subsequent years to 2020. In 2016, commitments 
for the two were roughly equal. Some funding — less than 1 % — was also committed to 
build  up  microfinance  providers’  capacity,  and  for  communication  and  dissemination 
activities in the areas of microfinance and social entrepreneurship. 

Implementation  of  the  EaSI  work  programme  for  2014-2016  was  well  in  line  with  the 
EaSI Regulation and the indicative shares of funding per axis roughly matched the shares 
set in the Regulation. For instance, in 2015 and 2016, a slightly higher share of funding 
than  initially  planned  was  committed  to  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  while  a 
somewhat lower share than planned was committed to PROGRESS36. 

As shown by the evaluation, the current split does not reflect the reality of the markets in 
terms  of  demand  or  development  stage.  A  more  developed  microfinance  sector,  along 
with  greater  demand  for  microfinance  funding  in  participating  countries  than  for  social 
entrepreneurship  funding,  could  justify  allocating  more  of  the  budget  to  Microfinance. 
This  being  the  case,  a  revision  of  the  indicative  budget  split  between  Microfinance 
and Social Entrepreneurship  could be explored in the second half of implementation. 

36 As stated in the EaSI Regulation, it is not necessary to reach the minimum funding targets every year; the 
minimum amounts set can be reached by the end of programme implementation. 

20 

 
                                                 
Making resource allocation more flexible across axes would also allow more scope for 
transferring  budgets  between  them  when  necessary.  This  greater  flexibility  in  resource 
allocation would particularly benefit Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. Such a shift 
was already considered in the ‘Omnibus’ Regulation adopted in 201837. 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

The evaluation examined how effectively EaSI has delivered its intended outcomes and 
brought about change. 

5.2.1. Effectiveness in achieving its objectives and generating outcomes 

The  evidence  gathered  shows  that  the  EaSI  programme  as  a  whole  has  achieved  good-
quality outcomes, even if they are few given its short operating life so far. 

The  evidence  collected  shows  that  PROGRESS  contributed  to  positive  outcomes  in 
terms of capacity building and uptake of analytical research outputs which have informed 
both  the  European  Semester  cycle  and  national  policies.  PROGRESS  has  proven  to  be 
most effective in facilitating inclusive information sharing, mutual learning activities and 
dialogue.  It  has  also  proven  effective  in  developing  comparative  and  analytical 
knowledge.  Overall,  PROGRESS  should  maintain  the  thematic  focus  on  those  policy 
themes  relevant  to  and  appreciated  by  stakeholders,  in  particular  those  related  to 
employment  and  working  conditions.  For  the  remainder  of  the  period,  PROGRESS 
should  continue  to  focus  on  activities  to  disseminate  comparative  and  analytical 
knowledge by boosting the outreach of events and investing in analytical tools (datasets, 
statistics and focused studies) linked to national and EU policymaking and the needs of 
stakeholders (national governments, statistical offices and thematic research networks). 

DG Employment started in 2014 to develop a new version of the  EURES job mobility 
portal38. In 2015 and 2016 new functions were added, such as automated matching of job 
vacancies  and  applications/CVs.  This  helped  to  attract  a  steady  number  of  monthly 
visitors to the EURES portal in 2014-2016 (0.7 million)39. 

The number of employers registered on the EURES portal was 6 800 at the end of 2016 
(compared with 5 600 at the end of 2015 and 3 000 at the end of 2014). Member States 
share  only  around  half  of  their  vacancies  on  the  portal.  In  2014  there  were  around  1 
million vacancies registered; in 2015 there were 1.5 million, but this had fallen slightly to 
1.4 million by May 2017. The number of contacts by EURES staff with jobseekers and 
employers  rose  from  947 489  in  2014  to  1 131 002  in  2016,  increasing  steadily.  The 
percentage  of  people  who  found  a  job  as  a  direct  result  of  contacting  EURES  advisers 
increased slightly from 3.3 % in 2014 to 3.7 % in 2015 and in 201640. 

Two calls for proposals — leading to four new ‘Your first EURES job’ projects — were 
issued in the evaluation period. This scheme helped to increase the number of youth job 

37 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1046 
38  https://ec.europa.eu/eures/eures-searchengine/page/main?lang=en#/simpleSearch.  EURES  ‘Search  for  a 
Job’ tool is available in the 25 EU/EEA languages and users can search in any of them. 
39Following  a  change  in  the  web  application  and  servers  used,  in  line  with  Commission  IT  policy 
recommendations, the whole time series of data and targets had to be revised for consistency reasons. The 
milestone  for  2017  is  0.8  monthly  visits  and  the  target  for  2020  is  1  million  monthly  visits  (see  DG 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Annual Activity Report 2016 — Annex, page 96). 
40 European Commission. 2015. Single Market Scoreboard EURES. Retrieved from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/eures/index_en.htm. 
Data for 2016 was obtained from the latest available EURES Advisers monthly reports. 

21 

 
                                                 
placements  from  3 433  in  2014  to  5 720  in  201641.  The  evaluation  revealed  several 
challenges  to  project  effectiveness,  mainly  in  finding  the  right  partners  and  attracting 
employers. The projects financed under call VP/2014/013 exceeded their target. The data 
analysed  show  that  the  projects  already  finalised  had  several  positive  impacts  on  the 
young people who benefited from YfEj funding, with 68 % of job contracts lasting more 
than  six  months,  and  many  being  permanent  contracts.  Given  that  the  projects  funded 
under call VP/2015/006 started after the evaluation period, it was not possible to evaluate 
their effectiveness. 

The  results  of  projects  focusing  on  cross-border  partnerships  include  support  for  the 
provision  of  services  in  cross-border  regions  and  —  in  one  project  —  the  creation  of 
specific cross-border info points providing information about employment opportunities 
and social systems in cross-border regions. The evaluation showed that the involvement 
of  employers  and  employers’  organisations  could  be  further  encouraged,  for  instance 
through  more  targeted  communication  activities  and  incentives  provided  directly  to 
employers. The evaluation reveals that one particular challenge for beneficiaries of cross-
border projects  is  that grants  are made for one  year. The majority of these partnerships 
apply each  year for follow-up funding  and this may  create path  dependency on the EU 
programme. Revising the implementation period and considering a longer one — 2 years 
at  a  minimum  —  might  enable  project  beneficiaries  to  measure  the  effectiveness  of 
activities  carried  out  within  the  project’s  lifetime  and  to  take  measures  to  sustain  it 
further. 
The evaluation shows that Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship has been effective in 
increasing the availability of and access to finance. For instance, a series of quantitative 
changes were identified, such as increased lending volume, number of loans and number 
of beneficiaries. Thus, the number of microloans42 granted under Microfinance rose from 
421  in  2015  to  13  021  in  2016,  while  64  social  enterprises  received  support  as  of 
31 December 2016 under Social Entrepreneurship43. 

The  EIF  provides  the  EaSI  guarantee  and  counter-guarantee  to  financial  intermediaries 
with  the  aim  of  increasing  the  availability  of  microfinance.  By  31 December  2016,  33 
contracts had been signed under Microfinance, accounting for EUR 50.3 million. These 
transactions alone are expected to unlock more than EUR 637 million in funding. As of 
31 December  2016  the  leverage  factor  was  3,  meaning  that  financial  intermediaries 
actually provided the final beneficiaries with three times more support than the funding 
provided  by  the  EU.  The  overall  leverage  achieved  to  date  is  lower  than  the  target 
specified in the EIF call for expressions of interest, which specify a minimum leverage 
factor  of  5.5  for  the  EaSI  guarantee  instrument  as  a  whole.  Nonetheless,  the  expected 
leverage factor is much higher, at 12.7, and should be reached by the end of the five-year 
period.  This  suggests  that  the  objectives  of  the  EaSI  guarantee  will  be  surpassed  by  a 
long way. 

By  31 December  2016,  7  contracts  had  been  signed  for  Social  Entrepreneurship.  The 
total  amount  disbursed  under  EaSI  to  support  social  entrepreneurship  was  EUR 5.7 
million.  The majority of loans (around 90 %) were provided by the  French cooperative 
bank  La  Nef44.  The  target  leverage  factor  of  5.5  was  not  achieved;  nonetheless,  the  7 

41 DG  Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Annual Activity Report 2016, Annex. 
42 For Microfinance, the target is expressed in microloans, not in final recipients. 
43 DG EMPL Annual Activity Report 2016, Annex, p. 92. 
44  La  Nef  implemented  all  activities  planned  for  2015-2016.  They  reached  their  goal  of  increasing  their 
social loans production (an eleven-fold increase in the number of final beneficiaries receiving a loan). La 
22 

 
                                                 
signed transactions are expected to unlock more than EUR 116 million of financing for 
social  enterprises,  which  means  the  expected  leverage  factor  is  12.8,  well  above  the 
target  leverage.  EaSI  support  allowed  financial  intermediaries  to  provide  funding  to  64 
social  enterprises  as of 31 December 2016;  the average loan was EUR 89 000. Most  of 
the  funding  went  to  social  enterprises  operating  in  wholesale  and  retail  trade,  repair  of 
motor vehicles and motorcycles, followed by manufacturing and agriculture, forestry and 
fishing. 

These  quantitative  effects  would  not  have  materialised  or  would  have  done  so  more 
slowly without EaSI funding, as the financial intermediaries would not have been able to 
offer similar products.  To boost the effectiveness of the support provided, the financial 
intermediaries  also  provide  mentoring  and  training  activities  for  final  beneficiaries.  Of 
5 490 final beneficiaries who reported on this issue by the end of 2016, 68 % confirmed 
that  they  received  training  and  mentoring  services  from  the  microcredit  institutions45. 
Financial  intermediaries  could  assess  the  impact  of  their  activities  —  particularly 
mentoring and training activities — on a more regular basis (every 2 years for instance). 
This  could  enable  the  EIF  to  continuously  assess  whether  the  loans  provided  had  the 
intended  outcomes  and  impacts.  Effectiveness  in  achieving  objectives  could  be  also 
improved  by  acting  on  a  series  of  issues  such  as:  delays  in  making  the  financial 
instruments  available;  flexible  allocation  of  funds  between  Microfinance  and  Social 
Entrepreneurship; and coherence and clarity of the European Code of Good Conduct for 
Microcredit (ECoGC)46. 

5.2.2.  Effectiveness in bringing about change 

The evaluation examined the extent to which the programme contributed to quantitative 
and qualitative changes, and the factors influencing those changes.  

inclusion  and  poverty  reduction; 

Attributing  impacts  to  programme  implementation  is  difficult,  given  that  employment 
and social policies are primarily a national competence. Nevertheless, the data gathered 
show  that  several  positive  changes  could  be  attributed  to  EaSI  intervention.  These 
include  increased  awareness  of  and  improved  information  about  EU  policy  efforts  on 
social 
improved  perceptions  of  cross-border 
employment  and  greater awareness among regional  employers  and jobseekers of cross-
border opportunities. Other benefits were rapid testing and implementation of innovative 
measures;  increased  access  to  finance  and  increased  capacity  building  opportunities  in 
the  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship  sectors;  facilitated  policy  change  through 
research,  and  exchange  and  building  of  advocacy  capacity.  There  was  also  support  for 
different stakeholders with contributing to formulating and implementing EU policies. 

PROGRESS outputs have had a number of qualitative and quantitative effects, helping 
in particular to develop analytical knowledge, facilitating mutual learning and dialogue, 
and supporting capacity building activities. For example, the Labour Force Survey is in 
great  demand  among  stakeholders  and  has  a  direct  impact  on  policies.  The  Eurocarers 
network47 contributed to the development of the new national careers strategy in the UK. 
The knowledge produced at EU level is also used by number of NGOs in their lobbying 
and advocacy work with policymakers at national and local levels. PROGRESS has also 

Nef also reach out to enterprises producing healthy and/or affordable food (45.5 % of final beneficiaries at 
30 September 2016) and working towards improving the quality of the environment (13.7 %). 
45 EaSI performance monitoring report 2015-2016. 
46 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/doc/code_bonne_conduite_en.pdf. 
47 http://www.eurocarers.org/ 

23 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
pinpointed  a  series  of  additional  positive  effects.  For  example,  the  Labour  Law 
Network48 provided valuable support to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, 
and  the  INNOVCare  project49  partners  cooperated  with  DG  Health  and  Food  Safety  to 
develop an action plan and help improve services provided to people with rare diseases. 
The  ‘Nowcasting’  model50  is  expected  to  be  applied  by  Member  States  to  assess  the 
impact of policy reforms (e.g. the pension system). 

PROGRESS  has  also  offered  major  support  for  the  effective  implementation  of  social 
innovation  and  experimentation  projects.  However,  the  limited  funding  and  lack  of 
follow-up mechanisms (within EaSI or other instruments, such as the ESF) are obstacles 
to  systematically  scaling  up  tested  social  innovations.  At  the  moment,  despite  the 
valuable  information  provided  to  policymakers,  there  are  no  examples  of  scaled-up 
interventions, which is the ultimate goal of the social policy experimentation funded by 
EaSI. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  all  the  activities  carried  out  under  EURES  (see  figures  in 
Section 5.2.1) contribute to increasing the number of placements across the participating 
countries and work towards the EU2020 employment objectives. The evidence collected 
shows  that  EURES  is  effective  at  improving  access  to  job  vacancies  and  at  enhancing 
labour  market  transparency  by  providing  information  on  the  job  mobility  portal  and 
support  to  jobseekers  and  employers  via  the  network.  For  example,  respondents  to  the 
open public consultation and to the beneficiaries survey believe that job mobility across 
the EU has become ‘fairer’ due to EURES support, as jobseekers and mobile workers are 
better  informed  about  labour  market  conditions  and  social  protection  systems  in  EU 
Member States. 

instance  an 

The  evaluation  also  stated  that  EURES  is  effective  in  supporting  cross-border 
partnerships  and  cross-border  mobility.  The  data  points  to  positive  changes  due  to 
improved  general  perception  of  cross-border 
EURES  support,  for 
employment, and the development  of ‘welcome  centres’  and ‘cross-border info points’. 
An example of the latter is the Information Centre at the border between Lithuania and 
Poland, set up under the project ‘Posting of workers’, providing services to workers from 
the three Baltic States. There is also increased awareness among regional employers and 
jobseekers  of  the  potential  of  cross-border  labour  markets.  Moreover,  the  preparatory 
action  under  ‘Your  first  EURES  job’  was  the  basis  for  developing  and  testing  the 
national mobility programme MobiPro-EU in Germany51. 

Regarding  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  the  quantitative  changes  resulting 
from  its  activities  are  in  its  leverage  effect,  lending  volume,  the  number  of  loans 
disbursed and the number of final beneficiaries served (see figures in Section 5.2.1).  

Given the timing of the  mid-term  evaluation, the evidence  for  assessing the impacts  of 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship was scarce. However, at the end of 201552, the EIF 
had already signed 12 operations with financial intermediaries (11 for Microfinance and 

48 http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/. 
49 INNOVCare — Innovative Patient-Centred Approach for Social Care Provision to Complex Conditions 
(see the case study in Volume IV of the EaSI mid-term evaluation report). 
50 Nowcasting project (see the case study in Volume IV of the EaSI mid-term evaluation report). 
51  Since  2013,  this  programme  has  supported  young  Europeans  in  finding  in-house  vocational  training 
positions  and  has  brought 
in  Germany 
(https://www.thejobofmylife.de/en/home.html). 
52 The vast majority of the availability periods allocated to financial intermediaries under EaSI had starting 
dates  after  October  2015.  In addition,  the  operations  signed  by  the  EIF  and  financial  intermediaries  take 
some time to materialise. 

together  with  project  providers  and  companies 

them 

24 

 
                                                 
1 for Social Entrepreneurship), indicating strong initial uptake compared with anticipated 
demand  for  the  programme.  Equally,  at  first  glance  the  open  public  consultation  and 
beneficiaries  survey  show  positive  feedback  on  the  intended  outcomes  for  both. 
Qualitative  changes  observed  as  a  result  of  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship 
implementation include: improved procedures and processes including risk management, 
reporting  and  monitoring;  improved  compliance  with  the  ECoGC;  a  greater  range  of 
provision,  with  the  creation  of  new  financial  products;  improved  portfolio  quality  by 
using clear criteria; and a growing interest in social enterprises. 

Across  the  EaSI  programme,  different  factors  besides  the  interventions  themselves 
influence the degree  of  achievement  observed  —  for example,  grant duration, which is 
sometimes  too  short  for  developing  and  implementing  innovative  approaches  and 
ensuring  their  sustainability.  EURES  beneficiaries  expressed  a  need  for  more  balanced 
consortia,  combining  countries  that  are  experienced  and  those  that  are  new  to  EURES 
projects,  in  order  to  ensure  better  implementation  of  their  activities.  Similarly, 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  beneficiaries  pointed  out  that  the  financial 
intermediaries’  lack  of  experience  with  micro-entrepreneurs  and  vulnerable  groups  can 
affect the implementation of the guarantee. 

5.3.  Efficiency 

The evaluation questions on EaSI’s efficiency were grouped and analysed in one topic, 
i.e.  efficiency  of  resource  allocation  and  the  benefits  accruing  (relative  to  inputs).  This 
topic  was  analysed  for  PROGRESS  and  EURES  only,  as  the  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  activities  had  only  just  been  introduced  and  benefits  could  not  yet  be 
identified (see the discussion of limitations related to timing of the mid-term evaluation 
in Section 4). 

5.3.1.  Efficiency of resource allocation and benefits accruing 

Table 2 presents financial information on EaSI’s performance53 in terms of planned and 
total  commitments54  for  each  EaSI  axis  in  2014,  2015  and  2016.  The  accumulated 
commitments  in  2014-2016  came  to  EUR 356  million,  which  represents  97 %  of  total 
planned commitments.  

Table 2: Planned and total commitments by axis in 2014, 2015 and 2016 
Year/ 
Axe 

Microfinnace/Social 
Entrepreneurship 

PROGRESS 

EURES 

TOTAL 
2014-2016 

Planned (EUR) 

71.799.500 

Executed 
 (EUR) 
65.479.469 

Planned  
(EUR) 
21.422.355 

Executed  
(EUR) 
15.858.011 

Planned 
 (EUR) 
26.304.151 

Executed  
(EUR) 
28.477.451 

Planned 
(EUR) 
119.526.006 

Executed 
(EUR) 
109.814.931 

72.710.574 

69.580.317 

23.090.525 

 23.094.474 

26.459.001 

31.436.141 

122.260.100 

124.110.932 

73.352.883 

71.598.651 

22.450.000 

22.864.342 

27.849.770 

27.744.070 

123.652.653 

122.207.068 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Total 

217.862.957 

206.658.437 

66.962.890 

61.816.827 

80.612.922 

87.657.662 

365.438.759 

356.132.931 

Source: Data from monitoring reports 2014 and 2015-2016 

accumulated 

The 
to 
EUR 206.658.435,  which  represents  95 %  of  planned  commitments.  PROGRESS 

for  PROGRESS 

in  2014-2016 

commitments 

came 

53The administrative expenditure was not included in the mid-term evaluation that focused on the activities 
implemented.  
54The planned commitments represent the amounts planned per axis each year by DG Employment, Social 
Affairs and Inclusion. The total commitments (budgetary execution) are the sum of individual and global 
commitments. 

25 

 
                                                 
produced a range of regular analytical outputs such as studies, databases, methodologies 
and  classifications.  There  were  also  one-off  outputs,  such  as  the  Classification  of 
European  Skills,  Competences,  Qualifications  and  Occupations  (ESCO)55,  the  Labour 
Market Policy Database, the Mutual  Information System on Social Protection Database 
(MISSOC), a Flash Eurobarometer on working conditions, and studies on adequate social 
protection  for  long-term  care  needs  in  an  ageing  society  and  on  coping  strategies  for 
unemployed persons. 

A  large  amount  of  funding  was  used  to  set  up  the  European  Network  of  Public 
Employment Services (PES) and to establish other key networks of independent experts 
such  as  the  European  Employment  Policy  Observatory,  the  European  Social  Policy 
Network and the European Labour Law Network. 

In  the  policy  area  of  social  protection  and  social  inclusion,  notable  analytical  activities 
supported were the tax/benefit model EUROMOD56, the Social Situation Monitor57, and 
the development and deployment of Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information 
(EESSI)58.  EaSI  also  supported  the  activity  of  the  European  Social  Policy  Network 
(ESPN) and the development of the European Platform against Poverty (EPAP). 

In  the  policy  area  of  working  conditions,  the  actions  EaSI  supported  included  the 
development  of  European  Statistics  on  Occupational  Diseases  and  the  monographs 
programme  of  the  International  Commission  on  Non-Ionising  Radiation  Protection, 
managed  by  the  International  Agency  for  Research  on  Cancer  (IARC).  EaSI  has  also 
funded recurring information sharing  and learning activities, such as thematic days  and 
plenary meetings of the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC), occupational safety 
and  health  conferences,  meetings  of  the  Group  of  Directors-General  for  Industrial 
Relations, high-level meetings between the European Commission and the International 
Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  and  annual  legal  seminars.  EaSI-funded  evidence  also 
contributed directly to the establishment of the European Platform on Undeclared Work 
in 2016. 

In 2014-2016, PROGRESS also provided financial support for building up stakeholders’ 
capacity  to  design  and  implement  social  experimentation.  Three  calls  for  proposals  for 
social  policy  experimentation59  were  published  in  2014-2016  and  20  projects  were 
awarded  funding.  PROGRESS  also  helped  up  to  20  key  EU-level  NGO  networks  each 
year to increase their capacity to develop, promote and support the implementation of EU 
policies  and  law  in  the  area  of  employment  and  social  affairs.  The  networks  included 
Caritas  Europa,  European  Social  Network,  Eurocities,  Eurochild,  the  European  Anti-
Poverty Network, ENSIE and Microfinance Network. 

and 

securely, 

55 EaSI also financed also ESCO hosting, reimbursement of experts and technical assistance. 
56 EUROMOD is a tax-benefit microsimulation model for the European Union that enables researchers and 
policy analysts to calculate and compare the effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes and work 
incentives for the population of each country and for the EU as a whole (https://www.euromod.ac.uk/). 
57 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1049&langId=en. 
58 EESSI is an IT system that helps social security institutions across the EU to exchange information more 
rapidly 
coordination 
as 
(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=869&langId=en). 
59 The 2014 call for proposals for social experimentation aimed at promoting an integrated approach to the 
delivery  of  social  services.  The  7  projects  financed  concern  social  services  such  as  childcare,  long-term 
care and services to prevent early school leaving. The 2015 call focuses on social services for entering the 
labour market. The 8 projects awarded funding mainly concern employment and training services, housing, 
health and the provision of a minimum income. The target groups are mainly those furthest from the labour 
market,  in  particular  disadvantaged  young  people,  low-skilled  migrants,  Roma  and  mentally  disabled 
people. The 5 projects awarded under the 2016 call aim at integrating asylum seekers, refugees and their 
family members into the labour market, with a strong emphasis on women. 

by  EU 

required 

security 

social 

rules 

on 

26 

 
                                                 
PROGRESS  also  funded  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning  activities,  such  as 
networks  of  experts,  peer  reviews,  learning  exchanges,  training,  Council  presidency 
conferences,  seminars  and  high-level  events,  communication  campaigns,  good  practice 
guides  and  informative  material,  and  the  development  and  maintenance  of  information 
systems. 

Information  and  communication  activities  were  funded  in  order  to  raise  awareness  of 
priority policy issues. Conferences and seminars focusing on growth and jobs promoted 
the  debate  on  these  issues  among  key  decision  makers  and  stakeholders  at  national, 
European  and  international  level  with  a  view  to  creating  support  for  meeting  EU 
objectives  and  priorities.  Another  important  focus  was  dealing  with  issues  such  as 
anticipation  of  skills  needs  and  analysis  of  skills  supply  and  of  labour  market  needs. 
PROGRESS  analytical  outputs  were  also  instrumental  in  preparing  country-specific 
recommendations and contributed to the implementation of the Employment Package, the 
Youth Employment Package and the Youth Guarantee. Much EaSI-funded evidence fed 
directly  into  key  EU  policy  processes  such  as  the  European  Semester,  including  texts 
such  as  the  Annual  Growth  Survey,  country-specific  recommendations,  employment 
guidelines and joint employment reports. 

The accumulated commitments for EURES in 2014-2016 amounted to EUR 61.817.827, 
which  represents  92 %  of  the  planned  commitments.  In  2014-2016,  EURES  funded 
actions to improve the transparency of labour market information through the exchange 
and  dissemination  of 
information  on  available  vacancies  and  applications  at 
transnational, interregional and cross-border level. 

A  key  tool  in  achieving  this  goal  is  the  EURES  job  mobility  portal,  which  attracts  an 
average of 0.7 million visitors a month. By December 2016, around 250.000 jobseekers’ 
CVs  were  available  on  the  portal.  The  breakdown  of  registered  jobseekers  remained 
largely  unchanged  in  2016,  with  most  coming  from  Italy  and  Spain.  The  occupations 
most  often  selected  were  waiter/waitress,  language  teacher,  hotel  receptionist  and 
administrative assistant. At the end of 2016, a total of 6.800 companies  were searching 
for  employees  through  the  EURES  portal.  Around  50 %  of  all  national  vacancies  are 
shared on the portal. 

While EURES activities have traditionally contributed to information and dissemination, 
they are increasingly also focusing on recruitment. EaSI supported services ranging from 
pre-recruitment  preparation to  post-placement  assistance with  a view to  the jobseeker’s 
successful  integration  into  the  labour  market.  The  main  actions  funded  include 
supporting  the  EURES  advisers’  network  in  providing  information,  counselling, 
placement  and  recruitment  services  for  jobseekers  and  employers  and  developing 
targeted mobility schemes to fill job vacancies where labour market shortcomings have 
been  identified.  The  EURES  advisers’  network  has  a  fairly  steady  number  of  personal 
contacts60 with jobseekers and employers each year (around 1 million per year). 

Total commitments for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship in 2014-2016 amounted 
to  EUR 87.657.662.,  which  represents  108 %  of  planned  commitments61.  The  financial 
instruments  for  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  were  modelled  on  previous 

60 The average EURES adviser had 847 individual personal contacts with jobseekers and 130 contacts with 
employers. As a rule, around 90 % of all contacts are with jobseekers and around 10 % with employers. A 
total of 902 529 of personal contacts were implemented in 2016. 
61  In  December  2016,  the  Commission  also  launched  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Investments  Window, 
with  the  aim  of  building  the  institutional  capacity  of  selected  financial  intermediaries  that  have  not  yet 
reached sustainability or are in need of risk capital to sustain their growth and development. Given that this 
activity was launched in December 2016, it was not included in the mid-term evaluation. 

27 

 
                                                 
experience  with  Progress  Microfinance  programme,  so  guarantees  and  funding  are 
provided  to  financial  intermediaries  to  incentivise  them  to  lend  money  to  final 
beneficiaries. 

While  2014  was  spent  negotiating  the  new  funding  instruments  with  the  European 
Investment  Fund  (EIF),  by  September  2016,  33  contracts  had  been  signed  with 
microfinance intermediaries for EUR 50.3 million, which resulted in 13.021 microloans 
for a total of EUR 152.288 million. A leverage factor of 3 times the initial funding was 
achieved.  In  addition  to  supporting  the  microcredit  sector,  in  2015-2016  EaSI  also 
released  the  first  funding  for  social  enterprises  and  the  first  7  contracts  with  financial 
intermediaries were signed, for EUR 9 million. 

and 

the  Netherlands 

The majority of funding went to enterprises operating in the area of wholesale and retail 
trade,  repair  of  motor  vehicles  and  motorcycles  (around  32 %  of  the  overall  funding). 
The  highest  amounts  were  disbursed  to  final  beneficiaries  in  France  (27.5 %),  Spain 
(20.6 %) 
by 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  employed  22.328  employees:  1.168  were 
in  microenterprises  supported  with 
employed 
microfinance. Among the people supported through Microfinance window, 19 % (1.121 
in  total)  were  unemployed  or  inactive  before  receiving  the  microloan.  EaSI  focused  on 
supporting  people  who  are  disadvantaged  in  accessing  the  conventional  credit  market. 
These  included  women,  unemployed  people,  those  with  no  education,  or  only  primary 
education, young people and older people. 

in  social  enterprises, 

(15.6 %).  The 

the  others 

enterprises 

supported 

As  concerns  the  management  fees  paid  to  EIB/EIF  for  manage  the  third  axis  financial 
instruments,  they  are  based  on  the  number  of  transactions  as  well  as  the  performance 
according to specific indicators (e.g. microloan inclusion, the number of microloans, the 
number of countries covered, the number of non-bank microfinance institutions covered). 
The average fees and management costs per contract signed with financial intermediaries 
have decreased from EUR 210.069 in 2015 to  EUR  138.751 in 2016. Also the average 
fees and management cost as a percentage of volume of all Final Recipient Transactions 
signed  and  reported  have  fallen  sharply  from  34%  to  3%,  suggesting  higher  efficiency 
from the Commission’s perspective.  

The  evaluation  shows  that  EaSI  was  efficient  in  its  first  implementation  period. 
PROGRESS improved access to reliable data for policymakers at EU and national level 
(e.g. databases, comparative studies and tested social innovations) and EURES increased 
the transparency of job vacancies and offered support services for jobseekers/employers 
across  participating  countries.  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  also  improved 
access to finance, ensured better terms and conditions for obtaining loans, increased the 
visibility of financial intermediaries, and improved awareness of microfinance and social 
entrepreneurship markets. 

Analysis of the three axes reveals that while the budget allocation for PROGRESS and 
EURES remain sufficient, more flexible reallocation between the different strands should 
be  enabled  to  cover  the  needs  of  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  in  particular. 
Also,  given  that  the  programme’s  budget  could  not  be  increased,  greater  emphasis  on 
themes  where  EaSI  can  make  a  difference  and  better  thematic  coherence  in  relation  to 
different  types  of  activities  (e.g.  social  experimentation,  EU-level  NGO  networking, 
cross-border cooperation, microfinance and social entrepreneurship) might be useful. 

It has also emerged that EaSI funds are difficult  for small participating countries to tap 
into: they have less capacity and knowledge than other Member States that can build on 

28 

 
their  use  of  predecessor  programmes  and  that  have  more  resources  to  devote  to  EaSI 
participation.  In  addition,  co-financing  is  becoming  increasingly  problematic  for 
organisations,  not  only  financially  (in  particular  for  small  participating  countries),  but 
also  because  it  is  not  always  clear  to  applicants  for  calls  for  proposals,  for  instance, 
whether they are expected to contribute in labour costs or actual money. 

5.4.  Coherence 

The  evaluation  questions  on  the  coherence  of  EaSI  were  grouped  in  two  topics  for 
analysis:  coherence  accruing  from  merging  the  three  previous  programmes  and 
coherence with other EU and participating countries’ programmes. 

5.4.1.  Coherence accruing from merging the three previous programmes 

The  aim  of  grouping  the  three  axes  under  one  umbrella  programme  was  to  create 
synergies and achieve the common objective of promoting employment, social inclusion 
and labour mobility. Through building on the past success of each axis, the ultimate goal 
of the new programme launched in 2014 was to achieve improved coordination between 
activities, greater policy coherence and more effective delivery and management. 

Data collected suggest that the three axes operate rather independently. Different sources 
(case  studies  and  interviews)  could  not  identify  a  clear  impact  and  there  was  no 
consensus on these questions in the open public consultation or the beneficiaries survey. 
Stakeholders’ opinions on this issue were mixed. Some of them agreed that the merger 
had  improved  the  coherence  of  the  programme,  while  others  did  not  see  any  synergies 
between the three strands. Other stakeholders saw the merger as a purely administrative 
exercise  or  even  believed  the  programme  should  be  divided  into  separate  programmes 
again.  Stakeholders may have had no strong feelings on this question because they did 
not notice significant changes in implementation after the merger. 

The  evidence  collected  indicates  that  merging  the  three  predecessor  programmes  has 
mainly  administrative  impacts,  i.e.  it  rationalises  the  European  Commission  resources 
allocated  to  the  programme’s  coordination  and  implementation.  The  evaluation  also 
points out that one of the effects of introducing minimum indicative shares for each axis 
was  that  budgets  cannot  be  easily  moved  to  an  axis  in  more  demand  to  ensure  faster 
deployment of funds when needed. 

Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  also  found  that  the  support  provided  under  EaSI  is  more 
effective in some cases than in the predecessor programmes. For instance, the synergies 
created  between  PROGRESS  and  EURES  have  resulted  in  calls  for  proposals  in 
areas  of  working  conditions  and  employment,  EU-level  NGO  network  support  and 
mutual  learning  activities.  In  the  policy  area  of  working  conditions,  EaSI  and  its 
predecessor PROGRESS funded national and transnational cooperation projects through 
two calls for proposals on posting of workers published in 2015 and 2016. Their aim was 
to  enhance  the  implementation,  application  and  enforcement  of  Directive  96/71/EC  on 
the posting of workers where services are provided across borders. In the policy area of 
employment,  PROGRESS  has  funded  awareness  raising,  dissemination  and  outreach 
activities  on  Youth  Guarantee  offers.  Two  calls  for  proposals  on  this  action  were 
launched  in  2015  and  2016.  Moreover,  mutual  learning  among  EURES  actors  and 
training  of  EURES  advisers,  including  EURES  cross-border  partnership  advisers,  are 
financed under PROGRESS. 

29 

 
 
PROGRESS also supports Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship by funding policy 
evidence activities, information sharing and mutual learning, and support for actors 
in the microfinance sector (e.g. the European Microfinance Network, European Venture 
Philanthropy  Association  and  the  Microfinance  Centre,  and  EaSI  Technical  Assistance 
for  microcredit  providers).  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  in  particular  offers  assistance  to 
microcredit providers and business development tools for the wider microcredit sector. 

EURES  focuses  on  intra-EU  labour  mobility  by  providing  information,  guidance  and 
recruitment/placement  services  for  employers,  jobseekers  and  citizens  wishing  to  take 
advantage  of  freedom  of  movement  for  workers.  This  support  covers  all  phases  of 
placement, from pre-recruitment preparation to post-placement assistance. By financing 
these activities, EURES works towards EaSI’s goal of high quality, inclusive EU labour 
markets  accessible  to  all.  So  —  using  different  means  —  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  and  EURES  both  support  employment  in  a  coherent  and 
complementary way.  

5.4.2.  Coherence with other EU and national programmes 

The  evaluation  also  examined  EaSI’s  complementarity  and  synergies  with  other  EU 
programmes. 

The data collected indicate that EaSI complements actions not only under the European 
structural and investment funds (ESIF), particularly the European Social Fund (ESF), but 
EU  funds  such  as  EURAXESS62,  Erasmus+,  Horizon  2020,  COSME63  and  SOLVIT64. 
For  example,  the  first  cycle  of  the  ‘SHARE  wave  6  Croatia’  project  was  financed  by 
PROGRESS and its project team has  already secured funding for the next cycle under 
the  Horizon  2020  programme.  Other  projects  complement  EU-level  initiatives  by  other 
DGs. For instance, the INNOVCare project builds on the project partners’ experience in 
expert groups on rare diseases organised by the Directorate-General for Health and Food 
Safety. 

EURES supports cross-border connections, with a transnational framework, whereas the 
ESF supports purely national activities, under national rules, so the two complement each 
other. They do not overlap, because ESF actions focus on supporting individual workers 
at national level (by providing information and services, active labour market measures) 
while EaSI supports the functioning of the European job search network as a whole and 
transparency  of  labour  markets  in  general.  It  does  this  through  a  common  training 
programme  for  staff  of  EURES  member  organisations  and  by  developing  and 
maintaining the European job mobility portal. 

While  other  EU  programmes  such  as  Erasmus+  and  EURAXESS  encourage  labour 
mobility,  EaSI’s  EURES  axis  is  the  only  one  with  a  focus  purely  on  cross-border 
mobility. Moreover, EURES supports projects that have a particular added value at EU 
level. Projects on services for specific target groups, like workers in cross-border regions, 
fall into this category. But so do projects for particular target groups that can be reached 

62 EURAXESS — Researchers in Motion is a pan-European initiative delivering information and support 
services  to  professional  researchers.  Backed  by  the  European  Union  and  its  Member  States,  it  supports 
researcher mobility and career development, while enhancing scientific collaboration between Europe and 
the world (https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/). 
63  COSME  is  an  European  Union  programme  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  managed  by  DG 
GROWTH (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/cosme/). 
64  SOLVIT  is  a  service  provided  by  the  national  administration  in  each  EU  country  and  in  Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway. SOLVIT is free of charge. 
30 

 
                                                 
throughout  the  EU  under  the  same  rules,  so  there  is  equal  treatment  and  they  have  a 
specific  logic  (‘Your  first  EURES  job’).  In  this  way,  specific  EaSI-funded  services 
complement  the  more  general  information,  assistance  and  guidance  that  individual 
countries  provide  to  workers  interested  in  mobility.  In  this  area,  a  good  example  of 
upscaling a project started under EaSI and making it ‘national’ was Spain’s decision to 
take on project activities first financed by ‘Your first EURES job’ and run them under a 
similar national programme co-funded by the ESF. 

While there are many programmes funding  a variety of stakeholders and  target  groups, 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  is  the  only  one  that  focuses  solely  on 
financially  supporting  microenterprises  and  social  enterprises.  COSME,  for  instance, 
promotes entrepreneurship and seeks to improve the business environment for SMEs; but 
COSME and EaSI differ both in terms of their target groups and in the type and size of 
the funds. So the two programmes can be seen as complementary and not overlapping. 
The  InnovFin  programme  (EU  Finance  for  Innovators)65  offers  early-stage  equity 
investment  to  microenterprises,  SMEs  and  social  enterprises  and  so  complements  EaSI 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  funding.  InnovFin  aims  to  support  investment  in 
enterprises of any size (from microenterprises and small businesses to large businesses); 
but its main feature is its focus on research and innovation investments across the entire 
value  chain  of  research  and  innovation.  To  be  eligible,  businesses  therefore  need  to 
operate in the sectors listed under Horizon 2020. Given this restriction, InnovFin and the 
EaSI  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  do  not  overlap,  but  complement  each 
other. 

Nor  were  overlaps  detected  between  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  and  ESF 
microcredit  actions.  For  instance,  the  ESF  Microcredit  Fund  in  the  Italian  region  of 
Campania  —  active  between  January  2014  and  December  2016  —  improved  access  to 
finance for young people, the unemployed, women, migrants and disadvantaged persons 
in a region of Italy hit hard by the economic and financial crisis. Despite its similarities 
with  EaSI’s  Microfinance  window,  the  regional  focus  of  the  ESF  Microcredit  Fund 
makes it different and not overlapping with EaSI. 

By  contrast,  some  overlap  was  detected  with  another  EU  regional  fund  providing 
financing  to  microenterprises  and  small  enterprises,  the  European  Fund  for  South  East 
Europe (EFSE). Operating since 2007, this fund aims to provide financing to micro and 
small-scale enterprises, together with rural and housing loans, through qualified financial 
intermediaries in the South East European region66. The fund partly overlaps with EaSI’s 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, as they both  serve  microenterprises by using the 
local  financial sector to  provide micro loans, and some of their target  countries are the 
same. Nevertheless, as the main objective of EFSE is to provide ‘development finance’, 
the  underlying  aims  of  the  two  programmes  differ,  and  they  can  be  considered 
complementary. 

Finally,  no  overlaps  between  the  objectives  of  EaSI  and  the  objectives  of  national 
instruments/programmes were found. In particular, the open public consultation shows a 
significant consensus on the importance of maintaining each type of EU instrument even 
where minor overlaps are identified.  The evidence gathered indicates that EaSI is more 
complementary with national funding instruments than regional funding. Examples from 

65 InnovFin — EU Finance for Innovators’ is a joint initiative launched by the European Investment Bank 
Group  (EIB  and  EIF) 
the  European  Commission  under  Horizon  2020 
(http://www.eib.org/products/blending/innovfin/index.htm). 
66 European Investment Bank. 2017. European Fund for South East Europe. 2017, 2 June. Retrieved from 
http://www.eib.org/projects/loan/loan/20050436. 

in  cooperation  with 

31 

 
                                                 
that 

PROGRESS  show 
local  services  require  greater 
involvement by local and/or regional authorities, in contrast with country-wide delivery. 
The  ‘posting  of  workers’  projects  are  clear  examples  of  the  importance  of  having 
regional and national authorities involved when dealing with transnational matters. 

interventions 

involving 

For example, EURES’ coherence with national programmes could be jeopardised by the 
dependence that EURES funding can sometimes create for certain organisations. Indeed, 
they may become dependent on EU funding and eventually not use the relevant national 
funding.  It  is  important  that  EaSI  funding  complements  national  funding  and  does  not 
substitute for it. 

regard 

With 
funding  and 
to  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  EaSI 
national/regional  policies  are  not  always  consistent.  This  is  because  EaSI’s  goals  and 
actions  are  not  always  aligned  with  specific  national  and  regional  policies.  So  efforts 
should  be  made  to  ensure  that  EaSI  actions  do  not  interfere  with  programmes  already 
under way, and that the EU financial instruments are complementary. 

5.5. 

 EU added value 

The  evaluation  shows  EaSI’s  undeniable  added  value  compared  to  what  could  be 
achieved  by  Member  States  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels.  EaSI  is  the  one  EU-
level  programme  in  the  social  field  that  is  open  to  many  participating  countries67  and 
combines:  the  production  of  comparative  analytical  knowledge  (e.g.  studies,  databases, 
methodologies);  exchange  of  good  practices  and  mutual  learning  activities;  promotion 
and testing of social innovations; matching and placement thanks to the combined effect 
of the online platform matching capabilities (EURES job portal); the roll out of targeted 
placement services for young workers (‘Your first EURES job’); creation of cross-border 
partnerships;  support 
to 
microenterprises. EaSI support also fulfilled a vital function by enabling EU-level NGO 
networking and capacity building for stakeholders across the programme’s participating 
countries. 

for  social  enterprises;  and 

the  provision  of 

loans 

These findings tend to suggest that thanks to the EaSI programme, more relevant projects 
were  supported  than  would  have  been  possible  through  only  national  or  other  EU 
funding.  The  implications  for  employment,  social  affairs  and  inclusion  —  should  the 
EaSI  programme  be  discontinued  —  would  be  clearly  negative.  For  instance,  both 
employment  opportunities  and  jobseekers’  intra-EU  mobility  would  decrease,  as  would 
cooperation  between  the  stakeholders,  the  availability  of  analytical  knowledge  across 
participating countries, access to finance and opportunities to test social innovations. 
Another  added  value  of  EaSI  comes  from  its  transnational  dimension:  there  are  few 
equivalents in the programme’s participating countries in terms of scale and scope. The 
evidence  gathered  shows  that  EURES  is  able  to  support  broader  cross-border  projects 
than  is  possible  at  national  level;  no  other  programme  combines  building  cooperation 
links  across  borders  with  delivering  services  and  information  to  facilitate  mobility. 
PROGRESS, too, contributes to building EU-level networks and produces comparative 
analyses  not  prioritised  at  other  levels  of  government,  such  as  multi-country  databases, 
studies, statistics, social policy experimentations, capacity building and mutual learning 
activities. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship also appears to fill a clear gap in the 

67 Member States, candidate, pre-candidate and EFTA/EEA countries (Iceland participates in all three axes, 
Norway participates only in PROGRESS and EURES, Lichtenstein does not participate in EaSI at all, and 
Switzerland participates only in EURES, at its own expense). 

32 

 
                                                 
supply of microfinance loans and support to social entrepreneurship in the programme’s 
participating countries. 

Nevertheless, there is strong evidence to suggest that it would be useful for organisations 
and individuals to learn more about the results of EaSI’s activities and evidence of EaSI’s 
impact.  There  is  still  room  to  improve  communication  on  programme  activities  and 
dissemination of results, for instance by increasing the frequency and adapting the timing 
of  information  provision,  providing  more  country-specific  examples  and  examples  of 
good  practice,  regularly  updating  the  relevant  websites,  organising  specific  events, 
making information available in more languages and making content more accessible for 
the general public. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  information  on  EaSI’s  outputs  has  improved  in  quantity 
and quality. In particular, some reports have been issued with systematic descriptions and 
analyses  of  project  results  and  programme  activities.  Overall  public  knowledge  and 
awareness  of  EaSI’s  added  value  could  also  be  boosted  through  more  in-depth  meta-
analysis of projects, in particular the social experimentation projects carried out as part of 
PROGRESS,  in  order  to  highlight  the  main  messages  and  to  judge  the  conditions  for 
transferring or upscaling them. 

5.6.  Governance 

The evaluation explored the composition, roles and responsibilities of the levels involved 
in programme governance to establish whether these are clear and sufficient for effective 
coordination  and  coherence  in  relation  to  national  programmes,  and  for  a  high  level  of 
transparency  and  accountability  to  the  participating  countries.  The  evidence  gathered 
shows  that  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion’s  rules  and  communication 
channels ensure smooth internal coordination of the programme. So the analysis focused 
mainly  on  interaction  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  national  levels 
represented  in  the  EaSI  Committee.  The  evaluation  points  out  that  perceptions  of  EaSI 
differ across the programme’s participating countries. For instance, in the countries that 
are major beneficiaries of the European structural and investment funds (ESIF), there is a 
tendency  to  perceive  EaSI  as  relatively  minor  and  difficult  to  access.  EaSI  Committee 
membership  reflects  this  mix  of  perspectives,  which  may  boost  the  group  dynamic  but 
may also be a potential source of conflicting interests at times. 

The  evidence  —  in  particular  from  the  focus  group  of  EaSI  Committee  members  — 
suggests  that  members’  views  on  appropriate  policy  choices  and  the  allocation  of 
resources between the three axes are not systematically canvassed to allow participating 
countries to  state their priorities.  It  also  appears  that EaSI Committee members  are not 
well  equipped  as  points  of  contact  and  ‘coordinators’  of  EaSI  at  national  level. 
Committee members do not  think they are informed in  good time of the publication of 
calls for proposals and notification of the results. Consequently, they consider themselves 
unable  to  pass  on  information  at  national  level  at  the  right  time  and  answer  questions 
raised by potential applicants. 

These findings indicate that despite the efficient coordination of the programme, there is 
still room to improve EaSI’s governance. For instance, holding meetings more often and 
including  policy  messages  from  other  EU  committees,  especially  the  SPC  and  EMCO 
committees,  could  help  to optimise inputs from the EaSI Committee. Commission staff 
and EaSI Committee members could feed ‘information memos’ to the meetings, covering 
examples of projects funded and recommendations that could be fed into policy cycles, 
including the European Semester. Also, EaSI Committee members could be informed by 

33 

 
email when a call for proposals or the results of an evaluation procedure are published on 
the Europa website. 

Inviting  an  occasional/ad  hoc  expert  to  EaSI  Committee  meetings  could  be  also  useful 
when  discussing  specific  technical  topics.  EaSI  Committee  members  could  also  be 
encouraged to identify a number of ‘agents of change’ at national level whose role would 
be to ‘mine’ the results of projects and to ensure that those most likely to directly benefit 
from  the  findings  are  informed  though  direct  communications,  meetings,  seminars  and 
access to dedicated websites. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

This section summarises the key findings and issues for consideration in the second half 
of  the  programme’s  implementation  and  after  2020.  The  conclusions  cover  the 
evaluation’s six themes: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value 
and programme governance. 

6.1.   Relevance 

The  mid-term  evaluation  finds  that  all  the  activities  undertaken  in  the  first  half  of  the 
programme are in line with the goals set in the EaSI Regulation. EaSI’s original rationale 
and  its  five  general  objectives  are  still  highly  relevant,  particularly  in  the  current 
challenging socioeconomic context of the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis, 
with a welcome but slow recovery. The programme’s objectives are also still pertinent in 
light of recent political events likely to impact the EU in the coming years. For instance, 
with  a  large  influx  of  refugees  and  immigrants,  the  share  of  vulnerable  people  has 
significantly  increased,  making  their  successful  integration  one  of  the  highest  priorities 
across the EU in the next couple of years and an important challenge for society.  

Still,  EaSI’s  relevance  and  impacts  could  be  improved.  Analytical  tools,  dissemination 
events  and 
issues,  youth 
innovative  projects  should  focus  more  on  gender 
unemployment,  inequalities  (income,  education,  skills)  and  the  fight  against  social 
exclusion, putting greater focus on transferability and the possibility of upscaling social 
innovations. 

PROGRESS and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship can play an important role in 
this process by prioritising social inclusion activities and access to finance for vulnerable 
groups. EURES should continue to fund projects targeted at groups with economic needs 
(as is the case with ‘Your first EURES job’ and cross-border partnerships). 

The  topics  of  mutual  learning  activities  —  e.g.  labour  market  integration  measures  for 
young people, asylum seekers, refugees and long-term unemployed people, future skills 
needs — closely followed priorities set in the Employment Guidelines and the country-
specific  recommendations  as  part  of  the  European  Semester  cycle  of  economic 
coordination  between  countries68.  The  European  Semester  was  also  supported  by  other 
EaSI-funded analytical activities, in particular the Employment and Social Development 
Report and the Labour Force Survey.  In its analytical  activities, the programme should 
prioritise the exchange of good practices between policymakers across the participating 
countries through mutual learning, awareness raising and dissemination activities. 

Similarly,  disseminating  good  practices  from  different  countries  —  including  social 
experimentation  —  more  widely  at  operational  level  creates  awareness  of  innovative 

68 See Performance monitoring report 2015-2016. 

34 

 
                                                 
practices  introduced  across  the  Member  States  and  helps  national  and  local  actors  to 
deliver  better  services  and  products.  So  maintaining  EU-level  networks  is  crucial  to 
aligning  the  different  policy  agendas  across  different  levels  of  government  and  the 
participating  countries.  In  practice,  more  flexible  resource  allocation  across  the  three 
programme axes (instead of the current minimum indicative percentages set in the EaSI 
Regulation)  would  allow  more  scope  for  transferring  budgets  between  them  when 
needed.  This  could  particularly  help  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  where 
spending  is  demand-driven.  Greater  flexibility  would  also  boost  responsiveness  to 
emerging needs (for instance new initiatives such as the European Solidarity Corps69 and 
‘New start for social dialogue’70). 

6.2.  Effectiveness 

Despite  the  limited  data  sets  available,  the  evaluation  presents  evidence  that  EaSI  was 
effective in reaching relevant stakeholders, producing desired outcomes and achieving its 
objectives. Hence, EaSI has greatly helped to increase awareness of EU policy on social 
inclusion  and  poverty  reduction,  improve  perceptions  of  the  cross-border  potential  for 
employment,  rapidly  test  and  implement  innovative  measures,  and  increase  access  to 
microfinance loans and support for entrepreneurship. EaSI also facilitated policy change 
through  comparative  research,  exchanges  and  capacity-building,  in  this  way  helping 
different stakeholders to influence the formulation and implementation of socioeconomic 
policies in the programme’s participating countries. 

PROGRESS  is  most  effective  in  facilitating  information  sharing,  mutual  learning  and 
dialogue,  and  in  developing  and  disseminating  comparative  and  analytical  knowledge. 
One  of  EURES’  more  effective  activities  is  contributing  to  the  development  of  a 
transparent 
labour  market.  Evidence  on  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship 
suggests that EaSI funding has increased the availability of and access to finance across 
the participating countries. 

In access to finance, promoted by Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship, the evaluation 
shows  that  vulnerable  groups  were  already  an  important  focus.  However,  vulnerable 
groups do not represent the majority of final beneficiaries. They still encounter barriers to 
accessing finance. Based on the annual impact data (September 2016), on average 35 % 
of micro-borrowers are women, over 40 % are below 30 years old or above 50 years old, 
close  to  20 %  are  unemployed  persons  (versus  62 %  self-employed/entrepreneur)  and 
10 %  have  a  migrant  background  (non-EU).  More  actions  need  to  focus  on  vulnerable 
groups, and therefore explore the possibility of introducing minimum targets for them for 
the  remainder  of  the  EaSI  programme.  For  instance,  an  additional  amount  of  EUR 1 
million  was  added  in  the  EaSI  work  programme  2017  to  help  finance  non-financial 
‘business development services’ (e.g. coaching and training) for refugees and migrants. 
Policy-based  incentives  for  the  EIF  could  also  be  considered  when  designing  future 
instruments to further promote outreach to vulnerable groups. 

The  evaluation  pinpointed  a  number  of  ways  of  improving  effectiveness  across  the 
programme.  PROGRESS,  while  continuing  to  cover  policy  themes  relevant  to  and 
appreciated  by  stakeholders  (e.g.  employment,  working  conditions),  should  improve 
efforts  to  deliver  social  experimentation  by  better  embedding  it  in  the  policymaking 
process71.  Very  often,  programmes  in  the  field  of  social  policy  lack  robust  evidence  of 

69 https://europa.eu/youth/solidarity_en 
70 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=88&langId=en&eventsId=1028 
71 The social experimentation method allows policy innovation to be tested on a small scale, to determine 
the  impact  of  changes  in  social  policy.  Its  significance  therefore  depends  not  only  on  the  valuable 
35 

 
                                                 
what works and what does not work. Social experiments may help to prevent expensive 
launches  of  untested  programmes,  measures  or  policies  that  fail;  to  provide  inspiration 
for policymakers; and to develop comprehensive responses to particular social problems 
and  related  policy  decisions,  resulting  in  policies  that  would  not  be  adopted  otherwise. 
For  EURES,  a  longer  implementation  period  (2  years  at  a  minimum)  combined  with 
measures to reduce the administrative burden of call management should be considered, 
to  enable  stakeholders  to  properly  develop  projects,  implement  them,  measure  their 
effectiveness 
For  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship,  a  stronger  focus  on  vulnerable  groups  for  the  second  EaSI 
implementation  period  is  suggested,  e.g.  by  setting  a  target  for  the  share/number  of 
vulnerable groups in calls for proposals. 

sustainability. 

ensure 

their 

and 

6.3.  Efficiency 

The  evaluation  provides  insights  into  the  match  between  available  means  and  the 
programme’s  objectives.  However,  due  to  the  type  of  activity  and  the  influence  of 
conditions  outside the programme’s control, it proved difficult  to  conclude much about 
EaSI’s  efficiency.  While  the  financial  means  available  were  sufficient  to  implement 
PROGRESS 
for  Microfinance/Social 
and  EURES 
Entrepreneurship was too low. 

the  budget 

activities, 

The efficiency of PROGRESS could be further improved by reducing the administrative 
burden in the projects’ award and implementation stages. Moreover, it is not always clear 
to applicants whether co-financing should be in labour costs or in actual cash value. This 
should be clarified. Regarding EURES, larger amounts were committed to the allocation 
for transparency of job vacancies than originally planned, in order to introduce new IT; 
however, the development of services remained relatively stable. The high uptake of the 
EaSI  guarantee  instrument  under  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  put  pressure 
on its budget  and  resulted in  full utilisation of the Microfinance budget.  In response to 
the  strong  demand,  it  is  planned  to  use  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investment 
(EFSI72)  guarantee  to  top-up  the  EaSI  loan  guarantee  instrument  in  the  second 
implementation period.  

Overall, more flexible reallocation between the three axes should be enabled in order to 
minimise  discrepancies  between  planned  and  actual  commitments,  and  ensure  optimal 
transfer of budgets between the three where needed. 

6.4.  Coherence 

The overall perception of programme coherence gained through the evaluation is that the 
three predecessors programmes were merged under the EaSI umbrella more in response 
to a simplification exercise than to the stakeholders’ needs. The evaluation concludes that 
despite  efforts 
they  operate  quite 
independently.  All  programme  activities  should  have  a  stronger  focus  on  the  potential 
benefits  of  a  coherent  programme  structure,  promoting  interdisciplinary  solutions  to 
multiple challenges. 

to  build  synergies  between 

three  axes 

the 

Regarding consistency with other EU programmes, EaSI is most strongly consistent with 
the ESF.  PROGRESS and other EU programmes such as the ESF, Erasmus+, Horizon 

information  it  provides,  but  also  on  whether  it  is  used  to  estimate  the  impact  of  new  social  policies  or 
programmes and on whether they can eventually be replicated and/or upscaled. 
72 The EFSI is one of three mainstays of the Investment Plan for Europe and aims to address market gaps 
and  mobilise  private  investment  (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/funding/efsi_en).  The 
EFSI is managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB). 

36 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
programme 

(Interreg)  was 

2020 and COSME complement each other in terms of specific objectives, activities and 
the  European  Territorial 
beneficiaries.  Complementarity  between  EURES  and 
Cooperation 
found.  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship also appears to be consistent with other microfinance instruments at 
EU level. They support either SMEs (like the COSME financial guarantee) or companies 
up  to  large  caps  (InnovFin),  where  EaSI  supports  only  microenterprises  or  social 
enterprises.  They  also  offer  larger  financing  amounts  (InnovFin  and  COSME),  and 
greater variety in terms of financial products (like the InnovFin programme). They focus 
only  on  specific  groups  of  beneficiaries  in  certain  countries,  while  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship addresses all participating countries. 

also 

However, despite the complementarities between EaSI and other EU instruments, further 
coherence is hampered by the variety of intervention logic and rules governing the funds. 
The  co-existence  of  different  rulebooks  (the  Financial  Regulation  for  financial 
instruments,  and  the  Common  Provisions  Regulations  for  structural  funds)  makes  it 
challenging to tap into complementarities between different funds. Specific mechanisms 
have  to  be  put  in  place  in  order  to  facilitate  synergies  between  different  EU  funds,  for 
instance  enabling  the  social  experimentation  tested  under  EaSI  to  be  scaled  up  or 
multiplied with ESF funding.  

Streamlining  the  rules  could  help  to  maximise  the  potential  of  such  complementarities 
and synergies. One option for ESF managing authorities could be to make a ring-fenced 
contribution to the centrally managed instruments to benefit from economies of scale and 
existing expertise. A pilot with a contribution from the Comunidad de Madrid to the EaSI 
guarantee is under preparation and would provide the first example of a contribution to 
an EU-level instrument under the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR).  

At national level, no significant overlap between EaSI’s objectives and those of national 
in  particular, 
instruments/programmes  was  found.  The  stakeholder  consultation, 
highlighted  the  consensus  on  the  importance  of  maintaining  each  type  of  instrument  at 
EU  level,  even  if  minor  overlaps  between  the  instruments  at  EU  and  national  level 
persist. These overlaps could be overcome by further strengthening national, regional and 
local  stakeholders’  involvement  in  EaSI  activities  and  by  providing  them  with  tools, 
transferable/comparative  knowledge  and 
the  design  and 
implementation of interventions addressing social issues. 

relevant  support 

for 

6.5.  EU added value 

EaSI produced demonstrable EU added value in  terms of scope and scale, compared to 
national  and  regional  support.  Should  EaSI  be  discontinued,  this  would  have 
repercussions  in  many  sectors.  It  would  be  unlikely  that  other  national  or  regional 
funding  schemes  would  be  able  to  support  policy  experimentation  across  different 
participating countries and EU-level multidisciplinary networks, as EaSI currently does. 
EaSI  is  also  the  most  suitable  vehicle  for  EU-wide  deliverables  such  as  comparative 
databases,  studies  and  mutual  learning  activities  that  are  not  top  priority  at  other 
governance levels.  

Furthermore, there are no other EU resources available which are specifically designed 
for  cross-border  partnerships,  although  the  ERDF’s  Interreg  programmes  can  support 
employment  policies  in  cross-border  regions  if  programmed  by  the  Member  States 
concerned.  Nor  are  there  EU  resources  specifically  designed  for  supporting  the 
modernisation  and  strengthening  of  online  services  (portals)  provided  by  public 
employment  services  (PES)  under  EURES,  although  the  ESF  can  support  capacity 
building for the PES if programmed by the Member State concerned. 

37 

 
With  regard  to  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship,  support  for  the  social 
investment market would most likely slow down without funding from EaSI, leading to 
less social business across the EU and fewer employment opportunities in these sectors. 
EU  support  serves  as  a  powerful  signal  to  drive  change  at  national  level  and  helps  to 
transfer  expertise  and  know-how  between  countries.  In  addition,  the  objectives  of 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship go beyond disbursing loans to vulnerable groups; 
its  underlying  logic  is  to  address  market  gaps/failures  and  to  develop  market-based 
instruments, while supporting a broader ecosystem for social finance markets. This is in 
line with one of the Commission’s goals in increasing the use of financial instruments to 
attract  private  finance  and  encourage  new  systemic  developments  in  social  finance 
markets. Indeed, the work carried out under EaSI extends beyond the management of the 
financial instruments; it drives a variety of measures to develop an ecosystem for social 
finance markets. Examples include grants to develop both the supply and demand side of 
social  finance,  but  also  non-financial  initiatives  such  as  the  Code  of  Good  Conduct  for 
Microcredit Provision, which helps to raise standards in the microfinance sector. 

Continuous efforts are, however, necessary in terms of communication on EaSI activities 
and dissemination of its results. Stakeholders are eager to receive further information and 
feel  that  through  better  dissemination  they  could  gain  great  benefits,  particularly  from 
country-specific examples and  good practices, updated websites  and databases,  a wider 
range  of  languages  for  communication  and  content  that  is  more  accessible  to  a  broad 
audience. The benefits brought by the visibility and reputation of the EaSI programme as 
a whole, in terms of access to finance and the results of the work supported, also need to 
be communicated better. 

6.6.  EaSI governance 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  programme  governance  and  communication  between 
stakeholders  need  to  be  improved.  It  emerged  from  the  focus  group  with  the  EaSI 
Committee  that  its  members  would  like  more  ownership  of  the  allocation  of  funds  and 
the programming of activities, in particular the calls for proposals. 

The evaluation also found that thematic working groups would be useful to deepen EaSI 
Committee  members’  knowledge  of  technical  matters.  The  occasional  use  of  expert 
guidance  is  also  viewed  as  potentially  useful  for  certain  topics.  The  evaluation  also 
pointed out that the Committee’s members do not have enough information on projects 
selected  and  implemented  in  their  countries.  More  and  timely  information  on  the 
programming  and  publication  of  the  calls  for  proposals  needs  to  be  shared  with  the 
Committee  so  that  it  can  be  easily  passed  to  organisations  that  may  be  interested  in 
responding  to  calls  for  proposals.  Similarly,  more  feedback  on  rejected  applications 
should be given to candidates to help them improve their applications.  

Limited links between the EaSI Committee and other European Commission committees 
were  identified.  More  cooperation  with  other  committees  to  exchange  information  and 
more regular discussions between the EaSI Committee and the Commission are seen as 
necessary. 

38 

 
 
 
LESSONS LEARNED  

  The mid-term evaluation time frame, as set out in the EaSI Regulation, was carried 
out too early. Future evaluations should be scheduled to allow more results and wider 
impacts to emerge and support the analysis. 

  More  flexible  reallocation  between  the  three  axes  should  be  enabled  in  order  to 
minimise  discrepancies  between  planned  and  actual  commitments,  and  ensure 
optimal  transfer  of  budgets  between  the  three  axes  where  needed.This  could 
particularly  help  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis,  where  spending  is 
demand-driven.  

  Reagarding the programme’s effectiveness: PROGRESS axis should improve efforts 
to  deliver  social  policy  experimentation;  for  EURES,  a  longer  implementation 
period  (2  years  at  a  minimum)  should  be  considered;  for  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship, increasing the focus on vulnerable groups, e.g. by setting a target 
for the share/number of vulnerable groups in calls for proposals. 

  Despite  the  complementarities  between  EaSI  and  other  EU  instruments,  further 
coherence  is  hampered  by  the  variety  of  intervention  logic  and  rules  governing  the 
funds.  Specific  mechanisms  have  to  be  put  in  place  in  order  to  improve  synergies 
between different EU funds, for instance enabling the social experimentation tested 
under  EaSI  to  be  scaled  up  or  multiplied  with  ESF  funding.  Streamlining  the  rules 
could help to maximise the potential of such complementarities and synergies. 

  EaSI produced demonstrable EU added value in terms of scope and scale, compared 
to national and regional support. It would be unlikely that other national or regional 
funding  schemes  would  be  able  to  support  policy  experimentation  across  different 
participating countries and EU-level NGO networks as EaSI currently does. EaSI is 
also  an  appropriate  vehicle  for  EU-wide  deliverables  such  as  comparative 
databases, studies, mutual learning activities, support for the social investment market 
and cross-border partnerships. 

 

Improvements  are  necessary  in  terms  of  communication  on  EaSI  activities  and 
dissemination of its results. Stakeholders feel that through better dissemination they 
could gain great benefits, particularly in terms of access to finance, results, country-
specific examples and good practices, updated websites and databases, a wider range 
of languages for communication. 

  Committee  members  felt  there  was  a  need  for  more  involvement  in  decision-
making  process  and  more  ownership  of  the  allocation  of  funds  and  the 
programming/topics of the calls for proposals. 

39 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The mid-term evaluation for the EaSI programme was led by the Directorate-General for 
Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs. 

2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

This Commission SWD is based on the outcomes of an external evaluation carried out by 
ICF  Consulting  Services73  (Request  for  Service  VT/2015/055  contract  VC/2016/  0367 
under  the  Framework  Service  Contract  VC/2013/0083  —  Lot  1:  evaluation  and 
evaluative studies). The entire assignment was delivered within 18 months from the date 
of the signature of the contract (23 June 2016).  

The  contractor  was  tasked  with  providing  a  report  offering  answers  to  the  evaluation 
questions in the form of findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report was also 
to  be  accompanied  by  annexes  that  provide  information  on  the  individual  cases  (case 
studies reports). The report draws on a series of qualitative and quantitative information 
and relies on a variety of sources of information to reach conclusions. To be able to come 
to  a  conclusive  judgement,  the  contractor  was  also  tasked  with    conducting  all 
stakeholder consultations planned, submitting re ports on each one of these activities and 
providing an overall synopsis report covering all consultation work done. 

3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 
All the Better Regulation requirements were fulfilled. 

4. CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD (RSB) (IF APPLICABLE) 
Not applicable. 

5. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The research combined several secondary and primary sources of evidence to answer the 
evaluation  questions:  analysis  of  secondary  data,  an  open  public  consultation,  semi-
structured interviews, a focus group, case studies and a survey of beneficiaries. 

The  evaluation  had  however  obvious  limitations.  Few  projects  were  finished  in  2016, 
which  limited  the  data  available,  while  other  projects  started  have  not  had  the  time  to 
produce  a  full  set  of  outputs  and  impacts.  There  are  also  few  benchmarks  available,  as 
there  is  no  programme  comparable  to  EaSI  in  terms  of  scale  and  coverage.  EaSI’s 
performance  should  thus  be  seen  in  the  context  of  its  role  in  the  wider  support  system 
including EU and national policy initiatives.  

To overcome/mitigate these limitations, the mid-term evaluation cross-checked multiple 
sources of evaluative evidence, combined quantitative and qualitative methods and tools, 
ensured  transparency  of  data  sources  and  systematically  checked  findings  against  input 
from stakeholders. 

73 www.icfi.com 

40 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2: OVERVIEW OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHODS 

Source: EaSI mid-term evaluation 

41 

 
 
 
 
1. Desk research 

A  wide  variety  of  documents  have  been  collected  and  reviewed  to  provide  an 
understanding of the existing literature on the EaSI programme. They came from several 
internal and external sources such as existing evaluations, monitoring reports and related 
websites.  Thus,  the  evaluative  information  about  EaSI  and  its  predecessor  programmes 
included  a  review  of  the  objectives  set  for  EaSI  in  the  Regulation  and  the  documents 
accompanying  it,  in  particular  the  ex  ante  evaluation.  Other  documents  consulted  were 
provided by the European Commission or available on the Europa website. In this regard, 
several  webpages  from  the  European  Commission  website  such  the  ‘EURES  European 
job  mobility  portal’  or  ‘EU  Book  shop’  were  particularly  helpful  as  they  provide  a 
centralised  source  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  data.  A  wide  range  of  additional 
includes  official  Regulations  and 
documents  has  also  been  collected  and 
Communications from the EU, brochure or practical guides carried out by NGOs. 

The desk research approach involved a close cooperation between the contractor and the 
Commission’s  staff  to  ensure  that  the  external  evaluation  team  had  possession  of  and 
understood  all  the  data  available  relevant  to  the  study.  This  variety  of  document  types 
helped  building  an  overall  framework  to  understand  all  the  aspects  of  the  EaSI 
programme  ranging from  the technical  procedures to  the very practical  side. The desks 
research  made  it  possible  to  draw  a  global  snapshot  of  the  evaluation  tasks  and  build 
hypotheses, which were addressed in more depth during the evaluative work. 

A comprehensive documentation mapping is  available in Annex 4 to this staff working 
document as well in the Annex 3.1 to the mid-term evaluation report. 

2. Scoping interviews 

A number of 11 initial scoping semi-structured interviews have been conducted in order 
to  cover  the  following  issues:  vision  of  the  overall  programme  and  of  its  three  axes, 
changes observed over the programming period, programme’s achievements, programme 
governance, management and implementation, expectation from the mid-term evaluation 
and  data  availability.  The  main  findings  of  the  scoping  interviews  have  been  used  to 
refine the intervention logic and the evaluation framework. 

Interviews  were  conducted  with  a  set  of  relevant  stakeholders  identified  through  prior 
stakeholder  mapping.  Stakeholders  interviewed  are  the  officials  from  the  European 
Commission,  country-level  government  officials,  and  private,  public  and  civil  society 
sectors stakeholders. 

The  evaluation  team  used  a  semi-structured  interview  approach  that  provided  a  set  of 
questions to be tackled during the interview while allowing the interviewer to ask follow-
up  questions.  That  approach  enabled  the  evaluation  team  to  obtain  the  largest  possible 
volume of information during each interview. 

The  methodology  applied  for  conducting  the  focus  group  (interview  guide,  list  of 
interviews, summary  of  the main evolutions,  expectation  and rationale per axis  and for 
the overall programme) is detailed in the Annex 3.3 to the mid-term evaluation report. 

3. Open public consultation 

A key component of the mid-term evaluation of the EaSI programme was the open public 
consultation.  Its  objective  was  to  ensure  that  various  stakeholder  groups  can  provide 
input in relation to EaSI programme implementation, as well as ensuring a high level of 
transparency and accountability in the mid-term evaluation. The open public consultation 
42 

 
had a dual role of adding to the evidence base to inform the evaluation process, as well as 
providing input to the future development of the programme. 

Five sets of questions were developed around the evaluation criteria. All questions were 
optional  except  the  self-identification  ones.  The  online  consultation  questionnaire 
included  closed  questions  complemented  with  open  questions  allowing  the  respondents 
to identify new issues not captured in the closed-response questions. 

The questionnaire was tested with different types of stakeholders and refined according 
to  the  feedback  received  during  the  testing  phase.  The  online  consultation  ran  between 
12 October  2016  and  25 January  2017  in  the  three  European  Commission  working 
languages (English, French and German) on ‘Your voice in Europe’ website. During this 
period, related promotion and dissemination activities were carried out through different 
European  Commission  and  external  channels  (e.g.  Your  Voice  in  Europa  website,  DG 
EMPL  website,  social  media  such  as  Facebook,  Twitter  and  LinkedIn,  direct  mailing, 
meetings and  fora). Further, the consultation  was advertised during the  meetings of the 
Employment  Committee  (EMCO),  Social  Protection  Committee  (SPC),  DG  EMPL 
geographical  and  operational  units,  and  EaSI  beneficiaries.  All  were  invited  to 
disseminate information on the consultation. The open public consultation was conducted 
by using the EU Survey tool. 

In total 81 respondents submitted a questionnaire. The in-depth analysis of the answers to 
the open public consultation for the EaSI programme is presented in the synopsis report 
available  on  Europa  website  and  in  Annex  2  to  this  staff  working  document: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=333&langId=en&consultId=25&visib=0&furth
erConsult=yes. The synopsis report is complemented with the overview of the responses 
to  all  the  questions.  All  the  replies  were  published,  except  where  confidentiality  was 
requested  by  the  respondent.  The  synopsis  report  is  also  presented  in  Volume  II 
accompanying the mid-term evaluation report. The methodology used for conducting the 
open public consultation (approach and questionnaires) is detailed in the Annex 3.4 to the 
mid-term evaluation report. 

4. Focus group 

A focus group was organised with EaSI Committee members in November 2016 after the 
regular  Committee  meeting.  Its  objective  was  to  inform  the  evaluation  questions 
concerning the functioning of the EaSI programme and the scope for adjustments. 

The questions regarding the governance structure focused on the way EaSI is governed, 
including  the  composition  as  well  the  existing  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  EaSI 
Committee and their further developments. Other series of questions concentrated on the 
internal  coherence/complementarity  of  EaSI  as  an  umbrella  programme  gathering 
together  three  axes  and  the  coherence/complementarity  of  EaSI  with  other  EU  and 
national  instruments.  The  programme’s  resource  allocation,  the  costs  in  relation  to  the 
outcomes  achieved  and  the  communication  of  information  on  EaSI  activities  were  also 
discussed. 

The meeting was attended by 17 EaSI Committee Members and was moderated by the 
external  evaluation  team.  The  methodology  applied  for  conducting  the  focus  group 
(agenda,  background  information,  objectives,  method,  questions  and  topics  to  be 
discussed, expected outcomes, minutes of the focus groups) is detailed in the Annex 3.2 
to  the  mid-term  evaluation  report.  The  EaSI  Committee  members  opinions  expressed 
during  the  focus  groups  are  summarised  in  the  Volume  IV  to  the  mid-term  evaluation 
report. 

43 

 
5. Case studies 

The case studies selected (7 projects for PROGRESS, 4 projects for EURES, 4 projects 
for  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship)  —  listed  in  the  table  below  —  are 
representative  in  terms  of  objective,  policy  field,  target  group,  innovativeness, 
geographical  coverage  and  amount  of  funding  provided.  The  selection  of  case  studies 
does not allow for ‘representation’ of all facets of EaSI, however, the 15 projects selected 
reflects the diversity and range of EaSI activities and contexts. The purpose of the cases 
studies  were  to  illustrate  the  ‘intervention  logic’  of  EaSI  in  practice,  to  inform  the 
evaluation  questions,  to  point  out  practice  potentials  and  improvements  and  to 
complement the evidence accruing from the other methods applied. 

Table: EaSI mid-term evaluation case studies 
No 
1 

Axis 

Case study 
VS/2015/0249: INNOV-CARE - Innovative Patient-Centred Approach 
for Social Care Provision to Complex Conditions 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

PROGRESS 

EURES 

VS/2015/0179. Nowcasting 

VS/2014/0500. Eurocarers – European Association Working for Carers  

VS/2015/0193. SHARE wave 6 in Croatia 

VS/2015/0055. Posting of workers: enhancing access to info and 
effective practical collaboration of administrative and social partners 
among 3 Baltic States  

VS/2014/0505. PICUM. Platform for International Cooperation on 
Undocumented Migrants 

VS/2016/0105. Youth Guarantee "Three steps to finding a job" 
(currently being conducted) 

VS/2015/0251 YFEJ by Pôle Emploi  

VS/2015/0084 Eures in Grenzregionen Rhein-Waal (ERW), euregio-
rhein-maasnord (ermn), Euregio Maas-Rhein (EMR) 2015  

VS/2015/0062 Euradria 2015  

VS/2015/0269 Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA 
countries (Norway) 

Social Entrepreneurship - LA NEF 

Microfinance / Social 
Entrepreneurship 

Microfinance - QREDITS 

Microfinance – ADIE 

Microfinance - KOMERCNI BANKA  

Source: EaSI mid-term evaluation 

The methodology applied for conducting the case studies (research approach, criteria for 
the  selection  of  the  case  studies,  questionnaire  etc.)  is  detailed  in  the  Annex  3.5  to  the 
mid-term  evaluation  report.  The  case  studies  are  presented  integrally  in  Volume  I 
accompanying the mid-term evaluation report and listed in the table below. 

6. Beneficiaries survey 

The  online  survey  was  designed  to  support  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EaSI 
programme. The survey ran between 23 January and 13 February 2017 and was available 
in one European Commission working language (English). 

44 

 
Following  the  online  launch,  related  promotion  and  dissemination  activity  was  carried 
out  through  different  EC,  and  external  channels:  EUROPA/EMPL/EaSI  website;  social 
media  (Facebook,  Twitter  and  LinkedIn),  communication  channels  of  PPMI  (the 
contractor  for  EaSI  performance  monitoring),  meetings  and  fora,  including  the  EaSI 
Committee, target organisations (e-mailing), other key stakeholders able to distribute the 
consultation in their networks. 

The  questionnaire  was  structured  around  the  five  compulsory  criteria  (relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, EU added value) according to the Better Regulation 
Guidelines.  All  questions  were  optional  except  the  self-identification  ones.  One  survey 
question has been omitted from the analysis due to a low response (less than 3). 

To  ensure  a  representative  and  high-quality  response,  the  online  survey  was  designed 
with  an  automated  routing  structure  that  disabled  questions  deemed  irrelevant  based 
respondents’  answers  to  previous  questions.  This  effectively  shortens  the  length  of  the 
survey and helps minimise question fatigue. 

In terms of the data presentation style, due to the often low question response, numbers, 
rather  than  percentage  of  respondents  have  been  reported.  The  graphs  do  however 
provide a visual representation of proportions for each question category, but are labelled 
by frequency. 

A  total  of  152  respondents  submitted  a  response  —  53  chose  to  answer  the  questions 
based on their experiences of previous project(s) they had developed with EaSI funding 
and 99 with respect to the EaSI programme as a whole. 
the  survey  (research  approach  and 
The  methodology  applied  for  conducting 
questionnaire) is detailed in the Annex 3.6 to the mid-term evaluation report. The survey 
analysis  report  is  presented  in  the  Volume  III  accompanying  the  mid-term  evaluation 
report.  

45 

 
 
ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION TOPICS AND QUESTIONS 

Topics 

Relevance 

Questions 

The  extent  to  which  the  EaSI  programme  and  its  logical  framework  is  relevant  in 
respect to needs, problems and issues identified in target groups.  

Topic 1: continuing 
relevance of general 
objectives. 

To  what  extent  do  the  general  objectives  identified  in 
Article 4 of the EaSI Regulation continue to be relevant? 

What  existing/emerging  challenges  should  be  taken  into 
account  in  the  second  part  of  the  programme  (2017-
2020)?’ 

Topic 2: continuing 
relevance of the specific 
objectives of the three 
axes. 

With  regard  to  the  programme’s  general  objectives  and 
considering  the  socio-economic  situation  and  the  policy 
development, to what extent do the specific objectives as 
well  the  actions/projects  financed  each  year  of  the  three 
axes continue to be relevant? 

Topic 3: continuing 
relevance of resource 
allocation between the 
three axes of EaSI. 

With  regard  to  the  specific  objectives  of  each  axis,  and 
considering the socio-economic and policy development, 
to what extent is the split between the three axes and the 
split between thematic sections still relevant? 

Effectiveness 

The  extent  to  which  EaSI  has  progressed  towards  its  general  objectives  and  its 
horizontal provisions (Articles 4 of the EaSI Regulation), as well as those specifically 
defined for PROGRESS (Article 15 of the EaSI Regulation), EURES (Article 20), and 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship (Article 26). 

Topic 4: effectiveness 
in generating 
outcomes and 
achieving objectives. 

Topic 5: effectiveness 
in bringing about 
change. 

To what extent has the programme as a whole and each 
of its axes delivered the expected outcomes in  terms of 
quantity  and  quality  in  order  to  achieve  the  general 
objectives and its horizontal provisions? 

To  what  extent  have  the  available  financial  means 
enabled the programme as a whole and each of its axes 
to fulfil their objectives entirely and in a timely manner? 

To  what  extent  does  the  current  programme  allow  for 
effective  upscaling  of  interventions  and  for  follow-up 
conditions  and  mechanisms?What  have  been  the  good 
practices in scaling up interventions? 

What  have  been  -  at  this  stage  of  the  implementation  - 
the  qualitative  and  quantitative  changes/effects  of  the 
interventions? 

To  what  extent  can  these  changes/effects  be  credited  to 
the interventions? 

To  what  extent  did  other  different  factors  influence  the 

46 

 
 
 
Topic 6: effectiveness in 
involving stakeholders. 

achievement observed? 

What  have  been 
programme? 

the  unintended  effect  of 

the 

Which  targeted  groups  of  the  programme  have  been 
involved in the programming and implementation of the 
EaSI programme? 

Has there been sufficient involvement of stakeholders in 
the  programming  and  implementation  of  the  EaSI 
programme? 

What were the most effective methods of involvement of 
the targeted groups and stakeholders? 

Efficiency 

The  extent  to  which  the  intended  outputs  and  outcomes  of  EaSI  have  been  achieved 
efficiently, and to what extent flexibility, adjustment and follow-up conditions are being 
set. 

Topic 7: efficiency of 
resource allocation and 
benefits accruing 
(relative to inputs) 

To what extent is the budget allocation and spending as a 
whole,  and  by  axis  and  thematic  sections  proportionate 
and efficient for achieving the programme’s objectives? 

To  what  extent  have  the  available  financial  means 
enabled the programme as a whole and each of its axes 
to fulfil their objectives efficiently? 

Which  are  the  most  significant  advantages  and  benefits 
resulting from these activities for the EU policy makers, 
practitioners  and  the  programme’s  final  beneficiaries 
(e.g. social enterprises employees, vulnerable people)? 

Coherence 

To  what  extent  to  which  the  programme's  activities  have  been  coherent  with  other 
interventions with similar objectives. 

Topic 8: coherence 
accruing from the 
merging of the three 
previous programmes. 

Topic 9: coherence 
with other EU 
programmes. 

To  what  extent  did  the  merging  of  the  three  previous 
programmes  PROGRESS,  EURES  and  PROGRESS 
Microfinance 
internal/external 
improve 
consistency, complementarity and flexibility? 

EaSI 

What kind of synergies has the Programme developed or 
improved between the axes? 

What  level  of  flexibility  -  both  between  axes  and 
between  actions  –  would  be  required  in  order  to  get 
better  outcomes?    (Here  need  to  put  forward  other 
resource allocation models) 

is 

To  what  extent 
this  programme  coherent  and 
complementary (Article 7.1 of the EaSI Regulation) with 
the  European 
instruments  such  as 
other  funding 
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), in particular the 

47 

 
 
 
 
European Social Fund (ESF)? 

What  kind  of  synergies  or  joint  actions  (Articles  6  and 
the  programme 
7.2  of 
developed with these funding instruments? 

the  EaSI  Regulation)  has 

Topic 10: coherence 
with nationa, regional 
and local programes. 

To what extent is national, regional and local authorities' 
involvement 
and 
complementarity? 

demonstrating 

consistency 

What would best be done at EU level to ensure that the 
programme's objectives are achieved? 

What would best be done at Member State level? 

EU Added Value 

The  additional  value  resulting  from  the  programme  compared  to  what  could  be 
achieved by Member States at national, regional and local levels.  

What  has  been  the  EU  added  value  of  the  EaSI 
programme's activities? 

To  what  extent  did  the  programme's  activities  bring 
European  added  value  and  transnational  dimension 
which  could  not  have  been  achieved  (or  not  as 
effectively and/or efficiently) if they had been designed 
and implemented only at Member State level? 

Topic 11: EU added 
value. 

To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  EaSI 
programme continue to require action at EU level? 

What would be the most likely consequences of stopping 
the existing EaSI programme's activities? 

To what extent are the results and the EU added value of 
the 
and 
activities 
disseminated to relevant stakeholders and to the public? 

communicated 

programme's 

What  were  the  most  effective  ways  of  communication 
and  dissemination  of  the  programme's  results  to  the 
relevant stakeholders and the broader public? 

48 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDERS’ OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

Synopsis report of the open public 
consultation on the EaSI programme’s 
mid-term evaluation 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND INCLUSION 

Directorate F — Investment 

Unit F3 — Programming and planning 

Email:  EMPL-EASI-PUBLIC-CONSULTATION@ec.europa.eu 

March 2017 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

1.1   Objective of the online public consultation 

The  EaSI  programme  (2014-2020)  supports  the  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to 
implement employment and social reforms at European, national, regional and local level 
by  means  of  policy  coordination  and  sharing  of  best  practices.  EaSI  also  helps  the 
European Commission to increase the policy coherence and the impact of its instruments, 
and thus to contribute to meeting the Europe 2020 targets. 

This  document  sets  out  the  key  findings  of  the  open  public  consultation,  a  key 
component of the EaSI programme mid-term evaluation that focuses on the programme’s 
activity  period  running  from  January  2014  until  December  2016.  The  scope  of  this 
evaluation covers the activities undertaken under the three axes of the EaSI programme: 
PROGRESS, EURES, and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship. 

The  purpose  of  this  online  public  consultation  —  that  will  fit  into  EaSI  mid-term 
evaluation  —  was  to  ensure  that  all  the  stakeholders  involved  in  the  planning  and 
delivery of the programme’s activities along with the general public have a say on how 
useful EaSI has been during 2014-2016 with regard to the following criteria: 

  relevance: assessing the extent to which the EaSI programme was relevant in respect 

to the needs, problems and issues identified within the target groups; 

  effectiveness:  examining  the  extent  to  which  EaSI  has  progressed  towards  its 
objectives  and  its  horizontal  provisions,  as  well as  those  specifically  defined  for  its 
three axes; 

  efficiency:  determining  whether  the  intended  outputs  and  outcomes  of  EaSI  have 

been achieved efficiently; 

  coherence: assessing to what extent the EaSI activities have been coherent with other 

EU programmes and instruments with similar objectives; 

  EU  added  value:  comparing  the  added  value  resulting  from  the  EaSI  programme 
with what could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and local levels. 

Five  sets  of  questions  were  developed  around  these  evaluation  criteria.  All  questions 
were  optional  except  the  self-identification  ones.  The  online  consultation  questionnaire 
included  closed  questions  complemented  with  open  questions  allowing  the  respondents 
to identify new issues not captured in the closed-response questions. 

The online consultation ran between 12 October 2016 and 25 January 2017 in the three 
European Commission working languages (English, French and German) on ‘Your voice 
in Europe’ website74. During this period, related promotion and dissemination activities 
were  carried  out  through  different  European  Commission  and  external  channels.  The 
analysis  of  replies  to  the  closed  questions  was  complemented  and  illustrated  with  a 
selection  of  the  free  text  comments  and  suggestions75.  A  summary  report  providing  an 
overview of the responses to all the questions has also been published on Europa website 
except where confidentiality was requested. 

74 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=699&consultId=25&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes 
75The  replies  to  all  the  questions  are  presented  integrally  in  the  summary  report  annexed  to  the  synopsis 
report. The replies to the open questions were translated in English when provided in another language. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
1.2.  Overview of the respondents 

A  total  of  81  responses  were  submitted  for  the  online  public  consultation.  Fourteen 
responses  were  received  from  individuals.  There  were  67  responses  made  on  behalf  of 
organisations: 17 NGOs, 14 national authorities/government bodies/ministries, 13 public 
employment services, 3 regional/local authorities, 3 universities, 3 trade unions, 2 SMEs 
and 12 other types of organisations (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Total number of respondents per categories 

Source: Online public consultation 

58 respondents had previously been involved in the EaSI programme or its  predecessor 
programmes. 48 of the total number of respondents specified involvement with a single 
axis: EURES (22), PROGRESS (21), and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship (5). 

Figure 2: Respondents per countries 

Source: Online public consultation 

51 

 
 
 
Over  a  quarter  of  respondents  (15)  previously  involved  in  EaSI  or  its  predecessor 
programmes represented two or more countries (see Figure 2).  The other 43  respondents 
answered  in  relation  to  just  one  country,  with  Belgium  (8),  Germany  (6),  Spain  (5), 
France (3), Italy (3) being the most represented. 

2. Analysis of the results by consultation topic 

This  section  analyses  the  responses  grouped  under  the  five  evaluation  criteria  and 
summarises the main messages from the online public consultation. 

2.1.  Relevance 

EaSI  is  relevant  in  facilitating  solutions  for  several  challenges,  in  particular  in 
supporting innovative actions in the social and employment fields 

Overall,  more  than  half  of  all  respondents  to  these  questions  (80)  agree  that  EaSI  is 
relevant in facilitating solutions for each of the challenges it was designed for. 

68 respondents agree that EaSI is relevant in producing innovative actions, both in social 
and  in  employment  fields.  This  is  closely  followed  by  the  provision  of  support  to 
vulnerable  groups  (64),  and  ensuring  coordination/collaboration  between  civil  society 
and policymakers (62). 

While  40  respondents  believe  that  EaSI  facilitates  the  access  to  adequate  financial 
instruments  for  social  enterprises,  this  item  was  ranked  lowest  among  the  challenges, 
largely  due  to  several  respondents  (19)  being  uncertain  of  the  programmes’  impact  on 
social  enterprise  financing.  Similarly,  41  respondents  think  that  EaSI  facilitates  access 
and availability of finance for vulnerable people and microenterprise, but 21 respondents 
are however uncertain of the programme’s impact on these target groups. 

8 respondents disagree with EaSI’s relevance in relation to the development of adequate 
and  accessible  social  protection  systems.  Similarly,  but  representing  a  somewhat  more 
polarised view among respondents, combating long-term employment had 8 respondents 
disagreeing that EaSI is relevant. 

EaSI  main  rated  priorities  are  facilitating  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and  the 
social inclusion of vulnerable groups 

The  respondents  were  also  asked  about  the  EaSI  programme  priorities.  Facilitating  the 
exchange  of  good  practices  and  information  between  policymakers/Member  States 
features  prominently,  with  74  of  81  respondents  agreeing  with  this  statement.  Tackling 
social  exclusion  of  vulnerable  groups  is  also  an  important  priority  with  73  of  79 
respondents  agreeing  with  its  ranking.  71  respondents  also  approve  that  EaSI  should 
prioritise the employment for young people, whereas other respondents indicate that the 
EaSI  programme  should  contribute  to  a  better  coordination  between  stakeholders  when 
implementing the policies (65) and to  the development of new policy  experimentations 
and innovations (64). 

Among  the  priorities  with  lowest  relative  importance,  the  respondents  class  building 
institutional  capacity  of  financial  intermediaries/entrepreneurship  actors  (40),  and 
improving  the  access  and  the  availability  of  financial  instruments  for  social  enterprises 
(47). 

Some respondents to the public consultation have identified additional priorities that the 
EaSI programme should address. Thus, it is considered that testing innovative approaches 

52 

 
for the prevention of poverty and social exclusion, and improving the working conditions 
should  be  among  the  priorities.  EaSI  funding  should  also  help  building  appropriate 
interfaces  between  private  and  third  sectors,  and  support  the  capacity  building  and 
innovative measures in the Member States. 

The  EaSI  programme  should  also  address  the  social  and  health  inequalities  within  and 
between EU Member States, and improve the cohesion and wellbeing by levelling up to 
the highest standards. For instance, the differences in health status have a huge impact on 
employability and the ability to maintain the employment, and can potentially reinforce 
social inequalities. 

2.2. Effectiveness 

PROGRESS axis effectively facilitates mutual learning, contributes to increase the 
youth employment and helps developing analytical knowledge 

30  respondents  answered  in  relation  to  the  PROGRES  axis  activities.  25  respondents 
believe that PROGRESS effectively facilitated mutual learning and 24 respondents agree 
that  this  axis  contributes  to  increase  youth  employment.  23  respondents  also  think  that 
the PROGRESS axis contributes to develop analytical knowledge. 

The  respondents  were  least  likely  to  agree  that  the  activities  in  relation  to  poverty 
reduction  and  prevention  are  efficiently  delivered  under  the  PROGRESS  axis  (14 
respondents).  A  number  of  respondents  also  disagree  with  the  PROGRESS  axis 
effectiveness  with  respect  to  the  facilitation  of  policy  application,  reform  and 
modernisation (6 respondents). 

Some concerns have also been raised about the EaSI PROGRESS’s budget and the low 
number  of  subsidised  projects  compared  to  the  previous  PROGRESS  program  (2007-
2013). The respondents consider that a stronger financial allocation for grants would lead 
to a higher level of effectiveness of the PROGRESS axis. 

A  number  of  respondents  also  expressed  their  satisfaction  with  the  PROGRESS  axis 
support  to  the  policy  change  through  research,  exchange,  capacity  building  and 
engagement of non-governmental actors in influencing and implementing the EU policy 
guidance.  In  their  view,  even  if  this  axis  has  limited  financial  resources,  it  contributes 
effectively  to  the  sharing  of  best  practices,  and  to  promoting  policy  transfer  and 
exchanges. Hence, it is suggested that the real impact of the PROGRESS axis activities 
should be evaluated more on policy transferability and capacity building results than on 
direct measurement of improved employment and social inclusion. 

Moreover, it is  suggested that a more strategic/targeted approach to  mutual  learning  — 
focusing  on  the  issues  for  which  the  learning  potential  is  biggest  —  could  have  more 
impact.  Furthermore, even if the analytical knowledge improved considerably thanks to 
there  are  almost  no 
the  EaSI  programme,  major  gaps  remain;  for 
monitoring/data collection on the issues of homelessness and housing exclusion. 

instance 

EURES  axis  is  the  most  effective  at  improving  the  access  to  job  vacancies 
information and at enhancing the labour market transparency 

29 respondents answered in relation to EURES axis activities. The respondents rate the 
EURES’s axis pan-EU efforts to improve access to information on job vacancies across 
the  EU  and  to  enhance  the  labour  markets  transparency  across  the  EU  as  the  most 
effective activities (each item with 24 respondents agreeing). 

53 

 
This is followed by 23 respondents agreeing on the effectiveness of EURES to increase 
the mobility of workers across the EU, to put employers and jobseekers in contact across 
the EU (22 respondents) and to provide high-quality support to jobseekers and employers 
(21  respondents).  The  respondents  also  agree  that  EURES  contributes  effectively  to 
improve  the  access  to  guidance  on  how  to  move/to  work  in  another  Member  State  (20 
respondents),  and  to  increase  the  quality  of  intra-EU  labour  mobility  services  such  as 
targeted mobility schemes as the ‘Your first EURES job’ (19 respondents). 

Where the public consultation respondents think that the EURES axis activities are less 
effective  —  with  8  respondents  agreeing  —  is  in  relation  to  its  contribution  to  the 
effectiveness  of  other  intra-EU  mobility  initiatives  (e.g.  ESF,  Marie  Curie,  Erasmus+, 
national funded schemes). 

Some  additional  issues  were  identified  by  the  respondents,  in  particular  related  to  the 
reform of the EURES axis. Hence, it is considered that the focus of the second EaSI axis 
has been lost in regard to the cross-border partnerships, given that the EURES’ new focus 
is after its reform — more on benchmarks regarding ‘matching’ and ‘placement’ and less 
on  the  quality  of  the  work  itself.  Furthermore,  it  is  considered  that  the  issue  of  the 
support  and  advice  provided  by  the  EURES  advisers  has  also  been  neglected,  with 
potential negative consequences on job opportunities. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  needs  further 
strengthening 

10  of  the  14  respondents  who  answered  this  question  agree  that  the  Microfinance  and 
Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  effectively  provides  capacity  building  investment  to 
microfinance  providers,  enables  financial  intermediaries  to  develop  new  products  or 
loans, enables microenterprises to develop new activities and supports the individuals to 
start microenterprises. 

9  and  7  out  of  14  respondents  respectively  agree  that  the  Microfinance  and  Social 
Entrepreneurship  axis  facilitates  the  access  to  microfinance  and  supports  social 
enterprises to develop new activities.  

Less agreement is gathered around the contribution of the third axis to the effectiveness 
of other related initiatives (e.g. ESF or national funded schemes). 

A  respondent  suggests  that  the  effectiveness  of  activities  under  the  Microfinance  and 
Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  could  be  strengthened,  in  particular  by  increasing  the 
frequency  of  the  calls  for  projects  aimed  at  social  entrepreneurship,  as  well  as  by 
ensuring  a  better  match  between  the  available  budgets,  the  amounts  granted  and  the 
actions  requested.  Moreover,  in  order  to  multiply  the  positive  effects  of  the  actions 
carried  out,  the  EaSI  programme  could  also  support  the  spin-off  of  networks  and 
associations involved in the job creation, and finance technical assistance activities. 

Other  issues  that  undermine  the  effectiveness  of  the  Microfinance  and  Social 
Entrepreneurship  axis  have  been  identified  by  a  respondent  as  follows:  (i)  important 
delays in making available the funding instruments and the capacity building resources; 
(ii)  important  bureaucratic  and  administrative  burden;  (iii)  some  lack  of  flexibility  in 
paying commitment fees for the EaSI Guarantees that engenders additional costs for the 
beneficiaries;  (iv) the application of the ECoGC76 that lacks coherence  and clarity, and 
shows rigidity regarding the application of some compulsory clauses. 

76ECoGC  is  the  abbreviation  for  the  ‘European  Code  of  Good  Conduct  for  microcredit  provision’: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/special-support-instruments/jasmine/cgc/. 

54 

 
                                                 
The same respondent  suggests that the EC services should review the management and 
the  responsibility  of  the  ECoGC  in  order  to  give  the  leadership  to  the  microfinance 
networks that would like also to be more involved in the design and the implementation 
of EU programmes to support the microfinance sector. 

Several  positive  changes  would  not  have  occurred  in  the  absence  of  the  EaSI 
intervention 

49 respondents to the public consultation perceived positive changes that would not have 
occurred in the absence of the EaSI interventions and 38 respondents offered additional 
examples related to EaSI programme contributions in the employment and social fields. 
Some of these examples are related to: (i) increase in awareness  and information about 
EU  policy  efforts  in  the  area  of  social  inclusion  and  poverty  reduction;  (ii)  improved 
perception of the cross-border employment, and raised awareness of regional employers 
and  of  jobseekers  on  the  cross-border  potentials;  (iii)  broader  and  rapid  testing  and 
implementation  of  innovative  measures;  (iv)  increased  access  to  finance  and  increased 
capacity building opportunities in the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship sectors; 
(v) a more coherent approach towards the needs of the cross-border labour market thanks 
to  an  improved  dialogue  and  coordination  of  activities;  (vi)  facilitated  policy  change 
through  research,  exchange  and  building  of  advocacy  capacity,  and  improved 
participation  of  the  non-governmental  actors  in  the  formulation  and  implementation  of 
EU policies. 

It  was  equally  highlighted  that  the  EaSI  programme  is  the  only  EU  funding  that  helps 
civil  society  and  other  stakeholders  meaningfully  engage  in  influencing  the  design  and 
implementation  of  EU  policies  and  funding  programmes  in  the  social  policy  field. 
Without  a  deep  engagement  of  stakeholders  there  would  be  a  growing  disconnection 
between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  policies,  and  limited  opportunity  for  mutual 
learning and policy convergence across countries. 

Stakeholders 
strengthening 

involvement 

in  the  EaSI  programme  activities  needs  further 

When  asked  to  comment  on  stakeholders’  participation  in  the  EaSI  programme,  34 
respondents think that the most relevant organisations had been involved in its activities’ 
delivery. 23  respondents underline however that  EaSI the programme had not  involved 
certain  key  stakeholders.  Among  the  respondents  indicating  a  lack  of  stakeholders’ 
involvement,  8  believe  that  a  broader  inclusion  of  workers  organisations/trade  unions 
would  have  contributed  to  greater  programme  effectiveness.  This  was  closely  followed 
by the necessity to enhance the participation of NGOs and government bodies/ministries 
in the EaSI programme (7 respondents each). 

Some concerns have also been raised about some specific groups not being  sufficiently 
involved. 24 respondents have put forward their opinion on which stakeholders should be 
more  associated,  i.e.  target  groups’  organisations  (youth,  migrants,  Roma,  disabled 
people,  jobseekers,  unemployed  and  employers),  local/regional  authorities,  local 
employment  services/agencies,  social  partners  and  civil  society  organisations.  With 
regard to the microfinance sector, a respondent also recommends to develop the design of 

55 

 
future  projects  in  closer  cooperation  with  the  Microfinance  Centre77  and  the  European 
Microfinance Network78. 

64  respondents  believe  that  contact  with  organisations  working  with  relevant  target 
groups  (e.g.  NGO,  local  public  services)  was  an  effective  method  of  improving 
stakeholders’ participation in the EaSI activities. Targeted dissemination was mentioned 
by  54  respondents  as  an  effective  method  to  better  involve  the  target  groups  in  the 
programme  implementation,  significantly  more  than  the  11  respondents  indicating 
general dissemination. 

In order to improve the stakeholders’ engagement, some respondents have made specific 
proposals.  For  instance,  it  is  suggested  to  ensure  the  direct  involvement  of  the 
microfinance sector networks in the implementation of the different instruments in order 
to  have  a  global  vision  of  the  sector  and  to  guarantee  an  optimal  adaptation  of  the 
programme  to  the  final  beneficiaries’  needs.  Moreover,  given  that  specific  partnerships 
have  been  established  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  microfinance 
networks,  it  is  recommended  to  replicate  these  partnerships  between  the  sector’s 
representatives and the  EIB79, which is  a  fundamental partner in  the implementation of 
the EaSI instruments. 

Other additional ways of better involving the stakeholders’ organisations in the program 
activities  and  enhancing  their  engagement  in  EU  policymaking  and  programme 
development  at  local,  regional  and  national  levels  were  put  forward,  for  instance 
launching  targeted messages, organising meetings and workshops, as well  as launching 
consultation  processes  in  order  to  stimulate  interest,  encourage  participation  and  attract 
commitment. 

2.3 

Efficiency 

The EaSI budget is still appropriate, but should be increased in order to amplify its 
economic and social impacts 

When  asked  about  the  efficiency  of  the  EaSI  budget,  17  respondents  consider  that  the 
budget  is  appropriate  and  41  believe  that  it  should  be  increased.  No  respondents  think 
that the EaSI budget should be decreased, while 23 respondents do not have an opinion 
on this issue. 
For a number of respondents, the ambitions of the EaSI programme far exceed what the 
budget allows for. Especially if the current wide thematic scope of action is maintained, 
the  budget  does  not  allow  for  having  much  lasting  impact.  Even  if  the  programme’s 
budgetary means will not be increased, a stronger emphasis on themes on which EaSI can 
make  a  difference  and  an  improved  thematic  coherence  between  the  different  types  of 
activities (e.g. projects, events, research, EU-level networking) might be useful. Thus, it 
is suggested to make a selection of themes on the basis of their social policy focus, rather 
than  on  their  capacity  to  deliver  quantitative  results  (given  the  reduced  means  of  EaSI 
and the limited competences of the EU in the area of social inclusion). 

77 See more information on the Microfinance Centre at: http://www.e-mfp.eu/users/microfinance-centre. 
78The  European  Microfinance  Network  is  involved  in  advocacy  on  a  wide  range  of  issues  related  to 
microfinance, microenterprises, social and financial exclusion, self-employment and employment creation 
(http://www.european-microfinance.org/). 
79The EIB is the European Union’s bank. The EIB is the only bank owned by and representing the interests 
of  the  European  Union  Member  States.  EIB  works  closely  with  other  EU  institutions  to  implement  EU 
policy (http://www.eib.org/). 

56 

 
                                                 
It  was  also  underlined  that  the  budgetary  allocation  for  the  EURES  axis  should  be 
sufficient  in  order  to  ensure  a  high  quality  of  services  and  cooperation,  and  also  to 
encourage  the  partners  to  make  financial  commitments.  Funding  for  EURES-T80 
partnerships should be maintained in particular in regions with large cross-border worker 
flows.  The  allocation  of  resources  should  however  be  based  on  qualitative  and  non-
budgetary  criteria,  given  the  important  role  of  the  EURES-T  partnerships  as  European 
project incubators and laboratories. 
Equally, more financial means would be needed to develop more social experimentations 
at European level and to monitor the long lasting impact of the projects, while a limited 
budget  is  perceived  as  an  obstacle  to  scaling  up  the  interventions.  Also,  the  joint 
networking  and  exchange  at  the  EU  level  between  the  Member  States’  NGOs  are 
considered among the most stimulating EaSI programme’ actions; therefore, the budget 
to involve new stakeholders should be ideally increased. 

The financial resources should be allocated more equitably and coherently between 
and within the three axes 

The online consultation asked respondents to express their preference with respect to six 
hypothetical budgetary scenarios. There was little to separate preferred budget scenarios, 
with 10 respondents choosing the option 80-10-10, 9 respondents preferring the scenario 
the  50-25-25  percentage  split  between 
33-33-33  and  9  respondents 
PROGRESS,  EURES,  Microfinance  and  Social  Entrepreneurship,  respectively.  More 
than  a  quarter  (21  of  the  79  respondents)  were  however  uncertain  and  felt  unable  to 
indicate the most appropriate EaSI financial resources allocation by axis. 

indicating 

Among  the  13  respondents  who  proposed  their  own  budget  split  scenario,  the  average 
proportions  are  as  follows:  PROGRESS  (54 %),  EURES  (24 %),  Microfinance  and 
Social Entrepreneurship (22 %). 

The  respondents  were  also  offered  the  possibility  to  comment  on  the  different  budget 
scenarios. They raised several points in favour of different axes. For some respondents, 
the PROGRESS axis is the most important in supporting the EU2020 strategy targets as 
well  as  in  creating  employment  and  improving  working  conditions.  Also,  the 
PROGRESS component of the EaSI programme appears as being broader and reaching 
more organisations than the two other axes. 

For another respondent, the focus should be on the development and the expansion of the 
common  labour  market,  meaning  that  the  cross-border  and  the  intra-EU  employment 
should be facilitated and this can be done by enhancing the EURES axis. 

Other  respondents  have  identified  some  deficiencies  in  the  allocation  of  financial 
resources  for  the  EaSI  financial  instruments  related  to  the  microfinance  sector.  They 
consider that the current allocation is not sufficient in order to increase the investment in 
a sector that has proved to provide more impact on the final European beneficiaries than 
other policy approaches, for instance those promoted under the current PROGRESS axis. 

A  number  of  respondents  believed  that  the  current  percentages  represent  a  fair 
distribution, but increasing the budget of the programme and rebalancing the allocations 
between the axes would increase the overall impact of the EaSI programme. 

80The  EURES  network  in  cross-border  regions  may  adopt  a  form  of  formal  EURES  cross-border 
partnerships, 
partnerships 
informal 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eures/public/en/eures-in-cross-border-regions). 

cross-border 

EURES-T, 

called 

or 

57 

 
                                                 
The  suggested  allocations  of  funding  within  each  axis  mirror  the  actual  funding 
proportions 

The  respondents  were  also  asked  to  specify  what  would  be,  in  their  view,  the  most 
appropriate funding allocation on the basis of the different themes under each of the three 
axes. Table 1 summarises the respondents’ proposals for this open-ended question asked 
axis by axis. The highest suggested budget allocation under PROGRESS — with a mean 
of 41 % — is for the sub-theme social protection, social inclusion and the prevention of 
poverty. 

Despite  this  high  budget  allocation,  this  proposal  represents  a  negative  9  points 
differential  with  the  current  funding  rate.  In  contrast,  the  employment’s  sub-theme  — 
with a mean of 27 % — is 7 points higher than the current PROGRESS allocation. Social 
experimentation/innovation  sub-theme  has  the  same  mean  as  the  current  allocation  and 
the  working  conditions  sub-theme  has  a  mean  6  points  higher  than  the  current  10 % 
allocation.  

Budget  allocations  are  more  evenly  distributed  under  the  EURES  axis  and  broadly 
consistent  with  the  current  allocation.  Both  the  transparency  of  the  job  vacancies, 
applications and information, as well the development of services for the recruitment and 
placing  of  workers  have  a  suggested  mean  allocation  of  30 %,  the  same  as  the  current 
allocation. The largest differential between current (18 %) and suggested (23 %) funding 
proportions  under  the  EURES  axis  is  with  respect  to  cross-border  partnerships. 
Ultimately, cross-cutting issues has a mean lower than the current allocation. 

Table 1: Within each axis, what would be in your view the most appropriate allocation of 
funding on the basis of the different themes? 

Themes under PROGRESS (%) 
Social protection, social inclusion, and 
prevention of poverty 

Employment, and in particular youth 
unemployment 

Social experimentation  

Working conditions 

Themes under EURES (%) 
Transparency of job vacancies, applications, 
and any related information 

Development of services for the recruitment 
and placing of workers in employment 

Cross-border partnerships 

Cross-cutting issues 

Mean  Min  Max 

Current allocation   

41 

27 

18 

16 

10 

100 

0 

0 

0 

60 

50 

50 

50 

20 

15-20 
10 

Mean  Min  Max 

Current allocation   

30 

30 

23 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

50 

60 

50 

30 

32 

18 

20 

Themes  under  Microfinance  and  Social 
Entrepreneurship (%) 
Social entrepreneurship 

Mean  Min  Max 
100 
0 
46 

Current allocation 
45 

Microfinance 

Cross-cutting issues 

43 

12 

0 

0 

70 

40 

45 

10 

Source: Online public consultation 

58 

 
 
 
When coming with  the third EaSI axis,  the social  entrepreneurship  section presents  the 
highest mean budget proportion (of 46 %) across all three axes and sub-themes, while the 
microfinance section’s suggestion budget  proportion is 43 %. However, the proportions 
did  closely  mirror  the  actual  funding  proportions  (45 %).  Cross-cutting  issues  have  a 
mean 2 points higher than the current 10 % allocation.  

2.4. Coherence 

The EaSI axes branding needs to be further strengthened and the budgets’ transfer 
should be possible between the axes 

A  total  of  48  respondents  declared  being  familiar  with  the  predecessor  programmes  of 
EaSI,  namely  PROGRESS,  EURES  and  Progress  Microfinance  (2007-2013).  Among 
them,  22  respondents  believe  that  the  merge  and  subsequent  formulation  of  the  EaSI 
programme had some impacts on its overall delivery. For instance, 17 respondents think 
that this merge has diminished the visibility of the branding of each previous programme, 
while  14  respondents  believe  that  merging  predecessor  programmes  has  ensured  more 
consistency, complementarity and flexibility. 

Respondents  also  state  that  the  merging  of  the  previous  programmes  increased  the 
transparency  in  terms  of  content  and  objectives  of  the  three  components,  thereby 
improving  their  coherence,  complementarity  and  synergies.  This  has  also  made  it 
possible to avoid duplication of funding and thus ensure the optimisation of financial and 
human  resources.  Another  respondent  believe  that  every  new  programme  can  not  be 
separated  from  the  previous  ones  and  that  ensuring  the  continuity  of  the  programmes 
ensure their effectiveness. 

A number of respondents do not see any synergies of various EaSI components and think 
that  there  should  be  separate  programmes  again;  for  instance  the  content  of  the 
PROGRESS  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axes  are  not  known  within  the 
EURES cross-border partnerships. 

Other  stakeholders  participating  in  the  public  consultation  suggest  that  the  current 
organisation of the programme should provide the possibility to transfer budgets between 
the three axes when an insufficient allocation of resources is noticed in one of them and 
under-used  budget  is  identified  in  another  (for  instance  lack  of  resources  for  the 
microcredit sector). 

EaSI  is  coherent  and  complementary  with  other  EU  programmes  and  national 
programmes 

A  total  of  78  respondents  expressed  their  opinion  on  the  EaSI  programme’s  coherence 
and  complementarity  with  other  programmes.  45  respondents  agreed  that  EaSI 
complements  the  actions  of  other  EU-level  (e.g.  ESF,  Euraxess,  Erasmus+,  Horizon 
2020, COSME, SOLVIT) as well national-level programmes (44 respondents). 

A  similar  number  of  respondents  (42)  think  that  even  where  there  is  an  overlap,  it  is 
important  to  maintain  each  type  of  instruments  at  EU  level.  However,  a  number  of 
respondents  also  believe  that  EaSI  programme’s  objectives  overlap  with  those  of  other 
EU-level instruments (21 respondents) and national-level instruments (20).   

The respondents agreeing that EaSI complements other EU-level programmes were also 
asked to specify which. ESF was the most selected option with 29 respondents, followed 
by Erasmus+ (24) and Horizon 2020 (21). 

59 

 
Among the 29 respondents who felt that EaSI complements ESF, some highlighted that 
even  though  there  are  some  complementarities  between  the  two  programmes,  their 
objectives,  functioning  and  impacts  are  not  really  comparable.  For  these  respondents, 
ESF and the different national programmes benefit from much more important funds and 
therefore they could have bigger and longer impact. EaSI should not compete with these 
initiatives, but concentrate on transnational mutual learning, research, data collection and 
monitoring, as well on social innovation initiatives. 

Given  the  limited  financial  resources  of  the  EaSI  programme  and  its  objective  of 
promoting  policy  transfer  and  exchanges,  its  real  impact  should  be  measured  more  on 
policy transferability and capacity building criteria rather than on direct measurement of 
improved  employment  and  social  inclusion.  The  crucial  policies  and  measures  directly 
tackling those issues are mostly dealt by the ESF and by the Member States initiatives. 

In  this  context,  EaSI  should  maintain  its  strategic  goal  of  promoting  policy 
experimentation,  supporting EU-level networking and  capacity building,  while the ESF 
and  the  national  policies  should  keep  their  focus  on  implementing  measures  tackling 
directly the issues of boosting employment and reducing poverty. The added value from 
EaSI  in  terms  of  policy  innovation,  policy  transfer  and  target  groups/stakeholder 
involvement  must  be  shared  with  other  policymakers  and  shape  the  future  ESF  and 
national initiatives. 

Another  respondent  believes  that  the  programme  should  also  give  more  support  to 
advocacy activities both at national and European level as this type of activities are not 
supported sufficiently from any programmes at national or EU level. However, a certain 
level of coordination between ESF and EaSI should be guaranteed. Equally, if the ESF 
funds  allow  for  evidence-based  policy  recommendations  to  be  formulated  at  the 
local/national  level,  it  should  be  almost  automatic  to  obtain  financing  under  another 
instrument — such as the PROGRESS axis under EaSI — allowing completing the work 
done at national/regional level into policy recommendations/proposals at European level. 

It  is  also  considered  that  the  actions  co-financed  under  the  EaSI  programme  could 
constitute  a  solid  baseline  to  develop  activities  under  the  Societal  Challenge  6  of  the 
Horizon  2020  programme.  Indeed,  reaching  high  levels  of  quality  and  sustainable 
employment,  guaranteeing  adequate  and  decent  social  protection  and  fighting  against 
poverty  and  social  exclusion  (EaSI  programme)  are  just  the  preamble  of  reversing 
inequalities in Europe and building a better understanding of Europe’s cultural and social 
diversity (Societal Challenge 6 of Horizon 2020 programme). 

National,  regional  and  local  authorities’  involvement  in  the  delivery  of  EaSI 
activities needs further strengthening 

The respondents to the online consultation were also asked to give their opinion in terms 
of the involvement of national, regional and local authorities in the implementation of the 
EaSI programme and of each of its axes. 

32 respondents think that the national authorities are involved in the  implementation of 
EaSI  activities,  while  27  respondents  and  23  respondents  respectively  believe  that  the 
regional and local authorities are not involved enough in the delivery of EaSI activities. 
Similarly, 20 respondents think there is little to no involvement of national authorities in 
the implementation of this programme. 

Regarding  the  PROGRESS  axis,  the  respondents  think  that  the  national  authorities  are 
significantly  more  engaged  compared  to  regional  and  local  authorities.  24  respondents 
indicated  sufficient  national-level  involvement  in  PROGRESS  activities  delivery, 

60 

 
to 

regional-level 

compared 
respondents, 
respectively).Compared  to  PROGRESS,  a  larger  number  of  respondents  (26)  indicated 
that  EURES  axis  benefits  from  a  greater  involvement  of  regional  authorities  in  the 
implementation  of  its  activities.  The  national  involvement  is  rated  broadly  similar  with 
25 respondents. 

stakeholders 

local-level 

and 

(14 

The  respondents  rated  the  degree  of  involvement  of  the  local,  regional  and  national 
authorities in  the  implementation of the Microfinance  and Social  Entrepreneurship  axis 
as  lower  across  the  three  authority  levels  compared  to  EURES  and  PROGRESS  axes. 
This could be partially explained by a large number of respondents who selected ‘Don’t 
know/NA’  as  reply  to  this  question  (40  for  national,  45  for  regional  and  43  for  local 
levels). 

2.5. European Union added value 

The  programme’s  EU  added  value  is  widely  acknowledged,  in  particular  with 
regards to the cross-border partnerships and the exchange of good practices 

71  respondents  agree  that  EaSI  facilitate  the  cross-border  partnership  as  well  as  the 
exchange  of  good  practices  and  the  team  building  of  stakeholders  across  the  EU.  The 
respondents also believe that EU support is required to increase jobseekers mobility and 
to  fight  against  social  exclusion  (68)  as  well  as  to  improve  employment  opportunities 
across  the  EU  (67).  Most  respondents  (60)  think  that  the  EaSI  objectives  are  better 
achieved through EU-level action rather than through varied actions by Member States. 

The  EaSI  support  to  develop  the  institutional  capacity  of  financial  intermediaries  (e.g. 
microcredit providers) was the least commonly agreed channel of value added, with 45 
respondents.  Similarly,  47  respondents  consider  that  the  EaSI  support  is  required  to 
provide  better  access  to  and  availability  of  microfinance  for  vulnerable  people  and 
microenterprises. 

Some respondents provided additional insight on the EaSI added value. For instance, it is 
considered  that,  while  the  main  responsibility  for  developing  labour  market  and  social 
policies lies with the Member States, the EU brings added value to their actions by acting 
as  a  catalyst  and  facilitator  to  trigger  national  reforms  in  support  of  the  EU  common 
objectives and priorities laid down in the Europe 2020 strategy. 

For  other  respondents,  European-level  NGO  networks  are  highly  supportive  in 
disseminating the European policy developments at the national and regional level. They 
are the best placed to share acquired information and know-how with the national actors; 
thereby,  they  ensure  an  important  EU  added  value,  but  also  facilitate  the  required 
participation and ownership of the citizens. 

Discontinuing the EaSI programme would have negative effects on many objectives, 
in particular in the employment field 

The  respondents  were  also  asked  about  the  potential  implications  in  the  fields  of 
employment,  social  affairs  and  inclusion  in  case  the  EaSI  programme  would  be 
discontinued. 

50  respondents  out  of  a  total  of  78  expressing  their  opinion  on  this  issue  predict  that 
youth unemployment would increase and 47 respondents think that the jobseekers’ intra-
EU  mobility  would  decrease.  43  respondents  also  believe  that  the  employment 
opportunities would decrease, and the financial and social exclusion would increase. 

61 

 
13  respondents  submitted  additional  comments  suggesting  negative  consequences,  for 
example  a  stable  and  coherent  approach  towards  the  needs  of  the  cross-border  labour 
market would be undermined and the social enterprises support would decrease. 

For some respondents, the strength of the EaSI programme consists in the promotion of 
transnational learning. Therefore, the opportunities for transnational learning in the social 
fields will decrease substantially if the EaSI programme is discontinued.  

Another negative consequence from a discontinuation of EaSI would be — according to 
another  respondent  —  loosing  the  main  financial  instrument  aimed  at  promoting  social 
innovations  and a better implementation  of the  European social policies through policy 
experimentation and capacity building. The main consequence would be the loss of the 
whole  accumulated  knowledge,  mutual  learning  and  potential  policy  improvements 
related in particular to the role of target groups organisations and local authorities. 

Other respondents highlight that the added value of the EaSI programme lies in its ability 
to  build  partnerships  and  ownership  for  national  policymaking  in  the  fields  of 
employment, social affairs and inclusion, to connect practice and research and to support 
the  engagement  of  civil  society.  Should  the  programme  discontinued  it  would  affect 
negatively all these aspects as well the national policymaking processes. 

The  communication  on  EaSI  activities  and  the  dissemination  of  programme’s 
results need to be improved 

Finally,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  express  their  views  on  the  communication  of 
information and the dissemination of the EaSI programme results. 45 respondents out of 
the  total  of  81  had  already  heard  about  the  results  of  EaSI  activities  and  projects.  Of 
these, 30 respondents had been made aware of EaSI impact evidence through their own 
organisation.  26  respondents  sought  the  information  independently,  either  through 
general internet searches and/or on the official EU websites. Newspapers were the least 
used as means of keeping up-to-date with EaSI’s results. Among the respondents aware 
of  the  programme’s  activities  and  results,  17  are  satisfied  with  the  dissemination 
materials  and  the  quality  of  content.  15  respondents  are  however  dissatisfied  with  the 
dissemination activities for raising awareness on the EaSI programme. 

According  to  the  respondents  who  have  made  additional  comments,  most  of  the 
information concerning the European Union is disseminated only in English; therefore it 
is considered essential to make the information available in all 27 EU official languages. 
Timely  dissemination  of  information  would  be  also  important,  in  particular  providing 
more precise explanations accessible to the general public. 

Also, email notifications and short country-specific reports on the outcomes of calls for 
proposals  should  be  circulated 
the  EaSI  Committee  members. 
It  is  equally suggested to  reduce dramatically the administrative burden for applying to 
calls for proposals.  Some respondents  also  highlight  a need for improvement regarding 
the timely dissemination of information on calls for proposals. Additionally to the written 
replies  to  the  questions,  hotline  contacts  with  the  responsible  European  Commission 
services would be helpful for the applicants. 

regularly 

to 

The  information  effectiveness  could  be  also  improved  using  the  partnerships  with  the 
sectorial  representative  organisations.  These  organisations  should  have  access  to  the 
information  on  a  first  stage  in  order  to  forward  it  to  the  interested  actors  on  the  field. 
The  respondents  also  consider  that  there  is  a  need  for  more  coordination  between  the 
different  organisations  involved  in  implementing  the  EaSI  programme,  and  that  a  joint 

62 

 
communication strategy should be developed and implemented using different partners’ 
communication channels. 

72  respondents  suggest  that  it  would  be  useful  to  learn  more  about  EaSI  activities  and 
impact.  The most mentioned reason is  to  collect ideas about  projects  and activities and 
best  practices  implemented  at  EU  level.  Another  quoted  reason  is  to  explore  potential 
synergies between the EaSI axes and to establish rules of cooperation between them. 36 
respondents  declared  that  an  enhanced  dissemination  of  the  EaSI  programme  activities 
and results will facilitate the creation of partnerships. 48 respondents’ preferred channel 
to receive information about EaSI programme would be via a newsletter system. 

3. Other consultations activities 

Another  information  collection  tool  that  was  indicated  in  the  consultation  strategy  was 
the  interviews  with  relevant  stakeholders.  This  method  was  used  during  the  overall 
duration of the evaluation.  

11  interviews  have  been  conducted  in  order  to  cover  the  following  issues:  further 
development  of the three axes;  changes  over the programming period; achievements  of 
the  programme;  management  and  implementation  of  the  projects;  stakeholders’ 
expectation from the mid-term evaluation; monitoring data. 

Besides the scoping  interviews, 51 additional interviews  (45  as part of the case studies 
and 6 as a follow-up after submission of the draft interim report) were conducted across 
the axes so far.  

3.1. Interview guide  

The following interview guideline was used for the interviews and adapted to the needs 
of each axis. 

Purpose of the interview 

  Refine the evaluation framework in particular the formulation of expected 

 

outcomes and impacts;  
Identify important changes in the programme design / delivery over the 
programming period that are likely to have affected the type of outcomes / 
impacts realised as well as overall programme performance;  

  Get a preliminary idea of what seems to be working well and what not and why – 

this will be used to refine the data collection tools;  

Vision for the three axes 

  What were the main reasons for bringing the three axes together under the same 

umbrella (EaSI)? 

  What are the key issues being addressed by the EaSI programme and by its 3 

axes? 

  What changes does the programme aim to achieve? (EaSI+ the 3 axes)  

Changes over the programming period 

  What were the main changes that occurred or that are planned in the programme 

design / delivery over the period 2014-2020?  

  Changes in priorities  
  Changes in delivery mechanisms  

63 

 
 
 
 
  Changes in budgetary allocations (increase/ decrease for certain types of 

initiatives)  

Achievements  

 

Is EaSI achieving its objectives so far? What makes you think so? Which are the 
key factors influencing programme performance, the performance of the 3 
individual axes, as well as the unintended programme effects? 

  Which are the main successes and challenges encountered by the programme as a 

whole and by each specific axis? 

  Are there any areas where you think EaSI or any of the 3 axes is preforming better 

/ worse than expected?  

  Participation in the programme: was it as expected? Who is participating less/ 

more (both in term of Member states and organizations)?  

  The types of projects funded: are there differences in the type and scale of 

outcomes according to different types of projects?  

  Do those types of projects with highest chances to yield positive outcomes get the 

funding?  

  The quality of projects funded: is/was the quality of applications as expected 

(better/ worse?) – are there major differences per types of actions? Did it change 
over time?   

Management/ implementation 

  Were the management and implementation arrangements fit for purpose? 
  What were the main objections at the time?  
  What are main advantages/ disadvantages of the current integrated programming 

structure vis-à-vis the predecessor programmes? 
  How is programme progress being monitored?  
  What indicators are being used?  
  What tools and systems are in place? 
  Are these adequate?  
  Can you provide information on the indicators and perhaps identify which ones 

are crucial and which ones are not based on the indicators attached? 

Expectation from this evaluation  

  Are there any gaps in knowledge about the programme which were not filled by 

earlier evaluations and should be met through this assignment? 

  From your point of view, what are the key issues this evaluation should focus on?  

64 

 
 
 
 
3.2.Summary of the scoping interviews  

This  section provides a summary of the scoping interviews carried out  for each axis  of 
the EaSI programme. The interviews provided an overview of the main evolutions,  the 
expectation  and  rationale  of  the  axes,  and  focused  in  particular  on  certain  assumptions 
about what works well and what is lagging behind, as well as possible implications for 
the evaluation.  

Main evolutions, expectation and rationale  

PROGRESS 

Scoping  interviews  carried-out  with  European  Commission  officials  showed  that  little 
changes  occurred  in  the  design  and  delivery  of  Progress  over  the  period  2014-2016. 
Apart from the inevitable shifts in the Commission’s political priorities, the only changes 
noted  related  to  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  money  allocated  to  the  call  for  social 
innovation that went from 2 to 10 million.  

EURES 

Few changes in priorities were reported during the programing period as they are defined 
by the work programmes, there is little flexibility to deviate from them.  

However,  important  changes  are  expected  in  relation  to  delivery  mechanisms  and 
reporting.  

EURES beneficiaries of the Your first Eures Job activities fill out a progress monitoring 
report  that  is  additional  to  the  EaSI  monitoring.  For  other  EURES  beneficiaries 
additional  questions  were  introduced  as  an  annex  to  the  EaSI  monitoring  template  to 
provide  more  useful  information  for  EURES.  A  new  template  for  actions  under  cross-
border partnerships is being developed.  

A new way of financing  will be introduced in  2017 with  projects  being  financed every 
two years. Although the budget is yearly, calls for proposals will be split between cross 
border  partnerships  and  targeted  mobility  schemes.  This  initiative  was  launched  to 
remedy to the lack of applicants which recently prevented to spend part of the dedicated 
budget.  

The calls for proposals  were reported by applicants as very time consuming and labour 
intensive,  which  to  some  extent  explains  the  low  response  rate.  It  is  worth  noting  that 
only  few  organisations  have  the  required  knowledge  to  respond  to  this  type  of  calls. 
Therefore, when calls of proposals used to be launched at a time where projects from the 
previous year were still running, this prevented applicants to respond to them because of 
the administrative burden.  

Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship  

As  for  the  two  other  axes,  Microfinance  and  Social  Entrepreneurship  undertook  little 
significant  changes  of  priorities  during  the  programing  period.  As  this  is  a  new 
instrument, the programme is very much about testing several options.  

Nonetheless, as for EURES, changes occurred in relation to delivery mechanisms. Under 
the Juncker Plan, additional budget was given for equity instruments. Initially, everything 
was  supposed  to  be  implemented  under  EaSI  but  some  projects  will  be  implemented 
under the EFSI equity platform.  

65 

 
Finally,  changes  in  budgetary  allocations  also  occurred  with  the  combination  with  the 
European Fund for Strategic Investment which is part of the Juncker Plan. This provides 
additional fund that could not have been foreseen in the past. This responds to the needs 
as the budget was considered not to be enough compared to the high demand. Two-thirds 
of the total budget for the whole programming period (96 million of Euros) has already 
been  used  and  solutions  are  now  being  developed  to  find  additional  funding.  An 
agreement is being negotiated to frontload the 2019-2020 budget but this will not address 
the issue as they will most likely run out of budget before 2020.  

Conclusion 

The scoping interviews have shown that EaSI enabled to carry-out many projects which 
were  relevant  for  the  goals  of  each  specific  axes.  Several  good  quality  projects  were 
delivered in this first half of the programming period and this enlightened policy design.  

Issues  with  the  administration,  the  reporting,  funding  and  the  lack  of  flexibility  were 
mentioned  as  influencing  the  functioning  of  the  programme.  The  EaSI  reporting 
documentation  should  be  reviewed  in  terms  of  what  information  is  provided  and  what 
information needs to be provided for each axis.  

Specific attention needs to be paid to the quality of the final projects which is not always 
up to expectations. In that regard, better quality mechanisms need to be implemented at 
different  levels.  This  would  include  amongst  others  the  drafting  of  better  ToR,  better 
communication with the contractor and the possibility for the Commission to have more 
say during the project phase, in case the project does not deliver up to expectations.  

In  terms  of  issues  regarding  budgeting,  some  initial  changes  are  being  considered  and 
then next programming period might benefit from these initial changes.  

3. CONCLUSION 

The public consultation  shows that EaSI is  relevant  in  facilitating solutions  for each of 
the challenges it was designed for, in particular in supporting innovative actions both in 
social  and employment  fields.  Furthermore, it indicates that the main rated priorities of 
EaSI are to facilitate the exchange of good practices, to contribute to the social inclusion 
of vulnerable  groups  and to  ensure the  coordination/collaboration between civil  society 
and the policymakers. Additional priorities are also identified, for instance addressing the 
health  inequalities  that  could  have  a  huge  negative  impact  on  employability  and  social 
equality. 

The public consultation also points out that the PROGRESS axis most effective activities 
are the supporting to the mutual learning activities, the contribution to the increasing of 
the  youth  employment  rate  as  well  its  support  to  the  developing  of  the  analytical 
knowledge.  When  commenting  on  the  EURES  axis,  the  most  effective  activities  are 
considered  the  measures  contributing  to  increasing  the  access  to  information  on  job 
vacancies  and  to  enhancing  the  labour  market  transparency  across  the  EU.  The 
contribution of the third axis to employment, social and financial inclusion and poverty 
alleviation is also widely recognised among the policymakers. The main benefit for final 
recipients  is  an  increased  access  to  finance,  and  improved  terms  and  conditions  for 
obtaining loans. 

Several  observed  positive  changes  would  not  have  occurred  in  the  absence  of  EaSI 
activities implemented during the first two years of the programming period, in particular 

66 

 
 
an  increased  awareness  about  EU  policy  efforts  in  the  area  of  social  inclusion  and 
poverty  reduction,  rapid  testing  of  innovative  measures  as  well  an  improved  access  to 
financing and capacity building opportunities. Also, the EaSI programme appears as the 
only  EU  programme  which  supports  the  civil  society  and  other  stakeholders  to  have  a 
real role in the design and the implementation of the EU policies and funds in the social 
field. The positive changes brought about by EaSI are also attributed to the stakeholder 
engagement  which  is  recognised  as  very  meaningful  in  influencing  the  design  and 
implementation  of  EU  policies  and  funding  programmes  in  the  social  policy  field. 
However, it was highlighted that more groups could be involved in order to capture a full 
representation  of  the  different  sectors,  in  particular  workers  organisations/trade  unions, 
Member  States’  multi-level  authorities  as  well  NGOs  and  target  groups  organisations. 
Equally,  the  regional  and  local  authorities’  engagement  is  limited  and  should  be 
strengthen in order to reinforce the coherence across the EU, national and regional/local 
actions. 

The  public  consultation  highlights  that  the  EaSI  budget  is  perceived  as  limited,  in 
particular in respect of its ambitious objectives and compared with other EU programmes 
budgets.  Thus,  it  is  suggested  that  an  increase  of  the  EaSI  budget  and  an  improved 
coherence between the axes and the sub-themes  would amplify its economic and social 
results. The financial allocation among the three axes as well as within each axis mirrors 
the current distribution. Nevertheless, it is considered that increasing the EaSI budget and 
rebalancing  it  between  the  three  strands  would  increase  the  overall  impact  of  the 
programme.  In  particular,  the  budget  as  it  stands  does  not  allow  for  scaling  up  the 
interventions and ensure the sustainability of the results achieved. PROGRESS remains 
however the axis that should receive the highest percentage of the budget because of its 
social inclusion and poverty prevention nature. The merging of the three axes has led to 
increased  transparency,  coherence,  complementarity  and  synergies.  However,  there  is 
still  scope  to  strengthen  the  EaSI  branding.  Moreover,  financial  transfers  between  the 
programme’s three  axes should be allowed. The  EaSI programme is  also considered as 
coherent and complementary with other EU and national programmes, in particular with 
the  European  Social  Funds  (ESF).  However,  the  EaSI  objectives  and  functioning  are 
different  from  those of  EU-level  or national  programmes and should maintain  its focus 
on transnational mutual learning, research, data collection and monitoring, as well as on 
social innovative initiatives. 

It was also acknowledged that, while the main responsibility for developing employment 
and  social  policies  lies  with  the  Members  States,  the  EaSI  programme  fulfils  a  vital 
function as catalyst and facilitator of national reforms. The EaSI resources are needed in 
particular  for  supporting  the  cross-border  cooperation,  the  exchange  of  good  practices, 
the  stakeholders’  capacity  building,  the  jobseekers’  mobility  and  the  fight  against 
exclusion.  The  EaSI  programme’s  discontinuation  would  have  negative  effects,  in 
particular an increased youth unemployment, limited job mobility and opportunities, and 
would translate in increased inequalities and social exclusion. 

The  public  consultation  shows  that  the  preferred  stakeholder’s  channels  to  receive 
information  on  the  EaSI  programme  would  be  via  a  newsletter  system.  It  is  also 
considered that the communication on the EaSI programme activities and results should 
be  improved,  in  particular  by  disseminating  timelier,  more  precise  and  more  accessible 
information  to  the  general  public  in  all  EU  official  languages.  Improvements  in  the 
information  effectiveness  could  be  obtained  by  involving  the  sectorial  representative 
organisations  in  the  communication/dissemination  strategy  and  by  mobilising  the 
channels. 
different 

communication 

partners’ 

67 

 
ANNEX 5: RELEVANT DOCUMENTS USED FOR THE MID-TERM EVALUATION 

The table below maps the documents relevant to the EaSI programme and consulted during the evaluation process. They are split into four categories, 
namely  the  three  axes  of  EaSI  (PROGRESS,  EURES  and  Microfinance  and  Social  Entrepreneurship)  and  a  general  category  on  the  overall  EaSI 
programme. The EaSI category contains documents that are common to several axes and concern its overall functioning. 

Type 
document  

of 

No. 

EaSI 

1. 

Regulation 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

European 
Commission 

2013 

Regulation  (EU)  no  1296/2013  of  the 
European parliament and of the Council 
of  11  December  2013  on  a  European 
Union Programme for Employment and 
Social 
and 
amending  Decision  No  283/2010/EU 
establishing 
a  European  Progress 
Microfinance  Facility  for  employment 
and  social  inclusion  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) 

Innovation 

("EaSI") 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European  
Union 

Establishes  the  EaSI  programme,  its  structure, 
general  objectives,  budget,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  principles  as  well  as  provisions 
specific to programme axes. 

2. 

Communication 

European 
Commission 

2010 

Communication  from  the  Commission 
'EUROPE  2020  -  A  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth' 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European 
Union 

A  strategy  to  address  the  challenges  resulting 
from the financial crisis with the following EU 
headline targets: 

 

 

75 % of the population aged 20-64 should 
be employed. 

3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in 
R&D. 

  The  "20/20/20"  climate/energy 

targets 
should  be  met  (including  an  increase  to 
30% of 

 

emissions  reduction  if  the  conditions  are 

68 

 
 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

3. 

Commission 
Decision 

European 
Commission 

2016 

4. 

Commission 
Decision 

European 
Commission 

2015 

5. 

Commission 
Decision 

European 
Commission 

2014 

Annual work programme for grants and 
procurement  for  the  European  Union 
Programme for Employment and Social 
Innovation ("EaSI") for 2016 

European 
Commission 
Website 

Annual work programme for grants and 
procurement  for  the  European  Union 
Programme for Employment and Social 
Innovation ("EaSI") for 2015 

European 
Commission 
Website 

Annual work programme for grants and 
procurement  for  the  European  Union 
Programme for Employment and Social 
Innovation ("EaSI") for 2014 

European 
Commission 
Website 

6. 

Annex to the Work 
Programme 

European 
Commission 

2014, 2015, 2016 

Annex  1  to  the  Work  Programmes: 
Description of the calls for proposals 

European 
Commission 
website 

right). 

  The  share  of  early  school  leavers  should 
be  under  10%  and  at  least  40%  of  the 
younger 

 

 

generation should have a tertiary degree. 

20 million less people should be at risk of 
poverty. 

The work programme determines the details of 
the  actions  based  on  the  2016  budget,  and  its 
purpose is to allow the selection procedures to 
be launched so that individual decisions on the 
award  of  grants  and  contracts  could  be  taken 
from the beginning of 2016. 

The work programme determines the details of 
the  actions  based  on  the  2015  budget,  and  its 
purpose is to allow the selection procedures to 
be launched so that individual decisions on the 
award  of  grants  and  contracts  could  be  taken 
from the beginning of 2015. 

The work programme determines the details of 
the  actions  based  on  the  2014  budget,  and  its 
purpose is to allow the selection procedures to 
be launched so that individual decisions on the 
award  of  grants  and  contracts  could  be  taken 
from the beginning of 2014. 

Lists  the  calls  for  proposals  to  be  launched 
under a given year. 

7. 

Annex to the Work  European 

2014, 2015,  2016 

Annex 2 to the Work Programmes: List  European 

Lists  the  activities  to  be  launched  under  a 

Commission 

69 

 
No. 

Type 
document  
Programme 

8. 

Report 

9. 

Report 

10. 

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Commission 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

of activities 

2014 

DG EMPL Annual Activity Report 

2016 

DG EMPL Management Plan 2016 

Source 

website 

European 
Commission 
website 

European 
Commission 
website 

Brief description 

given year. 

Provides  information  on  achievements  funded 
by  EaSI  and  on  the  management  of  financial 
resources by DG EMPL. 

Provides  information  on  specific  objectives  of 
DG EMPL funded by EaSI. 

Report 

European 
Commission 

11.  Report 

European 
Commission 

12.  Dataset 

13.  Dataset 

14.  Dataset 

15.  Dataset 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

2015 

2011 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Performance  Monitoring  Report  of  the 
for 
European  Union  Programme 
Employment  and  Social  Innovation 
2014 

European 
Commission 
Website 

Ex-ante  evaluation  eccompanying  the 
document 'Proposal for a Regulation of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council establishing a European Union 
Programme  for  Social  Change  and 
Innovation' {COM(2011) 609 final} 

European 
Commission 
website 

Conducts a first assessment on the programmes 
including launch and 2014 work programme. It 
financial 
provides 
implementation  as  well  as  a  list  of  outputs, 
immediate and intermediate outcomes, and key 
performance indicators (KPIs). 

details 

the 

in 

Provides  a  problem  and  needs  assessment  and 
different scenarios for EaSI. 

financial  data 

(programming 

PPMI 

Indicates planned and actual commitments. 

EaSI 
tables) 

DEFIS Database 

PPMI 

Provides  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  on 
all funded projects. 

technical 

Final 
contractors 

COLI Database 

reports 

from  EaSI 

European 
Commission 

Provides information on the results and impact 
achieved by the project. 

PPMI 

Gathers information about all DG EMPL direct 
procurement procedures (not only EaSI). 

16.  Dataset 

Eurostat 

2016 

Unemployment Statistics 

Eurostat 

Dataset on unemployment statistics in Europe 

70 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

17. 

Survey Report 

18. 

Survey Report 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

2014-2015 

Survey  of  participants 
supported events 

in  EaSI-

2014 

Stakeholder Survey 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

Stakeholder view on EaSI supported events 

Stakeholder views in the three axes 

19.  List of participants  European 

n/a 

20. 

Inception Report 

Commission 

(Public 
and 

PPMI 
Policy 
Management 
Institute) 

2016 

Lists of participants for EaSI-supported 
events 

European 
Commission 

Provides  information  and  contact  details  of 
participants to EaSI-supported events. 

PPMI 

The report contains information on the EURES 
axis as well as on available datasets. 

the 

Inception  Report  on 
specific 
contract No. VC/2016/0034 “Support to 
the  monitoring  of  the  performance  of 
the  EU  Programme  for  Employment 
and  Social 
(“EaSI”)”, 
Innovation 
implementing  the  framework  contract 
No. VC/2013/0082 

21. 

22. 

Brochure 

European 
Commission 

2013 

EaSI New EU umbrella programme for 
employment and social policy 

Guidelines 
Communication 

and 

European 
Commission 

23.  Communication 

European 
Commission 

81 Additional link 

2015 

2008 

Better regulation for better results  - An 
EU agenda 

Communication  from  the  Commission 
to 
the 
the  European  Parliament, 
Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee 
of  the  Regions  of  2  July  2008  - 
Renewed  social  agenda:  Opportunities, 

71 

EaSI  webpage 
on the European 
Commission 
website 

European 
Commission 
website81 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European 
Union 

Covers the establishment of the programme in 
a  non-legal  language,  and  highlights  some  of 
the  ways 
its  broad 
in  which  EaSI  and 
stakeholder base can guide policy and action in 
contribution to the Europe 2020 targets. 

Details  guidelines 
for 
conducting transparent, evidence based, quality 
evaluations. 

followed 

to  be 

The  renewed  social  agenda  completed  the 
Lisbon  Strategy  for  the  period  2008-2010.  It 
proposes an integrated approach with a view to 
the 
responding 
employment market and European society. 

transformations 

to 

in 

 
                                                 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

24. 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

access  and  solidarity  in  21st  century 
Europe COM(2008) 412 final 

Tender 

European 
Commission 

2016 

PROGRESS 

25. 

Report 

ICF International 

2014 

26. 

Report 

PPMI 

June 
November 2015 

and 

services 

contract 

framework 

for 
related 

Request  for  services  in  the  context  of 
the 
the 
provision  of 
to 
evaluation,  evaluative  studies,  analysis 
and  research  work,  including  support 
for impact assessment activities: Lot n1 
Identification  n37  Mid-term  evaluation 
of  the  EU  Programme  for  employment 
and social innovation EaSI 

European 
Commission 
website 

Details  the  request  for  services  and  the  scope 
of the mid-term evaluation. 

Ex-post evaluation of the 

Programme for employment and 

social solidarity – PROGRESS 2007- 

2013 and recommendations for the 

successor  programmes  to  PROGRESS 
2014-2020 

Monitoring good practices 

in the areas of 

Employment, Social affairs 

and  Inclusion  -  Examples  of  projects 
funded by DG EMPL in 2011-2012 

European 
Commission 
website 

the 

results  of 
This  evaluation  analysed 
PROGRESS 
its  delivery 
funded  actions, 
processes  and  governance  mechanisms.  It 
covers  outcomes  of  PROGRESS 
funded 
actions,  as  well  as  its  results.  Last,  it  also 
provides recommendations. 

European 
Commission 
website 

This  report  reviews  projects  supported  by 
Progress in the years 2011  – 2012 to facilitate 
the dissemination of results. 

EURES 

27.  Website 

European 
Commission 

n/a 

EURES Job Mobility Platform  

European 
Commission 
website 

72 

Gathers  all  the  relevant  information  about 
about 
as 
EURES 
internal 
jobseekers/employers, 

information 
EURES 

such 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

28.  Dataset 

29.  Dataset 

30.  Report 

Eurostat 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

31.  Report 

Ecorys 

2016 

2015 

n/a 

2014 

32.  Report 

GHK/EPEC 

2010 

33.  Regulation 

European 
Commission 

2013 

34.  Communication 

European 
Commission 

2008 

Unemployment Statistics 

Eurostat 

Dataset on unemployment statistics in Europe 

meetings,  legislative  documents,  results  of 
customer satisfaction surveys. 

EaSI Stakeholder Survey 2014: EURES 
axis 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 
website 

European 
Commission 
website 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European 
Union 

Reports on EURES training events 

Evaluation of the Your first EURES job 
preparatory action 

Ex-post  evaluation  of 
programme 

the  EURES 

covering the period 2006-2008 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1288/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
the 
Council  of  11  December  2013 
the  Union 
'Erasmus+': 
establishing 
training, 
for  education, 
programme 
youth 
repealing 
and 
Decisions  No  1719/2006/EC,  No 
1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC 

sport 

and 

Survey  including  opinions  of  stakeholders 
involved 
the  programme  design  and 
implementation. 

in 

Provides  information  on  the  types  of  training 
delivered, number of participants etc. 

Presents the results of the evaluation of ‘Your 
first  EURES  job’  (YfEj),  a  preparatory  action 
that  aims  to  promote  the  mobility  of  young 
workers aged 18-30 in the EU. 

Provides  an  assessment  of 
operations in the period 2006-2008. 

the  EURES 

lifelong 

regulation 

establishes 

Erasmus+, 
The 
including:  education  and  training  at  all  levels, 
in  a 
learning  perspective;  youth 
(Youth  in  Action),  particularly  in  the  context 
of  non-formal  and  informal  learning;  sport,  in 
particular grassroots sport. 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European 
Union 

The  communication  aims  to  enhance  human 
capital  and  employability  by  upgrading  skills 
and ensuring a better match between the supply 
of skills and labour market demand. 

Communication  from  the  Commission 
to 
the 
the  European  Parliament, 
Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee 
of  the  Regions  -  New  Skills  for  New 
-  Anticipating  and  matching 
Jobs 
labour market and skills needs 

73 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

35.  Communication 

European 
Commission 

Year 

2007 

36.  Communication 

European 
Commission 

2002 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

the  Council, 

Communication  from  the  Commission 
the  European 
to 
Parliament,  the  European  Economic 
and  Social  Committee 
the 
the  Regions  of  6 
Committee  of 
December  2007 
an 
-  Mobility, 
instrument  for  more  and  better  jobs: 
The European Job Mobility Action Plan 
(2007-2010) [COM(2007) 773 final 

and 

Communication  of  13  February  2002 
from  the  Commission  to  the  Council, 
the European Parliament, the Economic 
the 
and  Social  Committee 
Committee 
- 
Commission's  Action  Plan  for  skills 
and mobility [COM(2002) 72 final 

the  Regions 

and 

of 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

To  address  challenges  with  mobility 
the 
Commission proposed the Job Mobility action 
plan  with  four  strands:  i)  improving  existing 
legislation  and  administrative  practices;  ii) 
ensuring  that  the  national,  regional  and  local 
authorities  promote  mobility;  iii)  extend  the 
scope  and  quality  of  the  services  provided  by 
EURES;  iv)  increase  citizens’  awareness  on 
mobility. 

The communication aimed to address the need 
to  increase  the  occupational  mobility  (i.e. 
changing  jobs)  of  workers  from  the  poorer 
regions to those of the wealthier regions of the 
European Union. 

Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship 

37. 

Interim evaluation 

European 
Commission 

2015 

Interim  Evaluation  of  the  European 
Progress Microfinance Facility 

European  Court 
of 
Auditors 
Website 

38.  Evaluation 

European  Court 
of Auditors 

2015 

Is  EU  financial  support  adequately 
addressing 
the  needs  of  micro-
entrepreneurs? 

European  Court 
of 
Auditors 
Website 

74 

to 

effective 

is 
finance 

in 
Progress  Microfinance 
increasing  access 
for  micro-
enterprises.  It  has  a  positive  influence  on 
intermediaries 
The 
programme  is likely  to be sustainable but it is 
too  early  to  assess.  There  is  potential  for 
further  synergies  with  other  EU  and  national 
programmes. Lower levels of utilisation of the 
funded instruments than had been projected. 

activities. 

lending 

to  micro‑entrepreneurs 

The  Court  concludes  that  for  ESF  financial 
support 
there  are 
weaknesses in the programming and the design 
of  the  support  and  a  lack  of  sufficient  and 
reliable 
on 
performance.  The  Court  considers  that  these 

information 

monitoring 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

What is Microfinance 

CGAP Website   Definition of microfinance 

issues  may  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
effectiveness 
support 
addressing the needs of micro‑entrepreneurs. 

financial 

of  EU 

39.  Website 

40.  Website 

CGAP 

European 
Commission 

2016 

2016 

Micro-, 
enterprises: definition and scope. 

small- 

and  medium-sized 

41.  Report 

European 
Investment Fund 

2009 

Microfinance 
overview 

in  Europe.  A  market 

Official  Journal 
of  the  European 
Union 

European 
Investment 
Fund Website  

Definition and scope of SMEs 

from 

people 

suffering 

The  support  of  the  European  finance  sector  is 
important  in  developing  the  market.  Financial 
exclusion  in  Western  Europe  is  concentrated 
among 
social 
marginalization  and  poverty.  There  is  clear 
evidence that  microfinance is effective for job 
creation  and  social  inclusion.  There  is  a 
significant  un-served  market  demand 
in 
Europe.  SMEs  constitute  the  majority  of  all 
companies across Europe. There is no common 
microfinance business model in Europe. Public 
finance is critical to provide the initial funding 
for start-up. Non-financial support measure are 
crucial. 

42.  Report 

European 
Investment Fund 

2012 

Progress for Microfinance in Europe 

European 
Investment 
Fund Website  

Review of Progress Microfinance. Information 
available  on:  final  beneficiary  profile,  EU 
initiatives, intermediaries business  models and 
products. 

There  are  wide  spectra  of  final  beneficiaries 
and  intermediaries  and  there  is  no  common 
microfinance  business  model  in  Europe.  The 
microfinance  market 
and 
fragmented.  Microfinance  has  the  potential  to 
counter  poverty  and  unemployment  while 

immature 

is 

75 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

social 

financial  and 

fostering 
inclusion. 
Standardised,  regularly  available  indicators  to 
explain market developments for microfinance 
in  Europe  do  not  yet  exist  (only  for  Eastern 
Europe). 

in 

The  European  microfinance  market  presents  a 
dichotomy  between  Western  Europe  and 
Central/Eastern 
of 
Europe 
intermediary  profile,  target  beneficiaries,  loan 
size,  etc.  Market  failure  due  to  insufficient 
(debt  or  equity)  and 
supply  of  capital 
inadequacies on the demand side. This market 
failure 
is  mainly  based  on  asymmetric 
information. 

terms 

43.  Website 

Cabinet Office 

2013 

Social enterprise: market trends 

UK  Govenment 
Webportal 

44.  Report 

European 
Commission 

2014 

Study  on  imperfections  in  the  area  of 
to 
microfinance  and  options  how 
address  them  through  an  EU  financial 
instrument 

Online 
Bookshop 

EU 

There  is  no  universal  definition  of  a  ‘social 
enterprise’.  Social  enterprise  are  significantly 
more  likely  to  have  difficulties  accessing 
finance  than  other  SME  and  are  less  likely  to 
eventually  obtain  it.  The  UK  is  considered  to 
have  the  most  developed  social  investment 
market in the world. 

The ongoing crisis in several EU MS with high 
for 
levels  of  youth  unemployment  calls 
ongoing  support  of  inclusive  entrepreneurship 
and an option to (re-) enter the labour market. 
There  is  a  significant  market  gap  in  the 
provision  of  microloans  I  most  EU  countries, 
the  gap  amount  to  2,7  bn  EUR  in  the  EU-28. 
Microfinance 
additional 
providers 
external funding to be able to close the gap. 

need 

The  main  funding  needs  exist  at  the  level  of 
debt  and  equity  to  strengthen  and  develop  the 

76 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

45.  Report 

2013 

Dr.  Wolfgang 
Spiess-Knafl  and 
Prof. Dr. Stephan 
A. Jansen 

Imperfections  in  the  social  investment 
market and 

Online 
Bookshop 

EU 

options on how to address them 

capacity of their model. There is a rational for 
a  centrally  managed  facility  for  EU  backed 
investments  into  microfinance  portfolios  and 
organisations. 

Most  of  the  analysis  of  social  enterprises  and 
their financing  structures is based on a  single-
country-perspective  or  the  comparison  of  a 
number  of  selected  countries.  The  United 
Kingdom  has 
the  most  advanced  social 
investment market in the European Union. 

the 

still 

Impact  assessment 
remains  vague: 
although  a  number  of  methods  have  been 
developed,  reporting  standards  introduced  and 
industry  standards  defined,  there  has  been  no 
acceptable  method  developed  so  far.  There  is 
no integrated approach for assessing the social 
impact.  There  are  two  levels  of  measurement: 
i)  at 
the 
additional capital brought in the market and the 
number of social enterprises financed; ii) at the 
social  enterprise  level:  theory  of  change  and 
qualitative 
quantitative 
information such as sales and nb of employees. 
Description  of  financing  instruments,  revenue 
streams, actors in the  market,  delivery options 
and products. 

intermediary, 

description 

level  of 

and 

the 

Description  of  market  imperfections:  missing 
link  between  return  and  risk,  missing  pecking 
order,  missing  secondary  market  for  equity 
investment, mismatch between sustainable and 
needed  investment  sizes,  mismatch  of  supply 
and demand. 

77 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

46. 

Indicators 

47.  List 

of 

Author(s) 

European 
Investment Fund 

European 
Investment Fund 

Year 

n.d. 

2016 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

Operational Reporting 

EaSI – Guarantee Financial Instrument 

48.  Guidance 

E.  Varga,  M. 
for 
Hayday 
Rand Europe 

2015 

A recipe book for social finance 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 
Website 

List of performance indicators 

List of signatures as of 30/06/16 for guarantees 
for  both,  microfinance  and  social  enterprises 
intermediaries. 

Information on country, financial intermediary, 
type of support and budgetary allocation. 

Guide  addressed  to  social  finance  actors  on 
how  to  implement  their  business  model.  The 
guide  has  7  steps  explaining  how  to  create, 
assess and build a social initiative. 

49.  Report 

ICF 

2014/2015 

Mapping of social enterprises in Europe  European 

Commission 
Website 

Growing  interest  in  social  enterprise  across 
Europe, driven by a growing recognition of the 
role  social  enterprise  can  play  in  tackling 
societal  and  environmental  challenges  and 
fostering  inclusive  growth.  Little  is  known 
about  the  scale  and  characteristics  of  the 
emerging social enterprise ‘sector'. Operational 
definition  of  social  enterprises  developed. 
Social  enterprises  adopt  a  variety  of  legal 
forms  and  statuses.  22  out  of  29  European 
countries studied do not have a specific policy 
framework  for  supporting  the  development  of 
social enterprise. 

Reported  levels  of  social  enterprise  activity 
adopt  a  variety  of  definitions  and  research 
methods  but  do  suggest  recent  growth  in 
numbers - although absolute numbers of social 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

small 

are  very 

enterprise 
to 
mainstream  enterprises.  Social  enterprises 
in  most 
exploit  a  range  of  sources  and 
countries,  but  the  majority  of  their  revenue 
comes from the public sector 

relative 

the 

type 

evidence  on 

and 
Systematic 
prevalence  of  modes  of  creation  of  European 
social enterprise is lacking. The barriers to the 
development  of 
include:  poor 
the  sector 
understanding of the concept, lack of specialist 
lack  of 
business  development 
legislative  framework,  access  to  markets  and 
finance,  absence  of  common  measurement 
mechanisms. 

services, 

50.  Report 

European 
Microfinance 
Network 

2014 

Overview of the Microfinance Sector in 
Europe 

Website  of  the 
European 
Microfinance 
Network 

of 

the 

survey 

bi-annual 

Institutional 

on 
Results 
microfinance  in  Europe.  Sector  information: 
provision scale, growth, actors engaged. Social 
performance: target groups, social mission and 
and  geographical 
inclusion. 
diversity:  range,  diversity,  location.  Products 
and services: professional loans, consumer and 
Financial 
personal 
Policy 
performance: 
development: 
code  of  good 
conduct,  networking.  Outlook  of  the  sector’s 
development: 
trends, 
fundinPrecedent reports also available. 

loans,  BDS, 
data, 
regulation, 

etc. 
indicators. 

impact, 

crisis’ 

51.  Report 

October/November 
2016 

(expert 
GECES 
group 
advising 
the  Commission 
social 
on 
enterprise 

Report and recommendations 

Not available 

Social enterprise finance 

79 

 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

52.  Guidance 

53.  Report 

54.  Report 

55. 

Studies 

support) 

European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

2016 

practical 

A 
philanthropy 
investment 

guide 

and 

to 
social 

venture 
impact 

Website  of  the 
European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

Practical  guide  is  to  assist  start-up  or  early-
stage VPOs in Europe by providing an insight 
into  ‘what  works’  in  a  European  context, 
keeping  in  mind  the  diversity  existing  at 
individual  country  level.  The  guide  includes 
information  on  funding  models,  management, 
fundraising  and 
investment  strategy  and 
process. 

2016 

Impact measurement in practice 

2014 

European  Venture  Philanthropy  and 
Social Investment 2013/2014 

Publications 

European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

Website  of  the 
European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

Website  of  the 
European 
Venture 
Philanthropy 
Association 

European 
Commission 
Website 

verifying 

Five-step  model  to  measure  impact:  setting 
objectives,  analyzing  stakeholders,  measuring 
results, 
impact, 
and 
monitoring  and  reporting.  Many  VPOs  still 
consider 
impact 
to 
measurement in their daily practice. The report 
provides  2  case  studies  going  through  the  5 
steps. 

it  difficult 

implement 

valuing 

Fourth  annual  survey  of  European  Venture 
Philanthropy  and  Social  Investment.  Provides 
independent  industry  on  European  Venture 
Philanthropy and Social Investment. 

Various  publications  on  Venture  Philanthropy 
Organisations. 

Information  on  the  European  Code  of  Good 
Conduct  for  Microcredit  Provision  that  is 
obligatory  for  getting  funding  /  a  guarantee 
under  EaSI.  The  code  was  created  to  promote 

56. 

Indicators/website 

European 
Commission 
Salford 
University 

/ 

Supporting  entrepreneurs  and  the  self-
employed - Microfinance 

80 

 
 
 
No. 

Type 
document  

of 

Author(s) 

Year 

Title 

Source 

Brief description 

57.  Website 

European 
Commission 

2016 

Supporting  entrepreneurs  and  the  self-
employed - Social entrepreneurship 

best  practices  in  the  field  of  microcredit.  The 
code  includes  information  on  customer  and 
risk 
investors 
management, 
and 
management information systems. 

governance, 
standards 

relations, 

reporting 

DG  EMPL  website  on  social  enterprise 
support.  Complementarity  between  different 
initiatives. 

European 
Commission 
Website 

European 
Commission 

European 
Commission 

58.  Report 

59.  Report 

60.  Report 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

European 
Investment  Fund 
and 
European 
Commission 

European 
Investment  Fund 
and 
European 
Commission 

European 
Investment  Fund 
and 
European 
Commission 

Source: EaSI mid-term evaluation 

Monitoring  of  credit  portfolios:  semi-
annual  reports  on  progress  in  credit 
portfolios 

Annual social performance reports 

Annual 
Microfinance 

reports 

on 

Progress 

European 
Commission 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: EASI MID-TERM EVALUATION FRAMEWORK  

Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

1. To what extent do the general objectives 
identified in Article 4 of the EaSI Regulation 
continue to be relevant? 

Topic 1: Continuing 
relevance of general 
objectives. 

1. Is there still a need to promote produce concrete, 
coordinated and innovative actions at both Union and 
Member State level in the fields of employment, social 
protection, social exclusion and poverty and working 
conditions (general objective a)? 

2. Is there still a need to support the development of 
adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems 
and labour markets and to facilitate policy reform (general 
objective b)?  

3. Is there still a need to ensure that Union law on matters of 
employment, social protection, social exclusion and poverty 
and working conditions is effectively applied (general 
objective c)? 

4. Is there still a need to promote workers' voluntary 
geographical mobility and to develop high-quality and 
inclusive Union labour markets (general objective d)? 

5. Is there still a need to increase the availability and 
accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable people who wish 
to start up a micro-enterprise as well as for existing micro-
enterprises, and to increase access to finance for social 
enterprises (general objective e)? 

  Assumption: needs and demands have 

evolved since 2014. 

  EaSI programme has kept abreast of 

these changes. 

  Whether a majority of respondents 
consider that there is still a need. 

  Whether such a need is felt more 

strongly by some stakeholder groups or 
in some countries. 

  Proportion of stakeholders considering 
this need "very strong" or "quite 
strong".  

  Evidence and justification provided by 

stakeholders. 

2. What existing/emerging trends should be 
taken into account in the second half of the 
programme (2007-2020)? 

1. Is there evidence of new/emerging social issues that should 
be taken into account in the second half of the programme? 

  Assumption: operating context has 

evolved since 2014. 

2. Is there evidence of new/emerging policy instruments that 
should be taken into account in the second half of the 
programme? 

Topic 3: continuing 
relevance of resource 
allocation between the 

4. With regard to the specific objectives of each 
axis, and considering the socio-economic and 
policy development, to what extent is the split 
between the three axes and the split between 

1. Is it still relevant to allocate 61% of the EaSI budget to 
PROGRESS? 

  Evidence on how needs and demands 

have evolved since 2014. 

2. Is it still relevant to allocate 18% of the EaSI budget to 

  Views of stakeholders on needs. 

82 

 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

three axes of EaSI. 

thematic sections still relevant? 

EURES? 

Topic 4: Effectiveness 
in generating 
outcomes and 
achieving objectives. 

1. To what extent has the programme as a whole 
and each of its axes delivered the expected 
outcomes in terms of quantity and quality in 
order to achieve the general objectives and its 
horizontal provisions?  

3. Is it still relevant to allocate 21% of the EaSI budget to 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship? 

4. Has there been any tangible and material change to the 
social, economic and political context in which EaSI 
operates, that would justify a different resource allocation 
between the three axes?  

5. Does the performance of the individual axes merit a 
redistribution of resources?  

 1. To what extent has EaSI delivered the expected outcomes 
(specific objective a: develop and disseminate high-quality 
comparative analytical knowledge)?  

2. To what extent has EaSI delivered the expected outcomes 
(specific objective b: effective and inclusive information-
sharing, mutual learning and dialogue)? 

3. To what extent has EaSI delivered the expected outcomes 
(specific objective c: financial support to test social and 
labour market policy innovations)? 

4. To what extent has EaSI delivered the expected outcomes 
(specific objective d: financial support to increase /improve 
capacity)? 

5. To what extent, have horizontal issues (vulnerable groups, 
equality, non-discrimination, high level of quality and 
sustainable employment) been integrated across all axes? 

2. To what extent have the available financial 
means enabled the programme as a whole to 
fulfil its objectives entirely and in a timely 
manner?  

3. To what extent does the current programme 
allow for effective upscaling of interventions 

83 

  Actual resource allocation to date. 

  Evidence and justification provided by 
stakeholders on resource allocation. 

  Evidence on the strength of relationship 
between inputs, outputs and outcomes.  

  Comparison with expectation in ex ante 
evaluation for general objectives. 

  Comparison with expectations for 

horizontal objectives. 

  Evidence of overall progress. 

  Views of stakeholders. 

  Rates of absorption and demand for 

EaSI resources. 

  Evidence of upscaling and ‘multiplier 

 
 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 
and for follow-up conditions and mechanisms?  

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

effects’. 

  Views of stakeholders.  

 

Identification of ‘innovations’ and 
social experimentation results that have 
the potential to act as ‘multipliers’. 

  Evidence of ‘scaling up’. 

  Circumstances enabling ‘scaling up’. 

  Evidence of ‘good practice’. 

4. What have been the good practices in scaling 
up interventions? 

Topic 5. Effectiveness 
in bringing about 
change 

1. What have been - at this stage of the 
implementation - the qualitative and 
quantitative changes/effects of the 
interventions? 

  1. What have been the qualitative and quantitative 

 

changes/effects of the interventions for:  

 

analytical activities 

Identification of qualitative and 
quantitative changes/effects of different 
types of criteria since the beginning of 
EaSI. 

  mutual-learning, awareness and dissemination 

activities  

  Extent of the work programme's 

implementation. 

 

financial support and capacity building  

2. To what extent can these changes/effects be 
credited to the interventions? 

1. Is there evidence suggesting that specific outcome 1 
should be attributed to EaSI activities? 

2. Is there evidence suggesting that specific outcome 2 
should be attributed to EaSI activities? 

3. Is there evidence suggesting that specific outcomes 3 and 4 
should be attributed to EaSI activities? 

  Evidence suggesting that specific 
outcome 1 can be attributed to 
analytical activities. 

  Evidence suggesting that specific 

outcome 2 can be attributed to mutual 
learning activities. 

  Evidence suggesting that specific 

outcomes 3 and 4 can be attributed to 
EaSI financial support. 

  Assessments of the theory of change at 

case study level based on evidence of 
the strength of links between inputs and 
outcomes. 

84 

 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

3. To what extent did other different factors 
influence the achievement observed? 

4. What have been the unintended effect of the 
programme? 

Topic 6. Effectiveness 
in involving 
stakeholders. 

1. Which targeted groups of the programme 
have been involved in the programming and 
implementation of the EaSI programme?  

2. Has there been sufficient involvement of 
stakeholders in the programming and 
implementation of the EaSI programme? 

3. What were the most effective methods of 
involvement of the targeted groups and 
stakeholders? 

85 

 

Identified external factors and risks 
influencing the achievement of 
outcomes were  considered during 
programme design stage 

  Evidence suggesting that specific EaSI 

outcomes can be attributed to non- EaSI 
activities 

 

Identified unintended effects;  

  External factors and risks influencing 

the achievement of outcomes 
considered during programme design 
stage 

  Evidence from stakeholders. 

  Evidence of programme procedures and 
involvement of target groups including 
those concerned with transversal issues.  

  Views of stakeholders.  

  Evidence of the level and effects of 

stakeholders’ involvement 

 

 

Judgement of sufficiency based on 
views expressed by different groups 
and benchmarks from comparable EU 
programmes 

Identification of methods that are 
available at each implementation stage 
(programming, calls, projects, 
analytical activities, mutual learning 
activities).  

  Comparisons and benchmarks between 
axes and comparisons with other EU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

programmes.  

1. To what extent is the budget allocation and 
spending as a whole, and by axis and thematic 
sections proportionate and efficient for 
achieving the programme’s objectives?  

1. To what extent is the overall budget allocation 
proportionate and efficient? 

  Whether the budget allocation is in line 

with the EaSI Regulation 

2. How do the ‘cross border’ aspects of the needs problems 
being addressed compare with EU resources allocated?  

Topic 7. Efficiency of 
resource allocation 
and financing 
procedures.. 

Topic 9. Coherence 
accruing from the 
merging of the three 
previous 
programmes.. 

2. To what extent have the available financial 
means enabled the programme as a whole and 
each of its axes to fulfil their objectives 
efficiently?  

1. To what extent have the available financial means enabled 
EaSI to fulfil its objectives efficiently?  

2. Have the procedures been overly complex for the 
resources involved?   

1. To what extent did the merging of the three 
previous programmes PROGRESS, EURES and 
PROGRESS Microfinance improve EaSI 
internal/external consistency, complementarity 
and flexibility? 

1.  To what extent did the merging of the previous 
programmes improve internal consistency, 
complementarity and flexibility? 

2.  To what extent did the merging of the previous 
programmes improve external consistency, 
complementarity and flexibility? 

  Whether the costs are reasonable in 
relation to the outcomes achieved/ 
expected to be achieved 

  Views on the hypothetical 

consequences of increasing the budget 

  Views on the hypothetical 

consequences of reducing the budget. 

  Evidence of levels of inefficiency and 

efficiency in comparison with 
analogous programmes. 

  The costs are reasonable in relation to 
the outcomes achieved/ expected to be 
achieved  

  The administrative and governance 
structure operates efficiently 

  Evidence and views on the internal 
coherence at EU and national levels 

  Evidence and views on the coherence 

of the programme from the perspective 
of external stakeholders and 
programme participants. 

3. Is there evidence that merging PROGRESS, EURES 
and PROGRESS Microfinance improved the flexibility 
of these programmes? 

  Evidence with respect to the ease of 

moving resources between axes as 
required.  

  Existence or not of overlaps between 

PROGRESS and EURES, in particular 
with its activities relating to the Public 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 
Employment Services and labour 
market statistics. 

2. What kind of synergies has the Programme 
developed or improved between the axes?  

1. What kind of synergies has the Programme developed or 
improved between PROGRESS and EURES? 

  Evidence of synergies between axes 

due to merging. 

3. What level of flexibility - both between axes 
and between actions – would be required in 
order to get better outcomes? 

1. To what extent is this programme coherent 
and complementary (Article 7.1. of the EaSI 
Regulation) with other funding instruments such 
as the European Structural and Investment 
Funds (ESIF), in particular the European Social 
Fund (ESF)? 

2. What kind of synergies or joint actions 
(Articles 6 and 7.2. of the EaSI Regulation) has 
the programme developed with these funding 
instruments? 

Topic 10. Coherence 
with other EU 
intervention. 

2. What kind of synergies has the Programme developed or 
improved between PROGRESS and Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship?  

3. What kind of synergies has the Programme developed or 
improved between EURES and Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship?  

4. What kind of synergies has the Programme developed or 
improved between the three axes?  

  Evidence of potential synergies not 

being realised. 

  Evidence of problems due to the 

combination of axes.  

 

Identification of negative consequences 
due to lack of flexibility 

  Estimates of the consequences of 

revisions to programme procedures  

1. To what extent is EaSI coherent and complementary the 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), in 
particular the European Social Fund (ESF)? 

  Consideration of coherence and 

complementarity with other EU funding 
at programme preparation stage. 

2. Is EaSI coherent and complementary with other EU 
programmes? Which ones?  

  Current level of coherence and 

complementarity. 

3. Is EaSI incoherent or misaligned with other EU 
programmes? Which ones? 

  Existence of overlaps with other 

instruments. 

  Evidence of stakeholder confusion as 
regards the different programmes. 

  Existence of synergies and joint actions 

between programmes. 

  Evidence of the consequences of 
synergies and joint actions.  

87 

 
 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 
1. To what extent is national, regional and local 
authorities' involvement demonstrating 
consistency and complementarity?  

Topic 11. Coherence 
of involvement at EU, 
Member State 
regional and local 
levels. 

2. What would best be done at EU level to 
ensure that the programme's objectives are 
achieved?  

3. What would best be done at Member State 
level? 

Topic 12. EU added 
value. 

1. What has been the EU added value of the 
EaSI programme's activities?  

2. To what extent did the programme's activities 
bring European added value and transnational 
dimension which could not have been achieved 
(or not as effectively and/or efficiently) if they 
had been designed and implemented only at 
Member State level?  

3. To what extent do the issues addressed by the 
EaSI programme continue to require action at 
EU level?  

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

  Evidence of national, regional and local 

authorities' involvement has 
demonstrating consistency and 
complementarity? 

  Views of stakeholders. 

  Consideration of consequences of 

changes to governance and 
administrative arrangements at EU 
level. 

  Consideration of the competences and 
capacities for Member States to 
undertake cross border and 
multinational aspects of the Programme 
without EU programme and support.  

1. What has been the EU added value of the EaSI activities?  

  Evidence of different types of  EU 

2. Is there evidence suggesting that the specific outcomes of 
EaSI could not have been achieved to the same degree 
without EU intervention?  

added value in EaSI. 

  Views of stakeholders.  

  Evidence suggesting that EaSI activities 
could not have been delivered (or not as 
effectively and/or efficiently) if they 
had been designed and implemented 
only at Member State level.  

  EU activities fill a well-defined gap or 
complement national interventions. 

  Assumption: The same results cannot 
be achieved (or not as effectively 
and/or efficiently) if they are designed 
and implemented only at Member State 
level 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 

Evaluation questions 

Related sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

4. What would be the most likely consequences 
of stopping the existing EaSI programme's 
activities? 

5. To what extent are the results and the EU 
added value of the programme's activities 
communicated and disseminated to relevant 
stakeholders and to the public? 

6.. What were the most effective ways of 
communication and dissemination of the EaSI’s 
results to the relevant stakeholders and the 
broader public? 

 Source: EaSI mid-term evaluation 

89 

  EU activities fill a well-defined gap or 
complement national interventions 

  Consideration of alternative scenarios 

for the termination of different EU level 
activities within EaSI and redistribution 
of resources.  

  Evidence on the nature and scale of EU 
added value (economies of scale, cross 
border learning and transfer of 
experience, reductions in ‘friction’ of 
internal borders, positive effects on 
national policies)  

  Evidence on the extent to which EU 

added value has been communicated to 
stakeholders 

  Evidence on the extent to which EU 

added value has been communicated to 
the public. 

  Comparisons between different 

communication means applied (web 
sites, conferences, etc.). 

  Views of stakeholders and target 

groups.