Study supporting the preliminary evaluation of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) : final report.
Date: 2023-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU investment, coronavirus disease, cost-benefit analysis, crisis management, economic and social cohesion, education policy, eligibility criteria, employment policy, fund (EU), health care system, social integration

Study supporting the preliminary 
evaluation of the support provided 
by ESF and FEAD under the 
Coronavirus Response Investment 
Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) 

VT/2020/48 

Final Report 

Written  by Ian Atkinson, Monica Andriescu, Kyrillos Spyridopoulos, Andrea Broughton (Ecorys),  
Jakob Weiss (3s) 
March 2023  

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion 
Directorate G — Funds: Programming and implementation  
Unit G5 — Better Regulation 

Contact:  DG EMPL, Unit G5 – Better Regulation 

E-mail:  EMPL-G5-UNIT@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study supporting the preliminary 
evaluation of the support provided 
by ESF and FEAD under the 
Coronavirus Response Investment 
Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) 

VT/2020/48 

2023 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Manuscript completed in March 2023 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors,  and  the  European  Commission  is  not  liable  for  any  consequence  stemming  from  the  reuse  of  this 
publication. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  based  on  Commission  Decision 
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 
Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International  (CC-BY  4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  that  reuse  is 
allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to 
be sought directly from the respective rightholders.  

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-03467-5 

doi:10.2767/160531 

KE-04-23-511-EN-N 

Please  quote  this  report  as:  Ecorys,  3s  (2023)  Study  supporting  the  preliminary  evaluation  of  the  support 
provided  by  ESF  and  FEAD  under  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiatives  (CRII  and  CRII+), 
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. 

4 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Executive summary 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  had  a  series  of  social,  economic,  and  health  impacts  on  the 
European Union’s Member States. Not long after its onset, it became clear that Member 
States would experience significant liquidity shortages due to the exponential increase in 
public  investments  required  in  their  healthcare  systems  and  other  sectors  of  their 
economies.  As  a  response  to  this  exceptional  situation,  the  European  Commission 
launched, in March and April 2020, soon after the onset of the pandemic, two sequential 
initiatives:  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  (CRII)  and  the  Coronavirus 
Response Investment Initiative Plus (CRII+).  

The two initiatives granted Member States unprecedented flexibilities to plan and implement 
COVID-19 anti-crisis operations and address the acute needs of the population, by using 
the  unspent  resources  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period  from  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  and  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most 
Deprived (FEAD).  

Flexibilities in using the European Social Fund (ESF) under CRII and CRII+ included making 
coronavirus  crisis  related  expenditure  eligible  under  cohesion  policy  rules,  retroactive 
eligibility,  100%  co-financing,  reallocation  between  Funds  and  between  categories  of 
regions, a waiver of thematic concentration requirements, not issuing recovery orders for 
2020,  the  postponement  of  the  deadline  for  submission  of  the  Annual  Implementation 
Report  scheduled  for  2019,  and  providing  working  capital  to  SMEs  through  financial 
instruments.  Flexibilities  in  using  FEAD  under  CRII  and  CRII+  included  reallocation  of 
funding within the FEAD Operational Programme, the use of electronic vouchers / cards, 
100% co-financing, retroactive eligibility, the purchase of personal protective materials and 
equipment for partner organisations, and lighter control and audit trail requirements. 

This preliminary evaluation sought to examine the crisis response provided through the ESF 
and FEAD under CRII and CRII+. It further sought to explore the lessons learnt from using 
these  Funds  in  a  crisis-context.  The  evaluation  focused  on  how  CRII/CRII+  enabled 
Member States to respond to the crisis from a process perspective. Given the timing of the 
study, it did not consider the impact of CRII/CRII+ facilitated actions for beneficiaries and 
the end recipients of support, or more broadly for the European economies and societies. 
This will be the subject of the ex-post evaluations of the ESF and FEAD, both due in 2024.  

To triangulate and evidence the findings across a set of evaluation criteria detailed below, 
the study followed a mixed-methods approach using both primary and secondary research. 
A detailed account of the methods as well as their limitations and the robustness of findings 
is  available  in  the  report.  One  key  limitation  is  that  not  all  anti-crisis  operations  planned 
under CRII and CRII+ were identified. The evaluation tracked amendments to operational 
programmes that were submitted under CRII/ CRII+ during the timeline of this study. In the 
context of the exceptional flexibilities enabled under CRII and CRII+, a formal amendment 
was however not always needed. Operations without such an amendment could not always 
be identified through other sources during the study. 

Key findings 

The  study  analysed  the  evidence  gathered  against  the  five  evaluation  criteria: 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and contribution to the crisis response.  

The analysis of effectiveness suggests that the two initiatives have been broadly effective 
in enabling Member States to use the flexibilities that were made available, with the vast 
majority of Member States and the UK using them to address the COVID-19 effects across 
employment,  social  inclusion,  education  and  training,  and  health. The  options to  transfer 
resources between and within Funds, as well as to use 100% co-financing, were identified 
5 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

as the most widely used flexibilities in terms of numbers of countries taking advantage of 
them.  From  March  2020  to  September  2022,  23  Member  States (plus the  UK)  used  the 
response initiatives to facilitate amendments to the ESF to respond to the COVID-19 crisis 
(a  total  of  219  amendments  were  identified).  15  Member  States  also  used  CRII/CRII+ 
flexibilities  in  FEAD  programmes  to  support  existing  or  implement  new  COVID-19 
operations.  

When flexibilities were less used in the ESF context this appeared to be due to a perceived 
lack  of  need  in  light  of  national  contexts  /  programming  (e.g.,  national  funds  were  being 
used  in  the  first  instance  to  counter  the  pandemic’s  effects).  In  some  cases,  existing 
allocations/operations were seen as suitable and existing flexibilities as being sufficient for 
the anti-crisis response. In a number of cases existing flexibilities were used alongside, or 
in place of, the flexibilities offered by CRII and CRII+. The main reasons for more limited 
use of CRII+ flexibilities in the FEAD context involved the perception that FEAD Operational 
Programmes were already relatively flexible with a broad scope of the support that could be 
offered. 

The extensive use of the transfer option has shown that CRII and CRII+ were effective in 
redirecting and reallocating resources where they were most needed. The level of financial 
volumes  transferred  as  a  result  of  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  was  significant.  Overall, 
around EUR 1.2 billion were moved from the ERDF (EUR 871 million) and the Cohesion 
Fund (EUR 341 million) to the ESF, while about EUR 493 million were moved from the ESF 
to the ERDF, resulting in a net increase of ESF funds of EUR 0.7 billion. The diversity of 
reallocations using CRII/CRII+ flexibilities within Member States, and different patterns of 
reallocation flows across and within Funds, suggests, in particular, that the reallocation of 
funds was able to be used to suit national contexts and meet national needs. Reallocation 
was more commonly used in respect of the ESF relative to FEAD, even when accounting 
for the different size of the Funds. 

ESF and FEAD absorption rates continued to increase in 2020 and 2021 in line with their 
previous trend, despite the crisis context and the issues created for delivery of operations 
by,  for  example,  coronavirus  restrictions.  This  indicates  that  support  and  flexibilities 
provided  through  the  CRII  and  CRII+  are  likely  to  have  assisted  Member  States  to 
successfully maintain their level of contracting and expenditure. 

The majority of Member States’ COVID-19 anti-crisis operations identified in this evaluation 
were adjusted rather than new, building on existing operations that were expanded to meet 
the  rise  in  demand  for  support,  or  to  meet  new  demands.  New  operations  were  also 
implemented, but less frequently.  Most ESF operations started in 2020 and only a few in 
2021. Two thirds of the identified ESF operations targeted regions, with the remainder being 
implemented at national level.  Employment and social inclusion operations represented the 
majority  of  anti-crisis  operations.  These  also  cover  operations  with  health/  healthcare 
related objectives.  

The identified ESF anti-crisis operations tended to focus on the general public eligible for 
ESF support, or entities serving the general public, rather than on specific ESF target groups 
(e.g., older workers, those with disabilities etc.). There was a particular focus on those on 
furlough  as  opposed  to  the  traditionally  defined  ‘unemployed’  or  ‘economically  inactive’. 
There  were  also  operations  supporting  specific  ESF  target  groups,  including  the  most 
vulnerable (e.g., the homeless, the elderly, persons with caring responsibilities, disabilities, 
etc.). FEAD operations continued to be aimed at the provision of food aid and basic material 
assistance, as well as social inclusion measures, to the most deprived.  

Anti-crisis operations were largely managed through the governance structures that were 
already  in  place  before  the  pandemic.  These  were  often  supported  via  ad-hoc  working 
groups  with  a  specific  crisis  response  role.  The  evidence  suggests  that  the  horizontal 
principles  (e.g.,  the  partnership  principle)  have  been  considered  to  some  degree  in 

6 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

operations responding to the pandemic, although the need to respond quickly was viewed 
as taking precedence over a more thorough consideration or integration of the principles 
into the crisis response.  

Tracking  the  COVID-19  pandemic  response  posed  a  particular  challenge.  The  original 
monitoring  systems  were  not  designed  to  track  the  exceptional  flexibilities  introduced  by 
CRII/CRII+.  The  European  Commission  proposed  new,  non-mandatory,  financial  and 
output indicators to be used by the national and regional programmes, published in a “non-
paper”.1  These  programme-specific  indicators  were  intended  to  enable  the  monitoring  of 
the  anti-crisis  operations  introduced  through  CRII,  CRII+  and  REACT-EU.  Most  Member 
States and the UK used these new indicators to monitor their anti-crisis operations, though 
there are likely to be gaps in the available data. Monitoring thus likely underestimates the 
ESF  support  to  the  crisis,  which  by  September  2022  indicated  EUR  5.1  billion  support, 
targeting 4.1 million ESF participants and 118 thousand entities. Notwithstanding this issue, 
the new indicators are a significant step forward when compared with attempts to monitor 
(and  evaluate)  interventions  aimed  at  addressing  previous  crises  (e.g.,  the  2008-2009 
economic crisis). In particular, this is because they provide a dedicated way to monitor the 
response  to  COVID-19,  thereby  providing  a  specific  measure  of  the  scale  of  ESF 
investments alongside numbers of individuals and entities benefitting across the EU as part 
of the crisis response.  

The  analysis  of  efficiency  shows  that,  overall,  CRII  and  CRII+  facilitated  an  efficient 
process for using remaining funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and the changed 
priorities  that  resulted.  CRII  and  CRII+  simplified  and  accelerated  the  reprogramming 
process and were thus key in helping Member States to rapidly respond to needs on the 
ground. In particular, the ability to reallocate funds in an efficient manner enabled Member 
States  to  address  the  pandemic’s  effects  and  maintain  liquidity  for  broader  expenditure. 
Time efficiencies in programming were coupled with time efficiencies in implementation: the 
evidence shows that almost 7 out of 10 programme amendments were accepted within one 
month, much more quickly than the 3 months stipulated normally by the Common Provisions 
Regulation.  

In  general,  there  was  very  limited  evidence  of  consideration/assessment  of  costs  and 
benefits arising at the Member State level from CRII/CRII+ and their use in the ESF and 
FEAD  contexts. There  was,  however,  some anecdotal  evidence  that  Managing  Authority 
costs, in terms of familiarisation with flexibilities, implementation of new indicators etc., were 
overall  outweighed  by  benefits  in  terms  of  time/resource  cost  savings  compared  to  pre-
pandemic  programming.  Despite  this,  there  was  acknowledgement  that  deploying  the 
flexibilities in itself created additional administrative requirements, as the new rules had to 
be communicated and internalised. This was a challenge in the early pandemic phase in 
particular, due to the requirement for Managing Authorities and partner staff to respond to 
the pandemic and develop/adapt operations rapidly. However, the CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities 
were generally seen as reducing resource requirements and administrative burden, hence 
supporting an efficient pandemic response.  

The  analysis  of  coherence  suggests  that  the  majority  of  CRII/CRII+  operations  were 
based  on  and/or  broadened  the  scope  of  existing  ESF  and  FEAD  actions,  suggesting 
coherence of operations supported by the Funds before and during the pandemic. However, 
there  were  some  distinct  changes  relative  to  programming  in  the  pre-pandemic  context. 
These  included  the  broadening  of  target  groups  to  the  general  population  rather  than 
targeting specific groups; the prioritisation of actions focusing on health and healthcare; and 
an increased focus on passive support measures (mostly short-time work schemes). The 
main  changes  in  the  use  of  FEAD  during  the  pandemic  were  made  to  the  process  of 
reaching the end recipients (e.g., the introduction of e-vouchers or the use of other similar 

1 Non-paper: List of programme-specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic 
(Revised February 2021) 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

7 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

digital means to facilitate the distribution and pick-up of food and other material assistance 
products) and to the operational processes of the implementing organisations.  

The  analysis  undertaken  also  demonstrated  synergies between ESF and ERDF,  with  13 
Member-States re-allocating funds between the two, to program relevant actions (CZ, DE, 
ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SK). The same synergies have been seen between 
ESF and SURE, with the majority of Member States using both funding sources to finance 
short-time  work  schemes  (STWS).  Sixteen  of  the  Member  States  that  used  SURE  also 
planned to use ESF to support STWS under the CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities (BG, CY, CZ, DE, 
ES, GR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK).2  

The evidence also suggests that several Member States are continuing, or are planning to 
continue, CRII / CRII+ operations under REACT-EU and ESF+, thus enabling a coherent 
transition from crisis response to crisis recovery and supporting alignment and sustainability 
over the long-term. The evidence also points to complementarities between ESF and FEAD 
actions  and  those  financed  via  national  and  regional  budgets  during  COVID-19.  Inter-
institutional coordination and consultations with social partners were cited as an enabling 
factor in leveraging synergies and avoiding duplication. Where an overlap between different 
Funds  was  identified,  notably  in  terms  of  ESF  and  SURE  both  financing  STWS,  this 
reflected the high level of demand for support for jobs, employees, the self-employed and 
businesses in the pandemic, rather than representing unnecessary duplication.  

A factor that somewhat hindered coherence included the high number and variety of EU 
instruments and mechanisms that were launched in a short time-span during the pandemic. 
This situation required additional time at the level of the national/ regional administrations, 
for  instance  to  determine  the  most  appropriate  instrument  or  mechanism  to  use. 
Notwithstanding  this  issue,  there  was  wide  agreement  across  stakeholders  that  these 
mechanisms supported crisis response in the Member States in a coherent manner and in 
different ways, at critical times, in the evolution of the pandemic.   

The  analysis  of  relevance  suggests that  CRII/CRII+ flexibilities  were  relevant  overall  in 
enabling  Managing  Authorities  to  quickly  program  operations  and  address  the  needs 
stemming  from  COVID-19’s  social,  economic,  and  health  impacts.  Anti-crisis  operations 
were relevant for the general public and entities affected by the pandemic (e.g., businesses) 
as well as those supporting the crisis response (healthcare establishments). They have also 
shown  relevance  to  vulnerable  groups  such  as  the  homeless,  people  with  caring 
responsibilities, persons with disabilities, and the elderly, or persons at risk of poverty and 
social  exclusion  whose  needs  increased  during  the  pandemic.  The  notable  increase  in 
participation in FEAD operations in 2020 compared to 2019 is illustrative of the relevance 
of FEAD under CRII+.  

CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  were  seen  as  relevant  for  a  series  of  target  groups  whose  needs 
were particularly acute during COVID-19, including healthcare institutions or social service 
providers (e.g., mental health-, financial-, housing-, family-, work-related, legal- counselling 
service providers etc.) as well as people in specific sectors (e.g., cultural sector) or those at 
risk  of  losing  their  job.  Apart  from  these  target  groups,  the  study  sought  to  assess  the 
relevance  of  CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  in  the  context  of  the  arrival  in  EU  Member  States  of 
people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Evidence suggests that the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities 
were less relevant in this context, largely due to funds already having been committed for 
other operations; it was also too early to make a definitive judgement on the relevance of 
the response to this new crisis. 

ESF and FEAD objectives address structural inequalities but have also proved their added 
value  in  supporting  crisis  response  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  analysis  of 
contribution  to  the  crisis  response  suggests  that  CRII/CRII+  provided  flexibility  to 

2 Based on the CRII/ CRII+ ESF operations identified in the SFC2014 database in the timeline of this preliminary evaluation 
based on Operational Programme amendments submitted before October 2022.  

8 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Member  States  to  quickly  react  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  and  implement  operations  more 
quickly  than  might  have  been  possible  in  their  absence,  supporting  several  areas  of 
intervention.  In  addition,  the  response  initiatives  contributed  to  reducing  administrative 
burden  in  accessing  ESF  and  FEAD,  which  in  turn  supported  implementing  bodies  in 
accessing funding to address fast evolving needs on the ground. CRII/ CRII+ enabled the 
use of ESF and FEAD to fund new activities in the crisis context, extending the scope of the 
funds to address new target groups and support new types of actions, as well as adjust the 
scope of existing operations to provide more inclusive support. Finally, the flexibilities also 
facilitated the integration of ESF and FEAD funded operations into national strategies and 
allowed Member States to test new solutions. 

Lessons learnt 

The assessment of CRII/CRII+ also pointed to some important lessons learnt:  

  Compared to the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the EU responded much quicker 
and more extensively to the socio-economic challenges triggered by COVID-
19. The support was timely and critical in enabling a quick crisis response across 
the Member States and the UK. Apart from addressing structural inequalities, ESF 
and  FEAD  were  also  critical  crisis-response  instruments,  while  still  pursuing  the 
same core objectives. This highlights the potentially crucial role that such funds can 
play in a crisis response context. 

  The study findings also highlight a need to facilitate flexibilities while maintaining 
a  focus  on  monitoring  and  reporting,  thereby  ensuring  the  traceability  of 
operations  and  their  outcomes.  Difficulties  in  monitoring  and  evaluating  crisis 
response in these contexts can limit the lessons learnt and how funds such as the 
ESF  and  FEAD  can  be  used  in  the  future.  Having  ad-hoc  working  groups  or 
interinstitutional  mechanisms  proved  to  be  effective  in  terms  of  informing 
decision-making  and  avoiding  duplication  of  actions  in  critical  times,  with  the 
evidence showing how these can function effectively alongside pre-existing formal 
governance  and  implementation  mechanisms.  To  the  same  end,  enhancing  the 
involvement of social partners was also seen as an area for further development in 
terms  of  helping  to  ensure  the  design  of  operations  correspond  to  the  greatest 
degree possible to the needs on the ground.  

  Extending  flexibilities  to  national  and regional  procedures  and  institutional/ 
organisational capacity are equally important to effective crisis response, as 
they  facilitate  access  to  funding  for  beneficiaries  in emergency  situations  when  a 
quick response on the ground is critical. The study shows that the process was more 
effective  and  efficient  in  situations  where  Managing  Authorities  made  additional 
efforts to coordinate and help the beneficiaries to fulfil their obligations, including by 
taking on administrative burdens that would otherwise have fallen on beneficiaries.  

  Anti-crisis operations have revealed investment areas where ESF and FEAD 
operations  could  focus  further  during  the  post-pandemic  recovery  phase, 
thereby  continuing  the  investments  that  were  piloted  during  COVID-19  (e.g., 
digitalisation  across  policy  areas,  adaptation  support  for  workers  and  employers, 
targeted support for the most vulnerable groups, investments in strenghtening the 
resilience of healthcare systems, etc.). 

  The range of EU funding instruments available to the Member States during the 
pandemic  required  additional  coordination  efforts  from  national  and  regional 
authorities.  At  the  same  time  the  instruments  supported  the  building  of  crisis 
response capacity at EU, national and regional levels, and the  development of 
new  ways  of  working  that  can  contribute  in  future  to  a  better  targeting  and 
alignment of resources to pursue the EU’s Cohesion Policy priorities during 2021-
2027. 

9 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Synthèse – Étude à l’appui de l’évaluation préliminaire 
du soutien apporté par le FSE et le FEAD dans le 
cadre des Initiatives d’investissement en réaction au 
coronavirus (CRII et CRII+)  

La  pandémie  de  COVID-19  a  engendré  des  conséquences  sociales,  économiques  et 
sanitaires  sur  les  États  membres  de  l’Union  européenne.  Peu  après  le  début  de  la 
pandémie, il est devenu évident que les États membres subiraient un manque de liquidités 
important  en  raison  de 
investissements  publics 
l’accroissement  exponentiel  des 
nécessaires  à  leurs  systèmes  de  santé  et  à  d’autres  secteurs  de  leurs  économies.  En 
réponse à cette situation exceptionnelle, la Commission européenne a lancé, en mars et 
avril 2020,  juste  après  le  début  de  la  pandémie,  deux  initiatives  séquentielles:  l’Initiative 
d’investissement  en  réaction  au  coronavirus  (CRII)  et  l’Initiative  d’investissement+  en 
réaction au coronavirus (CRII+).  

Ces  deux  initiatives  ont  octroyé  des  flexibilités  sans  précédent  aux  Etats  membres  pour 
planifier et mettre en œuvre des opérations de lutte contre la crise et répondre aux besoins 
urgents de la population, en utilisant les ressources non dépensées au cours de la période 
de programmation 2014-2020 des Fonds structurels et d’investissement européens (Fonds 
ESI) et du Fonds européen d’aide aux plus démunis (FEAD).  

Les  flexibilités  d’utilisation  du  Fonds  social  européen  (FSE)  dans  le  cadre  des  initiatives 
CRII et CRII+ comprenaient l’éligibilité des dépenses liées à la crise du coronavirus dans 
le  cadre  des  règles  de  la  politique  de  cohésion,  l’éligibilité  rétroactive,  un  taux  de 
cofinancement de 100 %, la réaffectation entre les Fonds et entre les catégories de régions, 
une dispense de conformité aux exigences de concentration thématique, la non-émission 
d’ordres de recouvrement pour 2020, le report de la date limite de soumission du rapport 
annuel de mise en œuvre prévu pour 2019, et la fourniture de fonds de roulement aux PME 
par le biais d’instruments financiers. Les flexibilités d’utilisation du FEAD dans le cadre des 
initiatives  CRII  et  CRII+  incluaient  la  réaffectation  de  fonds  au  sein  du  Programme 
opérationnel du FEAD, l’utilisation de bons/cartes électroniques, un taux de cofinancement 
de  100 %,  l’éligibilité  rétroactive,  l’achat  d’équipement  de  protection  individuel  pour  les 
organisations  partenaires  et  des  exigences  allégées  en  matière  de  contrôle  et  de  pistes 
d’audit. 

Cette évaluation préliminaire visait à examiner la réponse à la crise fournie par le FSE et le 
FEAD dans le cadre des initiatives CRII et CRII+. Elle cherchait également à explorer les 
enseignements acquis à la suite de l’utilisation de ces Fonds dans un contexte de crise. 
L’évaluation s’est concentrée sur la question de savoir si les processus mis en place par 
les  initiatives  CRII  et  CRII+  avaient  permis  aux  États  membres  de  faire  face  à  la  crise. 
Compte tenu du calendrier de l’étude, cette évaluation n’a pas examiné l’impact des actions 
facilitées  par  les initiatives  CRII/CRII+  sur  les  bénéficiaires et  les destinataires finaux  de 
l’aide,  ni,  plus  largement,  sur  les économies et  les  sociétés  européennes.  Ce point  sera 
l’objet des évaluations ex post du FSE et du FEAD, toutes deux prévues en 2024.  

Afin de trianguler et d’étayer les résultats en fonction d’une série de critères d’évaluation 
détaillés ci-dessous, l’étude a adopté une approche mixte recourant à la fois à la recherche 
primaire et secondaire. Un compte rendu détaillé des méthodes, de leurs limites et de la 
fiabilité des résultats est disponible dans le rapport. L’une des principales limites est que 
toutes les opérations de lutte contre la crise prévues dans le cadre des initiatives CRII et 
CRII+  n’ont  pas  été  identifiées.  L’évaluation  a  suivi  les  modifications  apportées  aux 
programmes opérationnels soumis au titre des initiatives CRII/CRII+ pendant la durée de 
l’étude.  Cependant,  dans  le  contexte  des  flexibilités  exceptionnelles  permises  par  les 
initiatives  CRII  et  CRII+,  une  modification  formelle  n’était  pas  toujours  nécessaire.  Les 
10 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

opérations  n’ayant  pas  fait  l’objet  d’une  telle  modification  n’ont  pas  toujours  pu  être 
identifiées par d’autres sources au cours de l’étude. 

Principales constatations 

L’étude  a  analysé  les  éléments  recueillis  en  fonction  des  cinq  critères  d’évaluation: 
efficacité, efficience, pertinence, cohérence et contribution de la réponse à la crise.  

L’analyse de l’efficacité suggère que les deux initiatives ont été généralement efficaces 
pour  permettre  aux  États  membres  d’utiliser  les  flexibilités  mises  à  leur  disposition,  la 
grande majorité des États membres et le Royaume-Uni les ayant utilisées pour pallier les 
effets de la COVID-19 dans les domaines de l’emploi, de l’inclusion sociale, de l’éducation 
et de la formation, et de la santé. Les possibilités de transfert de ressources entre les Fonds 
et en leur sein, ainsi que le recours au taux de cofinancement de 100 %, ont été identifiés 
comme les flexibilités les plus utilisées en termes de nombre de pays qui s’en sont servis. 
De mars 2020 à septembre 2022, 23 États membres (plus le Royaume-Uni) ont utilisé les 
initiatives de réaction pour faciliter les modifications du FSE afin de répondre à la crise liée 
à la COVID-19 (un total de 219 modifications a été recensé). Quinze États membres ont 
également utilisé les flexibilités des initiatives CRII/CRII+ dans les programmes au titre du 
FEAD  pour  soutenir  les  opérations  existantes  ou  pour  mettre  en  œuvre  de  nouvelles 
opérations de lutte contre la COVID-19.  

Ces flexibilités ont été moins employées, dans le cadre du FSE, lorsqu’elles n’étaient pas 
nécessaires au vu du contexte/programme national (par exemple, les fonds nationaux ont 
été utilisés en premier lieu pour contrer les effets de la pandémie). Dans certains cas, les 
allocations/opérations  existantes  ont  été  considérées  comme  adaptées  et  les  flexibilités 
existantes comme suffisantes pour faire face à la crise. De nombreuses fois, les flexibilités 
existantes ont été utilisées conjointement aux flexibilités offertes par les initiatives CRII et 
CRII+,  ou  en remplacement  de  celles-ci.  Les  principales raisons  d’un recours  plus  limité 
aux flexibilités de l’initiative CRII+ dans le cadre du FEAD sont liées au sentiment que les 
Programmes  opérationnels  du  FEAD  sont  déjà  relativement  flexibles  et  qu’ils  offrent  un 
large éventail de possibilités de soutien. 

L’utilisation  intensive  de  l’option  de  transfert  a  montré  que  les  initiatives  CRII  et  CRII+ 
étaient  efficaces  pour  rediriger  et  réaffecter  les  ressources  là  où  elles  étaient  le  plus 
nécessaires.  Le  niveau  des  volumes  financiers  transférés  à  la  suite  des  flexibilités  des 
initiatives CRII et de CRII+ a été considérable. En tout, environ 1,2 milliard d’euros ont été 
transférés du FEDER (871 millions d’euros) et du Fonds de cohésion (341 millions d’euros) 
au FSE, tandis que près de 493 millions d’euros ont été transférés du FSE au FEDER, ce 
qui s’est traduit par une augmentation nette des fonds du FSE de 0,7 milliard d’euros. La 
diversité des réaffectations par le biais des flexibilités des initiatives CRII/CRII+ au sein des 
États membres, ainsi que les différents schémas de flux de réaffectation entre et au sein 
des Fonds, indiquent clairement que la réaffectation des fonds a pu être utilisée de manière 
à s’adapter aux contextes nationaux et répondre aux besoins nationaux. La réaffectation a 
été  plus  souvent  utilisée  pour  le  FSE  que  pour  le  FEAD,  même  en  tenant  compte  de  la 
différence de taille des Fonds. 

Les  taux  d’absorption  du  FSE  et  du  FEAD  ont  continué  à  augmenter  en  2020  et  2021, 
conformément à leur tendance antérieure, malgré le contexte de crise et les problèmes liés 
à  la  mise  en  œuvre  des  opérations  en  raison  des  restrictions  liées  au  coronavirus,  par 
exemple. Cela démontre que le soutien et les flexibilités apportés par les initiatives CRII et 
CRII+ ont probablement aidé les États membres à maintenir leur niveau de passation de 
marchés et de dépenses. 

La majorité des opérations de lutte contre la COVID-19 des États membres identifiées dans 
cette  évaluation  ont  été  ajustées  plutôt  que  créées,  et  s’appuient  sur  des  opérations 
existantes qui ont été étendues pour répondre à l’augmentation de la demande d’aide, ou 

11 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

pour répondre à de nouvelles demandes. De nouvelles opérations ont également été mises 
en œuvre, mais moins fréquemment. La plupart des opérations du FSE ont commencé en 
2020 et seules quelques-unes en 2021. Deux tiers des opérations du FSE identifiées ont 
ciblé des régions, le reste étant mis en œuvre au niveau national. Les opérations en faveur 
de l’emploi et de l’inclusion sociale ont représenté la majorité des opérations de lutte contre 
la crise. Cela couvre également les opérations ayant des objectifs en matière de santé/soins 
de santé.  

Les opérations de lutte contre la crise du FSE identifiées ont eu tendance à se concentrer 
sur  le grand  public,  éligible  à l’aide  du  FSE,  ou  sur  des  entités au  service des  citoyens, 
plutôt que sur des groupes cibles spécifiques du FSE (par exemple, les travailleurs âgés, 
les  personnes  handicapées,  etc.).  L’accent  a  été  mis  sur  les  personnes  en  situation  de 
«chômage  technique»,  par  opposition  à  la  définition  traditionnelle  de  «chômeur»  ou 
d’«inactif».  Des  opérations  ont  également  été  menées  en  faveur  de  groupes  cibles 
spécifiques du FSE, notamment les personnes les plus vulnérables (par exemple, les sans-
abri,  les  personnes  âgées,  les  personnes  ayant  des  responsabilités  familiales,  les 
personnes handicapées, etc.) Les opérations du FEAD ont continué à se concentrer sur la 
mise à disposition d’une aide alimentaire et d’une assistance matérielle de base, ainsi que 
de mesures d’inclusion sociale en faveur des plus démunis.  

Les opérations de lutte contre la crise ont été en grande partie gérées par les structures de 
gouvernance  qui  étaient  déjà  en  place  avant  la  pandémie.  Celles-ci  étaient  souvent 
soutenues  par  des  groupes  de  travail  ad  hoc  jouant  un  rôle  spécifique  en  matière  de 
réponse à la crise. Il apparaît que les  principes horizontaux (par exemple, le principe de 
partenariat) ont été pris en compte dans une certaine mesure dans les opérations de lutte 
contre la pandémie, même si la nécessité de réagir rapidement a été jugée prioritaire par 
rapport à une prise en compte ou à une intégration plus approfondie de ces principes dans 
la réponse à la crise.  

Le suivi électronique de la réaction à la pandémie de COVID-19 a posé un défi particulier. 
Les  systèmes  de  surveillance  initiaux  n’étaient  pas  conçus  pour  suivre  les  flexibilités 
exceptionnelles introduites par les initiatives CRII/CRII+. Dans un «document officieux», la 
Commission européenne a proposé aux programmes nationaux et régionaux d’utiliser de 
nouveaux  indicateurs  financiers  et  de  résultats  non  obligatoires.3  Ces  indicateurs 
spécifiques aux programmes étaient destinés à permettre le suivi des opérations de lutte 
contre la crise introduites par le biais de l’initiative CRII, de l’initiative CRII+ et de REACT-
EU. La plupart des États membres et le Royaume-Uni ont utilisé ces nouveaux indicateurs 
pour surveiller leurs opérations de lutte contre la crise, même si les données disponibles 
sont  probablement  lacunaires.  La  surveillance  sous-estime  donc  probablement  l’aide  du 
FSE lors de la crise, qui, en septembre 2022, indiquait un soutien de 5,1 milliards d’euros, 
ciblant  4,1 millions  de  participants  au  FSE  et  118 000 entités.  Malgré  ce  problème,  les 
nouveaux indicateurs constituent une avancée significative par rapport aux tentatives de 
surveillance  (et  d’évaluation)  des  interventions  visant  à  résoudre  les  crises  précédentes 
(par  exemple,  la  crise  économique  de  2008-2009).  En  effet,  ils  constituent  un  moyen 
spécifique de surveiller la réaction à la crise de COVID-19 et permettent ainsi de mesurer 
l’ampleur des investissements du FSE et le nombre de personnes et d’entités qui en ont 
bénéficié dans l’UE dans le cadre de la réponse à la crise.  

L’analyse  de  l’efficience  montre que,  dans  l’ensemble,  les  initiatives  CRII  et  CRII+  ont 
permis de mettre en place un processus efficace d’utilisation des fonds restants pour faire 
face à la pandémie de COVID-19 et aux changements de priorités qui en ont résulté. Les 
initiatives CRII et CRII+ ont simplifié et accéléré le processus de reprogrammation et ont 
donc joué un rôle clé en aidant les États membres à répondre rapidement aux besoins sur 
le terrain. La possibilité de réaffecter des fonds de manière efficace a permis, en particulier, 

3 Document officieux: Liste des indicateurs spécifiques aux programmes liés à la politique de cohésion en réponse directe à 
la pandémie de COVID-19 (révisée en février 2021) 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

12 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

aux États membres de pallier les effets de la pandémie et de conserver des liquidités pour 
des dépenses plus importantes. Les gains de temps en matière de programmation ont été 
associés  à  des  gains  de  temps  en  matière  de  mise  en  œuvre:  il  apparaît  que  près  de 
7 modifications  de  programmes  sur  10  ont  été  acceptées  dans  un  délai  d’un  mois,  soit 
beaucoup  plus  rapidement  que  les  3 mois  normalement  prévus  par  le  règlement  portant 
dispositions communes.  

D’une manière générale, il y avait très peu d’éléments attestant de la prise en compte ou 
de l’évaluation des coûts et des avantages découlant, au niveau des États membres, des 
initiatives CRII/CRII+ et de leur utilisation dans les contextes du FSE et du FEAD. Toutefois, 
certains éléments anecdotiques indiquent que les coûts des autorités de gestion, en termes 
de familiarisation avec les flexibilités, de mise en œuvre de nouveaux indicateurs, etc., ont 
été  globalement  compensés  par  les  avantages  en  termes  de  gains  de  temps  et  de 
ressources  par  rapport  à  la  programmation  d’avant  la  pandémie.  Malgré  cela,  il  a  été 
reconnu  que  le  déploiement  des  flexibilités  créait  en  soi  des  exigences  administratives 
supplémentaires, car les nouvelles règles devaient être communiquées et internalisées. Ce 
point  a  représenté  un  défi  au  début  de  la  pandémie  en  particulier,  car  les  autorités  de 
gestion  et  le  personnel  des  partenaires  devaient  faire  face  à  la  pandémie  et 
développer/adapter rapidement les opérations. Toutefois, les flexibilités des initiatives CRII/ 
CRII+ ont généralement été considérées comme réduisant les besoins en ressources et la 
charge administrative, favorisant ainsi une réponse efficace à la pandémie.  

L’analyse  de  la  cohérence  suggère  que  la  majorité  des  opérations  des  initiatives 
CRII/CRII+ étaient basées sur et/ou élargissaient la portée des actions existantes du FSE 
et du FEAD, ce qui indique la cohérence des opérations soutenues par les Fonds avant et 
pendant la pandémie. Toutefois, il y a eu quelques changements distincts par rapport à la 
programmation  dans  le  contexte  précédant  la  pandémie.  Il  s’agit  notamment  de 
l’élargissement  des  groupes  cibles  à  la  population  générale  plutôt  qu’à  des  groupes 
spécifiques, de la hiérarchisation des actions axées sur la santé et les soins de santé, et de 
l’accent mis sur les mesures passives de soutien (principalement les mesures de chômage 
partiel). Les principaux changements dans l’utilisation du FEAD au cours de la pandémie 
ont été apportés au processus permettant d’atteindre les bénéficiaires finaux (par exemple, 
l’introduction de bons électroniques ou l’utilisation d’autres moyens numériques similaires 
pour  faciliter  la  distribution  et  le  retrait  de  denrées  alimentaires  et  d’autres  produits 
d’assistance matérielle) ainsi qu’aux processus opérationnels des organisations chargées 
de la mise en œuvre.  

L’analyse a également démontré des synergies entre le FSE et le FEDER, avec 13 États 
membres réaffectant des fonds entre les deux, afin de programmer des actions pertinentes 
(CZ,  DE,  ES,  FR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SK).  Les  mêmes  synergies  ont  été 
observées entre le FSE et SURE,4 la majorité des États membres utilisant les deux sources 
de financement  pour financer  les mesures  de  chômage partiel  (STWS).  Seize des  États 
membres, qui ont utilisé le programme SURE, ont également prévu d’utiliser le FSE pour 
soutenir les STWS au titre des flexibilités des initiatives CRII/ CRII+ (BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, 
GR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK).5  

Il  apparaît  également  que  plusieurs  États  membres  poursuivent,  ou  prévoient  de 
poursuivre,  des  opérations  CRII/CRII+  dans  le  cadre  de  REACT-EU  et  du  FSE+,  ce qui 
permet une transition cohérente entre la réaction à la crise et la relance après la crise et 
favorise  l’alignement  et  la  viabilité  à  long  terme.  Les  données  indiquent  également  des 
complémentarités entre les actions du FSE et du FEAD et celles financées par les budgets 
nationaux  et  régionaux  au  cours  de  la  pandémie  de  COVID-19.  La  coordination 
interinstitutionnelle et les consultations avec les partenaires sociaux ont été citées comme 

4 Instrument européen de soutien temporaire à l’atténuation des risques de chômage en situation d’urgence (SURE) 
engendrée par la propagation de la COVID-19. 
5 Sur la base des opérations FSE des CRII/ CRII+ identifiées dans la base de données SFC2014 du calendrier de cette 
évaluation préliminaire, sur la base des modifications du programme opérationnel soumises avant octobre 2022.  

13 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

un  facteur  permettant  de  tirer  parti  des  synergies  et  d’éviter  les  doubles  emplois.  Les 
chevauchements entre différents fonds identifiés, notamment en ce qui concerne le FSE et 
SURE qui financent tous deux les STWS, reflètent le niveau élevé de la demande d’aide à 
l’emploi, aux salariés, aux indépendants et aux entreprises dans le cadre de la pandémie, 
plutôt que de représenter un doublon inutile.  

Le nombre élevé et la diversité des instruments et mécanismes de l’UE, lancés en peu de 
temps pendant la pandémie, ont quelque peu nui à la cohérence. Cette situation a nécessité 
un délai supplémentaire au niveau des administrations nationales/régionales, par exemple 
pour  déterminer  l’instrument  ou  le  mécanisme  le  plus  approprié  à  utiliser.  Malgré  ce 
problème, les parties prenantes s’accordent à dire que ces mécanismes ont aidé les États 
membres  à  réagir  face  à  la  crise  de  manière  cohérente  et  de  différentes  façons,  à  des 
moments critiques de l’évolution de la pandémie.   

L’analyse de la pertinence suggère que les flexibilités des initiatives CRII/CRII+ ont été 
globalement  pertinentes permettant  aux  autorités  de  gestion  de  programmer rapidement 
les opérations et de répondre aux besoins découlant des impacts sociaux, économiques et 
sanitaires  de  la COVID-19.  Les  opérations  de  lutte  contre  la crise concernaient  le grand 
public et les entités touchées par la pandémie (par exemple, les entreprises) ainsi que celles 
qui soutenaient la réaction à la crise (les établissements de soins de santé). Elles se sont 
également  révélées  pertinentes  pour  les  groupes  vulnérables  tels  que  les  sans-abri,  les 
personnes  ayant  des  responsabilités  familiales,  les  personnes  handicapées  et  les 
personnes âgées, ou les personnes menacées de pauvreté et d’exclusion sociale dont les 
besoins se sont accrus au cours de la pandémie. L’augmentation notable de la participation 
aux opérations du FEAD en 2020 par rapport à 2019 illustre la pertinence du FEAD dans le 
cadre de l’initiative CRII+.  

Les flexibilités des initiatives CRII/CRII+ ont été jugées pertinentes pour plusieurs groupes 
cibles dont les besoins étaient particulièrement aigus au cours de la période de la COVID-
19, notamment les établissements de soins de santé ou les prestataires de services sociaux 
(par  exemple,  les  prestataires  de  services  de  santé  mentale,  financiers,  de  logement, 
familiaux, liés à l’emploi, de conseil juridique, etc.) ainsi que les personnes travaillant dans 
des secteurs spécifiques (par exemple, le secteur culturel) ou celles qui risquaient de perdre 
leur emploi. En dehors de ces groupes cibles, l’étude a cherché à évaluer la pertinence des 
flexibilités des initiatives CRII/CRII+ dans le contexte de l’arrivée dans les États membres 
de l’UE de personnes fuyant la guerre en Ukraine. Il semble que les flexibilités des initiatives 
CRII et CRII+ aient été moins pertinentes dans ce contexte, en grande partie parce que les 
fonds avaient déjà été engagés pour d’autres opérations; il était également trop tôt pour 
porter un jugement définitif sur la pertinence de la réaction à cette nouvelle crise. 

Les  objectifs  du  FSE  et  du  FEAD  s’attaquent  aux  inégalités  structurelles,  mais  ils  ont 
également  prouvé  leur  valeur  ajoutée  en  soutenant  la  réaction  à  la  crise  pendant  la 
pandémie de COVID-19. L’analyse de la contribution de la réaction à la crise montre 
que  les  initiatives  CRII/CRII+,  grâce  à  leur  flexibilité,  ont  permis  aux  États  membres  de 
réagir rapidement à la crise de la COVID-19 et de mettre en œuvre des opérations plus 
rapidement qu’il n’aurait été possible de le faire en leur absence, en soutenant plusieurs 
domaines  d’intervention.  En  outre,  les  initiatives  de  réaction  ont  contribué  à  réduire  la 
charge administrative liée à l’accès au FSE et au FEAD, ce qui a permis aux organismes 
de  mise  en  œuvre  d’accéder  aux  financements  nécessaires  pour  répondre  à  l’évolution 
rapide des besoins sur le terrain. Les initiatives CRII et CRII+ ont permis d’employer le FSE 
et le FEAD pour financer de nouvelles activités dans le contexte de la crise, en étendant le 
champ d’application des fonds pour s’adresser à de nouveaux groupes cibles et soutenir 
de nouveaux types d’actions, ainsi que pour ajuster le champ d’application des opérations 
existantes afin de fournir un soutien plus inclusif. Enfin, les flexibilités ont également facilité 
l’intégration des opérations financées par le FSE et le FEAD aux stratégies nationales et 
ont permis aux États membres de tester de nouvelles solutions. 

14 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Enseignements importants 

L’évaluation des CRII/CRII+ a également permis de tirer des enseignements importants:  

  Par rapport à la crise économique de 2008-2009, l’UE a répondu beaucoup plus 
rapidement  et  de  manière  plus  étendue  aux  défis  socio-économiques 
engendrés par la COVID-19. Le soutien est arrivé à point nommé pour offrir une 
réponse rapide à la crise dans les États membres et au Royaume-Uni. En plus de 
s’attaquer  aux  inégalités  structurelles,  le  FSE  et  le  FEAD  ont  également  été  des 
instruments critiques de réaction à la crise, tout en poursuivant les mêmes objectifs 
centraux.  Cela  met  en  évidence  le  rôle  potentiellement  crucial  que  ces  fonds 
peuvent jouer dans un contexte de réaction à une crise. 

  Les  résultats  de  l’étude  soulignent  également  la  nécessité  de  faciliter  les 
flexibilités tout en continuant à se concentrer sur le suivi et l’établissement de 
rapports,  afin  de  garantir  la  traçabilité  des  opérations  et  de  leurs  résultats.  Les 
difficultés  rencontrées  pour  suivre  et  évaluer  la  réaction  à  la  crise  dans  ces 
contextes peuvent limiter les enseignements tirés et la façon dont des fonds, tels 
que le FSE et le FEAD, pourront être utilisés à l’avenir. L’existence de groupes de 
travail ad hoc ou de mécanismes interinstitutionnels s’est avérée efficace pour 
éclairer la prise de décision et éviter la duplication des actions dans les moments 
critiques, prouvant ainsi qu’ils peuvent fonctionner parallèlement aux mécanismes 
formels  de  gouvernance  et  de  mise  en  œuvre  préexistants  de  manière  efficace. 
Dans  le  même  esprit,  l’amélioration  de  l’implication  des  partenaires  sociaux  a 
également été considérée comme un domaine à développer afin de s’assurer que 
la  conception  des  opérations  corresponde  le  mieux  possible  aux  besoins  sur  le 
terrain.  

  L’extension  des  flexibilités  aux  procédures  nationales  et  régionales  et  aux 
capacités institutionnelles/organisationnelles est également importante pour 
offrir  une  réaction  pertinente  face  à  la  crise,  car  elle  facilite  l’accès  au 
financement pour les bénéficiaires en situation d’urgence quand une réponse rapide 
sur le terrain est essentielle. L’étude montre que le processus a été plus efficace et 
pertinent  dans  les  situations  où  les  autorités  de  gestion  ont  fourni  des  efforts 
supplémentaires  pour  coordonner  et  aider  les  bénéficiaires  à  remplir  leurs 
obligations,  notamment  en  se  chargeant  de  tâches  administratives  qui  auraient 
autrement incombé aux bénéficiaires.  

  Les  opérations  de 

lutte  contre 

la  crise  ont  révélé  des  domaines 
d’investissement sur lesquels les opérations du FSE et du FEAD pourraient 
se  concentrer  davantage  pendant  la  phase  de  relance  post-pandémie, 
poursuivant  ainsi  les  investissements  qui  avaient  été  pilotés  pendant  la  crise  de 
COVID-19 (par ex., la numérisation appliquée dans tous les domaines politiques, le 
soutien à l’adaptation pour les travailleurs et les employeurs, un soutien ciblé aux 
groupes  les  plus  vulnérables,  des  investissements  dans  le  renforcement  de  la 
résilience des systèmes de santé, etc.). 

  L’étendue des instruments de financement de l’UE mis à la disposition des États 
membres  pendant 
la  pandémie  a  nécessité  des  efforts  de  coordination 
supplémentaires  de  la  part  des  autorités  nationales et régionales.  Dans  le même 
temps, les instruments ont participé au renforcement des capacités de réaction 
en cas de crise aux niveaux européen, national et régional, et à l’élaboration de 
nouvelles  façons  de  travailler  qui  pourront  à  l’avenir  favoriser  un  ciblage  et  un 
alignement plus pertinents des ressources, dans le but de suivre les priorités de la 
Politique de cohésion de l’UE au cours de la période 2021-2027.  

15 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Zusammenfassung – Studie zur vorläufigen Bewertung 
der vom ESF und vom FEAD im Rahmen der 
Investitionsinitiativen zur Bewältigung der Coronavirus-
Krise (CRII und CRII+) geleisteten Unterstützung 

Die  COVID-19-Pandemie  hatte  eine  Vielzahl  von  sozialen,  wirtschaftlichen  und 
gesundheitlichen  Auswirkungen  auf  die  Mitgliedstaaten  der  Europäischen  Union.  Schon 
bald  nach  Beginn  der  Pandemie  wurde  klar,  dass  die  Mitgliedstaaten  aufgrund  des 
exponentiellen  Anstiegs der  öffentlichen Investitionen,  die  in  ihren  Gesundheitssystemen 
und anderen Wirtschaftssektoren erforderlich waren, erhebliche Liquiditätsengpässe haben 
würden. Als Reaktion auf diese Ausnahmesituation brachte die Europäische Kommission 
kurz nach Ausbruch der Pandemie, im März und im April 2020, zwei aufeinanderfolgende 
Initiativen  auf  den  Weg:  die  Investitionsinitiative  zur  Bewältigung  der  Coronavirus-Krise 
(CRII) und die Investitionsinitiative Plus zur Bewältigung der Coronavirus-Krise (CRII+).  

Den Mitgliedstaaten wurde im Rahmen dieser beiden Initiativen beispiellose Flexibilität für 
die Planung und Durchführung der Vorhaben zur Bewältigung der COVID-19-Krise und für 
die  Sicherstellung  des  akuten  Bedarfs  der  Bevölkerung  gewährt,  indem  die  noch 
verfügbaren Mittel aus den Europäischen Struktur- und Investitionsfonds (ESIF) und dem 
Europäischen  Hilfsfonds  für  die  am  stärksten  benachteiligten  Personen  (FEAD)  des 
Programmplanungszeitraums 2014-2020 bereitgestellt wurden.  

Zu den Flexibilitätsregelungen für die Verwendung des Europäischen Sozialfonds (ESF) im 
Rahmen von CRII und CRII+ gehörten die Ausweitung der Förderfähigkeit auf Ausgaben 
im Zusammenhang mit der Coronavirus-Krise nach den Regeln der Kohäsionspolitik, eine 
rückwirkende  Förderfähigkeit,  eine  Kofinanzierung  in  Höhe  von  100 %,  Umschichtungen 
zwischen  Fonds  und  zwischen  Kategorien  von  Regionen,  die  Befreiung  von  den 
Anforderungen  an  die  thematische  Konzentration,  der  Verzicht  auf  die  Ausstellung  von 
Einziehungsanordnungen für 2020, die Verlängerung der Frist für die Vorlage des jährlichen 
Durchführungsberichts für 2019 und die Bereitstellung von Betriebskapital für KMU durch 
Finanzinstrumente.  Zu  den  Flexibilitätsregelungen  bei  der  Verwendung  des  FEAD  im 
Rahmen  von  CRII  und  CRII+  gehörten  die  Neuzuweisung  von  Mitteln  innerhalb  des 
operationellen  Programms  des  FEAD,  die  Verwendung  elektronischer  Gutscheine  und 
Karten, eine Kofinanzierung in Höhe von 100 %, die rückwirkende Förderfähigkeit, der Kauf 
persönlicher  Schutzmaterialien  und  -ausrüstungen  für  Partnerorganisationen  sowie 
vereinfachte Kontroll- und Prüfpfadvorschriften. 

Die vorläufige Bewertung hatte zum Ziel, die Krisenreaktion, die die Inanspruchnahme des 
ESF und des FEAD im Rahmen von CRII und CRII+ umfasste, zu überprüfen. Ein weiteres 
Ziel  war  es,  zu  untersuchen,  welche  Lehren  aus  dem  Einsatz  dieser  Fonds  in  einem 
Krisenkontext gezogen werden können. Im Mittelpunkt der Bewertung stand die Frage, wie 
– von der Prozessperspektive aus – CRII und CRII+ die Mitgliedstaaten in die Lage versetzt 
haben,  auf  die  Krise  zu  reagieren.  Aufgrund  des  Zeitpunkts  der  Studie  wurden  die 
Auswirkungen der durch CRII und CRII+ geförderten Maßnahmen auf die Begünstigten und 
die  Endempfänger  der  Unterstützungsmaßnahmen  sowie  auf  die  europäischen 
Volkswirtschaften  und  Gesellschaften  im  Allgemeinen  nicht  berücksichtigt.  Das  wird 
Gegenstand der Ex-post-Bewertungen des ESF und des FEAD sein, die beide im Jahr 2024 
anstehen.  

Um die Ergebnisse mit einer Reihe von Bewertungskriterien, die im Folgenden beschrieben 
werden, zu überprüfen und zu belegen, wurde in der Studie ein gemischter Ansatz verfolgt, 
bei dem sowohl Primär- als auch Sekundärforschung eingesetzt wurde. Eine ausführliche 
Darstellung  der  Methoden,  ihrer  Grenzen  und  der  Belastbarkeit  der  Ergebnisse  ist  im 
Bericht  enthalten.  Eine  wesentliche  Einschränkung  besteht  darin,  dass  nicht  alle  im 
16 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Rahmen von CRII und CRII+ geplanten Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben identifiziert wurden. 
Im  Rahmen  der  Bewertung  wurden  Änderungen  an  operationellen  Programmen,  die  im 
Rahmen  von  CRII/CRII+  während  des  Zeitraums  dieser  Studie  eingereicht  wurden, 
nachverfolgt. Im Zusammenhang mit den außergewöhnlichen Flexibilitätsregelungen, die 
unter CRII und CRII+ eingeführt wurden, war eine formelle Änderung jedoch nicht immer 
erforderlich.  Vorhaben  ohne  eine  solche  Änderung  konnten  im  Rahmen  der  Studie  nicht 
immer über andere Quellen ermittelt werden. 

Wesentliche Ergebnisse 

Im  Rahmen  der  Studie  wurden  die  zusammengetragenen  Daten  anhand  der  fünf 
Bewertungskriterien  Wirksamkeit,  Effizienz,  Relevanz,  Kohärenz  und  Beitrag  zur 
Krisenbewältigung analysiert.  

Die  Analyse  der  Wirksamkeit  deutet  darauf  hin,  dass  die  beiden  Initiativen  die 
Mitgliedstaaten  im  Großen  und  Ganzen  wirksam  in  die  Lage  versetzt  haben,  die  zur 
Verfügung  gestellten  Spielräume  zu  nutzen.  Die  überwiegende  Mehrheit  der 
Mitgliedstaaten  und  das  Vereinigte  Königreich  nutzten  diese  Spielräume,  um  die 
Auswirkungen  von  COVID-19  in  den  Bereichen  Beschäftigung,  soziale  Eingliederung, 
allgemeine und berufliche Bildung sowie Gesundheit anzugehen. Gemessen an der Zahl 
der Länder, die sie in Anspruch genommen haben, waren die Optionen zur Umschichtung 
von Mitteln zwischen und innerhalb von Fonds sowie die Kofinanzierung in Höhe von 100 % 
die am häufigsten genutzten Flexibilitätsregelungen. Von März 2020 bis September 2022 
nutzten  23 Mitgliedstaaten  (und  das  Vereinigte  Königreich)  die  Initiativen,  um  leichter 
Änderungen an den ESF-Zuweisungen vorzunehmen und so auf die COVID-19-Krise zu 
reagieren  (insgesamt  wurden  219 Änderungen  ermittelt).  Darüber  hinaus  nutzten 
15 Mitgliedstaaten  die  im  Rahmen  von  CRII/CRII+  gewährten  Flexibilitätsregelungen  in 
Bezug auf FEAD-Programme zur Unterstützung bestehender oder zur Durchführung neuer 
COVID-19-Vorhaben.  

Wurden  Flexibilitätsregelungen  für  den  ESF  weniger  in  Anspruch  genommen,  ist  dies 
offenbar darauf zurückzuführen, dass angesichts des nationalen Kontexts / der nationalen 
Programmplanung kein Bedarf gesehen wurde (z. B. wurden in erster Linie nationale Mittel 
eingesetzt,  um  den  Auswirkungen  der  Pandemie  entgegenzuwirken).  In  einigen  Fällen 
wurden  die  bestehenden  Zuweisungen/Vorhaben  als  geeignet  und  die  bestehenden 
Spielräume als für die Krisenbewältigung ausreichend angesehen. Oft wurden bestehende 
von  CRII  und  CRII+  angebotenen 
Spielräume  neben  oder  anstelle  der 
Flexibilitätsregelungen genutzt. Zu den wichtigsten Gründen für eine geringere Nutzung der 
Flexibilitätsregelungen von CRII+ in Bezug auf den FEAD gehört die Auffassung, dass die 
operationellen FEAD-Programme bereits relativ flexibel sind und ein breites Spektrum an 
Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten bieten. 

Die umfassende Nutzung der Möglichkeit zur Mittelübertragung hat gezeigt, dass CRII und 
CRII+  bei  der  Umschichtung  und  Neuzuweisung  von  Ressourcen  dorthin,  wo  sie  am 
dringendsten benötigt wurden, wirksam waren. Die Höhe der Finanzvolumina, die aufgrund 
der CRII- und CRII+-Flexibilitätsregelungen übertragen wurden, war erheblich. Insgesamt 
wurden rund  1,2 Mrd.  EUR  auf  den ESF übertragen:  871 Mio.  EUR  aus dem  EFRE  und 
341 Mio. EUR aus dem Kohäsionsfonds, während rund 493 Mio. EUR aus dem ESF auf 
den EFRE übertragen wurden, was zu einem Nettoanstieg der ESF-Mittel um 0,7 Mrd. EUR 
führte.  Die  Vielfalt  der  Übertragungen  im  Rahmen  der  Flexibilitätsregelungen  von 
CRII/CRII+  innerhalb  der  Mitgliedstaaten  und  der  Übertragungsströme  zwischen  und 
innerhalb  der  Fonds  lassen  insbesondere  darauf  schließen,  dass  die  Umschichtung  von 
Mitteln  genutzt  werden  konnte,  um  den  nationalen  Gegebenheiten  und  Bedürfnissen 
gerecht  zu  werden.  Sogar  bei  Berücksichtigung  der  unterschiedlichen  Größe  der  Fonds 
wurden Übertragungen für den ESF häufiger in Anspruch genommen als für den FEAD. 

17 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Trotz des Krisenkontextes und der Probleme, die sich für die Durchführung der Vorhaben 
ergeben  haben,  z. B.  aufgrund  der  coronabedingten  Einschränkungen,  sind  die 
Absorptionsraten des ESF und des FEAD in den Jahren 2020 und 2021 weiter angestiegen. 
Das deutet darauf hin, dass die im Rahmen von CRII und CRII+ gewährte Unterstützung 
und  die  durch  diese  Initiativen  eingeführten  Flexibilitätsregelungen  den  Mitgliedstaaten 
wahrscheinlich  dabei  geholfen  haben,  ihr  Vertragsabschluss-  und  Ausgabenniveau 
beizubehalten. 

in 

der 

dieser 

ermittelten 

Bewertung 

den  meisten 

COVID-19-
Bei 
Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben der Mitgliedstaaten handelte es sich eher um Anpassungen 
als  um  neue  Vorhaben.  Die  Mitgliedstaaten  bauten  auf  bestehende  Vorhaben  auf  und 
erweiterten  diese,  um  der  gestiegenen  Nachfrage  nach  Unterstützung  oder  neuen 
Nachfragen gerecht zu werden. Neue Vorhaben wurden ebenso durchgeführt, wenn auch 
nicht so häufig.  Die meisten ESF-Vorhaben begannen im Jahr 2020 und nur wenige im 
Jahr 2021. Zwei Drittel der ermittelten ESF-Vorhaben zielten auf Regionen ab, während die 
verbleibenden Vorhaben auf nationaler Ebene umgesetzt wurden.  Die meisten Vorhaben 
zur  Krisenbewältigung  richteten  sich  an  die  Bereiche  Beschäftigung  und  soziale 
Eingliederung. Dazu gehören auch Vorhaben mit Zielen in den Bereichen Gesundheit und 
Gesundheitsversorgung.  

Die  ermittelten  ESF-Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben  richteten  sich  eher  an  die  allgemeine 
Öffentlichkeit, die für eine Förderung durch den ESF in Frage kam, oder an Einrichtungen, 
die der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit dienen, als an spezifische ESF-Zielgruppen (z. B. ältere 
Arbeitnehmer,  Arbeitnehmer  mit  Behinderungen  usw.).  Besonderes  Augenmerk  lag  auf 
Personen,  die  in  Zwangsurlaub  geschickt  wurden,  im  Gegensatz  zu  den  traditionell  als 
„arbeitslos“ definierten Personen oder „Nichterwerbspersonen“. Einige Vorhaben hatten die 
Unterstützung  spezifischer  ESF-Zielgruppen,  einschließlich  der  am  meisten  gefährdeten 
Personen (z. B. Obdachlose, ältere Menschen, Personen mit Fürsorgepflichten, Menschen 
mit  Behinderungen  usw.)  zum  Ziel.  Vorhaben  des  FEAD  zielten  weiterhin  auf  die 
Bereitstellung von Nahrungsmittelhilfe und grundlegender materieller Unterstützung sowie 
auf Maßnahmen zur sozialen Eingliederung für die am stärksten benachteiligten Personen 
ab.  

Die  Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben  wurden  weitgehend  über  bereits  vor  der  Pandemie 
bestehende  Verwaltungsstrukturen  abgewickelt.  Diese  wurden  häufig  von  Ad-hoc-
Arbeitsgruppen  unterstützt,  die  speziell  für  die  Krisenreaktion  zuständig  waren.  Es  gibt 
Hinweise  darauf,  dass  die  horizontalen  Grundsätze  (z. B.  das  Partnerschaftsprinzip)  bei 
Vorhaben zur Bewältigung der Pandemie in gewissem Maße berücksichtigt wurden, obwohl 
die  Notwendigkeit,  schnell  zu  reagieren,  als  vorrangig  gegenüber  einer  gründlicheren 
Berücksichtigung oder Integration der Grundsätze in die Krisenreaktion angesehen wurde.  

Die  Nachverfolgung  der  Reaktion  auf  die  COVID-19-Pandemie  stellte  eine  besondere 
Herausforderung  dar.  Die  ursprünglichen  Überwachungssysteme  waren  nicht  darauf 
ausgelegt,  die  von  CRII/CRII+  eingeführten  außergewöhnlichen  Flexibilitätsregelungen 
nachzuverfolgen.  Die  Europäische  Kommission  hat  in  einem  „Non-Paper“  neue,  nicht 
obligatorische Finanz- und Outputindikatoren vorgeschlagen, die von den nationalen und 
regionalen  Programmen  verwendet  werden  sollten.6  Diese  programmspezifischen 
Indikatoren  sollten  die  Überwachung  der  durch  CRII  und  CRII+  sowie  REACT-EU 
eingeführten  Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben  ermöglichen.  Die  meisten  Mitgliedstaaten  und 
das  Vereinigte  Königreich  nutzten  die  neuen  Indikatoren  zur  Überwachung  ihrer 
Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben, auch wenn die verfügbaren Daten wahrscheinlich lückenhaft 
waren.  Daher  wird  die  Unterstützung  aus  dem  ESF  zur  Bewältigung  der  Krise,  die  bis 
September  2022  5,1 Mrd.  EUR  betrug  und  auf  4,1 Mio.  ESF-Teilnehmer  und  118 000 
Einrichtungen ausgerichtet war, im Rahmen der Überwachung wahrscheinlich unterschätzt. 

6 Non-Paper: Liste der programmspezifischen Indikatoren im Zusammenhang mit der Kohäsionspolitik als direkte Reaktion 
auf die COVID-19-Pandemie (überarbeitet im Februar 2021) 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

18 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Ungeachtet  dieses  Problems  sind  die  neuen  Indikatoren  ein  bedeutender  Fortschritt  im 
Vergleich  zu  den  Versuchen,  Maßnahmen  zur  Bewältigung  früherer  Krisen  (z. B.  der 
Wirtschaftskrise2008-2009)  zu  überwachen  (und  zu  bewerten).  Das  liegt  insbesondere 
daran, dass sie eine dedizierte Möglichkeit zur Überwachung der Reaktion auf COVID-19 
bieten, was eine genaue Aufstellung des Umfangs der ESF-Investitionen sowie der Anzahl 
der  Einzelpersonen  und  Einrichtungen,  die  in  der  gesamten  EU  von  der  Krisenreaktion 
profitierten, ermöglicht.  

Die Analyse der Effizienz zeigt, dass CRII und CRII+ insgesamt einen effizienten Prozess 
der Verwendung noch verfügbarer Mittel zur Bewältigung der COVID-19-Pandemie und der 
daraus  resultierenden  veränderten  Prioritäten  ermöglicht  haben.  CRII  und  CRII+ 
vereinfachten  und  beschleunigten  den  Programmanpassungsprozess  und  trugen  so 
entscheidend dazu bei, dass die Mitgliedstaaten rasch auf die Bedürfnisse vor Ort reagieren 
konnten. Insbesondere die Option, Mittel auf effiziente Weise umzuverteilen, ermöglichte 
es den Mitgliedstaaten, die Auswirkungen der Pandemie zu bewältigen und Liquidität für 
größere Ausgaben zu erhalten. Sowohl die Programmplanung als auch die Durchführung 
zeichneten sich durch zeitliche Effizienz aus: Daten weisen darauf hin, dass fast sieben von 
zehn  Programmänderungen  innerhalb  eines  Monats  angenommen  wurden,  also  viel 
schneller  als  die  in  der  Verordnung  mit  gemeinsamen  Bestimmungen  normalerweise 
vorgesehenen drei Monate.  

Im Allgemeinen gab es nur sehr wenige Hinweise für die Berücksichtigung/Feststellung der 
Kosten bzw. des Nutzens von CRII und CRII+ und ihrer Nutzung im Rahmen des ESF und 
des FEAD auf der Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten. Es gab jedoch vereinzelte Hinweise darauf, 
dass  die  Kosten  für  die  Verwaltungsbehörden  in  Bezug  auf  die  Einarbeitung  in  die 
Flexibilitätsregelungen, die Umsetzung neuer Indikatoren usw. insgesamt durch Vorteile in 
Form  von  Kosteneinsparungen  von  Zeit-  und  Ressourcen 
im  Vergleich  zur 
Programmplanung vor der Pandemie kompensiert wurden. Dennoch wird anerkannt, dass 
die Anwendung der Flexibilitätsregelungen an sich zusätzlichen Verwaltungsaufwand mit 
sich  bringt,  da  die  neuen  Vorschriften  kommuniziert  und  verinnerlicht  werden  müssen. 
Insbesondere in der Anfangsphase der Pandemie stellte das eine Herausforderung dar, da 
die Verwaltungsbehörden und die Mitarbeiter der Partner auf die Pandemie reagieren und 
Vorhaben  rasch  entwickeln  bzw.  anpassen  mussten.  Im  Allgemeinen  wurden  die 
Flexibilitätsregelungen im Rahmen von CRII/CRII+ jedoch als Mittel zur Verringerung des 
Ressourcenbedarfs  und  des  Verwaltungsaufwands  und  damit  als  Unterstützung  einer 
effizienten Pandemiebewältigung angesehen.  

Die Analyse der Kohärenz lässt darauf schließen, dass die meisten Vorhaben im Rahmen 
von CRII/CRII+ auf bestehenden ESF- und FEAD-Maßnahmen basierten und/oder deren 
Umfang erweiterten, was auf eine Kohärenz der aus den Fonds unterstützten Vorhaben vor 
und  während  der  Pandemie  hindeutet.  Im  Vergleich  zur  Programmplanung  vor  der 
Pandemie gab es jedoch einige deutliche Veränderungen. Dazu gehört die Ausweitung der 
Zielgruppen  auf  die  Allgemeinbevölkerung  anstelle  von  gezielten  Maßnahmen  für 
bestimmte Gruppen,  die  Priorisierung  von  Maßnahmen mit  Schwerpunkt  auf Gesundheit 
und  Gesundheitsversorgung  sowie  eine  stärkere  Konzentration  auf  passive 
Unterstützungsmaßnahmen 
(hauptsächlich  Kurzarbeitsregelungen).  Die  wichtigsten 
Änderungen  beim  Einsatz  des  FEAD  während  der  Pandemie  betrafen  die  Art,  wie 
Endempfänger  erreicht  wurden  (z. B.  wurden  elektronische  Gutscheine  eingeführt  und 
andere  ähnliche  digitale  Mittel  zur  Erleichterung  der  Verteilung  und  Abholung  von 
Lebensmitteln  und  anderen  materiellen  Hilfsgütern  eingesetzt)  sowie  die  operativen 
Prozesse der durchführenden Organisationen.  

Die  durchgeführte  Analyse  hat  auch  Synergien  zwischen  dem  ESF  und  dem  EFRE 
aufgezeigt, so haben 13 Mitgliedstaaten Mittel zwischen den beiden Fonds umgeschichtet, 
um Programme mit relevanten Maßnahmen zu gestalten (CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, 
LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SK).  Die  gleichen  Synergien  wurden  zwischen  dem  ESF  und  SURE 
festgestellt,  wobei  die  meisten  Mitgliedstaaten  beide  Finanzierungsquellen  zur 

19 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Finanzierung von Kurzarbeitsprogrammen genutzt haben. Sechzehn der Mitgliedstaaten, 
die  SURE  in  Anspruch  genommen  haben,  hatten  außerdem  vor,  zur  Unterstützung  von 
Kurzarbeitsprogrammen 
eingeführten 
Flexibilitätsregelungen den ESF in Anspruch zu nehmen (BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, GR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK).7  

CRII/CRII+ 

Rahmen 

von 

der 

im 

Es gibt außerdem Hinweise darauf, dass mehrere Mitgliedstaaten Vorhaben in Verbindung 
mit  CRII/CRII+  im  Rahmen  von  REACT-EU  und dem  ESF+ fortsetzen  oder  dies  planen, 
womit  ein  kohärenter  Übergang  von  der  Krisenbewältigung  zur  Erholung  von  der  Krise 
ermöglicht wird und Anpassung sowie Nachhaltigkeit langfristig unterstützt werden. Es gibt 
auch  Hinweise  auf  Komplementaritäten  zwischen  ESF-  und  FEAD-Maßnahmen  sowie 
Maßnahmen,  die  während  der  COVID-19-Pandemie  aus  nationalen  und  regionalen 
Haushalten finanziert wurden. Die interinstitutionelle Koordinierung und Konsultationen mit 
den  Sozialpartnern  trugen  zur  Nutzung  von  Synergien  und  zur  Vermeidung  von 
Doppelarbeit  bei.  In  den  Fällen,  in  denen  Überschneidungen  zwischen  verschiedenen 
Fonds festgestellt wurden, insbesondere bei der Finanzierung von Kurzarbeitsprogrammen 
sowohl  durch  den  ESF  als  auch  durch  SURE,  spiegelte  das  den  hohen  Bedarf  an 
Unterstützung  für  Arbeitsplätze,  Arbeitnehmer,  Selbstständige  und  Unternehmen  im 
Zusammenhang mit der Pandemie wider und stellte keine unnötige Doppelarbeit dar.  

Ein Faktor, der die Kohärenz etwas beeinträchtigte, war die große Anzahl und Vielfalt der 
EU-Instrumente und -Mechanismen, die während der Pandemie in kurzer Zeit eingeführt 
wurden. Aufgrund dieser Situation benötigten nationale/regionale Verwaltungen mehr Zeit, 
um beispielsweise das am besten geeignete Instrument oder den am besten geeigneten 
Mechanismus zu bestimmen. Ungeachtet dessen waren sich die Akteure weitgehend einig, 
dass diese Mechanismen die Krisenreaktion in den Mitgliedstaaten auf kohärente Weise 
und zu kritischen Zeitpunkten in der Entwicklung der Pandemie auch auf unterschiedliche 
Weise unterstützten.   

Die  Analyse  der  Relevanz  deutet  darauf  hin,  dass  die  Flexibilitätsregelungen  von 
CRII/CRII+ insgesamt relevant waren und die Verwaltungsbehörden in die Lage versetzten, 
die Programmvorhaben zügig durchzuführen und die Bedürfnisse zu erfüllen, die aufgrund 
der  sozialen,  wirtschaftlichen  und  gesundheitlichen  Auswirkungen  von  COVID-19 
entstanden  sind.  Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben  waren  sowohl  für  die  breite  Öffentlichkeit 
und die von der Pandemie betroffenen Einrichtungen (z. B. Unternehmen) als auch für die 
die Krisenreaktion unterstützenden Akteure (Gesundheitseinrichtungen) relevant. Sie sind 
für  besonders  schutzbedürftige  Gruppen  wie  Obdachlose,  Personen  mit 
auch 
Fürsorgepflichten, Menschen mit Behinderungen und ältere Menschen oder Personen von 
Bedeutung,  die  von  Armut  und  sozialer  Ausgrenzung  bedroht  sind,  deren  Bedürfnisse 
während der Pandemie gestiegen sind. Der beträchtliche Anstieg der Beteiligung an FEAD-
Vorhaben  im  Jahr  2020  im  Vergleich  zu  2019  verdeutlicht  die  Relevanz  von  FEAD  im 
Rahmen von CRII+.  

Die  Flexibilitätsregelungen  im  Rahmen  von  CRII/CRII+  wurden  für  eine  Reihe  von 
Zielgruppen, deren Bedürfnisse während der COVID-19-Pandemie besonders akut waren, 
als  relevant  angesehen,  darunter  Einrichtungen  des  Gesundheitswesens  oder  Anbieter 
sozialer Dienstleistungen (z. B. Anbieter von Dienstleistungen in den Bereichen psychische 
Gesundheit, Finanzen, Wohnen, Familie, Arbeit, Rechtsberatung usw.) sowie Menschen in 
bestimmten  Sektoren  (z. B.  im  Kultursektor)  oder  solche,  die  vom  Verlust  ihres 
Arbeitsplatzes bedroht waren. Über diese Zielgruppen hinaus wurde in der Studie auch die 
Relevanz  der  im  Rahmen  von  CRII/CRII+  eingeführten  Flexibilitätsregelungen  im 
Zusammenhang  mit  der  Ankunft  von  Menschen  untersucht,  die  vor  dem  Krieg  in  der 
Ukraine  in  die  EU-Mitgliedstaaten  fliehen.  Daten  legen  nahe,  dass  die  im  Rahmen  von 
CRII/CRII+  eingeführten  Flexibilitätsregelungen  in  diesem  Zusammenhang  weniger 

7 Auf der Grundlage von ESF-Vorhaben im Rahmen von CRII/CRII+, die in der SFC2014-Datenbank auf der Grundlage von 
vor Oktober 2022 eingereichten operationellen Programmänderungen in dem Zeitraum ermittelt wurden, auf den sich diese 
vorläufige Bewertung bezieht.  

20 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

relevant  waren,  was  vor  allem  daran  liegt,  dass  die  Mittel  bereits  für  andere  Vorhaben 
gebunden  waren.  Es  war  auch  zu früh,  um  ein  endgültiges  Urteil  über  die  Relevanz  der 
Reaktion auf diese neue Krise zu fällen. 

Sowohl der ESF als auch der FEAD zielen auf die Beseitigung struktureller Ungleichheiten 
ab, haben aber auch ihren Mehrwert bei der Unterstützung der Krisenbewältigung während 
der  COVID-19-Pandemie bewiesen.  Die  Analyse des  Beitrags  zur  Krisenbewältigung 
legt nahe, dass CRII und CRII+ den Mitgliedstaaten die nötige Flexibilität verschafft haben, 
um  unmittelbar  auf  die  COVID-19-Krise  zu  reagieren  und  Vorhaben  schneller 
durchzuführen,  als  dies  ohne  die  Initiativen  möglich  gewesen  wäre,  und  dass  mehrere 
Interventionsbereiche  unterstützt  wurden.  Darüber  hinaus  trugen  die  Initiativen  zur 
Verringerung des Verwaltungsaufwands beim Zugang zum ESF und zum FEAD bei, was 
wiederum den durchführenden Stellen den Zugang zu Finanzmitteln erleichterte, um den 
sich  schnell  entwickelnden  Bedarf  vor  Ort  zu  decken.  CRII  und  CRII+  ermöglichten  den 
Einsatz von ESF und FEAD zur Finanzierung neuer Aktivitäten im Kontext der Krise, wobei 
der Anwendungsbereich der Fonds erweitert wurde, um neue Zielgruppen anzusprechen 
und  neue  Arten  von  Vorhaben  zu  unterstützen.  Darüber  hinaus  wurde  der 
Anwendungsbereich  bestehender  Vorhaben  angepasst,  um  eine  umfassendere 
Unterstützung  zu  bieten.  Schließlich  erleichterte  die  Flexibilität  auch  die  Integration  von 
Vorhaben,  die  vom  ESF  und  vom  FEAD  finanziert  wurden,  in  nationale  Strategien  und 
ermöglichte es den Mitgliedstaaten, neue Lösungen zu testen. 

Gewonnene Erkenntnisse 

Bei der Bewertung von CRII und CRII+ wurden wichtige Erkenntnisse gewonnen:  

 

Im Vergleich zur Wirtschaftskrise von 2008-2009 hat die EU auf die durch COVID-
19  ausgelösten  sozioökonomischen  Herausforderungen  viel  schneller  und 
umfassender  reagiert.  Die  Unterstützung  kam  zur  rechten  Zeit  und  war 
entscheidend  für  eine  schnelle  Krisenreaktion  in  den  Mitgliedstaaten  und  im 
Vereinigten  Königreich.  Abgesehen  von  der  Bekämpfung  struktureller 
Ungleichheiten  waren  der  ESF  und  der  FEAD  auch  wichtige  Instrumente  zur 
Krisenbewältigung,  wobei  sie  weiterhin  dieselben  Kernziele  verfolgten.  Dies 
verdeutlicht  wie  groß  die  Rolle  ist,  die  derartige  Fonds  im  Rahmen  der 
Krisenreaktion spielen können. 

  Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen auch, dass es notwendig ist, die Flexibilität zu 
erleichtern  und  gleichzeitig  den  Schwerpunkt  auf  die  Überwachung  und 
Berichterstattung  zu  legen,  um  die  Rückverfolgbarkeit  der  Vorhaben  und  ihrer 
Ergebnisse  zu  gewährleisten.  In  diesem  Kontext  können  Schwierigkeiten  bei  der 
Überwachung  und  Bewertung  der  Krisenreaktion  dazu  führen,  dass  weniger 
Erkenntnisse  gewonnen  werden,  auch  darüber,  wie  Fonds  wie  der  ESF  und  der 
FEAD  in  Zukunft  eingesetzt  werden  können.  Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppen  oder 
interinstitutionelle  Mechanismen  haben  sich  als  wirksam  erwiesen,  um 
Entscheidungsträger  zu  informieren  und  Doppelarbeit  in  kritischen  Zeiten  zu 
vermeiden.  Es  hat  sich  gezeigt,  dass  diese  Mechanismen  neben  den  bereits 
bestehenden  formellen  Governance-  und  Umsetzungsmechanismen  wirksam 
funktionieren  können.  In  diesem  Zusammenhang  wurde  auch  die  stärkere 
Einbeziehung  der  Sozialpartner  als  ausbaufähiger  Bereich  genannt,  da  sie  dazu 
beitragen können, dass die Entwicklung von Vorhaben so weit wie möglich auf die 
Bedürfnisse vor Ort ausgerichtet ist.  

institutionelle/organisatorische  Kapazitäten 

  Auch  die  Ausweitung  der  Flexibilität  auf  nationale  und  regionale  Verfahren 
und 
ist  für  eine  wirksame 
Krisenreaktion  wichtig,  da  sie  den  Zugang  zu  Finanzmitteln  für  Begünstigte  in 
Notsituationen,  wenn eine  schnelle Reaktion  vor Ort  entscheidend  ist,  erleichtert. 
Aus der Studie geht hervor, dass der Prozess effektiver und effizienter war, wenn 

21 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Verwaltungsbehörden  zusätzliche  Anstrengungen  unternahmen,  um  die 
Begünstigten bei der Erfüllung ihrer Verpflichtungen anzuleiten und zu unterstützen, 
indem  sie  unter  anderem  Verwaltungslasten  übernahmen,  die  anderenfalls  den 
Begünstigten zufallen würden.  

  Krisenbewältigungsvorhaben haben Bereiche für Investitionen aufgezeigt, an 
die Vorhaben von ESF und FEAD in der Erholungsphase nach der Pandemie 
anknüpfen  können,  damit  die  Investitionen  fortgesetzt  werden,  die  während 
COVID-19  getestet  wurden  (z. B.  die  Digitalisierung  aller  Politikbereiche, 
Anpassungshilfen für Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber, gezielte Unterstützung für die 
am 
zur  Stärkung  der 
Widerstandsfähigkeit der Gesundheitssysteme usw.). 

stärksten  gefährdeten  Gruppen, 

Investitionen 

  Das  Spektrum  der  EU-Finanzierungsinstrumente,  die  den  Mitgliedstaaten 
während  der  Pandemie  zur  Verfügung  standen,  erforderte  zusätzliche 
regionalen  Behörden. 
Koordinierungsanstrengungen  der  nationalen  und 
von 
Aufbau 
den 
Gleichzeitig 
Krisenreaktionskapazitäten  auf  EU-,  nationaler  und  regionaler  Ebene sowie  die 
Entwicklung neuer Arbeitsweisen, die in Zukunft zu einer besseren Ausrichtung 
und  Angleichung  der  Ressourcen  zur  Verfolgung  der  kohäsionspolitischen 
Prioritäten der EU im Zeitraum 2021-2027 beitragen können. 

unterstützten 

Instrumente 

die 

22 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table of Contents 

Executive summary .......................................................................................... 5 

Synthèse – Étude à l’appui de l’évaluation préliminaire du soutien apporté par le 

FSE et le FEAD dans le cadre des Initiatives d’investissement en réaction au 
coronavirus (CRII et CRII+) ...................................................................... 10 

Zusammenfassung – Studie zur vorläufigen Bewertung der vom ESF und vom 

FEAD im Rahmen der Investitionsinitiativen zur Bewältigung der 
Coronavirus-Krise (CRII und CRII+) geleisteten Unterstützung ............... 16 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................ 35 

1.1.  Purpose and objectives of the study .................................................... 35 

1.2.  Brief overview of the methodology ....................................................... 37 

1.3.  Report structure ................................................................................... 39 

2. 

The expected outcome of CRII and CRII+ ............................................ 41 

2.1.  CRII and CRII+ objectives in the COVID-19 context ............................ 41 

2.2.  CRII and CRII+ intervention logic ........................................................ 43 

2.3.  The wider policy context ...................................................................... 48 

2.4.  Points of comparison: ESF and FEAD before the COVID-19 crisis and 

ESF after the 2007-2008 financial crisis .............................................. 50 

3. 

The state of play: Developments over the evaluation period ............. 58 

3.1.  Employment-related operations ........................................................... 61 

3.2.  Social inclusion operations .................................................................. 62 

3.3.  Healthcare operations .......................................................................... 64 

3.4.  Education and training operations ....................................................... 65 

3.5.  Characteristics of operations, target groups, governance and 

implementation structures .................................................................... 66 

4.  Evaluation findings ................................................................................ 69 

23 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.1.  Effectiveness of CRII and CRII+ .......................................................... 69 

4.2.  Efficiency of CRII and CRII+ ................................................................ 92 

4.3.  Coherence of CRII and CRII+ .............................................................. 98 

4.4.  The contribution of CRII and CRII+ to the crisis response ................. 110 

4.5.  The relevance of CRII and CRII+ ....................................................... 118 

5.  Conclusions and lessons learnt ......................................................... 130 

5.1.  Conclusions ....................................................................................... 130 

5.2.  Lessons learnt ................................................................................... 135 

Annexes ........................................................................................................ 139 

Annex 1: Supporting information ............................................................... 140 

Appendix 1: Additional information on Member States ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis 

operations .......................................................................................... 140 

Appendix 2: Effects of reprogramming under CRII and CRII+ on the level of 

allocations and absorption rates ........................................................ 158 

Appendix 3: ................................................................................................. 184 

I. 

II. 

Changes in ESF participations .......................................................... 184 

Changes in FEAD end recipients ....................................................... 201 

Appendix 4: Comparative analysis of the COVID-19 context ...................... 207 

Annex 2: Methods and analytical models used ......................................... 220 

Introduction ................................................................................................. 220 

Approach to evaluation and analytical models ............................................ 220 

Overview of methodology ........................................................................... 221 

Limitations and robustness of findings ........................................................ 241 

Appendix 1: Bibliography ............................................................................ 247 

Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix.......................................................................... 258 

Annex 4: Overview of benefits and costs................................................... 266 

24 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 5: Consultation synopsis report...................................................... 269 

Consultation strategy .................................................................................. 269 

Methods, limitations and robustness of stakeholder consultation activities. 274 

Overview of consultation activities: Main findings ....................................... 275 

Annex 6:  Case studies of good practices ................................................. 283 

Greece – ESF Regional Operational Programmes (All) .............................. 284 

Italy – ESF Operational Programme Lazio (2014IT05SFOP005) ............... 298 

Italy – ESF Systems for Active Employment Policies (2014IT05SFOP002) 305 

Latvia – Growth and Employment - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LV16MAOP001)
........................................................................................................... 312 

Luxembourg – FEAD Operational Programme (2014LU05FMOP001) ....... 323 

Poland – Knowledge Education Growth - ESF/YEI (2014PL05M9OP001) . 334 

Romania – Human Capital - ESF/YEI (2014RO05M9OP001) .................... 355 

Spain – Youth Employment ESF/YEI (2014ES05M9OP001)...................... 369 

Sweden – Investments in growth and employment - ESF/YEI 

(2014SE05M9OP001) ....................................................................... 386 

Figures 
Figure 1: Intervention logic for the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 
(CRII and CRII+)............................................................................................... 44 

Figure 2: Intervention logic for support provided by the ESF and FEAD under the 
Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+) ......................... 46 

Figure 3: Identified ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis operations ................................ 59 

Figure 4: Number of ESF operations across Member States ........................... 60 

Figure 5: Target financial value (CV30) of COVID-19 operations across Member 
States ............................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 6 – Number of ESF participations by TO and overall share of women (2014-
2021) ................................................................................................................ 76 

Figure 7 – Reallocation between the ESF, the ERDF and the CF under the 
coronavirus response initiatives up to September 2022 ................................... 79 

Figure 8 – Development of the absorption rate of the ESF, 2014-2021 ........... 82 

Figure 9 – Comparison of the ESF absorption rates 2007-2013 and 2014-202084 

25 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 10: Comparing the allocation of shifts and the allocation of REACT-EU 
funding allocated to selected TOs .................................................................. 109 

Figure 11: Cumulative increase in ESF participations (end 2021 v. end 2019)121 

Figure 12: Number of end recipients of FEAD and share of women (2014-2021)
 ....................................................................................................................... 124 

Figure 13: Changes in share of ESF participations by age group by country (2020-
2021 v. 2014-2019) ........................................................................................ 126 

Figure A 1: Reallocation between the ESF, the ERDF and the CF under the 
coronavirus response initiatives up to September 2022 ................................. 158 

Figure A 2: Changes of the financial volume at IP level, May 2020 – April 2022170 

Figure A 3: Changes of the financial volume and ESF participations at IP level, 
2019-2020 ...................................................................................................... 171 

Figure A 4: Share of planned EU amount allocated to Social Inclusion (Thematic 
Objective 9), 2019 and 2021, by country ........................................................ 174 

Figure A 5: Development of the absorption rate of the ESF, 2014-2021 ........ 176 

Figure A 6: Comparison of the ESF absorption rates 2007-2013 and 2014-2020
 ....................................................................................................................... 179 

Figure A 7: Development of the absorption rate of FEAD, 2014-2022 ........... 180 

Figure A 8: Number of participations by TO and overall share of women (2014-
2021) .............................................................................................................. 186 

Figure A 9: Shares of participations by TO (2014 – 2021) ............................. 186 

Figure A 10: Variation across IPs (2019 compared to 2020) .......................... 187 

Figure A 11: Evolution of ESF participations (2020 and 2021) ....................... 189 

Figure A 12: Change in the share of participants by labour market status from 
2014-2019 to 2020-2021 ................................................................................ 191 

Figure A 13: Variation in the share of employed by IP (2020-2021 compared to 
2014-2019) ..................................................................................................... 192 

Figure A 14: Share of women in ESF participations (2014-2019 compared to 2020-
2021) .............................................................................................................. 192 

Figure A 15: Share of women in ESF participations (2014-2019 compared to 2020-
2021) .............................................................................................................. 193 

Figure A 16: Changes in the share of women between 2014-2019 and 2020-2021 
by country and IP ........................................................................................... 194 

Figure A 17: Changes in share of ESF participations by age group by country 
(2020-2021 v. 2014-2019) .............................................................................. 195 

Figure A 18: Share of ESF participations by age group by country and IP (2020-
2021 compared to 2014-2019) ....................................................................... 196 

Figure A 19: Share of ESF participants with disabilities (2014-2019 and 2020-
2021) .............................................................................................................. 197 

26 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 20: Share of ESF participants with disabilities by IP (2020-2021 
compared to 2014-2019) ................................................................................ 197 

Figure A 21: Profile of ESF participations by educational level (2020-2021 
compared to 2014-2019) ................................................................................ 199 

Figure A 22: Share of low skilled (ISCED 0-2) ESF participants by IP (2020-2021 
compared to 2014-2019) ................................................................................ 199 

Figure A 23: Participations of migrants in ESF operations (change 2014-2019 to 
2020-21) ......................................................................................................... 200 

Figure A 24: Share of ESF participants being migrants, participants with a foreign 
background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) by 
IP (2014-2019 and 2020-2021) ...................................................................... 200 

Figure A 25: Number of end recipients under the respective type of support and 
share of women (2014-2021) ......................................................................... 203 

Figure A 26: Composition of end recipients in food supply operations by country 
(comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019) ......................................................... 204 

Figure A 27:. Composition of end recipients in basic material assistance 
operations by country (comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019) ...................... 205 

Figure A 28: Composition of end recipients receiving vouchers by country (2020-
2021) .............................................................................................................. 205 

Figure A 29: Composition of end recipients in social assistance operations by 
country (comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019) ............................................ 206 

Figure A 30: Reported cumulative COVID-19 deaths EU-27 and UK ............. 207 

Figure A 31: Uptake of the primary course and a booster/additional dose by 
country, by mid-April 2022, in % ..................................................................... 208 

Figure A 32: Unemployment rates by Member States, % of labour force from 15 to 
74 years ......................................................................................................... 210 

Figure A 33: Employment indicators EU ......................................................... 211 

Figure A 34: Employment growth by sector - EU ............................................ 212 

Figure A 35: Changes in employment, hours worked and share not working by age 
and gender, Q2-2019-Q2-2020, EU27 ........................................................... 213 

Figure A 36: Employment rate by age – EU-27, 2020Q3 – 2022Q2 ............... 213 

Figure A 37: Impact of the first wave of lockdowns on the participation in adult 
learning (participation in the past 4 weeks, 25-64 year olds, ELFS) – Change in the 
total number of participants % within the previous 12 months ........................ 218 

Figure A 38: Intervention logic for the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 
(CRII and CRII+)............................................................................................. 223 

Figure A 39: Intervention logic for support provided by the ESF and FEAD under 
the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+) ................. 224 

Figure A 40: Distribution of cumulative reported cases in the first COVID-19 wave
 ....................................................................................................................... 285 

Figure A 41: COVID-19: Government Stringency Index ................................. 286 

Figure A 42: ESF, ERDF and REACT-EU support to Greece’s COVID-19 response
 ....................................................................................................................... 288 

27 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 43: Coherence of ESF, ERDF, REACT-EU ..................................... 294 

Figure A 44: Number of patients with medium and moderate to severe course of 
COVID-19 in Latvia, April 2020 – September 2022 ........................................ 313 

Figure A 45: Number of households or people who contacted the social groceries 
of Red Cross and Caritas in 2019 and 2020, between 1 January and 31 December 
each year (Luxembourg, households, or people) ........................................... 326 

Figure A 46: Online login to the buttek.lu e-platform to order FEAD products 329 

Figure A 47: Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Stringency Index 
Average in Poland .......................................................................................... 336 

Figure A 48: Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Stringency Index 
Average in Poland, Italy, Spain and Germany ................................................ 337 

Figure A 49: Reported cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths EU-27 ........ 356 

Figure A 50: Cumulative uptake (%) of full vaccination in the total population in 
Romania as of October 2022.......................................................................... 357 

Figure A 51: Regional disparities are high with pockets of poverty in rural areas358 

Figure A 52: Material Deprivation rate by age group in 2020 ......................... 359 

Figure A 53: COVID-19 / CRII : Financial Support to the health sector to combat 
the COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost - ERDF/ESF - CV1-2-3-4-5) ......... 362 

Figure A 54: REACT-EU - EU fund allocations to specific programmes in Romania
 ....................................................................................................................... 362 

Figure A 55: Unemployment rates by Member States, % of labour force from 15 to 
74 years ......................................................................................................... 369 

Figure A 56: ERTE by sector .......................................................................... 376 

Figure A 57: 2020, Distribution of cumulative reported cases in the first COVID-19 
wave per million people (vertical axis) ............................................................ 387 

Figure A 58: Participants reached in the ESF call competence development for 
laid-off and employed personnel in economically vulnerable sectors by February 
2022 (latest available figures): ........................................................................ 392 

Tables 
Table 1 – Operations typology.......................................................................... 38 

Table 2 – Example of an employment-related anti-crisis operation .................. 62 

Table 3 – Example of a social inclusion operation ............................................ 63 

Table 4 – Example of an education and training operation .............................. 66 

Table 5 – Target financial value of operations per type of region ..................... 67 

Table 6 – ESF CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used ............................................... 72 

Table 7 – FEAD CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used over March 2020-March 202273 

Table 8 – Net change in ESF funding by TO in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic, May 2020 to April 2022 ................................................................... 80 

28 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 1 – Detailed typology of operations across investment priorities ....... 140 

Table A 2 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: employment .................. 142 

Table A 3 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: social inclusion ............. 144 

Table A 4 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: health ............................ 146 

Table A 5 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: education and training .. 147 

Table A 6 – Overview of FEAD anti-crisis operations ..................................... 149 

Table A 7 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of education 
and training..................................................................................................... 151 

Table A 8 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of employment
 ....................................................................................................................... 152 

Table A 9 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of social 
inclusion ......................................................................................................... 154 

Table A 10 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of health155 

Table A 11 – Target groups of FEAD anti-crisis operations ........................... 156 

Table A 12 – COVID-19 related changes in ESF allocations by country, since 
31/5/2022 until April 2022 (EUR values) ........................................................ 159 

Table A 13 – Shifts under the CRII and CRII+ package between the ERDF and 
ESF within respective regions ........................................................................ 161 

Table A 14 – Shifts from the ERDF and CF to the ESF under the coronavirus 
response initiatives by allocation to Thematic Objective by September 2022 (in 
million EUR) ................................................................................................... 162 

Table A 15 – Reallocations and the net effect in ESF funding at the level of TOs in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020 to April 2022 ...................... 163 

Table A 16 – Reallocations and the net effect of YEI funding in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020 to April 2022................................................ 166 

Table A 17 – Shifts within the ESF between categories of regions under the CRII 
and CRII+ package until April 2022 (EUR values) .......................................... 168 

Table A 18 – List of OPs that did not meet the minimum thematic concentration by 
April 2022 ....................................................................................................... 175 

Table A 19 – ESF key financial indicators by country and category of region  176 

Table A 20 – Payment rate of FEAD OPs for the initial planned budget 2014-2022 
by country up to September 2022 .................................................................. 180 

Table A 21 - Overview of methodological approach ....................................... 221 

Table A 22 – Comparative research questions across the three dimensions of 
inquiry ............................................................................................................. 226 

Table A 23 – Operations’ typology ................................................................. 228 

Table A 24 – Overview of stakeholder types across consultation activities .... 231 

Table A 25 – Interview data analysis protocol ................................................ 232 

Table A 26 – List of stakeholders contacted and interviewed at the national level
 ....................................................................................................................... 233 

29 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 27 – Distribution of regional and national MAs responses to the ESF 
survey ............................................................................................................. 236 

Table A 28 – Distribution of national MAs responses to the FEAD survey ..... 236 

Table A 29 – Case studies ............................................................................. 237 

Table A 30 – Evaluation Matrix ....................................................................... 258 

Table A 31 – Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation ....... 266 

Table A 32 – Overview of stakeholder types across consultation activities .... 269 

Table A 33 – Distribution of regional and national MAs responses to the ESF 
survey ............................................................................................................. 271 

Table A 34 – Distribution of national MAs responses to the FEAD survey ..... 271 

Table A 35 – Case studies for ESF operations 2022 ...................................... 272 

Table A 36 – Interview data analysis protocol ................................................ 274 

Table A 37 – Number of infected  COVID-19 in Polish regions and their share in 
total confirmed cases ..................................................................................... 334 

Boxes  
Box 1. CRII and CRII+ flexibilities in reprogramming ESF ................................ 41 

Box 2. Flexibilities in reprogramming FEAD ..................................................... 42 

30 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Acknowledgments 

This study was commissioned by the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion of the European Commission (DG EMPL) and undertaken by Ecorys and 3s.  

The research was led by Ian Atkinson and Monica Andriescu from Ecorys, and Jakob Weiss 
from 3s.  

The authors would like to thank the following key contributors to the study: Maire Williams, 
Paula  Calabuig,  Clara  Percival,  Marta  Moretto,  Milda  Butkute,  Dorottya  Meszner,  Ionela 
Bulceag, Julia Fellinger, Eva Steinheimer, and Andrew Hetherington. 

In addition, the authors would like to thank the national experts that led the case studies 
and  conducted  stakeholder  interviews:  Agnieszka  Górniak,  Niklas  Olausson,  Pietro 
Regazzoni,  Oksana  Zabko,  Patrick  Werquin,  Anita  Ramsak,  Oto  Potluka,  and  Elitsa 
Dankova.  

The authors also gratefully acknowledge the valuable support of the Inter-service Steering 
Group  of  the  European  Commission  throughout  the  study  and,  in  particular,  the  main 
contacts for the study: Anna Galazka, Jeannette Monier and Maria-José Cueto Faus at DG 
EMPL, Unit G5. 

Finally, the authors are indebted to the representatives of the ESF and FEAD  Managing 
Authorities,  as  well  as  the  relevant  national  ministries,  civil  society  organisations,  social 
partners,  research-,  and  other  types  of  organisations  who  gave  their  valuable  time  to 
contribute to the surveys, interviews and focus groups organised throughout the study. 

31 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Abbreviations 

Acronyms 

Table header cell 

CARE 

CF 

CPR 

CRII 

CRII+ 

EU 

EUSF 

ESF 

ESF+ 

ESIF 

EAFRD 

ERDF 

FEAD 

Cohesion's Action for Refugees in Europe 

Cohesion Fund 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus 

European Union 

EU Solidarity Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Social Fund Plus 

European structural and investment funds 

European agricultural fund for rural development 

European Regional Development Fund 

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 

ESF / FEAD MAs 

ESF / FEAD Managing Authorities 

REACT-EU 

STWS 

SURE 

Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories 
of Europe 

Short-Time Work Schemes 

European instrument for temporary Support to 
mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency 

TO8, TO9, TO10, TO11  

Thematic Objectives 8, 9, 10, 11 

AT 

BE 

Austria 

Belgium 

32 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Croatia 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

33 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

United Kingdom 

34 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

1. 

Introduction 

This study contributes to the preliminary evaluation of the support provided by the European 
Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) under the 
Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+). The study provides an early 
assessment of the use of CRII and CRII+ flexibilities in ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations 
aimed at mitigating the socio-economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the European 
Union (EU) Member States and the United Kingdom (UK). 

1.1. 

Purpose and objectives of the study  

Since  the  onset  of  the  pandemic,  EU  Member  States  have  experienced  severe  labour 
market  and  social  impacts,  with  the  poorest  and  most  vulnerable  individuals  being  the 
hardest hit (e.g. low-paid workers in atypical employment relationships, the elderly, children 
and youth, women, people with a migrant background, persons with disabilities). The crisis 
stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and the arrival into Member 
States of people fleeing the war added additional pressures at EU and Member State levels 
(e.g. the need to identify adequate resources and flexible use of funding to enable solutions 
to urgent and longer term needs). At the same time, the negative effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic are still persistent.     

The EU responded to the COVID-19 crisis through several initiatives that provided financial 
support  to  the  Member  States.  The  first  of  these  were  the  Coronavirus  Response 
Investment Initiative (CRII)8 and the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus 
(CRII+),9 which were launched by the European Commission in March and April 2020. They 
provided Member States and the UK additional flexibilities in using the ESF and FEAD to 
enable them to address the acute needs of their population during the pandemic, help use 
unspent resources from these funds and direct them to where they were most needed. CRII 
and  CRII+  enabled  the  reallocations  of  remaining  funds  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period within funds but also across funds – thus being the first EU level intervention that 
enabled this type of action.  

This  study  collected  and  analysed  initial  available  evidence  on  the  use  of  this  targeted 
support by the Member States and the UK. It focuses on assessing the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the EU’s response to the crisis, how this support has been used by the 
Member States, its coherence with other EU and national initiatives, its relevance to 
needs  on  the  ground,  and  its  contribution  to  the  crisis  response.  The  study  also 
identifies lessons learnt on how and the extent to which flexibility measures introduced in 
the  use  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  have  supported  anti-crisis  reactions  across  the  Member 
States  and  the  UK,  and  what  could  be  improved  in  future  anti-crisis  operations.  Where 
possible, the study identifies lessons that may apply to the situation, and necessary crisis 
response,  stemming  from  the  arrival  in  EU  Member  States  of  people  fleeing  the  war  in 
Ukraine. 

8 Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) 
No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the 
healthcare systems of Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak 
(Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0460&from=EN  
9 Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 
1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the 
European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0558&from=EN  

35 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The  study  complements  the  three  ESF  evaluations  covering  employment  and  labour 
mobility  (TO  8),  social  inclusion  (TO  9),  and  education  and  training  (TO  10)10  and  the 
evaluation of YEI.11 It also provides preliminary evidence for the ex-post evaluations of the 
ESF and FEAD, which will be completed by the end of December 2024.  

The study’s scope covers crisis responses at the EU level and in the EU27 and the UK in 
the  areas  of  healthcare,  employment,  social  inclusion  and  education  and  training.  
Given  the  early  stage  of  implementation  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  operations,  the  specific 
objectives are: 

  To  focus  on  the  process  of  reacting  to  the  crisis,  rather  than  the  operations’ 
impacts, tracing the extent to which implementation has proceeded as anticipated 
(linking inputs and activities to outputs, and exploring early results). 

  To  provide  an  early  assessment  of the  use  of provisions  of  CRII  and CRII+  in 
ESF and FEAD-funded programmes, and the role that the ESF and FEAD played in 
reaction to the public health crisis caused by COVID-19.  

  To  assess  how  the  range  of  flexibilities/  simplification  measures  facilitated 
through CRII and CRII+ have enabled ESF and FEAD funding to be re-oriented and 
targeted in response to the COVID-19 crisis. 

  To provide preliminary lessons learned on the use of the ESF and FEAD in a crisis 
context. The study focuses on the process of reacting to the COVID-19 crisis and it 
does not cover the impacts of the operations but has identified some early effects of 
selected anti-crisis operations that were analysed through case studies.  

The  analysis  encompasses  changes  in  ESF12  and  FEAD13  implementation  in  the  27 
Member States and the UK following the adoption of the CRII and CRII+ measures. The 
required assessment of the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria is adapted to align with 
the  study’s  focus  on  process  evaluation  and  early  implementation,  as  opposed  to 
outcome or impact evaluation: 

  This  study’s  assessment  of  effectiveness  focuses  on  the  speed  of  the  EU’s 
response to the crisis, and the flexibility/simplification measures introduced by CRII 
and CRII+ to enable an immediate crisis response at national level.   

  Efficiency  also  concentrates  on  the  speed  of  the  EU’s  response  to  the  crisis,  in 
particular  on  the  extent  to  which  CRII  and  CRII+  enhanced  the  efficiency  of  the 
reprogramming process in terms of both simplifying and accelerating it. 

  Relevance  is  assessed  both  from  the  perspective  of  the  needs  of  Managing 

Authorities/Member States and participants/end recipients of support.  

  Coherence  is  assessed  in terms  of  the  alignment  of  the  operations  programmed 
following the adoption of the CRII and CRII+ with the other operations implemented 
by both FEAD and the ESF. The study also assesses the coherence of the CRII and 

10 Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of the 2014-2018 ESF support to employment and labour mobility, social 
inclusion and education and training, SWD(2021) 11 final, January 2021. Available at https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2021:0010:FIN:EN:PDF. 
11 Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of the ESF and YEI Support to Youth Employment, SWD(2020) 217 
final. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=23027&langId=en.  
12 The regulations relevant for ESF implementation under the COVID-19 crisis are REGULATION (EU) 2020/460 of 30 
March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 and REGULATION (EU) 
2020/558 of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013.  
13 The regulations relevant for FEAD implementation under the COVID-19 crisis is REGULATION (EU) 2020/559 of 23 April 
2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 223/2014. For the purposes of this preliminary evaluation, the study refers to 
Regulation 2020/559 as part of the CRII and CRII+ package. 

36 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CRII+ ESF and FEAD operations with other relevant EU instruments, such as the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the  REACT-EU  (Recovery 
Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe) package, and the temporary 
Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) instrument. 

  Rather than addressing the EU added value criterion, the study assesses the role 
played  by  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  within  national  anti-crisis  strategies.  The 
study also explores – to the extent information is available – whether Member States 
would  have  used  ESF  and  FEAD  for  anti-crisis  response,  and  what  would  have 
happened with unspent allocations, in the absence of the flexibilities introduced by 
CRII and CRII+. 

The broader set of measures under REACT-EU, along with the ESF+, are only in scope 
from the perspective of assessing coherence between the immediate response provided 
by  CRII  and  CRII+,  in  terms  of  programming  and  design,  and  the  mid-to  longer  term 
approach of using ESF and FEAD under the auspices of REACT-EU and the ESF+. 
The scope of the evaluation does not therefore extend to REACT-EU or the ESF+ in terms 
of, for example, effects on participants and beneficiaries.   

The study was conducted during December 2021-December 2022. The timespan covered 
by the analysis is the period from the adoption of the CRII and CRII+ initiatives and includes 
data available by September 2022.  

1.2. 

Brief overview of the methodology  

The  study  was  conducted  in  several  phases  and  involved  a  mix  of  quantitative  and 
qualitative methods. These are  presented  briefly  below  and described in further  detail  in 
Annex 2. 

Designing the intervention logics and evaluation matrix: Two intervention logics were 
developed, which underpin the approach to the study. The first focuses on the flexibilities 
enabled by CRII and CRII+ as they relate to the use of ESF and FEAD in the COVID-19 
crisis context, and the second sets out the specific ESF and FEAD operations enabled by 
these  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities.  The  intervention  logics  summarise  the  needs  and 
rationale of the CRII and CRII+ interventions given the serious consequences of the COVID-
19  outbreak,  resulting  in  liquidity  shortages  and  significant  negative  effects  on  EU 
economies and societies, and link objectives to inputs, outputs, results and intended longer 
term impacts. More details are presented in Section 2.2. 

An  evaluation  matrix  was  designed  to  address  the  evaluation  questions  and  guide  all 
subsequent evaluation activities. The evaluation matrix provides main and sub-questions, 
judgment  criteria/  indicators  and  data  sources.  It  underpins  the  analytical  approach  and 
builds on the description of the evaluation criteria as applied to the scope and purpose of 
this evaluation, which focuses on process evaluation and early implementation of CRII and 
CRII+ (as discussed above).  

The comparative analysis of the context and crisis reaction across Member States 
and the UK enabled the mapping of the socio-economic and crisis context and use of CRII 
and CRII+ in each Member State and the UK. This included an initial assessment of the 
ESF and FEAD financial contribution to crisis reaction at Member State level, including a 
preliminary analysis of the financial volumes that were reallocated between and within funds 
and  changes  in  the  levels  of  these  volumes.  It  also  identified  types  of  operations,  their 
objectives and target groups, and assessed the available monitoring arrangements relating 
to the COVID-19 response, including analysing the current use of the relevant indicators. 
The analysis, based on a range of data sources, generated findings of the state of play of 
the financial and operational implementation of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations. The 

37 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

main sources  of  evidence  are  the  System for  Fund  Management  in  the European Union 
(SFC2014) and Cohesion databases, EU Regulations and existing literature.  

The mapping process contributed to the development of a typology of operations enabled 
by CRII and CRII+ in practice, on the basis of the typology of potential measures that could 
be  used  through  the  ESF  to  respond  to  the  coronavirus  crisis.14  Given  that  the  list  of 
indicative  measures  is  relatively  long  and  broad,  to  ensure  that  the  number  of  different 
‘types’  was not  too  large,  some combining  of these measures under  slightly  higher  level 
categories  was  required,  while  still  being  more  granular  than  the  overarching  ‘thematic 
focus’  level  (i.e.,  employment,  social  inclusion,  education  and  training,  healthcare).  The 
typology was developed to enable identification and analysis of patterns in the use of ESF 
and FEAD operations that form part of the coronavirus response. The typology facilitated 
higher-level analysis concerning the overall thematic focus of ESF and FEAD operations.  

The table below shows the 15 more granular ‘types’ developed under the four main thematic 
focus  headings  of  employment,  social  inclusion,  education  and  training,  and  healthcare. 
Categories of ‘other employment actions’, ‘other social inclusion actions’ etc. also form part 
of  the  typology  to  capture  those  operations  that  do  not  readily  fit  with  the  categories 
developed.  Once  developed,  the  above  typology  has  been  used  within  the  study  to 
undertake the analysis of operations presented in Section 3 of this report and in Annex 1.  

Table 1 – Operations typology 

Thematic focus 

Sub-categories / ‘types/ of actions/operations 

Actions to protect jobs 

Actions to support workers 

Employment 

Actions to support employers and the self-employed 

Actions to support NEET young people through the YEI 

Other employment actions 

Actions to promote the social inclusion of vulnerable groups through providing direct 
targeted support 

Social inclusion 

Actions to promote social inclusion through ensuring access to services 

Other social inclusion actions 

Actions to ensure the continuity of education and training 

Education and 
training 

Equipment/ other capital investment to ensure the continuity of education and 
training  

Actions to increase the medical and social care workforce through fast-tracking 
curricula or qualifications 

Other education training actions 

Actions to support healthcare workers and patients 

Healthcare 

Actions to support healthcare systems 

Other healthcare actions 

14 European Commission, DG EMPL (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised 
to address the COVID-19 crisis.  

38 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Stakeholder consultations informed the study in all its aspects, contributing to answering 
all evaluation questions, and included in-depth interviews at Member State and EU level, 
surveys targeting (national and regional) ESF and FEAD Managing Authorities, and focus 
groups.  The  consultation  programme  engaged  representatives  of  the  Commission, 
institutions  involved  in  the management  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  operational  programmes, 
institutions responsible for design and implementation of national strategies and measures 
aimed at counteracting the effect of the pandemic, organisations involved in the delivery of 
operations  as  beneficiaries  or  project  leaders/  partners,  and research  bodies  conducting 
research on the COVID-19 crisis response and measures undertaken at EU/ national level.  

To assess the effectiveness and relevance of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under 
CRII and CRII+, an analysis of common indicators and allocations was conducted for both 
Funds in order to provide a preliminary assessment of how the target groups were affected. 
For  the  ESF,  analysis  was  undertaken  at  the  Investment  Priority  (IP)  level.  The  analysis 
informs the report (in particular Sections 4.1 on Effectiveness and 4.5 on Relevance) and 
is presented in further detail in Annex 1 – Appendix 3. The analysis is based on monitoring 
data reported in the Annual Implementation Reports (retrieved in September-October 2022) 
through  common  output  indicators,  which,  for  the  ESF,  are  collected  at  IP  and  Member 
State level.  

To  gain  deeper  insight  into  the  actions  taken  under  ESF  and  FEAD  in  response  to  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  (and  facilitated  by  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities)  on  the  national  and 
regional levels nine case studies of good practices using ESF and FEAD for mitigating 
crisis  effects  were  conducted  across  several  Member  States  and  anti-crisis  operations 
linked to certain themes. They inform the report and are presented in Annex 6.  

This  final  evaluation  report  includes  a  summary  of  the  key  findings  across  the 
evaluation criteria, conclusions and lessons learnt and brings together all the evidence 
gathered to address the evaluation questions.  

There are a number of limitations to the research, related to the quality of available data 
and the methodology that was developed given the constraints of the available resources 
for  the  study  and  the  timeline  of  its  implementation.  These  limitations  were  taken  into 
account and addressed to the extent possible in the design and implementation of the study, 
as outlined in Annex 2 to the report. One key limitation stems from the possibility that not 
all  anti-crisis  operations  planned  under  CRII  and  CRII+  were  identified.  This  preliminary 
evaluation  tracked  amendments  to  operational  programmes  (OPs)  that  have  been 
submitted  under  CRII/  CRII+  during  the  timeline  of  this  study.  In  the  context  of  the 
exceptional flexibilities enabled under CRII and CRII+, however, a formal amendment was 
not  always  needed.  Therefore,  the  operations  that  did  not  require  a  formal  amendment 
could not always be identified.  

1.3. 

Report structure 

The report is structured in four sections that summarise the key findings and conclusions, 
triangulating information and data gathered throughout the study and annexes that include 
complementary information, as follows: 

Section 2 presents the objectives and expected outcome of CRII and CRII+, as well as an 
overview of the intervention logics developed for the evaluation, along with the wider policy 
context and points of comparison for the evaluation (these points of comparison being ESF 
and  FEAD  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  reaction  of  ESF  to  the  2008-2009 
economic crisis). 

Section 3 provides an overview of the state of play of the implementation of CRII and CRII+ 
during the evaluation period. 

39 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Section 4 outlines key findings across the five evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence, relevance and contribution of CRII and CRII+ to the COVID-19 crisis response).  

Section 5 outlines the main findings and provides considerations about lessons learnt. 

Annexes include: 

  Annex 1: Supporting information 

  Annex 2: Methods and analytical models used 

  Annex 3: Evaluation matrix 

  Annex 4: Overview of benefits and costs 

  Annex 5: Consultation synopsis report 

  Annex 6: Case studies of good practices 

40 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

2. 

The expected outcome of CRII and CRII+  

The Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives were introduced in March and April 2020, 
shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, to address the liquidity shortages caused 
by the effects of the crisis in the healthcare sector and other sectors of the economy across 
the Member States. CRII and CRII+ amended the ESIF Common Provisions Regulation (No 
1303/2013). FEAD’s legal basis – Regulation (EU) 223/2014 – was amended in April 2020 
through  Regulation  (EU)  2020/559  and  also  enabled  a range  of  flexibilities  in  the  use  of 
FEAD during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The following sub-sections present the rationale for CRII and CRII+ and their objectives; 
the intervention logics underpinning the interventions and this preliminary evaluation; the 
broader  policy  context  at  EU  level;  and  the  relevant  points  of  comparison  against  which 
CRII and CRII+ are assessed in this report. Annex 1 – Appendix 4 provides supplementary 
information in the form of an overview of the COVID-19 context across the EU in the areas 
relevant to this study (health, employment, social inclusion, education and training).  

2.1. 

CRII and CRII+ objectives in the COVID-19 context 

CRII  and  CRII+  enabled  support  for  operations  implementing  crisis  response  through 
additional  flexibilities  in  the  reprogramming  of  ESF  operational  programmes  (OPs) 
(alongside other funds such as the ERDF). These flexibilities are listed in the Box below. 

Box 1. CRII and CRII+ flexibilities in reprogramming ESF 

CRII - Regulation (EU) 2020/460 

CRII Plus - Regulation EU 2020/558 

  Making Coronavirus crisis related 
under 

eligible 

expenditure 
cohesion policy rules 

  Article  25a  (1):  100%  co-financing 
rate for 2020-21 accounting period 

  Article  30a  (5):  CPR  notification, 

  Article 

25a 

(2): 

reallocation 

non-substantial transfers 

between Funds 

  Article  37  (4):  providing  working 
capital to SMEs through financial 
instruments 

  Article 

25a 

(3): 

reallocation 

between categories of regions 

  Article 

65 

(10): 

retroactive 

  Article  25a  (5):  waiver  of  thematic 

eligibility   

concentration requirements 

  Article  139 

(7):  Not 
recovery orders for 2020 

issuing 

  Article 25a (6)  No amendments to 

partnership agreements 

  Article 25a (7): retroactive eligibility 

  Article 

providing 
information  on  amounts  where 

25a 

(8): 

41 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

payment  applications  were  not 
possible  at  an  aggregate  level  [for 
eligible costs <EUR 1 million] 

  Article  25a  (9):  postponement  of 
deadline  for  submission  of  AIR  for 
2019 

  Article  25a 

(10):  waiver  of 
submitting  evidence  (e.g.,  updated 
financial 
business  plans)  where 
instruments provide working capital 
to SMEs 

  Article  25a  (12):  use  of  non-
statistical sampling for auditing 

Alongside this, the Commission interpreted the objectives of the ESF in a more flexible way, 
which supported the mobilisation of non-utilised support from the ESIF.  

Flexibilities in the use of FEAD included those in the Box below. 

Box 2. Flexibilities in reprogramming FEAD 

  FEAD re-allocation within the OP 

  Article  9  (4):  Notification,  non-

substantial transfers 

  Article  13(1):  postponement  of 
deadline for submission of AIR for 
2019 

  Article 20 (1a) : 100% co-financing 
rate  for  the  2020-21  accounting 
year 

  Article 22 (4): Retroactive eligibility 

  Article  23  (5):  use  of  electronic 

vouchers / cards 

  Article  26  (2):  use  of  FEAD  to 
protective 
for 

purchase 
materials  and  equipment 
partner organisations  

personal 

  Article  26a:  non-reduction  of 
eligible  costs  due to delays  in  the 

42 

  Article  26b  (2):  reimbursement  of 
beneficiaries based on the outputs 
planned 
the  period  of 
suspension  [when  reimbursement 
is based on simplified cost options] 

for 

  Article 26c: claim expenses for OP 
II 
assistance 
technical 
operations not fully implemented  

or 

  Article  30:  Use  of  lighter  control 

and audit trail requirements 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

delivery  of 
material aid 

food  and/or  basic 

  Article  26b  (1):  claim  of expenses 
implementation  of 

where 
services was suspended 

the 

Two intervention logics underpin CRII and CRII+ and the preliminary evaluation: 

1.  A first intervention logic that focuses on the flexibilities enabled by CRII and CRII+ 

as they relate to the use of ESF and FEAD in the COVID-19 crisis context. 

2.  A  second  intervention  logic  setting  out  the  specific  ESF  and  FEAD  operations 

enabled by these CRII and CRII+ flexibilities.  

The  intervention  logics  guide  the  focus  of  this  preliminary  evaluation,  particularly  in 
exploring  the  extent  to  which  the  early  implementation  of  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives has proceeded as anticipated, and the reasons for this. 

2.2. 

CRII and CRII+ intervention logic 

The Figure overleaf presents the combined intervention logic for the coronavirus response 
initiatives,  summarising  the  rationale  for  the  intervention,  the  general,  specific  and 
operational objectives, the inputs/activities, the outputs and results, alongside the impacts 
the intervention aims to generate. 

43 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT 
INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 1: Intervention logic for the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+) 

44 

Needs and rationaleThe consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting public health crisis hamper growth in Member States, in turn aggravating liquidity shortages. CRII amends relevant Regulations to provide more flexibility to respond to the impact of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Given the seriousness and scale of negative effects on Union economies and societies, CRII+ provides for exceptional additional flexibility to Member States to further support this response. Alongside this, the Commission started to interpret the objectives of the ESF in a more flexible way. Together, the CRII response (CRII and CRII+), plus this additional flexibility in interpreting ESF objectives, supports increased flexibilities, including mobilising all non-utilised support from the ESIF and FEAD.General / high-level objectiveTo mitigate the effects of the public health and socio-economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemicInputs/ActivitiesProvide the possibility to request, for cohesion policy programmes, a co-financing rate of 100 % to be applied for the accounting year 2020-2021, plus possibility to finance FEAD measures at 100% for the accounting year 2020-2021.Possibilities for financial transfers under the Investment for growth and jobs goal between the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion FundTransfer possibilities between categories of regions increased for Member States Procedural requirements linked to programme implementation, use of financial instruments and audit simplified – e.g. amendment for rest of programming period not required for PAs; AIR submission deadlines postponed Eligibility of expenditure allowed for completed or fully implemented operations that foster crisis response capacities in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Such operations able to be selected even before the necessary programme amendment is approved by the CommissionPossibility to use FEAD to deliver food aid and basic material assistance through electronic vouchers and to provide the protective equipmentSpecific objectivesTo enable the anti-crisis response by the Funds (ESIF, FEAD, and ESUF)To mobilise all non-utilised support from the Funds ResultsDevelopment of new and adjusted operations at Member State level, and mobilisation of non-utilised funds, specifically:- (No. of) operations - (No. of) participants supported as part of combating or counteracting the effects of the crisis- (No. of) entities supported as part of combating or counteracting the effects of the crisis- (Amount of funding allocated to) operations to combat or counteract thepandemic (total public cost), including through mobilisation of non-utilised resourcesEffects on absorption – e.g. measured through (changes in) payment rates ImpactsEnsuring functioning health systems through facilitating necessary public investments in healthcare Mitigating negative effects on growth through supporting economic sectors and helping facilitate effective economic recovery Ensuring less pressure on public finances, including through addressing liquidity shortagesBusinesses and citizens supported by ESIF and FEAD to ameliorate the effects of the pandemicOperational objectivesTo provide additional flexibilities to enable MS to respond to the effects of the crisis  OutputsProgramme amendments, specifically: - (No. of) OPs modified - (No. of) additional responses using flexibilities without formal OP amendments. - (No. of) MS using simplified amendment process and (no. of amendments) - (No. of) programmes using/benefitting from the 100% co-financing rate (COM decision)- (No. of) FEAD programmes introducing emergency COVID-19 response measures provided for by the flexibilities (e.g. introduction of indirect delivery through vouchers)Objectives 
STUDY SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD 
UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The  rationale  for  intervention  relates  to  the  serious  consequences  of  the  COVID-19 
outbreak and the crisis stemming from this, in particular the potential for the public health 
crisis to lead to liquidity shortages and significant negative effects on EU economies and 
societies.  The  shortages  had  the  potential  to  generate  broader  negative  social  and 
economic  consequences,  e.g.  creating  challenges  in  maintaining  employment  levels, 
economic  growth,  and  effective  social  assistance.  This  created  the  need  for  rapid 
intervention. 

The objectives of CRII and CRII+ are thus to mitigate the effects of the public health and 
socio-economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this, the response has 
the  specific  objectives  of  mobilising  all  non-utilised  support  from  the  Funds  through 
additional flexibilities enabling quick reprogramming.  

Inputs/activities  relate  to  the  range  of  additional  financial  and  programming  flexibilities 
introduced,  intended  to  accelerate  and  help  to  further  target  the  provision  of  financial 
support to address the effects of COVID-19.  

Outputs in the context of the intervention logic for the response initiatives relate to the effect 
of the flexibilities in the sense of facilitating programme amendments, specifically in terms 
of: (number of) OPs modified; (number of) additional responses using flexibilities without 
formal  OP  amendments;  (number  of)  Member  States  using  simplified  amendment 
processes and number of amendments; (number of) programmes using/benefitting from the 
100%  co-financing  rate  introduced;  and  (number  of)  FEAD  programmes  introducing 
emergency COVID-19 response measures provided for by the flexibilities (e.g. introduction 
of indirect delivery through vouchers).  

The  results  of  the  response  initiatives  relate  to  the  development  of  new  and  adjusted 
operations at Member State level, and mobilisation of non-utilised funds. These results, in 
terms of new and adjusted ESF and FEAD operations, form the inputs/activities delivered 
through the Funds, as articulated in detail in the second intervention logic presented below. 
Results  include  the  (number  of)  operations,  participants  and/or  entities  supported,  the 
(value of) funding allocated to operations, and effects on financial absorption. 

The ultimate impacts the response initiatives aim to generate include the intended role of 
the response in ensuring functioning health systems through facilitating necessary public 
investments  in  healthcare;  mitigating  negative  effects  on  growth;  facilitating  effective 
economic recovery; ensuring less pressure on public finances; and providing the necessary 
support  to  businesses  and  people.  In  particular,  the  response  initiatives  are  designed  to 
enable  the  ESF  and  FEAD  to  more  effectively  meet  the  needs  of  their  target  groups, 
especially  those  in  vulnerable  situations  who  are  likely  to  be  most  affected  by  the 
consequences of the pandemic (e.g. those facing poverty, with significant barriers to labour 
market access, people with disabilities and health conditions, young people, older workers). 

2.2.1. 

Intervention logic for ESF/ FEAD support under CRII/CRII+ 

The  second  intervention  logic  focuses  on  the  role  and  intended  effects  of  the  concrete 
operations delivered through the ESF and FEAD, enabled by the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities.  
Figure 2 outlines the (new and adjusted) ESF and FEAD operations that seek to address 
the effects of the pandemic, tracing the intended outputs, results and impacts that flow from 
these. These are articulated in terms of the thematic focus of the ESF and FEAD operations 
in  the  context  of  the  pandemic  response:  healthcare,  employment,  social  inclusion,  and 
education and training. 

45 

 
STUDY SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT 
INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 2: Intervention logic for support provided by the ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII 
and CRII+) 

46 

Needs and rationale Responding to the COVID-19 public health crisis requires the mobilisation of all non-utilised ESF and FEAD support, ensuring that the Funds can be used effectively to address the negative impact of the pandemic on health, labour markets, education, and social inclusion.Inputs/ActivitiesNew and adjusted operations through ESF, including:Health: Purchase of necessary equipment/supplies;  hiring of additional health personnel and supporting salaries for existing staff; health staff training; provision of mobile/temporary health care facilities; support for distance/online and home health care; provision of medical assistance or home care services for vulnerable groups. Employment: Use of short-time work schemes, including for the self-employed;  recruitment of additional staff for professional cleaning services; support to employers and workers to set-up telework arrangements; support to employers and workers to put OSH measures in place; support to the self-employed and small businesses through financing IT solutions; support for adaptation – e.g. through training for employers; additional support – e.g. STW schemes – for young people through YEISocial inclusion: Support to persons/ families experiencing homelessness/ housing exclusion and exposed toCOVID-19; support to vulnerable people/families with socio-educational, health, care and social services; temporary/emergency income support for those outside the labour market; support for volunteering and volunteers; support for emergency social aid including worker salariesEducation and training: Support for distance-learning – e.g. digital skills training for teachers and students, purchase or rent of equipment such as laptops, broadband; fast-track graduation of medical/social care personnel – e.g. support for fast-track examination, reviewing curricula/qualification requirements; use of SCO in context of pre-school provision New and adjusted operations through FEAD, including:Expansion and redirection of food and basic material assistance to the most deprived in the context of the pandemic, including via indirect delivery through electronic vouchers; provision of COVID-19 protective equipment; provision of (enhanced and targeted) non-financial, non-material assistanceOutputs(No. of) participants supported in combatting or counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic(No. of) participants who benefitted from support in short-time work arrangements(No. of) entities supported in combatting or counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic(No. of) health care personnel benefitting from ESF support  (Value of) ESF actions to combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemicTesting capacity supported to diagnose and test for COVID-19(Value of) PPE and other medical equipment purchased(Value of) medicines purchased (Value of) IT equipment and software/licences financed (Value of) COVID-19 related IT for SMEs(Value of) COVID-19 related IT for health(Value of) COVID-19 related IT for education(Value of) vaccinations costs suported(No. of) people vaccinated with EU supportResultsPeople and health systems are supported to reduce the scale and severity of negative health and healthcare system effects resulting from the pandemic(No. of) participants maintaining their job 6 months after the end of support through new and adjusted operations(No. of) participants gaining a qualification upon leaving supported in actions combatting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic  Those facing social and economic deprivation, including the most deprived, continue to be supported to alleviate poverty, address social exclusion, and recover from the effects of the pandemicPeople are supported to continue in education and training and achieve qualifications, and education systems continue to functionImpactsMore resilient and well-functioning health systemsSustained employment, and better-adapted workers, enterprises and entrepreneursIncreased social inclusion and reduced poverty levels Well-functioning education and training provision able to resist the effects of the pandemicMember State citizens, economies and societies being  better able to recover from the health, social and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic General / high-level objectiveTo mitigate the effects of the public health and socio-economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemicSpecific objectivesHealth: Support the provision of health servicesSocial inclusion: Provide access to social services for the disadvantagedEmployment: Promote access to sustainable and quality employment / support  adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to changeEducation and training:  Invest in education, training and VT for skills and LLLOperational objectivesTo use the additional flexibilities provided by the CRII  to enable MS to more effectively use the ESF and FEAD to respond to the effects of the crisis  Objectives 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The general/high-level objective is to maximise the use of the ESF and FEAD (through the 
flexibilities provided) to mitigate the effects of the public health and socio-economic crisis 
resulting  from  COVID-19.  In  respect  of  health,  the  specific  objective  is  to  support  the 
provision of health services; for social inclusion, to provide access to social services for the 
disadvantaged;  for  employment,  as  well  as  promoting  access  to  sustainable  and  quality 
employment,  there  is  a  specific  focus  on,  and  objective  to,  respond  to  the  crisis  by 
supporting the adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs; and for education and 
training, the specific objective is to invest in education, training and vocational training for 
skills and lifelong learning in line with the new challenges presented by the pandemic. These 
objectives and intended impacts remained largely the same as before the crisis. However, 
the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the continuity of service provision in the new 
circumstances  it  triggered;  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  sought  to  maintain  this 
continuity as far as possible in a radically changed context.  

The  inputs/activities  concern  the  specific  new  and adjusted  operations  envisaged for  the 
ESF and FEAD to support the coronavirus response and relate to health, social inclusion, 
employment, or education and training. Some ESF inputs/activities span across thematic 
areas (as reflected in the flexibility given to programme some of the operations articulated 
as inputs/activities under different Thematic Objectives).15 The most important changes in 
the use of ESF and FEAD relative to the pre-pandemic status quo are visible at the level of 
activities within operations.  

  For health, inputs/activities cover a range of ESF operations including: the purchase 
of  necessary  equipment/supplies;  hiring  of  additional  health  personnel  and 
supporting  salaries 
training;  provision  of 
mobile/temporary health care facilities; support for distance/online and home health 
care;  and  provision  of  medical  assistance  or  home  care  services  for  vulnerable 
groups.  

for  existing  staff;  health  staff 

  Employment-related inputs/activities in terms of possible ESF operations include: 
the use of short-time work arrangements (STWAs); recruitment of additional staff for 
professional cleaning services; support to employers and workers to set-up telework 
arrangements;  support  to  employers  and  workers  to  put  occupational  safety  and 
health and safety (OSH) measures in place; support to the self-employed and small 
businesses through financing IT solutions.  

  Social inclusion operations through the ESF are expected to include: support to 
persons/families  experiencing  homelessness/housing  exclusion  and  exposed  to 
COVID-19;  support  to  vulnerable  people/families  with  socio-educational,  health, 
care and social services temporary/emergency income support for those outside the 
labour market; support for volunteering and volunteers; and support for emergency 
social aid including worker salaries.16  

  Education and training ESF activities/inputs include support for distance-learning 
– e.g. digital skills training for teachers and students; purchase or rent of equipment 
such  as  laptops  or  broadband;  fast-track  graduation  of  medical/social  care 
personnel  –  e.g. 
reviewing 
curricula/qualification requirements; and use of simplified cost options (SCO) in the 
context of pre-school provision. 

fast-track  examination  or 

support 

for 

15 For example, the guidance on possible ways of programming operations in DG EMPL’s Typology of indicative measures 
under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address the COVID-19 crisis. 
16 DG EMPL’s ‘Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address the COVID-19 
crisis’ indicates that under ‘Social inclusion measures to support vulnerable groups and access to healthcare services’, 
possible actions/ measures and costs can include – alongside others – salaries, travel costs of medical or social workers 
delivering home services for people with disabilities or confined at home due to COVID-19 symptoms.  

47 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Similarly,  inputs/activities  delivered  through  FEAD  encompass  new  and  adjusted 
operations  to  address  the  additional  challenges  for  the  most  deprived  resulting  from  the 
pandemic. These are anticipated to include the expansion and redirection of food and basic 
material assistance to the most deprived in the context of the pandemic response, including 
via  indirect  delivery  through  electronic  vouchers,  along  with  the  potential  provision  of 
COVID-19  protective  equipment  and  provision  of  (enhanced  and  targeted)  non-financial, 
non-material assistance.  

The wide range of operations presented as inputs/activities are expected to lead to a set of 
quantifiable outputs. These have been developed with reference to the programme specific 
output indicators designed to capture and measure the cohesion policy direct response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic,17 including that through the ESF.18  

Results  can  be  articulated  to  align,  where  suitable  indicators  are  available,  with  the 
programme  specific  result  indicators  used  to  measure  the  coronavirus response  through 
the Funds. These concern the number of participants maintaining their job 6 months after 
the end of support through new and adjusted operations; and the number of participants 
gaining  a  qualification  upon  leaving  supported  in  actions  combatting  the  effects  of  the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  In  addition,  intended  results  also  capture  the  aim  of  the  response 
initiatives to ensure that people and health systems are supported; that those facing social 
and economic deprivation, including the most deprived, continue to be supported to alleviate 
poverty, address social exclusion, and recover from the effects of the pandemic; and that 
people are supported to continue in education and training and to achieve qualifications, as 
well as education systems continuing to function. 

The final element of the intervention logic for ESF and FEAD support under the CRII and 
CRII+ relates to expected impacts. These cover more resilient and well-functioning health 
systems;  sustained  employment  and  better-adapted  workers,  enterprises  and 
entrepreneurs;  increased  social  inclusion  and  reduced  poverty  levels;  well-functioning 
education  and  training  provision  able  to  resist  the  effects  of  the  pandemic;  and,  more 
broadly and in the medium to longer-term, Member State citizens, economies and societies 
being  better  able  to  recover  from  the  health,  social  and  economic  crises  caused  by  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. 

2.3. 

The wider policy context 

In May 2020, the Commission built upon its immediate crisis response, which included CRII 
and CRII+,  proposing  NextGenerationEU  as  a comprehensive recovery  plan  to  allocate 
750  billion  EUR  to  help  Member  States  reconstruct  their  economies  and  work  towards 
building  a  greener,  digital  and  more  resilient  Europe.  The  plan  provides  funding  for 
investments and reforms, incentivises private investments to kick-start the economy, and 
aims to support a new health programme and reinforcement of investment in research. It 
comprises: the Recovery and Resilience Facility, including 672.5 billion EUR in loans and 
grants to support Member State reforms and investments; REACT-EU, making 47.5 billion 
EUR available through the ERDF, the ESF and FEAD to extend the measures delivered 

17 As initially outlined in: European Commission (2021). Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the 
cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Available at: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-
Indicators/COVID19-CRII-COVID-specific-monitoring-indicators-/pz85-ptis 
18 The relevant specific outputs include: (number of) participants supported in combatting or counteracting the COVID-19 
pandemic; (number of) participants who benefitted from support in short-time work arrangements; (number of) entities 
supported in combatting or counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic; (number of) participants benefitting from support in 
short-time working arrangements; (number of) health care personnel benefitting from ESF support; (value of) ESF actions to 
combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; testing capacity supported to diagnose and test for COVID-19; 
(value of) PPE and other medical equipment purchased; (value of) medicines purchased; (value of) IT equipment and 
software/licenses financed; (value of) COVID-19 related IT for SMEs; (value of) COVID-19 related IT for health; (value of) 
COVID-19 related IT for education; (value of) vaccinations costs supported; and (number of) people vaccinated with EU 
support. 

48 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

through CRII and CRII+; and additional money to other EU programmes or funds such as 
Horizon2020, InvestEU, rural development or the Just Transition Fund.   

Agreement on the plan was reached between the European Parliament and the Council on 
10 November 2020, along with the multi-annual financial framework, marking the largest 
stimulus  package  ever  financed  through  the  EU  budget,  at  a  total  of  1.8  trillion  EUR. 
Regulation (EU) 2020/2221, laying down the implementing arrangements for REACT-EU, 
was published in the Official Journal on 28 December 2020.19 In addition, the EU has looked 
further forward, with post-2020 Cohesion Policy reinforcing research and innovation, the 
digital transition, the European Green Deal agenda, and implementation of the European 
Pillar of Social Rights. The approach maintains additional flexibility for Member States to 
transfer resources between Funds, aims to future-proof Cohesion funding for emergencies, 
and  focuses  on  key  policy  areas  including  health,  youth  employment  and  child  poverty, 
along with key sectors affected by COVID-19 such as culture and tourism.20 

The temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) is 
another  key  instrument  in  the  EU’s  strategy  to  support  employment  and  mitigate  the 
negative  impact  of  the  coronavirus  pandemic.  In  2020  it  provided  more  than  91.8  billion 
EUR in loans to help support approximately 31 million people and 2.5 million firms in 19 
Member  States that  asked for  and  benefited from the scheme.21  SURE  was designed to 
‘support  short-time  work  schemes  and  similar  measures,  to  help  Member  States  protect 
jobs and thus employees and self-employed against the risk of unemployment and loss of 
income’. When adopting the SURE regulation in May 2020, the Council decided to extend 
its scope to support health-related measures. 

In March 2022, the third major asymmetric shock (following the financial and economic crisis 
of 2007-2009 and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020) was experienced in Europe following 
the military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The Ukraine crisis is predicted 
to  have  significant  effects,  not  least  in  the  enormous  displacement  of  people  and 
subsequent refugee movements into Member States. The effects of the crisis are likely to 
be  asymmetric  throughout  the  EU-27,  with  some  countries  (such  as  Poland,  Romania, 
Hungary, Slovakia) receiving (at least initially) a far greater number of people than other 
Member States that do not share a land border with Ukraine. Other Member States may be 
equally affected, however, even if they receive a relatively lower number of refugees from 
Ukraine – for example smaller Member States where the pressure of the new arrivals on 
the country’s financial, human and administrative resources and infrastructure is significant.  

The  Commission  has  recognised the  priority  to meet  the  immediate needs of  individuals 
and families fleeing to EU countries, such as the need to find accommodation, meet material 
needs such as food, sanitation, medicine, clothing and mental health support, followed by 
suitable  housing  and  support  in  education,  training,  employment,  social  services  and 
healthcare.22  Support  was  needed  to  build  additional  infrastructure  equipment  or  staffing 
capacity,  and  to  develop  solutions  for  long-term  integration  of  people  with  migrant 
backgrounds  through  investments  in  housing,  education,  employment,  health,  social 
inclusion and care or other social services. In order to address these needs, which were 
arising at a time when the COVID-19 crisis and its impact were still felt across the Member 
States,  the  Cohesion’s  Action  for  Refugees  in  Europe  (CARE)  was  adopted  in  April 

19 Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation 
(EU) No 1303/2013. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2020.437.01.0030.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2020%3A437%3A
TO 
20 Ec.europa.eu. (n.d.) Cohesion policy against coronavirus. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/coronavirus-response_en  
21 The Member States are: BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, GR, ES, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, and SK. The 
European instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE), details available at: 
https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-financial-assistance/sure_en.  
22 European Commission (2022). Strategic Dialogue on the Ukranian Refugee Crisis Support Measures. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/news/strategic-dialogue-ukranian-crisis 

49 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

2022.  This  enables  Member  States  and  regions  to  provide  emergency  support.  CARE 
introduces flexibility into the 2014-20 Cohesion policy rules to allow a swift reallocation of 
funding to emergency support, and also enables access to the 2022 REACT-EU funding 
envelope of EUR 10 billion. CARE also extends by one accounting year the 100% financing 
flexibility  from  the  EU  budget  for  cohesion  programmes.  The  extension  of  the  100% 
financing flexibility,  the  unlocking  of  unspent  2014-2020  cohesion  funding,  and  the  2022 
REACT-EU tranche were estimated to release almost 17 billion EUR.23 

Signalling lessons learnt about the contribution of flexibilities in the use of EU funds, new 
regulations for  the  2021-2027  programming  period  include  an  emergency  clause  about 
their  use  in crisis  contexts  in  the future.  For  instance,  Regulation (EU)  2021/1057  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social 
Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 enables the Commission 
to adopt temporary measures to facilitate the use of the ESF+ in response to “exceptional 
or  unusual  circumstances  that  may  arise  during  the  programming  period  […]  while 
preserving the objectives of the ESF+” and with a maximum time limit of 18 months. 24  

2.4. 

Points of comparison: ESF and FEAD before the 
COVID-19 crisis and ESF after the 2007-2008 
financial crisis  

The  evaluation  includes  a  comparative  analysis  across  the  key  evaluation  criteria  (when 
evidence is available and the comparison is relevant and informative) in relation to two key 
comparison points:  

  ESF and FEAD before the COVID-19 pandemic, programmed strategically  with a 
long term view, in line with the Common Provisions Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 
1303/2013), the FEAD Regulation Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 and the European 
Semester; and  

  ESF after the financial crisis of 2007-2008. 

This  comparative  analysis  enables  comparison  points  for  the  assessment  of  the  support 
provided  by  ESF  and  FEAD  to  anti-crisis  reaction  under  CRII  and  CRII+  throughout  the 
evaluation report. The comparison can only be indicative, however, due to the influence of 
other contextual factors over time. 

2.4.1. 

ESF and FEAD before the crisis, programmed strategically 
with a long-term view  

ESF before the COVID-19 crisis 

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) were regulated by a set of common rules 
in  the  period  2014-2020.  The  Commmon  Provisions  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/2013)25 sets out the common common principles and rules for the implementation 

23 European Commission (2022). Ukraine: final adoption of CARE. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-
plus/en/news/ukraine-final-adoption-care 
24 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European 
Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1057&from=EN  
25 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down 
common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0320.01.ENG  

50 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

of the ESF, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), 
the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and  the  European 
Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF).  Article  9  sets  out  objectives  for  investments, 
including the ESF relevant objectives of promoting sustainable and quality employment and 
supporting  labour  mobility  (TO8);  promoting  social  inclusion,  combating  poverty  and  any 
discrimination (TO 9); investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and 
lifelong  learning  (TO  10);  and  enhancing  institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities  and 
stakeholders  and  efficient  public  administration  (TO11).  Article 18  specifies that  Member 
States should focus support on interventions that bring the greatest added value towards 
smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  and  respond  to  key  regional  challenges.  In  line 
with the regulation, the preparation and implementation of the funds should be based on 
partnership  agreements  with  regional  and  local  authorities  (Article  5),  should  ensure 
equality  between  men  and  women  and  non-discrimination  (Article  7),  and  should  be 
pursued in line with sustainable development principles (Article 8).  

Futher  regulations  define  fund  specific  provisions.  For  instance,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1304/2013 defines the scope of ESF actions (including the Youth Employment Initiative), 
in  line  with  the  key  thematic  objectives  outlined  above.  In  the  2014-2020  programming 
period, the ESF is implemented through 187 OPs, adopted in the 27 Member States and 
the UK. The operations are to be carried out until the end of 2023.  

Until  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  there  was  a  continuous  increase  in  the 
number of ESF participations from 2014 onwards, reaching a peak of 11.5 million in 2018. 
In  2019,  there  were  10.6  million  participations.  COVID-19  curbed  this  trend,  as  only  8.7 
million participations were reported in 2020 (a decrease of 18% or 1.9 million compared to 
2019).  The  ESF  absorption  rate,  however,  continuously  increased  over  the  2014-2020 
programming period. In 2019, the absorption rate was 39%, in 2020 it increased by 15 p.p., 
while in 2021 it increased by 16 p.p. 

The focus of the interventions under the ESF’s key thematic objectives – in line with the 
key EU regulations – is discussed briefly below, based on operational documents and data 
available in the period up to the end of 2018. The overview provides a short summary of the 
aims and situation across IPs, participations and types of operations. Where relevant and 
evidence  is  available,  comparisons  between  the  ESF  implementation  period  before  and 
after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed in this report. 

ESF  investments  in  employment  and  mobility  (TO8)  are  a  key  objective,  and  focus 
primarily  on  access  to  employment  (IP8.i)  and  adaptability  to  change  (IP8.v),  alongside 
investments  in  other  areas:  entrepreneurships  (IP8.iii),  gender  equality  (IP8.iv),  active 
ageing (IP8.vi), and labour market institutions (IP8.vii).26 The total financial allocation under 
TO8  at  the  start  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period  was  EUR  32.1  billion  (EU  and 
national co-financing), equivalent to approximately 26% of the ESF budget for this period. 
The investment levels in the different IPs under TO8 vary by country to a certain extent.  

  A  variety  of  types  of  operations  have been  implemented  by  the  Member  States 
and  the  UK  under  TO8  before  the  onset  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  including: 
support for entrepreneurs, guidance and support, adaptability, financial incentives, 
work-based  learning,  education  and  training,  women  in  employment,  integrated 
pathways, institutional capacity and a variety of combined measures.27  

  By 2019, at the EU level, a project selection rate of 70% and an implementation 
rate of 28% was reported,28 but there was substantial variation across the Member 
States (implementation appeared on track in Cyprus, France, the Czech Republic, 

26 European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF Support to Employment and Labour Mobility. pp. 25-26. 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22899&langId=en 
27 Ibid, pp. 25-26.  
28 Ibid, p. 27.  

51 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, and the Netherlands, but less so in Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Portugal, and Romania).  

  No significant differences between different types of regions were reported based 
on  data  available  before  2019  and  the  onset  of  the  pandemic  at  TO  level,  but 
substantial differences were noticeable at IP level (for instance, for active ageing –  
IP  8.vi  –    much  higher  implementation  rates  were  noticeable  in  more  developed 
regions relative to transition and less developed regions.29  

  Employment  operations  targeted  several  types  of  groups  more  than  others:  the 
unemployed – who constituted the majority of all participations (67%), but notable 
differences existed at IP level; individuals aged 25-54; women; and individuals with 
ISCED 3-4 education levels. 30 Three types of vulnerabilities were addressed across 
different IPs more often: migrants and minorities, persons with disabilities and other 
types of disadvantages.  

A  total  of  EUR  31.3  billion  euro  (EU  and  national  co-financing)  was  allocated  for  TO9 
operations  at  the  start  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  This  represented 
approximately 25% of the total ESF allocation. By the end of 2018, all Member States met 
or exceeded 85% of the milestones that needed to be reached by December 2018 (with the 
exception of Croatia which was slightly below the target at the time).  

  ESF  investments  in  promoting  social  inclusion,  combatting  poverty  and 
discrimination  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic  focused  on  several  types  of 
operations: reducing barriers to employment and upgrading skills, in particular for 
people in vulnerable situations; enhancing basic skills; improving the conditions for 
equal access to and inclusiveness of education; improving access to quality services 
(in health, education, childcare, long-term care); supporting social entrepreneurship; 
and  promoting  actions  to  raise  awareness  related  to  gender  equality,  anti-
discrimination  and  enhacing  the  capacity  of  organisations  to  deliver  social  and 
employment services.31  

  TO9  operations  targeted  a  wide  range  of  groups  and  entities,  including:  the 
unemployed, in particular long-term unemployed low-skilled people; self-employed 
people;  recipients  of  minimum  income;  Roma  and  other  ethnic  minorities;  people 
with a migrant or foreign background; people with disabilities, a chronic problem or 
requiring long-term care; single parents; SMEs, micro companies; short (less than 
12  months)  and  long-term  unemployed  (for  12  months  or  longer);  public 
administrations/public  services  (including  workers  in  public  services);  homeless 
people and those affected by substance abuse.32 Some operations in over a third of 
the OPs that programmed actions under TO9 did not focus on a clear target group, 
but  targeted  a  broad  group  (e.g.  people  in  vulnerable  situations  or  marginalised 
communities).  

ESF investments in education and training (TO10) (EU and national co-financing) at the 
beginning  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period  was  EUR  39.2  billion  (32%  of  total 
planned funding for ESF). Interventions under TO10 focused on four priorities, covering 
all stages of education: reducing and preventing early school leaving and promoting equal 
access  to  education  (IP10.i);  improving  the  quality  and  access  to  tertiary  and  equivalent 
education  and  training  (IP10.ii);  enhancing  equal  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all  age 

29 European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF Support to Employment and Labour Mobility. pp. 28-29. 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22899&langId=en 
30 Ibid, p. 30.  
31 European Commission (2020). Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty 
and any discrimination by the European Social Fund. pp. 40-42. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/8640 
32 Ibid, p. 39.  

52 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

groups  (IP10.iii);  and  improving  the  labour  market  relevance  of  education  and  training 
systems,  facilitating  the  transition  from  education  to  work,  and  strengthening  vocational 
education and training systems (IP10.iv).33  

  The allocation of funds varies across IPs in relation to different types of operations, 
with  most  interventions  focusing  on  supporting  general  secondary  and  post-
secondary  education  and  training  (under  IP10.i),  tertiary  education  operations 
(under TO10.ii), non-formal job-related education and training (under IP10.iii). and 
vocational secondary and post-secondary education and training (under IP10.iv).34 
Operations under TO10 cover formal education and training (from pre-primary and 
primary to secondary, post-secondary, vocationa and tertiary) as well as non-formal 
education and training (both job-related and non-job related).  

  Total  expenditure  declared  by  the  end  of  2018  was  27%  of  the  total  planned 
allocation  to  TO10  during  2014-2020,  but  in  some  countries  (e.g.  Slovakia, 
Romania, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, and Latvia) expenditure rates under 
TO10 were lower than the total ESF expenditure rate while in some other countries 
(e.g.  Austria,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta, 
Portugal  and  Slovenia)  TO10  expenditure  rates  were  above  the  overall  ESF 
expenditure rate.35  

  The planned operations aimed to reach a wide variety of groups, including teachers 
and learners of all age groups, early school leavers, disadvantaged groups (Roma, 
older  workers,  low-skilled  adults).  At  the  EU  level,  approximately  9.5  million 
participations in education and training operations were reported by the end of 
2018.36 In line with the CPR (Article 7), around 50% of total participants were women 
by  the  end  of  2018  (with  the  share  being  higher  under  IP10.ii,  and  lower  under 
IP10.iv. labour market relevance of education and training). Approximately 66% of 
total participants were aged below 25, more 63% of total participants were inactive 
and 50% of the total were from less developed regions, and 59% of total participants 
had  a  low  education  level  (ISCED  1-2).37  Migrants  made  up  14%,  persons  with 
disabilities  were  7%  and  other  disadvantaged  were  17%  of  the  total  of  ESF 
participations  under  TO10  by  the  end  of  2018,38  but  differences  in  these  shares 
across countries are substantial.  

Linked  to  the  European  Semester  process  and  the  Commission’s  country-specific 
recommendations,  enhancing  the  institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities  and 
stakeholders and efficient public administration (TO11) has been a key priority of ESF 
starting with the 2007-2013 period. During the 2014–2020 programming period, the ESF 
supported technical capacity building and administrative reforms in public services at the 
national, regional and local levels. The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund complemented these 
investments, focusing on actions to strengthen institutional capacity and efficiency related 
to the implementation of the ERDF and of the Cohesion Fund.39  

33 European Commission (2020). Donlevy, V., Sennett, J., Georgallis, M., et al., Study for the Evaluation of ESF support to 
Education and Training. pp. 54-56. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/301732 
34 Ibid, pp. 56-57.  
35 Ibid, p.62.  
36 Ibid, p.72.  
37 Ibid, pp. 72-78.  
38 Ibid, p. 79.  
39 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down 
common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, pp. 41-42, and 134-135. Available at 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN.  

53 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

  During 2014–2020, under ESIF, 17 Member States (BG, CY, CZ, EE, FR, GR, HU, 
HR,  IT,  LV,  LT,  MT,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  programmed support  under TO11, 
amouting to a total of approximately 4.2 billion EUR (with 3.6 billion EUR allocated 
through the ESF).40  

  45  OPs  were  allocated  funding  to  support  public  administration  reforms  and 
increased  efficiency,  under  two  IPs  (investment  in  the  institutional  capacity  and 
efficiency of public administration; and capacity building for stakeholders delivering 
education, lifelong learning, training and emloyment, and social policies).41 Actions 
could target areas such as transparency and accountability, civil service systems, 
service  delivery  and  e-services,  organisation  and  management  of  government, 
policy-making coordination and implementation, and the functioning of the judicial 
system.  

  Between 2014 and Q1 2017, more than 1350 ESF projects and 106 ERDF projects 
were identified in 15 of the beneficiary Member States (BG, CZ, EE, GR, HR, HU, 
IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI) with a total planned budget of nearly 2 billion 
EUR.42  During  this  period,  digitalisation  was  prioritised  (39%  of  funds),  but  other 
areas  were  also  targeted  (e.g.  service  delivery  and  training  with  16%  and  13% 
respectively of the funds).43 

The selection of ESF priorities under all thematic objectives was decided at the beginning 
of the programming period 2014-2020 (as well as later on through OP amendments) with a 
view  to national  and regional  needs,  as  well  as in response to the  European  Semester 
priorities and country recommendations, which seek to coordinate socio-economic policies 
to boost growth, reduce poverty and create jobs across the EU. Midterm evaluations of the 
ESF thematic objectives indicate that based on data available by the end of 2018, OPs were 
largely  aligned  with  the  country  specific  recommendations  made  under  the  European 
Semester  process.  Due  to  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the  European  Semester  process  was 
temporarily  adjusted  in 2021  in  response to  the  impact  of the  pandemic  and  the support 
measures  launched  at  the  EU  level  (e.g.  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  and  Next 
Generation  EU).  As  part  of  this  process,  the  Member  States  submitted  Recovery  and 
Resilience National Plans to inform their investment agendas in the coming years, with the 
Commission’s 2021 country specific recommendations focusing primarily on fiscal policies.  

CRII  and  CRII+  amended  the  provisions  of  the  ESF  regulation  to  enable  additional 
flexibilities in the use of the fund during the pandemic (as discussed in Section 2.1). Further 
comparative  analysis  is  provided  in  Sections  3-4,  including  about  the  types  of  ESF 
operations implemented as a response to the COVID-19 crisis under CRII/ CRII+, the types 
of  groups targeted  throught  these  operations,  the financial  reallocations  that  occurred  to 
support  these  operations,  the  changes  in  ESF  participations  relative  to  pre-pandemic 
trends. Overall, initial evidence indicates that by the end of 2021, ESF implementation has 
continued its positive trend despite the massive disruptions posed by the COVID-19 
pandemic  and  the  ensuing  lockdown  measures  across  Europe.44  The  contribution  of 
flexibilities  enabled  by  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiatives  and  the  other 
initiatives supporting crisis recovery have significantly contributed to this outcome, ensuring 
a sustained rate of implementation.  

40 European Commission (2020). Thijs and Nakrosis V., Progress assessment of ESF support to public administration 
(PAPA), pp. 40-41. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c7c56421-9fc4-11ea-9d2d-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  
41 Ibid, p. 42.  
42 Ibid, p. 45.  
43 European Commission (2018). Role and effect of external support to public administration. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8141&furtherPubs=yes. 
44 European Commission (n.d.). European Social Fund + - Performance. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-
budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-overview/european-social-fund-
performance_en#:~:text=The%20ESF%20is%20the%20EU's,and%20supporting%20upskilling%20and%20reskilling 

54 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

55 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FEAD before the COVID-19 crisis 

The budget available for FEAD operations at the start of the 2014-2020 period was EUR 
4.49  billion  (including  national  co-financing  and  excluding  technical  assistance).  The 
overwhelming majority of this funding was allocated to OP I (97.56%) and the remaining 
value (2.44%) to OP II. 23 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, 
HR,  IE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  LU,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  and  the  UK  adopted  OP  I  and  only  4 
Member  States  adopted  OP  II  (DE,  DK,  NL,  SE).  The  absorption  rate  continuously 
increased, reaching 48% in 2019. It continued to increase during the pandemic, reaching 
83.9%  in  September  2022,  indicating  the  importance  of  the  FEAD  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. After a slower pace of implementation in the initial years, there was a constant 
level of support from 2017 to 2019 osciliating between 12.6 and 12.2 million end recipients 
per year for food support and between 0.5 – 0.8 million for basic material assistance. For 
social inclusion measures the number of supported persons fell  from nearly 50,000 in 2017 
to  nearly  30,000  in  2019.  As  a  result  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  number  of  people 
receiving basic material assistance (in 13 Member States) more than doubled from 2019 to 
2020, reaching a peak of almost 2 million end recipients in 2020. The number of people 
receiving food support (in 22 Member States) increased by 24%, reaching almost 15 million 
in 2020. Despite the restrictions at country level (lockdowns, etc.), the number of persons 
receiving  social  inclusion  measures  (30,000  end  recipients  in  4  Member  States)  did  not 
decrease from 2019 to 2020. In addition, in France and Romania 0.2 million people in 2020 
and 0.4 people in 2021 received vouchers, cards or other instruments of indirect delivery.  

FEAD operations focus on food support to the most deprived and material assistance 
(including  to  children  at  risk  of  poverty,  the  homeless,  people  older  than  65  with  low 
pensions,  migrants  and  minorities,  persons  with  disabilities).  FEAD  also  enables  the 
provision of accompanying measures such as psychological, social and other support and 
orientation (through OP I) and social inclusion activities (through OP II).45 There are a variety 
of procedures to assess needs and identify end recipients across the countries where FEAD 
is used, which often involve public authorities, non-governmental organisations and local 
networks and a wide range of outreach activities.  

The use of FEAD in mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 crisis was simplified through 
flexibilities enabled  by  Regulation (EU)  2020/559  of 23  April  2020,  amending  Regulation 
(EU)  No  223/2014  in  the  framework  of  the  CRII+  package.  As  shown  in  this  evaluation 
report, fewer requested amendments were identified in the case of FEAD compared to the 
use of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities under the ESF, even when accounting for the different scale 
of the two programmes. Where used, the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities enabled Member States to 
implement  adjusted  and  new  operations,  focusing  on  several  types  of  measures: 
purchasing  and  distributing food,  the  use  of  e-vouchers,  and technical  support  to  enable 
home delivery of food during periods when lockdown and social distancing measures were 
enforced  (including  the  purchase  of  protective  equipment,  including  masks,  gloves, 
disinfectant  liquid).  Occasionally,  FEAD  supported  activities  to  support  vulnerable 
individuals to continue social activities remotely in the pandemic (e.g., maintaining social 
networks for the elderly through teaching the use of video calling).  

2.4.2. 

ESF after the financial crisis of 2007-2008 

While many of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis were unique to the pandemic, 
it was not the first time the EU has faced a crisis that threatened to undermine its economy. 
The  financial  and  economic  crisis  of  2007-2009  resulted  in  the  deepest  recession  since 
World  War  II,  governments  and  businesses  reduced  expenditure  and  investments,  and 
millions of people lost their livelihoods.  

45 European Commission (2018). FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation Final Report. pp. 18-20; p. 112. Available at: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/51421b36-54f8-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 

56 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The swiftness and scale of ESF support through the actions taken under CRII and CRII+ at 
the EU level are compared with the 2008-2009 ESF anti-crisis reaction where relevant and 
data  is  available  in  this  report,  notwithstanding  the  different  socio-economic  context,  the 
different  nature  of  the  two  crises,  their  varying  effects  on  economic  sectors  and specific 
groups  in  the  population,  and  the  different  timing  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  ESF 
programming period (the beginning in the case of the financial and economic crisis vs. the 
end in the case of the pandemic).   

The 2007-2008 financial crisis and the coinciding European sovereign debt crisis put huge 
pressure on the EU’s Member States. Investment plummeted by around 20%, with the worst 
hit Member States reporting losses of more than 40%.46 A double-dip recession ensued and 
about  6.7  million  jobs  were  lost  between  2008  and  2013.47  At  the  time,  the  European 
Commission launched the 2008 European Economic Recovery Plan,48 which alongside 
national  recovery  plans  boosted  expenditure  in  key  labour  market  policy  areas.  For 
instance, expenditure for active labour market policies (which could be co-financed by the 
ESF) increased substantially across many Member States from 2008 to 2009.49  Member 
States developed tailored national recovery plans that aimed to accelerate the absorption 
of  EU  funds  (including  ESF)  to  support  economic  recovery  and  social  inclusion,  and 
maintain employment, create new jobs and foster job mobility and re/up-skilling.50 Austerity 
policies (focusing on reducing budget deficits) were also a common response to the crisis 
in some Member States.  

As part of the Recovery Plan, the EU enabled a number of mechanisms that allowed the 
acceleration  of  ESF  spending,  providing  additional  liquidity  and  simplification  of 
procedures. Member States in turn adjusted the operational programmes by reallocating 
funds  between  priority  axes,  target  groups  and  types  of  measures,  and  by  simplyfying 
procedures for the management and implementation of the ESF.51  

The ESF supported Member States in addressing the impact of the economic crisis of 2008-
2009. Expenditure for active labour market policies (which could be co-financed by the ESF) 
increased  substantially  across  many  Member  States  from  2008  to  2009.52  The  ESF 
supported economic recovery and social inclusion, helping maintain employment and reskill 
job-seekers.53 At the time, the EU also enabled a number of mechanisms that allowed the 
acceleration of ESF spending, providing additional liquidity and simplification of procedures, 
which Member States used to adjust operational programmes and simplify procedures.54  

In  April  and  May  2009  amendments  to  ESF  regulations  enabled  several  measures 
meant to support crisis response at the Member State level. These included, among others, 
providing additional liquidity by extending the eligibility period and enabling ESF unspent 
funds from the 2000-2006 programming period (amounting to 7 billion EUR) to be disbursed 
before June 2009; enabling larger advance payments (pre-financing) for ESF projects for 
the  2007-2013  funding  period  so  that  more  measures  could  be  implemented  in  2009; 
enabling 100% co-financing as long as the measure is balanced by national funds towards 
the end of the programming period; providing measures to reduce the administrative burden 
on project beneficiaries, e.g. using a flat rate for reimbursing project costs.55 Some Member 

46 Revoltella, D. (2014). The European Investment Crisis. Intereconomics 49, 182-183. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-014-0499-6 
47 European Parliament  (2019). A decade on from the crisis - Main responses and remaining challenges. Available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/642253/EPRS_BRI(2019)642253_EN.pdf  
48 Communication from the Commission to the European Council – A European Economic Recovery Plan (2008). Available 
at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52008DC0800  
49 Metis and wiiw (2012). Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis. p.81. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7671&langId=en 
50 Ibid.  
51 Ibid, p. 87. 
52 Ibid, p.81. 
53 Ibid. 
54 Ibid, p. 87. 
55 Ibid, p. 92.  

57 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

States modified their operational programmes to enable these measures to be implemented 
(e.g. by reallocating funds between and/ or within priority axes, adjusting target groups, or 
expanding  the types  or scope of  activities),  while others  were  already  flexible enough to 
enable changes without formal amendments.56  

The evaluation of the reaction of ESF to the 2008-2009 crisis found that 84 out of 117 OPs 
(72%)  were  changed  in  response  to  the  crisis,  and  the  majority  did  not  need  the  formal 
approval of the European Commission (with only 27 cases requiring a formal modification 
of  the  OP).57  A  larger  proportion  of  OPs  were  adapted  among  Convergence  OPs  than 
Competitiveness OPs or with programmes that included both objectives.58 Most OPs were 
changed in 2009, but in a small number of countries (e.g., DE and the UK) some OPs were 
modified in 2008 or 2010. 

This report reflects, where appropriate and information is available, on how and how quickly 
CRII  and  CRII+  enabled  the  ESF’s  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  relative  to  the 
changes enabled as a reaction to the 2008-2009 economic crisis. It shows that alongside 
new flexibilities that were introduced in the use of ESF relative to the economic crisis, the 
coronavirus  response  initiatives  added  value  in  the  speed  of  the  process  as  well  as  the 
cross-fund and cross-policy approach enabled by CRII and CRII+, relevant across the whole 
cohesion  policy,  extending  the  financial  envelope  available  for  anti-crisis  operations  and 
their scope. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scale, speed and scope of the EU’s 
response  improved  significantly  compared  to  the  2008-2009  economic  crisis,  and 
provided  a  package  of  support  starting  from  the  early  days  following  the  onset  of  the 
pandemic.  This  supported  Member  States  and  the  UK  to  react  immediately  to  rapidly 
developing needs on the ground. Sections 3 and 4 of this report provide evidence in this 
regard,  by  summarising  the  changes  to  the  ESF  and  FEAD  OPs,  the  main  types  of 
operations planned during the pandemic, as well as assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence, contribution and relevance of the use of the ESF and FEAD under the CRII and 
CRII+. 

56 Ibid, p. 93.   
57 Ibid, p.92.   
58 Ibid, p. 93. 

58 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

3. 

The state of play: Developments over the 
evaluation period 

Key findings 

  ESF aimed to support 4.2 million ESF participants and 120 thousand entities 
to address the effects of COVID-19 through EUR 5.1 billion. The bulk of this 
funding was directed to less developed regions. 

  Member States made extensive use of the European Commission’s flexibilities 
to  program  a  wide  array  of  employment-,  social  inclusion-,  education  and 
training-,  and  healthcare-operations.  Based  on  information  available  in  the 
timeline of this study, the report identified 354 such operations in ESF OPs. 
Most  of  these  were  adjusted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  pandemic,  while 
others were newly developed.  

  The re-allocation of ESF resources during COVID-19 towards operations with 
broadly defined target groups, i.e. the general public or entities supporting the 
general public, did not come at the expense of vulnerable groups, as homeless 
individuals,  the  elderly,  and  those  with  disabilities  who  continued  to  benefit 
from a range of CRII and CRII+ operations. 

  ESF  and  FEAD  governance  structures  remained  largely  the  same  but 
benefitted from inter-institutional arrangements and on some ocassions, from 
social partner involvement. 

Member  States  and  the  UK,  using  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative 
flexibilities,  programmed  numerous  anti-crisis  operations  through  the  ESF  and  FEAD  to 
address the effects of COVID-19.59 ESF anti-crisis operations had a target financial value 
of EUR 5.1 billion and aim to support approx. 4.2 million ESF participants and 120 thousand 
entities.60,61  Equivalent figures for FEAD were not available.62 

Member  States’  COVID-19  anti-crisis  operations  through  the  ESF  broadly  covered  four 
thematic fields: employment; social inclusion; education and training; and healthcare.63 This 
section  examines  Member  States’  anti-crisis  operations  within  these  fields.  In  general, 
programmed  operations  followed  the  European  Commission’s  suggestions  of  indicative 
anti-crisis operations that were made available in March 2020.64 In line with the focus of the 
fund, FEAD operations tended to focus on social inclusion in respect of addressing poverty 
and its effects. 

59 The terms “COVID-19 anti-crisis operations”, “anti-crisis operations”, and “operations" are used interchangeably  
60 Cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu (n.d.). Coronavirus Dashboard: EU Cohesion policy response to crisis. Retrieved 03/10/2022 
from: Https://Cohesiondata.Ec.Europa.Eu/Stories/S/Coronavirus-Dashboard-Cohesion-Policy-Response/4e2z-Pw8r/.  
61 The named target values might underrepresent the actual values of ESF operations enabled by CRII/CRII+, as it was 
possible for Managing Authorities to make changes to their Operational Programmes without a formal amendment.  
62 FEAD did not use COVID-19 specific indicators. Therefore, it was not possible to quantitatively track the target values for 
FEAD COVID-19 anti-crisis operations across Member-States. 
63 Employment, social inclusion and education and training thematic fields mirror ESF Thematic Objectives (TO) (i.e. TO 8 -
TO 10); there is no ESF TO dedicated to healthcare so these operations are programmed within TO 8 - TO 10, principally 
under TO 9 as discussed in this chapter. 
64 European Commission (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address 
the COVID-19 crisis.  

59 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The Figure below presents the anti-crisis operations identified within each ESF Thematic 
Objective (TO);65  Annex 1 (Appendix 1)  presents more granular information about CRII 
and CRII+ operations at ESF Investment Priority level and for countries. As indicated, TO 8 
and TO  9 include the majority  of  anti-crisis  operations,  with TO  10 following,  and TO  11 
having few anti-crisis operations. 

Figure 3: Identified ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis operations66  

Thematic Objective 8 
Empoyment and labour 
mobility 

Thematic Objective 9 
Social Inclusion 

Thematic Objective 10 
Education and training 

Thematic Objective 11 
Public sector reform 

120 operations 

153 operations67 

76 operations 

6 operations 

It  was  possible  to  identify  three  broad  groups  of  Member  States:  those  having  over  80 
operations,68 those having between 15 and 40 operations,69 and those having less than 15 
operations.70  In general, Member  States  with more Operational  Programmes,  i.e.,  where 
there is a regionalisation of the ESF, tended to have more operations. Countries that were 
badly hit by the pandemic (e.g. high infection and mortality rates and economic downturn) 
also had a high number of ESF CRII/ CRII+ operations, for example France, Greece, Italy, 
Poland, and Spain. Differences in the need for liquidity in the pandemic and the existence 
of alternative sources of funding was also an important factor, alongside the level of unspent 
resources  at  the  end  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period.71  Based  on  data  from  the 
Cohesion  Database, the  number  of  operations  did  not  appear  to  necessarily  link  to  their 
financial weight.72  

65 Operations identified through a review of the ESF SFC Database held by the Commission and AIRs. 
66 Source: SFC2014, AIR 2022. The number of operations is subject to limitations. For more information, refer to Annex 2: 
Methods and analytical models used. 
67 Under this TO, 15 operations were employment-related, 74 operations were healthcare-related, and 64 operations were 
related to social inclusion. 
68 IT, PL 
69 DK, FR, GR, ES, PT 
70 BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 
71 Examples include Baden-Württemberg - ESF (2014DE05SFOP003), Sustainable growth and jobs - FI - ERDF/ESF 
(2014FI16M2OP001), Wallonie-Bruxelles - ESF/YEI (2014BE05M9OP001), Brussels-Capital Region : Investment for growth 
and jobs - ESF/YEI (2014BE05M9OP002). 
72 Linking target financial values (CV30) to identified operations in the SFC2014 was not possible as reporting on indicators 
takes place at the level of investment priorities. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 4: Number of ESF operations across Member States73 

Number of ESF operations across Member States

85

80

40

32

26

19

15

11

7

6

6

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PL

IT

FR

PT

GR

DK

ES

SE

RO

DE

SK

BG

LV

HU

LT

SI

UK

BE

CY

CZ

EE

LU

MT

Figure 5: Target financial value (CV30) of COVID-19 operations across Member 
States74 

Target financial value (CV30) of COVID-19 operations 
across Member States in million EUR

1.520.812,0

907.893,7

756.124,2

643.376,0

484.391,6

268.893,2

250.610,4

IT
PL
GR
SK
ES
FR
PT
LT
CY
DE
EE
SI
BE

188,7

65,6

24,8

11,8

6,0

1,1

0,0

500.000,0

1.000.000,0

1.500.000,0

2.000.000,0

15 Member States75 were also using CRII/CRII+ flexibilities in FEAD programmes to support 
existing, or implement new, COVID-19 operations, although not all of these operations could 
be identified in the SFC database. FEAD operations included the provision of food aid and 
basic material assistance through vouchers, home delivery of food aid to the most deprived, 
supply of personal-protective equipment (PPE), delivery of counselling sessions, and other 
related activities. Further details on the characteristics of ESF and FEAD COVID-19 anti-
crisis operations are available in Annex 1. 

73 Source: SFC2014, AIR 2022. The number of operations is subject to limitations. For more information, refer to Annex 2: 
Methods and analytical models used.  
74 Cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu (n.d.). Coronavirus Dashboard: EU Cohesion policy response to crisis. Retrieved 02/12/2022 
from: Https://Cohesiondata.Ec.Europa.Eu/Stories/S/Coronavirus-Dashboard-Cohesion-Policy-Response/4e2z-Pw8r/. The 
list only includes Member States that made a formal amendment to their OPs and used COVID-19 specific indicators.  
75 AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LT, NL, PL, PT, SK 
61 

 
 
                                                
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The following subsections present an overview of ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis operations in 
the  areas  of  employment,  social  inclusion,  education  and  training,  and  healthcare. 
Operations  in  each  area  were  categorised  according  to  the  typology  developed  for  this 
study, as outlined in Chapter 1. The examples of operations in this section  were used to 
illustrate the types of activities in each area. Further examples of operations for both ESF 
and FEAD are also available in case studies in Annex 1. It is also worth noting that these 
operations  were  not  exhaustive  in  terms  of  the  EU  or  national  support  to  the  COVID-19 
crisis. In some cases, Member States were implementing similar measures through national 
or other EU resources (ERDF, SURE, REACT-EU).  

3.1. 

Employment-related operations 

In  total,  128  employment-related  operations  were  identified,  with  the  majority  (108) 
programmed  under TO 8.   Of the  128 operations,  a large number  could  be  categorised, 
according  to  the  study  typology,  as  protecting  jobs  (44),  as  well  as  on  supporting 
employers  and  the  self-employed  (40)  and  workers  (34).  In  turn,  a  small  number  of 
operations focused on supporting NEET young people (7) or were categorised as ‘other 
employment actions’ (3).  

‘Actions protecting jobs’ included, primarily, operations supporting short-time work 
schemes (STWS). In particular, 16 Member States were using ESF to either adjust existing 
STWS or implement new ones.76 In general, about three quarters of these schemes (74% 
or  28  out  of  38)  tended to  be  passive,  but  there  were  examples  of  more  active  STWS77 
where,  for  instance,  wage  support  was  combined  with  forms  of  training  or  job-search 
support.  STWS  also  varied  across  Member  States  in  terms  of  their  characteristics,  for 
example in terms of length, eligibility, and ‘generosity’ in terms of proportions of costs/wages 
covered.  Member  States  were  able  to  program  such  schemes  under  several  IPs.  Other 
actions protecting jobs included providing economic incentives for companies to retain78 and 
hire79 staff, as well as to maintain their activities through, e.g., teleworking arrangements.80  

Actions  supporting  employers  and  the  self-employed  were  primarily  helping 
companies to adapt to change through various means. For example, Denmark had a 
wide portfolio of projects supporting companies to adapt to the post-pandemic world and 
accelerate  their  green  and  digital  transition.  These  projects  commonly  targeted  specific 
types  of  enterprises  (e.g.,  small-,  micro-),  sectors  (e.g.,  manufacturing,  food),  and 
employees (e.g., managers, workers). Similar projects were present in other countries such 
as France81 and Germany.82 Another set of common actions included financial and material 
incentives for companies, including those in the social economy,83 to maintain or hire new 
staff,84 and set-up teleworking arrangements.85  

76 BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, GR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK.  
77 ES, IT, PL 
78 Sardegna - ESF (2014IT05SFOP021, PA1, TO8, 8i, 8v) 
79 Friuli-Venezia Giulia - ESF (2014IT05SFOP004, PA1, TO8, 8i); Social Inclusion and Employment - PT - ESF/YEI 
(2014PT05M9OP001, PA1, TO8, 8i) 
80 Friuli-Venezia Giulia - ESF (2014IT05SFOP004, PA1, TO8, 8v) 
81 Martinique - ESF (2014FR05SFOP004, PA2, TO8, 8v) 
82 Bayern - ESF (2014DE05SFOP004, PA1, TO8, 8v) 
83 Lubelskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP003, PA11, TO9, 9v) 
84 Lisboa - ERDF/ESF (2014PT16M2OP005, PA5. TO8, 8v) 
85 Guadeloupe et St Martin - ESF/ERDF (2014FR05M2OP001, PA2, TO8, 8v) 

62 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table 2 – Example of an employment-related anti-crisis operation 

Fødevarebranchens Kompetence Løft - Boosting competences in the food sector 

Country: Denmark  
Thematic area: employment | 2014DK05SFOP00 PA8, TO8, IP8v 

This ESF project supported companies in the food sector to develop existing competences and develop new 
ones. Its goal was to help companies achieve resilience to the business challenges emerging from COVID-
19 and continue to grow. To achieve this goal, the project helped companies in the named sectors to develop 
green, digital and general business-understanding skills, as well as to rethink their business models, supply-
chains, exports, etc. 

Actions supporting workers were primarily helping to mitigate the negative effects of 
COVID-19 on ESF participants and to support transitions back into the labour market. 
Actions  included  passive  measures  such  as  emergency  cash  benefits,  as  well  as  active 
measures  such  as  professional  development,86  job-search  and  job-placement  support.87 
Some operations also provided financial or other types of support to ESF participants with 
caring responsibilities who had to reduce their working hours.88 For example, Umbria (IT) 
attempted  to  help parents  restart  economic  activity  through  opening  summer  schools for 
children in education.89 While actions supporting workers often targeted the general public 
eligible  for  ESF  support,  some  operations  adopted  more  specific  targeting,  for  example 
specifically supporting women or the long-term unemployed. Finally, actions to modernise 
labour market institutions and increase their responsiveness were also identified.90 

Actions  supporting  NEET  young  people,  typically  through  the  YEI,  sought  to  address 
COVID-19’s negative effects on youth employment. Such actions supported those up to 29 
years old with training and a range of support to gain employment (e.g., through placement 
at quality-jobs or internships).91  

3.2. 

Social inclusion operations 

A total of 13 Member States92 were implementing social inclusion actions, the majority doing 
so at sub-national level. Most actions identified were programmed under TO 9, while a few 
combining social inclusion with education were programmed under TO 10.  

The  social  inclusion  operations  identified  fell  into  several  categories  as  per  the  study 
typology  developed.  The  first  involved  actions  to  promote  social  inclusion  through 
ensuring  access  to  services  (40). Operations  of  this  type  aimed  to  facilitate  access  to 
services and, in some cases, to ensure they support vulnerable people effectively by helping 
to  develop,  enhance,  or  improve  social  support  services  and  access  to  them.  Such 
operations commonly supported social services to maintain and/or expand their standard 
services  (mental  health-, 
legal 
counselling-  services  etc.)  and  hence  ensure  ‘access’  for  those  needing  support.  For 
example, in Poland, several operations supported existing facilities or  were creating new 
facilities  to  address  the  needs  of  people  with  disabilities  or  those  unable  to  care  for 

family-,  work-related-,  care-, 

financial-,  housing-, 

86 Examples include Employment, Human Capital and Social Cohesion - CZ - ESF/YEI (2014CZ05M9OP001, PA1, TO8, 
8iv); Systems for Active Employment Policies - IT - ESF (2014IT05SFOP002, PA1, TO8, 8iv) 
87 Examples include Cohesion Policy Funding - EE - ERDF/ESF/CF (2014EE16M3OP001, PA3, TO8, 8i); Umbria - ESF 
(2014IT05SFOP010, PA1, TO8, 8i); Mazowieckie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP007, PA8, TO8, 8i) 
88 Examples include Castilla-La Mancha - ESF (2014ES05SFOP015, PA1C, TO8, IP8v) 
89 Examples include Umbria - ESF (2014IT05SFOP010, PA1, TO8, IP8iv) 
90 Examples include Cataluña - ESF (2014ES05SFOP007, PA1A, TO8, 8vii) 
91 Examples include Knowledge Education Growth - PL - ESF/YEI (2014PL05M9OP001, PA1, TO8, 8ii) 
92 BG, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, IT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK 

63 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

themselves.93  Support for social  services  more generally  included,  for  example, financial 
and human-resources support, as well as helping to ensure they can adjust their standard 
ways  of  working  e.g.,  through  providing  services through  tele-counselling  or  vouchers  to 
maintain and promote access to support. However, access to services on some occasions 
was  also  possible  through  supporting  ESF  participants  such  as  those  with  caring 
responsibilities through vouchers to access services e.g., baby-sitting.94  

Other actions supported specific target groups through promoting the social inclusion of 
vulnerable  groups  by  providing  direct  targeted  support  (23).  Such  operations 
supported, for example, people experiencing homelessness or those with disabilities 
to mitigate the additional challenges they faced resulting from the pandemic. For example, 
several operations across Member States provided support targeted at homeless people 
given  the  unique  challenges  the  pandemic  caused  for  this  group,  including  support  with 
basic necessities such as emergency shelters, or assistance to access accommodation.95 
To the same end, some operations in Member States were supporting persons with caring 
responsibilities  via  several  means  such  as  providing  to them  financial  support  to  access 
services.96  For  example,  the  Extremadura  region  supported  persons  with  caring 
responsibilities  to  hire  an  unemployed  person  within  the  region  to  provide  in-home  care 
services for children under 15 years old or relatives with a disability equal or greater than 
33%.97  

Finally, in respect of the ESF, a small number of identified operations focused on providing 
stability  to,  or  supporting,  the  social  economy  sector from  a  social  inclusion  perspective. 
These operations were categorised against the study typology as ‘other social inclusion 
actions’.98  

An example of a specific social inclusion operation facilitated through the ESF, aiming to 
promote social inclusion through ensuring access to services  is provided in the Table below.  

Table 3 – Example of a social inclusion operation 

Implementation of service vouchers for services to people with limited autonomy Emergency_ 
COVID_19 
Implementazione di buoni servizio per servizi a persone con limitazione nell’autonomia 
Emergenza COVID-19 
Country: Italy, Sardinia  
2014IT05SFOP021, PA9, TO9, IP9iv 

This operation in Sardinia sought to support people with limited autonomy and their families who have been 
put under additional pressure during the COVID-19 period due to the confinement measures. To this end, 
the operation provided economic contributions in the forms of vouchers to these families in order to facilitate 
their access to a network of social-, healthcare-, and home-assistance-services. Vouchers were subsidising 
part or the total of the costs of these services. The results that the operation aimed to achieve were to ensure 
that  persons  with  caring  responsibilities  could  continue  to  access  much-needed  services  and  help  them 
reconcile work-life balance.  

Similar to ESF operations aiming to maintain access to services, the use of the FEAD to 
respond to the pandemic largely involved operations aimed at supporting social services to 
adapt or expand delivery modes and hence maintain access to support amongst vulnerable 
groups. Such operations tended to focus on continuing the provision of food and basic 

93 Examples include Lubuskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP004, PA7, TO9, 9iv); Opolskie Voivodeship - 
ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP008, PA8, TO9, 9iv); Pomorskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP011, PA6, TO9, 
9iv); Knowledge Education Growth - PL - ESF/YEI (2014PL05M9OP001, PA2, TO9, 9iv) 
94 Examples include Liguria - ESF (2014IT05SFOP006, PA2, TO8, 9iv) 
95 Metropolitan Cities - IT - ERDF/ESF (2014IT16M2OP004, PA3, TO9, 9iv)  
96 Guyane - ERDF/ESF (2014FR16M2OP011, PA7, TO9, 9iv)  
97 Extremadura - ESF (2014ES05SFOP016, PA2D, TO9, 9iv) 
98 Guadeloupe et St Martin - ESF/ERDF (2014FR05M2OP001, PA3, TO9, 9v); Podlaskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF 
(2014PL16M2OP010, PA7, TO9, 9v) 

64 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

material assistance through electronic vouchers,99 e-platforms,100 and other arrangements. 
These include enabling home deliveries through purchasing food-packages101 or PPE for 
partner organisations,102 as well as providing PPE to volunteers in distribution centres.103 
These  operations  typically  aimed  to  maintain  FEAD  support  during  the  pandemic  and 
address increased demand. Examples of operations with different characteristics were also 
present.  For  example,  in  the  Netherlands,  a  FEAD  operation  was  providing  social 
networking activities for the elderly, while in Spain a FEAD operation was working towards 
modernising  (computerising)  its  recording  and  storage  of  data  on  individual  participants. 
Finally, in Bulgaria, a FEAD operation combined the delivery of individual food packages 
with health screening actions and actions aiming to improve health literacy. These included, 
amongst  others,  screening  animated  films  at  food  distribution  points  and  providing 
information on hygiene, disease-prevention, and the use of PPE. 

3.3. 

Healthcare operations 

A  total  of  13  Member  States104  was  implementing  healthcare-related  actions.  Managing 
Authorities  in  these  Member  States  programmed  the  overwhelming  majority  of  these 
operations105  under  TO  9,  IP9iv  –  access  to  services,  reflecting  their  concentration  on 
ensuring the maintenance and capacity of healthcare systems. 

As per the study typology, healthcare operations could be broadly categorised as involving 
either  ‘actions  to  support  healthcare  workers  and  patients’  or  ‘actions  to  support 
healthcare  systems’,  accepting  that  there  is  some  overlap  between  these  and  a  few 
operations  that  combine  both  aspects.  Of  the  84  healthcare  operations  identified,  27 
focused wholly or mainly on supporting workers and patients, while 53 concentrated on the 
level of healthcare systems. Four actions did not tidily fit in the above categories and they 
were categorised as ‘other healthcare actions’.   

Amongst the actions to support healthcare systems, Member States commonly used the 
ESF to increase the prevention, testing, and responsiveness capabilities of their healthcare 
providers,  and/or  to  expand  healthcare  capacity.  Examples  of  such  operations  included 
hiring  professionals  (nurses,  hospitals,  technicians,  or  re-engaging  retired  staff)106  and 
improving  the  infrastructure  of  hospitals  (e.g.,  oxygen  infrastructure).  Other  principal 
examples  included  fast-tracking  the  procurement,  and  financing  of,  PPE  and  medical 
equipment to enable the healthcare systems to respond to COVID-19.107 In addition, to help 
contain the virus, some Member States e.g., Greece, have set up mobile units to perform 
tests at closed-facilities particularly vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19. 

Actions mainly targeted at healthcare workers or patients included, in a few Member States, 
operations intended to improve the health-literacy of populations at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion  –  e.g.  through  providing  information  or  awareness  campaigns.108  In  terms  of 
healthcare  workers,  some  operations  aimed  to  provide  support  through  provision  of 
bonuses109  and  upskilling  /  qualification  opportunities.110  Within  some  Member  States, 

99 France (2014FR05FMOP001) 
100 Luxembourg (2014LU05FMOP001) 
101 Lithuania (2014LT05FMOP001) 
102 Bulgaria (2014BG05FMOP001) 
103 Lithuania (2014LT05FMOP001) 
104 BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, GR, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, UK 
105 70 out of 84 operations 
106 Cantabria - ESF (2014ES05SFOP019, PA2A, TO9, 9iv); Sardegna - ESF (2014IT05SFOP021, PA2, TO9, 9iv); Alentejo - 
ERDF/ESF (2014PT16M2OP003, PA6, TO9, 9iv); All Greek Regional OPs 
107 Brandenburg - ESF (2014DE05SFOP006, PAB, TO9, 9i); Alsace - ESF/YEI (2014FR05M9OP002, PA2, TO9, 9iv) 
Martinique - ESF (2014FR05SFOP004, PA3, TO9, 9iv); Alentejo - ERDF/ESF (2014PT16M2OP003, PA6, TO9, 9iv) 
108 EU Structural Funds Investments - LT - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LT16MAOP001, PA8, TO9, 9iv); Growth and 
Employment - LV - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LV16MAOP001, PA9, TO9, 9i) 
109 Emilia-Romagna - ESF (2014IT05SFOP003, PA2, TO9, 9iv), Abruzzo - ESF (2014IT05SFOP009, PA2, TO9, 9iv) 
110 Flanders - ESF (2014BE05SFOP002, PA3, TO9, 9iv); Niedersachsen - ERDF/ESF (2014DE16M2OP001, PA6, TO8, 
IP8v); Growth and Employment - LV - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LV16MAOP001, PA9, TO9, 9iv) 

65 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

operations also targeted additional healthcare support to specific target groups particularly 
vulnerable  to  COVID  e.g.,  the    elderly  or  people  with  disabilities,  especially  at  the  sub-
national level.111  

Finally, various other healthcare actions aimed at the detection and prevention of a wide 
range of physical and mental health diseases, the increase of participation to preventative 
examinations,112  the  supply  of  flu  and  pneumonoccocal  vaccines  to  protect  the  general 
public,113 and others. 

3.4. 

Education and training operations 

A  total  of  14  Member  States114  were  implementing  a  range  of  education  and  training 
operations, principally programmed as would be expected under TO 10. Of the 75 education 
and training operations identified, 25 aimed to ensure the continuity of education and 
training,  mainly  through  supporting the  development  and/or  implementation  of  distance-
learning  services.  Commonly,  such  operations  supported  teachers  to  develop  digital 
education  content115  alongside  the  relevant  skills  to  deliver  it.116  Alongside  operations  to 
maintain continuity through developing skills and provision, several operations (20) provided 
more  direct  financial  support    in  the  form  of  purchasing  equipment  or  other  capital 
investment to ensure such continuity. These typically involved purchasing laptops and 
tablets  for  students,  as  well  as  providing  funding  to  develop,  for  example,  the  digital 
infrastructure in education and training institutions at all educational levels.117 On occasions, 
financial support for equipment was specifically targeted at disadvantaged students.118  

As well as the above specific types of operations, within the education and training field, the 
research identified numerous other wide-ranging actions aimed at supporting students and 
their families to navigate the COVID-19 crisis (categorised in the study typology as ‘other 
education and training actions’, of which 29 were identified). Such operations included, for 
example,  provision  of  psychosocial  services119  to  support  pupils/students  affected  by  the 
pandemic or scholarships.120 Equally, a number of such actions aimed to support the post 
COVID-19 recovery of economies through reskilling and upskilling, including education and 
training focused both on sector-specific and transversal skills. Likewise, specific operations 
were  developed  to  provide  a  training  response  to  the  changing  labour  market  context 
relating to COVID-19 and to support digital and green transition. Such ‘other education and 
training  actions’  often  involved  the  adjustment  or  adaptation  of  operations  already  
underway, or providing additional support to them through the ESF.  

The  Table  below  presents  an  example  of  an  education  operation  aiming  to  ensure  the 
continuity of education and training. 

111 Norte - ERDF/ESF (2014PT16M2OP001, PA7, TO9, 9iv); Centro - PT - ERDF/ESF (2014PT16M2OP002, PA5, TO8, 9iv)  
112 For example, Lubuskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP004, TO8, 8iv) 
113 For example, Public Sector Reform - Greece (2014GR05M2OP001, TO9, 9iv) 
114 BG, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK 
115 Basilicata - ESF (2014IT05SFOP016, PA3, TO10, IP10iv); Molise  - ERDF/ESF (2014IT16M2OP001, PA8, TO10, IP10i) 
116 Human Capital - PT - ESF (2014PT05SFOP001, PA4, TO10, IP10i and PA2, TO10, IP10ii) 
117 Molise - ERDF/ESF (2014IT16M2OP001, PA8, TO10, 10i); Małopolskie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP006, 
PA10, TO10, 10iv) 
118 Molise - ERDF/ESF (2014IT16M2OP001, PA8, TO10, 10i) 
119 Human Resources Development Education and Lifelong Learning - GR - ESF/YEI (2014GR05M9OP001, TO10, 10i) 
120 Umbria - ESF (2014IT05SFOP010, PA3, TO10, 10i) 

66 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table 4 – Example of an education and training operation 

Rafforzamento di istituti scolastici del territorio per la didattica a distanza 
Strengthening the technological infrastructure of schools 

Country: Italy, Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Thematic area: education and training | 2014IT05SFOP004, PA3, TO10, IP10i 

This ESF project aimed to improve the quality and amount of equipment in schools in the Friuli-Venezia 
Giulia region. To this end, it supported buying hardware, software and services for internet connection in 
schools lacking such infrastructure as well as buying laptops or tablets for schools and students with 
economic challenges. 

Finally,  a  small  number  of  anti-crisis  operations  were  identified  under  TO11  during  the 
COVID-19 pandemic (6 operations in total, planned in FR, IT, and PL). The majority were 
not  new,  but  were  adjusted  to respond  to  the  new  emergency  circumstaces.  Operations 
focused on supporting employers and workers in public services, in particular in setting up 
telework  arrangements,  and  the  provision  of  health  assistance.  They  also  focused  on 
increasing  the  capacity  of  administrations  and  public  services  to  develop  innovative  and 
experimental administrative practices that contribute to their modernization and efficiency; 
improving service delivery and enhacing smart working during the pandemic; and increasing 
the  participation  of  social  partners  in  shaping  skills  strategies  and  human  capital 
development,  in  order  to  better  adapt  them  to  the  needs  of  the  labor  market  and  the 
economy. 

3.5. 

Characteristics of operations, target groups, 
governance and implementation structures  

3.5.1. 

Characteristics of operations 

topped-up  with 

that  had  been 

The  majority  of  Member  States’  COVID-19  anti-crisis  operations  were  based  on  existing 
to  meet  demand-increases,  or 
operations 
adjusted/expanded  in  scope  to  meet  new  demands.  New  operations  were  rarer.121  Most 
ESF operations started in 2020 (237) and less commonly in 2021 (23).122 Two thirds of the 
identified ESF operations were implemented at a regional level (280), with the remainder 
being implemented at national level (67).123 These were typically operations falling within 
the four thematic fields that were covering the full population of a Member State. 

funds 

On some occasions, ESF operations were targeting multiple types of regions (50). However, 
the  majority  of  them  (304)  was  focusing  on  specific  types  of  regions.  Out  of  the  304 
operations  that  were  focusing  on  specific  types  of  regions,  more  than  half  (161)  were 
supporting less developed regions. Operations in more developed regions (99), albeit fewer, 
were larger in terms of financial volume. This was to be expected as such regions include 
urban cities with high population concentrations. Finally, a small proportion of operations 
focusing on a specific type of region were targeting regions in transition (12% or 44 out of 
304). All in all, out of the EUR 5.1 billion support to COVID-19 anti-crisis operations, 57% 
was  directed  to  less  developed  regions,  while  27%  and  16%  was  directed  to  more 
developed regions, and regions in transition, respectively.  

121 109 out of the 354 identified operations were classified as new.  
122 For some operations, the starting date could not be identified in the SFC2014 database. 
123 For seven operations the level of implementation was not reported as it was subject to a certain degree of 
circumspection. 

67 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table 5 – Target financial value of operations per type of region 

Type of region 

Target financial value of operations in EUR 
(CV30) 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

2,928,063,470 

1,358,124,383 

843,886,519 

5,130,074,372 

Source: Coronavirus Dashboard: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-
COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/ (extracted on 05 December 2022) 

In general, while some operations were the same across all types of regions, e.g., education 
and  health  operations  in  Greece,  often  operations  were  slightly  different  in  terms  of  the 
scope  and  the  results  that  they  were  aiming  to  achieve  according  to  the  type  of  region 
concerned. For example, while ESF operations in less developed regions tended to focus 
in  particular  on  improving  the  employability  of  disadvantaged  groups  and  stimulating job 
creation  through  the  social  economy  sector,  operations  in  more  developed  regions  were 
focused  on  maintaining  employment  levels  and  training  employees  to  support  business 
development.  

3.5.2. 

Target groups 

The ESF anti-crisis operations identified tended to target the general public eligible for 
ESF  support,  or  entities  serving  the  general  public  rather  than  specific  ESF  target 
groups  (e.g.,  older  workers,  those  with  disabilities  etc.).  Likewise,  there  was  a  particular 
focus  on  those  on  furlough  as  opposed  to  the  traditionally  defined  ‘unemployed’  or 
‘economically inactive’. Almost a third of crisis-response operations identified thus focused 
on the employed and the self-employed, through STWS, who were forced to reduce their 
working hours or stop working during COVID-19. Operations supporting specific ESF target 
groups were, however, present in some cases (e.g., through actions specifically aimed at 
supporting the homeless, the elderly, persons with caring responsibilities, disabilities, etc.).  

3.5.3. 

Governance and implementation structures 

The  governance  structures  overseeing  the  reprogramming  of  OPs  commonly  did  not 
change  during  COVID-19,  with  Managing  Authorities  remaining  the  main  actors  in 
reprogramming  ESF.  Some  stakeholders  cited  that  this  was  due  to the  need  for  a rapid 
response, with reconsideration of governance arrangements thus not being a priority. While 
formal  governance  arrangements tended  not  to  change,  in some  cases inter-institutional 
working groups or meetings to coordinate anti-crisis operations were instituted as adjuncts 
to these formal arrangements e.g. in Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and others.124  In addition, 
some Member States e.g. Portugal, appear to have benefited from the involvement of social 

124 See also: OECD (2022). First lessons from government evaluations of COVID-19 responses: A synthesis. pp. 11-12. 
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/first-lessons-from-government-evaluations-of-covid-19-
responses-a-synthesis-483507d6/?mc_cid=06a0f4f0f7&mc_eid=6c6e569fcd 

68 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

partners in informing the COVID-19 response through the ESF and FEAD, although there 
is also evidence showing limited or no involvement.125  

At the level of implementation structures for operations, the picture is more complex, with 
some  variation  according  to  the  ‘field’  concerned  (i.e.  employment,  social  inclusion, 
education and training, and healthcare).  

In  the  field  of  healthcare,  implementation  structures  commonly  involved  healthcare 
providers at national and, more often, at regional and local levels. Such healthcare providers 
were more often public, but also private. For example, Malta relied on contracts with private 
hospitals  to  increase  available  services.126  Other  common  implementation  structures 
involved public social services, non-governmental-organisations (NGOs) active in the field 
of preventive and rehabilitation activities,127 and civil-society-organisations (CSOs) such as 
the Red Cross.128 Last, implementation structures also included institutions training medical 
staff e.g., VET providers and universities.129 Informal, voluntary groups also appear to have 
been a part in implementation structures in the case of healthcare operations. For example, 
in  Romania,  community  nurses  relied  on  Roma  mediators  and  midwives  to  address  the 
needs of vulnerable groups.130 

In the field of employment, the main implementation structures were competent ministries 
dealing with employment issues, as well as public employment services (PES) and private 
or  voluntary  sector  employability  support  providers.  These  organisations  administered 
funding  and support  to enterprises,  both unemployed  and employed  workers,  and to the 
self-employed.  

In  the  field  of  education  and  training  the  main  implementation  structures  involved 
education  and  training  Ministries,  working  alongside  and  with  institutions  offering 
educational  services,  including  universities,  schools  and  kindergartens.  In  some  cases, 
implementation structures for operations in education and training engaged other actors. 
For example, in France, the public postal company, La Poste, helped distribute computers 
to students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.131 

In  the  field  of  social  inclusion,  the  main  implementation  structures  involved  local 
governments  and  their  respective  structures,  including  social  solidarity  structures.132 
However, a broad range of other actors also supported the implementation of operations on 
the ground. For example, in Lithuania, school buses were borrowed from local schools that 
were  closed  due  to  lockdown,  and  partnerships  have  been  established  with  a  local  taxi 
company, a car sharing company and the Lithuanian post office to ensure the delivery of 
FEAD  funded  food  packages  to  those  in  need.133  In  Italy,  as  part  of  the  ‘Housing  First’ 
project, the local police collaborated with social workers and other staff in order to monitor 
the  situation  in  shelters  and  on  the  street,  and  offer  support  to  homeless  people  during 
COVID-19.  

125 See also: Eurofound (2021), Involvement of social partners in policymaking during the COVID-19 outbreak. p. 1. 
Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/involvement-of-social-partners-in-policymaking-
during-the-covid-19-outbreak  
126Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S., and Regazzoni, P. 
(2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis of policies in 35 
countries. ESPN. p.72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 
127 For example, see: Podkarpackie Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF (2014PL16M2OP009, PA7, IP8i).  
128 For example, see: Réunion - ESF (2014FR05SFOP005, PA5, IP9iv). Source: SFC2014. 
129 For example, see: Growth and Employment - LV - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LV16MAOP001. PA9, IPiv). Source: 
SFC2014. 
130 Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S., and Regazzoni, P. 
(2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis of policies in 35 
countries. ESPN. p. 72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 
131 CEDEFOP (2020). France: Covid-19 crisis - ensuring continuity of learning in vocational training. Available at: 
https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/france-covid-19-crisis-ensuring-continuity-learning-vocational-training   
132 In the context of the study, social solidarity structures are defined as structures providing social services at the local level. 
Examples include community centres, social pharmacies, social groceries, etc. 
133 Source: interview with Lithuanian Managing Authority in 2022. 

69 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4. 

Evaluation findings 

4.1. 

Effectiveness of CRII and CRII+ 

Key findings 

  CRII and CRII+ proved to be generally effective in enabling Member States to 
use  the  flexibilities  offered  to  respond  to  COVID-19  and  quickly  deploy 
available  resources.  However,  in  some  instances  the  need  to  focus  on 
emergency  national  responses  affected  the  time  taken  to  implement  the 
flexibilities  through  the  ESF  and  FEAD,  as  did  pre-existing  challenges  with 
healthcare systems, social services etc. 

  There was widespread take-up of the flexibilities to facilitate the development 
and adjustment of ESF operations in particular (23 MS plus the UK used the 
flexibilities). The opportunity to reallocate expenditure between Funds was the 
most widely used flexibility in terms of numbers of Member States making use 
of this, followed by reallocation within OPs and 100% co-financing  

 

In situations where flexibilities were less used in the ESF context, this appeared 
to be due to a perceived lack of need in light of national contexts / programming 
(e.g.  national  funds  were  being  used  in  the  first  instance  to  counter  the 
pandemic’s  effects),  existing  allocations/operations  being  seen  as  suitable, 
and/or  existing  flexibilities  being  seen  as  sufficient.  In  a  number  of  cases 
existing flexibilities were used alongside, or in place of, the flexibilities offered 
by CRII and CRII+.  

  The  use  of  flexibilities  was  slightly  less  common  in  respect  of  FEAD  (re)-
programming (15 Member States in total used the flexibilities). The possibility 
of  100%  co-financing  was  the  most  commonly  used  flexibility,  followed  by 
flexibility to purchase PPE and then flexibility to transfer funds within OPs. 

  The main reasons for more limited use in the FEAD context, where this was 
the  case,  involved  the  perception  that  FEAD  OPs  were  already  relatively 
flexible enough given the broad scope of the support. 

  The  diversity  of  reallocations  using  CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  within  Member 
States,  and  different  patterns  of  reallocation  flows  across  and  within  Funds, 
suggests that reallocation of funds was used to suit national contexts and meet 
national needs. Reallocation was more commonly used in respect of the ESF 
relative to FEAD, even when accounting for the different size of the Funds. 

 

 

In terms of shifts in allocations between Funds, around EUR 1.2 billion were 
shifted from the ERDF (EUR 871 million) and the CF (EUR 341 million) to the 
ESF,  while  about  EUR  493  million  were  moved  from  the  ESF to the  ERDF, 
resulting  in  an  overall  net  increase  of  ESF  funds  of  approximately  EUR  0.7 
billion. 

In terms of changes in funding allocations at the TO level, the most significant 
change  in  funding  by  TO  has  been  an  increase  of  funding  for  TO  9  (social 
inclusion) of just over EUR 2 billion.  Allocations to TO 8 (employment) rose by 
around  EUR  215  million.  Conversely,  allocations  to  TO10  (education  and 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

training) fell by just over EUR 1.3 billion and there was a smaller fall in TO 11 
(public administration) allocations of just over EUR 84 million. 

  The pattern and trajectory of absorption rates following the introduction of CRII 
and  CRII+  was  largely  unchanged  for  both  the  ESF  and  FEAD,  despite  the 
challenging pandemic context, suggesting that the flexibilities played a role in 
maintaining 
the  ESF  and  FEAD.  Thematic 
concentrations required by the ESF Regulation were also largely maintained. 

the  support  provided  by 

  Socio-economic context influenced the use of the flexibilities and the focus of 
the development and adaptation of ESF and FEAD operations, with measures 
being  developed  to target  particular  employment,  education, social  inclusion 
and healthcare needs at the national level. In addition, pre- pandemic socio-
economic  differences,  and  the  different  trajectory  of  the  pandemic  within 
Member States, did in some cases appear to influence the effectiveness of the 
coronavirus response initiatives but the picture was highly complex and varied 
between national and regional contexts. 

  Governance  arrangements  were  largely  unchanged,  though  in  a  number  of 
national  contexts  new  informal  working  groups  focused  on  the  pandemic 
response, enhancing the effectiveness of the use of the CRII flexibilities more 
broadly. 

  National  governance,  administrative  and implementation  arrangements  have 
generally  been  positive  in  supporting  the  effectiveness  of  the  response,  but 
there  were  some  examples  of  negative  effects  in  terms  of  bureaucratic 
requirements or constraints imposed in national contexts. 

  There was limited evidence of horizontal principles being taken into account in 
the coronavirus response context; stakeholders generally felt this was due to 
the  need  to  rapidly  respond  and  that  this  took  precedence  over  more 
considered application of the principles. 

  There  was  widespread  evidence  of  the  use  of  ESF  COVID-19  specific 
indicators to help monitor the pandemic response, rising steadily amongst ESF 
OPs and Member States to the extent that, by the end of 2021, 25 Member 
States plus the UK had made use of the indicators, equivalent to  80% of all 
identified OPs. These indicators were seen as useful for monitoring, but also  
relevant  and  proportionate.  In  some  cases  their  use  was  combined  with 
additional national COVID-19 indicators. 

  FEAD monitoring arrangements appear to have remained largely unchanged 
following  the  introduction  of  the  response  initiatives,  with  existing  indicators 
being seen as sufficient to capture outputs and results. 

  Overall, there are very few specific evaluation of CRII/CRII+ at national level 
appears  to  date  and  future  plans  are  somewhat  unclear  and/or  yet  to  be 
determined;  this  was  often  cited  as  being  related  to  the  need  to  focus  on 
delivering support in the first instance. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  use  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  under  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives is examined in terms of the degree to which the initiatives quickly enabled Member 
States  to  take  up  the  flexibility  and  simplification  measures  provided,  how  far  these 
measures enabled Member States to build on existing flexibilities, and how the flexibilities 
and simplifications offered affected the programming and distribution of funds, along with 
absorption  rates.  Key  barriers  and  enabling  factors  are  also  explored,  as  is  the  use  of 
71 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

monitoring  and  evaluation  in  relation  to  the  response  initiatives  by  Member  States.  The 
influence of governance issues and the socio-economic context on the achievement of CRII 
and CRII+ objectives is also examined.  

It  should  be  noted  that  an  assessment  of  the  results  and  impacts  of  actions  undertaken 
using the flexibilities and simplifications is not part of the evaluation scope in respect of the 
effectiveness criterion, and is therefore not covered in this section. While actions taken by 
the ESF and FEAD under the response initiatives are likely to have influenced the quality 
and  substance  of  country  level  responses  to  the  COVID-19  crisis,  and  therefore  led  to 
impacts on Member States and their populations, such analysis is beyond the scope of this 
preliminary evaluation, as the implementation of CRII and CRII+ is not sufficiently advanced. 
This focus on results and impacts will be completed within later planned ex-post evaluation 
activity following completion of this study.  

4.1.1. 

Take up of CRII and CRII+ flexibilities 

The  study  findings  show  that  the  response  initiatives  have  been  generally  effective  in 
enabling Member States to take advantage of the flexibilities offered by the CRII and 
CRII+ to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. Take-up of the flexibilities is more evident in 
respect of their use within ESF programming relative to the use of CRII and CRII+ through 
the FEAD, even when accounting for the different relative sizes of the Funds. Reasons for 
this are explored further below, but primarily relate to perceptions that FEAD was already 
relatively flexible in its potential scope and use, as well as aligning closely to the types of 
emergency  aid  needed  due  to  the  effects  of  the  pandemic.  Interestingly,  as  Section  3 
showed, many of the ESF operations (re-)programmed in response to CRII and CRII+ had 
a social inclusion focus, again reflecting the nature of the challenges arising from COVID-
19  and  the  importance  of  supporting  disadvantaged  groups  who  were,  as  discussed  in 
Section 2 and Annex 1 – Appendix 4, disproportionately affected by the pandemic.  

Widespread use of the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities is particularly evident in respect of 
the ESF across Member States, indicating effectiveness in facilitating uptake of the 
flexibilities as anticipated in the intervention logic for the response initiatives. Data 
from the Commission’s SFC2014 common information system shows that, from March 2020 
(the  start  of  the  CRII)  to  September  2022,  23  Member  States  (plus  the  UK)  used  the 
response initiatives to facilitate amendments to the ESF to respond to the COVID-19 crisis 
(a  total  of  219  amendments  under  Thematic Objectives  8-11)134.  In  total  155  OPs  within 
these countries were subject to amendments (82% of all ESF OPs). While amendments to 
OPs  were  relatively  common  in  the  pre-pandemic  period,  SFC2014  data  show  that 
amendment volumes increased following the introduction of CRII/CRII+, with the ability to 
reallocate  resources  between  Funds  being  a  significantly  used  new  flexibility  and  a  key 
driver of this increase. In addition, it should be noted that this proportion of amendments 
resulting from the CRII (82%) is greater compared to the response given in the aftermath of 
the 2007-2008 financial crisis, wherein 72% of programmes were amended as discussed in 
Section 2.4.2, again highlighting the flexibility available. 

Specifically,  the flexibility  provided through  the CRII  to  reallocate  financial  volumes 
between Funds was the most used of the coronavirus response flexibilities across 
countries  in  respect  of  the  ESF  (14  countries,135  45  amendments),  followed  by 
reallocation  within  OPs  (11  countries,136  80  amendments).  Nine  countries137  took  up  the 
option  of  100%  co-financing  through  51  separate  amendments.  Reallocation  of  financial 

134 Those Member States (plus UK) taking up flexibilities were: BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK.  
135 CY, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SK 
136 BE, BG, EE, FR, HR, IT, LU, PL, PT, SE, UK 
137 DE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, PL, PT, RO 

72 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

volumes between categories of region was less used (5 countries,138 7 amendments), as 
was CPR notification (4 countries,139 19 amendments) and reallocation between OPs within 
the same Fund/category of region140 (3 countries,141 12 amendments). No countries used 
the remaining flexibilities in the context of requesting formal amendments.142 It should be 
noted that amendments were not required to claim retroactive eligibility; 11 countries used 
this flexibility within the ESF. The table below summarises the pattern in the use of the CRII 
flexibilities. 

Table 6 – ESF CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used143  

Type of amendment 

Legal basis 

Number of MS 

Number of 
amendments to 
ESF OPs 

ESF total 

Reallocation  of  allocated 
volumes between funds 

financial 

Article 25a(2)  

Reallocation within the OP 

CPR – 100% co-financing 

Article 25a(1) 

Reallocation  of  allocated 
financial 
volumes between categories of regions 

Article 25a(3) 

CPR notification 

Article 30(5) 

Reallocation  between  OPs  within  the 
same Fund/Category of regions 

24 

14 

11 

9 

5 

4 

3 

219 

45 

80 

51 

7 

19 

12 

Retroactive eligibility144 

Article 25a (7) 

11 

N/A* 

Source: Shared Fund Management Common System 2014-2020 and Ecorys survey data. *Ammendments were 
not required for the use of the flexibility retroactive eligibility.  

In cases where Member States made more limited, or no use, of the flexibilities offered 
in  respect  of  the  ESF,  several  explanatory  reasons  were  offered  through  the  study 
interviews and MA survey. These included:  

  co-financing amounts already being committed as part of national budgets, meaning 
that the flexibility and/or need to use the 100% co-financing rate was not present; 

138 BE, DK, GR, RO, UK 
139 DK, IT, PL, SE 
140 ‘Category of region’ refers to the categorisation of regions with the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR, Article 90) 
covering the five European Structural and Investment Funds. Within the CPR an area is allocated this categorisation based 
on gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the average GDP of the 27 countries that were members of the European 
Union between 2007 and 2009. Regions are categorised as either: more developed regions, with GDP above 90% of the 
average, transition regions, with GDP between 75% and 90% of the average, or less developed regions, where GDP per 
capita is less than 75% of the average. 
141 BG, ES, SK 
142 These being: Making Coronavirus crisis related expenditure eligible under cohesion policy rules; Article 25a (9): 
postponement of deadline for submission of AIR for 2019; Article 25a (5): waiver of thematic concentration requirements; 
Article 25a (8): providing information on amounts where payment applications were not possible at an aggregate level [for 
eligible costs <EUR 1 million]; Article 25a (10): waiver of submitting evidence (e.g., updated business plans) where financial 
instruments provide working capital to SMEs; Article 25a (12): use of non-statistical sampling for auditing; Article 37 (4) : 
providing working capital to SMEs through financial instruments; Article 139 (7): Not issuing recovery orders for 2020. 
143 In the case of five of the total of 219 amendments identified, the ‘type of amendment’ could not conclusively be 
determined. This is the case for amendments to regional OPs covering, respectively, Ceuta, Mayotte, Mellilla, Lorraine et 
Vosges, and Reunion (one amendment in each case). Hence the total amendments presented in the table of 219 is correct, 
but the numbers of each type of amendment sum to only 214 of these 219 amendments. 
144 Based on survey results, 21 respondents (41%) out of the 51 respondents who reported to have used CRII and/or CRII+ 
flexibilities, reported to use that option. This included respondents from: BG, ES, FR, GR, HU, IT, LT, LV, PL, SK, UK  

73 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

  extensive national-level interventions to address COVID-19 and its effects meaning 

that the need to use the ESF was reduced;  

 

linked  to  the  above,  the  level  of  ESF  funding  already  committed  being  sufficient 
when  balanced  against  perceived  need,  reducing  the  necessity  of  transferring 
between Funds; and, 

  a perception that, while flexibilities and simplification were a key part of CRII/CRII+, 

having to change  

  programming would still represent a burden when balanced against how the ESF 

could already be used without this.  

In respect of the FEAD, 15 Member States145 used CRII/CRII+ FEAD flexibilities146 to 
support  existing  or  implement  new  COVID-19  operations,  as  anticipated  in  the 
CRII/CRII+ intervention logic presented in Section 2.2. The flexibility used by the greatest 
number of Member States over the March 2020 to September 2022 period has been the 
possibility of 100% co-financing, used by 11 of the 15 Member States.147 In cases where 
this flexibility was not used, evidence from the survey of FEAD MAs and interviews suggests 
that it was not seen as being necessary in the context of available funds. Reallocation of 
funds within FEAD OPs was used by fewer Member States (5),148 as was the flexibility to 
use FEAD funding to purchase PPE (6 Member States).149 Flexibilities around simplification 
of audits and amendments, or postponing AIR submission, were not widely used, principally 
due  to  not  being  seen  as  particularly  necessary.  In  the  case  of  PPE,  in  at  least  some 
Member  State  contexts  covered  by  the  study,  it  was  noted  that  either  ESF  or  national 
resources  were  used  for  this  purpose.  The  table  below  shows  the  full  use  of  flexibilities 
across Member States in respect of the FEAD. 

Table 7 – FEAD CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used over March 2020-March 2022 

CRII / CRII + 
flexibilities 

Article 26 (2): 
use of FEAD 
to purchase 
p.p. material 
and equipment 
for partner 
organisations 

Article 20 (1a) 
: 100% co-
financing rate 
for the 2020-
21 accounting 
year 

Article 13(1): 
postponement 
of deadline for 
submission of 
AIR for 2019 

AT  BE  BG  CZ  ES  FR  HR  HU 

IT 

LT 

LU  PL  PT  RO  SK 

 

   

   

   

   

   

 

   

 

 

   

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

   

   

145 AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK 
146 In the context of FEAD, CRII and CRII+ flexibilities refer to: Regulation (EU) 2020/559 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 as regards the introduction of specific measures for 
addressing the outbreak of COVID-19 
147 AT, BE, CZ, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SK 
148 AT, CZ, HU, RO, SK 
149 BG, CZ, HR, LT, PL, PT 

74 

   
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
   
   
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

 

 

FEAD re-
allocation 
within the OP 

Simplified 
procedure for 
OP 
amendments 

Article 30: Use 
of lighter 
control and 
audit trail 
requirements 

Article 23 (5): 
use of 
electronic 
vouchers / 
cards 

Article 9 (4) : 
Notification, 
non-
substantial 
transfers 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  

 Source: Shared Fund Management Common System 2014-2020150 and Ecorys survey data151 

More broadly, evidence from interviews and the FEAD focus group suggests that the fact 
that FEAD OPs were already relatively flexible as regards use of funding, and their 
overall broad scope (in terms of programming operations and supporting a range of 
target groups) meant that reallocation of funds, or other changes, were not required 
in  several  cases.  Likewise,  in  some  Member  States,  existing  FEAD  budgets  were 
assessed as sufficient to meet needs. As such this factor, allied to the pre-existing broad 
scope and flexibility noted, was advanced as an explanation for the non-use of flexibilities. 
In the study context, and with reference to the intervention logic in Section 2.2, this lack of 
use of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities for FEAD should not necessarily be interpreted as a lack of 
effectiveness regarding the response initiatives. Rather, it demonstrates the influence of 
national and other contextual factors (including the nature and existing flexibility of 
Funds) on the take up or otherwise of crisis response interventions.    

In addition, Member State representatives commonly saw pre-existing flexibilities that could 
be applied without formal amendments being requested, in the case of both the ESF and 
FEAD, as a further reason for the non-, or lesser use, of the available flexibilities. Indeed, 
the use of existing flexibilities to respond to the crisis was discussed by stakeholders 
interviewed for the study as well as in the study focus groups, both in the ESF and FEAD 
context.  It  was  noted  that,  as  with  the  pre-pandemic  period,  the  potential  to  use 
amendments to transfer resources according to shifting socio-economic conditions, allied 
to requirements such as existing operations needing to be adjusted to reach particular target 
groups, were features of programming available to respond to changed circumstances, in 
this case the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, for example, all ESF OPs with a focus on TO8 
underwent at least one formal amendment over the 2014-2020 programming period.152 As 
noted  above,  in  some  Member  State  contexts,  therefore,  existing  flexibilities  were 
seen,  at  least  in  part,  as  a  key  element  of  pandemic  response  alongside  the  new 
CRII/CRII+ flexibilities.       

150 FR, HU, IT, LT, NL, RO 
151 AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, HR, LT, PL, PT, SK 
152 EU Commission, Study for the evaluation of ESF Support to Employment and Labour Mobility, Final Report, June 2020. 
75 

   
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Reflecting the above discussion of data on the use of flexibilities, evidence from the primary 
research  undertaken  for  the  study  confirmed  that  Member  States  valued  the  ability  to 
reallocate funding within the ESF in particular to target specific needs arising from 
the  pandemic.  Equally,  the  ability  to  respond  to  needs  through  rapidly  targeting 
resources to new or revised operations was a key theme across consultations, case 
studies and focus groups. For example, around three-quarters of respondents (37 out of 
51) to the survey of ESF MAs felt that the flexibilities enabled their institutions to respond 
more quickly  to  emerging  needs  and to  reallocate funding  to facilitate  this.  Likewise,  the 
including  administrative  simplification  and 
rapid  response  enabled  by 
responsiveness of the Commission to requested amendments, was seen as a key source 
of the widely perceived effectiveness of the response initiatives.  

the  CRII, 

Most  interviewees  commented  positively  on  the  above  aspects  of  CRII/CRII+,  while  the 
rapid  and  effective  response,  supported  by  simplification,  responsiveness  and  flexibility, 
was also apparent in the context of the case studies and in discussion at the ESF focus 
group held towards the end of the research. For instance, interviewees from some Member 
States  targeted  in  depth  interviews  highlighted  that  the  simplified  procedures  for  OP 
amendments helped ease logistical and human resource constraints, enabled quick 
access to existing financial resources, the rapid re-direction of unspent resources to 
where they were most needed, and the introduction of new or adjusted operations. 
Again,  this  very  much  reflects  the  anticipated  effects  of  the  use  of  CRII  flexibilities  as 
detailed  in  the  discussion  of  the  response  initiatives’  intervention  logic  in  Section  2.2, 
specifically  in  terms  of  enabling  the  redirection  of  (unspent)  funds  and  facilitating  the 
development or adaptation of targeted operations to address the pandemic. 

Effectiveness  in  terms  of  levels  of  take-up  can  also  be  assessed  in  financial  and 
quantitative terms. On the basis of the relevant indicator (CV30), the cumulative target 
value of ESF actions as a response to COVID-19 is approximately EUR 5 billion. In 
addition,  ESF  is  aiming  to  support  approximately  4.2  million  persons  (CV31)  and 
approximately  118  thousand  entities  (CV33).  This  reflects  the  achievement  of  key 
intended outputs within the response initiatives’ intervention logic (Section 2.2), along with 
demonstrating the significant scale of the pandemic response. It should also be noted that 
these values may be underestimated as national and regional programmes may decide not 
to use these indicators to identify and track COVID-19 related responses.  

Financial effects under the CRII and CRII+ are examined below in Section 4.1.2. In terms 
of participations, SFC2014 data show that until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
there was a continuous increase in the number of participations from 2014 onwards, 
reaching  a  peak  of  11.5  million  in  2018,  while  in  2019  10.6  million  were  reached.  The 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020 stopped this trend, with 8.7 million 
reported participations in 2020, which is a decrease of 18% or 1.9 million compared 
to 2019. The chart below illustrates this overall trend, in addition to showing the pattern of 
participations by TO and by gender. 

76 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 6 – Number of ESF participations by TO and overall share of women (2014-
2021) 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

It  is  important,  however,  to  not  interpret  the  above  pattern  of  participations  as 
indicating a lack of effectiveness in terms of the reach of operations following the 
introduction  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+.  Rather,  it  illustrates  the  challenges  that  the 
pandemic  is  likely  to  have  caused  for  programming.  In  addition,  as  noted  the  data 
indicate  that  participations  were  already  reducing  in  2019,  with  this  suggesting  that  the 
subsequent trend in 2020 and 2021 might be not too dissimilar to that which would have 
been expected anyway, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic.  

As confirmed in the primary research for the study, likely reasons for at least some of the 
decline in participations in 2020 include the cancelation of operations in some cases, 
their  temporary  suspension  in  others,  and/or  or  increased  difficulty  in  engaging 
participants due to, for example, measures in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. 
The pandemic context was cited in particular by stakeholders in the interviews and case 
study  research  as  making  it  difficult  to  recruit  participants,  as  in  many  cases  the  usual 
channels (for example, events, employment centres and services or other institutions) were, 
at least temporarily, unavailable, suspended or were forced to restrict or change their modes 
of operation. Likewise, it was commonly noted that a change of the format of operations 
resulted  in  lower  numbers  of  participations  due  to,  for  example,  lack  of  access  to  digital 
tools or people disengaging once support was no longer delivered in person.  

Reflecting the picture revealed by the above chart on ESF participations, when examining 
patterns by TO, in the first year of the pandemic (2020) the number of participations 
increased under TO 8 (+3%) and TO 9 (+9%) relative to 2019, while they decreased 
substantially under TO 10 (-45%) and TO 11 (-61%) compared to the previous year. 
To a certain extent, the changes in the number of participations can be linked to the financial 
reallocations detailed in the next sub-section, as the reallocations towards the ESF were 
mainly allocated to TO8, and the reallocations within the ESF resulted in a net increase of 
almost  EUR  400  million  to  TO9,  while  funding  for  TO10  and  TO11  decreased  since  the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.153  

The  above  pattern  also  mirrors  the  particular  focus  on  employment  and  social  inclusion 
operations  evident  following  the  introduction  of  the  response  initiatives,  as  detailed  in 
Section 3 above. Again, this provides evidence of the CRII and CRII+ as being effective 
in ensuring that  operations  could  be  adapted  and developed to address particular 
effects  of  the  pandemic,  in  this  case  impacts  on  employment  (commonly  addressed 

153 Based on analysis of SFC2014 data drawn from ESF Annual Implementation Reports, extracted September 2022 

77 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

through STWS), and in respect of addressing the disproportionate effects of the pandemic 
on  already  disadvantaged  groups  facing  social  exclusion  (through  a  range  of  social 
inclusion operations as described in Section 3). It should be acknowledged, however, that 
the converse may be true, in terms of this reallocation having potentially negative longer-
term effects for education and training. Such potential effects reflect similar, more general, 
concerns  within  Member  States,  as  regards  education  in  particular  and  the  potentially 
negative impacts of the pandemic on this. This may in turn suggest the need for the ESF to 
focus, in particular, on education and training in the post-pandemic recovery phase.  

It  should  be  understood  that  not  all  of  the  financial  and  other  volumes  captured  by  the 
coronavirus indicators, discussed above and in the following sub-section (and as anticipated 
as ‘outputs’ in the intervention logics in Section 2.2), can be directly ascribed to CRII and 
CRII+  flexibilities.  However,  as  also  noted,  the  widespread  use  of  the  flexibilities,  in 
particular  financial  reallocations,  indicates  that  the  volumes  resulting  from  the  flexibilities 
will  be  notable.  It  is  also  important  to  state  that  at  the  time  of  writing  this  report  on  the 
preliminary evaluation of CRII and CRII+, information on operational budgets is not finalised, 
with,  for  example,  Member  States  known  to  still  be  submitting  requests  for  retroactive 
funding. As such, it is not possible as yet to compare target values to achieved values, or 
to calculate the share of total spending represented by these COVID-19 indicators.  

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  above  findings  on  effectiveness  confirm  that  key  parts  of  the 
intervention logic for the initiatives, as detailed in Section 2.2, have been reflected 
during  implementation  as  they  pertain  to  effectiveness.  In  particular,  the  evidence 
collated shows that the CRII/CRII+ operational objective, providing additional flexibilities to 
enable crisis  response, did successfully  lead, through  the flexibilities  offered, to Member 
States  making  use  of  the  CRII  provisions.  This  in  turn  facilitated  a  rapid  and  targeted 
response to mitigate the pandemic’s effects, with funding being able to be shifted to address 
the  most  significant  effects  of  the  pandemic  on  particular  groups.  This  impression  of 
effectiveness against the CRII and CRII+ intervention logic is reflected both in the extent 
specific flexibilities were used to adapt programming for both the ESF and FEAD, as well 
as the scale of the response, including volumes and shifts in expenditure occasioned as 
part of the pandemic response that has been enabled. 

The theme of effective and rapid response as a consequence of CRII and CRII+ was also 
mirrored  in  a  recognition  by  those  consulted  that  CRII  and  CRII+  themselves  were 
developed and instituted very rapidly, thereby in turn ensuring that flexibilities could 
be accessed by Member States rapidly and very near the start of the pandemic. The 
Commission worked out the content of the proposals of the CRII and CRII+ regulation in a 
period  of just  two and eleven  days  respectively.  As  a point  of  comparison,  modifications 
adopted  by  the  Commission  in  2016  to  provide  additional  assistance  to  Member  States 
affected  by  natural  disasters  took  a  couple  of  weeks  to  be  adopted  at  the  level  of  the 
Commission. In  addition,  the time  between  the adoption  of  Commission’s  proposals 
and the official adoption of the Regulation was just 17 days for CRII and 21 days for 
CRII+, which is shorter than any other 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 CPR modification.  

While a minor theme overall in light of the evidence base constructed for the assessment 
of effectiveness, there were some cases where stakeholders felt that elements of the 
response  initiatives  were  not  as  effective  as  they  might  have  been,  or  that  other 
contextual factors negatively affected their use. In terms of contextual influences, for 
some  interviewees,  for  example,  the  pressure  to  respond  to  the  onset  of  the  pandemic, 
focusing in the first case on national measures and funding, meant that time and resource 
was not available – at least initially – to focus on use of the CRII flexibilities.  

Some  focus  group  participants  also  noted  that,  while  the  response  initiatives  offered 
simplifications  and  measures  to  reduce  burdens,  such  burdens  and  resource  needs 
remained to some extent. The point that ESF and FEAD management teams were under 
significant  pressure  in  the  initial  pandemic  period  was  also  noted.  Linked  to  this,  some 

78 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

interviewees  cited  that  understanding  the  flexibilities  themselves,  and  how  to  use  them, 
introduced new burdens from a resourcing and time perspective, at least initially. In a small 
number of cases, ongoing concerns around perceived heightened audit risk in respect of 
reprogrammed funds were also cited. 

The above findings should be understood, however, in the context of the broadly positive 
perception of effectiveness in relation to the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities that emerged through 
the primary research. For example, three-quarters of ESF MA survey respondents (18 out 
of 27) felt there were no negative effects caused by the process of reprogramming using 
the  flexibilities.  Likewise,  interviewees  and  focus  group  participants  commonly  raised 
positive views on the nature and role of the flexibilities provided, including in some cases 
pleas for these to remain and be built upon in future programming contexts.  

Overall,  therefore,  the  flexibilities  introduced  through  the  CRII  and  CRII+  can  be 
assessed as being effective in terms of their adoption and use by Member States to 
support the pandemic response.  

4.1.2. 

Financial allocations, financial shifts, and the evolution of 
absorption rates 

As  noted  in  the  preceding  sub-section,  an  important  element  in  assessing  effectiveness 
concerns levels of financial (re-)allocations and shifts facilitated through the CRII/CRII+ in 
respect  of  ESF  and  FEAD  programming,  as  anticipated  in  the  intervention  logic 
underpinning the response initiatives. As indicated, this has been the most used coronavirus 
response flexibility in terms of the ESF in particular, while assessing financial reallocations 
and shifts provides an indication of effectiveness in terms of the significant flexibilities the 
response  initiatives aimed  to  introduce to  move resources  between  Funds,  categories  of 
region  and  in  relation  to  thematic  concentrations.  The  analysis  of  the  latter  includes  the 
extent to which the minimum thematic allocations set out in Art. 4 of the ESF Regulation 
(2013/1304) have been maintained during the coronavirus response period.  

A further aspect of effectiveness in this context concerns the extent to which ESF and FEAD 
absorption rates have been affected by the coronavirus response initiatives. This provides 
an indication of the extent to which the proportion of funds committed have been paid out 
(or  absorbed)  and  whether  (and  the  degree  to  which)  CRII  and  CRII+  were  effective  in 
ensuring  that  such  rates  were  maintained.  As  part  of  assessing  effectiveness  from  this 
perspective, a comparison is also made with the programming period 2007-2013 (in respect 
of ESF absorption rates). 

4.1.2.1. 

Financial reallocations between the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund 
and the ESF 

Under  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  resources  could  be  transferred  between  the 
ERDF,  the  ESF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF)  and  across  different  categories  of  region. 
Reflecting  the  finding  in  Section  4.1.1  that  use  of  this  flexibility  has  been  extensive, 
indicating effectiveness in terms of its use, the level of financial volumes transferred as 
a  result  of  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  indicates  that  the  response  initiatives  were 
effective in enabling resources to be re-guided and re-allocated to where they were 
most  needed.  Overall,  around  EUR  1.2  billion  were  shifted  from  the  ERDF  (EUR  871 
million) and the CF (EUR 341 million) to the ESF, while about EUR 493 million were moved 
from the ESF to the ERDF, resulting in a net increase of ESF funds of approximately EUR 
0.7 billion, as illustrated below.  

79 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 7 – Reallocation between the ESF, the ERDF and the CF under the 

coronavirus response initiatives up to September 2022 

Source:  Authors  calculation  based  on:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-
Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd (extracted on 28 September 2022) 

Likewise,  looking  at  reallocations  by  Member  State  illustrates  notable  diversity  in  the 
proportions and flows of allocations between Funds, indicating that Member States were 
able to reallocate and shift funds to best meet national contexts and needs.154 As examples, 
in  Malta  and  Lithuania,  funding  was  shifted  from  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  to  the  ESF  to 
facilitate increased investment in STWS,155 156 a key need to address the economic effects 
of the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, the vast majority of the reallocated ERDF and CF resources 
to the ESF are programmed to support employment policy operations (EUR 922 million), 
followed by education and training (TO 10) with EUR 127 million, and social inclusion (TO 
9) with EUR 101 million. This pattern is likely to reflect, in part, the large costs involved in 
provision  of  STWS  where  ESF  is  used.  Conversely,  in  Ireland,  EUR  60  million  were 
transferred from the ESF to the ERDF to support the cost of supplying essential PPE for the 
Irish healthcare system for use in the fight against COVID 19.157  

Importantly, in respect of the ESF, it appears that the programming picture at the outset 
of  the  pandemic  influenced  the  extent  to  which  the  flexibilities  enabled  by  the 
response initiatives were used at the Member State level. At the end of 2019, at EU-28 
level the project selection rate of ESF funds was at 85%, while the share of expenditure 
declared was at 39%, with large variations across countries and within countries (in cases 
where a multi-regional ESF architecture is in place). This influenced the range within which 
Member  States  were  able  to  respond  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  through  reallocating 
financial resources within and/or between funds. The project selection rate ranged from less 
than 80% in e.g. HR, IT, LT up to more than 100% in CY, ES, MT. In this regard it is also 
important to compare the absorption rates by Thematic Objective, which  also affects the 
degree  Member  States  have,  to  or  are  able  to  reallocate funds to  implement  operations 
responding to the pandemic.158 Further analysis concerning the effect of selection rates and 
absorption rates by Thematic Objective is provided below.  

4.1.2.2. 

Financial shifts within the ESF and Category of Region since 
May 2020  

Further evidence of the extent to which flexibilities effectively enabled Member States 
to adjust programming and meet needs concerns shifts facilitated within the ESF. In 
this case, 23 countries159 have reallocated ESF funding between TOs in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, within or between ESF OPs, since May 2020.160 At the level of the 
EU-27 and the UK, the most significant change in funding by TO has been an increase of 
funding for TO9 of just over EUR 2 billion.  Conversely, allocations to TO10 fell by just over 

154 See Annex 1 for full details of shifts between Funds by Member State 
155 ESF OP Malta Version 3.0 
156 Commission Decision (C(2020)4069) - 2014LT16MAOP001 
157 ESF Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Ireland. 
158 European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, ESF data support centre: final 
ESF synthesis report of annual implementation reports 2019 submitted in 2020, Publications Office, 2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/003190 
159 BE, BG ,CY, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 
160 See Annex 1 for full details of shifts between TO and by CoR 
80 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

EUR 1.3. The table below summarises overall changes at the EU (and UK) level by TO in 
terms of the net increase or decrease of allocations between May 2020 and April 2022. 

Table 8 – Net change in ESF funding by TO in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
May 2020 to April 2022 

Net increase/ decrease in allocations 

May 2020 to April 2022 

TO 8 

TO 9 

TO 10 

TO 11 

TA 

Total 

EU-27 and the UK 

214,899,331 

2,087,259,641 

-1,325,032,331 

-252,323,471 

-83,627,809 

641,175,361 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC2014 (extracted on 26 September 2022) 

Again, significant variation is evident at the Member State level, further indicating that the 
flexibilities provided have enabled reallocations and re-programming according to needs. 
For  example,  in  Romania  which  faces  notable  existing  social  inclusion  challenges  in  the 
context of less developed health systems relative to some other Member States, funding 
allocated to social inclusion operations increased by 53%.  

Looking  at  the  overall  shifts  by  categories  of  region,  meanwhile,  shows that  in  all 
regions most of the funding was likewise reallocated towards TO9.161 In less developed 
regions, however, there was also a strong focus on increasing the funding for employment 
related measures under TO8, compared to more developed regions. This is likely to indicate 
a particular greater need in these contexts to address the negative economic effects of the 
pandemic, again illustrating how funding could be channelled according to socio-economic 
context and need. Overall EUR 304 million were transferred between categories of region, 
while EUR 143 million were transferred within the same category of region. Examples of 
using the flexibilities to target funding according to the needs of different categories of region 
include,  in Belgium,  under the Wallonie-Brussels  OP,  the  reallocation  of EUR  1.3  million 
from more developed to transition regions to support school attendance operations in view 
of the impacts on young people due to the transition to distance learning, and the greater 
effects this had on those in less wealthy areas.  

At the level of ESF Investment Priorities (IPs), there are likewise indications of the 
effective influence of the response initiatives in being able to shift and target funding. 
Analysis  of  SFC2014  data  from  May  2020  to  September  2022  shows  that  reallocations 
were,  proportionally,  mostly  directed  towards  IP  9.iv  (equal  access  to  services),  which 
increased  its  allocated  financial  volume  by  79%  or  about  EUR  3  billion  and  IP  8.v 
(adaptability of workers and employers) (+26% or approximately EUR 1.3 billion).162 Such 
shifts cannot be definitively ascribed to the pandemic response and CRII/CRII+. However, 
as demonstrated in the context of several of the case studies undertaken for the study, a 
key  challenge  stemming  from  the  pandemic  related  to  ensuring  that  vulnerable  groups 
maintained  access  to  services,  so  the  shifts  evident  in  IP9.iv  are  likely  to  be  highly 
influenced  by  the  pandemic  response.  Likewise,  as  noted  in  Section  3,  a  number  of 
identified operations under CRII and CRII+ concerned the need to, for example, adapt to 
distance or teleworking. 

4.1.2.3. 

Financial shifts within FEAD 

As noted in Section 4.1.1, requests of Member States for financial reallocations under 
the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  were  less  frequent  in  respect  of  the  FEAD 
compared to the ESF. Reallocations within the OP were requested only by a small number 
of  Member  States  (AT,  CZ,  HU,  RO,  SK).  In  addition,  relative  to  the  ESF,  as  might  be 

161 See Annex 1 for a detailed breakdown of shifts between CoR under the ESF 
162 See Annex 1 for a detailed breakdown of shifts by ESF IP 

81 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

expected  the  amounts  involved  are  comparatively  small.  Nonetheless,  the  evidence 
gathered does show how, where required due to specific national contexts or needs, 
the coronavirus response initiatives were effective in enabling reallocations within 
FEAD OPs. For example, in Hungary, around EUR 8.3 million were reallocated from food 
aid  in  order  to  provide  basic  consumer  goods  for  poor  families  with  children,  while  in 
Romania  EUR  6  million  (EU-amount)  were  transferred  between  types  of  material 
deprivation, e.g., to facilitate introducing e-vouchers due to COVID-19.163   

By way of context, it is also worth noting that, while financial reallocations occurred in only 
a few countries, the option of allocating funding provided through REACT-EU was taken up 
by  14  Member  States.164  For  example,  in  Austria the  additional funding  of EUR  6  million 
through  this  mechanism  extended  the  implementation  of  the  FEAD  project  supporting 
families and their children by one year.165 This indicates that, in some contexts, alternative 
source  of  funding  was  used  to  provide  the  necessary  support  and  meet  needs,  in  turn 
providing a further explanation of the relatively limited shifts in funds facilitated under the 
CRII and CRII+ through the FEAD. 

4.1.2.4. 

Effects on thematic concentrations 

The  flexibilities  introduced  through  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  also  relate  to  the 
thematic concentrations defined in Art. 4 of the ESF regulation (2013/1304). According to 
Art.  25a(5),  financial  allocations  “shall  not  be  subject  to  the  requirements  on  thematic 
concentration  set  out  in  this  Regulation  or  the  Fund-specific  Regulations.”166  By  way  of 
considering effectiveness, this sub-section assesses how Member States made use of this 
flexibility,  and  whether  thematic  concentrations  are  still  in  line  with  the  original  minimum 
shares set out in Art. 4 of the ESF regulation.167  

As noted in Section 4.2.1, the waiver of the need to meet thematic concentrations was 
not formally reported as having been used by any Member States. However, in a small 
number of instances, the waiver is in effect as a result of the thematic concentration 
requirements set out in the ESF Regulation not being met, as summarised below.168 

In  respect  of  social  inclusion,  Art.4  specifies  at  least  20%  of  ESF  resources  should  be 
allocated  to TO  9.  Only  in  the  case  of  three  Member  States,  (DK,  FI  and  SK)  the  latest 
approved  version  of  the  OP(s)  allocated  less  than  20%  to  social  inclusion,169  which,  as 
stated in the Final ESF Synthesis Report,170 can happen in particular cases where there are 
specific priority axes with social innovation or transnational cooperation operations.  

Art. 4(3) of the ESF Regulation also specifies that:  

(a) For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate at least 80 % of the ESF 
allocation to each operational programme on up to five of the investment priorities set out 
in Article 3(1). 

163 SFC2014 
164 AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LU, LV, RO, SI, SK 
165 FEAD Operational Programme of Austria, Version 2.0 
166 Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 
1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the European 
Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak 
167 Article 4 of the ESF Regulation (2013/1304). 
168 Further details of thematic concentrations and patterns post-CRII implementation, covering all Member States, is 
available in Annex 1. 
169 Based on analysis from: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 
170 European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Lindeboom, G., ESF synthesis 
report of annual implementation reports submitted in 2018 and 2019 and thematic reports: thematic report on the ESF and 
YEI support to climate change actions, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/64381 

82 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

(b)  For  transition  regions,  Member  States  shall  concentrate  at  least  70  %  of  the  ESF 
allocation to each operational programme on up to five of the investment priorities set out 
in Article 3(1). 

I For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate at least 60 % of the ESF 
allocation to each operational programme on up to five of the investment priorities set out 
in Article 3(1). 

Analysis of Cohesion Data171 shows that the minimum thematic concentrations on up to five 
investment priorities by OP and category of region were not met in the case of only 10 OPs 
in  two  countries  (IT  and  PL).172  In  five  of  the  OPs,  the  defined  minimum  thematic 
concentration was already not met before the pandemic, in 2019, while in the others  (IT-
Sardegna, Piemonte, Systems for Active Employment Policies, Veneto and Friuli-Venezia 
Giulia) the shifts across Investment Priorities resulted in the threshold not being met. 

4.1.2.5. 

Effects on absorption rates - ESF 

Analysis of SFC data shows that the absorption rate for ESF continuously increased over 
the programming period.173 In the reporting year 2020, the absorption of funds (based 
on  the  proportion  of  total  ESF  funding  absorbed  for  the  programming  period) 
increased  by  15  percentage  points,  while  in  2021  it  increased  by  16  percentage 
points. This indicates that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact the 
financial performance of the ESF. The chart below shows the development of the overall 
ESF absorption rate over time, illustrating the consistent trend and the increase in overall 
absorption of 15 and 16 percentage points respectively in 2020 and 2021 compared to the 
preceding years.  

Figure 8 – Development of the absorption rate of the ESF, 2014-2021 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Likewise, despite the crisis context and the issues created for delivery of ESF operations 
by,  for  example,  coronavirus  restrictions,  this  indicates  that  support  and  flexibilities 
provided to the  coronavirus response  through the  CRII  and  CRII+ is likely  to  have 

171 Based on analysis from: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 
172 For a full list of OPs that did not meet the minimum thematic concentration by April 2022, see Annex 1, Appendix 2, 
Table A12 
173 A full breakdown of absorption rates by Member State and CoR is provided in Annex 1, Appendix 2. 

83 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

assisted  Member  States 
expenditure. 

to  successfully  maintain 

their  programming  and 

More specifically, analysis of Cohesion Data shows that ESF project selection rates have 
continued to increase over the last three years, reaching 112% at EU-level. While project 
selection  rates  are  an  important  operation  to  assess  the  progress  of  ongoing  ESF 
operational  programmes, the  declared  expenditure rate gives a more  accurate  picture  of 
the implemented activities on the ground, with this being particularly important during the 
pandemic. Overall, the share of expenditure declared increased up to 70% by the end of 
2021, with no marked differences across categories of region. In the majority of countries, 
the  share  of  declared  expenditure  shows  a  sharper  increase  from  2020  to  2021, 
indicating a well-on-track crisis response by the Member States and the UK.  

Looking  at  the  data  in  more  detail,  there  are  some  examples  of  countries  in  which 
reallocated  funds  were  absorbed  rapidly  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  For 
instance,  in  the  case  of  Cyprus  it  shows  that  the  additional  funding  was  absorbed  very 
quickly, resulting in an increase of 54% percentage points from 2020 to 2021 to 100% by 
the end of 2021 due to the absorption of the additional funding. In Lithuania, EUR 169 million  
were consolidated to save employees' jobs. All allocated funds were invested in 2020.174 

Comparing the data outlined above with the development of the ESF absorption rate 
in the programming period 2007-2013 can provide an insight into the evolution of the 
use  of  funds  in  general,  but  also  specifically  whether  the  pandemic  impacted  the 
absorption of ESF funds. The figure below illustrates the absorption rates of the ESF for 
the  programming  periods  2014-2020  and  2007-2013.  Furthermore,  a  theoretical  dashed 
line is shown, illustrating the absorption rates for the 2014-2020 period theoretically shifted 
to  begin  one  year  later,  with  the  result  that  financial  absorption  trends  of  the  two 
programming periods almost coincide.175 

Overall, it shows that the absorption rate of the programming period 2014-2020 was delayed 
and slowed throughout the entire seven-year period. However, no significant differences 
can  be  observed  in  expenditure  between  the  two  programming  periods,  or  even 
between 2019, 2020 and 2021. The similar development of the absorption rates in the 
penultimate and last year for both programming periods illustrates that overall the 
financial performance of the ESF was not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.176 

174 ESF Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Lithuania 
175 Spatial Foresight: Kai BÖHME, Sabine ZILLMER. Research for REGI Committee - The Impacts of the COVID-19 
Pandemic on EU Cohesion and EU Cohesion Policy - Part I: Overview and First Analysis. European Parliament, 2022. 
176 Spatial Foresight: Kai BÖHME, Sabine ZILLMER. Research for REGI Committee - The Impacts of the COVID-19 
Pandemic on EU Cohesion and EU Cohesion Policy - Part I: Overview and First Analysis. European Parliament, 2022. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/699617/IPOL_STU(2022)699617_EN.pdf   

84 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 9 – Comparison of the ESF absorption rates 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 

Source:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2007-2013-Finances/SF-2007-2013-Funds-Absorption-Rate/kk86-
ceun    and  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/ESIF-2014-2020-Finance-Implementation-
Details/99js-gm52, own calculation 

4.1.2.6. 

Effects on absorption rates - FEAD 

In  respect  of  the  FEAD,  the  absorption  rate  continuously  increased,  reaching  83.9%  in 
September 2022, with an increase of 14 percentage points from 2020 to 2021,177 indicating 
the  importance  of  the  FEAD  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  efforts  by  MS  to 
support  the  most  vulnerable  groups.  As  with  the  ESF,  the  continuous  and  relatively 
consistent  increase  from  2019  to  2022  indicates  that  financial  execution  was  not 
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.178 Similarly, it can be inferred that the flexibilities 
and support offered under the CRII and CRII+ to the pandemic response through the 
FEAD  are  likely,  at  least  in  part,  to  have  assisted  Member  States  in  ensuring  the 
continuity of their FEAD programming and expenditure. Indeed, 2020 saw an increase 
in payments to FEAD beneficiaries relative to previous years (EUR 552 million against EUR 
477 million in 2019 and EUR 503 million in 2018). 

4.1.3. 

The influence of governance and implementation models, 
and socio-economic context, on effectiveness 

Evidence  presents  a  mixed  picture  in  terms  of  the  effects  of  governance  and 
implementation arrangements (including the facilitation of partner engagement) and 
contextual factors, including national legislative/administrative and socio-economic 
contexts,  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  response  initiatives.  Primary  and  secondary 
research  undertaken  for  the  study  provides  a  range  of  examples  of  how  these  factors 
supported the effectiveness of the response facilitated by the CRII and CRII+, as well as a 
number of examples of more negative effects. The latter were viewed by some stakeholders 
as  resulting from, for  example,  a lack  of  effective  partnership  working within governance 
and implementation arrangements (including limited social partner engagement), as well as 
constraints imposed by national administrative and legislative conditions in some instances.  

Formal  governance  and  implementation  structures  relevant  for  the  design  and 
administration of operations largely remained the same as in the pre-crisis period. In 
respect of both ESF and FEAD, stakeholders consulted for the study, along with focus group 
attendees, did not report any new formal governance structures emerging as a result of the 

177 Based on analysis from: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 
178 Full detail of the pattern of absorption in respect of the FEAD can be found at Annex 1. 

85 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

COVID-19 crisis, or from the need to programme new, or adapt existing, operations using 
CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities.  However,  in  some  cases,  it  was  noted  that  the  more  formal 
structures  convened  by  MAs  did  need  to  adjust  their  mode  of  operation  at  some  points 
during  the  pandemic,  due  to  lockdown  or  other  restrictions,  leading  to  a  move  to  online 
formats. Interviewees mentioning this did not cite any particular effects, positive or negative, 
from an effectiveness or efficiency perspective. 

In several Member States, however, the development of ad-hoc working groups with a 
specific  crisis  response  role  did  emerge,  with  these  functioning  beneath  and 
separate from formal governance arrangements. In some cases, these groups brought 
together  colleagues  from  the  MA  and  relevant  Ministries,  while  groups  that  specifically 
focused on the health aspect of the COVID-19 response were also apparent. Some Member 
States (BE, DK, FR) developed dedicated arrangements within their overall implementation 
structure,179 for example, while Greece established inter-agency meetings focused on the 
health dimension of the response, including  - as appropriate - the Ministry of Health, the 
ESF  Actions  Coordination  and  Monitoring  Authority  (EYSEKT),  an  ad-hoc  committee  of 
public health experts, and the country’s seven health regions.180 

As well as these more informal and ad-hoc groups, close and ongoing working between 
Ministries and other relevant organisations around the COVID-19 response, and the 
use of the ESF and FEAD within it, was also noted as a feature in several cases. For 
example,  an  employment  and  training  organisation  representative  in  Portugal  reported 
higher levels of engagement with Ministerial committees during the crisis. ESF focus group 
participants likewise cited an increase in partnership working; for example, the regional MA 
in Flanders reported meeting with a wider range of Ministries and of holding more frequent 
meetings with Ministers to discuss what actions should be taken. In both interviews and the 
focus  groups  held  for  the  study,  ad-hoc  groups  and  informal  collaboration  were 
generally seen as supporting the effectiveness of the response enabled through the 
ESF  in  particular,  as  well  as  playing  a  role  as  a  part  of  overall  national  pandemic 
responses.  

The  study  evidence  overall  is  broadly  positive  concerning  the  role  national 
governance, administrative and implementation arrangements played in supporting 
the effectiveness of the response enabled by the CRII and CRII+. The majority of ESF 
MA survey respondents, for example, indicated that national and/or regional administrative 
and  organisational  procedures  (43  out  of  51  respondents),  and  the  internal  coordination 
process  in  the  country  (41  out  of  51  respondents),  played  a  positive  role  in  enabling  an 
effective  use  of  CRII  flexibilities  at  least  to  some  extent.  Likewise,  as  cited  above,  in  a 
number  of  contexts  national  arrangements,  actors,  and  partnership  working  played  a 
positive role in supporting implementation effectiveness on national and regional levels. 

Conversely,  however,  in  a  small  number  of  instances  national  administrative 
contexts were seen as negatively influencing effectiveness. For example, a Lithuanian 
interviewee viewed their national administrative system as having a negative effect, noting 
that  all  changes  to  funding  must  follow  certain  procedures  to  ensure  an  audit  trail  and 
alignment  with  national  laws.  This  meant  that  although  flexibilities  were  provided  quickly 
under CRII and CRII+, national laws and structures slowed down and reduced the extent to 
which  they  were  able  to  have  a  positive  effect.  Case  studies  conducted  in  Greece  and 
Poland also highlighted burdens stemming from national audit requirements; the fact that 
they  remained  stringent  was  seen  as  operating  at  odds  with  the  reduced  burdens  of 

179  OECD  (2022).  First  lessons  from  government  evaluations  of  COVID-19  responses:  A  synthesis,  p.  11-12, 
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/first-lessons-from-government-evaluations-of-covid-19-responses-a-
synthesis-483507d6/?mc_cid=06a0f4f0f7&mc_eid=6c6e569fcd  
180 In Greece, according to the Law 3527/2007, there are seven health regions (districts). Their role is to supervise hospitals 
and public health within their areas and submit proposals / recommendations to the Ministry of Health regarding developing 
a more complete and efficient provision of health services. More information (in Greek) available at: 2dype.gov.gr (n.d.). The 
role of Health Regions. Available at: https://www.2dype.gov.gr/tautothta/apostoli-rolos. Date of access: 28 July 2022.  

86 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CRII/CRII+  and  hence  negatively  influencing  effectiveness.  It  should  be  noted,  however, 
that complaints regarding the burden of audits and required processes are not new, being 
reported by Member States as a cause for concern earlier in the programming period.181 

A  small  number  of  EU  and  Member  State  interviewees  also  noted  that  social  partners 
became more involved in consultation processes within the response, mainly concerning 
employment  operations.  However,  there  was  a  mixed  picture  overall  in  terms  of  the 
extent social partners were engaged in the ESF and FEAD response. In cases where 
this did occur it was seen as beneficial for effectiveness in a similar way to the role played 
by ad-hoc working groups and cross Ministry and partner dialogue. Effective engagement 
and  partnership  working  of  this  type  was  particularly  highlighted  in  the  Swedish  and 
Portuguese contexts. For example, in Portugal, the MA worked together with social partners 
to identify and roll-out ESF operations in key-areas of intervention including STWS, worker-
support through online trainings, continuation of education and VET (through e-learning), 
as well as in providing support to healthcare businesses to scale-up production of PPE. 

However,  several  stakeholders  also  acknowledged  variations  in  how  far  social  partners 
have historically been engaged across Member States, with this seen as influencing levels 
of engagement in the response context. This reflects evidence from a Eurofound publication 
which  found  that,  in  OECD  countries,  there  was  limited  or  no  consultation  with  social 
partners in developing policy measures to respond to the pandemic.182 In some instances 
such lack of engagement was perceived as negatively impacting effectiveness. For 
example, EU representatives from the social care sector noted that their members had not 
been  involved  in  consultations,  despite  reaching  out  to  Governments,  leading  to  CRII 
initiatives being regarded as less effective for the sector by stakeholders on the national 
level.  

The  mixed  picture  regarding  social  partner  engagement,  and  its  influence  on 
effectiveness in the coronavirus response context, also echoes that apparent during 
the economic crisis of 2008-2009. In that case, it was noted that some Member States, 
including Germany, designed their response to the economic crisis based on a strong social 
dialogue, while others, such as Hungary, acted independently from other actors.183 

In summary, while governance arrangements do not appear to have led to a lack of 
effectiveness  in  terms  of  facilitating  stakeholder  inputs  in  general,  in  part  due  to 
informal  mechanisms  and  ongoing  dialogue 
formal 
arrangements, there may be improvements that can be made from an effectiveness 
perspective.  More  consistent  engagement  of  social  partners  and  NGOs  was  seen  by 
several  interviewees  as  having  the  potential  to  better  ensure  response  initiatives  fully 
reflected the needs on the ground, as well as informing how they might best be delivered. 
However,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  was  only  highlighted  as  a  concern  in  a  minority  of 
Member State contexts covered by the primary research. In addition, respondents to the 
ESF MA survey felt that partnership principles played a role in enabling an effective use of 
CRII flexibilities to a great extent (13 out of 51), to a medium extent (13 out of 51) or to some 
extent (15 out of 51).  

functioning  alongside 

As  outlined  in  Section  2,  socio-economic  differences  between  countries  influenced  the 
degree to which COVID-19 impacted upon country level and/or regional healthcare, labour 
markets,  social  inclusion,  and  education  situations.  The  study  evidence  indicates  that 
these socio-economic differences, and the different trajectory of the pandemic within 
Member  States,  did  in  some  cases  influence  the  effectiveness  of  the  coronavirus 
response  initiatives.  However,  the  overall  picture  is  highly  complex  and  varied;  in 

181 EU Commission, Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty and any 
discrimination by the European Social Fund (Thematic Objective 09) Final Report. Oct 2020. 
182 Eurofound (2021), Involvement of social partners in policymaking during the COVID-19 outbreak, Publications Office of the 
European  Union,  Luxembourg,  p.  1,  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/involvement-of-social-
partners-in-policymaking-during-the-covid-19-outbreak  
183 Metis GmbH and wiiw, Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis, 2012. 

87 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

different scenarios and at different times the socio-economic backdrop to implementation 
created  both  barriers  and  enabling  factors  to  effectiveness.  For  example,  some  Member 
States  were  already  in  an  acute  emergency  situation  at  the  time  CRII  and  CRII+  was 
introduced, with the pandemic having hit earlier in, for instance, Italy.  

Both  interviewees  and  focus  group  participants  noted  that,  in  these  circumstances,  the 
focus was initially more on an emergency national response; despite the positive effect 
of CRII and CRII+ it thus took time for the resources to be available to develop new 
and  adjusted  operations.  Although,  as cited  above,  the  response  initiatives  did  enable 
rapid action, the extent to which this was possible was influenced by pandemic conditions, 
as  well  as  preparedness,  capacity,  and  responsiveness  within  the  ESF  and  FEAD 
infrastructure along with healthcare, social services, and education systems.  

For  example,  despite  the  particularly  challenging  context  in  the  country  concerned,  an 
Italian interviewee noted that the work one region had done prior to the COVID-19 crisis 
around  examining  expenditure  on  health  personnel,  and  simplifying  health  related 
indicators,  helped  that  region  manage  and  program  spending  levels  during  the  crisis. 
Similarly,  over  half  of  ESF  MA  survey  respondents  noted  that  the  level  of  pre-crisis 
preparedness 
(including  clear  quarantine  procedures  and  clear  distribution  of 
responsibilities) played a positive role in enabling the effective use of CRII flexibilities to at 
least some extent (31 out of 51). Similarly, the regionalisation of ESF was seen as positive 
in these terms by many respondents (29 out of 51).  

Conversely, several interviewees, including those engaged for the case studies, reflected 
that, in their Member State context, existing weaknesses in healthcare and education 
systems in particular meant that ensuring the potentially positive effect of the CRII 
and CRII+ became more challenging. This was cited as being the situation in the Greek 
context, for example, where debt restructuring in the wake of the 2008-2009 economic crisis 
was  seen  as  exacerbating  historical  weaknesses  in  healthcare  that  continue  to  provide 
challenges, and that became an even more acute issue in the pandemic context. Similar 
points  concerning  additional  challenges  posed  by  healthcare systems facing  pre-existing 
issues  prior  to  the  pandemic  were  also  raised  in  the  Estonian,  Polish  and  Romanian 
contexts.  

In  terms  of  education,  a  lack  of  infrastructure  on  which  to  build  remote  teaching 
arrangements  in  some  contexts,  or  variations  in  digital  infrastructure  between  regions, 
meant  that,  although  CRII  and  CRII+  were  seen  as  highly  beneficial  in  supporting  the 
purchase of equipment, it took some time for this to feed through into a positive effect. This 
was  cited  as  being  the  case  in  Italy  and  Portugal,  for  example,  which  in  itself  led  to  the 
decision to focus a number of operations on addressing uneven digital access. Likewise, in 
respect  of  the  FEAD,  existing  challenges  concerning  the  capacity  of  social  services  and 
support structures for disadvantaged groups were seen in some cases as meaning that the 
additional support suddenly required took longer to implement than it would otherwise have 
done.  During  study  interviews,  this  emerged  as  a  theme  in  the  Polish  and  Romanian 
contexts for example. These findings reinforce the importance of cohesion funding in 
supporting  continued  development  of  national  systems  and  infrastructure  in  a 
number of Member State contexts. 

4.1.4. 

The role of horizontal principles in influencing programming  

The  study  evidence  shows  that  the  horizontal  principles  of  the  CPR  have  been 
considered to at least some degree, though the overall picture is mixed in terms of 
the extent of this and whether the principles had much influence on effectiveness. 
National interviewees from Greece and Slovenia noted that, as beneficiaries of EU funds, 
they are obligated to take these principles into account. From their perspective, therefore, 
responses  within  the  countries  concerned  had  been  guided  by  each  of  the  principles. 

88 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Likewise, interviewees from Czechia, France, and Poland were confident that the relevant 
CPR Articles continued to be taken into account, as they were in all programming pre-crisis. 
However, there was a lack of concrete examples provided, in particular, as to the effect of 
the  equality  and  sustainable  development  principles  on  effectiveness,  though  some 
examples  of  the  significance  of  partnership  were  provided.  In  respect  of  partnership, 
however,  these  examples  covered  both  negative  and  positive  instances  of  the  extent  to 
which the principle was considered and the effects of this, as outlined in the preceding sub-
section. 

More broadly, the inputs of ESF focus group participants, interviewees, and responses to 
the survey of ESF MAs did provide some evidence, though again limited specific examples, 
of the principles being considered in the context of programming under the CRII and CRII+. 
As described in the preceding section, there were a number of positive examples given 
of how partnership working between different actors at the national level supported 
the effectiveness of developing and implementing the pandemic response as enabled 
through  the  CRII  and  CRII+.  Conversely,  examples  were  also  provided  of  how  a 
perceived  lack  of  engagement  of  social  partners  in  particular  had  negatively 
impacted on the potential effectiveness of the coronavirus response initiatives.  

More generally, one EU level interviewee did feel that gender equality has been very high 
on the agenda, in particular, due to concerns that many of the workers in the most exposed 
sectors were female, including health & social care workers, and in-store retail workers. In 
their view, operations had been developed that aligned with this principle, therefore, though 
it was noted that this may not be due to the principle in itself, but rather the context and 
immediate  needs  stemming  from  the  pandemic’s  effects.  The  immediate  needs  of  the 
pandemic were also noted in some contexts as meaning that activity not necessarily 
in line with the principles was required. For example, a stakeholder from Slovenia noted 
that,  while  article  8  on  sustainability  was  considered,  health  and  safety  measures  took 
priority during the pandemic. The interviewee thus explained that funding had been directed 
to purchasing disposable PPE, a measure which would not have contributed positively to 
sustainable development goals. 

In addition, over half of the ESF MA survey respondents stated that each Article was taken 
into  account.  More  specifically,  for  Article  5  (partnership)184  16  out  of  51  ESF  survey 
respondents stated it was considered to a great extent, 15 out of 51 to a medium extent, 
and 11 out of 51 to some extent. Numbers were similar for Article 7 (equality between men 
and women and non-discrimination)185, at 17 out of 51 to a great extent, 11 out of 51 to a 
medium extent, and 6 out of 51 to some extent, and article 8 (sustainable development)186 
at 10 out of 51 to a great extent, 13 out of 51 to a medium extent, and 6 out of 51 to some 
extent). In itself, this tends to confirm the mixed picture of the degree to which the principles 
were taken into account, given that a notable minority of respondents in each case felt that 
the principles were only taken into account to a very limited extent, not at all, or were unsure. 
As outlined, the proportion of respondents reporting that the principles were greatly taken 
into account was also relatively small in each case at under a third. Responses to the FEAD 
MA survey provided a very similar mixed picture.   

Where  interviewees,  survey  respondents  and  focus  group  participants  gave 
explanations  for  the  varied  or  limited  consideration  and  effect  of  the  horizontal 
principles,  these  tended  to  relate  to the  need  to  respond  quickly  in an  emergency 

184  Article  5  specifies  that:  each  Member  State  shall  in  accordance  with  its  institutional  and  legal  framework  organise  a 
partnership with the competent regional and local authorities. 
185 Article 7 specifies that: the Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and 
the integration of gender perspective are taken into account and promoted throughout the preparation and implementation of 
programmes, including in relation to monitoring, reporting and evaluation. The Member States and the Commission shall take 
appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation during the preparation and implementation of programmes. 
186 Article 8 specifies that: the objectives of the ESF/ FEAD are pursued in line with the principle of sustainable development 
and with the Union's promotion of the aim of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment. 

89 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

situation. Fully considering the principles and integrating them into programming was seen 
as not always being possible, or a priority, in this context.  

4.1.5. 

Monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

Tracking  the  COVID-19  pandemic  response  posed  a  particular  challenge  for  cohesion 
policy, given its organisation through a shared management structure and the multiplicity of 
its programmes.  As the original monitoring systems were not designed to track the 
exceptional  flexibility  introduced  by  the  CRII/CRII+  Regulations,  the  Commission 
proposed new and non-mandatory financial and output indicators to be used by the 
national  and  regional  programmes.  This  section  provides  an  overview  of  how  the  EU 
Member States and the UK are using indicators to monitor the COVID-19 response through 
the ESF and FEAD. It also looks at the extent of MAs current plans for evaluating COVID 
responses. 

In  May  2020,  the  Commission  proposed  a  set  of  new  voluntary  financial  and  output 
indicators for use by the national and regional programmes under ESF and ERDF. 
Published in a “non-paper”,187 these programme-specific indicators were intended to enable 
the monitoring of the anti-crisis operations introduced through CRII, CRII+ and REACT-EU. 
The  non-paper  was  updated  in  February  2021  with  additional  indicators  on  vaccination. 
Making use of the new indicators, the Commission has thus relied on two main strands of 
information to monitor programmes as they were adapted in response to the pandemic: 

  Tracking  the  changes  in  financial  allocations  in  response  to  the  COVID-19 
crisis: the original monitoring systems were able to provide some insights into the 
financial reprogramming for health188 and enterprise (through ERDF)189 support.  

  Tracking  the  response  to the  pandemic  by  using  the  new  COVID-19  related 
indicators  to  gather  more  detailed  and  accurate  information.  The  use  of  these 
indicators is the focus of this section.  

Along  with  the  indicator  names  and  codes,  Member  States  and  regions  were  asked  to 
include target values (based on best estimates) in their OP modifications for monitoring and 
evaluation purposes. These targets were intended to provide an initial measure of how 
ESF investments would benefit individuals and entities across the EU. All CV indicators 
(non-paper and national) and their targets are presented in the Coronavirus Dashboard.190 

By  way  of  context,  the  importance  of  robust  monitoring  and  evaluation  to  track  Fund 
implementation  progress  and  understand  results has  long been recognised,  as  have the 
challenges  associated  with  implementing  such  arrangements  across  the  Member  States 
and  ensuring  their  effectiveness.  For  example,  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  previous 
programming period (2007-2013), while finding that in many cases good quality monitoring 
data was available, also identified issues with data availability, quality, comparability, and 
fitness for purpose.191  

187 Non-paper: List of programme-specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 
pandemic (Revised February 2021) 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  
188 After the adoption of the CRII/CRII+ Regulations, programme modifications accelerated as new measures were made 
eligible for financing, such as the purchase of personal protective equipment (PPE), medicines, testing, hiring of additional 
health personnel, medical assistance or home care services for vulnerable groups. 
189 Support to business was a major investment area for cohesion policy. A wide range of actions were supported, 
predominantly for SMEs. The support ranged across themes such as research and innovation, entrepreneurship, energy 
efficiency, access to finance, and digitalisation. 
190 https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/d/4e2z-pw8r/ 
191 ESF 2007-2013 Ex-post evaluation: Supporting the integration of disadvantaged groups into the labour market and 
society, Final Report - Volume I - Key conclusions and lessons, February 2016 

90 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

It is also worth noting that the indicators developed by the Commission in its 2020 non-
paper  represented  a  significant  step  forward  when  compared  with  attempts  to 
monitor (and subsequently, to evaluate) interventions aimed at dealing with previous 
crises. For example, an evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial 
crisis of 2007-2009 concluded that there were very few evidence-based results available on 
the  effectiveness  of  crisis-related  interventions  in  the  labour  market.192  While  the 
Commission and the Member States exchanged a wide range of information on the financial 
and  economic  crisis,  and  the  measures  that  were  taken  in  response  to  it,  the  failure  to 
systematically gather data on what use was actually made of the ESF, and the resulting 
lack  of  consistent  and  comparable  information,  seems  to  have  hampered  subsequent 
attempts to evaluate the support provided.  

Following  their  initial  publication  in  May  2020,  and  their  being  made  available  in  the 
SFC2014 database, the use of the non-paper indicators rose steadily across the ESF 
OPs  and  the  Member  States. While  only  30  programmes  (out  of  188)  and  11  Member 
States had adopted the non-paper’s indicators by September 2020, by early 2021 this had 
risen to 91 programmes and 17 Member States. By September 2022, 25 Member States 
and the UK were making use of the indicators (all, including the UK, apart from Austria and 
the Netherlands) across 150 OPs i.e., 80% of all ESF-funded programmes. This provides 
strong evidence, particularly in the context of the voluntary nature of the indicators, 
that  the  decision  to  introduce  them  has  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  ability  to 
measure  the  COVID-19  response.  In  so  doing,  the  use  of  the  indicators  enhances  the 
ability to monitor and assess the implementation and effectiveness of the CRII and CRII+, 
as indicated by their use in preceding sections and elsewhere in this report. 

Some Member States also chose to develop their own indicators to add value to their 
monitoring efforts by capturing data on anti-crisis operations beyond that monitored by the 
non-paper  indicators.  These  national  indicators  were  sometimes  highly  specialised  or 
served as a subset of the non-paper indicators. For example, France introduced an indicator 
(CV35)  to monitor  the  number  of  cloth  masks  manufactured.  Greece  added  an  indicator 
(CVR3) to monitor the number of beneficiaries retaining their job two months after the end 
of support, which is effectively a sub-indicator of CVR1 from the non-paper (measuring ‘the 
number of participants maintaining their job six months after COVID-19). While the value of 
these indicators might be limited in terms of reporting at EU-level, they are likely to be useful 
in future national level evaluations of the coronavirus response.  

As well  as the level  of  use  indicating  the  utility  of the  new coronavirus  indicators, 
evidence from the surveys, interviews and case studies conducted further highlights 
this  point.  For  example,  the  majority  of  respondents  to  the  ESF  MAs  survey  felt  the 
indicators were relevant for monitoring anti-crisis operations (24 out of 51 to a great extent, 
10  to  a  medium  extent  and  7  to  some  extent).  Only  one  respondent  felt  they  were  not 
relevant.  Likewise,  the  survey  showed  that  MA  stakeholders  felt  that  the  indicators 
facilitated proportionate monitoring, with 19 out of 51 respondents feeling that the indicators 
achieved  this  to  a  great  extent,  a  further  12  to  a  medium  extent  and  8  to  some  extent. 
Likewise,  the  case  studies  conducted  in  Greece,  Portugal  and  Latvia,  in  particular, 
highlighted that both MAs and implementing organisations found the indicators to be helpful 
and effective in monitoring the progress and scale of the support provided. However, it was 
also acknowledged that there was some burden associated with their use, with Polish case 
study interviewees at the operation implementation level noting this in the context of support 
already being challenging to deliver during the pandemic. 

In addition, it is worth noting that the overall positive reaction among Member States 
using the COVID specific indicators does suggest an improvement compared to the 
2007-2013 programming period, when it was noted that some indicators were not always 

192 Metis and wiiw (2012). Final Report on the ‘Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis’, 
available at https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7671&langId=en  

91 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

well-defined or understood by Member States, leading to issues with double counting and 
misunderstandings over whether annual or cumulative values should be reported.193 This 
change may, in part, reflect the fact that the Commission did not specify definitions for the 
COVID-19  indicators,  instead  allowing  Member  States  to  set  their  own  national  level 
definitions. This was done to encourage Member States to include the COVID-19 indicators 
in programmes as quickly as possible and the setting of definitions was known historically 
to be a time-consuming process.194  

While the  overall  picture  is positive,  there is some  evidence to suggest  that  a few 
OPs  introduced  anti-crisis  operations  without  also  making  amendments  to  adopt 
indicators that would enable these measures to be easily identified and monitored. 
For example, the secondary research undertaken for this study suggests that at least eight 
OPs195 (across six Member States and the UK) adjusted their existing measures or, in at 
least  one  case,  introduced  new  ones,  without  making  amendments  to  adopt  COVID-19 
related indicators. 

In addition, a recent study on enhancing the use of programme-specific indicators 
(PSI)196  identified  some  shortcomings  with  the  use  of  the  COVID-19  indicators.  In 
particular, it found that national definitions for the non-paper indicators tend to be restricted 
to the name of the indicator. While this is not a problem for indicators covering very specific 
actions, it was found to be inadequate for indicators covering a wider spectrum of COVID-
19  related  actions  given  the  variety  of  different  activities  they  cover.  The  report  thus 
recommended facilitating the correct use of COVID-19 indicators, and subsequent analysis 
of data, by encouraging MAs to provide a comprehensive definition for each of the COVID-
19 indicators used in each programme. 

Specifically  in  relation  to  FEAD,  monitoring  arrangements  appear  to  have  stayed 
essentially the same,197 reflecting the fact that the nature of support provided through the 
Fund  was  similar  to  that  in  the  pre-pandemic  context  with  relatively  limited  operational 
changes. FEAD-funded programmes continued to monitor common indicators, although this 
is not included in the Cohesion Dashboard, which only covers ESIF funds. Evidence from 
the  focus  group  with  FEAD  MAs  supports  the  finding  that  few  changes  were  made  to 
monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  Three  MA 
focus group participants (HR, LU, RO) confirmed that they did not change their indicators 
or add new ones, even as the scope of the programme’s support expanded in the face of 
the  crisis.  Several  representatives  explained  that,  as  the  definition  of  those  who  could 
receive support was already broad, those in need of help due to the COVID-19 crisis could 
be  supported  and  their  participation  and  results  monitored  without  changing  the 
programme’s indicators.  

In  terms  of  measures  taken  to  evaluate  the  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  (i.e., 
beyond merely monitoring it), study evidence suggests that current arrangements in 
Member States appear to be limited. In some cases, stakeholders noted that the crisis 
context, and the need for quick actions to address rapidly shifting needs on the ground, has 
impacted  on  the  scope  of  evaluation  arrangements  planned  to  date.  This  was  also 
emphasised by stakeholders at the EU level. In this context, despite the positive role played 
by the COVID-19 specific indicators as highlighted, it may be that outcomes and impacts 
are difficult in future to disentangle and attribute. It was noted that this is likely to be a future 

193 EU Commission, ESF 2007-2013 Ex-post evaluation: Supporting the integration of disadvantaged groups into the labour 
market and society Final Report: Volume I - Key conclusions and lessons, 2016. 
194  European Court of Auditors, Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19. Special report 02.2023. 
195 These OPs are: 2014CZ05M9OP001; 2014GR16M2OP007; 2014UK05M9OP001; 2014PT05M9OP001; 
2014IT05SFOP010; 2014FR05SFOP004; 2014IT05SFOP016; and2014SE05M9OP001 
196 FGB, Applica/Alphametrics and Ockham IPS (2022). Study on the pathways to enhance the use of programme-specific 
indicators in the ESF and ESF+, available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8466&furtherPubs=yes  
197 Other than seeking to capture the newly introduced possibility to use e-vouchers 

92 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

challenge in light of the diversity of funding that was used across Member States to mitigate 
the effects of the pandemic, as well as to address the Ukrainian crisis.198  

Where evaluation arrangements have already been put in place, these are typically 
not  focused  solely  on  measures  introduced  by  CRII/CRII+,  reflecting  the  fact  that 
Member States put in place various anti-crisis operations in which they relied on both EU 
and national emergency funds. For example, in France a new mission to control the quality 
of  the  management  of  the  health  crisis  was  created,  which  was  tasked  with  producing 
interim  and  annual  evaluations  of  the  practical  anti-crisis  tools  and  crisis  communication 
provided to implementing actors. The extent to which any future evaluations of the ESF 
and FEAD at the national level are planned to focus specifically on CRII and CRII+ 
flexibilities, as well as the pandemic response overall, was unclear. Most national level 
stakeholders engaged in the study either stated that no specific evaluation plans were yet 
in place, it was yet to be decided whether evaluations would be commissioned, and/or the 
extent of likely focus on CRII and CRII+ of future evaluations was unclear or undecided. 

Finally, despite this finding, it is worth noting that broader reviews of the COVID response 
are underway in several countries. In Denmark, for example, a parliamentary committee 
on  COVID-19  was  set  up,  which  initiated  an  independent  investigation  over  the 
government’s  anti-crisis processes  and structure  during the  handling  of  the  pandemic. A 
similar public enquiry with a legal basis is planned in the United Kingdom. Other parallel 
research  and  evaluation  activity  is  also  planned  or  underway.  For  example,  the  OECD’s 
First  lessons  from  government  evaluations  of  COVID-19  responses  study  provides  an 
important account of the general crisis management approach of the analysed countries, 
which covers submissions by eight Member States plus the UK.199 

4.2. 

Efficiency of CRII and CRII+ 

Key findings 

  Evidence shows that CRII and CRII+ facilitated an efficient process for using 
remaining  funds  to  respond  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  changed 
priorities that resulted. 

  Key  flexibilities  helping  to  support  this  were:  enabling  crisis  response 
expenditure under cohesion policy rules, provision of retroactive eligibility for 
expenditure, and simplified procedures for OP amendments.  

  There was strong evidence that CRII and CRII+ enhanced efficiency through 
simplifying and accelerating processes around OP amendment and resource 
reallocation. In particular, the ability to reallocate funds in an efficient manner 
enabled  Member  States  to  address  the  pandemic’s  effects  and  maintain 
liquidity for broader expenditure. 

  However,  stakeholders  also  acknowledged  that  deploying  the  flexibilities  in 
itself  also  created  burden  as  the  formal  OP  modifications  still  had  to  be 
processed and the staff had to familiarise themselves with the rules on how to 
use the flexibilites. This was a challenge in the early pandemic phase  as all 
actors involved in funds implementation had to respond to the pandemic and 
develop/adapt operations rapidly. 

198 Stakeholder consultation, July 2022  
199 These being AT, BE, DK, FR, UK, IT, LT, NL, SE. Report available at: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/first-lessons-from-government-evaluations-of-covid-19-responses-a-synthesis-483507d6/#component-d1e6394 
93 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

  There  was  very 

limited  evidence  of 

informal 
consideration/assessment of costs & benefits arising at the Member State level 
from  CRII/CRII+  and  their  use  in  the  ESF  and  FEAD  contexts.  There  was, 
however, some anecdotal evidence that MA costs, in terms of familiarisation 
with  flexibilities,  implementation  of  new  indicators  etc.,  were  outweighed  by 
benefits 
to  pre-pandemic 
programming. 

time/resource  costs  compared 

formal  or  even 

terms  of 

in 

Efficiency  is  examined  in  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives  enabled  an  efficient  process  to  use  the  remaining  Funds  in  light  of 
changing  needs,  an  integral  aspect  to  the  intervention  logic  in  terms  of  ensuring  that 
flexibilities facilitate a targeted response to the pandemic. Specifically, as presented in the 
intervention logic at Section 2.2, this was a key aspect of the CRII and CRII+, in respect of 
enabling transfers of funds, and unused resources, to address the immediate challenges 
caused  by  the  pandemic.  Reflecting  this  focus  on  immediacy,  and  the  requirement  for  a 
rapid response, this section also examines the degree to which the reprogramming process 
was simplified and accelerated by the CRII and CRII+ in respect of the ESF and FEAD. The 
extent to which costs and benefits were identified for different stakeholders in the course of 
reprogramming is also considered, as well as any evidence that was available concerning 
the effects of the flexibilities on monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits.  

4.2.1. 

Efficiency in using the remaining funds to reflect changing 
priorities due to COVID-19  

The evidence collected confirms that the coronavirus response initaitives facilitated 
an efficient respose to the challenges of COVID-19 through the use or reallocation of 
unspent funds, a key aspect of the intervention logic behind the initiatives as noted. The 
evidence also suggests that some simplifications and flexibilities appear to have been more 
instrumental  in  achieving  efficency  than  others.  In  particular,  again  referencing  the 
intervention logic in terms of key ‘inputs/activities’, the flexibilities to make coronavirus 
crisis expenditure eligible under cohesion policy rules, the opportunity to apply for 
retroactive  eligibility  for  expenditure,  and  the  simplification  procedure  for  OP 
amendments  were  widely  acknowledged  as  supporting  efficiency  by  interviewees, 
survey  respondents  and  those  engaged  in  the  focus  groups.  Likewise,  the  case  studies 
undertaken for the study confirmed that these flexibilities were widely used and that they 
supported an efficient response.  

More specifically, around two-thirds of the 51 respondents to the ESF MA survey noted 
that the aforementioned flexibilities under CRII and CRII+ enabled their institution to 
respond more efficiently (process wise) to the COVID-19 pandemic to a great or medium 
extent.  This  provides  evidence  that  the  inputs/activities  within  the  intervention  logic 
successfully  provided  the  basis  for  achievement  of  the  expected  results  in  terms  of  the 
development of new and adjusted operations to address the pandemic. Similarly, this link 
was confirmed in terms of positive views on other key inputs/activities and their role. This 
included making coronavirus crisis related expenditure eligible under cohesion policy rules 
(38 out of 51 respondents noting the positive effect of this to a great or medium extent), the 
equivalent for Article 25a (7) on retroactive eligibility being 35 out of 51 respondents, and 
for Article 25a (6) on simplified procedures for OP amendments 31 out of 51 respondents.  

EU  and national level  interviewees likewise  noted that the  core  flexibilities  offered 
around  the  reprogramming  process  were  key  to  efficiently  responding  to  the 
pandemic, given that they enabled Member States to reallocate unspent funds to target the 
specific and immediate needs caused by COVID-19. This was seen as an essential part of 
the  response,  given  that  otherwise  countries  would  have  had  money  locked  into  other 

94 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

operations that were no longer a priority, as well as being restricted in their ability to use 
key EU Funds as part of national responses to the pandemic (hence supporting the intended 
intervention logic impact of freeing up liquidity for the crisis response).  

National interviewees were similalrly positive about the level of efficiency with which funds 
could  be  reallocated.  For  example,  interviewees  from  Bulgaria,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia 
described how CRII and CRII+ enabled the rapid re-direction of unspent resources to meet 
immediate needs at national and regional levels, while a representative of the Greek MA 
highlighted the ease with which their immediate national responses to COVID were later 
funded  by  ESF  through  the  use  of  retroactive  eligibility.  This  was  seen  as  enabling 
ongoing  support  to  address  the  pandemic’s  effects,  as  well  as  supporting 
maintainence of liquidity for broader expenditure as per the intervention logic for the 
initaitives (see Section 2.2).   

As noted, the case studies also highlighted in detail that the response initaitives enabled 
ESF  and/or  FEAD  to  quickly  fund  actions  to  support  target  groups  on  the  ground 
through the use of retroactive eligibility and the reallocation of funds. In particular, the 
case studies in Greece and Poland highlighted how the need to respond immediately was 
enabled by the knowledge that retroactive eligibility could be applied. In the Polish context, 
this  was  seen  as  vital  given  the  extensive  and  immediate  needs  of  the  target  group 
supported by the operation examined, namely homeless people who faced a sudden lack 
of access and support as a result of coronavirus control measures, including lockdown and 
related  aspects.  Similarly,  ESF  focus  group  participants  from  Belgium  (Flanders)  and 
Hungary accredited their fast response to the pandemic to the fact that use of funding did 
require prior approval by the Commission before operations were launched or amended. 
This was noted as eliminating the usual time-consuming approval process and as central 
to efficiently enabling the immediately required response. 

While the above picture of the initiatives enabling a rapid and efficient response through the 
flexibilities offered is positive, it should also be acknowledged that, in the case studies, focus 
groups and interviews a theme did emerge concerning additional pressures caused by 
the extra administrative requirements resulting from the flexibilities. This was cited as 
being challenging in the context of the additional pressures for MA staff and partners caused 
by the pandemic itself, particularly in its early phase that coincided with the introduction of 
CRII  and  CRII+.  At  the  same  time  as  recognising  the  relative  efficiency  with  which  the 
flexibilities could be operationalised, and the efforts to support a rapid response from the 
Commission, stakeholders did emphasise in several contexts how challenges also emerged 
stemming  from  the  requirements  to  request  amendments,  national  administrative 
requirements linked to them, and so on. These themes are further explored below.        

While the flexibilities enabled by the CRII and CRII+ can certainly be judged as having 
efficiently  enabled  the  re-focusing  of  spend  to  respond  to  the  challenges  of  the 
pandemic, accepting some challenges this brought, as noted some flexibilities were 
seen  as  less  crucial  to  this  though  likewise  still  helpful  in  some  contexts.  Survey 
evidence  suggests  that  this  was  typically  due  to  the  lack  of  need  to  use  additional 
flexibilities,  such  as  waivers  and  simplification  measures  on  reporting  and  audit 
requirements. In most cases, for example, in respect of the ESF only needing to provide 
payment applications at aggregate level for operations less than EUR 1 million, use of non-
statistical  sampling  methods  for  auditing,  and  the  waiver  of  submitting  evidence  where 
financial instruments provide working capital to SMEs, survey respondents, as well as study 
interviewees  at  the  national  level,  reported  that  these  were  either  not  applicable  or  they 
were  unsure  whether  they  were  being  used/had  supported  efficiency.  It is  likely  that  this 
relates to such flexibilities, and the efficiencies they supported, only being applicable in a 
limited number of contexts, rather than their not being supportive of efficiency per se (i.e. if 
Member  States  had  particularly  needed  to  support  their  response through  the  measures 
noted above). 

95 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Perhaps  due  to  the  widespread  recognition  of  how  the  coronavirus  response 
measures  supported  an  efficient  reaction  to  the  pandemic,  in  respect  of  the 
flexibilities offered, few suggestions on how to improve efficiency were advanced by 
stakeholders. Two EU level interviewees representing employers noted that feedback from 
their members highlighted that the guidance accompanying the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities 
could have been clearer, especially in terms of how funding could be reallocated and the 
application procedure to re-program funds. This perceived lack of clarity was reported as 
leading to time and resources being spent in fielding questions from members, lessening 
efficiency to some extent.  

Similarly,  the  Luxembourg  case  study  highlighted  some  confusion  over  which 
response measures were eligible to be financed by FEAD. This led to national funding 
being used to ensure the safety of FEAD recipients, distribution centre volunteers, and staff, 
through providing face masks to distribute to FEAD recipients and hand sanitizer stations. 
Having various funds that could be used to support covid measures (e.g. ESF and FEAD 
under CRII, SURE, REACT-EU) was likewise noted as a cause of confusion among some 
Member  State  interviewees  and  representatives  of  EU  level  organisations.  Interviewees 
from Greece also noted that adding some additional flexibility to public procurement rules 
may have further increased efficiency, or could do so in future. Generally, however, issues 
such as these were not seen as significantly affecting the widespread view of CRII 
and CRII+ efficiency in the context of the pandemic response.  

4.2.2. 

Simplification and acceleration facilitated by the response 
initiatives 

Efficiency was also specifically examined in terms of how, and the extent to which, CRII and 
CRII+ simplified and accelerated the reprogramming process, including the degree to which 
Member States integrated efficiency considerations into this process. As elements of the 
above  discussion  indicate,  stakeholder  feedback  on  the  extent  to  which  the 
reprogramming process was simplified and accelerated as a result of the CRII and 
CRII+ was typically positive. For example, over eight in ten of respondents to the ESF MA 
survey (42 out of 51) noted that their institution was able to respond more quickly to needs 
on the ground as a result of the flexibilities provided to a great or medium extent. Nearly 
seven in ten (35 out of 51) noted that they were able to streamline operations to address 
the COVID-19 crisis to a great or medium extent, while over half (28 out of 51) noted they 
were  able  to  simplify  the  reprogramming  process  relative  to  previous/standard  ESF 
implementation  to  a great  or  medium  extent,  and  to  support  different  stakeholders  more 
efficiently to a great or medium extent (30 out of 51).  

Feedback  from  open-response  questions  within  the  ESF  MA  survey  indicated  that  the 
implementation time of new public policy instruments was substantially reduced in Portugal. 
Similarly,  a  respondent  from  Poland  noted  time  savings  related  to  the  simplification  of 
procedures and shorter processing times as a result of using informal approvals. However, 
survey respondents and interviewees were typically unable to quantify the scale of 
resource  savings;  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  where  interviewees  and  respondents 
commented on this, as discussed further below, this was related to the fact that no formal 
assessment  of  costs  and  benefits,  and  little  consideration  of  this  in  general,  had  been 
undertaken.  Stakeholders  were  therefore  often  unsure  of  the  balance  between  the 
efficiencies generated through the flexibilities and the costs related to, for example, new or 
additional guidance needing to be processed.   

Accepting the above limitation, there was a general perception that CRII and CRII+ 
flexibilities had definitely reduced resource requirements and administrative burden 
where stakeholders felt able to comment on this. For example, stakeholders in Hungary 
and  Lithuania  noted  that  the  simplified  approval  procedure  reduced  their  administrative 
burden, and hence contributed to amendments to operations being processed and actioned 
more simply and quickly. In turn this was seen as important in helping to confirm and free 
96 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

up  pandemic  response  spending  in  a  rapid,  efficient,  way.  In  addition,  a  UK  stakeholder 
noted  that  modifications  were  considered  and  agreed  promptly  and  positively  by  the 
Commission, with the process being relatively straightforward due to the simplifications and 
flexibilities enabled. In this context, this was reported to have supported efficiency through 
enabling  early  discussions  with  healthcare  organisations  about  the  support  needed, 
informed by what could be available to the sector, which in turn supported key aspects of 
the pandemic response through health focused measures. Most EU level interviewees also 
agreed that the reprogramming processes enabled Member States to access funding more 
quickly  as  a  result  of  simplified  procedures,  although  interviewees  did  not  feel  able  to 
comment on the details of simplification.  

In terms of the speed at which amendments were accepted, evidence from the desk 
research  shows  that  nearly  three  quarters  (72%)  of  amendments  were  accepted 
within one month, with a further 19% accepted between one to two months, and 9% 
accepted after  two  months. When  compared to  the  pre-pandmic  context, this  supports 
the positive assessment of the efficiency and rapidity enabled through the CRII and CRII+. 
Before  the  pandemic,  the  Commission  had  often  not  approved  amendments  within  the 
three-month deadline prescribed by the CPR, and was just starting to average three-months 
by the start of 2020.200 Again, this increase in the speed at which amendments under CRII 
were  accepted  suggests  an  efficient  process  in  terms  of  the  role  of  the  Commission  in 
supporting a rapid response.  

Evidence drawn from the primary research also indicates that changes were typically 
accepted  and  subsequently  instituted  quickly.  For  example,  just  over    half  of 
respondents to the ESF MA survey (28 out of 51) reported that changes in ESF funding 
resulting from CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were instituted within two months; ten reported 
that this had been done so within four weeks. Meanwhile, approximately two fifths (21 out 
of 51) reported it took over two months to institute changes (the remaining 2 respondents 
were unsure of the time taken). By way of comparison, a national interviewee from Slovenia 
estimated  that  without  the  accelerated  reprogramming  process,  it  may  have  taken  an 
additional couple of months to get amendments approved. Likewise, in the context of the 
case study undertaken in Greece, it was estimated that in the absence of the flexibilities, 
reinforcing the capacity of health institutions with additional staff  would have taken up to 6 
months longer. Similarly, the Swedish case study indicated that as, a result of the CRII and 
CRII+ simplifications and flexibilities, ESF funds were available seven to eight weeks earlier 
than experienced under regular conditions.   

translated 

facilitated  through  the  CRII  was  often 

Such  evidence  provides  a  strong  illustration  of  how  the  rapidity  of  the  programming 
response 
into  practical 
implementation on the ground, to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, much more 
quickly  than  would  have  been  the  case  without  the  response  initiatives.  Likewise, 
when comparing the response to how rapidly ESF could be deployed to address the effects 
of  the  2008-2009  economic  crisis,  evidence  indicates  a  reduction  in  the  time  taken  to 
respond  and the  efficiency  with  which  Member  States  were  able  to  do  so.  For  example, 
focus group participants noted that the COVID-19 flexibilities and simplifications were 
in place far more quickly than tools introduced to respond to the  economic crisis, 
and that they were able to access funding to support the response far more easily during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, evidence from the Latvian case study indicated that 
this was in part influenced by national actions, with the Latvian Government choosing to 
focus on reducing public debt in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007, hence delaying 
the availability of ESF funds for various sectors. 

200  European Court of Auditors, Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19. Special report 02.2023. 

97 

                                                
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.2.3. 

Extent of identification of monetary and nonmonetary costs 
and benefits in respect of CRII/CRII+  

As  indicated  in  preceeding  sections,  there  was  very  limited  evidence  of  additional 
monetary costs and benefits arising as a result of flexibilities under CRII and CRII+ 
being considered at the Member State level, when compared to previous or typical 
ESF  and  FEAD  implementation.  Stakeholders  reported  that  their  institutions  had  not 
carried out any formal assessment of the associated costs and benefits to date and were 
not aware of any formal, national level assessments in this area. Likewise, there was no 
indication of concrete plans to do so in the future. Where they commented on reasons for 
this, stakeholders typically noted that this was due to the focus to date being on responding 
to, and recovering from, the pandemic, rather than evaluating of the process of responding 
to the crisis.  

However,  despite  this  lack  of  formal  assessment,  there  are  some  provisional  and 
anecdotal indications of the effects of the flexibilities on monetary and non-monetary 
costs,  though  these  should  be  treated  with  caution  due  to  the  lack  of  formal 
assessment noted. For example, approximately four in ten respondents to the ESF MA 
survey noted that they were able to reduce monetary costs to at least some extent as a 
result of the flexibilities (3 to a great extent, 6 to a medium extent, 6 to some extent, and 5 
to  very  little  extent).  Similarly,  in  respect  of  non-monetary  costs,  1  respondent  cited  that 
these had reduced to a great extent, 5 to a medium extent, 6 to some extent, and 8 to very 
little  extent.  In  each  case,  just  under  half  of  respondents  (23  and  25  respectively)  were 
unsure  if  they  had  been  able  to  reduce  their  monetary  or  non-monetary  costs,  again 
indicating a lack of formal or even informal consideration of, or evidence on, this.  

Likewise, the ESF focus group held for the study offered some indicative evidence on the 
resource  effects  of  the  response  initiatives.  For  example,  participants  from  Hungary  and 
Portugal acknowledged additional costs in the form of staff doing a significant amount of 
overtime  to  implement  and  monitor  new  projects  and  procedures.  However,  while  such 
costs were associated with projects enabled through the CRII and CRII+ simplifications and 
flexibilities, it was also noted that they arose more as a result of the operations put in place 
to respond to COVID-19 themselves, rather than costs that could be directly linked to CRII 
and CRII+. Similarly, participants did not feel able to quantify such costs for the reasons 
already outlined.  

Interestingly, in the case of FEAD, some of the evidence available was more clear cut in 
terms  of  a  perceived  positive  impact  in  reducing  monetary,  though  not  necessarily  non-
monetary, costs. However, the available evidence was still very limited and subject to the 
caveats noted above; in addition, the small numbers involved in the FEAD MA survey from 
which this evidence is drawn means that it should be treated with caution. Out of the 10 
respondents to the FEAD MA survey, 6 noted that they were able to reduce monetary costs 
to a great (3 out of 10) or to some extent (3 out of 10), while 3 noted that they were not able 
to  reduce  monetary  costs  (the  remaining  1  respondent  was  unsure).  In  terms  of  non-
monetary costs, 4 out of 10 respondents reported that they had been able to reduce costs 
to a medium extent (1 out of 10), to some extent (2 out of 10), or to a very little extent (1 out 
of 10), while 4 reported these had not reduced at all. The remaining 2 respondents were 
unsure). FEAD focus group participants, meanwhile, noted that the administrative burden 
increased during the pandemic, though it was noted that this arose as a result of responding 
to COVID-19, rather than any additional burden from CRII/CRII+.  

For  respondents  to  both  the  ESF  and  FEAD  surveys  who  noted  that  monetary  or  non-
monetary savings had been made, reasons given centred around simplification of the OP 
requirements leading to time savings, and the 100% co-financing flexibility reducing costs 
for  national  budgets  across  both  ESF  and  FEAD.  However,  only  one  respondent,  from 
Lithuania, felt able to provide an estimate of the monetary saving resulting from flexibilities 
related  to  FEAD,  equating  to  EUR  350.000  over  2020-2021.  It  should  be  noted  that  a 

98 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

breakdown on the savings was not provided, nor the basis for this assessment. Again this 
can only be treated as indicative and anecdotal therefore.  

4.3. 

Coherence of CRII and CRII+ 

Key findings 

  Alongside  some  new  operations  introduced  in  the  pandemic  due  to  crisis 
circumstances,  the  majority  of  ESF  and  FEAD  ongoing  operations  were 
adjusted to the circumstances imposed by the coronavirus pandemic. The key 
changes in the use of ESF under CRII and CRII+ included: the broadening of 
target  groups  to  the  general  population  rather  than  the  targeting  of  specific 
groups; the prioritisation of actions focusing on health and healthcare; and an 
increased  focus  on  passive  support  measures  (mostly  STWSs).  The  main 
changes in the use of FEAD during the pandemic were made to the process of 
reaching the end recipients (e.g., the introduction of e-vouchers or the use of 
other similar digital means to facilitate the distribution and pick-up of food and 
other  material  assistance  products)  and  to  the  implementing  organisations’ 
operational processes.  

  Evidence  indicates  that  the  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  enabled  by  the 
coronavirus  response  initiatives  in  the  employment,  healthcare,  social 
inclusion and education/ training areas are largely coherent with: mainstream 
ESF  and  FEAD  operations  implemented  during  the  2014-2020  period; 
measures  implemented  under  other  EU  funding  instruments  during  the 
pandemic (e.g. ERDF, SURE); measures funded by national and/or regional 
budgets; and with longer term plans to use ESF and FEAD under ESF+ and 
REACT-EU.  

o  Through  CRII  and  CRII+,  synergies  between  ESF  and  ERDF 
programmes were ensured through financial reallocation mechanisms. 
16 of the Member States that used SURE also planned to use ESF to 
support STWS under the CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities, given the high needs 
to support jobs, employees, the self-employed and businesses in the 
pandemic.  

o  Coherence  with  REACT-EU  and  ESF+ 

the 
complementary increase in the funding of TO9 social inclusion and TO8 
employment,  and  by  the  plans  to  continue  actions  that  were 
implemented through CRII or CRII+ to ensure sustainability and post-
pandemic recovery.  

is  evidenced  by 

through 

regional 

is  evidenced 

o  Coherence between CRII and CRII+ operations and measures funded 
by  national  and/or 
the 
funds 
implementation of complementary measures such as STWS and other 
similar measures that expanded employment support to non-standard 
employees  during  the  pandemic;  social  assistance  measures  that 
increased  protection  for  people  with  limited  or  no  links  to  the  labour 
market (i.e. children, students, social assistance beneficiaries); and the 
provision  of  income  support  for  the  self-employed.  These  measures, 
alongside those supported by CRII and CRII+, were part of strategies 
to stimulate the economy and support employers and workers during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. 

99 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

ESF  and  FEAD  operations  implemented  under  CRII  and  CRII+  are  in  line  with  actions 
supported by the two funds before the pandemic. They are also aligned with actions under 
other EU instruments (e.g. SURE, ERDF) and the longer term plans to use ESF and FEAD 
under  ESF+  and  REACT-EU.  ESF  and  FEAD  CRII/  CRII+  operations  have  also 
complemented the broader crisis response at the national and regional levels across the 
Member States (for instance by extending coverage to additional groups of individuals and 
entities).  The  high  number  and  variety  of  EU  instruments  and  mechanisms  that  were 
launched in a short time-span during the pandemic was a factor that somewhat hindered 
coherence;  this  situation  required  additional  time  at  the  level  of  the  national/  regional 
administrations, for instance to determine the most appropriate instrument or mechanism 
to  use.  Notwithstanding  this  issue,  there  was  wide  agreement  across  consulted 
stakeholders that these mechanisms supported crisis response in the Member States in a 
coherent manner and in different ways, at critical times, in the evolution of the pandemic.   

4.3.1. 

Coherence of the operations supported following CRII and 
CRII+ adoption with other operations implemented by ESF 
and FEAD in the 2014-2020 programming period 

Overall, there is a good level of coherence between anti-crisis operations supported 
following CRII and CRII+ adoption and pre-existing ESF and FEAD operations. ESF 
anti-crisis  operations  also  show  a  high  degree  of  coherence  between  thematic 
objectives, creating synergies in meeting overall objectives of supporting the wide-range 
of  needs  emerging  from  or  amplified  by  the  COVID-19  crisis  across  employment,  social 
inclusion, healthcare and education/ training areas.  

The evidence indicates that the objectives and target groups of ESF and FEAD operations, 
respectively,  before  and  during  the  pandemic  are  largely  aligned,  with  some  notable 
differences which are discussed in this section.  

Key changes in the use of ESF under CRII and CRII+ relative to pre-pandemic times 

The key changes in the use of ESF include: the broadening of target groups to the general 
population  rather  than  targeting  specific  groups;  the  prioritisation  of  actions  focusing  on 
health  and  healthcare;  and  an  increased  focus  on  passive  support  measures  (mostly 
STWSs). An overview of the diferent types of anti-crisis operations is included in Section 3 
of  this  report.  The  coherence  of  ESF  operations  before  and  during  the  coronavirus 
crisis was  maintained  at  the  level  of  their  objectives.  The  temporary  changes  to  the 
areas of ESF operations’ focus during the pandemic were necessary to ensure the same 
objectives were pursued. 

Traditionally, ESF supports a number of actions in the areas of employment, social inclusion 
and education and training, many of which remained relevant in responding to COVID-19, 
albeit with a slightly adjusted or sharpened focus. The anti-crisis operations identified 
through this study have commonly been implemented as part of existing ESF measures 
(while being adjusted for the purposes of crisis reaction) under TO8, TO9 and TO10. They 
are in line with the objectives of the Fund and the national and regional OPs, as well as the 
needs emerging on the ground (see Section 4.5 on relevance for more details). 

 

In  the  employment  area,  the  anti-crisis  operations  that  were  planned  focused  in 
particular on protecting jobs (including STWS) in the context of the threat posed by 
the pandemic and its effects on economic activity, and on supporting employers and 
the  self-employed  as  well  as  workers  to  adapt  to  the  changes  imposed  by  the 
pandemic (with a much lower number focusing on NEET young people). Before the 
pandemic,  ESF  operations  focused  on  providing  support  for  entrepreneurs, 
facilitating  access  to  employment  (e.g.,  through  guidance  and  support  measures 

100 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

linked  to  employment  and  mobility,  adaptability  to  the  labour  market,    financial 
incentives,  and  education/training 
for  strenghtening  employability).  These 
operations often combined multiple categories of activities, representing the largest 
share of the eligible costs overall.201 

  Social inclusion CRII/ CRII+ operations aimed at ensuring access to services and 
providing  direct  targeted  support  to  vulnerable  groups  (e.g.,  people  experiencing 
homelessness  or those with disabilities),  specifically  in the  pandemic  context  and 
with  a  focus  on  ensuring  continued  access  and  support  in  the  new,  more 
challenging,  circumstances.  Before  the  pandemic  under  TO9,  ESF  actions  most 
commonly focused on fostering employment for vulnerable groups, enabling access 
to  services,  and  supporting  social  entrepreneurship,  and  to  a  lesser  degree  on 
enhancing basic skills and supporting basic school education.202 

  Health  operations  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  focused  on  actions  that 
supported  the  continued  functioning  of  healthcare  systems  and  medical  staff  and 
auxiliary personnel in health establishments, and staff providing front-line services 
in  other  institutions.  Most  actions  aimed  to  enable  the  purchase  of  protective 
equipment to prevent infection with COVID-19; reinforce the capacity of workers to 
respond  to  the  health  crisis  and  provide  adequate  and  quality  care  for  patients, 
containing  the  spread  of  the  virus;  cover  the  costs  related  to  hiring  additional 
personnel during the pandemic; support the enforcement of social distancing rules; 
strengthen occupational health and safety measures; and also improve information 
about, access to and the provision of health services to people affected by poverty 
and other vulnerable groups. Before the pandemic, ESF health investment during 
the 2014 – 2020 programming period was aimed at supporting access to affordable, 
sustainable  and  high-quality  healthcare,  in  particular  for  vulnerable  groups; 
improving health and safety at work; promoting healthy lifestyles and tackling health 
risk factors; and supporting the transition from institutional care to community-based 
care services.203 

  Education  and  training  measures  planned  during  the  coronavrius  pandemic 
focused on ensuring the continuity of education and training, for instance through 
supporting  the  development  and/or  implementation  of  distance-learning  services, 
direct  financial  support  in  the  form  of  purchasing  equipment  or  other  capital 
investment, as well as supporting students and their families to navigate the COVID-
19  crisis.  In  some  cases,  support  was  specifically  targeted  at  disadvantaged 
students. Before the pandemic under TO10, ESF operations were directed mostly 
to  supporting  vocational  and  general  upper-secondary  and  post-secondary 
education/ training, job-related education/ training and tertiary education (and to a 
lesser  extent  to  non-job  related  education/  training,  primary  education  and  pre-
primary education).204 

ESF target groups under CRII and CRII+ 

As indicated in Section 3, ESF anti-crisis operations have commonly targeted broad 
groups in the population, due to the wide-reaching effects of the pandemic, rather than 
focusing on particular groups. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, measures to support employers 

201 European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF support to employment and labour Mobility (TO8), p.51. 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22899&langId=en,  
202 European Commission (2020). Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty 
and any discrimination by the European Social Fund (TO9), p.51. Available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22979&langId=en  
203 https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/qyuv-h9j2  
204 European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF support to education and training (TO10), Annex 1.1 - 
Mapping of ESF interventions under TO10. Available at: at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0c1a558-
077d-11eb-a511-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

101 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

in maintaining jobs at risk, including part-time or full-time subsidies and similar measures, 
gave  more  emphasis  to  companies  as  a  target  group  in  some  countries,  as  well  as  to 
employed individuals (through the support given through STWS). Prior to the pandemic, the 
most common target group in TO9 operations, for instance, were the long-term unemployed 
and people with disabilities, but also people with a migrant background, Roma and other 
ethnic minorities, and a broad group of people in vulnerable situations.205 This constitutes a 
notable change in the focus of anti-crisis operations, as the focus on unemployed individuals 
decreased at EU level relative to support for those in employment. This is a reflection of the 
emerging  needs  on  the  ground,  which  pulled  unspent  resources  towards  other  groups 
whose socio-economic situation had worsened due to the crisis. Further analysis of these 
changes is included in Section 4.5 on relevance (showing changes in ESF participations 
before and during the pandemic). 

Key areas of ESF focus under CRII and CRII+ 

New types of operations were also enabled under ESF by CRII and CRII+ (summarised 
below).  Even  in  these  cases,  however,  the  operations  and  their  objectives  tend  to  align 
closely  with the broad pre-existing focus and purpose of the ESF; however, they tend to 
have a heightened focus on the particular needs that emerged or were amplified as a result 
of the pandemic. ESF support under CRII and CRII+ was focused on healthcare operations 
and passive support measures (i.e., STWSs) to a larger extent than before the pandemic, 
due to the large and urgent needs on the ground. These new operations had broadly the 
same  objectives  as  the  operations  implemented  before,  including  supporting  jobs  and 
labour  mobility,  the  adaptation  of  workers,  enterprises  and  entrepreneurs;  increasing 
access  to  services;  protecting  health  and  the  resilience  of  healthcare  systems;  and  the 
social inclusion of vulnerable groups.  

  Support for health and the healthcare system was a key priority area during 
the  pandemic  (while  otherwise  generally  not  a  central  priority  under  the  ESF). 
Given the prominence of this dimension in the pandemic, CRII and CRII+ enabled 
the financing of medical equipment, testing facilities, additional wage support 
to healthcare staff, and care support to vulnerable groups.206 Actions to support 
healthcare staff in care facilities were indentified in several countries (in particular in 
PL, but also in IT, LV, PT, FR, and the UK). While these actions were necessary 
given  the  emergency  situation  caused  by the  pandemic,  and  the  need  to  support 
healthcare systems given their vital role in managing the pandemic in all Member 
States, there are open questions about the degree to which some of the new health 
operations which are not normally supported through the ESF (e.g., those providing 
temporary  support  to  staff  in  care  institutions)  could  impact  on  the  longer  term 
objectives of the fund, which promotes deinstitutionalisation. 

 

In some countries, in the employment area, STWS were also introduced as new 
ESF operations (e.g., in BG, CY, some regions in IT, LU, MT, PT, SK), while in other 
countries they were implemented through the structures of pre-existing measures 
(e.g.,  ES,  HU,  some  regions  in  IT,  PL).  Operations  that  provided  support  to 
employers to adapt to change were also introduced during the pandemic for the first 
time in some countries (e.g., in DK, FR, PT). They provide training to managers to 
manage the  operational  changes  needed  in  workplaces  due  to  COVID-19  and/or 
assist  managers  in  implementing  adjusted  health  and  safety  measures  or  the 
implementation  of  telework  arrangements.  STWSs  suported  by  ESF  tended  to 
include  passive  (and  in  a  few  cases  active)  measures  and  aimed  to  foster  the 
competitiveness  and  long-term  sustainability  of  SMEs  in  particular,  through 

205 European Commission (2020). Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty 
and any discrimination by the European Social Fund (TO9), p.48. Available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22979&langId=en  
206 Cohesion Data (n.d.). Cohesion policy improving health services and access in the regions. Available at: 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/In-profile-cohesion-policy-improving-health-servic/qyuv-h9j2/.  

102 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

promoting  the  adaptability  of  enterprises,  managers  and  workers.  In  Poland,  for 
example, under the regional OP of the Małopolskie Voivodeship (Priority Axis 8  – 
labour  market),  two  complementary  measures  were  introduced:  an  adjusted 
operation  aimed  at  co-financing  employees'  salaries  and  social  security 
contributions (targeting employees of micro enterprises, SMEs and NGOs) 207; and 
a new operation to support competences and / or qualifications of staff in the SME 
sector as part of a new development service.  

  New  social  inclusion  operations  included:  public  communication  about  the 
pandemic (e.g., in FR); the provision of vouchers for childcare services or access to 
services for people with disabilities or other vulnerable individuals (e.g., in FR, IT, 
RO); support for social workers and community nurses involved in supporting elderly 
people in solitary confinement (e.g., in RO); and support for digitally marginsalised 
people to have access to online services and information (e.g. in the UK).  

  New  operations  were  also  planned under  CRII/ CRII+  in the  education/  training 
area. These operations prioritised the provision of training/reskilling opportunities for 
workers in sectors affected by the pandemic (e.g., in SE); support for education and 
training institutions to provide distance education and training at all levels (e.g., in 
IT);  training  on  digital  skills  for  teachers  and  students  and  the  diversification  of 
pedagogical methodologies and technological instruments (e.g., in PT, IT); support 
services, during distance learning, for parents of children in vulnerable families and 
with  special  educational  needs  (e.g.,  in  IT);  purchase  or  rental  of  necessary 
equipment,  expenses  for  broadband  internet  connection,  and  the  purchase  of 
multimedia educational packages for students with particular disabilities or learning 
difficulties (e.g., in IT). 

Key changes in the use of FEAD under CRII and CRII+ relative to pre-pandemic times 

Anti-crisis  operations  implemented  under  CRII  and  CRII+  through  FEAD  were  largely 
coherent with other FEAD operations programmed before the crisis in terms of their 
objectives,  types  of  operations  and  target  groups.  Information  from  stakeholder 
consultations  confirmed  that  consultations  between  the  national  authorities  and  the 
European Commission took place to ensure the complementarities and synergies with the 
existing FEAD operations (as well as with other operations funded through REACT-EU).  

FEAD supports the provision of food and/or basic material assistance and aims to combat 
social exclusion.208 FEAD operations under the coronavirus response initiatives supported 
the collection, transport, storage and distribution of food and material assistance in 
15 Member States ( AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LT, NL, PL, PT, SK). Partner 
organisations  in  the  Member  States  also  provided  social  inclusion  activities  to  FEAD 
recipients through the accompanying measures funded by FEAD. In the context of COVID-
19, such measures have even further increased their  relevance, with the reprogramming 
under CRII and CRII+ reflecting this.  

FEAD  operations  were  adjusted  to  respond  to  the  circumstances  imposed  by  the 
coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns and social distancing rules. The  main 
changes were made to the process of reaching the end recipients (e.g., the introduction 
of e-vouchers or the use of other similar digital means to facilitate the distribution and pick-

207 According to information received during stakeholder consultations conducted for this study, the operation targeted 
originally people aged 30 and more, unemployed, registered with the poviat labor office, belonging to at least one of the 
following groups: a) people over 50, b) long-term unemployed, c) people with disabilities, d) people with low qualifications, e) 
women, f) unemployed men aged 30-49 (not belonging to the above-mentioned groups whose situation on the labour 
market is the most difficult), assuming that this target group cannot constitute more than 20% the total number of 
unemployed covered by support under the project.  
208 EUR-Lex (n.d.). Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the 
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. Available at : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0223 

103 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

up of food and other material assistance products) and to the operational processes of 
the implementing organisations.  

FEAD target groups and key areas of FEAD focus under CRII and CRII+ 

Member States focused on adjusting their existing FEAD operations of food and material 
assistance  distribution  or  accompanying  measures,  which  at  times  involved  new  target 
groups, such as the FEAD partner organisations (supported through technical assistance 
projects). In Portugal, for instance, food assistance has been adapted through the use of 
electronic cards distributed by partner organisations to those in need. In Croatia, consulted 
stakeholders indicated that the OP was already flexible enough to enable the programming 
of anti-crisis operations, but the flexibilities enabled by the coronavirus response initiatives 
further  supported  quick  actions.  Hygiene  products  were  distributed  through  FEAD  under 
CRII/  CRII+  as  well  as  under  REACT-EU,  indicating  the  complementarity  of  actions.  In 
Lithuania,  the  Managing  Authority  supported  partner  organisations  with  packaging  and 
protective equipment to ensure deliveries. Additional funding was allocated to buy bags and 
protective  equipment  (e.g.,  masks,  gloves,  disinfectant,  face  shields)  for  FEAD  partner 
organisations.  Packaging  food  and  hygiene  items  in  bags  eased  their  distribution  and 
minimised  physical  contact  between  volunteers  and  FEAD  recipients.  Due  to  protective 
equipment, volunteers were better equipped and were able to follow the quarantine rules 
imposed by the emergency situation in Lithuania. This example illustrates how pre-existing 
measures have been adjusted to the crisis context, expanding their scope or adjusting their 
delivery  channels,  while  maintaining  their  original  purpose  (the  provision  of  food  and/or 
basic material assistance).  

As discussed in Section 3, FEAD anti-crisis operations also expanded the scope of the 
support  previously  provided  (e.g.  through accompanying measures).  In  Luxembourg, 
the FEAD operation “aide alimentaire et/ou assistance matérielle de base” (food and basic 
material assistance provision) began in 2014 and ends in 2023. It ensures the purchasing 
and distribution of FEAD products to vulnerable people through social groceries (épiceries 
sociales). During the pandemic, the operation was adjusted, and included the distribution 
of face masks, and technical assistance was used to create an e-platform for people to pre-
order  their  products  and  select  a  time  slot  in  which  to  pick  them  up  (thus  limiting  social 
contact  in  the  groceries).  This  example  illustrates  the  ways  in  which  FEAD  operations 
continued to be aligned with the pre-pandemic objectives while responding to new needs. 
In the Netherlands, the social inclusion measures were extended to minimise the isolation 
of the elderly. The project ‘The ‘Living & Learning – Elderly in the Neighbourhood’ has been 
adjusted to support elderly in acquiring a ‘Corona ticket’ for social interaction. 

The complementarity of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations 

There  are  also  indications  that  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  under  the  coronavirus 
response  initiatives  were  also  complementary  with  each  other,  although  some 
stakeholders  consulted  encouraged  further  synergies  between  social  inclusions  actions 
under ESF and FEAD in the future. In Poland, for example, the government implemented 
necessary support during the pandemic to those in need by changing the FEAD rules for 
buying,  providing  and  distributing  food  to  the  needy.  Thanks  to  this  the  support  could 
continue to be offered to homeless people, who were also the group targeted through ESF 
operations under CRII/ CRII+ (e.g. the operation selected as a case study for this evaluation 
and implemented in Warsaw, Wrocław, Gdańsk, Gliwice, and Jelenia Góra –  ‘Street work 
academy’). Some consulted stakeholders indicated that further synergies between ESF 
and FEAD could have been ensured more systematically across countries through social 
inclusion measures for the materially deprived, for example including FEAD target groups 
in ESF social inclusion measures.  

104 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.3.2. 

The alignment of CRII and CRII+ ESF and FEAD 
operations with actions under other EU instruments  

ESF  and  FEAD  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  have  overall  a  good  degree  of 
coherence with measures taken under related EU funding instruments and initiatives.  

To  ensure  a  swift  COVID-19  response,  financial  resources  were  quickly  mobilised  to 
support  Member  States.  EU  Cohesion  policy  funds  were  a  key  crisis  response  tool. 
Alongside CRII and CRII+ being adopted in spring 2020, other funding mechanisms were 
launched in the following months.  

 

 

the  Commission  proposed 

the  NextGenerationEU  as  a 
In  May  2020, 
comprehensive  recovery  plan  to  allocate  750  EUR  billion  to  help  Member  States 
reconstruct their economies and work towards building a greener, digital and more 
resilient Europe.  

In May 2021, the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was mobilised to provide more than 
500  million  EUR  financial  support  to  support  populations  affected  by  COVID-19 
including  ‘Special  assistance  to  the  public,  especially  to  vulnerable  groups  (the 
elderly,  people  with  health  problems,  pregnant  women,  single  working  parents, 
etc.)’.209 During 2020-2021, more than 385.5 million has been used in 17 Member 
States to combat COVID-19.210 The fund has been used to purchase medical and 
protective  equipment,  to  support  prevention  measures  and  safeguard  public 
health.211  

  Some  EU funding mechanisms  and  programmes  have  been  amended  or created 
anew  to  combat  consequences  of  the  pandemic  and  further  complemented  the 
actions  conducted  through  ESF  and  FEAD.  Those  relevant  to  the  employment, 
healthcare,  education  and  training  and  social  inclusion  areas  in  the  scope  of  this 
study include, among others, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 
and the temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency 
(SURE). 

ERDF is complementary to ESF support in several areas, including investments in social, 
health,  research,  innovation,  business  and  educational  infrastructure.212  ERDF  enabled 
CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  to  ensure  synergies  with  ESF  programmes  through  financial 
reallocation mechanisms.213 Unused funds were moved from the ESF to the ERDF (in many 
cases  of  regional  OPs)  to  further  support  COVID-19  measures  in  less  developed  and 
transitional regions.214 Equally, unspent funds from ERDF were reallocated to the ESF and 
were  programmed  to  support  employment  policy  operations,  followed  by  education  and 

209 European Commission (n.d.). COVID-19 - EU Solidarity Fund. Available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/solidarity-fund/covid-19  
210 17 Member States and 3 candidate countries requested the EUSF support: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, 
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Spain; Albania, 
Montenegro and Serbia. See: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2022/01/19-01-2022-eu-cohesion-
policy-almost-eur385-5-million-from-the-eu-solidarity-fund-to-19-countries-to-tackle-the-coronavirus-health-emergency 
211 European Commission (2022). EU Cohesion policy: Almost €385.5 million from the EU Solidarity Fund to 19 countries to 
tackle the coronavirus health emergency. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2022/01/19-
01-2022-eu-cohesion-policy-almost-eur385-5-million-from-the-eu-solidarity-fund-to-19-countries-to-tackle-the-coronavirus-
health-emergency  
212 EUR-Lex (n.d.). REGULATION (EU) No 1301/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 
December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for 
growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1301&from=en  
213 European Parliament (2020). REACT-EU: additional support of €47.5 billion agreed to address impact of COVID-19. 
Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201113IPR91597/react-eu-additional-support-of-EU47-
5-bn-agreed-to-address-impact-of-covid-19  
214 Cohesion data dashboard (n.d.). Available at: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/. 

105 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

training, and social inclusion operations.215 For instance, in Germany (Brandenburg), EUR 
19 million were shifted from ERDF to ESF (TO 9) to support the procurement of personal 
protective equipment and the employability of disadvantaged groups. In 2021-2027, further 
actions as part of the REACT-EU funding will support investments in product and services 
for health services or in social infrastructure and investments to support SMEs.  

SURE has distributed more than 91.8 billion EUR to help support approximately 31 million 
people and 2.5 million firms in 2020 in 19 Member States.216 All countries that asked for a 
SURE loan were fully or partially granted the loan. The SURE Regulation was adopted by 
the Council on 19 May 2020. The support continued in 2021 in 13 Member States and was 
then phased out in 2022.217 It was designed to ‘support short-time work schemes and similar 
measures,  to  help  Member  States  protect  jobs  and  thus  employees  and  self-employed 
against the risk of unemployment and loss of income’.218 A few Member States used national 
funds to supplement SURE financing on eligible measures, indicating the relevance of the 
measures.219 

Half of the financial support under SURE was allocated to STWS in the Member States; 
one third was allocated to similar measures targeting the self-employed; and the remainder 
to wage subsidy measures and health-related measures (to support the safe resumption of 
work activities).220 Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Italy and Ireland used existing funding 
schemes to increase additional funding through SURE.221 16 of the Member States that 
used  SURE  also  planned  to  use  ESF  to  support  STWS  under  the  CRII/  CRII+ 
flexibilities (BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, GR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK).222 ESF 
provided support to STWS mostly for passive measures (wage subsidies to avoid job loss 
and support self-employed people), but in a few cases also included active measures (e.g., 
operations in Germany – Bavaria included professional training in areas such as digitisation 
to  support  the  professional  adaptation  of  the  workforce  to  the  requirements  of  the  labor 
market). 

Most countries combined different funding streams. The sectors most supported by SURE 
loans  were  accommodation  and  food  services,  wholesale  and  retail  trade,  and 
manufacturing. There are indications that the STWS implemented with ESF support under 
CRII/  CRII+  are  targeted  at  a  wide  range  of  sectors,  without  a  particular  focus.  There  is 
insufficient  information  available  in  the  SFC2014  database  for  further  analysis  about 
whether the SURE and ESF support have overlapped or targeted different sectors.  

The use of ESF funding in combination with SURE funding in respect of STWS suggests 
that the funds were complementary and enabled Member States to supplement pre-existing 
STWS with additional funding or set up new STWS to address the needs created by the 
pandemic. Given the much larger financial envelope of SURE, its use indicates that ESF 

215 Cohesion data (n.d.).CRII COVID - Change in fund allocations since 31/5/2020. Available at : 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd  
216 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia, see proposed loan amount at https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-
financial-
assistance/sure_en#:~:text=The%20temporary%20Support%20to%20mitigate,coronavirus%20outbreak%20on%20their%2
0territory  
217 European Commission (2022). Fourth report on the implementation of SURE. Available at: https://economy-
finance.ec.europa.eu/document/51f920eb-d163-43ae-b5da-d793290bb54d_en  
218 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/financial-assistance-
eu/funding-mechanisms-and 
facilities/sure_en#:~:text=The%20temporary%20Support%20to%20mitigate,coronavirus%20outbreak%20on%20their%20te
rritory  
219  European Commission (2022). Fourth report on the implementation of SURE, p. 2. Available at: https://economy-
finance.ec.europa.eu/document/51f920eb-d163-43ae-b5da-d793290bb54d_en 
220 European Commission (2022). Fourth report on the implementation of SURE, p. 2. Available at: https://economy-
finance.ec.europa.eu/document/51f920eb-d163-43ae-b5da-d793290bb54d_en  
221 Ibid. 
222 Based on the CRII/ CRII+ ESF operations identified in the SFC2014 database in the timeline of this preliminary 
evaluation (based on OP amendments submitted before October 2022).  

106 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

support  was  not  sufficient  relative  to  the  needs  on  the  ground  in  the  countries  whose 
economies and employment situation were most affected by the pandemic.  

Overlaps in terms of areas supported through CRII/ CRII+ and SURE funding do not appear 
to have impacted the effectiveness of these measures. For example, both CRII and CRII+ 
measures aimed to keep people employed or in training similar to SURE support, however, 
CRII  measures  were  deemed  by  interviewed  stakeholders  to  be  more  operational  and 
allowed the reallocation of funding to different sectors in need. SURE enabled additional 
funding where ESF funds were insufficient.  

No contradictions in the use of ESF and FEAD under CRII/ CRII+ and the use of other 
funds to mitigate the impact of the pandemic were revealed in the research. This was 
confirmed by stakeholders consulted through various channels (interviews, surveys, focus 
groups). The existing procedures and a continuous dialogue between the Commission and 
the Managing Authorities enabled the Member States to support the alignment of operations 
funded by various instruments and mechanisms, which helped to avoid double funding and 
enable  synergies.  For  example,  in  the  area  of  healthcare,  the  upskilling  and  training  of 
healthcare personnel was funded through ESF while support to healthcare infrustructure, 
transportation of the vaccines and the vaccination process was funded through the ERDF. 
The collaboration between different ministries and other agencies at national level were also 
increased during the pandemic, to support the alignment of cross-government actions (e.g. 
in  BE  and  PT,  inter-ministerial  commitees  and  frequent  meetings  were  organised  to 
coordinate  actions  and  their  implementation).  The  Commission  also  encouraged  the 
Member  States  to  effectively  use  their  monitoring  systems  at  national  level  to  ensure 
complementarity of funding instruments.  

The  research  also  indicated  areas where  coherence  could  be  improved  in  the  future. 
Some  challenges  were  noted  by  consulted  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  administrative 
burden arising from managing the different types of EU initiatives, funding mechanisms and 
regulations issued in a short time span (CRII and CRII+, REACT-EU, SURE, CARE) and 
their overlap with the beginning of the new programming period. Notwithstanding, there is 
wide agreement that these mechanisms supported crisis response in the Member States 
(in different ways) at critical times in the evolution of the pandemic. Consultations conducted 
for this study also indicate that the variety of existing instruments also posed challenges at 
the  level  of  project  beneficiaries  (organisations  implementing  ESF/  FEAD  support)  and 
organisations that represents key target groups and would require further detailed guidance 
about the opportunities they offer and their different priorities.  

4.3.3. 

Coherence of the operations supported following CRII and 
CRII+ adoption with other operations implemented at 
national/ regional level 

Systematic evidence across the EU about the scope and objectives of anti-crisis measures 
funded by national and/or regional budgets is still limited. There are, however, indications 
that ESF and FEAD contributions under CRII and CRII+ aligned with other national 
and regional level interventions and supported responses to the COVID-19 pandemic 
in the key socio-economic areas where negative impacts were concentrated.  

For instance, to mitigate negative effects on employment, governments introduced STWS 
and  other  similar  measures  expanding  support  to  non-standard  employees,  such  as 
temporary agency workers.223 To increase protection for people with limited or no links to 

223 Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S., and Regazzoni, P. (2021). 
Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis of policies in 35 countries. ESPN. p. 14. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153  

107 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

the labour market (i.e. children, students, social assistance beneficiaries), Member States 
provided social assistance support.224 Member States also began to provide income support 
for the self-employed, based on strict eligibility criteria however.225 ESF support under CRII/ 
CRII+  for  STWS  complemented  other  funds  used  for  similar  measures  by,  for  instance, 
extending the groups or the number of individuals targeted by these schemes, or to specific 
sectors (e.g. ES, IT, SK). ESF operations, along with REACT-EU and ERDF, were part of 
a larger scheme to stimulate the economy and close monitoring was  required to provide 
oversight over what different funds were bring used for (e.g., in HU). 

ESF under CRII/ CRII+ also played a role in national anti-crisis strategies even when the 
funding  volume  was  relatively  limited.  Evidence  from  stakeholder  consultations  indicates 
that in Luxembourg, for instance, since most ESF funding was already committed before 
the  pandemic,  ESF  investments  were  limited,  but  even  so,  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives were used to support the economy (though a STWS) and were complementary 
with other funding streams (e.g. the use of REACT-EU to support STWS and for large-scale 
COVID-19 testing and vaccinations). In Portugal, ESF under CRII/ CRII+ complemented 
national funding in particular in the education/ training area, and supported training focusing 
on  digital  skills  –  targeting  companies  as well  as young  people in universities (aiming to 
increase their employability) – as well as the acquisition of equipment that supported the 
acceleration  of  the  implementation  of  the  Plan for  the  digital Transition to  education  and 
improve the functioning of the education and training system.  

The  case  studies  (see  Annex  6)  include  a  number  of  further  concrete  examples  of 
coherence of CRII/ CRII+ ESF operations with national and regional measures implemented 
during the pandemic. For example: 

 

 

 

In  Spain,  the  new  operation  aimed  at  preserving  employment  of  young  workers 
through  the  temporary  employment  regulation  scheme  during  the  pandemic  was 
coherent with national and regional measures. Before the pandemic, Spain did not 
have  a  tradition  of  using  STWS  as  a  measure  to  deal  with  crisis  situations.  The 
reprogramming  of  the  Youth  Employment  OP,  thanks  to  the  CRII  and  CRII+ 
flexibilities, enabled the financing of the STWS specifically for youth in all economic 
sectors (given the persistently high unemployment levels of this group following the 
financial and economic crisis). This measure was in line with other initiatives, as the 
key  legislative  acts  that  supported  the  response  to  COVID-19  in  Spain  included 
income  maintenance  measures  for  workers  and  the  self-  employed  and  liquidity 
guarantee instruments for SMEs.  

In Greece, the operation selected as a case study aimed at reinforcing the capacity 
of health institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 crisis is coherent with 
Greece’s objectives of recruiting additional staff, to support the healthcare system. 
National  funding  was  used  to  reinforce  staff  recruitment  in  regions  where  ESF 
funding  available  through  CRIII/  CRII+  was  insufficient  due to  a  pre-existing  high 
level of absorption. 

In Poland, the operation ‘Street work Academy’ (selected as a case study), aimed 
at providing assistance to homeless people and street workers in public spaces, was 
coherent  to  other  activities  implemented  by  national  and  regional  authorities  in 
Poland.  Resources  from  both  ESF  and  national/local  budgets  were  focused  on 
providing  the  broadest  possible  support  to  homeless  people  and  those  at  risk  of 
homelessness  during  the  pandemic.  Authorities in  the  cities  where  this  operation 
was  implemented  (Warsaw,  Wrocław,  Gdańsk,  Gliwice,  and  Jelenia  Góra) 

224 Ibid, p. 14.  
225  Eurofound 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife  

for  employment  and  working 

(2021).  COVID-19: 

Implications 

life,  p.77.  Available  at: 

108 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

contributed from their own budgets for the purchase and rental of infrastructure (e.g. 
all day shelters). 

 

In  Latvia,  both  ESF  operations  selected  as  case  studies  (‘Improving  the 
qualifications  of  medical  and  paramedical  staff’  and  ‘Support  for  medical 
practitioners who provide treatment for patients to prevent public health crises’) are 
aligned to national measures implemented in healthcare sector during the COVID-
19 pandemic. National funding reinforced the budget available through ESF (as later 
also did REACT-EU funding) to support the recruitment of healthcare professionals 
and provide top-ups to their salaries. Other measures funded by the national budget 
also focused on healthcare objectives, e.g. through the adjustment of infrastructure 
to the care needs of COVID-19 patients, the provision of medical equipment, and 
personal  protection  equipment.  Stakeholders  interviewed  emphasised  particular 
attention was paid to ensuring that each operation/ action had its own objective and 
that there were no overlaps, as part of the planning process involving ESF and other 
funds.  

 

In  Italy,  the  ‘New  Skills  Fund’  is  aligned  with  other  the  national  and  regional 
measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the actions taken to protect 
workers’ jobs as a result of a reduction of activity, including job-protection measures 
for some categories of non-standard workers and the self-employed. 

Further analysis about the role of ESF and FEAD in national anti-crisis response is provided 
in Section 4.5 (Contribution).  

4.3.4. 

Coherence between the immediate anti-crisis operations 
supported following CRII and CRII+ adoption and middle- 
and long-term plans to use ESF and FEAD (under REACT-
EU and ESF+) 

There is a good level of coherence between immediate anti-crisis operations and the 
medium to long term crisis response through REACT-EU and the ESF+.  

REACT-EU, with nearly 50 billion EUR226 available through the ERDF (23.6 billion), the ESF 
(15.3  billion)  and  FEAD  (512  million)227  aims  to  further  extend  the  measures  delivered 
through CRII and CRII+. REACT-EU serves as a bridge between the long-term Cohesion 
policy and the COVID-19-related crisis measures introduced at the start of the pandemic. It 
aims  to  ensure  that  Cohesion  funds  can  contribute  to  a  green,  digital  and  resilient 
recovery.228  

There is complementarity between the use of CRII/ CRII+ and REACT-EU. The analysis 
of the financial shifts (see Section 4.1.2 and Annex 1 – Appendix 2) shows the increase in 
the funding of TO9 social inclusion across most Member States (by EUR 2.1 billion), and to 
some  extent  of  TO8  employment  (EUR  0.2  billion),  while  TO10  and  TO11  funding 
decreased. The figure below compares the share of the total volume of reallocations of ESF 
funding from May 2020 to April 2022, with the allocation of the additional REACT-EU funding 
provided  to  the  Member  States  for  TO8  and  TO9.  It  shows  the  focus  on  TO9  in  the 
immediate  and  short-term  reaction  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  while  the 
Member  States  allocated  the  vast  majority  of  additional  REACT-EU  funding  to  TO8, 

226 European Commission (n.d.). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-
response/react-eu/  
227 Cohesion data  (n.d.). REACT-EU  Fostering crisis repair and resilience. Available at : 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/REACT-EU-Fostering-crisis-repair-and-resilience/26d9-dqzy/  
228 European Commission (n.d.). REACT-EU. Available at : https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/react-eu  

109 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

providing funding for employment related operations bringing people closer to the labour 
market and (back) into employment. 

Figure 10: Comparing the allocation of shifts and the allocation of REACT-EU 
funding allocated to selected TOs229 

To combat the consequences of the pandemic, ESF+ with over 99 billion EUR will further 
support young people, help children in need, focus on reskilling/upskilling efforts and social 
innovation.230  The  new  priority  areas  indicated  in  the  post  2020  cohesion  policy 
documentation focus on 231 job retention, support to SMEs, health, youth employment and 
child poverty, along with key sectors affected by COVID-19 such as healthcare, culture and 
tourism. Additional funding during 2021-2027 (e.g. an estimated 26.2 billion EUR from the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  NextGenerationEU 
further 
complement CRII and CRII+ actions with a similar thematic focus on the target groups and 
thematic priorities. 

resources) 

The overview of anti-crisis operations enabled by CRII and CRII+ (Section 3) shows that 
there are many ESF and FEAD operations implemented under CRII and CRII+ that aim to 
address immediate as well as medium-term consequences of COVID-19 crisis. There are 
indications that some of the measures that were initiated during the pandemic will continue 
in  some  countries  and  that  plans  are  being  finalised  as  part  of  the  ESF+  programming 
process for the 2021-2027 period, as well as through longer term REACT-EU measures.  

For instance, some of the CRII and CRII+ measures aimed to support employers and self-
employed (e.g., DK, FR, GR, PL, PT), support young people (ES, PL) and distance learning 
and digital skills in education and training (FR, IT, PL, PT). Those measures did not just 
provide  an  immediate  support  to  the  target  groups  (by  for  example  providing  digital 
equipment  to  the  disadvantaged)  but  also  created  synergies  with  the  future  structural 
interventions  under  REACT-EU/ESF+  funds  linked  to  further  support  for  digital  skills,  e-
learning and other measures. In Greece, for instance, according to consulted stakeholders, 
the  programming  of  ESF+  includes  plans  to  continue  measures  that  started  to  be 
implemented during the pandemic, such as e-learning or creating open online courses in 
higher  education.  In  Luxembourg,  REACT-EU  funding  was  used  in  addition  to  the 

229  Source:  Authors’  calculation  based  on  SFC2014  and 
Categorisation/REACT-EU-EU-allocation-by-intervention-fields-with/eeg2-hpr4 (extracted on 28 September 2022) 
230  European  Social  Fund 
new, 
https://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=en  
231 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/factsheet/2020_mff_reacteu_en.pdf  

Commission 

(n.d.).  A 

European 

european 

Available 

stronger 

(n.d.). 

social 

fund 

plus.  Available 

:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-

at : 

at : 

110 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CRII/CRII+  measures  starting  from  2021.  The  funding  contributed  to  the  existing  FEAD 
operation  in  the  country  and  absorbed some  of  the  extra  costs  of  the  adjustments  (e.g., 
running  the  e-platform  to  support  grocery  shopping,  support  additional  staff).  In  Italy, 
REACT-EU  funds  (4.7  billion  EUR)  further  complemented  CRII/  CRII+  operations 
supporting job creation and retainment, by enabling tax reductions for employers on social 
contributions and the social contribution for employers hiring people under the age of 36. 

The  support  provided  under  REACT-EU  further  reinforces  the  complementarity  between 
ERDF and ESF, with the former focusing on supporting investment in health services and 
SMEs  (among  other  priorities)  while  ESF  resources  are  aimed  at  protecting  jobs,  job 
creation (in particular for people in vulnerable situations and youth) and skills development 
and enhanced access to social services.232  

4.4. 

The contribution of CRII and CRII+ to the crisis 
response 

Key findings 

  CRII and CRII+ contributed to Member States’ capacity to provide a more rapid 
response to  mitigate the  negative effects  of the COVID-19  pandemic  and  to 
use  ESF  and  FEAD  for  anti-crisis  measures  across  the  social  inclusion, 
employment,  education and  training,  and  healthcare  areas (for  traditional  as 
well  as  new  target  groups).  Some  Member  States  used  the  CRII/  CRII+ 
flexibilities more than others (see Section 3) and hence the response initiatives 
contributed to a different extent across the different countries.  

  CRII  and  CRII+  also  facilitated  frequent  exchanges  between  government 
representatives  and 
the  European  Commission,  cross-governmental 
cooperation at national level, and social partner consultations in the Member 
States in the planning stages of support measures in order to avoid duplication. 
The need for urgent decision-making and actions brought on by the pandemic 
also led at times to new ways of cooperating (e.g. the establishment of cross-
departmental  working  groups),  involving  a  wide  variety  of  government 
authorities and stakeholders across the affected areas of employment, social 
inclusion, education and health. CRII and CRII+ also enabled greater cross-
fund  cooperation  under 
the  EU  cohesion  policy,  supporting  aligned 
interventions at the EU, national and regional levels during the pandemic. 

CRII and CRII+ contributed to crisis response in several main areas, in line with the 
intervention logic: 

  Providing flexibility to the Member States to react swiftly to the COVID-19 crisis 
and implement operations through ESF and FEAD more quickly than may have 
been possible in their absence, especially in the beginning of the pandemic, 
and generally across the employment, social inclusion, education and training, 
and  healthcare  policy  domains  in  line  with  the  compounded  challenges 
triggered  by  the  pandemic  (rather  than  only  supporting  single  areas  of 
intervention).  

  Reducing administrative burden in accessing the ESF and FEAD, which in turn 
facilitated  implementing  bodies  to  access  ESF  and  FEAD  more  quickly  and 
address fast evolving needs on the ground. 

232 European Commission (n.d.). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-
response/react-eu/  

111 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

the 

children, 

homeless), 

  Enabling the use of ESF and FEAD to fund adjusted operations as well as new 
activities in crisis times that extended the target groups and types of actions, 
along  with  adjusting  the  scope  of  existing  operations  to  provide  inclusive 
support  for  vulnerable  individuals  (e.g.,  the  elderly,  people  with  disabilities, 
families  with 
employment, 
education/training activities, and supporting the functioning of the healthcare 
system.  Many  CRII  and  CRII+  operations  focused  support  on  areas  where 
needs grew exponentially as a result of the crisis (e.g. supporting employers 
and workers, the healthcare system, and access to services), which explains 
the strong  increase  in the  share  of end recipients  under TO8  and TO9. The 
share of participations under TO 10 and TO11 decreased during the pandemic, 
however,  showing  reduced  investments  in  these  areas.  COVID-19  FEAD 
operations also continued to target the most deprived through food and other 
material aid and contributed to a higher number of people supported through 
FEAD actions in 2020 relative to pre-pandemic years. 

supporting 

ESF  and  FEAD  objectives  address  structural  inequalities  but  have  also  proved  to 
offer added value in supporting crisis response during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 
two objectives are not mutually exclusive, but deeply interrelated. The anti-crisis operations 
enabled  by  CRII  and  CRII+  addressed  the  immediate  needs  on  the  ground  during  the 
pandemic,  but  these  equally  reflect  longer-term  needs,  including  investment  in  jobs  and 
labour mobility, the inclusion of and access to services for the most vulnerable groups, the 
boosting  of  digital  skills,  and  the  adaptation  of  workers,  students  and  companies to  new 
ways of working and learning.  

CRII and CRII+ contributed to avoiding higher unemployment levels, alongside other 
EU  and  national  instruments.  Employment  measures  at  Member  State  level  generally 
needed funding in addition to that available through ESF, and additional resources needed 
to  be  pulled  from  other  funding  streams.  As  analysed  in  Sections  3,  4.3.1  and  4.3.2, 
however,  ESF  operations  overall  played  an  important  role  in  preserving  jobs  and 
supporting workers at risk of losing their jobs in the Member States (often through STWS 
that were often co-funded through a variety of sources including the ESF, national budgets, 
loans  from  SURE,  or  REACT-EU).  CRII  and/or  CRII+  enabled  operations  to  help  young 
people  find  jobs  (e.g.  during  summer  holidays),  supported  companies  in  a  situation  of 
suspension  of  activity,  allowing  the  maintenance  of  many  jobs  and  resulting  in  positive 
social impacts, and provided IT equipment to ensure that people could work from home. 
Regarding education and training, CRII and CRII+ helped enable a range of government 
actions, including alleviating the impact of disrupted education during school closures and 
boosting digital skills. With respect to healthcare, ESF operations provided, among other 
types of support, assistance in the provision of personal and direct protective equipment for 
medical and care facilities.  

Newly  introduced  ESF  operations  under  CRII/CRII+  for  example  involved:  healthcare-
focused measures to mitigate the negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
healthcare systems and staff ; employment operations to protect jobs as well as provide 
support  to  the  self-employed  and  small  businesses  and  support  to  workers  on  furlough 
because the employers were forced to close their services; support to people and families 
in vulnerable situations (exacerbated by COVID-19) with socio-educational and community 
services;  support  to  elderly  people  and  people  with  disabilities,  in  particular  those  living 
independently  including  measures  aiming to ensure  that  they  remain healthy  and active; 
support for distance learning education services. These operations aimed to increase the 
participation  of  diverse  groups  affected  by  the  pandemic  and  responded  to  the  existing 
needs  through  windening  the  scope  of  the  actions funded  by  ESF  during  the  pandemic. 
FEAD operations under CRII/ CRII+ were mostly adjusted to the pandemic context and 

112 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

involved  the  adaptation  of  aid  delivery  or  accompanying  measures  to  COVID-19  risks, 
confinements, and protection measures.  

The  take-up  of  CRII/  CRII+  flexibilities  and  the  extent  of  the  role  of  ESF  and  FEAD 
under CRII/ CRII+ in different countries is linked to a range of factors, including the level 
of  unspent  resources  available  through  ESF  and  FEAD  at  the  end  of  the  2014-2020 
programming period, the severity of the crisis and the range of the needs on the ground, 
and the availability of other funds. ESF interventions under CRII/ CRII+ were also, in some 
instances,  more  limited  in  scope  relative  to  complementary  measures  funded  from  other 
(national or EU) sources. Other situations of limited contribution of ESF through CRII/ CRII+ 
to crisis response were based on the perception that reallocations in programming would 
still represent a burden (despite the flexibilities) when balanced against how the ESF could 
already be used without this. 

4.4.1. 

The contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRII and CRII+ 
to crisis reaction 

The funds made available through ESF and FEAD under the coronavirus response 
initiatives  played  a  role within  a  wider  anti-crisis  response  context,  where  actions 
were  also  supported  by  other  EU  initiatives  and  the  corresponding  financial 
instruments, as well as national and regional budgets. CRII and CRII+ contributions to 
alleviating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have complemented these other 
EU  level  and  national  actions  as  part  of  a  concerted  effort  but  would  have  likely  been 
insufficient as stand-alone tools (see also Section 4.3 on Coherence).  

CRII and CRII+ contributed to crisis reactions, process-wise, by providing flexibility to 
the Member States to react swiftly to the COVID-19 crisis and implement operations through 
ESF and FEAD more quickly than may have been possible in their absence, especially in 
the beginning of the pandemic and across the employment, social inclusion, education and 
training, and healthcare policy domains. CRII and CRII+ reduced administrative burden in 
accessing the ESF and FEAD, which in turn facilitated implementing bodies to access ESF 
and FEAD more quickly as anticipated in the intervention logic behind the initiatives (see 
Section 2.2). 

The contributions of ESF and FEAD to crisis reaction were made possible and in a timely 
manner due to the step-by-step approach taken at EU level, which enabled the quick 
adoption of different initiatives sequentially (CRII, CRII+, REACT-EU), which enabled 
the Member States to reprogramme and use existing resources more quickly than would 
have  likely  been  possible  otherwise,  for  example  if  a  more  comprehensive  response 
package would have been adopted at a later time after the onset of the pandemic.  

Cross-fund cooperation under the EU cohesion policy was critical to supporting swift 
and aligned interventions at the EU, national and regional levels during the pandemic, e.g. 
through  the  reallocation of  ERDF funds for  ESF operations.  As  discussed in Section  4.1 
(Effectiveness) and Annex 1 – Appendix 2 (Financial reallocations between the ERDF, the 
Cohesion Fund and the ESF), Member States reallocated funds in different ways as a 
reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some countries reallocated funds from the ERDF to 
the  ESF  and  from  the  ESF  to  the  ERDF  (DE,  FR,  IT,  PT),  while  in  some  the  shift  was 
unilateral: in CZ, HU, LT, LV, SK, ERDF funds were allocated to the ESF, but not vice-versa; 
while in IE and PL funds were reallocated only from ESF to ERDF. These patterns reflect 
the needs on the ground and the extent of unspent funds, and show a diverse picture of 
how CRII and CRII+ flexibilities contributed to crisis response in the Member States.  

Operations  have  broadly  responded  to  emerging  needs  on  the  ground,  thus 
contributing to the overall crisis response. Forthcoming evaluations of the operational 
programmes including the COVID-19 operations are expected to include additional relevant 
113 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

information about the extent to which the operations responded to the existing needs, but 
the  evidence  available  to  date  indicates  that  CRII/  CRII+  ESF  and  FEAD  operations 
implemented  activities  targeting  key  groups  whose  needs  were  amplified  by  the 
pandemic, as well as entities whose functioning was disrupted by the pandemic or 
the  lockdown  measures.  This  is  supported  by  stakeholder  consultations.  Some 
stakeholders  (e.g.  in  FR,  PL  and  FI)  emphasised  that  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+ 
contributed in synergy with other actions to strengthen the crisis response, with ESF funds 
playing  a  comparatively  smaller,  albeit  important  role  compared  to  major  national 
emergency programs.  

Overall, the flexibilities introduced with CRII and CRII+ allowed Member States to mitigate 
the  health  and  socio-economic  impact  of  the  pandemic  and  use  resources  more 
quickly than may have been possible in their absence. The additional scope available 
for  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  crisis  was  also  viewed 
positively by interviewed stakeholders. ESF survey findings indicate, however, that nearly 
40% (20 out of 51) of the Managing Authorities that responded to the question would have 
used the ESF for anti-crisis reaction without the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. However, 27% 
(14 out of51) of the ESF survey respondents indicated that allocations would have been 
difficult to spend in the absence of the flexibilities introduced by CRII / CRII+. Equally, half 
(5 out of 10) of FEAD survey respondents would have used FEAD for anti-crisis reaction 
without  the  CRII  and/or  CRII+  flexibilities.  No  FEAD  survey  respondents  indicated  that 
allocations would have been difficult to spend in the absence of the flexibilities introduced 
by CRII / CRII+.  Even in these cases, however, there is wide agreement that CRII/ CRII+ 
flexibilities simplified and accelerated the process. 

The research revealed some possible limitations in the use of the ESF and FEAD during 
the  pandemic,  indicating  that  while  operations  focused  significantly  on  providing 
employment, healthcare and social inclusion support, the funds were not available to the 
same extent across all sectors where needs increased as a result of the pandemic (e.g. the 
social care sector). This was highlighted as a limitation in one stakeholder interview.  

The analysis of ESF changes in participation before and during the pandemic (presented in 
Annex  1  –  Appendix  3)  shows  that  six  IPs  (8.i;  8.ii;  8.v;  9.ii;  9.iv  and  9.vi)  had  more 
participations  in 2020  than  in 2019,  notably  including  9.iv  access  to  services despite the 
stakeholder comment noted above around social care (which this IP in large part focuses 
on). In addition, these increases in participation correlate overall with an increase in financial 
volumes allocated to these IPs. Examples of operations focusing on the social care aspect, 
e.g. by engaging community workers in reaching target groups were also discussed in the 
case  studies  operations implementated  in  Poland  and  Romania,  in  Annex  6,  suggesting 
that the sector was indeed a focus.  

limited  flexibilities 

One of the factors that limited the contribution of CRII and CRII+ to crisis response 
involved  the 
in  the  national  procedures  related  to  the 
implementation of the COVID-19 actions and the reduced capacity of implementing 
organisations. As shown in the case studies in Annex 6 (e.g. Reinforcing the Capacity of 
Health  Institutions  with  additional  staff  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  in  Greece  and  the 
Support for distance learning services in Italy – Lazio), national level procedures remained 
the  same  during  the  pandemic,  and  the  administrative  burden  of  implementing  and 
implementing 
monitoring 
organisations  (e.g.,  hospitals,  schools  or  SMEs)  in  managing  both  the  reporting  and  the 
monitoring required was a challenge to the effectiveness of operations on the ground. In 
Greece, the Ministry of Health took measures to support hospitals with technical assistance 
to respond to the ESF’s administrative requirements and thus increase the effectiveness of 
the process and the contribution of CRII and CRII+ flexibilities across the value chain.  

these  actions  remained  heavy.  The 

limited  capacity  of 

114 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overall,  however,  contributions  made  by  CRII  and  CRII+  outweigh  the  challenges 
encountered in the use of the flexibilities, making a key contribution in the early stages 
of the pandemic, when the need for liquidity and support was at peak in the Member States.  

The measures put into place through the ESF to respond to the pandemic have been 
broader and faster than those put into place to respond to the 2008-2009 economic 
crisis, possibly because the effects of the COVID-19 crisis were more wide-reaching across 
sectors and groups. Notwithstanding this, there are similarities between the ESF reaction 
to the  pandemic  and the  economic  crisis,  in terms  of  the  role  of the  ESF  within national 
policies  in  different  country  contexts,  the  availability  of  additional  funding  sources  (via 
national budgets and/or other EU mechanisms), as well as the extent to which the economy 
was affected by the crises. A notable difference is that during the economic crisis, the ESF 
was a key instrument to fund active labour market policies, in particular in countries that 
were most affected and where these instruments had not been used to a significant extent 
before.233 During the pandemic, the countries that made use of the CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities 
tended  to  use  ESF  to  fund  not  only  employment  operations  (which  included  active  and 
passive job retention measures) but also actions across all other thematic objectives (albeit 
to different degrees).  

As evidenced in Section 4.1 (Effectiveness) and 4.2 (Efficiency) CRII and CRII+ facilitated 
a quick response to the crisis by way of the exceptional flexibilities made available.  This 
process  decreased  the  complexity  of  administrative  processes 
in 
reprogramming  ESF  in  particular  (as  FEAD’s  OPs  are  more  flexible  by  comparison). 
Results orientation, strategic planning, a shared management and bottom-up approach, as 
well  as  the  resulting  procedural  requirements  are  among  the  ESF’s  key  features,  which 
contribute to a lengthy and complex programming and implementation. In the exceptional 
COVID-19 circumstances, these procedures were relaxed to ensure liquidity and speed, but 
they  were  not  eliminated  completely  and  were  sometimes  compounded  by  national  level 
regulations  (which  were  often  not  subject  to  similar  types  of  flexibilities,  as  discussed 
above).  These  features  also  shape  and  to  a  certain  extent  limit  the  ESF’s  role  in  crisis 
reaction. They are nonetheless critical to supporting post-pandemic recovery and ensuing 
that a focus on the long-term socio-economic challenges in the ESF’s key areas of activity 
(employment, social inclusion, education and training) can be maintained. 

involved 

4.4.2. 

The role of ESF and FEAD operations in the 
national/regional anti-crisis reactions 

CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  increased  opportunities  for  Member  States  to  integrate 
ESF and FEAD into national strategies for COVID-19 response. As shown in Section 
4.3  (Coherence),  govenments  used  various  EU  and  national  funding  options  during  the 
pandemic.  Decisions  related  to  which  funds  should  be  used  to  implement  different 
measures  were  taken  in  view  of  the  needs  on  the  ground  and  the  sources  of  financing 
available at the time. Flexibilities such as the retroactive eligibility enabled Member States 
to make quick decisions focused on the needs on the ground and to use the ESF to recover 
the financial investment later on (as shown in Annex 6 – the case study of the operation on 
Reinforcing  the  Capacity  of  Health  Institutions  with  additional  staff  during  the  COVID-19 
crisis  in  Greece).  In  the  absence  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities,  due  to  the  complex 
process involved in reprogramming the Funds under standard procedures, the integration 
of ESF and FEAD in national strategies is likely to have been more limited.    

CRII and CRII+ contributed to providing greater flexibility for countries to reallocate 
financial  resources  and  thus  supported  an  anti-crisis  response.  Overall,  findings 
indicate  that  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  allowed  Member  States  to  fund  more 

233 European Commission, Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis, at 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7671&langId=en, p. 136. 

115 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

diverse actions needed in the context of the pandemic, sometimes expanding the scope of 
traditional ESF and FEAD actions. The flexibilities enabled countries to target areas such 
as preserving jobs and boosting digital skills for learners, provide assistance in the provision 
of personal and direct protective equipment for medical and care facilities, support young 
people  in  setting  up  their  own  business,  boost  digital  skills  and  provide  IT  equipment  to 
ensure that  people  could  work/study from  home,  and  enable fast  adaptation  of food  and 
material aid delivery to people’s homes (in the case of FEAD). 

This was achieved in a broader constellation of anti-crisis measures funded by EU 
funds  and  response  packages  and  national  budgets.  Evidence  from  desk  research 
shows that emergency funds at Member State level were created in several countries (e.g., 
AT, BE, DE, FI, FR, IE, IT), providing financial subsidies and income replacement. Results 
from desk research, including some recent studies evaluating the crisis response and their 
impact to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, show that Member States’ rapid social policy 
responses  were  key  in  the  effective  management  of  the  crisis,  especially  in  its  initial 
months.234 Governments adopted an array of policy measures to alleviate the impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. These ranged from targeted (often in-kind) measures on particularly 
strongly  hit groups,  such  as self-employed  or  low-income individuals,  elderly  people  and 
pupils with no equipment to access online learning, to measures which were based on the 
extension  or  flexibility  of  the  eligibility  criteria  for  support  (e.g.  unemployment  benefit, 
universal health coverage, increased material aid). Mitigation measures came in different 
forms and extent across Member States, relying on a variety of funding options.  

In the context of the national anti-crisis reactions at Member State level, the flexibilities 
enabled by CRII and CRII+ for the use of the ESF and FEAD during the pandemic were 
important tools in mitigating the negative effects of the pandemic – alongside other 
initiatives.  A variety of measures were developed at Member State level, across all four 
areas in the scope of this study.  

Employment  measures  included  liquidity  support  measures  to  businesses,  SMEs  and 
individuals,  improved  access  and  eligibility  to  unemployment  benefits  and  job  retention 
schemes (such as short-time work and wage subsidies).235 The majority of Member States 
suspended  payments  of  loans,  simplified  administrative  burdens  and  allowed  access  to 
interest-free  consumer  and  entrepreneurial  loans.  Governments  set  up  emergency 
unemployment funds and employment protection programmes using national resources or 
EU  funding  streams.  Most  Member  States  relied  on  short-time  work  schemes  and  wage 
subsidies.  

Additional  spending  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  in  the  education  and  training 
sector focused on several dimensions: general, non-earmarked funding (or specific target 
not mentioned); ICT-related funding (e.g. laptops, tablets, internet access); investment in 
better infrastructure (e.g. buildings); protective equipment, cleaning and prevention; hiring 
additional  teachers,  bonuses  for  teachers,  training  for  teachers;  summer  ‘bridging’ 
programmes; and counselling and assistance for students.236 At the beginning of the crisis, 
government  strategies  were  dominated  by  facilitating  the  swift  change  from  physical 
education  to  online  academic  learning  due  to  national  lockdowns  and  the  closure  of 
schools.  Measures  focused  on  ensuring  access  to  online  learning  via  the  provision  of 
equipment  to  students  and  necessary  training  for  teachers.  Further,  21  Member  States 

234 As evidenced in European Commission (2021), Joint Employment Report 2021; European Social Policy Network (2021), 
Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis,; Béland et al. (2021), Social policy in the face of a 
global pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID‐19 crisis, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8251102/. 
235 As evidenced in Eurofound (2020), COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life, COVID-19 series, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; Social Protection Committee, 2020 SPC annual review of the 
Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) and developments in social protection policies and ESPN (2021), Social 
protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. 
236 De Witte, K., Smet, M. (2021). ‘Financing education in the context of COVID-19’, EENEE Ad hoc report no. 03/2021. 
Available at: https://eenee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EENEE_AHQ03_Financing-education-in-the-context-of-COVID-
19-2.pdf 

116 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

provided parental  support  arrangements related to employment (e.g.:  leave,  reduction  of 
working  time)  with  varying  eligibility  and  duration.237  As  a  second  wave  of  responses, 
government actions focused  on alleviating the impact of disrupted education during school 
closures.238  Anti-crisis  measures  in  the  area  of  training  were  often  based  on  synergies 
between  vocational  training  providers  and  employers.  These  measures  include  the 
provision  of  financial  assistance  to  pupils239  and  material  made  available  by  the  French 
government, VET institutions and companies.240  

Social inclusion and protection measures were rolled out in the form of increased material 
support  to  targeted  socio-economically  disadvantaged  groups,  direct  support  with 
household expenses and measures for the elderly. Several Member States provided meal 
vouchers or free meals for school children and the elderly population (e.g. BE, ES, HU, IT), 
collected  and  distributed  materials  to  disadvantaged  groups  and  extended  coverage  to 
specific groups. Other measures include direct support with household expenses, subsidies 
for energy and water (e.g. BE, LT), debt alleviation support (e.g. CZ, HR, HU) or retail price 
ceilings on essential goods, like hygiene equipment (e.g. SK).241 

In  the  healthcare  sector,  measures  focused  on  the  temporary  extension  of  healthcare 
systems  to  treating  COVID-19,  and  providing  medical  equipment  and  vaccination.  In 
Member States where universal coverage is not provided by statutory healthcare systems 
(e.g.  EE,  PL,  RO),  COVID-19  was  introduced  to  the  covered  areas.  In  several  Member 
States  (e.g.  FR,  GR,  PT,  PL,  RO)  this  extension  also  included  some  vulnerable groups, 
such as refugees and migrants or those not covered by insurance. Other measures in the 
health sector were related to the support of online consultations.242 

Operations under CRII/ CRII+ were programmed in the early stages of the pandemic, at a 
time when there was limited information about the needs on the ground and how they would 
evolve. The broad scope of the operations in most countries shows that the Member 
States  used  ESF  to  support  crisis  response  across  all  or  most  areas  facing 
challenges, rather than concentrating on single areas, which is consistent with the CRII/ 
CRII+  intervention  logic  and  the  the  widespread  negative  impact  of  the  pandemic  on 
employment, healthcare, social inclusion and education in all countries.  

Some  countries  with  fewer  operations  have  focused  on  one  thematic  area  of 
intervention:  ESF  operations  under  CRII/CRII+  in  Belgium  targeted  healthcare  (2); 
operations in Czechia, Cyprus and Estonia focused on employment (1 operation in each 
country).  This  is,  however,  not  always  the  case,  as  Bulgaria’s  4  identified  operations 
under  CRII/  CRII+  have  addressed  all  four  thematic  areas,  Lithuania’s  operations 
concentrated on employment (1) and healthcare (2); Latvia’s operations targeted education 
(1)  and  healthcare  (3);  and  Slovenia  planned  operations  for  employment  (2)  and  social 
inclusion  (1).  Equally,  countries  with  a  high(er)  number  of  operations  addressed  at 
least three (DK, SK) or all four areas (e.g., DE, ES, FR, GR, IT, PL, PT, RO). Among the 
countries that made the most use of flexibilities, some have focused more on employment 
operations  (PT,  DK,  IT),  while  others  planned  a  similar  number  of  operations  across  all 
areas (PL) and others still on healthcare (FR).  

237 European Social Protection Network (2021), Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, p. 
20. 
238 European Expert Network on Economics of Education (2021), Policy measures to monitor and mitigate the negative 
impacts of COVID-19 and COVID-19 related policy measures on education, p. 32-38. 
239 European Social Protection Network (2021, Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, p. 
102-103. 
240 CEDEFOP (2020), France: Covid-19 crisis - ensuring continuity of learning in vocational training, 
https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/france-covid-19-crisis-ensuring-continuity-learning-vocational-training.  
241 European Social Protection Network (2021, Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, p. 
93, 104. 
242 European Social Protection Network (2021, Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, p. 
16, 71-72. 

117 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

As  discussed  in  Section  3,  the  number  of  operations  does  not  necessarily  mirror  their 
financial weight. The little information available to this study about the financial weight of 
each operation is a limitation to the extent to which conclusions can be drawn about the 
areas where CRII and CRII+ contributed the most in each country. Overall, however, based 
on  the  available  information,  CRII  and  CRII+  generally  added  value  to  country-level 
crisis response in several fields, rather than focusing on single areas.  

CRII/  CRII+  flexibilities  also  enabled  the  Member  States  to  plan  operations  that 
combined  several  elements,  thus  responding  to  the  interconnected  nature  of  the 
challenges.  For  example,  alongside  the  ESF  operations  identified  by  this  study  that 
concentrated  specifically  on  healthcare  systems  and  workers  (programmed  under  CRII/ 
CRII+  in  13  countries),243  there  are  social  inclusion  operations  that  included  a  health 
component, focusing on enabling access to services for the most vulnerable. These actions 
aimed to: 

 

improve  the  provision  of  health  services  to  people  affected  by  poverty  and  other 
socially vulnerable groups (GR – Crete, PL – Kujawsko-Pomorskie); 

  ensure access to health services for all, in particular vulnerable people and families, 
and to limit the spread of the infection and reduce impact on economic and social 
exclusion (e.g. IT, national); 

  provide  support for  childcare  services, for  the  elderly,  people with disabilities  and 

the most vulnerable to ensure they remain healthy and active (IT, Lazio); 

 

facilitate  access  to  assistance  services  by  individuals  with  limited  autonomy,  in 
conditions  aggravated  by  the  Covid-19  emergency;  consolidate  home  care  and 
assistance services in peope’s own homes (IT, Sardegna); 

  support social workers and community nurses who are involved in supporting elderly 
people  in  solitary  confinement  at  home  or  with  travel  restrictions,  people  with 
disabilities and families caring for people with disabilities during COVID-19 (RO); 

  provide support for the systematic provision of services and assistance through a 
program of community workers in the field of health education in municipalities with 
Roma  settlements,  including  the  provision  of  necessary  medical  or  sanitary 
equipment (SK). 

The case studies (Annex 6) also show evidence that ESF and FEAD operations supported 
the  national/regional  anti-crisis  reactions  in  Member  States.  These  included  ways  of 
sourcing of healthcare professionals and adjusting the training of healthcare staff to rapidly 
changed  needs  for  knowledge  (LV),  facilitating  the  implementation  of  the  buttek.lu  e-
platform,  which  was  an  innovative  solution  to  social  distancing  requirements,  and  the 
provision of free face masks (LU), support in a range of ways for public healthcare providers 
(GR), supporting refugees in terms of financing transport, food, hygiene and clothes (RO), 
supporting young people in order to stem rapidly-rising levels of youth unemployment (ES), 
supporting the homeless and those at risk of poverty (PL) and supporting skills development 
(SE).  

CRII and CRII+ also contributed to the overall crisis response by facilitating cross-
government cooperation. Stakeholder consultations, in particular those conducted for the 
case studies in Annex 6, indicated that decision-making processes during the pandemic, 

243  In  BE,  BG,  DE,  ES,  FR,  GR,  IT,  LT,  LV,  PL,  PT,  RO,  and  the  UK.  The  actions  included  adapting  aid  delivery  or 
accompanying measures due to COVID 19 risks, confinements, protection measures or other emergency circumstances and 
suport for healthcare systems, workers and patients, focusing on the provision of support to hospital staff to treat COVID-19 
patients and to ensure provision of other health assistance to other patients / staff of other authorities dealing while containing 
the spread of the virus. 

118 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

including those related to the use of ESF and FEAD funding under CRII/ CRII+, involved 
exceptional cooperation between different government departments, which was necessary 
to support quick multilevel response and adequate targeting of resources.  

Overall,  the  flexibilities  offered  under  CRII  and  CRII+  were  highlighted  by  a  majority  of 
consulted stakeholders as an important contribution to managing the crisis at national 
level and in limiting its negative consequences.  

4.5. 

The relevance of CRII and CRII+ 

Key findings 

  The  flexibilities  introduced  through  CRII  and  CRII+  were  relevant  in  helping 
Member  States  to  respond  quickly  to  the  pandemic.  The  focus  was  on 
addressing the negative effects of the pandemic on employment, health, social 
inclusion, and education and training by means such as underpinning STWS 
and helping to fund the medical response.  

  Evidence  was  found  of  redirection  of  resources  to  support  employment, 
through STWSs and other measures targeting employers and those at risk of 
losing their jobs due to the effects of the pandemic; to support the continued 
functioning of healthcare systems  and those working in the health sector; and 
facilitate access to services.  

  CRII and CRII+ operations continue to be relevant in terms of facing long-term 
challenges,  such  as  digitalisation.  CRII  and  CRII+  operations  supported,  for 
example, the introduction of digital education technologies in higher education 
and  schools,  to  prevent  dropout  (under  TO10);  digitalisation  processes  in 
SMEs and public services and the upskilling of employees and managers to 
support  telework  (under  TO8);  maintaining  access  to  education  services  for 
vulnerable people through the acquisition of laptops/ tablets and training in the 
proper  use  of  teleworking  equipment,  as  well  as  improving  equipment  and 
services in medical establishments (under TO9). The digitalisation challenges 
that emerged during the pandemic, or were exacerbated by it, require further 
investments in the post-pandemic period to support the adaptation of education 
and training systems, public services, and working conditions to the digital age.   

  The CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were less relevant in the context of the arrival 
in EU Member States of people fleeing the war in Ukraine, largely due to funds 
already having been committed for other operations or the different types of 
needs on the ground, relative to those that emerged during the pandemic. At 
the time of this evaluation, it was  too early to make a definitive judgement on 
the  relevance  of  the  response  to  this  new  crisis.  In  addition,  other  EU 
instruments were available to support the needs of people fleeing the war in 
Ukraine, including REACT-EU and CARE.  

This section details the specific relevance of the flexibilities introduced by CRII and CRII+ 
in enabling Member States to respond quickly to the COVID-19 crisis. It examines the most 
relevant types of flexibilities and also looks at the relevance by type of target group. Insights 
about the relevance of the flexibilities in the context of the arrival in EU Member States of 
people fleeing the war in Ukraine are also presented.    

119 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

As a point of comparison, it should be noted that the ESF thematic evaluations carried out 
in the 2014 - 2020 programming period found that: 

 

 

 

In tems of employment (TO8), the relevance of these operations was shown by their 
general  alignment  to  the  needs  of  target  groups  and  contribution  to  the  labour 
market integration of the unemployed. The continued relevance of ESF was shown 
by its ability to adjust to changing socioeconomic conditions across the European 
Union and the fact that it targeted the most relevant groups from the design phase. 
The  focus  for  these  operations  has  been  to  reduce  immediate  barriers  to 
employment and help individuals close the gap towards the labour market, but the 
evaluation  noted  that  more  emphasis  might  be  necessary  to  tackle  strongly 
embedded gender gaps or address the specific needs of older workers.244 

In terms of social inclusion (T09), ESF support for social inclusion was aligned with 
the  needs  of  target  groups  in  most  OPs  at  the  planning  stage.  Relevance  often 
increased from planning to implementation, which in most cases reflects a further 
definition  of  target  groups  whilst  operations  were  being  shaped  further  through 
implementation.245 

In  terms  of  education/  training  (T010),  there  was  a  relatively  high  degree  of 
relevance  of  ESF  TO10  programming  to  the  needs  of  education  and  training 
systems  and  relevant  target  groups,  including  a  range  of  disadvantaged  groups. 
Programming remained relevant throughout the programming period. Improvements 
to  relevance  could  however  be  made  through  enhanced  consultation  with  actors 
closer to the needs of target groups, such as NGOs, social partners, and training 
providers.246 

4.5.1. 

Relevance of the changes introduced by CRII and CRII+ to 
Member States’ needs to react quickly to the crisis   

Overall,  evidence  indicates  that  the  flexibilities  introduced  by  CRII  and  CRII+  were 
relevant in helping Member States to respond quickly to the crisis in a range of ways. 
Evidence from the surveys, the interviews and case studies and analysis of the montoring 
data  highlight  the  relevance  of  the  flexibilities  in  supporting  Member  States  to  use  non-
utilised ESF and FEAD support to quickly respond and address the negative impact of the 
pandemic on the (new and adjusted) ESF and FEAD operations that seek to address the 
effects of the pandemic on health, employment, social inclusion, and education and training. 
Areas  of  focus  included  STWS  in  countries  such  as  Czechia,  and  helping  to  fund  the 
medical response, particularly in countries such as Poland.  

As foreseen in the intervention logic in Section 2.2,  CRII and CRII+ enabled ESF and 
FEAD support to contribute to the functioning of healthcare systems, the preservation of 
jobs and business activity, and to support citizens (including some of the most deprived, 
and  essential  healthcare  workers)  through  a  variety  of  actions  that  facilitated  access  to 
services,  food  and  basic  material  assistance,  social  services,  and  digital  skills  among 
others.   

The  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  have  enabled  the  reprogramming  of  resources 
towards  measures  targeted  at  responding  rapidly  to  the  COVID-19  crisis,  from  a 

244 European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF support to employment and labour mobility (TO8). Available 
at https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22899&langId=en 
245 European Commission (2020). Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty and 
any 
at: 
by 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22979&langId=en 
246  European  Commission  (2020).  Study  for  the  evaluation  of  ESF support  to  education  and  training  (TO10),  Annex  1.1  - 
Mapping  of  ESF  interventions  under  TO10.  Available  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0c1a558-
077d-11eb-a511-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

discrimination 

European 

Available 

(TO9). 

Social 

Fund 

the 

120 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

health, social and economic perspective, as noted by the majority of Managing Authorities 
responding  to  the  ESF  survey.  They  also  noted  that  the  flexibilities  enabled  additional 
funding  to  be  made  available  for  Active  Labour  Market  Policy  activities.  A  majority  of 
respondents also indicated that the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to the needs 
of their institution to react quickly to the COVID-19-induced crisis, either to a great extent or 
a  medium  extent. When  asked  how  relevant  the  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  were  to  the 
needs of their institution to react quickly to the COVID-19-induced crisis, respondents from 
FEAD  Managing  Authorities  also indicated that they  were  relevant  to a great  or medium 
extent or to some extent.  

One  of  the  limitations  of  the  relevance  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  package  appears  to  be  at 
regional level, where consulted stakeholders indicated that decision-making processes 
might not have fully accounted for regional needs in the same ways. Conversely, some 
interviewees highlighted the difference between regional and national responses, with the 
former able to act more quickly, whereas national, centralised programmes tend to need 
more time to analyse need. The findings are inconclusive, however, as only a minority of 
regional ESF Managing Authorities participated in the study, so this observation cannot be 
generalised. When  asked  whether  resources  were  redirected  to  the  regions  in  their 
country  where  they  were  most  needed  as  a  result  of  the  use  of  CRII  and/or  CRII+ 
flexibilities, only 29% (15 out of 51) of the respondents to the ESF survey said that they 
were (14% said that they  were not, 22% did not know, and the question was marked as 
being not applicable to 35% of respondents).  

The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of the flexibilities enabled through the coronavirus 
response initiatives in the Member States impacted the number and characteristics of 
ESF and  YEI  participations. This  was clearly  shown by  the  analysis  of monitoring data 
reported in the Annual Implementation Reports through common output indicators, which 
are collected at IP level. The analysis also shows that there is some evidence for changes 
directly  linked  to  ESF  operations  responding  to  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. Overall, the cumulative number of ESF and YEI participations increased by 36% 
at the level of the EU-27 and the UK since the outbreak of the pandemic until the end of 
2021.  

As illustrated in the Figure below, while in about one third of the countries increases are 
below the average, in Cyprus, Greece and Romania the number of participations more than 
doubled  since  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In  Cyprus  for  example,  the 
significant increase is based on the implementation of the short-time working arrangement 
in 2021 under the newly introduced IP 9.iv, funded by EUR 36 million being reallocated from 
the CF to the ESF. Further information is available in Annex 1 – Appendix 3. 

121 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT 
INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 11: Cumulative increase in ESF participations (end 2021 v. end 2019)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

122 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.5.2. 

Relevance of operations to emerging needs on the ground 
and extent of redirecting resources to where they are most 
needed   

The pandemic had major consequences throughout the EU, with specific negative impacts 
felt in certain areas, such as healthcare, employment in a range of sectors, and groups in 
society deemed to be most vulnerable, such as those at risk of poverty and those at risk of 
losing their jobs.  

This section shows that there has been redirection of resources through the ESF under 
the coronavirus response initiatives to some of the key groups who faced challenges in the 
pandemic, such as healthcare workers, those at risk of losing their jobs, inactive people and 
students engaged in remote learning, those working in cultural sectors, students at risk of 
poverty or social exclusion..  

ESF  CRII/  CRII+  operations  supported  those  working  in  the  health  sector  and  their 
professional  activities  and  wellbeing  (for  example  in  PL,  LV,  GR).  There  has  also  been 
reprogramming of resources to support employment, as evidenced by the use of funds to 
support STWS and other measures to support those at risk of losing their jobs due to 
the effects of the pandemic. Funds have also been targeted at the most vulnerable in 
society, who had very immediate needs. This was shown by the evidence in some of the 
case  studies  of  CRII/  CRII+  operations,  which  targeted  homeless  people  (PL)  and  the 
elderly and persons with disabilities (RO). Evidence from the consultations conducted for 
this study also points to a focus on those whose needs were amplified during the pandemic, 
including some of the most vulnerable and ‘new’ target groups not previously a particular 
focus  of  the  ESF  in  particular.  This  further  evidences  the  relevance  of  reprogramming, 
facilitated by CRII/CRII+, of resources towards types of measures and (new) target groups 
particularly  affected  by  the  pandemic.  New  target  groups  (including  where  OPs  had  not 
previously focused on the group concerned) included the following: 

  Medical personnel who had a key role in counteracting the negative consequences 
of  the  pandemic,  and  healthcare  workers  whose  health  was  endangered  by  the 
pandemic (LV, PL) 

  Health and social care organisations and health and social care staff (PL) 

  Those  in  institutions  that  care  for  people  who  require  support  in  their  daily 

functioning and the staff of these institutions (PL, UK) 

  Service  providers,  their  employees,  associates  and  volunteers  providing  services 
and assistance to target groups that require support in the context of the COVID-19 
epidemic,  which  applies  to  both  institutional  services  and  services  in  the  local 
community (PL, UK) 

  Employed people risk of losing their job as a result of the COVID-19 crisis (HU) 

  Workers on STWS (LU) and part-time workers (SI) 

  Unemployed people under 30 who wanted to start a business and the self-employed 
(PL) (this target group included the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, 
people with low qualifications, and women) 

  Those working in cultural sectors (PT) 

123 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

  Students at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) by providing them with IT 

equipment to enable them to participate in remote learning (GR) 

The types of new operations financed under the ESF at national/ regional level that were 
perceived as most relevant for the needs on the ground by the stakeholders consulted for 
this  study  included  actions  to  protect  jobs,  actions  to  support  workers,  actions  to 
support  healthcare  systems,  and  actions  to  support  employers  and  the  self-
employed.  These  types  of  operations  were  considered  most  relevant  due  to  several 
reasons, particularly around the need for the acquisition of appropriate skills, protecting jobs 
during the crisis, the need to support healthcare systems.  

Operations financed under FEAD continued to be relevant to the needs on the ground 
and  centred  on  delivery  of  food  aid,  provision  of  information  about  other  social  inclusion 
activities when delivering food packages, and provision of basic and other types of material 
assistance. In fact, the relevance of FEAD support increased during the pandemic, as 
evidenced by a strong increase in the number of end recipients in 2020, as shown in 
the  Figure  below.  The  number  of  people  receiving  basic  material  assistance  more  than 
doubled  from  2019  to  2020,  reaching  a  peak  of  almost  2  million  participations  in  2020. 
Strong increases in the provision of basic material assistance were observed in Romania, 
Italy, Hungary, Croatia, and to some extent in Greece. The number of people receiving food 
support  increased  by  24%  reaching  almost  15  million  in  2020.  The  number  of  persons 
receiving social inclusion measures remained constant in 2019 to 2020. In addition, in 2020 
and  2021  in  France  and  Romania  0.6  million  people  received  vouchers,  cards  or  other 
instruments of indirect delivery. The share of women remained relatively constant at around 
50%  at the  level  of the EU-27  in relation  to food support  and  social  inclusion  measures, 
while the share of women dropped from nearly 50% to 36% in from 2019 to 2020 relation 
to the provision of basic material assistance. The share of women who received vouchers, 
however, reached 74% in 2020 and 84% in 2021. Further details are available in Annex 1 
– Appendix 3. 

124 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure 12: Number of end recipients of FEAD and share of women (2014-2021)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014. 

Although funding was enabled quickly, this was often not enough in the case of some 
Member States, and it was exhausted extremely rapidly (this varied depending on the 
level of unspent resources available). From the  interviews with EU-level stakeholders, such 
as EU-level social partner organsations or EU-level organisations active in areas such as 
social  inclusion  or  skills  development,  there  was  a  view  that  an  increased  co-design 
approach  in  respect  of  the  crisis  response  initiatives  (involving  a  range  of 
knowledgeable organisations) would have improved their relevance. It was also noted that 
that the process might be simplified if EU-level organisations could apply directly to the EU 
for funding and then distribute it among their members at national or regional levels. This 
was viewed as having the potential to speed up the financing process under similar crisis 
situations.  

A broad mixture of new and adjusted operations have been planned in the Member 
States, which reflects the need to continue pre-existing operations (while adjusting 
them  to  the  circumstances  imposed  by  the  pandemic),  as  well  as  to  create  new 
groups given the extraordinary situation. This confirms the relevance to the pre-existing 
and new needs during the crisis, as well as that ESF and FEAD operations implemented 
before and during and the pandemic are largely aligned (see Section 4.3 – Coherence). 

125 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Case study evidence also indicates that the objectives of and measures taken by projects 
were  relevant  to  the  needs  of  target  groups  on  the  ground  and  to  emerging  needs.  In 
Greece, for  example,  measures  enabled the  Ministry  of  Health to respond  quickly  to the 
needs  emerging  as  a  result  of the  pandemic  by  almost  doubling  recruitment  at  hospitals 
across Greece. 

4.5.3. 

Evolution of ESF and FEAD target group needs and the 
role of flexibilities in helping the ESF/FEAD adapt to new 
needs   

The pandemic resulted in an evolution of the needs of target groups and the emergence of 
new needs, as evidenced above. The evidence collected for this study shows that the CRII 
and CRII+ operations continue to be relevant in terms of facing new challenges, such 
as digitalisation and the shift to the green economy. For example, participants in the 
focus groups noted that due to the need to respond to COVID-19 in general but also due to 
the adjusted ESF/FEAD opeations, they were able to pilot new ways of responding to these 
challenges,  which  will  inform  future  activities  in  areas  such  as  active  labour  market 
measures and training (e.g., in BE Flanders and PT).  

Although the COVID-19 crisis and the measures that aimed at preventing the spread of the 
virus  affected  the  general  population,  vulnerable  and  disadvantaged  groups  were 
particularly impacted. The pandemic hit certain ESF and FEAD target groups particularly 
hard: this is especially the case for young people and those transitioning from education to 
the labour market, based on data available at EU level (as discussed in Annex 1 – Appendix 
4).  Further,  older  people  and  young  people  in  rural  and  remote  areas  with  weak  digital 
infrastructure  were  affected  significantly  due  to  support  services  moving  online.  The 
pandemic also had a greater impact on people in lower socioeconomic groups and ethnic 
minorities, women and those in precarious and informal work.  

Overall,  the  suspension  of  several  economic  activities,  nationwide  lockdowns  and  the 
closure of educational institutions increased social exclusion, poverty, and discrimination of 
marginalised  groups,  such  as  the  Roma  population,  people  with  migrant  background, 
persons  with  disabilities  or  homeless  people.  These  groups  experienced  a 
disproportionately higher negative impact of the pandemic, considering infection rates as 
well as access to social, health and education services. The analysis of changes in ESF 
participations  before  and  during  the  pandemic  (summarised  below)  does  not  indicate, 
however, that these groups increased their share in ESF operations during the pandemic 
(see Annex 1). Nevertheless, it should also be noted that despite a lack of specific targeting, 
the share of vulnerable groups in ESF operations also did not fall. In addition, the general 
population targeted through CRII and CRII+ operations may have also included participants 
with a vulnerable profile.  

Some groups, such as homeless people, became harder to reach during the crisis, due 
to homeless centres being closed. Partner organisations therefore had to work with other 
associations to create new partnerships during the crisis to reach those in need and some 
of these partnerships are still ongoing. Some organisations also found it hard to reach those 
in very rural areas, largely because partnership organisations tend to be located in larger 
cities. There were also challenges relating to people who did not want to or were not able 
to go to distribution centres or who were not aware that they qualify for support. In some 
countries,  FEAD  voucher  schemes  were  implemented,  to  allow  these  people  to  buy 
products with vouchers rather than wait near a distribution point to collect goods (e.g. FR, 
PT, LU). The flexibility offered by CRII/ CRII+ around the use of vouchers was reported to 
be  important  in  encouraging  people  to  take  up  the  support  available  to  them.  At  an 
aggregate  level,  however,  as  shown  above,  the  number  of  recipients  of  FEAD  support 
increased during the pandemic, which is an indication that overall, the support provided by 
the Fund was very relevant to needs on the ground. Notwithstanding this, gaps in support 
126 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

for individuals in vulnerable groups may have occurred, which were not covered by ESF, 
FEAD or other funds.  

Further research about this issue is needed at EU level to provide a detailed assessment 
of the extent of the gaps and which groups were either not targeted or reached sufficiently. 
However, existing evidence shows that Member States adopted emergency measures to 
address the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis in the social inclusion area (alongside others), 
to improve social protection for vulnerable people, for example those at risk of poverty. In 
Italy, Latvia, Bulgaria, or Romania, such measures included increasing existing benefits or 
providing additional in kind benefits for older people and persons with disabilities, relaxing 
eligibility rules for people in precarious situations (not entitled to unemployment benefits, or 
with  very  low  incomes),  enhacing  accesss  to  services,  addressing  energy  poverty,  and 
increasing the guaranteed minimum income level.247  

One of the principal target groups of the anti-crisis operations targeted under ESF is the 
general population or entities serving the general population e.g., healthcare services. 
The overall lack of specificity of the target groups in the anti-crisis operations indicates 
that a majority of operations were aimed at benefiting anyone affected by the COVID-19 
crisis  rather  than  focusing  specifically  or  exclusively  on  certain  demographics.  A  small 
proportion  (nearly  40)  out  of  the  identified  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  specifically 
target inactive and unemployed people often described as “vulnerable” groups and/or at risk 
of social exclusion.  

There were indeed changes in the portfolio of ESF and YEI operations in 2020 and 2021 in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of this in terms of participants, as can 
be  seen  from  the  monitoring  data  reported  in  the  Annual  Implementation  Reports. 
Measures focusing on employed people (e.g. STWS) meant that operations across 
all age groups were reorganised due to more urgent needs being adressed, and this 
also  affected  the  composition  of  participants  by  age  group.  As  can  be  seen  in  the 
Figure below, in 20 countries (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HR, HU, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, PL, RO, SE, UK), the share of participations among those younger than 25 years 
of age decreased while in most of these Member States the decrease of this share of young 
people resulted in an increase of the share of those aged 25 to 54 rather than an increase 
of the share of those above 54 years of age. For more details, see Annex 1 – Appendix 3. 

Figure 13: Changes in share of ESF participations by age group by country (2020-
2021 v. 2014-2019) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

247 European Commission (2021). Joint Employment Report 2021, pp. 109-115. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8351&furtherPubs=yes 

127 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

This analysis of monitoring data also shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic there was 
a  significant  shift  in  the  labour  market  status  of  those  participating  in  ESF  and  YEI 
initiatives, with an increase of those with employed status of 12 percentage points in 2020-
2021  compared  to  pre-crisis  levels  (2014-2019)  in  the  EU-27  and  the  UK.  Looking  at 
country-level data, the most significant change is reported in Cyprus, where before the crisis 
91% of the supported people were unemployed, while during the crisis 97% are employed. 
The absolute number of supported inactive participants increased significantly in BG, EE, 
NL and SK and to some extent CZ and SK from 2019 to 2020. Only a small number of the 
mapped  operations  (34)  targeted  inactive  and  unemployed  people,  including  long-term 
unemployed people. 

As evidenced in this analysis of monitoring data, the share of women participating in ESF 
and YEI initiatives remained relatively constant at above 50% at the level of the EU-27 and 
the UK, oscillating between 53% and 55% between 2018 and 2021. During the first year of 
the pandemic in 2020, in relation to 2019, the number of participations by women increased 
under TO 8 (+3%) and TO 9 (+9%), while they decreased substantially under TO 10 (-45%) 
and TO 11 (-61%). To a certain extent, these changes in the number of participations can 
be linked to financial reallocations as discussed in the above section on effectiveness.  

In terms of disability, the share of ESF and YEI participants with disabilities decreased very 
slightly, by 0.7 percentage points, from 2014-2019 to 2020-2021 in the EU-27 and the UK. 
One exception was Italy, where an increase of 22 percentage points under IP 9.iv is directly 
linked  to the  regional  OP  of  Campania,  where  more  than  38,000  people  with  disabilities 
were supported in 2020, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the share of 
migrants supported decreased from 14.9% (2014-2019) to 13.1 (2020-2021) in the EU-27 
and the UK. There are only a few COVID-19 operations targeting people with a migration 
background  (e.g.  in  DE-Saarland),  while  migrants  are  in  some  cases  subsumed  under 
measures targeting vulnerable groups/people at risk of social exclusion in general. 

As  regards the  use  of  FEAD  food  and  material aid,  apart from  traditional  end  recipients, 
new groups emerged during the COVID crisis. Non-traditional groups of FEAD-funded aid 
included people with better skills or higher levels of education (e.g. workers who have been 
furloughed,  students  who  lost  summer  jobs  or  scholarships,  single  parents,  freelancers, 
workers without an employment contract, etc.) and with new needs to be addressed (e.g. 
psychological support, need for information).248 As presented in further detail in Annex 1 – 
Appendix 3, characteristics of the participations of the operations providing food support did 
not change much before and during the crisis. There were some notable changes, however, 
including the share of women, as shown in the Figure above.   

These findings are largely confirmed by ESF stakeholder consultations, which indicated that 
they were able to better respond to needs on the ground due to CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, 
specifically to the needs of SMEs affected by the COVID-19 crisis,  people who were 
made  redundant  /  suspended  due  to  COVID-19  crisis,  people  at-risk-of-poverty-or-
social-exclusion (AROPE), children, people with disabilities or chronic diseases and 
the unemployed. FEAD stakeholders consulted cited a number of vulnerable groups that 
they believed had been supported by the flexibilities, such as people at-risk-of-poverty-or-
social-exclusion,  people  with  a  migrant  background,  persons  with  disabilities  or  chronic 
diseases, homeless people, children, elderly people, and women.  

Many interviewed stakeholders cited the relevance of the ESF CRII and CRII+ operations 
in terms  of  supporting those who were  at risk of  job  loss  through  measures  such  as 
support for furloughing and temporary lay-offs, alongside the loans facilitated through the 
European  instrument  for  temporary  Support  to  mitigate  Unemployment  Risks  in  an 
Emergency  (SURE).  Stakeholder  consultations  further  showed  that  one  of  the  main 
changes in the ESF activities was a need to provide trainers with the skills to deliver 

248 FEAD Community Thematic Seminar on “New beneficiaries of FEAD-funded measures and new practices implemented 
during the Covid-19 crisis”, p. 12. 

128 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

courses online, which was implemented by CRII and is still ongoing, and therefore highly 
relevant  (in  PT).  Other  changes  in  ESF  activities  included  extending  an  unemployment 
programme in Poland to support people under 30 who lost their job after March 2020, which 
is seen as a key target group. Further, in Germany, there was a view that there was a certain 
amount of frustration that ESF assistance has a strict definition of target groups in Germany, 
which limits flexibility: Member States preferred to define target groups broadly, which 
permits more flexibility in the crisis response, since more individuals can be included 
without  further  administrative  changes,  depending  on  developments  on  the 
ground.249 

In  relation  to  FEAD  CRII/  CRII+  operations,  in  Bulgaria,  it  was  noted  that  the  activities 
implemented under the OP for Food and/or Basic Assistance in response to the COVID-19 
crisis proved to be timely and provided the necessary assistance, particularly in the case of 
elderly people, who are at higher risk of infection and disease. In France, resources have 
been targeted at the neediest at local level, thanks to local not-for-profit organisations. In 
Lithuania, it was noted that although the overall number of FEAD recipients did not increase, 
the measures met the needs of the traditional FEAD target groups to a great extent.  

Specific  evidence  of  the  relevance  of  operations  to  the  groups  to  which  operations 
were addressed was also found for specific case study countries. For example, the 
Polish case study found that a specific target group was homeless people and people at 
risk of homelessness, which suffered significantly during the pandemic and are not always 
among  the  priority  support  groups  for  governments.  Further,  in  the  Spanish  case  study, 
measures  were  deemed  to  be  very  relevant  in  terms  of  decreasing  the  rate  of  youth 
unemployment,  which  is  a  key  priority  for  Spain.  The  review  of  relevant  documents 
undertaken for this study and stakeholder interviews indicate the measures enabled by the 
CRII flexibilities enabled the reallocation of funds in support of the specific objectives of the 
Youth  Employment  OP  in  Spain.  Accordingly,  Spain  was  able  to  finance  the  temporary 
employment  support  measure  ERTE  (Expediente  de  Regulación  Temporal  de  Empleo) 
through  the  OP  that  helped  to  maintain  youth  in  employment,  including  those  benefiting 
from the  Youth  Guarantee. In Romania,  immediate  help  was provided to the  elderly  and 
vulnerable groups through a call centre and the provision of educational activities targeting 
vulnerable  students  who  could  not  access  online  classes  during  lockdown.  In  some 
countries it was reported that it was often more difficult to actually reach individuals rather 
than employers, as employees often need approval of their employers to participate in skills 
development activities offered (e.g., in SE).  

FEAD  target  groups  diversified  in  some  countries  but  not  because  of  the  pandemic.  In 
Croatia, for instance, a new target group emerged due to the earthquake crisis. In Lithuania, 
those fleeing the war in Ukraine are a new target group for FEAD and the criteria for support 
were  altered  to  support  them:  monthly  income  is  usually  used  to  determine  eligibility  for 
support but people coming into the country from Ukraine are able to receive support without 
an income assessment.  

4.5.4. 

Specific response to the consequences of the war in 
Ukraine 

One of the main developments in 2022 has been the social and humanitarian consequences 
of the war in Ukraine. This created a need for EU Member States to extend help and support 
to those arriving in the EU from the conflict areas in Ukraine. The research shows that CRII 
and CRII+ flexibilities may have been less relevant in the context of the arrival in EU 
Member States of people fleeing the war in Ukraine, largely due to the fact that funds 
had already been committed for other operations or that it was too early to make a definitive 
judgement on the relevance of the response to this new crisis.  

249 National interviewee, Germany – interview conducted in May 2022.  

129 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

This was the result from the evidence collected from a range of sources for this study. For 
example, from the survey of ESF Managing Authorities, when respondents were asked 
to what extent the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to the needs of their institution 
in the context of the arrival in their country of people fleeing the war in Ukraine (following 
Russia’s invasion in February 2022), only around a fifth of respondents (11 out of 59) said 
that they were relevant to a great or medium extent. Reasons given by respondents for why 
the flexibilities might not have been so relevant include the fact that it was at the time too 
early to make judgements about the relevance of these flexibilities to the needs of people 
arriving from Ukraine. Other reasons given included the fact that most or all of the funding 
had  already  been  committed  and  so  it  was  not  possible  to  dedicate  funds  to  helping 
refugees from Ukraine through the same process enabled by CRII and CRII+, that there 
was a need to implement activities other than those indicated in the operational programme, 
that this issue had not yet been examined thoroughly, and that programmes did not use the 
ESF funds for this purpose.  

From the survey of FEAD  Managing Authorities, around a quarter of respondents to this 
question (4 out of 17), stated that the flexibilities introduced by CRII and CRII+ were relevant 
to a great or medium extent. The reasons given for relevance include (in HR) the fact that 
the OP had already been set very broadly in terms of eligible final beneficiaries, activities 
and  expenses  which  enabled  FEAD  Managing  Authorities  in  Croatia  to  help  Ukraine 
refugees. In Spain, a FEAD MA said that specific OP control requirements in relation to end 
recipients had been relaxed as a result of CRII + flexibility. In terms of lack of relevance, a 
view from a respondent (in PL) was that national measures introduced as a response to the 
migration crisis from the Ukraine were not linked to CRII/ CRII+ as they focused on adjusting 
national legislation on social assistance. Nevertheless, other interviewees in Poland noted 
that a lot was able to be put into place to support Ukrainian refugees in Poland under the 
flexibility mechanisms, based on the Polish experience with the COVID-19 crisis. 

However,  it  would  seem  that  the  evidence  gathered  suggests  that  the  extent  of  the 
relevance  appears  to  be  country-specific  and  linked  to  the  types  of  measures  that 
different  governments  have  been  implementing  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  COVID-19 
crisis  and  the  new  crisis  related  to  arrivals  from  Ukraine,  as  well  as  the  extent  to  which 
further funds were still available from the 2014-2020 programming period. There was some 
evidence  from  the  national-level  interviews  that  the  flexibilities  in  CRII  and  CRII+  were 
relevant in this context. For example, in Lithuania it was noted that Ukrainians are included 
as a target group for FEAD support and receive food and hygiene products. The interview 
evidence also indicates that the relevance of the flexibilities was also high in Italy, where 
large numbers of Ukrainian refugees are reported to have settled within existing Ukrainian 
communities. However, interviewees in Italy also noted that the 100% co-financing option 
was discussed in the context of support for Ukrainian refugees, although the regions did not 
use this flexibility, having already used it to underpin support in the context of COVID-19. 
The  view  was  the  regions  would  not  have  capacity  to  modify  their  financial  plans  at  this 
stage.  

Overall,  flexibilities  such  as  the  ones  enabled  by  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives 
continue to be relevant in responding to crisis situations and enabling swift actions to meet 
EU and national objectives and needs on the ground. Consultations have shown that there 
are important lessons learnt from the process that enabled a quick response to the COVID-
19  pandemic  which  have  been  applied  in  the  context  triggered  by  the  war  in  Ukraine, 
regardless of the fact that ESF and FEAD might not have been used to the same extent in 
the two crisis situations. 

130 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

5. 

Conclusions and lessons learnt 

5.1. 

Conclusions 

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economies, health and education systems, and the 
livelihood of millions across Europe. Its impacts are still being assessed and are likely to 
linger for the foreseeable future, albeit to different degrees depending on the magnitude of 
the  shock  in  different  national  contexts.  The  public  health  emergency  mobilised  EU  and 
national resources, requiring accelerated decision-making in an often uncertain context. In 
condensed  timeframes,  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  adopted  a  host  of  measures  to 
support  economies,  healthcare  systems  and  the  most  affected  individuals,  ranging  from 
financial  instruments  that  enabled  liquidity  and  aid  packages,  to  health  and  social  policy 
interventions.  

The economic impact of the pandemic has varied across countries, sectors and types of 
companies, affecting SMEs disproportionately. The latter were among the key recipients of 
temporary  financial  assistance  mobilised  at  EU  and  national  level,  which  focused  on 
ensuring working capital  and  supporting  employees  on furlough  (e.g., through short-time 
work schemes). The health and education sectors were also significantly affected by the 
pandemic and the ensuing repeated lockdowns. Governments implemented measures that 
boosted medical infrastructure and the recruitment of additional staff, developed large scale 
testing  and  vaccine  facilities,  accelerated  the  digitalisation  of  education  and  training 
systems, and provided aid for the most vulnerable individuals (including through the supply 
of food and basic material assistance).  

The ESF and FEAD, alongside other EU funding instruments and mechanisms, adapted 
rapidly  to  tackle  the  socio-economic  challenges  that  the  pandemic  caused,  thus 
contributing to the crisis response across Europe at national, regional and local levels, 
while pursuing their original objectives. This quick adaptation was facilitated by the EU’s 
quick response to COVID-19 and the adoption of regulations that amended the CPR and 
FEAD  regulations  in  place  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  including  the 
Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiatives  (CRII  and  CRII+).  These  were  the  first 
such EU level initiatives, adopted in the early days of the pandemic (March-April 2020).  

This preliminary evaluation has focused on an early assessment of the use of provisions of 
CRII and CRII+ in ESF and FEAD-funded programmes, and the role that the ESF and FEAD 
played in reaction to the public health crisis caused by COVID-19. The assessment shows 
that, compared to the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the EU responded much quicker 
and more extensively to the socio-economic challenges triggered by COVID-19.  

The  intervention  logic  chains  (inputs,  activities,  outputs)  setting  out  how  the  response 
initiative package is intended to support crisis response, and the logic for ESF and FEAD 
support under CRII/CRII+, have worked as anticipated. The programming flexibilities, as 
envisaged in the intervention logic for CRII and CRII+, have enabled quick support to the 
Member  States  and  the  UK  in  mitigating  the  socio-economic  and  health-related 
consequences  of  the  COVID-19  crisis,  mobilising  non-utilised  support  from  the  ESF  and 
FEAD  as  well  as  transfers  from  other  funds  (ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund).  The 
intervention  logic  for  ESF  and  FEAD  support  under  the  CRII  and  CRII+  captures 
concrete  operations  delivered  through  the  ESF  and  FEAD  under  CRII/CRII+.  Here  the 
evidence likewise indicates that CRII and CRII+ have facilitated an effective and efficient 
use of the ESF and FEAD to address the negative impact of the pandemic on health, labour 

131 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

markets,  education,  and  social  inclusion.  The  results  and  impacts  of  actions  undertaken 
using the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were not evaluated in this study, as this evaluation is 
an early one. The focus on results and impacts will be completed within the broader ESF 
ex-post evaluation activities. However, outcomes at the level of beneficiary organisations 
and end recipients were explored to the extent possible through the case studies of good 
practices included in this report (Annex 6), and broadly point towards the types of effects 
anticipated in the intervention logics developed for this study. 

5.1.1. 

Effectiveness 

CRII and CRII+ have effectively offered Member States flexibility in reprogramming 
ESF and FEAD to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. A range of flexibilities were used to a 
larger  extent  within  ESF  programming  relative  to  FEAD,  even  when  accounting  for  the 
different relative sizes of the Funds. The flexibility provided through the CRII to reallocate 
financial volumes between Funds was the most used within ESF, followed by reallocation 
within OPs and 100% co-financing. Within FEAD, the flexibility used by the greatest number 
of Member States was the possibility of 100% co-financing.  

23  countries  reallocated  ESF  funding  between  TOs  in  response  to  COVID-19,  within  or 
between  ESF  OPs,  since  May  2020.    At  the  level  of  the  EU-27  and  the  UK,  the  most 
significant change has been an increase of funding for TO9 of almost EUR 2 billion.  
Allocations to TO8 also increased, however less significantly (by nearly EUR 215 million). 
However, allocations to TO10 fell by just over EUR 1.3 billion and for TO11 by EUR 252 
million. This mirrors the focus on employment, health and social inclusion operations 
following the introduction of the response initiatives. CRII and CRII+ enabled operations to 
be adapted, and at times newly developed, to address particular immediate effects of the 
pandemic (e.g. impacts on health systems, employment and on already vulnerable groups 
facing social exclusion). The reallocation may have potentially negative longer-term effects 
for  education  and  training,  however,  given  that  this  area  was  not  generally  prioritised 
through the ESF during COVID-19 to the same extent as employment, health and social 
inclusion. 

Relative to the ESF, FEAD reallocations were less frequent and only requested by a 
small number of Member States (AT, CZ, HU, RO, SK). Evidence shows that  CRII+ was 
effective  in  supporting  reallocation  needs  in  specific  national  contexts  to  facilitate  the 
continued  provision  of  food  and/or  basic  material  assistance  to  the  most  deprived  in  the 
pandemic. 

The  pattern  and  trajectory  of  absorption  rates  following  the introduction  of  CRII  and 
CRII+  was  largely  unchanged  for  both  the  ESF  and  FEAD,  despite  the  challenging 
pandemic context, suggesting that the flexibilities played a role in maintaining the support 
provided by the ESF and FEAD. Thematic concentrations required by the ESF Regulation 
were also largely maintained. 

5.1.2. 

Efficiency 

The  coronavirus  response  initiatives  facilitated  an  efficient  crisis  response.  
Facilitating  the  use  or  reallocation  of  unspent  funds  helped  to  re-focus  spending  on  the 
challenges  of  the  pandemic.  The  extremely  quick  adoption  of  the  initatives  after  the 
outbreak  of  the  pandemic,  compared  to  the  EU  support  package  in  the  aftermath  of  the 
2007 – 2008 financial crisis, was crucial for its effectiveness, relevance and the role it played 
for Member States. 

132 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CRII  and  CRII+  simplified  and  accelerated  processes  around  OP  amendment  and 
resource  reallocation,  which  helped  Member  States  to  act  quickly.  Flexibilities  were 
generally  seen  as  reducing  resource  requirements  and  administrative  burden  for  the 
Managing Authorities. However, their use also created burden as formal OP modifications 
were still necessary (though simplified) and the staff needed to familiarise themselves with 
the  new  rules.  The  simplification  procedures  were  not    always  extended  to  the  level  of 
beneficiary organisations, which represented a bottleneck given the need for urgent actions 
especially at the onset of the pandemic.  

In the state of emergency monitoring and cost-benefit considerations were not at the centre 
of attention amongst those programming and implementing the CRII and CRII+ operations. 
However, the new (non-paper) indicators are a significant step forward when compared with 
attempts to monitor (and evaluate) interventions aimed at addressing previous crises (e.g. 
the 2008-2009 economic crisis). By September 2022, 25 Member States and the UK were 
using the new indicators, across 150 OPs (or 80% of all ESF-funded programmes). This 
shows that although the indicators were non-mandatory, they were extensively used and 
support the efforts to measure the COVID-19 response. 

5.1.3. 

 Coherence 

ESF and FEAD operations under CRII/ CRII+ were largely aligned with prior ESF and 
FEAD measures and their overall objectives. ESF operations in the pandemic prioritised 
some  existing  areas  of  intervention  through  operations  adjusted  to  the  COVID-19 
circumstances but also new ones (that had not been implemented before). Due to the needs 
created by the pandemic and the need for operational flexibility in a crisis context, ESF CRII 
and CRII+ operations tended to focus more on the general public eligible for ESF support, 
or entities serving the general public, rather than on specific target groups of the ESF (e.g. 
older workers, people with disabilities etc). However, ESF operations under CRII and CRII+ 
continued to support vulnerable groups as well, for example ensuring access to social and 
health  support  services  was  maintained  for  groups  such  as  the  homeless  or  those  with 
disabilities. As discussed above, FEAD operations in the pandemic continued to target the 
most  deprived  through food  and  other  material  aid  and  the  number  of  people  supported 
rose significantly in 2020 relative to pre-pandemic years. 

ESF and FEAD CRII/ CRII+ operations were coherent with measures funded through 
national budgets and other EU instruments (including the ERDF, SURE, REACT-EU, 
and  ESF+).  The  research  often  identified  complementarities  between  the  measures 
implemented through various EU and national financial mechanisms. While some measures 
received funding from a variety of funding sources (most notably the support provided to 
companies  and  workers through short-time work schemes),  there are  no indications that 
this resulted in contradictions or duplications, but rather that different resources needed to 
be  pulled  together  to  address  substantial  needs  and  avoid  mass  bankruptcies  and 
unemployment. 250   

ESF  and  FEAD  CRII/  CRII+  operations  proved  to  be  well  integrated  in  national 
pandemic  response  strategies,  providing  responses  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in 
complementary  key  areas  such  as  the  social  inclusion  of  key  vulnerable  groups  (e.g. 

250 At the end of April 2020, for instance, in the EU27 there were more than 42 million applications for support for workers on 
short-time work or similar schemes, which corresponds to about one quarter of the overall EU workforce. Further details in 
Müller  T.,  Schulten  T.  (2020).  Ensuring  fair  short-time  work  -  a  European  overview.  In  ETUI,  The  European  Trade  Union 
https://www.etui.org/publications/policy-briefs/european-economic-employment-and-social-
at: 
Institute. 
policy/ensuring-fair-short-time-work-a-european-overview  

Available 

133 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

homeless, elderly, persons with disabilities), in the education/ training area (through training 
focusing on digital skills), and in supporting healthcare systems and staff.  

Apart  from  continuing  or  extending  the  CRII/CRII+  operations,  the  complementarity  with 
REACT-EU is particularly visible at the level of allocations. While funds under CRII/CRII+ 
were reallocated mostly to Thematic Objective 9 (Social inclusion and health), reflecting the 
most  urgent  needs  stemming  from  the  public  health  crisis,  REACT-EU  prioritised 
employment measures, thus focusing on middle-term crisis repair. 

5.1.4. 

Relevance 

The EU’s response to the pandemic through the CRII and CRII+ package was relevant to 
the needs of the Member States and supported governments to address the needs of 
individuals and entities that emerged from or were heightened by the crisis. Due to 
the simplifications, acceleration of the reprogramming process and financial reallocations 
enabled, as well as retroactive eligibility of expenses, the Funds could contribute timely 
and in a meaningful way to the crisis response across the Member States and the 
UK. This was important in particular in countries where the impact of the pandemic 
was  the  highest,  and  in  those  where  identifying  necessary  liquidity  for  deploying  crisis 
mitigation  measures  was  challenging.  The  relevance  of  ESF  scope  of  action  is  further 
confirmed by the net increase in ESF allocation by EUR 0.7 bn following the transfers from 
the ERDF and the CF. 

ESF operations under CRII and CRII+ supported and were relevant to the needs of 
individuals and entities (e.g., companies and organisations or institutions providing social 
and healthcare services) affected by the pandemic. Due to the change in focus of ESF 
under CRII/CRII+, there have been changes in the composition of participants, by age group 
but  also  by  employment  status.  Despite  the  broad  definitions  of  the  target  groups  in the 
operations  implemented  under  CRII/CRII+,  the focus  on  the  most  disadvantaged  groups 
was  not  lost.  Vulnerable  target  groups  continued  to  be  supported  through  the  CRII  and 
CRII+  operations  during  the  pandemic  (e.g.,  people  with  disabilities,  homeless  persons, 
students at risk of poverty or social exclusion, the elderly) even though new priorities and 
target groups had to be addressed (workers at risk of losing their jobs, companies at risk of 
bankruptcy, workers in healthcare establishments). By comparison, during the 2008 – 2009 
economic crisis, ESF interventions focused on the most affected groups at the time, e.g. 
young people, long-term unemployed, employees in the sectors most hit (manufacturing, 
construction, textiles), as well as people with disabilities, migrants, and people with very low 
incomes. 

The  continued  relevance  of  CRII/  CRII+  operations  is  evidenced  by  indications  that 
Member States have continued some CRII/ CRII+ operations through REACT-EU and also 
plan to continue some of the operations under ESF+, for example in the area of digital skills 
and e-learning, and job creation and retainment. 

FEAD operations during the pandemic continued to target the most deprived through food 
and  other  material  aid,  with  a  key  difference  being  the  heightened  support  to  partner 
organisations which had to overhaul standard procedures (e.g.  due to needing to deliver 
food to individuals’ homes, develop more targeted outreach activities, and enable access 
to  grocery  stores  in  a  way  that  reflected  the  social  distancing  rules).  The  COVID-19 
pandemic  and  the  use  of  CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  impacted  on  the  number  of  FEAD  end 
recipients, the number of whom strongly increased in 2020 (linked to the provision of support 
to  the  most  vulnerable  groups),  evidencing  the  relevance  of  FEAD  actions  during  the 

134 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

pandemic.  Overall,  the  characteristics  of  the  FEAD  end  recipients  did  not  change 
significantly. However, at the level of the EU27, there was a decrease in the number children 
aged 15 years or below in operations providing food support, but this trend is mainly driven 
by  changes  in  three  countries  (EE,  HU,  and  SK)  and  reflects  amendments  in  the  legal 
framework in these countries involving additional support options for families with children, 
and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  people  aged  65+  (see  further  details  in  Annex  1  – 
Appendix 3). The share of women remained relatively constant at around 50% at the level 
of the EU-27 in relation to food support and social inclusion measures, but it dropped from 
50% to 36% for the provision of basic material assistance. At level of EU27, there was also 
an increase of the number of homeless receiving support, based on an increase of 13p.p. 
in Germany. 

5.1.5. 

Contribution 

By  enabling  the  rapid  use  of  unspent  funding  available  from  the  2014  –  2020 
programming  period,  CRII  and  CRII+  contributed  to  reducing  the  impact  of  the 
pandemic  on  health  systems,  companies,  and  individuals.  The  initiatives  enabled  a 
variety  of  types  of  employment,  social  inclusion,  healthcare,  and  education/  training 
operations  (new  and  adjusted  relative  to  the  pre-pandemic  period)  to  be  planned  and 
implemented  across  the  Member  States  and  the  UK.    Most  CRII  and  CRII+  operations 
extended  previous  actions  but  were  adjusted  to  the  pandemic  context.  CRII  and  CRII+ 
operations  focused  on  health  actions  supporting  the  continued  functioning  of  healthcare 
systems  (these  operations  were  often  new)  but  also  access  to  services  for  vulnerable 
individuals;  short-time  work-schemes  (focusing  on  passive  measures  to support  workers 
and employers and protect jobs); improving digital skills and digitalisation in education and 
training as well as in public services and in work settings. Under CRII+, FEAD operations 
continued  to  provide  food  and/or  basic  material  assistance  to  the  most  deprived, 
notwithstanding some changes in the characteristics of the end recipients (as mentioned 
above). 

The broad scope of the operations in most countries shows that the Member States 
used  ESF  to  support  crisis  response  across  all  or  most  areas  facing  challenges, 
rather  than  concentrating  on  single  areas,  which  is  consistent  with  the  CRII/  CRII+ 
intervention logic and the the widespread negative impact of the pandemic on employment, 
healthcare, social inclusion and education in all countries. 

CRII  and  CRII+  also  contributed  to  developing  new  ways  of  cooperating  between 
governmental  and  non-governmental  stakeholders  across  policy  areas  (e.g.  cross-
departmental working groups) and to enabling greater cross-fund cooperation under the EU 
Cohesion Policy, supporting aligned interventions at the EU, national and regional levels 
during the pandemic. 

The results of the survey with the Managing Authorities show that the Member States would 
have used ESF and FEAD for anti-crisis reaction even without CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. 
However, the initiatives made a difference by accelerating and simplifying the processes 
involved. Compared to the reaction to the 2008 – 2009 economic crisis, the CRII and CRII+ 
also added value through their cross-fund and cross-policy approach, which extended the 
financial envelope available for anti-crisis operations and their scope. 

Overall,  due  to  the  relatively  limited  funds  still  available  at  the  end  of  the  2014  –  2020 
programming  period,  the  impact  of  CRII  and  CRII+  was  not  huge  in  scale,  but  the 
CRII/CRII+  operations    added  volume  to  national  measures,  brought  attention  to 
target  groups that  might  have otherwise  been omitted (e.g., the  homeless in  Poland 
and youth in Spain, as the case studies in Annex 6 show) and allowed the testing of new 

135 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

operations or approaches (as shown, for example, in the case studies of ESF operations 
in Greece and Sweden, and the FEAD operation in Luxembourg). 

5.2. 

Lessons learnt 

A number of lessons have emerged from this preliminary evaluation of the support provided 
by ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives. 

ESF and FEAD objectives address structural challenges but have also proved their 
added value in supporting crisis response. 

  ESF  and  FEAD  adapted  to  the  rapidly  developing  needs  caused  by  the 
coronavirus  crisis  while  continuing  to  pursue  their  long-term  objectives  of 
supporting jobs, social inclusion, combating poverty and providing aid to the most 
deprived, investing in education and (vocational) training. 

  The COVID-19 pandemic impacted every country and every human activity. In this 
context,  the  pursuit  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  objectives  required  adaptations  at  the 
level  of  actions  and  the  challenge  was  often  the  maintainace  of  the  status  quo 
(employment,  access  to  education,  healthcare  or  social  services),  which  justified 
support to passive measures (notably through short-time work schemes). Similarily, 
the  broad  character  of  the  crisis  justified  the  broad  definitions  of  target  groups  in 
operations under CRII/CRII+. However, beyond the COVID-19 crisis, the support to 
passive measures without a combination with complementary active measures as 
well  as  lack  of  sufficient  targeting  may  have  negative  implications  on  the 
achievement of ESF’s long-term objectives.  

  The  strengh  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  as  crisis  response  instruments  was  their 
established implementation structures which enabled the channelling of funds to the 
actors on the ground quickly. This was especially true in Member States where the 
national  budgets  for  ALMPs  or  social  services  are  limited  and  ESF  provides  a 
significant  contribution  into  employment  and  social  policies.  Therefore,  for  urgent 
reaction to the crisis the possibility to adjust existing operations and flexibility 
at the level of investment priorities was key.  

  Flexibility  emerged  as  the  most  needed  feature  of  an  effective  crisis 
instrument.  The  stakeholders  consulted 
this  preliminary  evaluation 
acknowledged the value of the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities and largely support the 
argument that these should be made permanent, to enable a quicker adaptation of 
ESF and FEAD to needs emerging and developing on the ground in crisis but also 
non-crisis  situations.  New  regulations  for  the  2021-2027  programming  period 
already  include an  emergency  clause  about their  use  in crisis contexts, reflecting 
this consideration. 

for 

The more active involvement of partners during the pandemic in some contexts has 
supported the gathering of relevant information about the needs on the ground, as 
they  emerged  and  developed,  which  informed  the  design  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD 
operations.  

  One of the greatest challenges during the pandemic has been to gather, in real time, 
reliable information about the needs emerging on the ground and design adequate 
interventions to respond to them (and their likely evolution in the near to medium 
term). Member States used a variety of channels to gather this information, including 

136 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

the  knowledge  of  social  partners  and  organisations  about  local  and  regional 
developments, providing useful learning for future approaches.  

Extending  flexibilities  to  national  and  regional  procedures  and  institutional/ 
organisational capacity are equally important to effective crisis response  

  Despite simplifications at the EU level, the research showed that procedures have 
at  times  remained  challenging  on  an  administrative  level,  especially  when 
corresponding simplifications at national or regional levels were not implemented. 
Implementing  urgently  new  operations  with  new  beneficiaries  who  had  to 
familiarise themselves with the administrative requirements proved difficult. 
This  implies  the  need  to  continue  to  focus  on  simplification  and  flexibility  in  the 
delivery  of  support,  extending  this  where  possible  at  national  levels  to  reflect 
developments in the use of EU instruments.  

  Likewise, evidence indicates that, where possible, combining EU flexibilities with 
national  ones  to  address  crises  can  support  further  efficiency  and 
effectiveness.  

Flexibility is needed, but it is also necessary to ensure that appropriate monitoring 
and  evaluation  mechanisms  to  secure  the  traceability  of  operations  and  their 
outcomes, even in situations of crisis response. 

  As the original ESF and FEAD monitoring systems were not designed to track 
the exceptional flexibility measures introduced by the coronavirus response 
initiatives,  the  Commission  proposed  new  financial  and  output  indicators  (the 
COVID-19  indicators)  to  be  used  by  the  ESF  national  and  regional  programmes. 
Despite their voluntary nature, ESF OPs in most Member States relied primarily on 
these (non-paper) indicators rather than developing their own national (or regional) 
indicators.  In  relation  to  FEAD,  monitoring  arrangements  appear  to  have  stayed 
essentially the same, reflecting the fact that the nature of support provided through 
the fund continued as before with limited changes. The introduction of a dedicated 
priority axis to amended OPs, as was later the case for REACT-EU, would have 
facilitated the identification and tracking of the actions implemented by the Member 
States to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. At the same time it may have limited the 
scale and the speed of the reaction, as most of the operations under CRII and CRII+ 
were existing, adjusted, operations. 

  The  current  arrangements  put  in  place  in  the  EU  Member  States  to  evaluate  the 
response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  appear  to  be  limited.  Where  evaluation 
arrangements have been put in place, these are typically not focused on measures 
introduced by CRII/CRII+, which may reduce the evidence relating to the results and 
impacts of these operations, and hence limit the learnings about the use of ESF and 
FEAD in crisis situations. This again indicates the importance of evaluation, as well 
as the need for evaluations to be detailed and specific in their focus on the way in 
which the Funds were used in the crisis response context.  

  There are inherent trade-offs between providing a wide range of flexibilities in the 
use of ESF and FEAD (which has supported effectiveness and efficiency in crisis 
response) and ensuring close monitoring of implementation (which may add some 
additional burden, particularly in crisis situations). Further considerations about how 
to  set  up  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  that  capture  essential 
implementation  of  similar  flexibility  packages, 
information  about  the 
especially 
robust  and 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of their outputs, results and impacts. In 

in  crisis  situations,  would  contribute 

to  more 

137 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

addition, discussions and agreement (involving key actors at EU and national level) 
at an early stage about the monitoring and evaluation of operations introduced in 
crisis situations could facilitate a more in-depth understanding of their impact, any 
implications for objectives and targets as initially set, as well as enabling learnings 
about how to improve reaction to future crises. 

Anti-crisis  operations  have  highlighted  investment  areas  where  ESF  and  FEAD 
operations could focus more in the future, in tandem with interventions supported 
through other funds during post-COVID-19 recovery. 

  Responding  better  to  the  needs  of  existing  and  emerging  vulnerable  groups  has 
been  emphasised  in  the  pandemic.  The  crisis  revealed  areas  where  pervasive 
inequalities  exist,  which  were  not  necessarily  the  focus  of  previous  interventions. 
Future  programming  can  take  note  of  this  in  ensuring the  further  development  of 
support for disadvantaged groups, including in promoting digitalisation and ensuring 
equality of digital access (as in crisis response operations that focused on facilitating 
distance  and  online  learning,  in  part  through  ensuring  access  to  equipment  and 
training). 

  The pandemic response also highlights how ESF operations can adopt a broader 
focus  on  supporting  general  health  through  a  focus  on  supporting  the  effective 
functioning and development of health and social care systems. Under ESF+, health 
actions  will  continue  to  focus  on  strengthening  such  systems  in  the  pandemic 
recovery phase, and some of the successful approaches highlighted by this study 
can be drawn upon as part of this (including those in the case studies).  

  ESF  actions  to  support  workers  and  employers  focused  on  active  measures 
(ALMPs) since the 2008 – 2009 economic crisis, whereas during the pandemic there 
was a shift of investments towards passive measures to preserve jobs and avoid 
large  scale  bankruptcies  –  due  to  the  crisis  circumstances.  However,  in  some 
instances  passive  measures  were  combined  with  active  ones  to  promote 
adaptability and employability skills while also protecting jobs. It is clear that ESF+ 
will support post-pandemic recovery actions in the area of employment through a 
renewed  focus  on  active  measures  including  skilling  and  reskilling  measures. 
However,  should  future  crises  arise  that  require  job-retention  support  as  in  the 
pandemic, the potential to combine passive measures (e.g. STWS) that stem from 
these with active measures should be considered. 

As a result of the CRII/ CRII+ ESF and FEAD operations implemented during the pandemic 
in the areas of digitalisation, and support for employers, workers, and healthcare systems, 
Member States have already piloted new ways of working and activities that are expected 
to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  actions  under  ESF+.  The  pandemic  response 
confirms  that  alignment  between  the  measures  implemented  through  the  different 
objectives  and  funding  priorities  of  the  EU  cohesion  policy  can  ensure 
complementarity and support effective results. 

  CRII and CRII+ flexibilities encouraged synergies between the ESF and other 
funds, notably the ERDF, through the opportunity to reallocate unspent funds. In 
the health area, for example, this enabled alignment between the operations funded 
by ERDF during the pandemic (e.g. support for vaccination capabilities) and those 
funded  by  the  ESF  (e.g.  support  for  recruiting  additional  healthcare  staff).  Such 
synergies  between  ESF  and  ERDF  funding  can  enhance  support  to  structural 
change in the 2021-2027 programming period, expanding COVID-19 measures to 
support  sustainable  outcomes  through  investments  in  infrastructure  as  well  as 
people (e.g., in the areas of healthcare, digital education or inclusive employment).  

138 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

  The  multitude  of  instruments  available  to  the  Member  States  during  the 
pandemic supported crisis response, but also added a significant burden on 
national authorities to ensure their coordination and complementarity under time 
pressure.  This  process,  however,  also  built  capacity  at  EU,  national  and  regional 
levels and supported the development of new ways of working that can contribute 
in  the  future  to  a  better  targeting  and  alignment  of  resources  to  pursue  the  EU’s 
Cohesion Policy priorities during 2021-2027.  

The lessons learnt during the COVID-19 crisis are to an extent relevant to the needs 
emerging in the context of the crisis resulting from the arrival of people fleeing the 
war in Ukraine. 

  There  are  some  early  (though  inconclusive)  indications  that  the  coronavirus 
response  initiative  flexibilities  may  have  been  less  relevant  in  the  context  of  the 
arrival in EU Member States of people fleeing the war in Ukraine. This appears to 
be due to the fact that funds had already been committed for other operations. The 
extent of the relevance appears to be country-specific and linked to the scope of the 
challenges  faced  by  the  Member  States;  the  types  of  measures  that  different 
governments have been implementing to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis 
and those of the new crisis; as well as the extent to which further funds were still 
available  under  the  ESF  and  FEAD  from  the  2014-2020  programming  period. 
Lessons  have  nonetheless  been  learnt  from  the  process  that  enabled  a  quick 
response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  which  have  been  applied  in  the  context 
triggered by the war in Ukraine at the EU level and in the case of some Member 
States, regardless of the fact that ESF and FEAD might not have been used to the 
same extent in the two crisis situations. 

 

In  addition  to the  potential  relevance  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  to  the  context  of  the 
support provided to individuals fleeing Ukraine due to the war, there are also other 
mid- to long-term implications of the Russian aggression, such as the energy crisis 
and recession. ESF+ alongside other Funds (e.g., ERDF) can support tackling these 
consequences  by  providing  assistance  to  employees  and  the  self-employed, 
alongside vulnerable households or businesses affected by rising energy prices, as 
well  as  fund  adapted  infrastructures  or  measures  to  reduce  energy  waste  (e.g., 
improved  house  insulation).  FEAD  can  help  provide  emergency  aid  for  the  most 
deprived. Such actions could benefit from flexibilities such as those included in the 
CRII and CRII+ package and contribute to reducing liquidity problems in the Member 
States.  

139 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annexes 

Annex 1: Supporting information 

Annex 2: Methods and analytical models used 

Annex 3: Evaluation matrix 

Annex 4: Overview of benefits and costs 

Annex 5: Consultation synopsis report 

Annex 6: Case studies of good practices 

140 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 1: Supporting information 

Appendix 1: Additional information on Member States ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis operations 

Overview of mapped Covid-19 anti-crisis operations across IPs 

Table A 1 – Detailed typology of operations across investment priorities251 

No. 

8i 

8ii  8iii  8iv  8v  8vi  8vii  9i 

9ii 

9iii  9iv  9v  9vi  10i  10ii  10iii  10iv  10v  10vi  11i  11ii  11iii 

40 

23 

3 

5 

1 

27 

3 

1 

14 

1 

6 

1 

1 

Type of 
operations 

Actions  to  promote 
inclusion 
social 
through 
ensuring 
access to services 

Actions  to  promote 
the  social  inclusion 
vulnerable 
of 
through 
groups 
providing 
direct 
targeted support 

Other 
inclusion 

social 

3 

Actions  to  protect 
jobs 

44 

10 

1 

2 

20 

2 

1 

10 

1 

Actions  to  support 
employers  and  the 
self-employed 

41 

3 

7 

26 

1 

1 

3 

251 The number of operations is based on the mapping of the SFC2014 database by the contractor and is subject to the limitations described in Annex 2. The total number of operations in the Table 
is 354. Finding a type of operation for one operation  programmed in 2014IT05SFOP012 under IP11i was not possible due to limited information. Therefore, this operation is not included in this 
Table. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Type of 
operations 

Actions  to  support 
workers 

Actions  to  support 
young 
NEET 
people  through  the 
YEI 

No. 

8i 

8ii  8iii  8iv  8v  8vi  8vii  9i 

9ii 

9iii  9iv  9v  9vi  10i  10ii  10iii  10iv  10v  10vi  11i  11ii  11iii 

34 

18 

3 

2 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

7 

7 

Other  employment 
actions 

3 

1 

1 

1 

54 

26 

4 

25 

20 

Actions  to  support 
healthcare systems 

Actions  to  support 
healthcare  workers 
and patients 

Other healthcare 

Actions  to  ensure 
the  continuity  of 
education 
and 
training 

ensure 

Equipment/  other 
investment 
capital 
the 
to 
of 
continuity 
and 
education 
training 

Other 
education 
and training actions 

29 

2 

1 

8 

1 

52 

16 

3 

1 

15 

4 

4 

1 

16 

1 

1 

2 

9 

1 

15 

4 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of a sample of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations252  

Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations - Employment 

Table A 2 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: employment 

Key 
thematic 
areas (ESF) 

Typology of 
operations 
(ESF) 

Brief description of 
operations & intended 
results 

Employment  Actions 

to 

protect jobs 

on 

Actions to secure jobs of 
furlough 
those 
because  the  employers 
were 
to  close 
forced 
their services 

Characteristics of support 
(Common Examples) 

  Providing support for those who are technically unemployed as a result of 

the pandemic, with e.g., wage subsidies and grants 

 

support employers in maintaining jobs at risk from the COVID 19 epidemic 
(part-time or full-time subsidies and similar measures) 

  One off grants for workers in specific sectors considered at risk (transport 
sector, tourism, entertainment and cultural sector) to avoid them leaving the 
sector 

Supporting  businesses 
maintaining 
activity, 
and 
jobs, 
existing 
creating new ones 

  One off grants for businesses hiring new employees during the  pandemic, 
including schemes for hiring new employees in harder to reach areas, and 
hiring employees within specific age brackets 

  Grants for converting short term contracts into permanent ones 
  Financial aid for those who had to request a leave or reduce working hours 

because of caring responsibilities  

  Vouchers for allowing children of families in need to attend childcare thus 

allowing parents to continue working 

Support  employers  and 
employees  to  adapt  to 
change 

  Financial  contribution  to  businesses  (incl.  self-employed)  to  create  and 

implement tele-working schemes for their workers 

  Support  the  adaptability  of  companies  through  the  development  of 

professional skills 

252 The table includes a sample of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations mapped by October 2022 
143 

Examples of countries 
& regions where 
operations were 
implemented 

DE 
CY, 
IT, 
(Niedersachsen), 
IT 
(Abruzzo, 
Basilicata,  Bolzano, 
Lombardia,  Piemonte, 
Sardegna, 
Puglia, 
Trento),  LT,  LU,  MT, 
PL 
(Łódzkie, 
Małopolskie, 
Zachodniomorskie), 
PT 
PT, 
Centro) 

(Azores, 

SP 
(Cataluña, 
Extremadura,  Castilla 
la Mancha), HU, IT, PL 
(Lubelskie), 
PT 
(Alentejo, Azores), SI 

(Friuli  Venezia 
Marche, 
PL 
PT 

IT 
Giulia, 
Sardegna,), 
(Wielkopolskie), 
(Madeira) 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

to 

Actions 
support 
workers 

Support to workers who 
are on furlough because 
the  employers  were 
forced 
their 
to  close 
services 

the 
Supporting 
unemployed, 
including 
those that have lost their 
job  because  of 
the 
Covid19 pandemic 

Support 
supporting 
aiming 
businesses 

the 

recovery 
workers 
to  open  new 

Support  workers 
in 
adapting  to  teleworking 
arrangements 

to 

Support 
self-
employed  and  small 
retain 
businesses 
staff/ maintain activity 

to 

Support  for  employers 
and 
for 
companies 
setting 
telework 
arrangements 

up 

Supporting 
people in finding a job 

young 

to 

Actions 
support 
employers  and 
the 
self-
employed 

Actions 
to 
support  NEET 
young  people 
through 
the 
YEI 

  Providing support for those who are  technically unemployed as a result of 

the pandemic, with e.g., wage subsidies and grants 

SI, IT, CZ 

  Cash benefits for workers who faced job loss 
  Enable workers on furlough to attend professional development courses in 

the form of distance learning 

 
 

Incentives and grants for the unemployed in emergency need 

Improving qualifications of unemployed people, and those that have greatest 
issues in finding employment 

  Assistance in active job search, such as job placements, psychological and 
career counselling support tailored to the individual needs of a job seeker 
  Training courses equipping workers with key knowledge necessary to start 

a business 

  Grants for entrepreneurs starting a business 
  Providing  entrepreneurs  with 

innovation  and  business  management 

development sessions, including networking and sessions with mentors 
  Support  workers  in  need  with  the  of  purchasing  laptops,  tables  and  other 

hardware or software 

  Training to support the proper use of telework equipment 

e.g.,  PL 
RO, PT (Lisboa) 

(Opolskie), 

PL 
Świętokrzyskie), DK 

(Małopolskie, 

FR (Martinique) 

  Grants for self-employed that had to suspend their activities 
  Compensating loss of income and increase costs faced by SMEs and self-

employed in the cultural and creative sector 

  Grants for businesses hiring personnel in the tourism sector, incl. seasonal 

BG,  GR, 
IT  (Lazio, 
Valle  d’Aosta),  PT 
(Alentejo, Lisboa), DK, 
FR (Guyane) 

workers 

  Wage subsidy for companies hiring highly qualified workers in SMEs 
  Supporting companies in developing skills within their existing workforce 
  Provision of software licenses to access secure systems services 

IT, FR (Guadeloupe) 

  Actions  to  offer  support  for  young  people,  including  individual  counselling 

and mentoring, training and internship opportunities 

  Financial contributions to young people who had to suspend their internships 

or traineeships because of the pandemic 

ES, PL, FR, IT 

144 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations - Social Inclusion 

Table A 3 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: social inclusion 

Key 
thematic 
areas 
(ESF) 

Social 
inclusion 

Typology of 
operations 
(ESF) 

Brief description of 
operations & intended results 

Characteristics of support 
(Common Examples) 

of 

to 
the 

Actions 
promote 
social 
inclusion 
vulnerable 
groups 
through 
providing 
direct targeted 
support 

Strengthening  health,  social 
and  economic  support 
to 
vulnerable 
groups  while 
remaining accessible 

  Guaranteeing quarantine or post-hospital recovery to people who do not 
have adequate accommodation for this purpose (e.g.: purchase of PPE, 
necessities) 

  Supporting families in temporary economic difficulty (e.g., necessities, e-

learning solutions, costs for broadband internet connection) 

  Vouchers for the purchase of food and necessities 
  Socio-educational  and  socio-recreational  activities  –  funding  measures 
that prevent the spread of Covid-19, e.g.: sanitation of schools, supporting 
health stuff, etc. 

  Specific  instruments  for  the  protection  of  victims  and  monitoring  of 

aggressors in domestic violence 

  Economic  support  measures  for  workers  whose  activity  has  been 

suspended 

  Provision  of  IT  equipment  to  disadvantaged/unemployed  persons  to 

encourage their participation in vocational training 

  Vocational qualification measures for the long-term unemployed and the 

unemployed 

Countries & regions 
where operations 
were implemented 

DE 
IT 
(Bayern), 
(Basilicata,  Liguria, 
Sicilia,  Umbria),  PL 
(Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 
Voivodeship), PT 

Dissemination 
information 

of 

official 

 

Informing the population about COVID-19, its consequences on health and 
daily life and measures taken by the public authorities 

FR (Martinique), UK 

employment 
groups 

of 
Increase 
vulnerable 
and 
strengthen  social  inclusion  in 
companies 

and 

Social 
professional 
activation  of  people  with 
disadvantaged  backgrounds 

  Providing devices to access online information 
  Recruitment of socially responsible companies 
  Training of company mentors 
 
 
  Access to legal and civic counselling 
  Professional and social reintegration activities, e.g.: social contracts, local 

Industry-oriented qualification course 

Job search support 

SE (Jutland) 

PL, PT (Azores) 

activity programs, qualification programmes 

145 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

(e.g.: persons with disabilities, 
long-term unemployed) 

Specific measures to support 
family 
personal,  work  and 
reconciliation  to  reduce  the 
economic  impact  of  COVID-
19 

Extraordinary  placement  of 
workers 

Actions 
promote 
social 
inclusion 
through 
ensuring 
access 
services 

to 

to 

Measures supporting 
households with dependent 
children / persons with limited 
autonomy 

Measures aiming to shift to a 
model of community-based 
services (compared to an 
institutional model of 
services) 

  Vocational  activation  through  e.g.  internships,  subsidised  employment, 
supported employment, career counselling, job placement, job coach 

  Establishing links between potential employees and employers 
  Supporting  natural  persons,  self-employed  workers  and  employees 

contracting unemployed persons for home care 

ES (Extremadura) 

  Replacement  of  workers  who  are  unable  to  perform  their  duties  in  the 

areas of health and social support by unemployed persons 

  Payment of a supplementary monthly grant, transport and meal expenses 

PT (Algarve, Azores) 

or food allowance for each day of activity 

  Vouchers for baby-sitting or other services for children 
  Vouchers for services for persons with limited autonomy 
  Extension of parental leave 

IT, IT (Sardegna) 

  Creating a network of social and cross-sectoral services in the community 
  Providing targeted services in assisted-housing 

PL, 

BG, 
(Opolskie, 
Pomorskie) 

PL 

Improving the accessibility of 
social services 

 

Increasing the capacity / supply / range of social services253 

PL (Lubuskie) 

Development 
economy sector 

of 

social 

Supporting  children  AROPE 
to follow online education 

activities 

Educational 
to 
improve  the  ability  of  staff 
working  in  social  assistance 
aimed  at  counteracting  the 
negative impact of Covid-19 

  Supporting existing or new social enterprises e.g., through the provision of 

incubation or business services 

  Providing IT equipment (laptops, tablets) for children AROPE or otherwise 

vulnerable 

PL 
Mazurskie)  

(Warmińsko-

GR, FR 

  Specialization training for people managing shelters for the homeless 
 

Implementation  of  education  standards  in  three  key  areas:  social 
mediation, activity organising, social services organising 

PL 

253 This covers a wide range of services including, but not limited to early (health) prevention services; support for families experiencing care and upbringing problems, including when there is a 
risk of losing the possibility of taking care of children, and support for foster care; improving access to sheltered / assisted / training housing, and others; support for the elderly; support for people 
with disabilities, and others. 

146 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Increasing  the  availability  of 
healthcare 
social 
services 
to  marginalized 
Roma communities 

and 

  Provision of employment services based on labour market needs 
  Support for programs aimed at ensuring minimum hygiene standards, e.g.: 
provision of necessary medical or sanitary equipment against Covid-19 

SK 

social 

Other 
inclusion 
actions 

Creation  of  high-quality  jobs 
in the social economy sector 

  Support  for  the  creation  and  functioning  of  social  enterprises,  e.g. 

mentoring in the field of running a business. 

FR, PL 

  Support  the  development  of  existing  social  enterprises,  e.g.  advisory 

services, legal services, accounting, finance, services 

Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations - Health 

Table A 4 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: health 

Key 
thematic 
areas 
(ESF) 

Health 

Typology of 
operations 
(ESF) 

Brief description of 
operations & intended results 

to 

Actions 
support 
healthcare 
workers  and 
patients 

in 

Support staff to treat Covid19 
healthcare 
patients 
settings,  as  well  as  securing 
access  to  services  to  other 
patients 

Characteristics of support 
(Common Examples) 

  Purchasing  material  for  detecting  and  treating  Covid19  infections  and 
protecting  users  and  staff  in  health  settings  (e.g.,  testing  kits,  PPE, 
instrumentation, medical equipment and devices) 

  Coverage  of  overtime  costs  and  other  related  charges  of  operators 

engaged in dealing with the health emergency  

  Additional  compensations  for  staff  working  in  emergency  healthcare 

settings 

  Support the hiring of auxiliary staff in healthcare settings, incl. volunteers; 
accelerating  the  recruitment  of  students  in  medical  schools,  and/or  re-
engaging staff that have recently retired 

  Psychological and mental health support for professionals and users 

Examples of 
countries & regions 
where operations 
were implemented 

e.g., 
DE 
BG, 
(Niedersachsen),  FR 
(Réunion), 
GR 
(Ionian  Islands),  IT, 
PL,  PL 
(Lódzkie, 
Małopolskie, 
Mazowieckie, 
Podkarpackie, 
Podlaskie, 
Pomorskie,  Śląskie, 
Wielkopolskie, 
Zachodniomorskie), 
PT 
(Centro),  UK 
(East  Wales,  West 
Wales 
the 
Valleys) 

and 

Training  for  staff  active  in 
healthcare settings 

  Training for medical staff  
  Granting  contribution  to  students  obtaining  HE  qualification  in  medical-

LV,  DE  (Saarland), 
BE (Flanders), IT 

related subjects 

147 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Actions 
support 
healthcare 
systems 

to 

Support  healthcare  providers 
and  systems,  including  local 
and regional ones 

  Support the hiring of auxiliary staff in healthcare settings  
  Grants to local health providers 
  Purchasing  material  for  detecting  and  treating  Covid19  infections  and 
protecting  users  and  staff  in  health  settings  (e.g.  testing  kits,  PPE, 
instrumentation, medical equipment and devices) 
  Purchase and distribution of PPE to general population 

Setting  up  mobile  units  to 
assist  patients  and/or 
test 
Covid19 cases 

  Provision of health services in refugees and immigrant reception centres 
  Provision of health services, social distancing measures and information 

to the general population in touristic destinations 

  Reinforce the mitigation of the contagion in institutions of the social and 
solidarity sector, such as homes for people with disabilities and in need for 
continuing care 

  Grants to local health providers 

DE 
e.g., 
(Brandenburg),  SP 
(Andalucía, 
Cantabria),  FR,  GR, 
IT  (Emilia  Romagna, 
Sardegna,),  PL,  PL 
(Dolnośląskie, 
Lubelskie), 
PT 
(Alentejo, Norte), RO 

(Central 

GR 
Macedonia, 
Continental  Greece), 
ES (Valenciana) 

Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations - Education and Training 

Table A 5 – Overview of ESF anti-crisis operations: education and training  

Key 
thematic 
areas 
(ESF) 

Education 
and 
training 

Typology of 
operations 
(ESF) 

to 
Actions 
the 
ensure 
of 
continuity 
education  and 
training  

Brief description of operations 
& intended results 

Characteristics of support 
(Common Examples) 

of 

Establishment 
regional 
networks for schools to prevent 
leaving  and 
school 
early 
ensure equal access 

Competence  development  of 
students to respond the needs 
of labour market 

Support  to  students  in  tertiary 
education 
financial 
through 
means 

Initiation of regional educational offers 

 
  Provision of needs-based socio-pedagogic support 

  Organisation  of  trainings,  workshops,  etc.  based  on  key  universal 

competences 

  Counselling, psychological, and pedagogical care 

  Exemption from annual university fees 
  Scholarships, grants 
  Targeted support to students with disadvantaged background 

148 

Examples of 
countries & regions 
where operations 
were implemented 

DE 

PL 

 IT 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Support to distance learning (in 
all  education  and 
training 
institutions) 

Support to trainees/students in 
and 
vocational 
training 

education 

  Exemption of PhD deadlines 
  Providing IT equipment, technological platforms, software 
  Creation and production of educational material, e.g.: e-books, integrated 

FR, IT, PL, PT  

educational platform 
  One-off  contributions 

to  support  university  students 

lacking 

the 

necessary tools and means of Internet connectivity 
  Support for innovative teaching and learning projects 
  Social support 
  Covering expenses associated with distance learning 
  Purchase of personal protective materials and other measures to ensure 

PT 

social distance 

Support to teachers 

  Training and counselling, e.g.: digital skills and competences, distance 

education 

IT, PL, PT 

Equipment/ 
other 
capital 
investment  to 
the 
ensure 
continuity 
of 
education  and 
training  

Support  to  distance  learning 
education  services 
the 
digital  transition  of  education 
(in  all  education  and  training 
institutions) 

for 

Grants to purchase books and 
teaching  material  for  students 
in economic need 

Other 
education  and 
training 
actions 

Increasing 
the  professional 
qualifications of students on the 
labour market 

Competence 
development 
measures  for  employees  and 
laid-off workers 

  Digitalisation of equipment for pedagogical purposes 
  Equipping  schools  with 

IT  equipment,  e.g.:  portable  computers, 
hardware, software (to be made available of students with disadvantaged 
background) 

Introduction of digital education technologies 

 
  Training for teachers on how to provide distance education 
  Allowing  educational  institutions  to  purchase  supports,  books  and 

teaching material 

 

Investment  aimed  at  improving  the  conditions  of  vocational  education, 
e.g.: equipping studios and workshops with modern equipment 

  Activities  enabling  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  and  experience  in  the 
real work environment, e.g.: internships, apprenticeships, dual education 

  Validation  and  competence  development  measures  provided 

for 

companies and their employees 

  Upskilling  and  reskilling  of  laid  off  employees  in  the  fashion  trade  and 
textile as well as tourism sectors, e.g.: sustainability skills, second hand 
textile sorters 

  Language  courses  in  professional  language  for  people  for  migrant 

background working in the transport sector 

  Skills  mapping  and  targeted  skills  training  such  as  in  the  retail  and 

manufacturing sectors, e.g.: free online courses 

BG, FR, IT, PT, PL 

IT 

(Wielkopolskie 

PL 
Voivodeship) 

 DK,  IT  (Umbria),  SE 
(Västernorrland, 
Jämtland, Gävleborg, 
Örebro, etc.) 

149 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Compensation 
knowledge 
disrupted education 

gap 

for  students’ 
to 
due 

Modernisation  of  vocational 
and adult education to meet the 
needs of the labour market 

skills 

Improving 
and 
professional  competences  of 
teachers  for  better  quality  of 
education services 

Encouraging  participation 
in 
university education and create 
equal  opportunities  for  access 
to education 

  Provision  of  teaching  aids,  texts  and  methodological  materials  for  the 

needs of quality inclusive education 

  Support  for  educational  activities  in  lagging  regions  and  regions 
economically  dependent  on  industries  in  decline,  e.g.,  coal  mining 
regions 

  Systemic review of curricula 
  Training of vocational teachers and practical trainers 

SK 

HU 

  Development of interpersonal and social skills 
  Providing tools for psychological and pedagogical diagnostics 

(Podkarpackie 

PL 
Voivodeship) 

  Scholarships for students in need 

IT (Molise) 

Overview of FEAD anti-crisis operations 

Table A 6 – Overview of FEAD anti-crisis operations 

Key 
thematic 
areas 
(FEAD) 

Social 
inclusion in 
respect  of 
addressing 
poverty 
and 
effects 

its 

Typology of 
operations 

Brief description of operations & 
intended results 

Characteristics of support 
(Common Examples) 

Examples of 
countries & regions 
where operations 
were implemented 

Provision  of 
food aid 

Provision  of 
food  and  basic 
material  aid  to  the  most  deprived 
persons  (including  children) 
to 
meet increased demand  

Provision  of 
food 
and 
basic 
material 

Purchase  and  distribution  of 
vouchers/electronic cards 

  Purchase of food 
  Distribution  of  food  aid  and  material  assistance  (e.g.:  hygiene 

BE, SK 

packages) 

  Electronic  cards/vouchers 

to  be  used 

for 

food/basic  material 

assistance 

FR, PT 

  Monthly top-up of vouchers (up to a predetermined financial amount) 

150 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

assistance 
through 
vouchers 

Home 
delivery 
food  aid 
the 
deprived 

of 
to 
most 

Provision  of 
information 
about  other 
social 
inclusion 
activities 
upon  delivery 
of 
food 
packages 
(e.g. 
counselling, 
social 
and 
knowledge 
development, 
etc.) 

skills 

Purchasing 
personal 
protective 
equipment 
and 
disinfectants 

Technical 
support 
enable 
delivery 
support 

to 

of 

Delivery of hot lunch and individual 
food packages to minimum 50,000 
vulnerable people. 

  Provision of information on Covid-19 
  Provision of clothing 
  Healthcare workers, organised in mobile groups monitoring the health 

BG 

status of some users 

individual 
Adjusted  delivery  of 
food packages and accompanying 
services to individuals and families 
most  affected  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

  Disease  prevention  measures,  e.g..:  animated  movie,  leaflet  on 

hygiene 

BG  

  Health checks to determine risk factors for Covid-19 infection 
  Consultations on personal and household hygiene 

Supplying  personal  protective 
equipment  and  disinfectants  to 
partner  organisations  to  enable 
them distribute food packages 

Protecting  volunteers  to  ensure 
continuity of FEAD support 

continuity  of 

Ensuring 
distribution  without 
contact 

food 
personal 

  Supply of personal protective equipment and disinfectants to partner 

organisations  

  Purchasing  medical  protective  equipment,  e.g.:  masks,  gloves, 

disinfectant 

  Distribution of equipment to partner organisation and volunteers 
  Buying bags for packaging of food and hygiene items 
  Pre-arranged food pick-up times 

BG 

LT 

LT 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

measures  to 
recipients 

Management,  programming,  and 
monitoring  support 
to  enable 
implementation of operation 

Social 
networking 
activities 
the elderly 

for 

Increasing  social 
inclusion  of 
isolated  elderly  people  through 
social activities in the four largest 
municipalities. 

  Using  FEAD  funds  to  cover  for  the  technical  assistance  gap  of  the 

operation 

  Support for intervention management, monitoring, audits and controls 

of operations 

  Design  and  development  of  the  computerized  data  recording  and 

storage system 

  Awareness raising on accessible support (“corona ticket”) 
  Teaching the elderly of video calling 

ES 

NL 

Overview of target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations across the four thematic fields and FEAD anti-crisis operations 

Table A 7 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of education and training 

Key thematic 
areas (ESF) 

Typology of operations 

Key target group(s) & Main characteristics 

Examples of countries & regions where operations 
were implemented254 

Education 
and training 

Actions  to  ensure  the 
continuity  of  education 
and training 

Students in primary, secondary and/or tertiary education or training. 
Sometimes  targeting  especially  those  with  multiple  disadvantages, 
including economic disadvantages. 

FR (Martinique), IT (Basilicata, Lazio, Molise, Umbria), 
PL 
(Kujawsko-Pomorskie,  Lubuskie,  Małopolskie, 
Świętokrzyskie), PT 

Teachers, including those providing vocational training 

PL 

PT, 
Świętokrzyskie), IT (Basilicata) 

(Lubuskie,  Małopolskie, 

Podlaskie 

Students’ families and parents 

PL (Małopolskie), IT (Molise) 

other 
Equipment/ 
capital 
to 
ensure the continuity of 
education and training  

investment 

Students in primary, secondary and/or tertiary education or training. 
Sometimes  targeting  especially  those  with  multiple  disadvantages, 
including economic disadvantages. 

Teachers, including those providing vocational training 

BG,  FR  (Guadeloupe  et  St  Martin),  IT  (Basilicata, 
Calabria, Liguria, Marche, Sicilia, Toscana, Trento), PL 
(Mazowieckie,  Opolskie),  PT,  PT  (Alentejo,  Centro, 
Norte) 

PT,  PL  (Mazowieckie,  Opolskie),  IT  (Friuli  Venezia 
Giulia, Marche, Sicilia, Trento)  

254 Where no reference is made to region(s), operations are part of a national-level operational plan. 
152 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Schools and institutions providing education and training 

FR (Guadeloupe), IT (Friuli Venezia Giulia)  

Other  education  and 
training actions 

Students in primary, secondary and/or tertiary education or training. 
Sometimes  targeting  especially  those  with  multiple  disadvantages, 
including economic disadvantages and disabilities 

FR  (Provence-Alpes-Côte  d'Azur), 
IT  (Basilicata, 
Calabria,  Lazio,  Liguria,  Marche,  Molise,  Piemonte, 
Sardegna,  Toscana,  Trento),  PL 
(Dolnośląskie, 
Wielkopolskie  Voivodeship),  PT,  SK,  HU  (Central 
Hungary) 

Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis 

HU, PL (Opolskie), RO, SE 

Teachers, including those providing vocational training 

(Sardegna),  PL 

IT 
Pomorskie, Wielkopolskie), SK 

(Dolnośląskie,  Podkarpackie, 

Employers, including those active in economically vulnerable sectors 
due to the Covid 19 crisis 

HU, HU (Central Hungary), SE 

Table A 8 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of employment 

Key thematic 
areas (ESF) 

Typology of 
operations 

Key target group(s) & Main characteristics 

Examples of countries & regions where operations 
were implemented255 

Employment 

Actions to protect jobs  Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis.  

Entities (e.g., companies, SMEs), entrepreneurs and self-employed  

CY,  ES,  HU,  IT  (Abruzzo,  Bolzano,  Calabria,  Friuli 
Venezia  Giulia,  Liguria,  Lombardia,  Marche, 
Piemonte,  Puglia,  Sardegna,  Trento),  LT,  MT,  PL 
(Łódzkie, Lubelskie, Małopolskie, Wielkopolskie), PT, 
PT (Centro, Madeira), SI 

DE  (Niedersachsen),  ES  (Cataluña),  HU  (Central 
Hungary), IT (Basilacata, Calabria, Campania, Centro 
Friuli  Venezia  Giulia,  Sardegna),  LU,  PL  (Łódzkie, 
Lubelskie, 
Wielkopolskie, 
Zachodniomorskie), PT (Azores, Centro) 

Małopolskie, 

255 Where no reference is made to region(s), operations are part of a national-level operational plan. 
153 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Actions 
workers 

to  support 

Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis.   

CZ,  EE,  FR  (Martinique),  IT,  IT  (Molise,    Sardegna, 
Umbria),  PL 
Lubuskie, 
Mazowieckie,  Opolskie,  Podkarpackie,  Podlaskie, 
Pomorskie,  Śląskie,  Świętokrzyskie,  Warmińsko-
Mazurskie, Wielkopolskie), PT (Lisboa), RO, SI, SK 

(Kujawsko-Pomorskie, 

Young  people  (being 
employment) and apprentices  

them  NEET,  employed,  or 

looking 

for 

PL (Małopolskie), FR (Martinique), DE (Bayern) 

Entities (e.g., companies, SMEs), entrepreneurs and self-employed  

Actions 
employers  and 
self-employed 

to  support 
the 

Entities  (e.g.,  companies,  SMEs),  employers,  entrepreneurs,  self-
employed 

PL  (Lubuskie,  Łódzkie,  Opolskie,  Podkarpackie, 
Podlaskie, Śląskie, Świętokrzyskie, Wielkopolskie) 

DK,  DK  (Bornholm,  North  Jutland,  South  Funen, 
Zealand),  FR  (Guadeloupe,  Martinique),  GR,  PL 
(Lubelskie, Małopolskie), PT (Algarve) 

Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis. 

BG, DE (Bayern), DK, FR (Guadeloupe et St Martin, 
Guadeloupe),  IT  (Friuli-Venezia  Giulia,  Lazio,  Valle 
d’Aosta), PT (Algarve, Alentejo) 

Actions 
to  support 
NEET  young  people 
through the YEI 

Young people not in employment aged between 15-29 

Employers and employees of SMEs 

PL, ES 

PL 

Other 
actions 

employment 

Entities  (e.g.,  companies,  SMEs),  employers,  entrepreneurs,  self-
employed 

DK,  DK  (South  Funen),  PL  (Łódzkie,  Małopolskie, 
Podkarpackie, Podlaskie, Pomorskie, Świętokrzyskie,  
Wielkopolskie), PT (Algarve), SK 

Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis. 

EE, IT (Molise, Sardegna, Umbria), PL (Mazowieckie, 
Pomorskie,  Warmińsko-Mazurskie,  Wielkopolskie), 
PT (Lisboa), SK 

Families and children 

IT (Umbria) 

154 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 9 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of social inclusion 

Key thematic 
area (ESF) 

Typology of 
operations 

Key target group(s) & Main characteristics 

Examples of countries & regions where operations 
were implemented256 

Social 
inclusion 

Actions to promote the 
inclusion  of 
social 
groups 
vulnerable 
providing 
through 
targeted 
direct 
support 

Actions 
social 
through 
access to services  

to  promote 
inclusion 
ensuring 

Vulnerable  groups  including  those  with  disabilities,  the  elderly  and 
young  children,  as  well  as  those  socially  excluded,  e.g.,  homeless, 
which in some cases has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. 

DE  (Bayern),  FR  (Guadeloupe,  Guadeloupe  et  St 
Martin), IT (Basilicata, Liguria, Metrolitan Cities, Sicilia, 
Umbria),  PL  (Podlaskie,  Świętokrzyskie, Warmińsko-
Mazurskie,  Wielkopolskie),  PT,  PT  (Azores,  Lisboa), 
UK 

Entities or  people  providing  support  to combat  Covid-19,  e.g.,  health 
services or schools providing distance learning 

(Umbria), 

IT 
Świętokrzyskie), PT (Algarve) 

PL 

(Kujawsko-Pomorskie, 

General population 

FR (Guyane), GR (Crete), IT (Calabria, Toscana), PL 
(Podlaskie), SI 

Adults  in  the  job  market  who  were  employed  at  risk  of  being 
unemployed,  dismissed  or  technically  unemployed,  including  those 
active in economically vulnerable sectors due to the Covid-19 crisis. 

GR,  IT  (Basilicata,  Campania,  Lazio,  Liguria,  Molise, 
Trento, Veneto), PL (Kujawsko-Pomorskie) 

Entities or  people  providing  support  to combat  Covid-19,  e.g.,  health 
services or schools providing distance learning 

Vulnerable  groups  including  those  with  disabilities,  the  elderly  and 
young  children,  as  well  as  those  socially  excluded,  e.g.,  homeless, 
which in some cases has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. 

FR,  (Martinique),  IT  (Molise,  Toscana,  Trento),  PL 
(Podlaskie,  Śląskie,  Świętokrzyskie,  Warmińsko-
Mazurskie), RO 

BG,  GR  (Thessaly),  IT,  IT  (Basilicata,  Campania, 
Liguria,  Sardegna),  PL,  PL  (Kujawsko-Pomorskie, 
Lubuskie,  Opolskie,  Podkarpackie,  Pomorskie, 
Warmińsko-Mazurskie, 
Wielkopolskie, 
Zachodniomorskie), PT (Lisboa), RO 

Actions 
social 
through 
support services 

to  promote 
inclusion 
enhancing 

Public and non-public institutions operating for the benefit of all people   PL 

Members and residents of minority Roma communities (MRC) 

SK 

Social entities and social economy enterprises 

PL (Podlaskie, Śląskie) 

256 Where no reference is made to region(s), operations are part of a national-level operational plan. 
155 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Other  social  inclusion 
actions 

Vulnerable  groups  including  those  with  disabilities,  the  elderly  and 
young  children,  as  well  as  those  socially  excluded,  e.g.,  homeless, 
which in some cases has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis 

PL (Podlaskie, Śląskie) 

Table A 10 – Target groups of ESF anti-crisis operations in the field of health 

Key thematic 
area (ESF) 

Typology of 
operations 

Health 

Actions 
to  support 
healthcare  workers 
and patients 

Key target group(s) & Main characteristics 

Examples of countries & regions where operations 
were implemented257 

Health service entities and healthcare workers 

BE (Flanders), BG, DE (Niedersachsen), FR (Réunion), 
IT, 
IT  (Valle  d’Aosta),  LV,  PL,  PL  (Małopolskie, 
Mazowieckie,  Zachodniomorskie),  PT  (Centro),  UK 
(East Wales, West Wales and the Valleys) 

General  population,  especially  working  age  adults  (with  or  without 
health issues) 

(Ionian 

GR 
Podkarpackie, 
Świętokrzyskie, Wielkopolskie, Zachodniopomorskie) 

(Łódzkie,  Małopolskie, 
Śląskie, 
Pomorskie, 

Islands),  PL 
Podlaskie, 

Families and young children (with or without health issues) 

IT (Valle d’Aosta), PL (Mazowieckie) 

Actions 
healthcare systems 

to  support 

Health service entities and healthcare workers 

BE  (German  speaking  community  of  Belgium),  DE 
(Brandenburg),  ES 
(Andalucia,  Valenciana),  FR 
(Guadeloupe  et  St  Martin,  Martinique),  IT  (Emilia-
Romagna, Sardegna, Sicilia), LV, PL, PL (Dolnośląskie, 
Lubelskie), PT (Alentejo, Norte), RO 

General population 

257 Where no reference is made to region(s), operations are part of a national-level operational plan. 
156 

BE  (German  speaking  community  of  Belgium),  FR 
(Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse Normandie, Champagne-
Ardenne,  Guadeloupe,  Haute  Normandie,  Languedoc-
Roussillon,  Limousin,  Lorraine  et  Vosges,  Mayotte, 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Pays de la Loire, Picardie, Poitou-
Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Rhône-Alpes), 
GR  (Attica,  Central  Macedonia,  Continental  Greece, 
Eastern 
Aegean, 
Peloponnesus,  South  Aegean,  Thessaly,  Epirus, 
Western Greece, Western Macedonia) 

Macedonia-Thrace, 

North 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Refugees/immigrants 

DE  (Brandenburg),  GR  (Attica,  Central  Macedonia, 
Continental Greece, Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, South 
Aegean) 

Other health actions 

Health service entities and healthcare workers 

Parents in situations of social and economic difficulty, of primary and 
lower  secondary  school  children,  secondary  school  children  and 
university students. 

IT (Abruzzo) 

IT (Abruzzo) 

Table A 11 – Target groups of FEAD anti-crisis operations 

Key thematic 
areas (FEAD) 

Typology of 
operations 

Key target group(s) & Main characteristics 

Countries & regions where operations were 
implemented 

Social inclusion 
in 
respect  of 
addressing 
poverty  and  its 
effects 

Provision of food aid 

People/families in need including children 

People/families in need 

BE, SK 

PT, FR 

Provision of food and 
material 
basic 
through 
assistance 
vouchers 

Home  delivery  of 
food  aid  to  the  most 
deprived 

of 
Provision 
information 
about 
other  social  inclusion 
upon 
activities 
food 
delivery 
(e.g., 
packages 
counselling, 
social 
skills  and  knowledge 
development, etc.) 

of 

Vulnerable persons, e.g., people living in shelters or  are dependent 
on social assistance 

BE, BG, FI, SK 

People  who  are  socially  excluded  from  society,  such  as  homeless 
people or victims of violence 

SI 

157 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Purchasing  personal 
protective  equipment 
and disinfectants 

Technical  support  to 
enable  delivery  of 
support  measures  to 
recipients 

Social 
activities 
elderly 

networking 
the 

for 

FEAD beneficiaries (partner organisations)  

FEAD partner organisations 

Vulnerable persons, e.g., people living in shelters or  dependent on 
social assistance 

Pensioners with very low income 

BG 

LT 

ES 

NL 

158 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Appendix 2: Effects of reprogramming under CRII and CRII+ 
on the level of allocations and absorption rates  

This  annex  considers  in  further  detail  the  effects  of  reprogramming  facilitated  by  the 
coronavirus response initiatives on levels of financial allocations and absorption rates. The 
key findings included in this annex contributed to the Effectiveness section (Section 4.1) of 
the evaluation report.  

The analysis begins with an assessment of reallocations between Funds (ESF, ERDF, CF). 
We then examine shifts within the ESF and allocations between categories of regions and 
in  terms  of  thematic  concentrations.  Within  this  latter  analysis,  we  compare  changes  in 
financial  allocations  with  changes  in  the  number  of  ESF  participations  at  IP  level.  The 
analysis  of  the  thematic  concentration  concludes  with  the  extent  to  which  the  minimum 
thematic  allocations  set  out  in  Art.  4  of  the  ESF  Regulation  (2013/1304)  have  been 
maintained during the coronavirus response period. We further examine the effects of the 
response  initiatives  on  ESF  absorption  rates  and  compare  the  absorption  with  the 
programming period 2007-2013. Finally, analysis is provided concerning shifts in allocations 
and absorption rates in respect of the FEAD.  

At  the  end  of  the  sub-section,  we  draw  some  preliminary  conclusions  regarding 
effectiveness in respect of the coronavirus response initiatives from the preceding analysis, 
as well as summarising the key findings emerging at this interim stage.  

Financial reallocations between the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the 
ESF 

Under the coronavirus response initiatives, at the request of a Member State, the resources 
available for programming for the year 2020 could be transferred between the ERDF, the 
ESF and the Cohesion Fund (CF) and across the different categories of regions. Table A12 
illustrates the mapping of the shifts between funds and within the ESF from May 2020 
until September 2022.  

24 Member States used the coronavirus response initiatives to facilitate amendments to the 
ESF to respond to the COVID-19 crisis (a total of 219 amendments being facilitated under 
Thematic Objectives 8-11 to date). Overall, around EUR 1.2 billion were shifted from the 
ERDF (EUR 871 million) and the CF (EUR 341 million) to the ESF, while about EUR 493 
million were moved from the ESF to the ERDF, resulting in a net increase of ESF funds of 
EUR 0.7 billion. 

Figure A 1: Reallocation between the ESF, the ERDF and the CF under the 
coronavirus response initiatives up to September 2022 

Source:  Authors  calculation  based  on:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-
Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd (extracted on 28 September 2022) 

The Table below illustrates reallocations of ESF resources between funds and by country, 
showing the very diverse picture of reallocations across Member States as a reaction to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  

159 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

As examples, in Malta and Lithuania, funding was shifted from the ERDF and the CF to the 
ESF  to  facilitate  increased  investment  in  short  time  work  schemes  needed  to  fight  the 
COVID-19 crisis; conversely, in Ireland, EUR 60 million were transferred from the ESF to 
the ERDF to support the cost of supplying essential Personal Protective Equipment for the 
Irish healthcare system for use in the fight against COVID 19.258 259 260  

Table A 12 – COVID-19 related changes in ESF allocations by country, since 
31/5/2022 until April 2022 (EUR values) 

Country 

ERDF to 
ESF 

CF to ESF 

ESF to 
ERDF 

Net increase/ 
decrease of 
ESF funding 

Shifts within the 
ESF based on 
the flexibilities 
offered by the 
coronavirus 
response 
initiatives 
(CRII/CRII+) at 
country level 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

36,012,833 

240,421,000 

19,136,018 

 - 

 - 

3,600,000 

 - 

7,272,000 

 - 

 - 

62,094,285 

 - 

163,553,045 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

36,012,833 

240,421,000 

 - 

1,320,656 

58,145,102 

 - 

 - 

3,300,000 

15,836,018 

10,600,000 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

430,887 

 - 

-3,730,815 

-130,815 

45,905,340* 

 - 

 - 

69,311,035 

-62,039,035 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

62,094,285 

60,000,000 

-60,000,000 

 - 

 - 

124,719,202 

 - 

 - 

 - 

53,000,000 

110,553,045 

48,156,332 

95,759,283 

9,100,000 

 - 

 - 

4,895,346 

37,550,000 

 - 

 - 

 - 

104,859,283 

 - 

 - 

 - 

42,445,346 

9,530,168 

258 ESF OP Malta Version 3.0 
259 Commission Decision (C(2020)4069) - 2014LT16MAOP001 
260 ESF Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Ireland. 

160 

  
  
  
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

28,750,000** 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

28,750,000 

 - 

49,050,422 

-49,050,422 

47,318,684 

80,691,940 

254,705,772 

-126,695,148 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

198,000,000 

177,250,000 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

4,318,822 

 - 

 - 

375,250,000 

26,972,787 

 - 

117,263,230 

EU-27 and the UK 

870,799,661 

340,604,773 

493,098,044 

718,306,390 

447,362,526 

Source:  Authors’  calculation  based  on:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-
Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

* Includes shift of EUR 8,167,349 of funding from YEI to three regional ESF OPs.    

**Shifted from ERDF/CF OP.  

In cases where no shifts in financial allocations have been made, this is indicated in the table with a horizontal 
bar (-). 

Seven countries shifted funding from the ESF to the ERDF261, with a total financial volume 
of EUR 493 million, to increase the financial volume of Covid-19 related aid programmes 
under the ERDF needing additional funding (e.g. in IT-Abruzzo), or to merge funds under a 
new Priority under the ERDF. The latter was reprogrammed in Ireland, where according to 
the  Managing  Authority,  as  the  undeclared  existing  ERDF  allocations  are  being 
reprogrammed for Health Support the transfer of the ESF funding to the ERDF ensures a 
more  effective,  efficient  approach  concentrating  all  available  resources  into  a  single 
Scheme,  rather  than  the  ESF  and  ERDF  programmes  duplicating  efforts  to  support  the 
healthcare system. In this case, the EUR 60 million from the ESF were allocated to a new 
Priority – Priority 7 Coronavirus Response – including a new Health Support Scheme. This 
scheme  supported  the  cost  of  supplying  essential  personal  protective  equipment  for  the 
Irish healthcare system for use in the fight against COVID-19 in the Southern and Eastern 
region.262  In  DE,  FR, IT and PL  reallocations from the  ESF to  the  ERDF  occurred  within 
multi-funds regional OPs. 

In some countries, there are indications that the project selection rate at the end of 2019 
affected the way flexibilities enabled through the coronavirus response initiatives were used 
in the respective countries. In CY, CZ, HU, MT, funding was reallocated from the ERDF or 
the CF towards the ESF. In other countries, large shifts within ESF OPs mainly occurred in 
those countries which by the end of 2019 had a project selection rate of around 80%, for 
instance in Greece, Italy and the UK.  

Prior to the crisis, by the end of 2019, at EU-28 level the project selection rate of ESF funds 
was  at  85%,  while  the  share  of  expenditure  declared  was  at  39%,  with  large  variations 
across countries and within countries (in cases where a multi-regional ESF architecture is 
in place). This influenced the range within which Member States were able to respond to 
the  COVID-19  pandemic  through  reallocating  financial  resources  within  and/or  between 
funds. The project selection rate ranged from less than 80% in e.g. HR, IT, LT up to more 

261 DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, PL, PT.  
262 OP amendment request of the Irish Managing Authority (Ares(2020)7157537), submitted 25 November 2020. 

161 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

than 100% in CY, ES, MT. In this regard it is also important to compare the absorption rates 
by Thematic Objective, which also affects the degree Member States have, to or are able 
to reallocate funds to implement operations responding to the pandemic.263 Further analysis 
concerning  the  effect  of  selection  rates  and  absorption  rates  by  Thematic  Objective  is 
provided later in this section.  

Furthermore,  many  of  the  reallocations  between  the  ESF  and  the  ERDF  under  the 
coronavirus response initiatives occurred within regions of countries with a multi-regional 
ESF architecture, within which, for each region, there is a separate ERDF OP and an ESF 
OP. In other cases, reallocations were programmed within a multi-fund regional OP, e.g. 
from a Priority Axis (PA) with ERDF funding to an ESF funded PA, as in Haute-Normandie 
in France.  

Overall,  the  reallocations  between  the  ESF  and  the  ERDF  within  the  context  of  regional 
OPs account for about 37% or more than EUR 500 million of the almost EUR 1.4 billion of 
total shifts between the two funds, resulting in a net decrease of the ESF of EUR 213 million. 
Such  reallocations  have  been  reported  for  28  regional  OPs  in  six  Member  States,  as 
illustrated  in the following table. While  in  Portugal,  France  and  Poland most  of the  shifts 
within regions are reported from ESF to ERDF OPs, in Italy and Germany shifts occurred 
from ERDF to ESF OPs. For instance, in Portugal, in four of the seven regional OPs, EUR 
216 million were shifted from the ESF to the ERDF, while only in the Azores funding was 
reallocated from ERDF to the ESF. In the Azores the reallocation was used partly to support 
the maintenance of jobs through a wage subsidy of 90% of the minimum wage (EUR 6.5 
million),  and  an  operation  to  convert  fixed-term  employment  contracts  into  permanent 
employment contracts (integration into the framework of the companies), or for the renewal 
of existing contracts that allowed the maintenance of the job (EUR 4.7 million).  

Table A 13 – Shifts under the CRII and CRII+ package between the ERDF and ESF 
within respective regions  

MS 

Number of 
regional OPs 
with shifts 
between ESF 
and ERDF 

Share of 
regional OPs 
with shifts 
between ESF 
and ERDF 

Financial 
volume shifted 
within regions 
between the two 
funds (in EUR) 

Financial 
volume 
shifted within 
regions from 
the ESF to 
the ERDF 

Financial 
volume 
shifted within 
regions from 
the ERDF to 
the ESF 

Net 
increase/ 
decrease 
ESF 

DE  2 

ES  2 

FR  10 

IT 

4 

PL 

5 

PT 

5 

13% 

11% 

33% 

17% 

31% 

71% 

22,436,018 

3,300,000 

19,136,018 

15,836,018 

7,330,815 

3,730,815 

3,600,000 

-130,815 

74,801,035 

69,311,035 

5,490,000 

-63,821,035 

78,149,377 

2,000,000 

76,149,377 

74,149,377 

49,050,422 

49,050,422 

242,613,698 

216,195,014 

26,418,684 

-49,050,422 

-
189,776,330 

Source:  Authors’  calculation  based  on:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-
Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

263 European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, ESF data support centre: final 
ESF synthesis report of annual implementation reports 2019 submitted in 2020, Publications Office, 2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/003190 

162 

  
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Thematic allocation of funding from other funds to the ESF 

Additional ESF funds were allocated to different ESF Thematic Objectives (TOs) under the 
coronavirus response package. The following table illustrates how funding from ERDF and 
CF was allocated to the different TOs. The vast majority of the reallocated ERDF and CF 
resources  to the  ESF  is  programmed to support  employment  policy  operations  (EUR 
922 million), followed by education and training (TO 10) with EUR 122 million, and social 
inclusion  (TO  9)  with  EUR  101  million.  Below  we  provide  some  examples  of  how  this 
reallocated funding has been used in some Member States. 

Table A 14 – Shifts from the ERDF and CF to the ESF under the coronavirus 
response initiatives by allocation to Thematic Objective by September 2022 (in 
million EUR) 

Country 

ERDF 
to ESF 

CF to 
ESF 

Of which to TO8 

of which to TO9 

of which to TO10 

absolute 

in % 

absolute 

in % 

absolute 

in % 

 - 

36.0 

 - 

 - 

36.0 

100% 

231.8 

96% 

 - 

 - 

 - 

18.4 

96% 

240.4 

19.1 

3.6 

7.3 

163.6 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

HU 

62.1 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

LT 

LV 

2.7 

74% 

 - 

 - 

56.7 

91% 

 102.3 

63% 

0.9 

7.3 

 - 

 - 

 - 

95.8 

9.1 

104.9 

100% 

 - 

 - 

 - 

- 

26% 

100% 

 - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5.4 

9% 

 - 

 - 

- 

- 

4.9 

37.6 

 - 

 - 

22.6 

60% 

15.0 

40% 

MT 

28.8 

28.8 

100% 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

PT 

SK 

47.3 

80.7 

20.1 

16% 

6.5 

5% 

101.6 

79% 

198.0 

177.3 

375.3 

100% 

 - 

- 

 - 

- 

of 
which 
to TA 

 - 

8.6 

0.8 

- 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

SUM 

870.8 

340.6 

922.5 

76% 

91.3 

8% 

121.6 

10% 

10.0 

Source:  Authors’  calculation  based  on  SFC2014  and  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-
Finances/CRII-COVID-Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd  (extracted  on  8  September  2022). 
The table only includes countries in which funding was reallocated from the ERDF and/or the CF to the ESF 
under the coronavirus response initiatives. The horizontal bar (-) means no value. 

In Germany, in the state of Brandenburg, EUR 19 million were shifted from the regional 
ERDF OP to the regional ESF OP TO 9 to fund interventions under the newly programmed 
IP9.i  ‘to  procure  personal  protective  equipment  and  materials  to  support  the  necessary 
operations  to  contain  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its  effects’,  and  to  support  the 
employability  and  labour  market  integration  of  disadvantaged  groups.  The  state  of 
Brandenburg  has  used  the  ESF  for  the  central  procurement  of  the  necessary  protective 
equipment and materials, which is then made available to the counties and urban districts 

163 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

in order to increase their crisis-fighting resources. The rural districts and urban districts carry 
out  the  decentralized  distribution  to  the  local  actors  (e.g.  schools,  old  people’s  homes, 
hospitals  or  facilities  for  people  with  disabilities)  in  accordance  with  the  respective  risk 
situation in their regional responsibility.264 

In Latvia, EUR 37.6 million were shifted from the CF to the ESF. More specifically, EUR 
22.6  million  were  shifted  towards  TO  9  to  provide  support  to  medical  practitioners  who 
provide  treatment  for  patients  to  prevent  public  health  crises  (e.g.,  compensation  for 
attracting medical personnel (nurses, nursing assistants, medical assistants, etc.) to work 
in medical institutions and support for the change of generations of general practitioners in 
Riga), and to improve the qualifications of medical staff in view of the COVID-19 and other 
crises,  and  EUR  15  million  were  transferred  to  TO  10  to  improve  the  professional 
competence of the employed. 

Financial shifts by TO from May 2020 to April 2022 

Shifts between the ERDF and the CF and the ESF resulted in a net increase of about EUR 
720  million  for  ESF.  Looking  at  shifts  at  the  level  of  Thematic  Objective,  21  countries 
reallocated  ESF funding  between  TOs  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  within  or 
between  ESF  OPs  since  May  2020  to  mitigate  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic (first column), while in three MS (CZ, HU and IE) changes at the level of TO are 
only based on shifts across funds.265 

The table below provides an overview by country, illustrating the overall volume of shifts per 
country between TOs from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 and the net increase or decrease 
by TO. It also shows the net effect of the shifts between funds. Different time periods were 
used for the calculation of the net effects, compared to the analysis above, meaning that in 
some countries the net increase or decrease differs from the tables above. 

Table A 15 – Reallocations and the net effect in ESF funding at the level of TOs in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020 to April 2022 

Country 

Shifts 
between 
TOs within 
the ESF  
(at least), 
including TA 

Net increase/ decrease of the ESF by country and TO, 

May 2020 to April 2022 

TO 8 

TO 9 

TO 10 

TO 11 

TA 

Total 

AT 

0 

0 

0 

0 

     BE 

14,970,657 

4,244,47
9 

10,726,17
8 

BG 

94,213,384 

92,396,1
43 

1,817,241 

-
14,970,65
7 

-
26,543,10
1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-
49,938,262 

-
17,818,52
2 

-86,501* 

CY 

13,293,041 

-
4,636,000 

49,305,87
4 

-
5,716,000 

-
2,941,041 

0 

36,012,8
33 

264 ESF OP Brandenburg, Version 3.0, available at: 
https://esf.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/ESF_OP%20BB%20vom%2009.pdf  
265 This section is based on allocations per country per TO, and illustrates the changes between TOs only. An analysis of 
the changes in allocations per IP is included later in this chapter. 
164 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

0 

231,835,
687 

0 

0 

7,465,507 

1,093,000 

17,843,2
68 

1,093,00
0 

0 

0 

5,458,257 

-
6,735,268 

-
1,093,000 

0 

0 

0 

ES 

89,932,238 

55,845,4
00 

-
63,078,682 

34,217,
653 

FI 

1,537,905 

-
1,537,905 

0 

0 

FR 

146,516,28
9 

-
10,895,701 

146,516,2
54 

GR 

316,477,849 

-
105,226,39
3 

316,477,8
49 

-
228,155,3
21 

-
141,806,4
13 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8,585,3
13 

240,421,
000 

-
730,239 

15,836,0
18 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-
27,115,18
6 

1,537,9
05 

-130,815 

0 

-
1,081,272 

35 

-
93,616,005
** 

-
48,968,126 

-
20,476,91
7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

40,982,2
28 

-
60,000,000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

21,112,
057 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

62,094,2
85 

-
60,000,000 

607,453,70
7 

-
330,315,83
2 

676,961,6
74 

LT 

17,271,836 

122,131,
119 

-840,000 

1,050,000 

-750,000 

1,050,000 

-
219,726,9
08 

-
13,431,83
6 

-
250,000 

-
57,410,967 

27,852,
904 

97,360,8
71** 

-
3,000,000 

0 

104,859,
283 

0 

-50,000 

0 

6,951,647 

-
6,688,147 

25,205,69
8 

19,895,
346 

-263,500 

0 

38,149,3
97** 

5,200,000 

30,800,0
00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-
5,200,000 

2,000,00
0 

1,150,0
00 

28,750,0
00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

PL 

163,082,141 

-
133,774,50
5 

152,380,3
18 

PT 

30,952,220 

30,952,2
20 

-
74,866,187 

-
73,809,71
9 

-
36,730,09
6 

-
4,548,339 

10,701,
823 

-
49,050,422 

-
52,662,108 

-
20,000,00
0 

-
153,306,17
1** 

165 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

RO 

613,735,403 

-
144,994,95
2 

603,338,4
16 

-
416,916,0
64 

10,396,9
87 

-
52,315,42
5 

-
491,038* 

SE 

31,996,851 

-
31,996,851 

0 

31,996,
851 

SI 

8,977,869 

-
8,977,869 

5,117,385 

3,860,4
84 

0 

0 

26,972,787 

430,262,
575* 

8,000,000 

0 

-
26,972,787 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

411,289,
788* 

SK 

UK 

EU-27 and 

the UK 

Less 
developed 

More 
developed 

Transition 

228,739,86
6 

-
3,692,633 

223,689,3
66 

-
245,030,3
39 

-
16,934,056 

5,050,5
00 

-
36,917,162
** 

2.427,844,1
97*** 

214,899,
331 

2,087,259
,641 

-
1,325,032,
331 

-
252,323,47
1 

-
83,627,80
9 

641,175,
361 

- 

- 

- 

488,222,
599 

1,058,232
,918 

-
892,477,8
69 

-
233,520,31
8 

-
55,893,07
1 

364,564,
259 

-
347,472,18
1 

828,036,1
47 

82,516,8
18 

198,640,5
76 

-
242,031,2
11 

-
85,223,45
7 

-
6,334,392 

-
2,000,091 

230,198,
272 

-
12,252,561 

-
20,337,67
7 

163,343,
699 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC2014 (extracted on 26 September 2022) 

Allocations to TO are based on fields of intervention 

*Includes ESF YEI funding/contribution 

** Net effect can be slightly different to Table A13 as different time periods were used for calculation, compared 
to the tables above. 

*** Please note that the volume of shifts depends on the level of aggregation. This cumulative value represents 
the total volume of shifts at TO-level. This column was calculated subtracting the shifts from/to the ESF from 
the net effect, to calculate the volume of ESF-internal shifts. 

How to read the table: In Lithuania EUR 105 million were shifted from the ERDF and CF to the ESF (last column), 
in addition, at least EUR 17 million were shifted across TOs within the ESF (first column). In Slovakia, EUR 
375.3 million were shifted from the ERDF and the CF to the ESF (TO8). In addition, a total of at least EUR 63 
million were shifted within the ESF OP, EUR 27 million were shifted from TO10 to TO8 and TO9 while EUR 36 
million were shifted from YEI to ESF.  

At the level of the EU-27 and the UK, the most significant change in the share of funding by 
TO is the increase of funding for TO9, by 1.9% or almost EUR 2 billion. In Cyprus, EUR 13 
million ESF funding was shifted from TO8 and TO10 to TO9, in addition to the 36 million of 
funding shifted from the CF to the ESF and TO9, resulting in an increase of 91% of ESF 
funding to the Social Inclusion TO. A similarly strong increase of funding related to social 
inclusion  operations  was  reported  in  Romania,  where  the  funding  increased  by  53%.  In 
Malta, funding of TO8 increased by 148% due to the reallocation from the ERDF and CF to 
the  ESF  to  increase  funding  for  the  short-time  working  scheme.  In  Slovakia,  the  net 
increase of EUR 430 million (or more than 30%) under TO8 is based on reallocations from 
other  ERDF  and  CF  OPs  (EUR  375.3  million)  and  from  the  OP  Effective  Public 
Administration (EUR 27 million) to the OP Human Resources towards the ESF OP Human 

166 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Resources to cover the need of additional financial resources for employment operations 
during the Covid-19 crisis.266 In Bulgaria the shifts include the reallocation of EUR 58 million 
to the OP Human Resources Development to mitigate the consequences of the Covid-19 
pandemic.  In Germany, meanwhile,  EUR  10.6 million  were  reallocated from  the  Federal 
ESF OP to the regional ESF OP of Saxony to increase the funding for already implemented 
operations.267  

Looking at the overall shifts by category of region, it shows that in all regions most of the 
funding was reallocated towards TO9. In less developed regions there was also a strong 
focus on increasing the funding for employment related measures under TO8, compared to 
more developed regions. 

The Youth Employment Initiative mainly changed by the additional funding, and the 
annual  breakdowns  as  specified  in  Commission  Decision  2014/190,  with  some 
exceptions, as shown in the table below. While in Spain, France, Greece and Italy the 
amounts increased between EUR 2 and 13 million to increase the support of young people, 
in SK the ESF amount allocated to the Priority Axis dedicated to the support of young people 
was reduced by EUR 36 million to increase the funding under IP 8.i, still keeping the 1:1 
ratio between YEI resources and ESF resources in matching funds. 

In Spain, the additional funding was channelled to a new Specific Objective to “Preserve 
employment during the COVID-19 crisis of unemployed young people and not integrated 
into  education  or  training  systems”,  through  measures  that  contribute  to  maintaining  the 
employment of young people under the age of 30 years and have been affected by ERTES, 
understood  as flexibility  measures  that can  contribute to  their  maintenance in  the future, 
through  their  financing  payment  of  ERTE  benefits  as  temporary  employment  flexibility 
mechanisms. In Italy, this rescheduling is connected to a remodeling of the financial plan 
and to the financing of an intervention to strengthen the health surveillance system to deal 
with  the  COVID  -19  emergency,  on  the  basis  of  the  provisions  of  Legislative  Decree 
34/2020, Art. 83, paragraph 4 and subsequent amendments, containing urgent measures 
on health surveillance. 

Table A 16 – Reallocations and the net effect of YEI funding in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020 to April 2022 

MS 

Change in financial allocation from 
May 2020 to April 2022 (in EUR) 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

ES 

242,118 

173,002 

0 

0 

13,832,140 

266 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION amending Implementing Decision C(2014) 9196 approving certain elements 
of the operational programme “Effective Public Administration” for support from the European Social Fund under the 
Investment for growth and jobs goal in Slovakia CCI 2014SK05SFOP001 
267 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION amending Implementing Decision C(2014) 8817 approving certain elements 
of the operational programme “ESF Saxony Operational Programme 2014-2020” for support from the European Social Fund 
under the Investment for growth and jobs goal for the region Saxony in Germany CCI 2014DE05SFOP012 

167 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

3,033,735 

2,134,017 

0 

0 

0 

8,372,948 

0 

0 

0 

140,836 

982,076 

0 

0 

-36,039,788 

0 

TOTAL 

-7,128,916 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC2014 (extracted on 26 September 2022) 

Shifts across categories of regions within the ESF 

Looking specifically at the shifts based on Article 25a (3): Reallocation of allocated financial 
volumes  between categories  of  regions,  within  and between ESF OPs, overall  EUR  304 
million  were  transferred  between  categories  of  regions,  while  EUR  143  million  were 
transferred within the same category of region. Overall 39% (EUR 173 million) represents 
transfers from less developed to more developed or transition regions. Please note that this 
analysis  is  based  on  reallocations  at  level  of  countries  (and  has  a  different  starting  date 
(31/05/2020), which explains the differences to the table above.  

Ten  countries  (BE,  BG,  DE,  DK,  ES,  GR,  IT,  RO,  SK  and  the  UK)  made  use  of  the 
coronavirus  response  initiatives  to  reallocate  resources  between  Categories  of  region 
available for programming for the year 2020 within (total of EUR 304 million) or between 

168 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

(EUR  143 million)  ESF  OPs,  as  it  was  enabled  by  Article  25a(3)  of  the  Regulation (EU) 
1303/2013. 

Reallocations, including a change in category of region, were reported in six countries (BE, 
DK,  GR, IT,  RO  and UK).  The  vast majority  of such  reallocations  in absolute  terms  has 
been reported in Greece, where EUR 125 million were shifted from less developed to more 
developed  (EUR  92  million)  and  transition  regions  (EUR  33  million),  and the  UK,  where 
EUR 116 million were reallocated in the OP of England from more developed to transition 
and  less  developed  regions,  and  EUR  760,000  were  shifted  in  the  OP  of  Scotland.  In 
England, the transfer of resources became necessary as a direct result of the COVID-19 
pandemic, which affected more substantially the transition regions than the more developed 
ones. In Belgium, under the OP of Wallonie-Brussels, the reallocation of EUR 1.3 million 
from more developed to transition regions was programmed to support school attendance 
operations  in  view  of  the  impacts  on  young  people  of  the  transition  to  distance  learning 
during  confinement.  In  Denmark,  EUR  0.4  million  were  transferred  to  support  a  specific 
transition region to support ongoing and well-functioning projects to launch activities which, 
in the short term, can supplement the business-oriented state funding schemes and help 
Danish SMEs through COVID-19. 

Table A 17 – Shifts within the ESF between categories of regions under the CRII and 
CRII+ package until April 2022 (EUR values) 

Countr
y 

Category of 
Region 

Less 
developed 

More 
developed 

Transition 

Total 

TO 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

BE 

BG 

DE 

DK 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

Less developed 

58 145 102 

More developed 

Transition 

- 

- 

Total 

58 145 102 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

 - 

- 

 - 

- 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

10,600,000 

 - 

10 600 000 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

169 

 - 

- 

1 320 656 

1 320 656 

 - 

- 

1 320 656 

1 320 656 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 - 

58 145 102 

- 

- 

58 145 102 

- 

10,600,000 

- 

10 600 000 

- 

430 887 

430 887 

 - 

- 

430 887 

430 887 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

ES 

GR 

IT 

RO 

SK 

UK 

Total 

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

F
R
O
M

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

Less developed 

More developed 

Transition 

Total 

Less developed 

 - 

- 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

28 055 340 

 - 

- 

- 

28 055 340 

 - 

 21 450 000  21 450 000 

28 055 340 

21 450 000 

49 505 340 

91 490 275 

33 228 927 

124 
202 

719 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

91 490 275 

33 228 927 

124 
202 

719 

45 328 166 

2 828 166 

48 156 332 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

45 328 166 

2 828 166 

48 156 332 

 - 

More developed 

2 740 271 

1 578 551 

Transition 

 - 

 - 

Total 

2 740 271 

1 578 551 

Less developed 

26 972 787 

More developed 

Transition 

 - 

 - 

Total 

26 972 787 

Less developed 

 - 

More developed 

273 061 

 - 

 - 

 - 

- 

 - 

 - 

Transition 

 - 

764 751 

Total 

273 061 

764 751 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

116 
418 

 - 

116 
418 

 - 

4 318 822 

 - 

4 318 822 

26 972 787 

 - 

 - 

26 972 787 

 - 

225 

116 
479 

498 

764 751 

225 

117 
230 

257 
423 

161 
184 

263 

993 

224 

Less developed 

85 117 889 

136 818 441 

36 057 093 

More developed 

3 013 332 

40 233 891 

117 
961 

976 

Transition 

- 

764 751 

21 450 000 

22 214 751 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Total 

88 131 221 

177 817 083 

175 
054 

484 

441 
358 

432 

Source:  Authors’  calculation  based  on:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/CRII-COVID-
Change-in-fund-allocations-since-31-5-2/f22x-fgxd (extracted on 25 April 2022) 

The table only includes countries reallocating financial resources within the ESF under the coronavirus response 
initiatives. The horizontal bar (-) means no value. 

Change in allocations by IP and country and its effects on ESF 
participations 

This section goes even more in detail, looking at the net increase or decrease at level of 
IPs,  putting  the  financial  reallocations  in  relation  to  changes  in  the  number  of  ESF 
participations. 

It first gives a brief overview on the changes of the financial volume at level of IPs. It then 
follows with contextualising these figures by triangulating this information with changes in 
ESF  participations  and  enriching  it  with  qualitative  information  of  concrete  operations 
implemented in response to COVID-19.  

The following figure illustrates the reallocations by IP from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 at 
the level of the EU-27 and the UK. Interpretations need to be done with caution, as this also 
includes  reallocations  for  other  reasons  that  responding  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
Overall, while evidence was found for a number of COVID-19 related changes (for instance 
under IP 9.iv), as illustrated by the examples below, the changes cannot always be related 
to the COVID-19 pandemic or the coronavirus response initiatives. 

The figure shows that reallocations were mostly directed towards IP 9.iv (equal access to 
services), which increased its allocated financial volume by 79% or about EUR 3 billion and 
IP 8.v (adaptability of workers and employers) (+26% or EUR 1.3 billion)  (, indicating the 
IPs  with  the  highest  absolute  increase  in  financial  terms  in  response  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.  

Figure A 2: Changes of the financial volume at IP level, May 2020 – April 2022 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC2014 (extracted on 26 September 2022) 

The  figure  below  contextualises  the  financial  reallocations  at  IP  level  by  comparing  the 
changes in the financial values with the changes in ESF participations between 2019 and 
the first year of the pandemic (2020)268.  

268 For this analysis the first year of the pandemic is taken, as it reduces the probability of unreliable figures due to additional 
changes to the programme not related to COVID-19 pandemic. 
171 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

While overall changes vary significantly across the 19 IPs, it also clearly shows that the two 
variables correlate to some extent: Six of the IPs (8.i; 8.ii; 8.v; 9.ii; 9.iv and 9.vi) had more 
participations in 2020 than in 2019, which mainly correlates with the increase of the financial 
volume of these IPs (with the exception of the IPs 8.ii and 9.vi).  

However,  while  evidence  was  found  for  a  number  of  COVID-19  related  changes  (for 
instance under IP 9.iv), as illustrated by the examples below the figure, the changes in the 
number of participations or the financial volume cannot always be related to the COVID-19 
pandemic or the coronavirus response initiatives, as it is illustrated for IP 9.ii and 9.vi more 
in detail below.  

Figure A 3: Changes of the financial volume and ESF participations at IP level, 
2019-2020 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

IP 8.i shows a diverse picture by MS. While overall the funding decreased by 1%, at country 
level it ranges from strong decreases (e.g. -35% in IE) up to strong increases (e.g. +52% in 
LT). In LT the increase is mainly based on the reallocations from the ERDF and the CF to 
the ESF, providing a compensation of part of the salary to employers, organised under the 
subsidised employment measure.  

Under IP 8.v, the increase both in terms of participations (+55%) and financial allocation 
(+23%)  is  mainly  due  to  changes  in  specific  OPs:  The  financial  volume  significantly 
increased in CZ, ES, IT and PT and to some extent in BG, DK and GR. In Malta, this IP was 
newly added to the OP, with EUR 28.8 million funding reallocated from the CF.  

Operations  under  this  IP  are  mainly  intended  to  mitigate  the  economic  effects  on 
employment  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  supporting  measures  to  maintain 
employment, by providing wage subsidies (e.g. CZ, ES – Catalonia, HU, MT, PT – Azores), 
competence development (e.g. CZ, DE – Bayern, DK), non-refundable support for artistic 
entities  (PT  –  Alentejo)  and  support  of  temporary  mobility  of  researchers  (ES  – 
Extremadura). The following examples illustrate the degree of changes under various OPs: 

 

 

In  Italy  (Puglia)  the  financial  volume  of  this  IP  increased  by  200%  reaching  EUR 
99.7  million  to  support  the  expenses  related  to  the  interventions  relating  to  the 
activation of the Redundancy Fund in derogation (CIGD). In 2020, 31,427 employed 
were reached through this operation.  

In  Italy  (Campania)  no  financial  reallocations  were  programmed  as  the  project 
selection rate was at 37% by end of 2019, using the already allocated funding to 
introduce new operations support specific target groups (self-employed, freelancers, 

172 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

seasonal workers) which are excluded from other support measures. By this, 27,000 
people benefited from this social protection measure in 2020.  

 

 

In  Hungary,  under  the  OP  Economic  Development  and  Innovation  Programme, 
193,829 participations were reached in 2020, receiving a wage subsidy.  

In Greece (+532%), a strong increase of participations was reached under the OP 
Competitiveness  Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation,  as  35,887  participants  were 
supported,  compared  to  5,682  in  2019.  The  financial  volume  of  the  IP  increased 
modestly, by 13% from 2019 to 2021.  

The financial volume of IP 8.vii was increased in a few OPs in six Member States (BE (1 
OP),  BG  (),  ES  (1)  FR  (1),  IT  (3)  and  SK  (1)),  not  all  being  related  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.269  The  largest  shift  towards  this  IP  is  reported  for  Slovakia,  where  more  than 
EUR 400 million were transferred from IP8.i to IP8.vii to implement two operations focused 
on mitigating the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The First Aid (EUR 390 million 
of EU funding) project was implemented to maintain jobs, supporting more than 440,000 
employees. In addition, a specific operation to maintain jobs of teaching and non-teaching 
staff in kindergartens (EUR 20 million EU funding) was implemented. In ES-Catalunya the 
funding was increased by EUR 2.4 million to finance the local employment and development 
agent programme. 

Under IP 9.ii, both the number of participations (+18%) and the financial allocation (+13%) 
increased from  2019 to 2020.  However,  the  increase is  not related  to  ESF operations  in 
response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  as  the  strongest  increase  was  found  in  BG  under 
measures not specifically implemented in relation to COVID-19. As shown in Section 3 in 
the main report, only a few MS (RO and SK) implemented operations related to COVID-19 
under this IP. 

Under IP 9.vi from 2019 to 2020 the number of participations increased by 17%, while there 
was  a  decrease  of  17%  of  the  financial  resources  of  this  IP.  However,  changes  in  the 
number of participations are not related to COVID-19. This is in line with the results from 
the  mapping  of  operations,  which  only  resulted  in  one  measure  implemented  in  the 
Podlaskie Voivodeship in Poland. 

The  strongest  increase was  reported  under IP  9.iv. This  IP  was newly  programmed  and 
added to OPs in the course of reprogramming under the CRII+ in eight Member States (BE, 
CY, ES, FR, IT, LU, PT and the UK) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in an 
increase  of  planned  EU-amount  of  59%  from  2019  to  2020  and  an  increase  of  93%  of 
participations in 2020. A large number and variety of operations was implemented under 
this IP in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including support of health care and social 
services  of  general  interest,  qualification  of  health  care  staff,  funding  of  equipment, 
economic support of families in need, and short-time working arrangements. More in detail, 
this includes, for instance: 

 

 

In  Cyprus  the  short-term  working  arrangement  was  implemented  under  this  IP, 
providing for the payment of a special unemployment benefit to the employees of 
companies that are under suspension of work under the relevant decrees. By the 
end of 2021, 63,028 employed were supported through this operation. 

In Italy, IP 9.iv was introduced in six OPs, both at national and regional level. For 
instance, in IT-Abruzzo EUR 4.5 million were allocated to this newly introduced IP 
to support healthcare personnel (payment of an additional bonus), families in need 
providing equipment for distance learning and workers being affected by suspension 

269 For instance, in IT-Liguria and IT-Bolzano the increase of the funding occurred at the beginning of 2020, before the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

173 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

 

 

of  school  activities  (wage  subsidy).  By  the  end  of  2021,  7  559  people  were 
supported.  

In Spain, IP 9.iv was added to three OPs. For instance, in Cantabria, EUR 12 million 
were  shifted  to  this  IP  to  provide  funding  for  expenses  on  health  equipment,  test 
material,  personal  protective  equipment,  reinforcement  facilities,  hiring  additional 
personnel, etc. 

In  Luxembourg,  the  short-term  working  scheme  was  implemented  under  this  IP 
shifting  EUR  1.25  million  (EU  amount)  towards  this  IP.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
financial  volume  to  implement  the  operation  is  based  on  additional  REACT-EU 
funding (EUR 73 million in 2021), which provided the necessary additional funding 
for the STWS. 

 

In Belgium, in the region of Flanders, qualification of health care staff was supported. 

Maintenance of the levels of thematic concentrations required originally 
in Art. 4 of the ESF Regulation (2013/1304) 

The  flexibilities  introduced  through  the  coronavirus response  initiatives  also  relate  to  the 
thematic concentrations defined in Art. 4 of the ESF regulation (2013/1304). According to 
Art.  25a(5),  financial  allocations  “shall  not  be  subject  to  the  requirements  on  thematic 
concentration  set  out  in  this  Regulation  or  the  Fund-specific  Regulations.”.270  This  sub-
section therefore provides an analysis concerning whether Member States made use of this 
amendment, and whether thematic concentrations are still in line with the original minimum 
shares set out in Art. 4 of the ESF regulation. 

Box A 1. Thematic concentration on Social Inclusion 

At least 20% of the total ESF resources in each Member State shall be allocated 
to the thematic objective "promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any 
discrimination" set out in point (9) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1303/2013. 

The  figure  below  shows  the  share  of  planned  EU  amounts  allocated  to  Social  Inclusion 
(Thematic  Objective  9)  compared  to  the  legally  required  minimum  of  20%,271  and  how  it 
changed from 2019 to 2021. In Cyprus for instance, in 2021, 69% of the budget is dedicated 
to Social Inclusion, while in 2019 it was 47% (and only 23% in 2016). Only in the case of 
three Member States, (DK, FI and SK) the latest approved version of the OP allocated less 
than  20% to  social  inclusion,  which,  as  stated  in  the  Final  ESF Synthesis  Report,272  can 
happen in particular cases where there are specific priority axes with social innovation or 
transnational cooperation operations.  

270 Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020 amending Regulations (EU) 
No 1301/2013 and (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide exceptional flexibility for the use of the 
European Structural and Investments Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak 
271 As required by Article 4 of the ESF Regulation (2013/1304). 
272 European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Lindeboom, G., ESF synthesis 
report of annual implementation reports submitted in 2018 and 2019 and thematic reports: thematic report on the ESF and 
YEI support to climate change actions, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/64381 

174 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 4: Share of planned EU amount allocated to Social Inclusion (Thematic 
Objective 9), 2019 and 2021, by country 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 25 April 2022) 

Allocations to TOs are based on fields of intervention. 

Article 4 (3).  Member States shall pursue thematic concentration according 
to the following modalities: 

(a) For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate at least 80 % of 
the ESF allocation to each operational programme on up to five of the investment 
priorities set out in Article 3(1). 

(b) For transition regions, Member States shall concentrate at least 70 % of the 
ESF  allocation  to  each  operational  programme  on  up  to  five  of  the  investment 
priorities set out in Article 3(1). 

(c) For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate at least 60 % of 
the ESF allocation to each operational programme on up to five of the investment 
priorities set out in Article 3(1). 

Only in ten OPs in two countries (IT and PL) the minimum thematic concentrations on up to 
five investment priorities by OP and category of region were not met in 2021. In five of the 
OPs, the defined minimum thematic concentration was already not met before the pandemic 
in  2019,  while  in  the  others  (IT-Sardegna,  Piemonte,  Systems  for  Active  Employment 
Policies, Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia) the shifts across Investment Priorities resulted 
in not meeting the threshold. 

175 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 18 – List of OPs that did not meet the minimum thematic concentration by 
April 2022  

OP 

Category of 
region 

Reallocation 

Minimum 
concentrati
on up to 
five IPs in 
2021 
(share of 
financial 
allocation 
of the five 
largest IPs) 

IT - Friuli-Venezia Giulia - 
ESF 

More developed 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

77% 

IT - Liguria - ESF 

More developed 

IT - Marche - ESF 

More developed 

IT - Piemonte - ESF 

More developed 

IT - Sardegna - ESF 

Transition 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

MS notification - non substantial 
transfers 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

68% 

79% 

77% 

69% 

IT - Systems for Active 
Employment Policies - IT - 
ESF 

More developed 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

75% 

IT - Umbria - ESF 

More developed 

IT - Veneto - ESF 

More developed 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

77% 

75% 

PL - Knowledge Education 
Growth - PL - ESF/YEI 

More developed 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

78% 

PL - Mazowieckie 
Voivodeship - ERDF/ESF 

More developed 

Covid-19 related reallocation within 
the OP 

76% 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 25 April 2022) 

Allocations to TOs are based on fields of intervention 

Development of absorption rates of the ESF 

The absorption rate continuously increased over the programming period. In the reporting 
year 2020 the absorption of funds increased by 15 p.p. while in 2021 it increased by 16 p.p. 
illustrating  that  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  did  not  impact  the  financial 
performance of the ESF. 

176 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 5: Development of the absorption rate of the ESF, 2014-2021 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The table below gives an insight into the evolution of the implementation of the ESF in the 
respective Member States and by category of region. The table below presents the project 
selection rate as share of the eligible costs for selected operations, while the implementation 
rate is based on the declared expenditure. It illustrates the key financial indicators, and its 
development throughout the crisis, from 2019 to 2021. 

Table A 19 – ESF key financial indicators by country and category of region 

Country 

Allocate
d 
budget 
(€ 
million) 

Eligible 
costs 
reported  
(€ 
million) 

Project selection rate 

Expenditure declared 

(% and p.p.) 

2021 

(in 
%) 

2020 
-
2021 
(p.p.) 

2019-
2020 
(p.p.) 

Expendit
ure 
declared  
(€ million) 

(% and p.p.) 

2021 

(in 
%) 

2020 
-
2021 
(p.p.) 

2019-2020 
(p.p.) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

 875.7 

 831.2 

95% 

1% 

14% 

 573.8 

66% 

12% 

18% 

2 166.9 

2 337.0 

108% 

5% 

15% 

1 346.3 

62% 

13% 

11% 

1 736.2 

1 732.0 

100% 

7% 

13% 

1 268.2 

73% 

16% 

15% 

 176.8 

 243.2 

138% 

39% 

-18% 

 176.9 

100% 

54% 

-8% 

4 500.7 

4 940.4 

110% 

14% 

3% 

3 199.0 

71% 

19% 

11% 

12 549.9 

13 762.4 

110% 

5% 

10% 

10 630.1 

85% 

13% 

17% 

 410.8 

 432.3 

105% 

5% 

12% 

 288.7 

70% 

20% 

15% 

 682.2 

 691.6 

101% 

3% 

8% 

 474.9 

70% 

11% 

14% 

10 288.8 

14 707.5 

143% 

26% 

13% 

6 128.2 

60% 

17% 

10% 

1 036.5 

1 142.5 

110% 

9% 

17% 

 820.6 

79% 

14% 

14% 

177 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

9 625.1 

12 092.8 

126% 

16% 

20% 

8 029.8 

83% 

16% 

21% 

5 036.2 

6 392.9 

127% 

18% 

34% 

3 785.8 

75% 

15% 

19% 

1 664.4 

2 041.7 

123% 

21% 

33% 

1 045.8 

63% 

25% 

15% 

5 723.6 

6 265.1 

109% 

7% 

6% 

4 352.7 

76% 

16% 

18% 

 832.7 

 832.7 

100% 

0% 

0% 

 682.8 

82% 

29% 

11% 

16 969.8 

17 340.2 

102% 

16% 

17% 

10 926.1 

64% 

18% 

14% 

1 412.2 

1 558.6 

110% 

9% 

20% 

1 123.7 

80% 

18% 

22% 

 40.1 

 49.9 

124% 

5% 

6% 

 34.2 

85% 

14% 

13% 

 762.0 

 766.6 

101% 

3% 

9% 

 466.4 

61% 

15% 

11% 

 168.3 

 172.0 

102% 

26% 

-28% 

 130.8 

78% 

33% 

1% 

1 030.8 

1 307.0 

127% 

4% 

6% 

 907.6 

88% 

11% 

22% 

15 148.3 

14 733.5 

97% 

8% 

15% 

9 783.8 

65% 

16% 

12% 

8 719.0 

10 480.9 

120% 

21% 

16% 

6 223.3 

71% 

13% 

12% 

5 438.6 

5 773.7 

106% 

12% 

17% 

3 217.5 

59% 

12% 

17% 

1 436.6 

1 262.0 

88% 

-1% 

13% 

 951.4 

66% 

15% 

11% 

 898.5 

 943.4 

105% 

-1% 

9% 

 627.1 

70% 

18% 

14% 

2 987.2 

3 208.3 

107% 

-1% 

4% 

2 152.4 

72% 

18% 

16% 

8 533.0 

9 308.9 

109% 

13% 

11% 

5 090.2 

60% 

13% 

15% 

EU28 

120 
851.0 

135 
350.4 

112% 

13% 

14% 

84 437.9 

70% 

16% 

15% 

Category 
of region 

Allocate
d 
budget 
(€ 
million) 

Eligible 
costs 
reported  
(€ 
million) 

Project selection rate 

Expenditure declared 

(% and p.p.) 

2021 

(in 
%) 

2020 
-
2021 
(p.p.) 

2019-
2020 
(p.p.) 

Expendit
ure 
declared  
(€ million) 

(% and p.p.) 

2021 

(in 
%) 

2020 
-
2021 
(p.p.) 

2019-2020 
(p.p.) 

59 708.4 

64 561.3 

108% 

12% 

15% 

40 055.6 

67% 

16% 

15% 

44 679.2 

51 294.9 

115% 

12% 

15% 

32 847.3 

74% 

16% 

15% 

Less 
develope
d 

More 
develope
d 

Transition 

16 463.4 

19 494.2 

118% 

18% 

11% 

11 535.0 

70% 

16% 

14% 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

2020-2021 and 2019-2020 show the difference in percentage points between the two years. 
Negative values are reported because of budget increases. All values refer to the total ESF 

178 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

amount (EU + national amount) and include TA, but exclude YEI and REACT-EU funding. 
Project  selection  and  implementation  rates  are  calculated  at  MS  level;  the  total  costs  / 
expenditure at MS level are divided by the total allocated budget at MS level. 

The table above shows that the ESF project selection rates have continued to increase over 
the  last  three  years,  reaching  112%  at  EU-level.  While  project  selection  rates  are  an 
important indication to assess the progress of ongoing ESF operational programmes, the 
declared expenditure rate gives a more accurate picture of the implemented activities on 
the ground, with this being particularly important during the pandemic.  

Overall, the share of expenditure declared increased up to 70% by the end of 2021, with no 
marked differences across the category of regions. In the majority of countries, the share of 
declared expenditure  shows  a sharper  increase from  2020 to  2021,  indicating a  well-on-
track crisis response by each of the Member States and the UK. There are some examples 
of countries, in which reallocated funds were absorbed very fast in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic. For instance, in the case of Cyprus it shows that the additional funding was 
absorbed very fast, resulting in an increase of 54% percentage points from 2020 to 2021, 
reaching  100%  by  the  end  of  2021.  In Lithuania,  EUR  169 million    were  consolidated  to 
save employees' jobs. All allocated funds were invested in 2020.273 

Comparing  these  figures  with  the  development  of  the  ESF  absorption  rate  in  the 
programming period 2007-2013, it provides an insight into the evolution of the use of funds 
in general, but also illustrates whether the COIVD-19 pandemic impacted the absorption of 
ESF-funds.  

The figure below illustrates the absorption rates of the ESF for the programming periods 
2014-2020 and 2007-2013. Furthermore, a theoretical dashed line is shown, illustrating the 
absorption rates for the 2014-2020 period theoretically shifted to begin one year later, with 
the result that financial absorption trends of the two programming periods almost coincide.274 

Overall, it shows that the absorption rate of the programming period 2014-2020 was delayed 
and slowed  throughout  the  entire seven-year  period.  However,  no  significant  differences 
can be observed in expenditure between the two programming periods, or even between 
2019, 2020 and 2021. The similar development of the absorption rates in the penultimate 
and last year for both programming periods illustrates that overall the financial performance 
of the ESF was not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 275 

273 ESF Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Lithuania 
274 Spatial Foresight: Kai BÖHME, Sabine ZILLMER. Research for REGI Committee - The Impacts of the COVID-19 
Pandemic on EU Cohesion and EU Cohesion Policy - Part I: Overview and First Analysis. European Parliament, 2022. 
275 Spatial Foresight: Kai BÖHME, Sabine ZILLMER. Research for REGI Committee - The Impacts of the COVID-19 
Pandemic on EU Cohesion and EU Cohesion Policy - Part I: Overview and First Analysis. European Parliament, 2022. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/699617/IPOL_STU(2022)699617_EN.pdf   

179 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 6: Comparison of the ESF absorption rates 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 

Source:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2007-2013-Finances/SF-2007-2013-Funds-Absorption-Rate/kk86-
ceun    and  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/ESIF-2014-2020-Finance-Implementation-
Details/99js-gm52, own calculation 

Financial shifts within FEAD OPs 

As illustrated in Chapter 4.3.1, requests of Member States for financial reallocations under 
the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  were  less  frequent  compared  to  the  ESF.  Overall, 
reallocations within the OP were requested by Hungary and Romania only, while Spain and 
France notified the EC on non-substantial transfers (according to FEAD Article 9(4)). 

In Hungary, around EUR 8.3 million were reallocated from food aid in order to provide basic 
consumer  goods  for  families  with  poor  children,  while  in  Romania  EUR  6  million  (EU-
amount)  were  transferred  between  types  of  material  deprivation,  e.g.  for  introducing  e-
vouchers due to COVID-19.276  Until March 30, 2021, 284,853 cards were distributed. Each 
card  was  loaded  with  the  amount  of  180  lei  /  beneficiary  (approx.  EUR  36),  thus  being 
implemented for 6 months out of the 10 projects.277 

By way of context, it is also worth noting that, while financial reallocations occurred in only 
four countries, the option of allocating funding provided through REACT-EU was taken up 
by 13 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LU, LV, RO, SI) and the UK; 
for  example,  in  Austria  the  additional  funding  of  EUR  6  million  through  this  mechanism 
extended the  implementation  of  the  project  supporting families and their children by  one 
year.278 

Development of absorption rates of FEAD 

The absorption rate continuously increased, reaching 83.9% in September 2022, with an 
increase of 14 p.p. from 2020 to 2021, indicating the importance of the FEAD during the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the efforts by MS to support the most vulnerable groups. As for 
the ESF, the continuous increase from 2019 to 2022 indicates that the financial performance 
was not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

276 SFC2014 
277 FEAD Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Romania 
278 FEAD Operational Programme of Austria, Version 2.0 

180 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 7: Development of the absorption rate of FEAD, 2014-2022 

Source: 
(data extracted on 29 September 2022) 

extract; 

SFC 

Cohesion 

data 

dashboard 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  

At the end of 2020, the cumulative funds committed amounted to nearly EUR 3,949 million, 
or 104% of the total resources of the programmes (which include EU funds and national co-
financing)279.  Payments  to  beneficiaries  also  increased  significantly  in  2020  (EUR  552 
million) against previous years (EUR 477 million in 2019, EUR 503 million in 2018). In 2020 
and  2021,  payments  increased  significantly  in  Romania,  likely  as  a  result  to  the 
reprogramming  under  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives,  and  the  option  for  100%  co-
financing, as e.g. EUR 41 million of payments are reported in Romania in 2020, of which 
EUR  27  million  relate  to  provision  of  food  support,  while  EUR  12  million  are  related  to 
provision  of  basic  material  assistance.  In  2021  the  payment  increased  up  to  EUR  125 
million. The payment rate also significantly increased in Hungary, from 56% in 2020 to 95% 
in 2022.280 

As  FEAD  was  not  included  under  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  with  regard  to 
financial reallocations across funds, additional REACT-EU funding plays an important role 
in some countries to introduce (or, in many cases, continue the implementation of existing) 
operations  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  By  September  2022,  only  countries 
implementing  the  FEAD  under  OP  type  I  (providing  food  and  material  assistance)  have 
allocated REACT-EU funding to FEAD. This is also shown by the advanced payment rate, 
as  there  are  a  few  countries  such  as  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Estonia  and  Latvia  having 
reached a payment rate of above 50% (in relation to REACT-EU funding), indicating 
the  early  allocation  of  funds  to  the  FEAD,  but  also  the  well-established 
implementation/continuation  of  the existing operations. Overall  by  September  2022, 
EUR 151 million of the allocated EUR 686 million of additional REACT-EU funding have 
been incurred by the Member States. 

Table A 20 – Payment rate of FEAD OPs for the initial planned budget 2014-2022 by 
country up to September 2022 

Country 

Planned EU 
amount 

Total net 
payments 

EU payment 
rate in % 

EU payment rate 2020-
2022 in p.p. 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

18,032,733 

18,032,733 

100% 

73,821,504 

73,821,504 

100% 

104,815,264 

104,815,264 

100% 

3,944,660 

3,944,660 

100% 

17.7 

15.8 

1.2 

40.3 

279 Authors’ calculation based on extracts from SFC2014.  
280 Authors’ calculation based on https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/ESIF-2014-2020-EU-payments-
daily-update-/gayr-92qh  (extracted 19 July 2022) 

181 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

23,329,849 

20,666,257 

78,893,211 

74,123,261 

3,944,660 

3,581,659 

89% 

94% 

91% 

8,002,026 

8,002,026 

100% 

563,410,224 

563,410,224 

100% 

22,540,916 

22,540,916 

100% 

499,281,315 

394,419,599 

280,972,531 

217,850,938 

36,628,990 

26,331,141 

93,882,921 

88,970,068 

22,766,327 

20,607,070 

670,592,285 

463,869,412 

77,202,641 

61,184,819 

3,944,660 

3,924,911 

79% 

78% 

72% 

95% 

91% 

69% 

79% 

99% 

41,024,469 

41,024,469 

100% 

3,944,660 

3,494,023 

3,944,660 

3,763,352 

473,359,260 

460,189,096 

176,946,201 

141,290,534 

441,013,044 

296,995,376 

7,889,321 

7,110,266 

20,512,235 

20,319,291 

55,112,543 

52,686,526 

2,191,632 

0 

89% 

95% 

97% 

80% 

67% 

90% 

99% 

96% 

0% 

TOTAL 

3,811,944,742 

3,196,969,394 

83.9 

23.2 

37.2 

23.7 

17.0 

14.2 

16.9 

25.7 

25.6 

16.7 

38.8 

31.7 

23.7 

15.7 

25.9 

22.2 

12.2 

22.1 

14.6 

24.3 

29.0 

28.1 

14.6 

22.1 

0.0 

21.8 

Source: 
(data extracted on 29 September 2022) 

extract; 

SFC 

Cohesion 

data 

dashboard 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  

Summary of findings about the provisions of CRII and CRII+ and their 
impact on allocation of resources 

Evidence gathered and analysed shows that CRII and CRII+ were effective in providing 
additional  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  in  quickly  deploying  the  available 
resources, particularly through the ESF, but also through FEAD.  

182 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The key findings concerning the effects of reprogramming under CRII and CRII+ (resulting 
from the analysis in this section) are summarised below: 

  Most  Member  States  used  the  flexibilities  offered  by  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives  to reallocate financial  resources  between funds  and/  or  within the  ESF; 
this was at a significant scale, as is demonstrated by the total transferred volume of 
EUR 1.7 billion across funds, and at least EUR 2.4 billion within and between ESF 
OPs at level of Thematic Objective. This value increases up to 4.6 billion when going 
at  the  most  detailed  level  of  IPs,  taking  into  account  that  this  includes  all  kind  of 
shifts, not only COVID-19 related ones. 

  A large share (37% or EUR 500 million) of the shifts between the ERDF and ESF 
occurred within the same region (e.g. transfer from an ERDF OP to a ESF OP of the 
same region). 

  The flexibilities under the coronavirus response initiatives resulted in a substantial 
financial volume that was reallocated between funds and within the ESF to respond 
to  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Overall,  ESF  funding  of  TO  9 
(EUR +2.1 billion) and TO 8 (EUR +0.2 billion) increased significantly, while funding 
for TO10 and TO11 decreased.  

  While  the  countries  shifted  significant  amounts  towards  TO9  to  respond  to  the 
immediate  effects  of  the  CPIVD-19  pandemic,  REACT-EU  funding  was  mostly 
allocated  to  employment  related  measures  to  support  people  getting  back  into 
employment, when economies were already recovering from the immediate effects 
of the crisis. 

 

In  some  countries,  especially  the  smaller  ones  such  as  Malta  and  Cyprus,  the 
additional resources from other funds or the reallocations within the ESF led to large 
shifts  in  the  thematic  focus.  For  instance  in  Cyprus  the  reallocations  and  the 
additional funding for TO 9 resulted in an increase of 91%.  

  Reallocations of ESF funding also effected the number of participations under the 
respective  IP.  Evidence  shows  that  e.g.  IP  9.iv  which  was  newly  programmed  in 
several countries resulted in an increase of planned EU-amount of 59% from 2019 
to 2020 and an increase of 93% of participations in 2020.  

  The  minimum  thematic  concentration  to  social  inclusion  was  not  affected  by  the 
shifts across funds, with all countries meeting the minimum share of 20%, with the 
exception of DK, FI and SK. 

  At EU level (including the UK) the absorption rate of the ESF continuously increased 
over  the  programming  period.  In  the  reporting  year  2020  the  absorption  of  funds 
increased  by  15  p.p.  while  in  2021  it  increased  by  16  p.p.,  illustrating  that  the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the implementation of the ESF. 

  The development of the absorption rates of ESF OPs shows that some countries 
(e.g.  Cyprus)  reacted  very  fast  and  reached  a  share  of  declared  expenditure  of 
100%,  indicating  that  reallocations  was  effective.  In  Lithuania,  funds  of  EUR  169 
million to protect jobs were absorbed in 2020 already in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic. Many other countries show sharp increases, both in the project selection 
rate and the absorption rate. 

  Compared to the programming period 2007-2013 the absorption of funds shows the 
same  trend.  However,  while  no  significant  differences  can  be  observed  in 
expenditure between the two programming periods, or even between 2019, 2020 

183 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

and 2021. The similar development of the absorption rates in the penultimate and 
last  year  for  both  programming  periods  illustrates  that  overall  the  financial 
performance of the ESF was not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

  The development of absorption rates of FEAD OPs shows good progress over the 
last two years, indicating the efforts of the Member States to continuing the support 
for  the  most  vulnerable  groups  during  the  pandemic  and  the  well-established 
implementation  in  the  countries,  as  they  managed  to  continue  the  support  under 
difficult  circumstances.  Some  countries,  e.g.  Romania,  which  by  the  end  of  2019 
had  a  payment  rate  of  27%,  significantly  increased  the  absorption  of  funds,  with 
Romania reaching 67% up to September 2022 (EUR 41 million in 2020 and EUR 
125 million in 2021). 

 

In the case of FEAD, only a few amendments have been reported, as many of the 
countries  used  REACT-EU  funding  for  the  continuation  of  existing  operations  in 
2021. 

184 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Appendix 3:  

I.  Changes in ESF participations 

Introduction 

The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of the flexibilities enabled through the coronavirus 
response initiatives in the MS clearly impacted the number and characteristics of ESF and 
YEI participations. 

This  chapter  provides  an  in-depth  analysis  of  how  the  composition  of  the  ESF  and  YEI 
participations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes might be the result of for 
instance newly implemented, canceled, or delayed operations, enlarged target groups, etc.  

Such  changes  are  illustrated  and  complemented  by  concrete  examples,  which  show  in 
detail  how  adaptations  of  OPs  and  operations  implemented  in  response  to  the 
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the composition of the ESF and YEI 
participations. 

Methodology  

The analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the characteristics of ESF and 
YEI  participations  is  based  on  monitoring  data  reported  in  the  Annual  Implementation 
Reports through common output indicators, which are collected at IP level. The data, which 
are stored in the SFC2014 database were extracted on 8 September 2022.  

The  analysis  was  done  at  different  levels  of  aggregation:  From  the  total  number  of 
participations at the level of the EU-27 and the UK to detailed analysis by each of the socio-
economic characteristics (e.g. age groups, labour market status) at country and OP level 
and at TO and IP level.  

The analysis by socio-economic characteristics is mainly based on the comparison of two 
time periods, before (2014-2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), looking 
both at changes in absolute and relative terms. The reason for analysing changes in the 
shares  of  specific  target  groups  between  this  aggregated  time  periods  is  to  reduce  the 
impact of for instance outliers in 2019, and gives a more accurate picture of the (increased 
or decreased) importance of a specific target group and properly illustrates the impact of 
the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic at the respective level of analysis. 

In case IPs were newly added to the OP due to the pandemic, they are not shown in the 
analysis by IP, as this IP was not part of the OP from 2014 to 2019 and therefore a relative 
change cannot be calculated. 

185 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overall 

Overall, from 2014 until the end of 2021, 57.4 million participations were reached by ESF / 
YEI, with sufficient information on background characteristics (such as employment status) 
for 54.5 million281.  

Until  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  there  was  a  continuous  increase  in  the 
number of participations from 2014 onwards, reaching a peak of 11.5 million in 2018, while 
in 2019 10.6 million were reached. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020 
stopped this trend, with 8.7 million reported participations in 2020, which is a decrease of 
18%  or  1.9  million  compared  to  2019.  Reasons  for  this  decline  include  for  instance  the 
cancelation of operations due to e.g. measures in place preventing the spread of COVID-
19,  limitations  made  it  difficult  to  recruit  participants  as  the  usual  channels  (e.g.  events, 
employment centres and services or other institutions) were generally no longer available, 
change of the format of operations resulting in lower number of participations due to the 
lack  of  access  to  digital  tools,  and  use  of  financial  resources  for  the  purchase  of  health 
equipment, test materials, etc. for which only the value of the ESF actions is monitored (for 
instance, through the COVID-indicator CV 30), while no number of supported people can 
be provided.282  

The share of women remained quite constant at above 50% at the level of the EU-27 and 
the UK, oscillating between 53 and 55% between 2018 and 2021. At TO level, the share of 
women also remained quite constant before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the 
exception of TO 8, where the share of women was between 53-54% (in 2018, 2019 and 
again in 2021) but dropped to 49.8% in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. 

The figure below illustrates the number of participations by Thematic Objective283 and the 
overall share of women from 2014 to 2021. During the first year of the pandemic in 2020, 
the  number  of  participations  increased  under  TO  8  (+3%)  and  TO  9  (+9%),  while  they 
decreased substantially  under TO 10 (-45%) and TO 11 (-61%). To a certain extent, the 
changes in the number of participations can be linked to the financial reallocations, as the 
reallocations towards the ESF were mainly allocated to TO8, and the reallocations within 
the ESF resulted in a net increase of almost EUR 400 million of TO9, while funding for TO10 
and TO11 decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

281 Note that figures for “Grand total” reported in the AIRs are insufficiently detailed for analysis. Therefore, the present 
report conducts all analyses on the basis of the total 54.5 million participations, with the exception of the values included in 
the figures illustrating the development of the total number and the share of participations by TO from 2014 to 2021, which 
is based on the grand total reported. 
282 Spatial Foresight: Kai BÖHME, Sabine ZILLMER. Research for REGI Committee - The Impacts of the COVID-19 
Pandemic on EU Cohesion and EU Cohesion Policy - Part I: Overview and First Analysis. European Parliament, 2022. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/699617/IPOL_STU(2022)699617_EN.pdf  
283 Including participants under TO 13 (exclusively funded through REACT-EU, which is not further analysed as it falls out of 
the scope of this study). 

186 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 8: Number of participations by TO and overall share of women (2014-2021) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The  following  figure  illustrates  the  shares  of  participations  from  2014  to  2021  by 
Thematic  Objective.  It  shows  that  in  2020  there  is  a  strong  increase  in  the  share  of 
participations under TO8 and TO9, while the share under TO 10 decreased significantly. 
The  share  of  participations  under  TO  9  increased  up  to  32%  in  2020.  In  2021,  shares 
changed again compared to the first year of the pandemic, being again closer to the relative 
distribution at pre-crisis levels (of 2019).284  

Figure A 9: Shares of participations by TO (2014 – 2021) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Looking more in detail at IP level comparing 2019 and the first year of the pandemic (2020), 
including  the  change  in financial  allocations,  it  shows  that  the  changes  vary  significantly 
across the 19 IPs. Six IPs (8.i; 8.ii; 8.v; 9.ii; 9.iv and 9.vi) had more participations in 2020 
than in 2019, which mainly correlates with the increase of the financial volume of these IPs 
(with  the  exception  of  the  IPs  8.ii  and  9.vi).  While  evidence  was  found  for  a  number  of 
COVID-19 related changes (for instance under IP 9.iv), as illustrated by the examples below 

284 With the exception of the newly introduced TO 13, which includes measures funded through the REACT-EU package. 

187 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

the figure, the changes in the number of participations or the financial volume cannot always 
be  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  or  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives,  as  it  is 
illustrated for IP 9.ii and 9.vi more in detail below.  

Figure A 10: Variation across IPs (2019 compared to 2020) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Under IP 8.v, the increase both in terms of participations (+55%) and financial allocation 
(+23%) is mainly due to changes in specific OPs: 

 

 

 

 

In  Italy  (Puglia)  the  financial  volume  of  this  IP  increased  by  200%  reaching  EUR 
99.7 million to support the expenses for the interventions relating to the activation of 
the  Redundancy  Fund  in  derogation  (CIGD).  In  2020,  31,427  employed  were 
reached through this operation.  

In  Italy  (Campania)  no  financial  reallocations  were  programmed  as  the  project 
selection rate was at 37% by end of 2019. The already allocated funding was used 
to  introduce  new  operations  to  support  specific  target  groups  (self-employed, 
freelancers, seasonal workers) who are excluded from other support measures. By 
this, 27,000 people benefited from this social protection measure in 2020.  

In  Hungary,  under  the  OP  Economic  Development  and  Innovation  Programme, 
193,829 participations were reached in 2020, receiving a wage subsidy.  

In  Greece    a  strong  increase  (+532%)  of  participations  took  place  under  the  OP 
Competitiveness  Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation,  as  35,887  participants  were 
supported,  compared  to  5,682  in  2019.  The  financial  volume  of  the  IP  increased 
modestly, by 13% from 2019 to 2021.  

Under IP 9.ii, both the number of participations (+18%) and the financial allocation (+13%) 
increased from 2019 to 2020. However, the increase is not related to ESF operations in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as the strongest increase was found in BG under 
measures not specifically implemented in relation to COVID-19. Only a few MS (RO and 
SK) implemented operations related to COVID-19. 

Under IP 9.vi from 2019 to 2020 the number of participations increased by 17%, while there 
was  a  decrease  of  17%  of  the  financial  resources  of  this  IP.  However,  changes  in  the 
number of participations are not related to COVID-19. This is in line with the results from 
the  mapping  of  operations,  which  only  resulted  in  one  measure  implemented  in  the 
Podlaskie Voivodeship in Poland. 

188 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

IP 9.iv was newly programmed and added to OPs in the course of reprogramming under 
the CRII+ in six Member States (BE, ES, FR, IT, LU and PT) in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic, resulting in an increase of planned EU-amount of 59% from 2019 to 2020 and 
an increase of 93% of participations in 2020. Changes in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic 
include, for instance: 

 

 

 

In Italy, IP 9.iv was introduced in six OPs, both at national and regional level. For 
instance, in IT-Abruzzo EUR 4.5 million were allocated to this newly introduced IP 
to support healthcare personnel (payment of an additional bonus), families in need 
providing equipment for distance learning and workers being affected by suspension 
of  school  activities  (wage  subsidy).  By  the  end  of  2021,  7  559  people  were 
supported.  

In Spain, IP 9.iv was added to three OPs. For instance, in Cantabria, EUR 12 million 
were  shifted  to  this  IP  to  provide  funding  for  expenses  on  health  equipment,  test 
material,  personal  protective  equipment,  reinforcement  facilities,  hiring  additional 
personnel, etc. 

In  Luxembourg,  the  short-time  working  scheme  was  implemented  under  this  IP 
shifting  EUR  1.25  million  (EU  amount)  towards  this  IP.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
financial  volume  to  implement  the  operation  is  based  on  additional  REACT-EU 
funding (EUR 73 million in 2021), which provided the necessary additional funding 
for the STWS, providing the support for 43,031 employees in 2021 (reported under 
TO13 dedicated to REACT-EU interventions).  

At country level 

The cumulative number of ESF and YEI participations increased by 36% at the level of the 
EU-27 and the UK since the outbreak of the pandemic until the end of 2021285. As illustrated 
in  the  figure  below,  while  in  about  one  third  of  the  countries  increases  are  below  the 
average, in Cyprus, Greece and Romania the number of participations more than doubled 
since  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In  Cyprus,  for  instance,  the  significant 
increase  is  based  on  the  implementation  of  the  short-time  working  arrangement  in  2021 
under the newly introduced IP 9.iv, funded by EUR 36 million being reallocated from the CF 
to the ESF. This newly introduced scheme reached 65,963 participations until the end of 
2021, exceeding the number of participations from 2014-2019 (13,238) by far, and although 
(or because) being a small country, showing the impact the measures implemented based 
on the coronavirus response initiatives can have in a country. 

285 Not including participations under TO13 funded through the REACT-EU package, as it is out of the scope of this study. 

189 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT 
INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 11: Evolution of ESF participations (2020 and 2021) 

%
8
9
4

600%

500%

400%

300%

200%

100%

0%

%
5
0
1

%
3
0
1

%
1
9

%
6
6

%
3
6

%
0
6

%
6
5

%
2
5

%
0
5

%
8
4

%
8
4

%
0
4

%
0
4

%
9
3

%
6
3

%
5
3

%
3
3

%
0
3

%
7
2

%
7
2

%
4
2

%
2
2

%
0
2

%
9
1

%
2
1

%
5

%
0

EU-27 & the UK average: 36%

CY

GR

RO

HR

DK

CZ MT

SK

PL

BG

EE

SE

HU

SI

IT

FI

LT

UK

LV

LU

BE

DE

FR

ES

PT

AT

NL

IE

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022)

Increase 2020 & 2021

EU-27 & UK

190 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Analysis by target group 

In relation to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to the changes at country 
or TO level, the study explores whether the changes in the implementation of the ESF due 
to the flexibilities offered by the coronavirus response packages resulted in changes in the 
target  groups,  and  therefore  in  the  socio-economic  characteristics  of  the  participants.  In 
order to analyse the changes from pre-crisis levels (2014-2019) to 2020 and 2021 by target 
group, both the changes in absolute values and relative shares were reviewed, due to the 
(almost) overall decrease in number of participations in 2020/2021 compared to 2019. The 
qualitative  interpretation  is  based  on  triangulating  the  values  of  the  common  output 
indicators of 2014-2019 and 2020 and 2021 with the changes in the financial allocations286 
and the results of the mapping of operations at IP level287. 

Overall, the analysis below shows that there is some evidence for changes directly linked 
to ESF operations responding to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, while at 
the same time changes at this level of detail can also occur for other reasons.  

There is a rather strong correlation between the characteristics of participations at country 
and  IP  level  (as  e.g.  the  change  in  the  labour  market  status  of  the  participants  in  CY 
correlates with the change in the age groups and the educational level (increasing share of 
employed,  at  the  same  time  an  increasing  share  of  25-54  years  old  and  increasing 
educational level). To increase the readability of the report, examples are mentioned only 
once, and not under each socio-economic characteristic (e.g. the example of Cyprus is only 
provided under the labour market status and not described again under composition by age 
group/ educational level). 

By labour market status 

Overall,  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  there  is  a  significant  shift  in  the  labour  market 
status of the participations, with an increase of the share of employed of 12p.p. in 2020-
2021 compared to pre-crisis levels (2014-2019) at the level of the EU-27 and the UK.  

Looking at country level data, as illustrated in the figure below, the most significant change 
is  reported  in  Cyprus,  where  before  the  crisis  91%  of  the  supported  people  were 
unemployed, while during the crisis 97% are employed. As already mentioned above this is 
due to the implementation of the short-time working scheme, supporting more than 60,000 
employed. Overall the share of employed increased by 20% or more in CY, CZ, GR, LV and 
PL. In most countries the stronger support towards the employed at the same time reduced 
the share of supported unemployed.  

The absolute number of supported inactive participants increased significantly in BG, EE, 
NL and SK and to some extent CZ and SK from 2019 to 2020. In relative terms, compared 
to 2014-2019 there is an increase in DK (+24p.p.), NL (+31p.p.) and SK (+31p.p.) and to 
some extent in BE during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a number of countries (e.g. in BG) 
this includes support to distance learning education services implemented in response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Netherlands, the number of supported inactive doubled in 
2020, while the number of supported employed and unemployed decreased significantly, 
as  operations  in  response  to  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  are  funded 
through  the  REACT-EU  funding  only.  In  Slovakia,  the  number  of  inactive  increased 
significantly under IP 10.iv, due to activities aimed at supporting practical teaching, including 
activities aimed at supporting the introduction of elements of the dual education system. 

286 Analysed in detail in Annex 1 of the present report. 
287 Analysed in detail in Annex 1 of the present report. 

191 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Only  a  small  number  of  the  mapped  operations  (34)  target  inactive  and  unemployed 
people,  including  long-term  unemployed  people,  often  described  as  “vulnerable”  groups 
and/or  being  at  risk  of  social  exclusion.  Examples  supporting  the  unemployed  include 
operations  targeting people  at risk  of  losing their job  because  of the  COVID-19  crisis,  or 
who have already become unemployed due to this crisis (CY, EE, LT, SE).  

Figure A 12: Change in the share of participants by labour market status from 2014-
2019 to 2020-2021 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Looking  more  in  detail  into  the  share  of  employed  by  country  and  IP  there  are  several 
examples providing evidence of the changes being a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
As illustrated in the figure below, it shows that in the share of employed in many countries, 
it is a specific IP that can explain the increase in the share of employed, as e.g. the share 
of employed increased in one IP only, while it decreased in all other IPs. For instance in 
Poland, the increase results from interventions under IP 8.i and 8.ii  providing support to 
workers who are on furlough because the employers were forced to close their services.  In 
Bulgaria, which significantly increased the funding of IP 9.iv from 2019 to 2021 (+47% or 
EUR 97 million), the number of supported employed participants increased strongly through 
operations under TO9 and in particular under 9.iv, supporting the employed at risk of losing 
their job, supporting medical and non-medical staff and the purchase of protective medical 
equipment.  

192 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 13: Variation in the share of employed by IP (2020-2021 compared to 2014-
2019) 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Share of women 

Overall,  since  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  the  share  of  women  slightly 
increased from 52.5% prior to the pandemic (2014-2019) to 54.0% in 2020-2021 at the level 
of EU-27 and the UK. However, differences exist when looking at country level and at the 
level of TOs and IPs. 

By country, as illustrated in the two figures below, differences range between  -15p.p. (in 
NL) and +11p.p. (AT). At the level of IPs, differences are even smaller, ranging between -
5p.p. (IP 8.vi) and +4p.p. (IP 8.vii, IP 10.i). 

Figure A 14: Share of women in ESF participations (2014-2019 compared to 2020-
2021) 

193 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Figure A 15: Share of women in ESF participations (2014-2019 compared to 2020-
2021) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

By TO, as indicated already above, there is a drop in the share of women under TO 8 in 
2020 (from 54% in 2019 to 50%), while in 2018, 2019 and 2021 the share of women was at 
around 54%. Looking more in detail into the data, it shows that this decrease is reported 
mainly for women being employed, above 25 years of age and at least secondary education.  

The figure below illustrates the changes in the share of women between 2014-2019 and 
2020-2021  by  country  and  IP.  The  vast  majority  of  changes  ranges  between  -10  and 
+10p.p..  A  number  of  outliers  is  not  significant  as  it  is  mainly  due  to  very  low  absolute 
numbers (e.g. BG (-38p.p. IP 10.iv; PT (+17p.p. IP 8.iii)). In Malta the decrease of -40p.p. 
is due to the fact that the measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic under this 
IP  targeted  pupils  where  the  share  is  rather  balanced  (46p.p.  in  2020-2021),  while 
operations implemented until the end of 2018 targeted employed with a share of women of 
86%. In Slovakia the increase from 28 to 58% under IP10.ii is based on a measure related 
to future teaching and/or professional employees, which attracts more women than men in 
2021. 

194 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 16: Changes in the share of women between 2014-2019 and 2020-2021 by 
country and IP 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Composition by age group 

The  changed  portfolio  of  ESF  and  YEI  operations  in  2020  and  2021  in  response  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, due to newly introduced measures focusing on employed (e.g. STW 
schemes)  and  disrupted  operations  across  all  age  groups,  among  other  reasons,  also 
affected the composition of beneficiaries by age group. As illustrated in the figure below, in 
20  countries the share  of  participations  younger than 25  years  of  age  decreased.  At the 
level of the EU-27 and the UK the decrease of share of young people (-6.3 p.p.) at the same 
time resulted in an increase of the share of 25 to 54 years old  (+3.5 p.p.) followed by an 
increase of the share of those above 54 years of age (+2.8 p.p.). In Croatia the change in 
the composition by age group is mainly stemming from the increased support of employed 
(which are mainly above 25 years of age) in 2020, resulting in  124,348 employed supported 
through the preservation of jobs. No funding was shifted to provide this COVID-19 related 
support. 

195 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 17: Changes in share of ESF participations by age group by country (2020-
2021 v. 2014-2019) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Supporting young people 

Looking more into detail at IP level by country, it shows that in most of the countries the 
decrease or increase of the share of young people from 2014-19 to 2020-21 is concentrated 
under a specific IP. At European level, the strongest decrease is reported for IP 11.ii (-28 
p.p.), while there is an increase of +3 p.p. under IP 10.iv and of 2 p.p. under IP 9.ii and 9.iv. 
However, not all significant changes from 2014-19 to 2020-21 are related to the COVID-19 
pandemic, as the following examples illustrate. 

Strong increases were reported under several IPs of all Thematic Objectives, for instance 
under IP 9.vi in Romania (increase of the share of young people of +28 p.p.), under IP 8.i 
in PT (+24%), and under IP 10.iv in IT (+30%). In PT, the substantial increase in relative 
terms is in fact a significant decrease in absolute values, as the number of participations 
under this IP dropped from 163,000 (2014-2019) to 6,481 in 2020-2021 (of which 3,748 are 
young people), as number of participations continuously decreased after peaking in 2015. 
In Italy, it is based on a strong increase under the national OP Education, from 19% (2014-
2019) to 91% (2020-2021) and continuously high absolute and relative numbers under the 
regional OP of Veneto. 

196 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Significant decreases were reported for IP 10.ii in Bulgaria (-75p.p.), IP 10.iii in Romania (-
75p.p.)  and  for  IP  10.iv  in  Hungary  (-47p.p.).  The  decrease  of  -41p.p.  under  IP  9.iv  in 
Bulgaria is linked to the implementation of the operation in response to COVID-19 targeting 
the employed, which was already described in the section on the labour market status of 
the participants. 

Figure A 18: Share of ESF participations by age group by country and IP (2020-2021 
compared to 2014-2019) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

People with disabilities 

The share of participants with disabilities decreased very slightly by 0.7p.p. from 2014-2019 
to 2020-2021 at the level of EU-27 and the UK. By country, the differences range from -4.5 
p.p. in Czechia to +4.7 p.p. in Sweden and +9.2 p.p. in the Netherlands.  

197 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 19: Share of ESF participants with disabilities (2014-2019 and 2020-2021) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

*For IE no participations were reported for 2020-21 

Further exploring the data by IP show that in the large majority of IPs in the 28 countries 
the differences in the share of people with disabilities between 2014-19 and 2020 is below 
5p.p.,  with some  exceptions,  e.g.  in  Sweden  (+46p.p.  in IP  9.i),  in France (+91p.p.  in IP 
8.vi), in Lithuania (-67p.p. in IP 9.v). 

Figure A 20: Share of ESF participants with disabilities by IP (2020-2021 compared 
to 2014-2019) 

198 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The majority of such differences cannot be directly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, but 
there are some examples.  For  instance,  in  Italy,  the  increase of  22  p.p. under  IP  9.iv  is 
directly  linked  to  the  regional  OP  of  Campania,  where  more  than  38,000  people  with 
disabilities  were  supported  in  2020,  as  a  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The 
operation consisted in providing temporary support for people with disabilities of any kind 
and  reimbursement  of  the  redundancy  fund  in  derogation  (CIGD)  in  favor  of  workers  of 
companies in the regional territory. No funding was shifted under the flexibilities offered by 
the coronavirus response initiatives in relation to this operation. The total financial volume 
of this measure is EUR 30.5 million.288 

Educational level 

The changes of the profile of participations by educational level strongly correlates with the 
composition by age and to large extent with the labour market status, as in the examples 
discussed already (for instance in Cyprus). At the level of EU-27 & the UK, the share of 
lower education participations (ISCED 1-2) decreased by 10p.p., while there is an increase 
of about 5p.p. each for participations with upper or post secondary education (ISCED 3 and 
4) and participations with tertiary education. At IP level it shows that most of the changes in 
p.p. range about +/- 10p.p. The large changes in Romania can partly be explained by the 
strongly increased absolute numbers in 2020-21 (e.g. for IP 9.vi). 

288 https://opencoesione.gov.it/en/progetti/9ca20007ap000000001/  

199 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 21: Profile of ESF participations by educational level (2020-2021 compared 
to 2014-2019) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Figure A 22: Share of low skilled (ISCED 0-2) ESF participants by IP (2020-2021 
compared to 2014-2019) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Migrants 

Overall,  the  share  of  migrants  supported  decreased  from  14.9%  (2014-2019)  to  13.1% 
(2020-2021) at the level of EU-27 & the UK. At country level, during the COVID-19 pandemic 
the changes in the share of migrants range from +16p.p. in Luxembourg to –4p.p. in Italy. 
There are only a few COVID-19 operations targeting people with migration background (e.g. 
in DE-Saarland), while migrants are in some cases subsumed under measures targeting 
vulnerable groups / people at risk of social exclusion in general. Looking at the figure by IP 
and  country  it  shows  that  the  share  of  migrants  remained  quite  stable  in  most  of  the 
countries at level of IPs with a few exceptions (e.g. the increase of 80% under IP 9.vi in RO 
which is not related to the COVID-19 pandemic).  

200 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 23: Participations of migrants in ESF operations (change 2014-2019 to 
2020-21) 

Source: Authors calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Figure A 24: Share of ESF participants being migrants, participants with a foreign 
background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma) by 
IP (2014-2019 and 2020-2021) 

Source: Authors’ calculation based on: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (extracted on 8 September 2022) 

201 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Homeless people 

The share of homeless or affected by housing exclusion (common output indicator CO18) 
did not change when comparing data over time, being at 1.0% in 2020-2021 compared to 
1.1% from 2014 to 2019. Looking at data by country the share of this target group ranges 
between  0%  (e.g.  in  SE  almost  no  homeless  or  people  affected  by  housing  exclusion 
supported) to around 3% in Czechia and the UK up to 6% in France. Evidence for changes 
(but not related to the coronavirus response initiatives or the COVID-19 pandemic) was only 
be found in the OP Metropolitan Cities in IT, under IP 9.ii, where the targeted number of 
homeless or affected by housing exclusion increased from 3,639 in 2019 to 17,850 in 2021. 

Minorities 

There is very little evidence on the support of participants belonging to minorities in relation 
to the response to the consequences of the pandemic within the ESF and YEI. In Slovakia 
additional  EUR  5  million  are  provided  (without  having  reallocated  funding)  to  support 
activities in adverse situations related to COVID-19 in municipalities with the presence of 
minority Roma communities (MRC).   

II.  Changes in FEAD end recipients 

Introduction 

The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of the flexibilities enabled through the coronavirus 
response initiatives in the Member States clearly impacted the number and characteristics 
of FEAD end recipients. This section provides an in-depth analysis of how the composition 
of the FEAD end recipients changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes might be 
the  result  of  for  instance  newly  implemented,  canceled,  or  delayed  operations,  enlarged 
target groups, etc.  Such changes are illustrated and complemented by concrete examples, 
which show in detail how adaptations of OPs and operations implemented in response to 
the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the composition of the FEAD end 
recipients. 

Methodology  

The analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the characteristics of FEAD end 
recipients  is  based  on  monitoring  data  reported  in  the  Annual  Implementation  Reports 
through common output indicators, which are collected at Member State level. The data, 
which are stored in the SFC2014 database were extracted on 24 October 2022.  

The  analysis  was  done  at  different  levels  of  aggregation:  from  the  total  number  of  end 
recipients at the level of the EU27, to detailed analysis by type of vulnerable group (children, 
the elderly, homeless, people with disabilities, etc.) at country level.  

The analysis by target group is mainly based on the comparison of two time periods, before 
(2014-2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), looking both at changes in 
absolute  and  relative  terms.  The  reason  for  analysing  changes  in  the  shares  of  specific 
target  groups  between  these  aggregated  time  periods  is  to  reduce  the  impact  of,  for 
instance, outliers in 2019, and gives a more accurate picture of the (increased or decreased) 
importance of a specific target group and properly illustrates the impact of the responses to 
the COVID-19 pandemic at the respective level of analysis. 

202 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FEAD participation figures also include those being funded through additionally allocated 
REACT-EU  funding,  as  participation  data  are  not  separately  collected  in  the  monitoring 
system. 

Overall 

Until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a constant level of support from 
2017 to 2019 in all types of operations, as illustrated in the figures below. The relevance of 
FEAD supportis evidenced by a strong increase in the number of end recipients in 2020, 
providing  support  to  the  most  vulnerable  groups.  The  number  of  people  receiving  basic 
material assistance (in 13 Member States) more than doubled from 2019 to 2020, reaching 
a  peak  of  almost  2  million  end  recipients  in  2020.  The  number  of  people  receiving  food 
support  (in  22  Member  States)  increased  by  24%  reaching  almost  15  million  in  2020. 
Despite the restrictions at country level (lockdowns, etc.), the number of persons receiving 
social  inclusion  measures  (30.000  end  recipients  in  4  Member  States)  did  not  decrease 
from 2019 to 2020. In addition,  in France and Romania in 2020 0.2 million people and in 
2021 0.4 million people received vouchers, cards or other instruments of indirect delivery. 

The share of women remained quite constant at around 50% at the level of the EU-27 in 
relation to food support and social inclusion measures, while the share of women dropped 
from 50% to 36% when looking at the provision of basic material assistance. The highest 
share of women is reported for the provision of vouchers, reaching 74% in 2020 and 84% 
in 2021. 

203 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 25: Number of end recipients under the respective type of support and 
share of women (2014-2021)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014 

Food support 

Overall, the characteristics of the end recipients of the operations providing food support 
did not change much before and during the crisis, as illustrated in the figure below, as most 
of the changes are within +/- 10 p.p.. However, there are some relevant changes, e.g., in 
the number of children aged 15 years or below, as there are several countries in which this 
target groups shows the highest decrease (e.g. in EE, HU and SK). In Estonia and Latvia 
this  decrease at the  same time resulted  in an  increase of the  persons aged  65  years  or 
above.  

However, as the following reasoning shows, this is due to changes at governmental level 
and not related FEAD itself. In Estonia, for example, the increase of people aged 65+ and 
people with disabilities is expected to be affected by the extension of the target group to the 
local government subsidies’ recipients. One of the subsidies is, for example, the medicine 
subsidy provided by the local government, which is more likely to be applied for by older 

204 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

people.289 In Latvia in 2021, decrease in the proportion of children and young people can 
be  explained  by  legislative  changes  and  additional  support  options  for  families  with 
children.290 

Figure A 26: Composition of end recipients in food supply operations by country 
(comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014 

Basic Material Assistance 

Basic Material Assistance was provided in 13 Member States in this programming period, 
with a strong increase in participation during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. To 
a large extent this is due to the implementation of basic material assistance operations in 
Romania reporting 1.2 million end recipients in 2020. Particular strong increases are also 
reported in Italy, Hungary, Croatia, and to some extent in Greece. 

Looking at the changes in the composition of target groups, at level of EU 27 the share of 
women  decreased  by  12p.p.  while  the  other  target  groups  changed  only  marginally, 
between -3p.p. and +6p.p. At country level it shows that in some countries (AT, CY and LU) 
the share of migrants increased. In Luxembourg this is the result of giving access to the 
social groceries during the pandemic to non-EU migrants, especially in Luxembourg City. 
On the other hand, the share of this target group decreased by 25p.p. in HU.  

289 Annual Implementation Report 2021 of Estonia.  
290 Annual Implementation Report Latvia 2021 

205 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 27:. Composition of end recipients in basic material assistance operations 
by country (comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014 

Vouchers 

The  option  to  provide  vouchers  was  enabled  through  CRII+  flexibilities,  as  it  was  not 
permitted  before.  Several  countries  (for  instance  FR,  PT,  RO)  decided  to  implement  e-
vouchers to secure food security during the COVID-19 pandemic. In SFC2014, the number 
of  people  supported  through  vouchers  are  reported  for  two  countries  so  far,  France  and 
Romania.  The  issued  e-vouchers  target  different  target  group,  as  it  is  visible  by  the 
composition by age group. In Romania hot meal vouchers were funded through FEAD for 
the elderly, as also shown in the figure below as 100% of the end-beneficiaries are people 
over 65 years of age. A similarity in both countries is the high share of women, which is 
much higher than in other types of operations funded through FEAD (see Figures above). 

Figure A 28: Composition of end recipients receiving vouchers by country (2020-
2021)  

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

FR

RO

TOTAL

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014 

206 

Share of children aged 15 years or
below
Share of persons aged 65 years or
above
Share of persons with disabilities

Share of women

Share of homeless

Share of migrants

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Social inclusion 

Social  inclusion  operations  are  implemented  in  four  Member  States  during  this 
programming period (DE, DK, NL and SE) through OP II. The figure below illustrates that 
the  composition  of  the  different  vulnerable  groups  benefitting  from  FEAD  co-funded 
operations  did  not  change  much  comparing  shares  before  and  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. At level of EU27 the most significant change is the increase of the number of 
homeless receiving support, based on an increase of 13p.p. in Germany, with almost 3,000 
homeless being supported in 2021, of which 80% made use of at least one social service 
after being supported.  

In the Netherlands, the adaptation of the activities supporting people over 65 years of age 
did not result in a change of the characteristics of the people supported. The adaptation of 
the  operation  consisted  mainly  in  introducing  new  activities,  e.g.,  helping  the  elderly  to 
obtain a corona ticket. With a corona ticket, the elderly were again able to participate more 
actively  in  society.  Another  example  of  a  new  activity  since  COVID-19  was  teaching  the 
elderly video calling. In Denmark the increase in the share of persons with disabilities is not 
related to COVID-19 but to a new round of projects being implemented from 2019 to 2021.  

Figure A 29: Composition of end recipients in social assistance operations by 
country (comparing 2020-2021 and 2014-2019)  

Source: Authors’ calculation based on SFC 2014 

207 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Appendix 4: Comparative analysis of the COVID-19 context 

COVID-19  was  declared a pandemic  by  the World  Health  Organisation (WHO)  in March 
2020. It has led to dramatic consequences at individual and system level. A brief overview 
of the severity of the COVID-19 crisis across the four dimensions relevant to this preliminary 
evaluation  (employment,  social  inclusion,  healthcare  and  education  and  training)  is 
presented in this annex.  

Health and Healthcare 

At the individual level, the direct effects of the pandemic led to a large number of people 
being  infected  with  COVID-19,  excess  mortality,  decrease  in  life  expectancy,  people 
suffering from mental distress, and long-lasting symptoms, etc.291 Across the EU-27 and the 
UK,  more  than  193  million  infections292  and  more  than  1.3  million  deaths  were  reported 
before  September  2022293.  According  to  Eurostat,  the  pandemic  led  to  excess  mortality 
between January 2020 and July 2022 of at least 1.5 million deaths, meaning that compared 
with  the  average  of  the  five  previous  years,  the  number  of  deaths  since  the  start  of  the 
pandemic was 13% higher.294  

There is  a huge  variation  across  countries,  as  shown in the figure on  cumulative deaths 
below.  Large western and  southern European  countries (IT,  UK,  FR,  DE,  ES) report  the 
highest number of deaths. Central and Eastern European countries are also fairly clustered 
(with  PL,  RO,  HU,  CZ  and  SK  all  reporting  comparable  death  figures).  Overall,  northern 
European countries and countries with a small population have reported the lowest number 
of deaths. 

Figure A 30: Reported cumulative COVID-19 deaths EU-27 and UK 

Source: Research team based on data from European Centre for Disease Prevention  and Control295 and UK 
Coronavirus Dashboard296 

There has also been a clear social gradient to the risk of infection and death from the 
virus,  as  people  living  in  more  socio-economically  disadvantaged  neighbourhoods  and 

291 OECD (2021). Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/ae3016b9-en 
292 Figures related to direct effects of COVID-19 may include large underestimations as e.g., infections are asymptomatic 
and testing numbers (and systems) established vary largely. 
293 According to data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the UK Coronavirus Dashboard. 
294 Eurostat (n.d.). Excess mortality – statistics. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-
_statistics#Excess_mortality_in_the_EU_between_January_2020_and_July_2022 
295 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (n.d.). Weekly COVID-19 country overview. Available at: 
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea 
296 GOV.UK (n.d.). Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK. Available at: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk 

208 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

minority ethnic groups have higher rates of almost all of the known underlying clinical risk 
factors that increase the severity and mortality of COVID-19. In addition, working conditions 
tend to be worse in lower-skilled jobs with people in lower skilled jobs in many cases being 
more  exposed  to  adverse  working  conditions.  Bambra  et  al.  show  that  inequalities  in 
COVID-19 infection and mortality rates are therefore arising as a result of a syndemic297 of 
COVID-19,  inequalities  in  chronic  diseases  and  the  social  determinants  of  health.  The 
pandemic has amplified pre-existing inequalities in, for example, access to health care and 
other  areas  (work,  housing,  etc.).  COVID-19  has  also  interacted  with  and  exacerbated 
existing social inequalities in chronic disease and the social determinants of health.298 

The rapid development of vaccines was a game changer in 2021, reducing the risk of severe 
illness  and  death.  However,  vaccination  rates  vary  across  the  EU-27  and  the  UK,  as 
illustrated in the Figure below. According to data from the ECDC, by September 2022 the 
share of uptake of a primary course of the vaccine ranges from more than 80% in some 
countries (e.g., DK, IE, IT, MT and PT) to less than 50% in other countries (e.g., BG and 
RO), while the share of uptake of a first booster dose ranges from 9% (in RO) to 73% (in 
IT). The share of people receiving a second booster is highest in Sweden (21%), followed 
by Finland (17%) and the Netherlands (16%). 

Figure A 31: Uptake of the primary course and a booster/additional dose by 
country, by mid-April 2022, in %  

Source: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control299 

At system level, the rapid growth in cases of COVID-19 has challenged the capacity of 
national  healthcare  systems.  In  the  initial  focus  on  acute  COVID-19  treatment, 
management of noncommunicable diseases was severely scaled down, and patients 
suffering  from  these  were  given  low  priority.  This  resulted  in  postponed  or  cancelled 
appointments  due  to  re-allocation  of  healthcare  personnel  to  tasks  related  to  managing 
COVID-19.  Healthcare  providers,  coping  with  inadequate  supplies  of  personal  protective 
equipment, minimised physical contact with patients to avoid contagion. Patients’ motivation 
to  seek  care  diminished,  as  medical  centres  were  perceived  as  potential  sources  of 
infection.  The  result  was  a  major  global  disruption  in  noncommunicable  disease 

297 A syndemic is a set of closely intertwined and mutual enhancing health problems that significantly affect the overall 
health status of a population within the context of a perpetuating configuration of noxious social conditions (Source: Bambra 
et al. 2020). 
298 Bambra, C., Riordan, R., Ford, J., et al. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. Journal of 
Epidemiology and Community Health 74(11), 964-968. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32535550/ 
299 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (n.d.). Data on COVID-19 vaccination in the EU/EEA. Available at: 
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/data-covid-19-vaccination-eu-eea 

209 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

management at a time when long-term conditions were emerging as major risk factors for 
poor outcomes from COVID-19.300 

Due to the high number of COVID-19 infections, healthcare for people with other needs was 
disrupted. According to the WHO, cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment have suffered 
in  an  unprecedented  way.301  In  a  study  conducted  in  the  UK,  Parsons  et  al.  found  that 
females,  older  participants,  those  in  a  more  disadvantaged  social  class  and  non-white 
ethnic minorities were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Inequities in healthcare 
the  maintenance  or  widening  of  existing  health 
disruptions  could  contribute 
inequalities,302  which  is  in  line  with  the  findings  about  the  social  gradient  to  the  risk  of 
infection and death from the virus.  

to 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  an  enormous  effect  on  healthcare  systems  across 
Europe,  with  a  large  range  of  policy  responses  used  by  Member  States.  European 
countries  were  quick  to  mobilise  significant  additional  funds  for  the  health  system  in 
response to the pandemic but treating and preventing COVID-19 and addressing the impact 
of disruption to services will require continued investment in the years ahead. 

The  pandemic  highlighted  the  existing  variation  between  public  health  agencies  and 
services across Europe, which resulted in divergent approaches to managing the crisis. In 
many  ways,  the  structural  preconditions  based  on  historical  and  current  political 
circumstances  determined  the  roles  that  public  health  agencies  played  in  the  outbreak, 
meaning that while some countries relied on them to shape national responses, others only 
used them in tasks such as surveillance and contact tracing.303   

Several dimensions emerged as crucial for the resilience of health systems during the 
COVID-19 crisis: 304  

  governing a crisis of the magnitude of COVID-19 required adequate and effective 
leadership,  effective  coordination  within  government  as  well  as  between 
government  and  other  key  stakeholders,  effective  communication  systems  and 
flows  linked  to  clear  lines  of  accountability,  and  monitoring  systems  that  enable 
immediate identification of gridlocks; 

  adequate and timely financing has been critical for effective interventions, as funds 
provide flexibility to key actors to address rapidly emerging and developing needs 
and pivot around different priorities; 

  human and physical resources and the ability to increase them rapidly are essential 
for supporting systematic responses to surging demands (in the case of healthcare 
systems,  these  include  medical  staff,  mental  health  support,  appropriate  hospital 
facilities and personal protective equipment); 

  service delivery should involve flexible ways to provide care services and support 
for those who are most vulnerable and isolated, and a strong feedback look between 

300 Kardas, P., Van Boven, J.F.M., Pinnock, H., Menditto, E., Wettermark, B., Tsiligianni, I., and Ágh, T. (2021). Disparities in 
European healthcare system approaches to maintaining continuity of medication for non-communicable diseases during the 
COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe 4. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100099. 
301 WHO (n.d.). COVID-19. Available at: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-
19/statements/statement-cancer-services-disrupted-by-up-to-50-in-all-countries-reporting-a-deadly-impact-of-covid-19 
302 Parsons, S., Maddock, J., Di Gessa, G., Green, M.J., Thompson, E.J., Stevenson, A.J., Kwong, A.S.F., McElroy, E., 
Silverwood, R.J., and Katikireddi, S.V. (2021). Health care disruption inequalities during Covid-19: Evidence from eleven 
longitudinal studies. European Journal of Public Health 31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab164.118 
303 Reiss, M. and Czypionka, T. (2022). What roles were played by public health agencies in Europe during the COVID-19 
pandemic? Cross-country analysis. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Available at: 
https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/hsrm/analyses/hsrm/the-roles-played-by-public-health-agencies-in-europe-
during-the-covid-19-pandemic 
304 Thomas, S., Sagan, A., Larkin, J., Cylus, J., Figueras, J., and Karanikolos, M. (2020). Strengthening health systems 
resilience: Key concepts and strategies. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Available at: 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32716618/ 

210 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

clinicians  and  decision-makers,  which  identifies  and  uses  promising  practices  to 
further improve service delivery.  

Across Europe, governments have made significant investments in supporting healthcare 
systems  and  establishments  during  the  pandemic,  building  up  testing  and  vaccination 
capacity, and reinforcing the capacity of medical staff and the acquisition of medical devices 
and personal protective equipment. Under CRII and CRII+, ESF supported these types of 
investments  across  many  countries.  FEAD  also  contributed  to  this  effort  from  a  social 
to  FEAD  partner 
inclusion  perspective, 
organisations, which enabled people in need to be reached and the staff delivering food aid 
or material assistance to be equipped with personal protective equipment. These healthcare 
operations enabled by the coronavirus response initiatives are discussed in  Section 3 of 
the report.  

technical  assistance  provided 

through 

Employment 

The  labour  market  was  severely  hit  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  with  large  differences 
across  Europe  depending  on  associated  containment  measures,  economic  sectors, 
educational levels of employees, and the response through active labour market measures 
such as short-time working schemes. In 2020, employment dropped by 1.5% in the EU 
and  1.6%  in  the  Euro  area  after  a  period  of  continuous  growth  that  resulted  in  record 
numbers  of  employment  in  2019.305  The  COVID-19  pandemic  marked  the  end  of  these 
labour market improvements that had been ongoing up until 2019, with specific groups more 
clearly impacted (young people, low-skilled workers, people in poor living conditions, older 
people and persons with disabilities).  

These  trends  have  begun  to  reverse  over  2021  and  2022.  The  figure  below  shows  a 
comparison with 2021, with clear signs of a substantial recovery from January 2021 to 
January  2022  and  further  to  August  2022,  with  the  unemployment  range  dropping 
substantially in almost all Member States. At the peak of the crisis (January 2021), some 
countries experienced dramatic increases (e.g., AT, ES, EL) above the shocks experienced 
by other countries. Indeed, by the fourth quarter of 2021, total employment had shown a 
strong recovery trend, with employment increasing for the third quarter in a row, bringing 
employment levels to a new record since the beginning of the Eurostat series (in 1998), with 
a  total  of  210  million  people  in  work.306  As  the  figure  shows,  there  are  some  strong 
variations, with Greece and Spain having by far the highest unemployment rates both prior 
to and following the crisis.   

305 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
p.26. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
306 European Commission (2022). Employment and Social developments in Europe (ESDE): Quarterly Review. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8455&furtherPubs=yes  

211 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 32: Unemployment rates by Member States, % of labour force from 15 to 
74 years 

Source: Eurostat, series on unemployment [une_rt_m]. Data seasonally adjusted 

Throughout 2020, the high take-up of job retention schemes significantly affected labour 
market developments and slowed increases in unemployment. As governments introduced 
containment measures to limit the spread of the virus, they also devised policies to support 
the labour market, with a particular focus on job retention schemes in the form of  short-
time work schemes. The lockdowns imposed by governments to curb the spread of the 
virus  affected  employees  and  the  self-employed  to  a  significant  extent,  in  particular  in 
sectors  that  could  not  pivot  to  remote  working.  Even  if  short-time  work  schemes  did  not 
cover all those whose jobs were affected by the pandemic (the self-employed being a key 
group), in their absence, unemployment levels are expected to have seen a much steeper 
increase.  A  recent  study  indeed  confirms  a  strong  relationship  between  the  change  in 
unemployment  rate  and  the  approved  applications  for  short-time  work.307  In  2020, 
Germany,  which  successfully  implemented  short-time  work  during  the  financial  and 
economic crisis of 2008-2009, showed a take-up that is significantly higher than during that 
period. In the second quarter of 2020, a peak of about six million short-time workers (about 
20% of dependent employees) was reached.308 These schemes and other types of support 
and liquidity schemes for businesses also helped avoid bankruptcy to an extent, in particular 
with respect to small and medium-sized businesses. 

Another consequence of the pandemic was that the drop in total hours worked in 2020 
was much sharper than overall employment and was more aligned to the drop in economic 
activity. At the same time the share of workers employed, but not working, more than 
doubled to 17%.309 As the figure below shows, the fall in hours is far greater than the fall in 
persons employed, with the total and average hours worked in 2021 remaining far below 
the  pre-pandemic  rates of  2019,  while  the  employment rate  of persons  is  closer  to  2019 
rates.  

307 Ibid. 
308 Eichhorst, W., Marx, P., and Rinne, U. (2020). Manoeuvring Through the Crisis: Labour Market and Social Policies 
During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Inter Economics 55(6), 375-380. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-020-0937-6 
309 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
p.26. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 

212 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 33: Employment indicators EU310  

Overall,  this  paints  a  picture  of  an  uneven  and partial  recovery  in employment  rates, 
with  non-contact-intensive  roles  recovering  to  a far  greater  extent  than  contact-intensive 
roles.311 Eurofound (2021) found that the most affected sector in terms of labour inputs has 
been the accommodation sector, along with the hospitality, travel and sports, and leisure-
related sectors.312 As with the employment data, sectoral data (although rather broad and 
not  defined  by  sub-sectors)  from  late  2021  shows  that  employment  has  recovered 
strongly in the services sector in Q2, 3 and 4 of 2021 and Q1 of 2022, indicating that 
there has been a substantial recovery in the most affected roles.  

Figure A 34: Employment growth by sector - EU 

Source: Eurostat, National Accounts [namq_10_a10_e]. Data non-seasonally adjusted. 

310 Ibid.  
311 These roles are those considered more face-to-face such as hospitality and catering, caring and healthcare, and 
transport. 
312 European Commission (2020). Labour Market and Wage Developments in Europe. p.10. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=791&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9873 

213 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Alongside  this  sectoral  effect,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  stronger  employment 
effects  on  different  groups.  The  employment  of  young  people  declined  especially 
strongly in 2020. Compared to 2019, the employment rate dropped by 2.8 percentage points 
for  the  20-24  age  group  and  1.7  percentage  points  for  the  25-29  age  group.313  This  is 
deemed to be linked to the nature of young people’s employment, as they are more likely 
to  be  on  temporary  contracts  or  in vulnerable occupations.314  Young  people transitioning 
from education to the labour market also faced difficulties in finding their first job, with the 
total  number  of recent job  starters  declining  in 2020  (6.5 million  on  average per quarter, 
compared to an average of about 7.5 million people in the previous years, which is a 13.5 
percentage  points  drop).  As  seen  in the  figure  below,  there  were  far  lower  reductions  in 
employment  for  older  age  cohorts.  Compared  to  levels  seen  during  and  after  the  global 
financial crisis that started in 2007, the increase in youth unemployment and NEET rates 
has  remained  substantially  below  that  period.  However,  the  risk  that  unemployment 
becomes entrenched increases with the length of the crisis.315  

Figure A 35: Changes in employment, hours worked and share not working by age 
and gender, Q2-2019-Q2-2020, EU27  

Source: Eurofound  

Some Member States experienced much higher rises in the rate of youth unemployment, 
in  particular  Lithuania  (+7.7  percentage  points,  Estonia  (+6.8  percentage  points),  and 
Slovenia (+6.1 percentage points).316 There has also been an increase in NEET rates for 
the 15-29 age group, which increased by 1.2 percentage points in 2020 to 13.7%.317 

By  late  2021,  it  was  clear  that  there  had  been  a  strong  recovery  in  employment  rate 
through  all  age  groups.  Most  age groups  had  shown  continued  positive  growth  by  Q3 
2021 when compared to Q3 2020, and further to Q2 2022. The figure below shows that the 
strongest  positive  growth  rate  between  these  two  time  points  was  for  the  younger  age 
groups who were most effected in 2020, with a growth rate of 3.5 percentage points for 20-
24-year-olds and 2.7 percentage points for 25-29-year-olds. A trend that continued in 2022, 

313 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
314 European Commission (2020). Labour Market and Wage Developments in Europe. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=791&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9873 
315 Konle-Seidl, R. and Picarella, F. (2021). Youth in Europe: Effects of COVID-19 on their economic and social situation. 
European Parliament. Available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.pdf  
316 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
317 Ibid. 

214 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

as from Q3 2021 to Q2 2022, the employment rate of people aged 15-64 increased at EU 
level (+2.4 pp.) and in all countries.  

Figure A 36: Employment rate by age – EU-27, 2020Q3 – 2022Q2 

Source: Eurostat, LFS [lfsq_ergaed]. Data not seasonally adjusted 

In  terms  of  employment  policy  responses,  further  negative  effects  were  mitigated  by 
governmental measures, in particular through job retention programmes. All countries (EU-
27 and the UK) provided a job retention scheme, with 21 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI) and the UK providing 
a short-time work scheme in 2020-2021, 6 relying on wage subsidies, and 6 implementing 
both measures.318  

Governments  adapted  pre-existing  STWAs  by  providing  flexibility  in  relation  to  eligibility, 
duration and payment conditions as well as introducing new schemes tailored to the impact 
of COVID-19 on national labour markets.319  In some cases, the adaptation of the STWAs 
involved wage subsidies for reduced working hours as well as a subsidy for hours worked.320  

While  almost  all  Member  States  suffered  a  fall  in  the  rate  of  employment,  there  were 
disparities between countries, with the steepest drops observed in Spain (-2.3%), Ireland (-
1.7%),  and  Bulgaria  (1.6%),  contrasting  with  two  countries  that  saw  a  small  increase  in 
employment  (Poland  and  Malta).321  Member  States  with  pre-existing  schemes  (such  as 
Austria and Germany) tended to expand their scope, with the main changes being to simplify 
administrative  procedures,  broaden  coverage,  reduce  costs  for  employers,  increase 
duration, increase the level of payments, relax requirements for firms to access STWAs and 
removing  the  restriction  on  taking  on  another  job.322  Section  3  of  the  report  provides 
information about the STWS that were implemented through ESF under CRII/ CRII+. 

The majority of Member States have implemented support measures for self-employed 
and  non-standard  workers  who  are  not  covered  by  the  above  schemes.  For  the  self-
employed, 17 Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GR, IT, LV, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, SI) used some form of income support, some funded through the ESF under CRII/ 
CRII+, generally imposing a minimum level of decline in income compared to the level of 
income  in the  previous  year.  These  schemes  are generally  linked  to  very  strict  eligibility 

318 Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S., and Regazzoni, P. (2021).  
Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis of policies in 35 countries. ESPN. p.14. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 
319 Ibid., p. 54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 
320 Ibid. 
321 Ibid. 
322  Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life. p.71. Available at: 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife 

215 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

criteria.323  Some  countries324  have  also  provided  support  measures  for  non-standard 
workers  (temporary  agency  workers,  seasonal  workers  or  apprentices),  with  a  range  of 
income  replacement  or  STWA  instruments  being  used.325  Notwithstanding  massive 
government and EU level investments during the pandemic to support workers, companies 
and  protect  jobs,  the  measures  did  not  reach  all  those  in  need.  This  has  amplified  pre-
existing vulnerabilities and inequalities that will require systematic investment in the coming 
years  and  particular  attention  to  workers  or  the  self-employed  working  in  atypical 
arrangements, whose livelihoods have also been threatened during the pandemic due to 
more limited or non-existent social safety nets.  

Social inclusion 

5.2.1. 
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there had been a decrease in the number of people at risk 
of poverty or social exclusion in the EU, decreasing by 17.3 million in 2017 from the 2008 
baseline. However, the pandemic rendered the target of 20 million people out of risk 
of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  unachievable  by  2020.326  Additionally,  severe  material 
deprivation had declined continuously from 2012 to 2019, with 2.8 million fewer people in 
severe material deprivation in 2019 than 2018.327 

Prior  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic, some  population groups were  highly  exposed  to risks, 
including those with disabilities and people with a minority racial or ethnic background, who 
particularly struggle to access services. The existing social inequalities and living conditions 
in Member States were in many cases exacerbated by the lockdown measures introduced 
as a response to the pandemic. However, compared to the previous year, the 2021 Eurostat 
SILC figures  (income year  2020)  show  an  overall  stability  in the risk  of  poverty  or  social 
exclusion in most Member States, even after factoring in the negative impact of COVID-19 
on poverty and social exclusion (overall 0.1pp or 0.6 million more than in 2020). The figures 
confirm the crucial role of social protection and social inclusion systems to ensure socio-
economic resilience to shocks. They also show that the swift national policy responses and 
exceptional  recovery  measures  taken  with  the  support  of  the  EU  largely  mitigated  the 
negative  impact  of  the  pandemic  on  poverty  and  inequality.  The  pandemic  has  also 
exacerbated the difficulty in accessing services that migrated online: older people and 
young people in rural and remote areas with weak digital infrastructure were particularly 
affected.328 The 2020 Fundamental Rights Agency Report found that measures taken as a 
response  to  the  pandemic  disproportionately  impacted  marginalised  and  socially 
excluded groups (Roma and Travellers), who are particularly sensitive to changes in the 
labour  market.  Overall,  those  more  engaged  in  precarious  or  informal  work  are  both 
disproportionately affected and much less able to access support and social benefits that 
protect against income losses.329 

There  are  numerous  accounts  of  the  pandemic  having  a  greater  impact  on  people  in 
lower socioeconomic groups and ethnic minorities. As for the vaccination rate indicated 
above, several reasons were identified, for example crowded living conditions, work-related 
exposure, lack of adequate PPE, or instructions on how to use it properly. In Stockholm, 

323  Ibid., p.77.  
324 Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain 
325 Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life. p.78. Available at: 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife 
326 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
p.45. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
327 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social 
Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. 
p.46. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
328 Ibid., p.49. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
329 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020). Fundamental Rights Report 2020. Available at: 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/fundamental-rights-report-2020 

216 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Sweden, 
socioeconomically disadvantaged residential areas compared to the regional average.330 

infection  rate  has  been  3–4 

times  higher 

instance, 

in  some 

the 

for 

The pandemic effects also reinforced existing gender inequalities, in particular because 
women  are  over-represented  in  non-standard  forms  of  work  and  in  the  most  vulnerable 
sectors  (such  as  retail,  accommodation,  healthcare  and  care  work),  as  well  as  facing 
serious challenges in balancing work and private life.331 The COVID-19 crisis has not only 
increased  care  duties,  but  also  made  women’s  participation  in  the  labour  market  even 
more  fragile.  A  more  shallow  recovery  from  the  crisis  for  women  indicates  that  its 
socioeconomic impact might last much longer for women than for men.332 

In the latest evidence available, it is clear that there has not been a major shift in terms 
of changes in the number of recipients of social assistance benefits over the course 
of the pandemic, with no clear sign of a significant rise in numbers since the start of the 
crisis.333 However, the COVID-19 crisis is a powerful reminder of the importance of social 
protection systems and their role in mitigating the economic and social effects of reduced 
economic activity. 

In terms  of  social  policy  responses,  Member States  have been quick to  provide  social 
assistance  support,  mainly  by  adopting  additional  temporary  measures,  by  adjusting 
existing social assistance programmes or by introducing permanent measures addressing 
all  kind  of  social  inclusion  related  fields,  such  as  poverty,  housing,  health,  vulnerable 
groups,  access/provision  of  essential  services  depending  on  the  needs  triggered  by  the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  Member  States  have  commonly  introduced  additional  protection 
measures  in  the  form  of  adequate  and  accessible  income  support  for  those  lacking 
sufficient resources for a ‘dignified life’.334 Analysis showed that this mainly aims to increase 
protection for people with limited or no links to the labour market (i.e. children, students, 
social assistance beneficiaries).335  

All  Member  States  adjusted  their  broader  social  assistance  systems  or  social 
assistance  programmes  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  including  relaxing 
eligibility criteria, extending coverage levels, increasing the generosity of programmes and 
simplifying  burdens.  The  latter  for  instance  includes  the  streamlining  of  the  application 
procedure for the self-employed in Spain to the unemployment benefit scheme336.  

All Member States introduced  new temporary benefits, which were especially meant to 
support people not entitled to unemployment benefits and with very low incomes and target 
groups  being  disproportionally  negatively  affected  by  the  pandemic.  This  includes,  for 
instance, a lump sum provided to people in unpaid leave during the confinement in Bulgaria, 
and the ‘emergency income’ (Reddito di emergenza) scheme in Italy to support low-income 
families (potentially one million people) not covered by the minimum income scheme or by 
other measures implemented in the context of the crisis. Temporary measures have been 

330 Burström, B., and Tao, W. (2020). Social determinants of health and inequalities in COVID-19. European Journal of 
Public Health 30(4), 617-618. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa095 
331 European Parliament, FEMM Committee (2021). COVID-19 and its economic impact on women and 
women’s poverty. Insights from 5 European Countries. Available at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/693183/IPOL_STU(2021)693183(SUM01)_EN.pdf 
332 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2021). Gender equality and the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2839/29540 
333 European Commission (2022). Monitoring report on the employment and social situation following the COVID-19 
outbreak (Winter 2021-2022). Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=25237&langId=en#:~:text=The%20employment%20rate%20in%20the,the%2
0second%20quarter%20of%202020.  
334 Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S., and Regazzoni, P. (2021).  
Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis of policies in 35 countries. ESPN. p.17. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 
335 Ibid. 
336 Ibid., p. 52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2767/10153 

217 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

broadly  less  generous  and  supported  by  much  less  money  than  employment  related 
schemes.337  

Permanent  measures  were  established  for  instance  in  Spain,  where  a  new  minimum 
income  scheme  that  aims  to  alleviate  social  exclusion  on  a  permanent  basis  was 
established. It is expected to extend the coverage of the existing regional schemes, as well 
as to reduce regional disparities. 338  

Member States have also  taken measures to support access to essential services and 
address energy poverty, also in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Examples from Romania, 
Italy and Spain illustrate the different approaches taken by the Member States in this regard. 
While in Romania new cash benefits on the provision of potable water and sewage were 
introduced  for  the  low-income  population,  in  Italy  bonuses  for  water  and  energy  will  be 
automatically applied to bills, in an attempt to increase take-up rates of benefits. In Spain 
the  pool  of  customers  eligible  for  the  electricity  social  tariff  was  enlarged  to  some  self-
employed.339 

Member  States  also  introduced  temporary  measures  to  support  families  during  the 
COVID-19 emergency. A fund of EUR 500 million was established in Italy to finance food 
solidarity interventions and support vulnerable families in their payments of rent and utility 
bills. In Czechia, parents of children who were sent home from school due to the pandemic 
could  claim  paid  care  leave  between  October  2020  and  June  2021.  In  Latvia,  a  one-off 
allowance of EUR 500 was paid to every child.340 

A number of countries (e.g. Romania) indicated that the greater flexibility created for the 
use of EU funding (and in particular the ESF) was useful for funding employment protection 
schemes that addressed the impact of COVID-19 on the labour market.341 

The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted food security. Over 90% of European Food Banks 
have experienced an increase in demand for emergency food assistance, resulting from an 
increase in the total number of people in need.342 Analysis indicates that, despite the social 
restrictions and other challenges of the pandemic, food banks were able to redistribute a 
significantly  higher  amount  of  food,  through  organizational  innovations,  especially  new 
strategies, new internal structures, and new types of external network relations with other 
firms and/or public organizations.343 For instance in Romania, food security  was secured 
through FEAD funding, through the provision of hot meal vouchers for the elderly.344  

FEAD contributed to the crisis response in other countries as well, including under the CRII/ 
CRII+  packages,  for  instance  through  the  provision  of  food  aid  to  those  facing  material 
deprivation  (including  children),  but  also  technical  support  to  enable  delivery  of  food  to 
recipients’ homes in lockdown conditions. ESF under the coronavirus response investment 
initiatives also contributed to actions that promoted social inclusion through ensuring access 
to  services  and  provided  direct  targeted  support  to  vulnerable  groups  (e.g.  people 

337 Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life. p.61. Available at: 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife 
338 European Commission (2021). Joint Employment Report 2021. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8351&furtherPubs=yes  
339 Ibid. 
340 European Commission (2022). Joint Employment Report 2022. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/342787 
341 Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life. p. 39. Available at: 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife 
342 FEBA (2020). European Food Banks in a post COVID-19 Europe. Available at: https://lp.eurofoodbank.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/FEBA_Report_Survey_COVID_July2020.pdf 
343 Capodistrias, P., Szulecka, J., Corciolani, M., and Strøm-Andersen, N. (2022). European food banks and COVID-19: 
Resilience and innovation in times of crisis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 82. Available at:  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101187. 
344 Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life. p.63. Available at: 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-implications-for-employment-and-workinglife 

218 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

experiencing homelessness or those with disabilities) in nearly half of the Member States. 
These operations are discussed in Section 3 of this report.  

Education and training 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  posed  unprecedented  challenges  for  education  systems  in 
Europe at all educational and institutional levels. The primary response in the early phases 
of  the  pandemic  was  the  shutting  down  of  schools  and  other  learning  institutions 
(universities,  adult  education  centres),  with  a  broad  shift  from  face-to-face  to  distance 
learning  to  ensure  continuity  (although  this  was  not  available  in  a  coherent  or  complete 
way).345 Early evidence shows that the shift to online learning was unequal and already 
vulnerable  and  disadvantaged  learners  were  hit  hardest,  with  an  obvious  disparity 
between and within countries.346 2018 PISA data suggests that most education systems 
were not ready for the shift to predominantly online learning.347 

In terms of impacts, a number of effects of the decisions Member States took to limit 
the  virus  spread  in  education  and  training  institutions  and  systems  have  been 
identified. In terms of educational outcomes, studies conducted in 2020348 showed that 9 
weeks of school closures in the 2020 cohort resulted in significant learning losses and a 
decrease in school averages for mathematics and Dutch language scores,349 for instance, 
with the effects of lost learning progress (i.e. lack of learning due to school closures) and 
learning loss (i.e. loss of previously obtained knowledge). In addition, inequality within and 
across schools was found in the same study to have increased in 2020, with additional 
learning losses in schools with large shares of students with low socioeconomic status. This 
inequality  of  outcome  was  also  identified  by  Engzell  et  al.  (2021),  who  identified  that 
learning losses were up to 60% higher for disadvantaged pupils.  

While  overall  participation  rates  were  relatively  unaffected  in  schools,  there  were  large 
drops in participation in adult learning over 2020, in particular over the first lockdown 
wave. The figure below shows a decline in participation across the EU of 30% on average, 
with France and Slovenia experiencing the sharpest decline in participation.  

345 Van der Graaf, L., Dunajeva, J., Siarova, H., and Bankauskaite, R. (2021). Research for CULT Committee – Education 
and Youth in Post-COVID-19 Europe – Crisis Effects and Policy Recommendations. European Parliament. p.21. Available 
at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690872/IPOL_STU(2021)690872_EN.pdf 
346 Bryant, J., Chen, L.K., Dorn, E., and Hall, S. (2020). School-system priorities in the age of coronavirus. Available at: 
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/school-system-priorities-in-the-age-of-coronavirus 
347 De Witte, K., Smet, M. (2021). Financing education in the context of COVID-19, EENEE. p. 7. Available at: 
https://eenee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EENEE_AHQ03_Financing-education-in-the-context-of-COVID-19-2.pdf 
348 Slavin, R.E., and Story, N. (2020). The US Educational Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Best Evid Chin Edu, 5(2), 
617-633. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3652585;  Maldonado, J. and De Witte, K. (2020). The effect of school 
closures on standardised student test outcomes. KU Leuven. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3754 
349 The Maldonado and De Witte (2020) study was conducted on Flemish schools in Belgium. 

219 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 37: Impact of the first wave of lockdowns on the participation in adult 
learning (participation in the past 4 weeks, 25-64 year olds, ELFS) – Change in the 
total number of participants % within the previous 12 months 

Source: Eurostat – [LFSQ_PGAIED – Version of 05/01/2021] own calculation 

A  systematic  overview  of  the  policy  responses  for  education  and  training  is  difficult  to 
provide due to the large variety of education and training systems, the dynamic and varied 
responses taken by Member States over the pandemic period, and the still large gaps in 
systematic research about the response to the crisis at various governance levels. Overall, 
there were a set of broad categories of additional spending in response to the COVID-19 
crisis  in  the  education  and training  sector,  including: general,  non-earmarked funding (or 
specific target not mentioned); ICT-related funding (e.g. laptops, tablets, internet access); 
investment  in  better  infrastructure  (e.g.  buildings);  protective  equipment,  cleaning  and 
prevention; hiring additional teachers, bonuses for teachers, training for teachers; summer 
‘bridging’ programmes; counselling and assistance for students.350  

Many EU Member States increased the education budget, based on national budgets and 
EU funding. Additional funding supported the implementation of short- and long-term crisis 
response actions, with the initial results showing that funding concentrated on ICT provision. 
For instance, in some countries (e.g. BG, FR, IT, PT), ESF funding was used to provide 
digital  equipment  to  schools  and  pupils  to  support  distance  learning  and  pupils  from 
disadvantaged  backgrounds  lacking  appropriate  digital  infrastructure.  Overall,  ESF 
operations under CRII/ CRII+ across the Member States aimed to ensure the continuity of 
education  and  training,  for 
the  development  and/or 
implementation  of  distance-learning  services,  direct  financial  support  in  the  form  of 
purchasing equipment or other capital investment, as well as supporting students and their 
families to navigate the COVID-19 crisis. In some cases, support was specifically targeted 
at disadvantaged students. 

through  supporting 

instance 

350 De Witte, K., Smet, M. (2021). Financing education in the context of COVID-19, EENEE. Available at: 
https://eenee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EENEE_AHQ03_Financing-education-in-the-context-of-COVID-19-2.pdf 

220 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 2: Methods and analytical models used 

This  section  provides  an  account  of  the  methods  and  the  analytical  models  used  in  the 
study. It then describes their limitations and the robustness of the study’s findings. 

Introduction 

This  document  provides  the  detailed  methodology  and  analytical  models  used  for  the 
evaluation  of  the  Study  supporting  the  preliminary  evaluation  of  the  support  provided  by 
ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+).  
The  study  considers  the  time  period  from  the  adoption  of  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives in March and April 2020 to the period up to December 2022 and covers COVID-
19 crisis response through changes in the ESF and FEAD implementation in the 27 Member 
States  and  the  United  Kingdom  following  the  adoption  of  CRII  initiatives.  The  study  was 
guided  by  the  five  key  EU  evaluation  criteria:    effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance and contribution to crisis response. The latter criterion was used instead of the 
EU  added value  criterion  as  per  the  requirements  of the  study’s  technical  specifications. 
The evaluation findings are presented in the main report, to which this document is annexed. 

Approach to evaluation and analytical models 

The evaluation followed an approach based on mixed-method data collection approaches, 
combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. The study focuses on the process 
of reacting to the crisis through ESF and FEAD, tracing the extent to which implementation 
has proceeded as anticipated (linking inputs and activities to outputs, and exploring early 
results). The study  did not  consider the  impacts of  ESF and FEAD  operations that  were 
enabled  through  CRII  and  CRII+. The  overall  methodological  approach was guided by  a 
comprehensive  evaluation  framework  (see,  Annex  3)  and  two  Intervention  Logics, 
presented below and in the main body of the report (Section 2.2 of the main report). 

221 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of methodology 

Table A 21 - Overview of methodological approach 

222 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Task 1: Designing the intervention logics 

The scope of Task 1 was to refine and finalise the Intervention Logics of the Coronavirus 
Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+) and the support provided by the ESF and 
FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+). The output 
of this task was two Intervention Logics, as follows: 

A first intervention logic focusing on the flexibilities enabled by CRII and CRII+ as they relate 
to  the  use  of  ESF  and  FEAD  in  the  COVID-19  crisis  context.  This  intervention  logic 
combines  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  and  considers  them  as  an  overall  coronavirus 
response. 

A second intervention logic setting out the specific ESF and FEAD operations enabled by 
CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. This intervention logic focuses on the new and adjusted ESF 
and  FEAD  operations  that  seek  to  address  the  effects  of  the  pandemic,  tracing  out  the 
intended outputs, results and impacts that flow from these, rather than including the totality 
of all ESF and FEAD operations and their presumed effects. 

The two intervention logics available below underpin the overall approach to this evaluation. 

223 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 38: Intervention logic for the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII and CRII+) 

224 

Needs and rationaleThe consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting public health crisis hamper growth in Member States, in turn aggravating liquidity shortages. CRII amends relevant Regulations to provide more flexibility to respond to the impact of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Given the seriousness and scale of negative effects on Union economies and societies, CRII+ provides for exceptional additional flexibility to Member States to further support this response. Alongside this, the Commission started to interpret the objectives of the ESF in a more flexible way. Together, the CRII response (CRII and CRII+), plus this additional flexibility in interpreting ESF objectives, supports increased flexibilities, including mobilising all non-utilised support from the ESIF and FEAD.General / high-level objectiveTo mitigate the effects of the public health and socio-economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemicInputs/ActivitiesProvide the possibility to request, for cohesion policy programmes, a co-financing rate of 100 % to be applied for the accounting year 2020-2021, plus possibility to finance FEAD measures at 100% for the accounting year 2020-2021.Possibilities for financial transfers under the Investment for growth and jobs goal between the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion FundTransfer possibilities between categories of regions increased for Member States Procedural requirements linked to programme implementation, use of financial instruments and audit simplified – e.g. amendment for rest of programming period not required for PAs; AIR submission deadlines postponed Eligibility of expenditure allowed for completed or fully implemented operations that foster crisis response capacities in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Such operations able to be selected even before the necessary programme amendment is approved by the CommissionPossibility to use FEAD to deliver food aid and basic material assistance through electronic vouchers and to provide the protective equipmentSpecific objectivesTo enable the anti-crisis response by the Funds (ESIF, FEAD, and ESUF)To mobilise all non-utilised support from the Funds ResultsDevelopment of new and adjusted operations at Member State level, and mobilisation of non-utilised funds, specifically:- (No. of) operations - (No. of) participants supported as part of combating or counteracting the effects of the crisis- (No. of) entities supported as part of combating or counteracting the effects of the crisis- (Amount of funding allocated to) operations to combat or counteract thepandemic (total public cost), including through mobilisation of non-utilised resourcesEffects on absorption – e.g. measured through (changes in) payment rates ImpactsEnsuring functioning health systems through facilitating necessary public investments in healthcare Mitigating negative effects on growth through supporting economic sectors and helping facilitate effective economic recovery Ensuring less pressure on public finances, including through addressing liquidity shortagesBusinesses and citizens supported by ESIF and FEAD to ameliorate the effects of the pandemicOperational objectivesTo provide additional flexibilities to enable MS to respond to the effects of the crisis  OutputsProgramme amendments, specifically: - (No. of) OPs modified - (No. of) additional responses using flexibilities without formal OP amendments. - (No. of) MS using simplified amendment process and (no. of amendments) - (No. of) programmes using/benefitting from the 100% co-financing rate (COM decision)- (No. of) FEAD programmes introducing emergency COVID-19 response measures provided for by the flexibilities (e.g. introduction of indirect delivery through vouchers)Objectives 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 39: Intervention logic for support provided by the ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 
(CRII and CRII+) 

225 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Task 2: Comparative analysis of context and crisis reaction across 
Member States and the UK 

The  scope  of  this  task  was  to  provide  a  comparative  analysis  of  the  context  and  crisis 
reaction across Member States and the UK. The list of sources informing this task as well 
as other tasks of the evaluation is available in Appendix 2 of this annex.  

The basis of the comparative analysis has built on an initial mapping of anti-crisis operations 
and monitoring arrangements in Member States. This mapping has:  

1.  set out and conducted a first review of the key sources with the potential to inform 

the comparative analysis; 

2.  undertaken  an  initial  assessment  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  financial  contribution  to 
crisis reaction at Member State level, including preliminary analysis of the financial 
volumes that were reallocated between and within funds and changes in the levels 
of these volumes;  

3.  detailed early insights into the COVID-19 related amendments of ESF and FEAD 

OPs, outlining types and numbers of amendment by Member State; 

4.  provided a first indication of the types of measures, objectives, target groups and 
beneficiaries  for  a  small  selection  of  ESF  Operational  Programmes  that  have 
reported allocation shifts to date; and, 

5.  assessed  the  available  monitoring  arrangements  relating  to  the  COVID-19 

response, including analysing current use of the relevant indicators. 

The above initial mapping and analysis provided the basis for subsequent data gathering, 
analysis and assessment during the Interim Phase of the study. Reflecting the purpose of 
Task 2, this enabled the study to establish an ongoing overview of the socio-economic and 
crisis context and use of CRII and CRII+ in each Member State and the UK, thereby offering 
the foundation to conduct a comparative analysis of the context and crisis response through 
the ESF and FEAD under the response initiatives.  

Subtask 2.1: Mapping of implementation structures and context in Member 
States and the UK  

Comparative Research Questions 

The mapping process and subsequent analysis were framed and guided by a structured set 
of specific research questions to be answered for each EU Member State plus the UK. The 
specific  research  questions,  detailed  in  the  table  below,  were  structured  across  three 
dimensions: 

1.  Severity and dimensions of the national crisis 

2.  Implementation structures 

3.  State of play and characteristics of the national crisis reactions. 

226 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 22 – Comparative research questions across the three dimensions of 
inquiry 

Dimension 

Questions 

Severity and dimensions 
of national crisis  

What was the nature and impact of the COVID-19 induced crisis on the 
national socio-economic situation, and how did this vary between Member 
States and the UK? 

What needs have emerged during the crisis across areas such as labour 
market, social inclusion, education and training, and health and healthcare? 
Do these vary between Member States and the UK and if so how/in what 
ways? 

What are the effects of the health and socio-economic dimensions of the crisis 
on vulnerable groups? 

1.  Have existing risks been compounded by the crisis? 

2.  Have new risks emerged? 

3.  How do the effects vary by Member State and vulnerable group?  

Implementation 
structures 

What governance structures have been established/used for the 
reprogramming process in each Member State and the UK?  

State of play of 
implementation and 
characteristics of the 
national crisis reactions 

How are horizontal principles (Art. 5, 7 and 8 of the Common Provisions 
Regulation - CPR) being taken into account in the reprogramming process?  

What monitoring and evaluation arrangements have been established to 
enable an assessment of anti-crisis operations, and how/how far are specific 
monitoring and evaluation being applied to the crisis response? 

To what extent have the COVID-19 programme specific indicators been used 
in the anti-crisis operations? Have additional monitoring indicators been 
developed at Member State level and what is the type/scope of these?  

What has the take-up of the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities been (for each fund, 
per country)? What is the state of the implementation? E.g.: 

4.  Number of formal amendments; Number of existing flexibilities used, 

without formal OP; Number of simplified OP amendments; etc. 

5.  Number  of  co-financing  rate  amendments;  Number  of  reallocations 

between funds and volume of reallocation; etc. 

What are the effects of reprogramming under CRII and CRII+, in particular on 
the level of allocations (number of changes, volume of allocations) per: 

6.  categories of regions; 

7. 

territorial dimension; 

8. 

thematic objectives/investment priorities/types of operations;  

9. 

thematic concentrations; 

10.  change in allocation. 

Are the immediate anti-crisis operations supported following CRII and CRII+ 
adoption coherent with operations implemented so far by ESF and FEAD? 

What is the role of ESF and FEAD in mitigating the crisis? 

227 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Identifying and collecting data 

Guided by the above structure, the contractor has built on the analysis already undertaken 
in the Inception Phase to further identify, assess, collect, and analyse the secondary data 
key to Task 2. The Task focused on the analysis of secondary evidence, more specifically 
on: 

1.  Socio-economic  data  to  identify  the  main  trends  and  needs  in  the  labour  market, 
social inclusion, education and training, and health and healthcare spheres. Eurostat 
and OECD data formed the main sources. Relevant EU publications on the COVID-
19 crisis were also used. This data were used to develop a full understanding of the 
crisis and its effects in the national contexts.  

2.  Relevant strategic documents. The analysis has drawn on the list of modified ESF 
and FEAD OPs under the CRII and CRII+ initiatives, relevant documents concerning 
the  implementation  of  ESF  and  FEAD  programmes  (such  as  Partnership 
Agreements,  OPs,  AIRs  etc.),  as  well  as  on  other  strategic  documents,  such  as 
country  reports  and  country-specific  recommendations,  and  any  additional 
documentation relating to national strategies and reactions.  

3.  Coronavirus response data: Programme-specific indicators related to the cohesion 
policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic were used, along with additional 
indicators/monitoring  arrangements  identified  at  Member  State  level.  This  data 
allowed the contractor to reconstruct the state of play in terms of implementation in 
each Member State and the UK, uptake of flexibilities etc. 

4.  Studies, reports and evaluations. The analysis focused on four types of documents: 
studies  at  EU  level,  academic  literature,  reports  (e.g.  from  the  OECD)351  and 
evaluations.  Studies  and  evaluations  at  EU  level  were  deemed  as  relevant  since 
they provide several sources of information on the role of the funds. Evaluations in 
individual  member  states  provided  important  information  on  the  relevance  of  the 
funds with respect to the needs of different target groups, on implementation issues 
and on the effects of the funds.  

Subtask 2.2: Identification of patterns of EU provisions use and the role of 
ESF/FEAD in mitigating the crisis 

Once the data collection was complete, the contractor carried out a comparative analysis 
of the data collected for each Member State across each aspect of inquiry. The analysis 
has followed the following specific steps: 

1.  Gap analysis and data integration: The first step of the comparative analysis was to 
assess  the  level  of  information  and  the  data  available  from  existing  sources  to 
consider  whether  there  are  significant  gaps    which  can  be  covered  through  the 
study’s subsequent activities e.g., Task 5 – Stakeholder consultations. 

2.  Comparative  analysis  and  assessment:  Once  the  first  step  was  complete,  the 
contractor  proceeded  to  the  comparative  analysis  and  assessment  process, 
focusing on the context, state of play and crisis reactions observed in relation to the 
use of the provisions in the CRII and CRII+ initiatives and the role of the ESF and 
FEAD in mitigating the crisis through these provisions. The findings were positioned 

351 For example, the latest OECD report on the response to the COVID-19 crisis: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/first-lessons-from-government-evaluations-of-covid-19-responses-a-synthesis-
483507d6/?mc_cid=06a0f4f0f7&mc_eid=6c6e569fcd 

228 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

within the broader contexts related to the socio-economic situation and severity of 
the COVID-19 induced crisis.  

The results of the analysis are available at this Final Report. The same results also informed 
the subsequent tasks outlined below, notably, Tasks 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

Task 3: Analysis of changes introduced by Member States following 
CRII / CRII + adoption 

The scope of this task was to identify and assess the changes introduced by Member States 
following  CRII  /  CRII  +  adoption  throughout  the  timeline  of  the  study  (before  the  end  of 
2022).  

Subtask 3.1: Development of operations typology 

Drawing on the European Commission’s typology of indicative measures under ESF and 
YEI  that  can  be  mobilised  to  address  the  COVID-19  crisis352  and  an  initial  review  of  the 
SFC2014  database,  the  contractor  has  developed  an  operations  typology  to  categorise 
Member-States’  operations  as  those  were  reported  at  the  SFC2014  database.  The 
developed  typology  was  then  tested  against  the  actual  operations  and  was  amended 
accordingly, in order to mirror them. 

The operations’ typology is presented in the table below. As the Table shows, the typology 
sought to facilitate two types of analysis. First, a higher-level analysis concerning the overall 
thematic focus of ESF and FEAD operations – i.e., health, employment, social inclusion, 
education  and  training.  Second,  a  more  granular  categorisation  of  operations  within 
these  high-level  thematic  objectives.  To  ensure  that  the  mapping  of  the  anti-crisis 
operations is as comprehensive as possible, an “other operations” category was included 
to  enable  the  research  team  to  track  operations  that  do  not  tidily  fit  within  the  granular 
categories of the operations that were developed. Given the specific focus of the FEAD in 
providing food and/or basic material assistance to the most deprived, no specific operations’ 
typology was used.  

Table A 23 – Operations’ typology 

Thematic focus 

Sub-categories / ‘types’ of actions/operations 

Actions to protect jobs 

Actions to support workers 

Employment 

Actions to support employers and the self-employed 

Actions to support NEET young people through the YEI 

Other employment actions 

Social inclusion 

Actions to promote the social inclusion of vulnerable groups through providing 
direct targeted support 

Actions to promote social inclusion through ensuring access to services 

352 European Commission, DG EMPL (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that 
can be mobilised to address the COVID-19 crisis.  

229 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Thematic focus 

Sub-categories / ‘types’ of actions/operations 

Other social inclusion actions 

Actions to ensure the continuity of education and training 

Education and training 

Equipment/ other capital investment to ensure the continuity of education and 
training  

Other education training actions 

Healthcare 

Actions to support healthcare workers and patients 

Actions to support healthcare systems 

Other healthcare actions 

Subtask 3.2: Collation and analysis of data 

A review of ESF and FEAD operational programmes and other documents in the SFC2014 
database was carried out to track and categorise ESF and FEAD COVID-19 operations in 
a pre-prepared spreadsheet aligned to the operations typology as presented in the previous 
section ). 

To ensure that the mapping is as complete as possible based on available information in 
the  SFC2014  database,  the  contractor  triangulated  the  information  in  this  database  with 
several  other  sources  of  information  including  Member  States’  Annual  Implementation 
Reports, the Coronavirus Dashboard,353 evaluation studies conducted by Member States 
which  covered  the  implementation  of  ESF/  FEAD  support  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic(where those were available), and stakeholder consultations during Task 5.  

Subtask 3.3: Overall analysis 

Based on the aforementioned subtasks, the contractor produced an overall analysis of the 
changes  introduced  by  Member  States  following  CRII  and  CRII+  adoption.  The  analysis 
focused  on  the  number,  types,  and  characteristics  of  operations  as  well  as  their  target 
groups. In addition, this analysis looked into the governance and implementation structures 
that Member States used in order to program and implement COVID-19 crisis operations. 
The results of this analysis are available in Section 3 of the main report. 

In additon, to assess the effectiveness and relevance of the support provided by ESF and 
FEAD  under  CRII  and  CRII+,  an  analysis  of  common  indicators  and  allocations  per 
Investment Priority (IP) was conducted for both Funds, to provide a preliminary assessment 
of  how  the  target  groups  were  affected.  The  analysis  informs  the  report  (in  particular 
Sections 4.1 on Effectiveness and 3.5 on Relevance) and is presented in further detail in 
Annex 1 – Appendix 3. The analysis is based on monitoring data reported in  the Annual 
Implementation  Reports  (retrieved  in  September-October  2022)  through  common  output 
indicators, which are collected at IP and Member State level.  

353 Cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu (n.d.) Coronavirus Dashboard: EU Cohesion policy response to crisis. Retrieved 03/10/2022 
from: Https://Cohesiondata.Ec.Europa.Eu/Stories/S/Coronavirus-Dashboard-Cohesion-Policy-Response/4e2z-Pw8r/.  

230 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Task 4: Analysis of Monitoring and Evaluation arrangements 
implemented or envisaged for anti-crisis measures 

The  scope  of  this  task  was  to  provide  an  evaluative  judgement  as  to  whether  the  list  of 
programme  specific  indicators  proposed  by  the  European  Commission354  was  perceived 
and can be judged as effective in terms of enabling a proportionate monitoring of anti-crisis 
operations. To complete this task, the contractor performed two subtasks: literature review, 
and a review of monitoring and evaluation approaches in the coronavirus dashboard.  

Subtask 4.1: Literature review 

This  literature  review  was  part  of  an  ongoing  review  of  available  EU  and  national-level 
studies / evaluations in the framework of the study and sought to examine Member-States’ 
monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  of  operations  in  response  to  CRII  /  CRII+ 
provisions. The list of sources informing this task as well as other tasks of the evaluation is 
available  in  the  bibliography  in  Appendix  2  of  this  document.  As  discussed  below,  a 
limitation of this literature review was the limited availability of evaluation studies conducted 
by Member States during the timeline of this study. 

Subtask 4.2: Review of monitoring and evaluation approaches 

In the absence of relevant evaluation studies covering the support provided by ESF and 
FEAD during the pandemic in the timeline of this study, the main source of information about 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  used  during  the  pandemic  was  the 
Coronavirus  Dashboard.355  Based  on  the  dashboard,  the  research  team  provided  an 
analysis  regarding  the  uptake  of  programme  specific  indicators  related  to  the  cohesion 
policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic356 across Member-States. The results of 
this analysis were triangulated with consultation activities, which confirmed the widespread 
use  of  the  noted  programme-specific  indicators  and  their  fit  in  terms  of  enabling  a 
proportionate monitoring of ESF anti-crisis operations.  

Task 5: Consultation activities 

In  line  with  the  technical  specifications,  due  to  the  technical  nature  of  CRII  /  CRII+,  the 
evaluation did not include a public consultation. Instead, the evaluation relied on targeted 
consultations with key stakeholders at the EU, national and regional level involved in the 
design, programming or implementation of COVID-19 anti-crisis operations enabled by CRII 
/ CRII+. An overview of the consultation activities and their results is available in Annex 5 
(Synopsis  report).  In  turn,  all  the  research  protocols  of  the  consultation  activities  are 
available at the end of this Annex.  

354 EGESIF (2021). NON-PAPER: List of programme specific indicators 
related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved 10/10/2022 from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf   
355 Cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu (n.d.) Coronavirus Dashboard: EU Cohesion policy response to crisis. Retrieved 03/10/2022 
from: Https://Cohesiondata.Ec.Europa.Eu/Stories/S/Coronavirus-Dashboard-Cohesion-Policy-Response/4e2z-Pw8r/. 
356 EGESIF (2021). NON-PAPER: List of programme specific indicators 
related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved 10/10/2022 from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf     

231 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Subtask 5.1: Consultation strategy 

An executive summary of the consultation strategy is available in the table below. A general 
principle of the strategy was to minimise the involvement of the same set of stakeholders 
across the different subtasks, to mitigate stakeholder fatigue. 

Table A 24 – Overview of stakeholder types across consultation activities 

Type of stakeholder 

Interviews 

Online 
surveys 

Case studies 

Focus Groups 

Representatives of the 
European Commission 

EU-level social partners 

National ESF and FEAD 
Managing Authorities 

Regional ESF Managing 
Authorities 

Relevant ministries involved in 
the reprogramming of ESF/ 
FEAD under CRII/ CRII+ 

ESF Committee Members 

FEAD Expert Group Members 

Other relevant government 
bodies 

National Public Employment 
Services 

National social partners 

Organisations delivering ESF-
funded projects 

FEAD Partner organisation 

Civil society organisations 

Research organisations 
conducting research on 
COVID-19 response at EU level 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subtask 5.2: Stakeholder interviews 

32 interviews were conducted with key stakeholder across a sample of 10 EU countries. 
In addition, 9 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders at EU-level. To secure these 
numbers, approximately 95 interview invitations have been sent to stakeholders in the 
10 selected Member States and EU-level stakeholders. The most common responses from 
EU-  and  national-level  stakeholders  that  have  postponed  or  declined  participation  in  the 
study have been that they did not have sufficient (or any) knowledge about the coronavirus 
232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

response  initiatives  to  meaningfully  participate  in  the  study,  lack  of  staff  capacity,  the 
prioritisation of the crisis related to the arrival of the people fleeing the war in Ukraine or the 
political context. This was particularly true for stakeholders that did not represent national 
administrations. 

The selection criteria for the sample of the 10 EU countries were based on the following 
parameters: 

  Severity of COVID-19 pandemic regarding number of deaths and impact on GDP at 

the peak of the pandemic 

  Cumulative confirmed cases per million people in Member States and UK357 

  Value of ESF actions to combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 

  Number of ESF participants supported in combating the COVID-19 pandemic 

  Share of amendments of ESF OPs by country  

  No of amendments of FEAD OPs 

  Geographical balance of countries across the territory of the EU and the UK  

  Population  size  and  percentage  of  people  at  risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion 

(AROPE) 

  Healthcare indicators (e.g., Value of personal protective equipment purchased (total 
public  cost)  (CV1  indicator);  Value  of  medical  equipment  purchased  (ventilators, 
beds,  monitors,  etc.)  (total  public  cost)  (CV2  indicator);  Personal  protective 
equipment (PPE) (Including disposable masks, eye protection, coveralls, etc.) (CV6 
indicator); Testing capacity supported to diagnose and test for COVID-19 (Including 
antibody testing) CV10 indicator). 

All stakeholder interviews across all consultation activities were recorded in a pre-filled 
MS Excel File as shown in the table below. Interview data-analysis was an iterative process, 
with  researchers  synthesising  the  responses  of  different  stakeholders  across  each 
evaluation question and cross-checking this information with other sources of primary (i.e., 
SFC2014 database, AIRs, online survey responses, interview and focus group information) 
or secondary evidence (i.e., existing literature and reports).  

Table A 25 – Interview data analysis protocol 

Interviewee unique identification code 

Research  Question  in  relation  to  a  specific 
evaluation criterion 

Unique identification code  

Stakeholder’s answer 

357 Differences in population size between different Member States and the UK are often large. In this context, 
benchmarking the number of confirmed cases per million people was sought as a more illustrative measurement. Please 
note that the actual number of confirmed cases might be understated due to limited testing in some countries. 

233 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The Table below provides more details on the types of stakeholders in each category.  

Table A 26 – List of stakeholders contacted and interviewed at the national level 

Country 

Type of stakeholders 

Organisation 

Conducted? 

BG 

BG 

BG 

BG 

CZ 

CZ 

CZ 

DE 

DE 

ES 

ES 

FR 

FEAD Expert Group Members at national level (government representatives 
other than FEAD Managing Authorities)  

National Agency for Social Assistance  

Yes 

ESF partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-crisis 
response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

Executive Agency "General Labour Inspectorate" 

Yes 

FEAD partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-
crisis response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

National agency for Social Assistance  

National, regional and/or local civil society organisations and networks 
representing groups relevant to ESF and FEAD support 

State Enterprise "Prison Fund" 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry of Regional Development 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry of Industry and Trade 

National public employment services, if relevant to anti-crisis response and 
implementing CRII or CRII+ support through ESF/ FEAD and add value to 
information provided by the ministries 

Czech Labour Office 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry for Economy, Energy and Labour of the state 
Brandenburg 

FEAD partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-
crisis response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

German Red Cross 

Regional and/or local government bodies in charge of employment and social 
policies 

Generalitat de Catalunya 

Regional and/or local government bodies in charge of employment and social 
policies 

Comunidad de Madrid 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health - General 
Directorate for Social Cohesion 

Yes  

234 

STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FR 

GR 

GR 

GR 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

LT 

LT 

LT 

LT 

PL 

PL 

FEAD partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-
crisis response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) (group interview) 

Secours populaire français 

Yes  

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response  

ESPA (NSFR) Executive Unit, Ministry of Health 

Yes 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

ESPA (NSFR) Executive Unit, Ministry of Education 

Yes 

ESF Committee Members at national level (government representatives other 
than ESF Managing Authorities) (group interview) 

ESF Actions Coordination and Monitoring Authority 

Yes 

Regional and/or local government bodies in charge of employment and social 
policies 

Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province autonome; 
Commissione IX Istruzione, lavoro, ricerca e innovazione 

Yes 

Regional and/or local government bodies in charge of employment and social 
policies 

Tecnostruttura delle Regioni per il Fondo Sociale Europo 

Yes 

National public employment services (group interview) 

Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura 

Yes 

FEAD partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-
crisis response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) (group interview) 

Croce Rossa Italiana (one of the 7 Organizzazioni Partner 
Nazionali FEAD) 

Yes  

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response  

Ministry of Social Security and Labour 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry of Social Security and Labour, EU investment 
unit, FEAD 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry of Finance 

FEAD partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-
crisis response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

Food bank 

National public employment services 

Ministry of Family and Social Policy Department of Labour 
Market/ Public Employment Services 

National public employment services 

PES in Krakow 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

235 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

PL 

National public employment services 

Niezalezne Zycie, NGO defending the rights of persons 
with disabilities 

PL 

SI 

SI 

SI 

SI 

ESF partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-crisis 
response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

Voivodship Labor Office in Kraków 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response  

Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities 

National ministries of employment and social affairs or other ministries 
responsible for coordinating national anti-crisis response 

Ministry of Health, European Funds Office 

ESF Committee Members at national level (government representatives other 
than ESF Managing Authorities) -  

Cohesion Policy Coordination Unit, Public Scholarship, 
Development, Disability and Maintenance Fund of the 
Republic of Slovenia 

ESF partner organisation (e.g. institutions or organisations relevant to anti-crisis 
response and implementing CRII or CRII+ support) 

Public Scholarship, Development Disability and 
Maintenance Fund 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Subtask 5.3: ESF and FEAD Managing Authorities online surveys 

In March 2022 a survey was administered to all national and regional MAs of ESF (hereafter, ESF survey) and to the national authorities of 
FEAD (hereafter, FEAD survey). The surveys remained open until 10 June 2022 and sought to collect quantifiable, and qualitative evidence 
around the five evaluation criteria. The survey questionnaire, including the data collection, analysis and reporting protocols are available in this 
document. 

Table  A  26  shows  the  distribution  of  regional  and  national  MAs’  responses  to  the  ESF survey,  which  collected  60  responses  covering  20 
Member States and 79 out of the 187 OPs.358  

Table A 28 shows the distribution of national MAs’ responses to the FEAD survey, which collected 15 responses covering 14 MS and the same 
number of OPs. To increase the response rate, a total of five reminders have been sent to managing authorities on behalf of the contractor 
and DG EMPL. 

358  The discrepancy between the number of respondents and the number of OPs is due to the fact that respondents could select multiple OPs. More information on the survey’s data collection 
and analysis are available at the following sections of this report. 

236 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Table A 27 – Distribution of regional and national MAs responses to the ESF survey 

Cou
ntrie
s 

Cou
ntrie
s 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I

F

R
F

R
H

U
H

E

I

T

I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

K
S

I

S

K
U

1 

2 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

8 

3 

3 

9 

1 

2 

- 

4 

3 

1 

1 

- 

- 

9 

5 

- 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Table A 28 – Distribution of national MAs responses to the FEAD survey 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I

F

R
F

R
H

U
H

E

I

T

I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

K
S

I

S

K
U

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

2 

1 

- 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Subtask 5.3: Online validation focus groups with ESF and FEAD Managing 
Authorities 

In September  2022,  two  validation  focus groups  (FGs) took  place  aiming to expand  and 
validate the study’s findings.  

One  FG  was  dedicated  to  the  use  of  ESF  under  CRII/CRII+.  The  FG  gathered  20 
participants from ESF Managing Authorities and implementing organisations as well as the 
contractor and DG EMPL. All participants were provided with an input paper and an agenda 
ahead of the FG meeting, to facilitate a fruitful discussion.The FG’s agenda is available in 
Appendix 1 of this document 

The second FG was dedicated to the use of FEAD under CRII/CRII+. The FG gathered 14 
participants 
representing 
representing  Managing  Authorities  and  stakeholders 
organisations implementing operations as well as the contractor and DG EMPL. Similar to 
the ESF FG, all participants were provided with an input paper and an agenda ahead of the 
FG meeting, to facilitate a fruitful discussion. The FG’s agendas is available in Appendix 1 
of this document. 

Task 6: Good practices in using ESF and FEAD for mitigating crisis 
effects 

This  task  sought  to  collect  good  practices  in  using  ESF  and  FEAD  for  mitigating  crisis 
effects. In this context, nine case studies were conducted aiming to collect evidence across 
the  five  evaluation  criteria  through  looking  at  specific  examples  of  ESF  and  FEAD 
operations enabled under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives. 

Subtask 6.1: Case study selection 

Based on the technical specifications, the research team conducted nine case studies. The 
case studies selected national and regional ESF anti-crisis operations in ES, GR, IT359, LV, 
PL, RO, SE and one case study for a FEAD operation in LU. These are available at the 
table below. 

Table A 29 – Case studies 

Country 

Operational Programme 

Action’s title 

TO 

IP 

Greece 

ESF Regional Operational 
Programmes (All) 

Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions 
with additional staff during the COVID-19 
crisis360 

9 

9iv 

Italy 

ESF Operational 
Programme Lazio 
(2014IT05SFOP005) 

Support for distance learning361 

10 

10i 

359 Two ESF operations enabled by the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative have been selected from Italy as case 
studies. 
360 Ενίσχυση των Μονάδων και Φορέων Υγείας του Υπουργείου Υγείας με επικουρικό προσωπικό για την ανταπόκριση στις 
ανάγκες λόγω της επιδημίας COVID-19  
361 Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a distanza 

238 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Italy 

Latvia 

ESF Systems for Active 
Employment Policies 
(2014IT05SFOP002) 

Growth and Employment - 
ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI 
(2014LV16MAOP001) 

New Skills Fund362 

8 

8v 

Improving the qualifications of medical and 
paramedical staff, in terms of COVID-19 and 
any other health crisis363  

Support for medical practitioners who provide 
treatment for patients to prevent public health 
crises364 

9 

9iv 

Luxembourg 

FEAD Operational 
Programme 
(2014LU05FMOP001) 

Purchase and distribution by POs (partner 
organisations) of vouchers or electronic cards 
to be exchanged for food and/or basic material 
assistance365  

- 

- 

Poland 

Knowledge Education 
Growth - ESF/YEI 
(2014PL05M9OP001) 

Street working Academy project366 

9 

9i 

Romania 

Human Capital - ESF/YEI 
(2014RO05M9OP001) 

Support for vulnerable people in the context of 
the COVID-19 epidemic367 

9 

9ii 

Spain 

Youth Employment - 
ESF/YEI 
(2014ES05M9OP001) 

Actions aimed at preserving employment 
during the COVID-19 crisis of young workers 
(ERTE) Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI 
Operational programme368 

8 

8ii 

Sweden 

Investments in growth and 
employment - ESF/YEI 
(2014SE05M9OP001) 

Competence development for laid-off and 
employed personnel in economically vulnerable 
sectors (Sweden) 

10 

10iii 

The sample of countries sought to include operations from all different parts of the EU and 
cover both national and regional operations focusing on a wide range of thematic areas and 
target groups. To select the countries, the contractor used previous research activities and 
primarily  the  mapping  of  operations  from  SFC2014  and  the  stakeholder  consultations to 
prepare  an  initial  longlist  of  operations.  Following  this,  the  contractor  reached  out  to  the 
Managing  Authorities  responsible  for  these  operations,  to  check  whether  these  can  be 
considered as good practices implemented to respond to needs emerging on the ground as 
a result of the pandemic.  

Subtask 6.2: Desk Research 

To contextualise the case studies, national experts conducted primary research, with each 
case study including in its annex a list of sources consulted. In general, across the case 
studies, some of the most common sources included the Coronavirus Dashboard, SFC2014 
as well as Eurostat, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and 
ourworldindata.org statistics, as well as project documentation 

362 Fondo nuove competenze  
363 Uzlabot ārstniecības un ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju (Covid un citām veselības krīzēm) 
364 Atbalsts ārstniecības personām, kas nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības veselības krīžu situāciju novēršanai 
365 Achat et distribution par les OP de bons ou de cartes électroniques à échanger contre des denrées et/ou de l’assistance 
matérielle de base  
366 Akademia streetworkingu 
367 Sprijin pentru persoanele vulnerabile in contextul epidemiei COVID-19 
368 Acciones encaminadas a preservar el empleo durante la crisis del COVID-19 de los trabajadores jóvenes (ERTES)  

239 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Subtask 6.3: Targeted consultations 

To colect further evidence for the case studies, in additon to conducting desk research, the 
national experts used stakeholder interviews. In total, 23 such interviews were conducted 
across  the  nine  case  studies  involving  28  stakeholders  from  governmental  bodies,369 
managing authorities and implementing organisations. The interview guide is available in 
the Appendix 1 of this document while the full case studies are available in Annex 6. 

Subtask 6.4: Data analysis reporting  

The  final  step  of  the  case  study  was  the  collation  of  data  in  a  data-analysis  reporting 
template  and  the  quality-assurance  of  the  case  studies.  The  data-analysis  reporting 
template is available in Appendix 1. 

Task 7: Summary of the situation regarding the financial and 
operational implementation of ESF funded anti-crisis operations 

This task sought to provide a summary of the state of play of the financial and operational 
implementation of ESF anti-crisis operations.  

In particular, drawing on the analysis of task 3, this task focused on analysing quantitative 
financial data concerning the uptake and reallocation of the ESF/FEAD funding as part of 
the anti-crisis response, as well as data on targets and results achieved. This was combined 
with  qualitative  insights  gathered  to  address,  for  example,  the  wider  study  questions 
concerning relevance (e.g., responses to the shifting needs of target groups and new target 
groups) and changes in operational implementation such as new types of new anti-crisis 
measures developed.  

This task also updated the task 4 analysis, both in terms of sources identified and reviewed 
through  the  literature  review,  and  the  assessment  of  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
approaches being adopted (including use of indicators). This exercise covered all the EU 
Member States plus the UK.  

Findings  from  these  analyses  were  then  combined  and  brought  together  to  produce  a 
comprehensive and up to date assessment of the financial and operational implementation 
of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations. The below subsections present in more detail the 
processes of completing this task. 

Subtask 7.1: Analysing and summarising evidence from Task 3 and 4 and 
additional sources 

Task  3  mapped  the  changes  in  the  implementation  of  the  ESF  and  FEAD  following  the 
adoption  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  initiatives,  including  the  use  of  flexibilities  and  financial 
reallocations, analysed through the development of a typology or typologies of operations.  

Task 4 analysed the monitoring and evaluation arrangements implemented or envisaged 
for  the  anti-crisis  measures,  more  specifically  the  use  of  the  voluntary  COVID-19 
programme-specific  indicators  proposed  in  the  EGEIF  non-paper  referenced  in  the 
Technical Specifications, the use of other programme specific indicators and of common 
indicators as well as target setting.  

369 These can be national, regional, or local government bodies 
240 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

This task has updated the analyses in the aforementioned tasks through triangulating and 
complementing  it  with  information  in  Annual  Implementation  Reports  (AIRs),  the 
Coronavirus Dashboard and relevant academic research.  

The AIRs were essential to reconstruct the ESF interventions and their progress. The AIRs 
made possible to synthesise information across ESF OPs and produce an overview of the 
ESF interventions across Europe: in particular, as regards the main targets, the operations 
funded and their characteristics.  The analysis included the 2021 and 2022 AIRs. It focused 
on  the  types  and  characteristics  of  the  anti-crisis  operations,  and  the  results  of  the 
evaluations carried out so far. 

The  assessment  of  the  final  state  of  play  also  drew  significantly  on  the  Coronavirus 
Dashboard,  updating  the  data  extracted  from  this  and  other  relevant  databases  initially 
analysed under the preceding Tasks.  

Relevant academic research on the crisis response and typical measures undertaken by 
the Member States – while limited – has also been analysed for the purpose of Tasks 3 and 
4  (and  summarised  in  Task  7),  both  to  contextualise  and  further  inform  the  assessment 
made.  Examples  of  literature  identified  are  included  at  the  bibliography  section  in 
Appendix 1 of this document. 

In  addition  to  the  results  from  the  analysis  of  Tasks  3  and  4,  the  contractors  further 
completed  (as  part  of  Task  7  activities)  the  analysis  using  a  range  of  additional 
information from sources recommended by the European Commission, to ensure that the 
required  summary  of  the  state  of  play  of  the  financial  and  operational  implementation  of 
ESF anti-crisis operations is as accurate as possible.  

Subtask 7.2: Providing a summary state of play 

Excel was used to conduct the analysis of key data (secondary data sources listed in the 
data collection strategy, supplemented with primary research conducted for the purpose of 
Task 5), in order to generate findings of the state of play of the financial and operational 
implementation of ESF anti-crisis operations.  

The analysis conducted across the key dimensions included in the Excel databases was 
then  summarised  and  included  in  this  Final  Report.  The  analysis  supports  the  answers 
provided to the evaluation questions, across the evaluation criteria.  

Task 8: Preliminary lessons learnt and recommendations 

The purpose of Task 8 was to conclude the study with a robust synthesis and reporting 
of the combined outcomes of the seven previous tasks.  

Subtask 8.1: Synthesis and analysis of evidence across all tasks 

This task brought together all the evidence gathered to address all the evaluation questions 
set out in the Evaluation Matrix. To conduct the synthesis, the research team has analysed 
the evidence through the different Tasks and synthesised them as part of the Final Report. 

241 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Subtasks 8.2. – 8.3. (Draft) Final Report and Final meeting 

As  part  of  this  task,  a  draft  Final  Report  was  submitted  to  DG  EMPL  for  review  and 
discussed during the meeting on the final report. The results of the discussion held at the 
meeting are incorporated into the Final Report. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

There are a number of limitations associated with the research, in particular the quality of 
available data and the limitations of the mapping methodology that was designed within the 
constraints of the study resources. This section lists the limitations of the methods used and 
the mitigation  measures  taken. The  section then  discusses the robustness  of the  overall 
findings.  

The  analysis  of  the  changes  introduced  by  the  Member  States  following  CRII  and 
CRII+ adoption:  

  The research team reviewed all ESF and FEAD operational programmes (available 
in the SFC2014 database), identified the amendments that were submitted by the 
Member States under the different programmes following the adoption of CRII and 
CRII+,  thus  identifying  the  anti-crisis  operations  and  their  characteristics,  and 
categorised them  according to the typology of operations that was developed as 
part of this study. The allocation of operations based on the typology required some 
evaluative  judgement,  given  that  operations  frequently  combine  several  types  of 
activities that can fit under two or more different types within the typology. To ensure 
consistency and reliability, the provisional allocation of operations to types has been 
subject  to  a  consistent  process  of  quality  assurance  and  re-allocation  where 
necessary.  The  allocation  of  operations  to  the  typology  was  based  on  a  clear 
rationale,  taking  into  account  Member  States’  decisions  about  which  thematic 
objective operations were programmed under, the core results the operations seek 
to achieve, and how they are described in the SFC database and ancillary sources 
(for example, ESF websites, calls for proposals concerning the operations, etc.).  

  Based on information received through stakeholder consultations, it is possible that 
not  all  amendments  to  programmes  have  been  submitted  under  CRII/  CRII+ 
operations  during  the  timeline  of  this  study  (while  operations  have  already  been 
planned and/or implemented). As a result, some anti-crisis operations programmed 
under CRII/ CRII+ might not have been captured by the mapping exercise conducted 
in this preliminary evaluation. This also means that the actual target values captured 
through the coronavirus indicators370 might not be entirely accurate to illustrate the 
total  amount  and  outreach  of  the  anticrisis  operations  implemented  under  ESF, 
especially as not all Member States are using these indicators to track COVID-19 
operations.  This  limitation  of  the  research  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
earmarking  of  CRII/  CRII+  operations  due to the  crisis  context,  when  exceptional 
flexibility  was  needed  to  ensure  liquidity  and  that  needs  on  the  ground  were  met 
quickly and effectively.  As described in Section 3, most of the anti-crisis operations 
planned under CRII and CRII+ were adjusted, and for some, there was no need for 
an official amendment. 

Lack  of  representativeness  of  the  online  surveys  targeting  the  ESF  and  FEAD 
Managing Authorities: Despite resource-intensive stakeholder engagement activities, the 
sample  size  of  the  online  surveys  cannot  be  considered  as  fully  representative.  For 

370 EGESIF (2021). NON-PAPER: List of programme specific indicators 
related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved 10/10/2022 from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf    

242 

                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

example, the ESF survey received 60 responses covering 20 Member States and 79 out of 
the  187  OPs,  and  although  the  variation  of  responses  enabled  reliable  inferences  to  be 
drawn,  which  were  confirmed  through  other  methods,  findings  are  nonetheless  not 
representative for the whole population of ESF and FEAD Managing Authorities.   

from 

the  perspective  of  whether  Member  States 

Capturing  any  changes in monetary  or  non-monetary  costs  and benefits following 
the  programming  of  operations  under  CRII/  CRII+  relative  to  the  pre-pandemic 
context:  Given  the  scope  of  this  preliminary  process focused  evaluation,  efficiency  was 
assessed in terms of how, and the extent to which, CRII and CRII+ enhanced the efficiency 
of  the  reprogramming  process  in  terms  of  simplifying  and  accelerating  it.  Efficiency  was 
assessed 
integrated  efficiency 
considerations into this reprogramming; specifically, whether, and how, non-monetary and 
monetary costs and benefits occasioned by use of the CRII/CRII+ provisions were identified 
for  different  stakeholders  and  any  comparison  undertaken  with  existing  ESF  and  FEAD 
implementation.  Stakeholder  consultations  revealed 
the  Member  States  and 
organisations that participated in the study have not assessed any differences in costs and 
benefits  resulting  from  reprogramming  under  CRII  relative  to  the  usual  programming 
process. While such quantitative information was challenging to obtain, the consultations 
provided useful qualitative assessments of how CRII and CRII+ contributed to simplifying 
and  accelerating  the  programming  process  and  thus  enabled  a  quicker  response  to  the 
needs emerging during the pandemic.  

that 

Despite the above limitations, the mixed-methods evaluation design, the triangulation of the 
data  resulting  from  different  tasks  and  methods,  and  the  peer-review  process  involving 
representatives of relevant institutions in the Member States have enabled a reliable and 
comprehensive analysis of the support of ESF and FEAD under the CRII and CRII+ to crisis 
response in the Member States and the UK. 

243 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

ESF Focus Group discussion summary 

In September 2022, a FG dedicated to the use of ESF under CRII / CRII + took place. The 
FG gathered in total 20 participants, including representatives of Managing Authorities in 
seven  Member  States,371  representatives  of  organisations  implementing  ESF  operations, 
as well as representatives of the European Commission and the contractor. All participants 
were provided with an input paper and an agenda ahead of the FG meeting, to facilitate a 
fruitful discussion. Drawing on the FG’s agenda, the discussion was structured around the 
five evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, contribution to crisis 
response) and the key-lessons learnt from the use of ESF under CRII/CRII+ in the COVID-
19 context. This section reports the main outcomes of the discussions across these aspects. 

Effectiveness 

Overall, participants reported that CRII / CRII+ was effective in enabling their institutions 
provide a rapid response to COVID-19. Some respondents (e.g., GR, IT, PT) reported to 
use CRII / CRII+ to implement a wide range of operations at the field of employment as well 
as to the field of education and training. At the same time, other respondents (e.g., LU) used 
CRII  /  CRII+  focused  more  on  using  CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  to  help  implementing 
organisations fulfil existing operations. On both occasions, CRII / CRII + flexibilities were 
commended for reducing the administrative load and the barriers to the implementation of 
operations.  In  terms  of  new  operations  at  the  field  of  employment,  several  respondents 
reported  to  use  STWS  (GR,  HU,  IT,  LU,  PT),  which,  however,  varied  in  terms  of  their 
financial weight based on the level of commitment of ESF resources for other operations 
and the Member States’ plans to finance STWS through national or other EU resources. In 
turn, in terms of new operations at the field of education and training, some respondents 
(e.g., GR, IT, PT) reported to finance operations aiming to ensure the continuity of education 
and  training  e.g.,  through  distance-learning  or  skills  development  or  through  providing 
equipment  /  other  capital  investment  e.g.,  laptops,  tablets,  smartphones,  internet 
connections.  

Broadly,  the  respondents  did  not  report  any  changes  to  their  institutional  or  governance 
structure. However, some respondents (e.g., PT) reported that improvements were made 
at the coordination at the political level, with inter-ministerial committees enabling a faster 
decision-making process. Finally, no changes were reported in terms of the monitoring and 
evaluation  process of operations  or  the  degree to which the  horizontal  principles of  ESF 
were taken into account. 

Efficiency 

Overall, participants reported that CRII and CRII was broadly efficient in terms of helping 
them amend their operational programmes. Participants (e.g., BE, GR, PT) commended the 
reflexes  of  the  European  Commission  for  its  speed  and  range  of  flexibilities.  The  clear 
steering of the European Commission through the typology of indicative measures under 
the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address covid-19 crisis was also commended. In 
general, there was a consensus that such flexibilities should be kept in the future. However, 
at the same time, participants (e.g., HU, LU, PT) reported that staff had to do overtime in 
order to match the increasing volume of work needed for the reprogramming of the Fund 
under CRII/ CRII+, due to the new procedures (even if they were simplified) and due to the 
crisis context, where speed was critical in addressing needs on the ground. 

371 BE, EE, GR, HU, IT, LU, SK 

244 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Coherence 

Overall, participants reported that ESF resources was complementary to national or other 
EU  funds.  In  particular,  respondents  (GR,  HU,  PT)  reported  that  ESF  was  used  in 
combination with national resources and other EU resources (e.g., REACT-EU, ERDF) as 
a part of a broader strategy to stimulate the economy and respond to the crisis. For some 
countries (LU), ESF played a marginal role due to a high-level of commitment with national 
or  REACT-EU funds  having  a  larger financial  weight.  Finally,  one  participant (GR)  noted 
that ESF COVID-19 actions at the field of e-learning inspired the country to work on this 
field  during  the  new  programming  period  e.g.,  through  financing  massive-open-online-
courses for tertiary education. 

Relevance 

Overall, participants reported that CRII / CRII + flexibilities  were relevant in terms of helping 
them address COVID-19 needs in the fields of social inclusion, employment, education and 
training, and healthcare. For example, through CRII / CRII+, LU was able to limit the class-
size in a project working with refugees in line with social distancing rules and thus continue 
these classes.  

More  broadly,  to  ensure  that  operations  were  relevant,  participants  reported  to  work 
together with ministries (GR, LU) or social partners (PT). For example, PT worked together 
with  social  partners  to  identify  and  roll-out  ESF  operations  in  key-areas  of  intervention 
including  STWS,  worker-support  through  online  trainings,  continuation  of  education  and 
VET (through e-learning) as well as support to healthcare business to scale-up production 
e.g., of masks. 

Contribution to crisis response 

Participants  (e.g.,  LU,  PT)  reported  that  the  CRII  /  CRII  +  response  was  more  concrete 
compared to the EU response in the economic crisis of 2008-2009. In particular, Member-
States reported to have been able to use ESF in a more flexible manner during COVID-19, 
compared to that period with CRII / CRII+ opening-up numerous possibilities.  

In terms of contribution, there was a consensus amongst participants that CRII/CRII+ most 
important  contribution  was  to  enable  life  to  continue  through  reaching  a  critical  mass  of 
people with existing and new operations preserving jobs and contributing to the continuation 
of education. For example, PL reported that through CRII / CRII + the country was able to 
use large sums of money to support schools to purchase the IT equipment needed to deliver 
lessons  online,  as  well  as  to  protect  jobs  and  support  young  people  set  up  their  own 
business by providing new grants to those aged under 30 who became unemployed after 
March 2020. 

Lessons learnt 

Participants generally shared the view that the CRII / CRII+ flexibilities and the sequential 
reduction in formal / administrative procedures that it brought was something to build-on  for 
the  next  programming period  and future crises. Participants  commended  the speed,  and 
range of flexibilities from the European Commission and have been positive as to how these 
have  enabled  them  to  respond  to  COVID-19  crisis.  Participants  also  noted  as  a  positive 
driving force of the quick reaction strong internal coordination (e.g., through inter-ministerial 
meetings) and collaboration with social partners and other institutions (e.g., universities). 

245 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

FEAD Focus Group discussion summary 

In September 2022, a FG dedicated to the use of FEAD under CRII / CRII + took place. The 
FG gathered in total 14 participants, including representatives of Managing  Authorities in 
three Member States,372 representatives of organisations implementing ESF operations, as 
well  as  representatives  of  the  European  Commission  and the  contractor.  All  participants 
were provided with an input paper and an agenda ahead of the FG meeting, to facilitate a 
fruitful discussion. Drawing on the FG’s agenda the discussion was structured around the 
five evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, contribution to crisis 
response) and the key-lessons learnt from the use of FEAD under CRII/CRII+ in the COVID-
19 context. This section reports the main outcomes of the discussions across these aspects. 

Effectiveness 

Overall, participants reported that FEAD was effective in helping them address COVID-19 
and especially the bottlenecks for implementing organisations e.g., in terms of delivering 
food-aid.  In  this  context,  LT  reported  to  have  used  technical  assistance  to  support 
implementing organisations to continue their operations. Such FEAD measures were often 
combined with national flexibilities e.g., in relation to procurement. At the same time, some 
countries  used  CRII  /  CRII+  options  to  change  the  delivery  mode  of  operations.  For 
example, LU introduced a system under which people could select the food they wanted 
over the internet and collect it up from a distribution center, but take up of this was low, as 
people wanted to go to the site and see the goods that were available.   

In  general,  a  participant  from  LT  noted  that  FEAD  was  flexible  before  Covid,  but  the  
CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  were  useful,  as  the  challenges  that  arose  during  COVID-19  were 
large  for  implementing  organisations.  For  example,  transport  costs  increased  as 
organisations  began  delivering  food  to  people’s  homes  rather  than  just  to  a  distribution 
centre. This meant more cars were needed and more volunteers which was a challenge in 
the absence of additional funding. In this context, having flat rates related to transportation 
costs during crisis were reported as important. 

Efficiency 

In general, participants shared the view that CRII / CRII has enabled an efficient response 
to  the  COVID-19  crisis  through  helping  MAs  address  the  bottlenecks  that  implementing 
organisations were facing in relation to deliveries of food-aid, etc. Also, while overall there 
was  an  increase  of  administrative  burden  due  to  the  aggravated  needs,  this  was  not 
associated with the CRII / CRII + flexibilities.  

Coherence 

The FG gathered limited evidence around issues of coherence as the discussion focused 
more across the other evaluation criteria.  

Relevance 

Overall, participants noted that some groups were hard to reach but that this was an ongoing 
issue,  rather  than  a  challenge  that  arose  as  a  result  of  CRII/CRII+.  These target  groups 
include, e.g., people who qualify for support but do not claim it due to feeling of stigma (i.e., 
being  seen  at  a  distribution  centre).  In  this  context,  CRII  /  CRII  +  flexibility  of  using  e-
vouchers was seen as a relevant measure to address such feelings and encourage uptake 
of material support. LT also reported that FEAD was relevant in terms of addressing the 
needs of people fleeing the war in Ukraine who became eligible for FEAD support. 

372 HR, LT, RO 

246 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Contribution to crisis response 

Overall, there was a consensus amongst participants that CRII / CRII + had an important 
contribution to the crisis response. Participants from Managing Authorities commended the 
100% co-financing option and the administrative simplifications, the effects of which were 
also visible for implementing organisations. In general, the timing and scope of the support 
has been reported as appropriate to enable a pertinent crisis response also in relation to 
new target groups such as the people fleeing the war in Ukraine or disadvantaged pupils or 
disadvantaged mothers with new-born babies. 

Key lessons learnt 

Participants shared the view that a key-lesson learnt is that flexibilities in using FEAD can 
have a very positive impact in terms of helping Member-States respond to the needs on the 
ground.  This  holds  for  both  administrative  flexibilities  but  also  for  flexibilities  such  as 
vouchers which can possibly reduce stigma/shame of receiving food /material assistance.  

247 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Appendix 1: Bibliography 

The list below includes this report’s secondary sources of analysis.  

Academic literature, and EU-level policy documents 

1.  Arbolino, R., Di Caro, P. (2021). Can the EU funds promote regional resilience at time of Covid-19? 
Insights from the Great Recession, Journal of Policy Modeling, Volume 43, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 109-
126, ISSN 0161-8938, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.10.001 

2.  Béland et al. (2021). Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID‐19 

crisis, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8251102/. 

3.  Boeri,  T.,  Brücker,  H.,  (2011). Short-Time  Work  Benefits  Revisited:  Some  Lessons  from  the  Great 
(IZA), 

Recession,  No  5635, 
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/5635/short-time-work-benefits-revisited-some-lessons-from-the-
great-recession  

Institute  of  Labor  Economics 

IZA  Discussion  Papers, 

4.  Burni,  A.,  Erforth,  B.,  Friesen,  I.  et  al.  (2021).  Who  Called  Team  Europe?  The  European  Union’s 
Development  Policy  Response  During  the  First  Wave  of  COVID-19.  Eur  J  Dev  Res  (2021), 
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-021-00428-7 

5.  Buti,  M.  (2020).  'A  tale  of  two  crises:  Lessons  from  the  financial  crisis  to  prevent  the  Great 
Fragmentation',  VoxEU,  13  July,  https://voxeu.org/article/lessons-financial-crisis-prevent-great-
fragmentation  

6.  Cachia, Jean Claude (2021). The europeanization of the covid-19 pandemic response and the EU’s 
DOI: 

Contemporary 

Politics, 

81-104, 

Italian 

13:1, 

with 

solidarity 
10.1080/23248823.2021.1871808  

Italy, 

7.  CEDEFOP  (2020).  France:  Covid-19  crisis  -  ensuring  continuity  of  learning  in  vocational  training, 

https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/france-covid-19-crisis-ensuring-continuity-learning-
vocational-training.  

8.  COM  (2021)  797  final.  Synthesis  of  the  findings  of  the  evaluations  of  european  structural  and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

2014-2020, 

investment 
programmes 
funds 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:0797:FIN  

9.  COM  (2021)  596  final.  Report  on  the  European  instrument  for  Temporary  Support  to  mitigate 
Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) following the COVID-19 outbreak pursuant to Article 
14  of  Council  Regulation  (EU)  2020/672,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-
finance/sure_one_year_on.pdf  

10.  COM(2009)  257  final.  Communication  From  The  Commission  To  The  European  Parliament,  The 
Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of Regions, A Shared 
Commitment 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Employment, 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A52009DC0257  

for 

11.  COM (2008) 800 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Council. A European 
26.11.2008, 

Recovery 

Economic 
Brussels 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication13504_en.pdf  
Strategy 

Lisbon 

12.  cor.europa.eu 

in 

short, 

(n.d.). 

Plan, 

The 

https://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Profiles/Pages/TheLisbonStrategyinshort.aspx#:~:text=The
%20aim%20of%20the%20Lisbon,jobs%20and%20greater%20social%20cohesion%22 

13.  Cour  des  comptes  (2022).  Rapport  Public  Annuel  2022:  Les  acteurs  publics  face  à  la  crise:  une 
Synthesis, 

structurelles 

accentuées, 

fragilités 

des 

réactivité 
https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/documents/58750  

certaine, 

14.  Danish  Parliament  (2021).  Managing  the  Covid-19  crisis:  Report  delivered  to  the  Standing  Orders 
the  Danish  Parliament  January  2021,  https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/-

Committee  of 
/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/engelske-publikationer-pdf/managing-the-covid19-crisis.ashx  

15.  Dipartimento  delle  Finanze  (2020).  L’impatto  del  Covid-19  e  degli  interventi  del  Governo  sulla 
situazione  socio-economica  delle 
tre  mesi  della  pandemia, 
https://www.finanze.gov.it/export/sites/finanze/.galleries/Documenti/Varie/Nota-tematica-n.-3-Impatto-
del-Covid-19-sulla-situazione-socio-economica-delle-famiglie-italiane.pdf  

italiane  nei  primi 

famiglie 

16.  ec.europa.eu  (2020).  Commission  updates  Horizon  2020  Work  Programme  to  support  coronavirus 
innovation,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-updates-horizon-2020-work-

research  and 
programme-support-coronavirus-research-and-innovation-2020-jun-17_en  

17.  ec.europa.eu  (n.d.).  Cohesion  Policy  At  The  Centre  Of  A  Green  And  Digital  Recovery,  

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/factsheet/2020_mff_reacteu_en.pdf  

18.  ec.europa.eu 

(n.d.). 

COVID-19 

- 

EU 

Solidarity 

Fund, 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/solidarity-fund/covid-19 

19.  ec.europa.eu (n.d.). The European instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks 
in  an  Emergency  (SURE),  https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-
policy-coordination/financial-assistance-eu/funding-mechanisms-and-
facilities/sure_en#:~:text=The%20temporary%20Support%20to%20mitigate,coronavirus%20outbreak
%20on%20their%20territory  

248 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

20.  ec.europa.eu 

(n.d.). 

Youth 

Employment 

Initiative 

(YEI), 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1176&langId=en  

21.  Echebarria Fernández, J. (2021). A Critical Analysis on the European Union’s Measures to Overcome 
the  Economic  Impact  of  the  COVID-19  Pandemic.  European  Papers  -  A  Journal  on  Law  and 
Integration, 
10.15166/2499-8249/437, 
https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/critical-analysis-european-union-measures-
overcome-economic-impact-covid19 

1399-1423, 

DOI: 

5(3), 

pp. 

22.  EESC  (2021).  The  response of  civil society  organisations  to  face  the  COVID-19 pandemic  and  the 
ISBN:  978-92-830-5208-1, 

consequent 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/publications-other-work/publications/response-civil-society-
organisations-face-covid-19-pandemic-and-consequent-restrictive-measures-adopted-europe-study  

restrictive  measures  adopted 

in  Europe 

-  Study, 

23.  Eurofound (2021). COVID-19: Implications for employment and working life, Publications Office of the 
European  Union,  Luxembourg,  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/covid-19-
implications-for-employment-and-working-life 

24.  Eurofound  (2021). Involvement  of  social  partners  in  policymaking  during  the  COVID-19  outbreak, 
Luxembourg, 
Publications 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef20035en.pdf.  
25.  EURoma Network (2021). Checklist for the Effective Inclusion of Roma interventions within European 
https://www.euromanet.eu/wp-

2021-2027, 

European 

Union, 

Office 

the 

of 

Cohesion 
Funds 
content/uploads/2017/11/EURoma-Checklist-FINAL.pdf 

programming 

Policy 

26.  europarl.europa.eu (2020). REACT-EU: additional support of €47.5 billion agreed to address impact of 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201113IPR91597/react-eu-

COVID-19, 
additional-support-of-EU47-5-bn-agreed-to-address-impact-of-covid-19 

27.  European Commission (2021). Evaluation of the 2014-2018 ESF support to employment and labour 
final,  https://eur-

inclusion  and  education  and 

training,  SWD  (2021)  11 

mobility,  social 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0010  

28.  European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate 
2021, 
Social 

F 
Europe 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8402&furtherPubs=yes  

Developments 

Employment 

(2021). 

and 

in 

29.  European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (2021).  Joint 
2021, 

2021.  As 
Employment  Report 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=23156&langId=en   

the  Council 

9  March 

adopted 

on 

by 

30.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (2021). 
FEAD Community Annual Conference. Brussels (Belgium) and Online, 19 October 2021. Synthesis 
ICF, 
Report, 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1089&eventsId=1912&furtherEvents=yes  
31.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (2021). 
FEAD  Community  Thematic  Seminar  on  "New  beneficiaries  of  FEAD-funded  measures  and  new 
practices  implemented  during  the  Covid-19  crisis".  Online,  2-3  February  2021.  Synthesis  Report, 
Written by ICF, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24686&langId=en   

Written 

by 

32.  European Commission (2020). Overview of the impact of Coronavirus measures on the marginalised 
EU, 

Roma 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/overview_of_covid19_and_roma_-_impact_-_measures_-
_priorities_for_funding_-_23_04_2020.docx.pdf  

communities 

the 

in 

33.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (2020). 
FEAD  Community,  FEAD  Case  Studies,  Adapting  FEAD-funded  measures  during  the  Coronavirus 
pandemic, Written by IFC, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=23771&langId=en  

at 

(TO8), 

34.  European Commission (2020). Study for the evaluation of ESF Support to Employment and Labour 
Mobility 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22899&langId=en  
European  Commission  (2020).  Study  for  the  Evaluation  of  ESF  support  to  Education  and  Training 
(TO10), 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0c1a558-077d-11eb-a511-
at 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
European  Commission  (2020).  Study  supporting  the  2020  evaluation  of  promoting  social  inclusion, 
combatting  poverty  and  any  discrimination  by 
(TO9),  at 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22979&langId=en 
European  Commission 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/51421b36-54f8-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 
35.  European Commission (2015). European Structural and Investment Fund 2014-2020: Official texts and 

(2018).  FEAD  Mid-Term  Evaluation  Final  Report,  2018,  at 

the  European  Social  Fund 

commentaries, 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/blue_book/blueguide_en.pdf  

crisis 

36.  European Commission, DG EMPL (2012). Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and 
financial 
cooperation  with  wiiw, 
https://wiiw.ac.at/evaluation-of-the-reaction-of-the-esf-to-the-economic-and-financial-crisis-pj-6.html   
37.  European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 
Brussels, 

(2012),  Final  Report  by  Metis  GmbH 

Unit 
Europe 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=593  

Employment 

(2010). 

2010, 

D.1 

in 

in 

38. European Court of Auditors, Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19. Special 
report 02.2023, Special report 01/2023: Coronavirus response investment initiative & 
REACT-EU, 

249 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR23_02/SR_Covid_II-
ReACT_EU_EN.pdf 

39.  European Expert Network on Economics of Education (2021). Policy measures to monitor and mitigate 
the  negative  impacts  of  COVID-19  and  COVID-19  related  policy  measures  on  education, 
https://eenee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/EENEEA1.pdf  

40.  European Parliament (2020). Opportunities of post COVID-19 European recovery funds in transitioning 
towards  a  circular  and  climate  neutral  economy:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/ae72181b-593a-11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-248218296   
41.  European Parliament (2010). Review and Assessment of simplification measures in Cohesion 2007 – 
2013,  Director  General  for  internal  policies,  policy  department  B,  Structural  and  Cohesion  policies, 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL-REGI_ET(2010)438604  

42.  European Parliament, FEMM Committee (2021). COVID-19 and its economic impact on women and 
women’s 
Countries, 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/693183/IPOL_STU(2021)693183_EN.p
df   

European 

poverty. 

Insights 

from 

5 

43.  European  Social  Protection  Committee  (2020).  2020  SPC  annual  review  of  the  Social  Protection 
Performance  Monitor  (SPPM)  and  developments  in  social  protection  policies,  Report  on  key  social 
challenges 
messages, 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=758&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9820  

and 

key 

44.  European Social Protection Network (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the 
Report, 

COVID-19 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=10065&furtherNews=yes  

Synthesis 

crisis, 

45.  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020). Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – impact on 
Roma and Travellers, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/covid19-rights-impact-september-1 
46.  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (2020).  Fundamental  Rights  Report  2020, 

https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/fundamental-rights-report-2020 

47.  French  mission  to  control  the  quality  of  the  management  of  the  health  crisis  (2020).  Report  on  the 
crisis, 

quality 
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2020/11/mission_controle_qualit
e_de_la_gestion_de_crise_sanitaire_-_v14.pdf.  

management 

control 

health 

the 

the 

of 

of 

48.  French National Ministry of Labour (2022). The ESF+: possible levers to respond to the challenges 
highlighted  by  the  COVID  crisis,  https://fse.gouv.fr/le-fse-des-leviers-possibles-pour-repondre-aux-
enjeux-mis-en-exergue-par-la-crise-covid.  

49.  Goniewicz,  K.,  Khorram-Manesh,  A.,  Hertelendy,  A.J.,  Goniewicz,  M.,  Naylor,  K.,  Burkle,  F.M.,  Jr. 
(2020).  Current  Response  and  Management  Decisions  of  the  European  Union  to  the  COVID-19 
Outbreak: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3838, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093838 

50.  heros-project.eu (n.d.), Website.   
51.  OECD    (2022),  First  lessons  from  government  evaluations  of  COVID-19  responses:  A  synthesis, 
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/first-lessons-from-government-evaluations-of-
covid-19-responses-a-synthesis-483507d6/?mc_cid=06a0f4f0f7&mc_eid=6c6e569fcd.  

52.  recover-europe.eu (n.d.)., Website. 
53.  Sapir, A. (2020). Why has COVID-19 hit different European Union economies so differently? Policy 

Contributions, Bruegel, https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bre:polcon:38303  

54.  Ulrich Krotz, Lucas Schramm (2021). Embedded Bilateralism, Integration Theory, and European Crisis 
the  EU  Corona  Recovery  Fund,  2021,  

the  Birth  of 

Politics:  France,  Germany,  and 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13251 

EU Regulations 

1.  REGULATION  (EU)  2021/1057  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of 
24 June  2021  establishing  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus  (ESF+)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1296/2013, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1057   

2.  REGULATION (EU) 2021/1058 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 
June  2021  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  on  the  Cohesion  Fund,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R1058  

3.  REGULATION  (EU)  2021/241  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  12 
February  2021  establishing  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0241     

4.  REGULATION  (EU)  2021/522  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  24 
March  2021  establishing  a  Programme  for  the  Union’s  action  in  the  field  of  health  (‘EU4Health 
Programme’)  for  the  period  2021-2027,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  282/2014,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2021.107.01.0001.01.ENG    

5.  REGULATION  (EU)  2021/695  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  28 
April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe  – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, 
laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 
and (EU) No 1291/2013 (Text with EEA relevance), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj   

250 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

6.  REGULATION  (EU) 2021/1056  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Just  Transition  Fund, 

2021 

the 

24 June 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1056  

establishing 

7.  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/558  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  23 
April  2020  amending  Regulations  (EU)  No  1301/2013  and  (EU)  No  1303/2013  as  regards  specific 
measures  to  provide  exceptional  flexibility  for  the  use  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investments 
Funds in response to the COVID-19 outbreak 

8.  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/559  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  23 
April 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 as regards the introduction of specific measures 
for addressing the outbreak of COVID-19 

9.  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/460  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  30 
March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as 
regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the healthcare systems of Member States and in 
other  sectors  of  their  economies  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  outbreak  (Coronavirus  Response 
Investment Initiative) 

Internal documents: 

1.  PowerPoint presentation on Member States’ use of ESF and FEAD for COVID-19 response  
2.  PowerPoint presentation on Member States’ financial implementation of ESF, YEI and FEAD 
3.  Study on the ways to enhance the use of programme-specific indicators in ESF and ESF+. Interim 

Report 

Socio-economic data 

1.  Eurostat sources, e.g. EU-SILC data on income and living conditions 
2.  OECD publications on employment, social inclusion, education and healthcare 
3.  Coronavirus Dashboard: Cohesion Policy Response 

Relevant strategic documents: 

1.  Operational Programmes 
2.  Annual Implementation Reports submitted in 2021 and 2022 
3.  Final ESF Synthesis Report of Annual Implementation Reports 2020 submitted in 2021 
4.  Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address COVID-19 

crisis  

5.  List of modified ESF and FEAD OP under CRII and CRII+ 
6.  Country reports 
7.  National programmes 
8.  EGESIF  Non-paper:  List  of  programme  specific  indicators  related  to  the  cohesion  policy  direct 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf (europa.eu); 

9.  Member  State  Partnership  agreements  on 

the  European  structural  and 

investment 

funds 

(https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/partnership-agreements-european-structural-and-investment-
funds_en) 

10.  Country Specific Recommendations 

Relevant databases 

1.  SFC2014-2020 database 
2.  Coronavirus Dashboard, https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-

COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/ 

3.  European Structural and Investment Funds (europa.eu); 
4.  Monitoring systems (and databases) of Managing Authorities in the Member States 

251 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Case studies bibliography 

Greece – ESF Regional Operational Programmes (All) 

1.  Anaptyxi.gov.gr 
2.  Cnn.gr (2017). One out of two health professionals in public hospitals exhibits burnout-syndrome [in 
from:  https://www.cnn.gr/ellada/story/67049/syndromo-burnout-

  Retrieved  21/09/2022 

Greek]. 
paroysiazei-1-2-epaggelmaties-ygeias-sta-dimosia-nosokomeia  
Retrieved 

Database 

(n.d.). 

3.  Cohesion 

22/09/2022 

from: 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-
RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/.  

4.  COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Free COVID-19 tests in health centers and regional clinics throughout Greece 
[in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: https://covid19.gov.gr/dorean-test-anichnefsis-koronoiou-sars-
cov-2-se-kentra-ygeias-kai-perifereiaka-iatreia-se-oli-tin-ellada/  The  extent  to  which  the  action  was 
exclusively financed through national Funds is uncertain. 

5.  COVID19.gov.gr  (2020).  Makers.gov.gr  website  for  producing  and  supplying  medical  equipment  is 
available [in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: https://covid19.gov.gr/se-litourgia-i-selida-3d-makers-
gov-gr-gia-tin-paragogi-ke-prosfora-exoplismou-prostasias-apo-ton-covid-19/  

6.  COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Programme “Become a Volunteer” to address COVID-19 [in Greek]. Retrieved 

20/09/2022 from:  https://covid19.gov.gr/programma-gine-ethelontis-gia-tin-ant/  

7.  COVID-19.gov.gr (2020). Stock supplies to address COVID-19 [in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: 

https://covid19.gov.gr/apothemata-ylikon-gia-tin-antimetopis/  

8.  COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Telephone line for psychosocial support in relation to COVID-19 [in Greek]. 

Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: https://covid19.gov.gr/tilefoniki-grammi-psychokinonikis-yp/  

9.  COVID19.gov.gr  (2021).  Activation  of  the  Emergency  Plan  of  the  Ministry  of  Health,  for  mandatory 
inclusion of private doctors in the National Health Service for a certain period of time, in order to support 
public  structures  [in  Greek].  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from:  https://covid19.gov.gr/energopoiisi-tou-
schediou-ektaktis-anagkis-tou-ypourgeiou-ygeias-gia-ypochreotiki-entaxi-idioton-iatron-sto-esy-gia-
orismeno-chroniko-diastima-prokeimenou-na-syndramoun-tis-dimosies-domes/  

10.  Dimitrios Moris, Dimitrios Schizas  (2020).  Lockdown  During  COVID-19:  The  Greek  Success    In 

Vivo Jun 2020, 34 (3 suppl) 1695-1699 ; DOI : 10.21873/invivo.11963  

11.  Ec.europa.eu (2022). European Social Fund Plus. Financial aid helps apprentices through pandemic. 
Retrieved  20/09/2022  from:  https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/projects/financial-aid-
helps-apprentices-through-
pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3WJBQAYoyG3I6OcyKF4fbml5fulgdd4Bj4l5RneSx7VWu6TWPxsxHLgaA  

12.  Ecdc.europa.eu 

(n.d.). 

Country 

comparison. 

Retrieved 

07/09/2022 

from: 

https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/COVID-19.html#country-comparison-tab  
13.  Economou C, Kaitelidou D, Karanikolos M, Maresso A. (2017). Greece: Health System Review. Health 

Systems in Transition. 19(5):1-166. PMID: 29972131 

14.  Economou, C. (2018) The effects of the financial crisis and the memorandums in the Greek Health 
System in  Dimoulas,  K.,  -  Kouzis,  Y.  eds  (2018).  Crisis and  Social  Policy.  Impasses  and  solutions. 
Topos Publications, Greece. ISBN: 978-960-499-277-5 [in Greek]. 

15.  Edespa-ygeia.gr  (n.d.)  Supporting  beneficiaries  at  the  field  of  health.  Retrieved  21/09/2022  from: 

http://www.edespa-ygeia.gr/el-gr/ipostiriksi-dikaiouxwn-tomewn-ygeias/ipostiriksi-dikaiouxwn-
tomewn-ygeias  

16.  EGESIF (2021). Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct 
response 
from: 
pandemic. 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  
17.  EPIPOSE project. European Union’s SC1- PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme. Project number 

22/09/2022 

COVID-19 

Retrieved 

to 

101003688. Retrieved 01/09/2022 from: https://www.covid-hcpressure.org/home/  

18.  European Commission, DG EMPL (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI 

that can be mobilised to address the COVID-19 crisis.  

19.  Global-monitoring.com 

(n.d.).  COVID-19  pandemic  –  Greece.  Retrieved  01/09/2022 

from: 

https://global-monitoring.com/gm/page/events/epidemic-0001942.ugWbZWZFtsIc.html?lang=en  

20.  Government  Gazette  5243 

/  12.11.2021.  Retrieved  07/09/2022 

from:  https://antiseptics-

suppliers.businessportal.gr/kya-121721.pdf  

21.  Greecevscorona.gr 

(n.d.)  Greece 

versus 

Corona. 

Retrieved 

20/09/2022 

from: 

https://greecevscorona.gr/  

22.  Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R. et al. (2021). A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford 
529–538 

Government 

Tracker). 

Behav 

Hum 

Nat 

5, 

COVID-19 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8  

Response 

23.  Kapsalis,  A.,  Koumarianos,  V.,  Kourachanis,  N.  Eds.  (2021).  Social  Policy,  Authoritarian Liberalism 
And  The  Pandemic.  Print.  ISBN:  978-960-499-393-2.  [in  Greek].  The  reference  years  noted  in  the 
paper are 2009 – 2014. 

24.  Lupu, D., Tiganasu, R. (2022). COVID-19 and the efficiency of health systems in Europe. Health Econ 

Rev 12, 14  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00358-y  

252 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

25.  Maresso A, Mladovsky P, Thomson S, Sagan A, Karanikolos M, Richardson E, Cylus J, Evetovits T, 
Jowett M, Figueras J, Kluge H, editors. (2015). Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe: 
Country experience [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and 
Policies; 
from: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447858/  

07/09/2022 

28837306. 

Retrieved 

PMID: 

2015. 

26.  Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020. Retrieved 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

20/09/2022 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.099.01.0005.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:099:TOC  

from: 

27.  Regulation (EU) 2020/558 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2020. Retrieved 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

20/09/2022 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588165247288&uri=CELEX:32020R0558  

from: 

28.  SFC2014 database 

Italy (2014IT05SFOP005) 

1.  Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022), When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?, Statistical Methods and 

Applications 31, 181–195 . Retrieved 11/10/2022 from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4 

2.  Cordini, M. and De Angelis, G. (2021), Families between care, education and work: The effects of the 
pandemic on educational inequalities in Italy and Milan, European Journal of Education, 56 (4). 
3.  Desjardins,  R.  and  Rubenson,  K.  (2011).  An  Analysis  of  Skill  Mismatsch  using  Direct  Measures  of 

Skills. Paris:  OECD Education Working Paper No. 63. 

4.  European  Commission.  (2013).  The  Survey  of  Adult  Skills  (PIAAC):  Implications  for  education  and 

training policies in Europe. 

5.  Desjardins, R. (2020). PIAAC Thematic Review on Adult Learning (OECD Education Working Papers 

6. 

No. 223, Issue. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/864d2484-en  
ISTAT  (2021),  Impatto  dell’epidemia  covid-19  sulla  mortalità  totale  della  popolazione  residente 
Retrieved 
https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-
from: 
annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf 

11/10/2022 

7.  Open  Polis 

(2021),  La  poverta’  educative  nel  Lazio.  Retrieved  11/10/2022 

from: 

https://www.openpolis.it/esercizi/le-disuguaglianze-digitali-nel-lazio/  

8.  Osservatorio sulla salute nelle regioni italiane (2021), Il prezzo del COVID-19 in Italia, dai decessi al 
from: 

i  numeri  di  oltre  15  mesi  di  pandemia.  Retrieved  11/10/2022 

calo  del  PIL, 
https://osservatoriosullasalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Focus-Covid-19.pdf  

Italy (2014IT05SFOP002) 

1.  ANPAL  (Feb  2022),  Il  Fondo  Nuove  Competenze  -  Prospettive  e  prime  evidenze,  1st  Feb  2022. 
https://www.anpal.gov.it/-/fondo-nuove-competenze-ammesse-a-

11/10/2022 

Retrieved 
finanziamento-7.500-aziende-per-oltre-330mila-lavoratori  

from: 

2.  ANPAL 

(2020)  Decreto  Direttoriale  n.  461  del  04.11.2020,  Retrieved  12/10/2022 

from: 
https://www.anpal.gov.it/documents/552016/880566/anlpa.ANPAL.Registro_Decreti%28R%29.00004
61.04-11-2020.pdf/712a1fde-4878-b264-1e2d-d7490791dd87?t=1604504150553  

3.  Baptista,  I.,  Marlier,  E.,  Spasova,  S.,  Peña-Casas,  R.,  Fronteddu,  B.,  Ghailani,  D.,  Sabato,  S.  and 
Regazzoni,  P.  (2021),  Social  protection  and  inclusion  policy  responses  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  An 
analysis of policies in 35 countries. European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union 

4.  Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022), When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?, Statistical Methods and 

Applications 31, 181–195 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4  

5.  Corti, F., Núñez Ferrer, J., Ruiz, T. and Regazzoni, P. (2021), Comparing and assessing recovery and 

resilience plans. A six country’s NRRP analysis. CEPS Working paper. 

6.  Desjardins,  R.  and  Rubenson,  K.  (2011).  An  Analysis  of  Skill  Mismatsch  using  Direct  Measures  of 

Skills. Paris:  OECD Education Working Paper No. 63.  

8. 

7.  European  Commission.  (2013).  The  Survey  of  Adult  Skills  (PIAAC):  Implications  for  education  and 
training policies in Europe.; Desjardins, R. (2020). PIAAC Thematic Review on Adult Learning (OECD 
Education Working Papers No. 223, Issue. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/864d2484-en   
INPS 
from: 
https://www.inps.it/docallegatiNP/Mig/Dati_analisi_bilanci/Rapporti_annuali/XXI_Rapporto_Annuale/X
XI_Rapporto_Annuale.pdf  
ISTAT  (2022),  Rapporto  annuale  2022  La  situazione  del  Paese.  Retrieved  11/10/2022  from: 
https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf   

future.  Retrieved  11/10/2022 

il  paese  per  costruire 

(2022),  Conoscere 

9. 

il 

10.  Jessoula M., Pavolini E., Raitano m. and Natili M. (2021). Italy: COVID-19 impact on social protection 
and  social  inclusion  policies,  ESPN  Thematic  Report,  European  Social  Policy  Network  (ESPN), 
Brussels: European Commission. 

11.  OECD  (2020),  Employment  Outlook  2020:  Worker  Security  and  the  COVID-19  Crisis,  OECD 

Publishing, Paris 

12.  Spasova, S., and Regazzoni, P. (2022) Income protection for self-employed and non-standard workers 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Social Security Review, 75: 3– 24. 

253 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Latvia (2014LV16MAOP001) 

1.  Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2016). A Qualitative Study on Health System Bottlenecks in Latvia. 

Retrieved 01/10/2022 from: https://www.vmnvd.gov.lv/lv/media/293/download  

2.  Cabinet  of  Ministers  (2016).  Regulations  of  Cabinet  of  Ministers  #  718/  8.11.2016.  “Darbības 
programmas "Izaugsme un nodarbinātība" 9.2.6. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Uzlabot ārstniecības un 
ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju" īstenošanas noteikumi” [Rules for the implementation of 
the specific support objective 9.2.6 "Improving the qualifications of medical and medical support staff" 
of 
from: 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/286413-darbibas-programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-9-2-6-specifiska-
atbalsta-merka-uzlabot-arstniecibas-un-arstniecibas-atbalsta  

"Growth  and  Employment"].  Retrieved  01/10/2022 

the  Operational  Programme 

the  Health  Care  System  Reform"”].  Retrieved  01/10/2022 

3.  Cabinet of Ministers (2017). Ministru Kabineta 07.08.2017. rīkojums Nr. 394 “Par konceptuālo ziņojumu 
"Par  veselības  aprūpes  sistēmas  reformu””  [Cabinet  of  Ministers  Order  #  394/  07.08.2017  "On  the 
Conceptual  Report  "On 
from: 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/292718-par-konceptualo-zinojumu-par-veselibas-aprupes-sistemas-reformu-  
4.  Cabinet  of  Ministers  (2020).  Regulations  of  Cabinet  of  Ministers  #  802/  17.12.2020.  “Darbības 
programmas  "Izaugsme  un  nodarbinātība"  9.2.7.  specifiskā  atbalsta  mērķa  "Atbalsts  ārstniecības 
personām,  kas  nodrošina  pacientu  ārstēšanu  sabiedrības  veselības  krīžu  situāciju  novēršanai  un 
14.1.3. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Atveseļošanas pasākumi veselības nozarē"" īstenošanas noteikumi” 
[Rules for the implementation of the specific support objective 9.2.7 "Support to medical practitioners 
providing  treatment  to patients  to  prevent  public  health  crises  and  specific  support  objective  14.1.3 
"Recovery measures in the health sector"" of the Operational Programme "Growth and Employment"]. 
Retrieved 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/319779-darbibas-programmas-izaugsme-un-
nodarbinatiba-9-2-7-specifiska-atbalsta-merka-atbalsts-arstniecibas-personam-kas-nodrosina   
5.  Ministry  of  Finance  (2011).  Darbības  programma  “Cilvēkresursi  un  nodarbinātība”.  [Operational 
Programme  “Human  Resources  and  Employment,  2007-2013”].  Retrieved  01/10/2022  from: 
https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/04-
kohezijas_politikas_nakotne/dp_aktivitates/1dp/FMProgr_1DP_30092011.pdf  

01/10/2022 

from: 

6.  Ministry  of  Finance  (2014).  Darbības  programma  “Izaugsme  un  nodarbinātība”  [Operational 
from: 

"Growth  and  Employment"].  With  amendments.  Retrieved  01/10/2022 

Programme 
https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/Planosana/dp_konsolideta_versija.pdf  

7.  Ministry  of  Health  (03.12.2020).  Ministru  kabineta  noteikumu  projekta  „Darbības  programmas 
„Izaugsme  un  nodarbinātība” 9.2.7. specifiskā  atbalsta  mērķa  „Atbalsts  ārstniecības  personām,  kas 
nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības veselības krīžu situāciju novēršanai” sākotnējās ietekmes 
novērtējuma ziņojums (anotācija) [Initial Impact Assessment Report (annotation) of the draft Cabinet 
of Ministers Regulation "Preliminary Impact Assessment Report of the Specific Support Objective 9.2.7 
of the Operational Programme "Growth and Employment" "Support to medical practitioners providing 
treatment to patients to prevent public health crises"]. 

8.  Ministry of Health (n.d.). “Piešķirto valsts budžeta līdzekļu sadalījums un izlietojums COVID-19 laikā”. 
[Breakdown  and  use  of  state  budget  allocations  during  COVID-19]  Retrieved  01/10/2022  from: 
https://www.vm.gov.lv/lv/pieskirto-valsts-budzeta-lidzeklu-sadalijums-un-izlietojums-COVID-19-laika 

9.  OECD & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2021). State of Health in the EU: 
from: 

Latvia. 
Profile 
https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/m/latvia-country-health-profile-2021  

01/10/2022 

Retrieved 

Country 

Health 

2021. 

10.  Saeima (2020). Likums “Par valsts institūciju darbību ārkārtējās situācijas laikā saistībā ar COVID-19 
izplatību” [Law on the action to be taken by public authorities during the emergency situation related to 
the  spread  of  COVID-19].  Retrieved  01/10/2022  from:  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313730-par-valsts-
instituciju-darbibu-arkartejas-situacijas-laika-saistiba-ar-COVID-19-izplatibu  

Luxembourg (2014LV16MAOP001) 

1.  Caritas. (2020). Revendications de Caritas Luxembourg : une amélioration  de la prise en charge de 
personnes  et  familles  en  situation  de  précarité  en  temps  de  crise  au-delà.  Luxembourg.  Retrieved 
01/10/2022 
form: 
https://www.caritas.lu/sites/default/files/revendications_caritas_luxembourg_version_definitive-
20201008.pdf   

2.  Ecorys. (2022). Interim Report.  
3.  ESPN. (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, Luxembourg; 
R. 

Baumann, 
Bouchet, 
Baumann-Croisier, 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24613&langId=en  

Urbé, 

and 

M., 

M., 

P., 

4.  European  Commission.  (2019).  Country  Report  Luxembourg  2019.  (SWD(2019)  1015).  Brussels. 
https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/2019-european-

from: 

Retrieved 
semester-country-report-luxembourg_en.pdf  

01/10/2022 

5.  European 

Commission. 

(2022). 

Coronavirus 

Dashboard. 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-
RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/   

6.  European Commission. (2022). Monitoring report on the employment and social situation following the 
COVID-19  outbreak  (Winter  2021-2022).  The  Employment  Committee  and  The  Social  Protection 

254 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Committee. 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=25237&langId=en     

Retrieved 

01/10/2022 

from: 

7.  European  Commission.  (2022).  SFC  database  2014-2020  (SFC2014).  Retrieved  01/10/2022  from: 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sfc2014/frontoffice/ui  

8.  Spëndchen asbl. (2022). Buttek website. Retrieved 01/10/2022 from: https://www.buttek.lu/ 

Poland (2014PL05M9OP001) 

1.  Ayobade, A.  (2022). The plight of homeless destitute during COVID-19 in a selected location in Lagos 
from: 

State. 
https://journals.aphriapub.com/index.php/JSWDS/article/download/1531/1458/3014  

22/09/2022 

Retrieved 

2.  Centrum  Rozwoju  Społeczeństwa  Obywatelskiego,  Wystąpienie  Wicepremiera  Piotra  Glińskiego: 
from:  https://niw.gov.pl/wp-

Tarcza  antykryzysowa  dla 
content/uploads/2021/04/20200320-Tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-III-sektora.pdf   

III  sektora.  Retrieved  22/09/2022 

3.  Chłoń-Domińczak  A.,  Sowa-Kofta  A.,  Szarfenberg  R.,  (2021).  Social  protection  and inclusion  policy 
from: 

responses 
crisis. 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24618&langId=en (Accessed on: 22.09.2022)   

22/09/2022 

COVID-19 

Retrieved 

Poland, 

the 

to 

4.  Covid-19  current  rules  and  restrictions  in  the  Republic  of  Poland.  Retrieved  12.09.2022  from:  

https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/20043/Covid-
19%20current%20rules%20and%20restrictions%20in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Poland.pdf  
5.  European  Commision,  (2021).  NON-PAPER:  List  of  programme  specific  indicators  related  to  the 
cohesion  policy  direct  response 
from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  
6.  FEANTSA, Homeless in Europe (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on Homeless people and services. 
from: 

Retrieved 
https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/magazine/2020/Full_Magazine_Autumn_2020.pdf   
7.  Gumowski  P.  (2022).  COVID-19  jako  problem  zdrowia  publicznego  w  odniesieniu  do  osób 
from:  https://www.termedia.pl/koronawirus/COVID-19-jako-

the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Retrieved  12/09/2022 

bezdomnych.  Retrieved  13/09/2022 
problem-zdrowia-publicznego-w-odniesieniu-do-osob-bezdomnych,45089.html  

13/09/2022 

to 

9. 

8.  Hale, Thomas and Samuel Webster (2020). Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Data 
from: 

use  policy:  Creative  Commons  Attribution  CC  BY  standard.  Retrieved  20/09/2022 
https://public.knoema.com/etibpqe/oxford-covid-19-government-response-tracker?regionId=PL  
Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych. Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach 
związanych z zapobieganiem, przeciwdziałaniem i zwalczaniem COVID-19, innych chorób zakaźnych 
from: 
Retrieved 
kryzysowych. 
oraz 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000374  

wywołanych 

12/09/2022 

sytuacji 

nimi 

10.  Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych. Ustawa z dnia 3 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach 
from: 

wspierających 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000694  

operacyjnych.  Retrieved 

12/09/2022 

programów 

realizację 

11.  Jaskulski.  Paweł.  Et.  Al.  (2020).  Wypracowanie  i  przetestowanie  procedur  pracy  streetworkerów  i 
świadczenia  przez  nich  pomocy  osobom  bezdomnym  przebywającym  w  przestrzeni  publicznej  w 
sytuacji  kryzysowej,  w 
from: 
https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozosta
le/raport_covid-19.pdf  

tym  pandemii  wirusowej  COVID-19”.  Retrieved  20/09/2022 

12.  Komisja  Europejska  Przedstawicielstwo  w  Polsce,  (2021),  Skuteczna  pomoc  dla  regionów  i  miast, 
Retrieved  20/09/2022  from:  https://poland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/skuteczna-pomoc-dla-
regionow-i-miast-2021-10-11_pl  

13.  Koronawirus w Polsce, available at: https://koronawirusunas.pl/ (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
14.  Minister  Funduszy  i  Polityki  Regionalnej.  (2020).  Ustawa  z  dnia  3  kwietnia  2020  r.  o  szczególnych 
rozwiązaniach wspierających realizację programów operacyjnych w związku z wystąpieniem COVID-
19  w  2020 
from: 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/91854/Aktualizacja_Zbior_interpretacji_specustawa_f
unduszowa_lipiec_06_07_20.pdf  

r.  Zbiór  wyjaśnień  wybranych  przepisów.  Retrieved  19/09/2022 

15.  Ministrstwo Funduszy i Rozowju Regionalnego, (2020). report Analiza społeczno-gospodarcza wraz z 
from: 
on: 

diagnozą 
interwencji 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/98143/Analiza_spolgosp.pdf 
22.09.2022) 

20/09/2022 

(Accessed 

Retrieved 

obszarów 

EFS. 

16.  Ministry of Family and Social Policy, (2019), Wyniki Ogólnopolskiego badania liczby osób bezdomnych 
-  Edycja  2019,  available  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/wyniki-ogolnopolskiego-badania-liczby-
osob-bezdomnych-edycja-2019  
of  Family 

and  Social  Policy,  Bezdomność.  Retrieved 

17.  Ministry 

20/09/2022 

from: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pom-spol-bezdomnosc  

18.  Ministerstwo  Rodziny  i  Polityki  Społecznej.  Procedura  dla  podmiotów  prowadzących  placówki 
udzielające wsparcia osobom bezdomnym w czasie epidemii oraz instrukcja postępowania w sytuacji 
podejrzenia  u  osoby  bezdomnej  zarażenia  wirusem  SARS-CoV-2.  Retrieved  19/09/2022  from: 
https://sites.google.com/view/bezdomnosc-pl/aktualno%C5%9Bci/art_20201105_procedury_covid  
19.  Ministry of Family and Social Policy, Pokonać bezdomność. Program pomocy osobom bezdomnym - 
https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pokonac-

Edycja 
bezdomnoscprogram-pomocy-osobom-bezdomnym---edycja-2020  

19/09/2022 

Retrieved 

2020. 

from: 

255 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

20.  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy,  Sprawozdanie  z  programu  „POKONAĆ  BEZDOMNOŚĆ. 
PROGRAM  POMOCY  OSOBOM  BEZDOMNYM”  za  2020  rok.  Retrieved  19/09/2022  from: 
file:///C:/Users/agnieszka.gorniak/Downloads/2020_Sprawozdanie_z_Programu.pdf  

21.  Ministerstwo  Rozwoju  i  Technologii,  (2021).  Dopłaty  do  czynszu.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-technologia/doplaty-do-czynszu 

22.  Ministerstwo  Zdrowia,  Pierwszy  przypadek  koronowirusa  w  Polsce.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/zdrowie/pierwszy-przypadek-koronawirusa-w-polsce   

23.  Naczelna  Izba  Kontroli,  (2019).  Działania  wspierające  i  aktywizujące  osoby  bezdomne.  Retrieved 

20/09/2022 from: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,22486,vp,25161.pdf    

24.  Ogólnopolska  Federacja  na  rzecz  bezdomności,  (2020).  Przeciwdziałanie  COVID-19  w  placówkach 
from: 

dla  osób  bezdomnych  okresie  marzec-czerwiec  2020.  Retrieved  20/09/2022 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xs-rIQnXahxT67035lFrdtvIlymQ5z3B/view 

25.  Polski  Instytut  Ekonomiczny,  (2021).  Tarcza  Antykryzysowa,  Koło  ratunkowe  dla  firm  i  gospodarki, 
availabe  at:  https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PIE-Raport_Tarcze-antykryzysowe.pdf  
(Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

26.  Portal  Funduszy  Europejskich,  (2020).  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  czyli  jak  Ministerstwo 
from: 

i  Polityki  Regionalnej  walczy  z  koronawirusem.  Retrieved  19/09/2022 

Funduszy 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-
jak-ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/  

27.  Portal  Funduszy  Europejskich,  (2020).  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy  -  sprawdź  jak  to  działa!, 
from: 

Retrieved 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/Strony/Wiadomosci/Funduszowy-Pakiet-Antywirusowy-
sprawdz-jak-to-dziala  

22/09/2022 

28.  Sadło,  K., 

(2020),  Tarcza  antykryzysowa  dla  organizacji  pozarządowych,  avalibale  at: 
on: 

https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-organizacji-pozarzadowych 
20.09.2022) 

(Accessed 

29.  Santander Bank Polska S.A., (2020). Departament Analiz, Sytuacja społeczno-gospodarcza Polski w 
https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-

pandemii. 

dobie 
content/uploads/2020/12/FOB_Santander_Sytuacja_spoleczno-
gospodarcza_Polski_w_dobie_pandemii.pdf  

12/09/2022 

Retrieved 

from: 

30.  Serwis 

Rzeczpospolitej 

20/09/2022 
Polskiej. 
https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/wykaz-zarazen-koronawirusem-sars-cov-2.  Data 
September 2022.  

Retrieved 

from: 
20th 

on 

31.  Serwis 

Rzeczpospolitej 

Polskiej, 

Tarcza 

antykryzysowa, 

available 

at: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

32.  Serwis  Rzeczpospolitej  Polskiej,  (2020).  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  czyli  jak  Ministerstwo 
from: 

i  Polityki  Regionalnej  walczy  z  koronawirusem.  Retrieved  19/09/2022 

Funduszy 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-
jak-ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/  

33.  Serwis  Rzeczpospolitej  Polskiej,  (2020).  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy.  Retrieved  12/09/2022 

from: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy  

34.  Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, Tarcza Antykryzysowa, Dodatkowe Wsparcie, Retrieved 20.09.2022 

from: https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa/dodatkowe-wsparcie  

35.  Starzewski, Ł., (2021). Zakaz eksmisji z mieszkań w pandemii – co z prawami właścicieli? Rzecznik 
from: 

pisze  do  MS.  Biuro  Rzecznika  Praw  Obywatelskich.  Retrieved  20/09/2022 
https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/zakaz-eksmisji-w-pandemii-rpo-pisze-do-ms   

36.  University  of  Oxford,  Covid-19  Government  Response  Tracker.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from: 

https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker  

Spain (2014ES05M9OP001) 

1.  Arce, Óscar. n.d. ‘El impacto de la crisis del COVID-19 sobre el empleo de los jóvenes y las mujeres’. 
2.  Banco de España. Economic and financial developments in Spain over the COVID-19 crisis. (2021). 
from: 

Retrieved 
https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGeneral
es/economia/Arc/Fic/arce110221en.pdf  

01/10/2022 

3.  CIELO. La pandemia COVID-19, mercado de trabajo y medidas laborales en España (2021). Retrieved 
https://www.cielolaboral.com/wp-

from: 

01/10/2022 
content/uploads/2021/04/fita_noticias_cielo_n3_2021.pdf   
‘Cohesion  Policy  Action 
n.d.  Retrieved 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-response/#26. 

against  Coronavirus’. 

4. 

01/10/2022 

from: 

la  Comunidad 

5.  Comunidad de Madrid. Estudio sobre el impacto socioeconomic del COVID-19 en la población joven 
de 
from: 
https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf  
‘Coronavirus  Dashboard:  Cohesion  Policy  Response’.  n.d.  Accessed  28  July  2022. 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-
RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/. 

p154).  Retrieved 

de  Madrid 

01/10/2022 

(2022, 

6. 

256 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

7.  Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal,. n.d. ‘Me ha afectado un ERE o ERTE’. Servicio Público de Empleo 
https://www.sepe.es/HomeSepe/Personas/distributiva-

01/10/2022 

Estatal.  Retrieved 
prestaciones/quiero-cobrar-el-paro/afectadoERE.html. 

from: 

8.  European Commission, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate-General for Employment, Fondazione 
Giacomo Brodolini, Applica, and Ockham IPS. 2021. ESF Data Support Centre: Final ESF Synthesis 
Report  of  Annual  Implementation  Reports  2019  Submitted  in  2020.  Retrieved  01/10/2022  from: 
https://op.europa.eu/publication/manifestation_identifier/PUB_KE0321163ENN. 
Cohesion 

9.  European 

Commission. 

coronavirus. 

against 

action 

policy 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-response/#26 

Retrieved 

10.  European parliament, Youth in Europe: Effects of COVID-19 on their economic and social situation 
from: 
(2021). 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.p
df 
11.  Injuve, 

‘Juventud  En  Riesgo.  Análisis  de  Las  Consecuencias 
Socioeconómicas  de  La  COVID-19  Sobre  La  Población  Joven  En  España.  Informe  2’.  (2020). 
http://www.injuve.es/observatorio/formacion-empleo-y-
Retrieved 
vivienda/consecuencias-economicas-covid-19-en-la-juventud-informe-2. 

Instituto  de  La  Juventud. 

01/10/2022 

01/10/2022 

from: 

12.  La Moncloa.Enero finaliza con 105.043 trabajadores en ERTE- COVID [Prensa/Actualidad/Inclusión, 
from: 

Seguridad 
https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/serviciosdeprensa/notasprensa/inclusion/Paginas/2022/020222-
evolucion-erte-covid.aspx. 

Migraciones]’. 

01/10/2022 

Retrieved 

(2022). 

Social 

y 

13.  Malo, Miguel Ángel.(2021). ‘El empleo en España durante la pandemia de la COVID-19’ 
14.  OECD 

cost-of-living 

Retrieved 

crisis. 

the 

01/10/2022 

Tackling 
https://www.oecd.org/employment-outlook/2022/   

(2021). 

from:  

15.  Ruiz, Joan Antoni Alujas. ‘Efectos del covid-19 sobre el empleo en España’. J. A., (2008). 
16.  Spanish  Operational  Programme,  Youth  Employment  -  ES  -  ESF/YEI  Operational  programme 

(Programa Operacional Empleo Juvenil – POEJ  (v7) 

17.  ‘UAFSE - Unidad Administradora Del Fondo Social Europeo. El Fondo Social Europeo Con El Empleo 
(POEJ)’.  n.d.  Accessed  3  August  2022.  https://www.mites.gob.es/uafse/es/po-

Juvenil 
completo/poej/index.htm. 

Other relevant sources: 

1.  https://www.funcas.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Xifr%C3%A9.pdf 
2.  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.p

df 

3.  https://www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/docs/wb021/contenidosEstaticos/adjuntos/es/34/53/93453.pdf 
4.  https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf  
5.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-

facility/spains-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en 

6.  https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/politicas-y-componentes 
7.  https://www.heraldo.es/noticias/economia/2021/05/03/la-pandemia-agudiza-la-crisis-de-los-jovenes-

y-uno-de-cada-tres-menores-de-30-anos-no-tiene-ingresos-1489155.html 

8.  https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/temas/fondos-recuperacion/Documents/16062021-Componente23.pdf 

257 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Sweden (2014SE05M9OP001) 

1.  Arbetsordning  för  Övervakningskommittén  för  det  nationella  socialfondsprogrammet  2014–2020. 
from: 
(revised 

Swedish 
https://www.esf.se/app/uploads/2021/01/Arbetsordning-reviderad-31-maj-2017-2.pdf  

20/09/2022 

Retrieved 

Council. 

2017). 

2014 

ESF 

2.  Askim,  J.,  &  Bergström,  T.  (2022).  Between  lockdown  and  calm  down.  Comparing  the  COVID-19 

responses of Norway and Sweden. Local Government Studies, 48(2), 291-311. 

3.  Care - digitalt informationsmöte - Svenska ESF-rådet. (2022) 
4.  Effects of short-time work – lessons from the financial crisis - Tillväxtanalys (tillvaxtanalys.se) 
5.  Eichhorst, W., Marx, P., Rinne, U., & Brunner, J. (2022). Job Retention Schemes during COVID-19: A 

6. 

Review of Policy Responses. IZA Policy Paper No. 187. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. 
Irfan, F. B., Minetti, R., Telford, B., Ahmed, F. S., Syed, A. Y., Hollon, N., ... & Brusselaers, N. (2022). 
Coronavirus pandemic in the Nordic countries: Health policy and economy trade-off. Journal of Global 
Health, 12. 

7.  Johns Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 Data Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases - Our World in Data 
8.  OECD.2022. Sweden: invest in skills and the digital economy to bolster the recovery from COVID-19, 

says OECD.   

9.  Press release: Unique redistribution of social fund funds - Svenska ESF-råd 
10.  Ramboll  2022.  Klusterutvärdering  av  ESF-rådets  utlysning  Kompetensutveckling  för  permitterad, 

varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. April 2022 

11.  REACT-EU - Swedish ESF Council (2022). 
12.  Saunes,  I.  S.,  Vrangbæk,  K.,  Byrkjeflot,  H.,  Jervelund,  S.  S.,  Birk,  H.  O.,  Tynkkynen,  L.  K.,  ...  & 
Karanikolos, M. (2022). Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early 
phases of the pandemic. Health Policy, 126(5), 418-426. 

13.  Sju av tio vill att staten tar över ansvaret för vården (lakartidningen.se) 
14.  Social Fund ÖK - Swedish ESF Council 
15.  Swedish Government (2022). För företagare med anledning av covid-19.  
16.  Tegnell, A. (2021). The Swedish public health response to COVID‐19. Apmis, 129(7), 320-323. 
17.  Turnover support for partnerships with at least one natural person as a partner - Regeringen.se 
18.  Website of selected operation: www.reskill.nu  

258 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix  

This Annex presents the evaluation matrix of the study. 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Effectiveness 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
in 
additional 
providing 
flexibility to the MS and 
deploying  quickly 
the 
available resources? 

Table A 30 – Evaluation Matrix 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

1a. What was the take-
up  of 
the  CRII  and 
CRII+  flexibilities?  Why 
did  not  all  Managing 
Authorities  decide 
to 
use  the  CRII  facilities? 
To  what  extent  were 
existing 
in 
the  programmes  used 
to respond to the crisis? 

flexibilities 

  Value  of  ESF  actions  to  combat  or  counteract  the  effects  of  the 

COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost) 

  No.  of  additional  responses  using  flexibilities  without  formal  OP 

amendments (ESF). 

  No. of Member States and no. of amendments using simplified OP 

amendment process (ESF). 

  No.  of  programmes  that  benefit  from  the  100%  co-financing  rate 

(ESF). 

  No. of Member States making programme amendments and no. of 

amendments (FEAD): 

  No.  of  programmes  that  benefit  from  the  100%  co-financing  rate 

(FEAD). 

  No. of programmes that introduce emergency measures to respond 
to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (including  introduction  of  indirect 
delivery  through  vouchers),  through  uploading  of  amendment  in 
SFC (FEAD). 

  Number of participants supported in combating or counteracting the 

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (ESF) 

259 

Data source / method 
task 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 
database, 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring systems (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

Eurostat  statistics  on 
socio-economic context 

MS  evaluations  and 
studies 

research 
Primary 
through 
targeted 
consultations (interviews 
and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
case 
research 
studies 

for 

Validation focus-groups 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data source / method 
task 

  Number  of  entities  supported  in  combating  or  counteracting  the 

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (ESF) 

  Number  of  participants  who  benefitted  from  support  in  short-time 

work arrangements (ESF) 

  Number of participants maintaining their job 6 months after the end 

of support (ESF) 

  Number  of  participants  gaining  a  qualification  upon  leaving 
supported  in  actions  combatting  the  effects  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic (ESF) 

  Number of health care personnel who benefitted from ESF support 

(ESF) 

  No. of people vaccinated with EU support (ESF) 

  Value of PPE purchased (total public cost) (ESF) 

  Value of medical equipment purchased (ventilators, beds, monitors, 

etc.) (total public cost) (ESF) 

  Value of medicines purchased linked to the testing and treatment of 
COVID-19 (total public cost) (Including cost of testing kits, anti-virals 
and other consumables) (ESF) 

  Value of IT equipment and software/licences financed in COVID-19 

response (total public cost) (ESF) 

  Value of COVID-19 related IT for SMEs (ESF) 

  Value of COVID-19 related IT for health (ESF) 

  Value of COVID-19 related IT for education (ESF) 

260 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data source / method 
task 

  Value  of  all  vaccinations  costs  (procurement,  distribution,  training 
and administration) (including costs related to vaccines, transport, 
storage  /  fridges,  centres  /  tents,  medical  material,  training  and 
personnel  costs,  disposal  of  waste,  information  and  awareness 
raising) (Total costs) (ESF) 

  Testing  capacity  supported  to  diagnose  and  test  for  COVID-19 

(Including antibody testing) (ESF) 

(To  extent  possible  and  with  caveats)  contextual  comparison  with 
changes in allocation levels in the 2014-2020 programming period 

(To  extent  possible and  with caveats)  assessment  of  the  approximate 
proportion of formal as against informal adaptation. 

Evaluative judgment on basis of evidence collected re key reasons for 
non-take-up  and  (extent  of)  use  of  existing  flexibilities  within  crisis 
response. 

did 

the 
rates 

Percentage  of  total  funding  committed  that  has  been  paid  at  different 
time points post CRII and CRII+ introduction (absorption rate). 

Effectiveness 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
providing 
additional 
flexibility to the MS and 
deploying  quickly 
the 
available resources? 

1b.  How 
absorption 
evolve? 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
additional 
providing 
flexibility to the MS and 
deploying  quickly 
the 
available resources? 

1c. How did governance 
socio-
issues 
and 
context 
economic 
influence 
the 
achievement  of  CRII 
and CRII+ objectives? 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
providing 
additional 
flexibility to the MS and 

are 
the 
1d.  How 
horizontal 
principles 
(art.  5,  7  and  8  of  the 
into 
taken 
CPR) 
the 
in 
account 

Evaluative  judgment  on  types  and  extent  of  influence  of  governance 
issues and socio-economic context in achieving objectives on basis of 
evidence collated and analysed. 

No. of programme amendments referencing horizontal principles 

Evaluative  judgement  on  basis  of  all  evidence  collated  on  extent 
horizontal principles taken into account. 

261 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data source / method 
task 

deploying  quickly 
available resources? 

the 

reprogramming 
process? 

Effectiveness 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
additional 
providing 
flexibility to the MS and 
deploying  quickly 
the 
available resources? 

Effectiveness 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+ 
providing 
additional 
flexibility to the MS and 
deploying  quickly 
the 
available resources? 

e. What monitoring and 
evaluation 
arrangements are made 
to 
an 
enable 
assessment  of  anti-
crisis  operations?  Did 
COVID-19 
the 
programme 
specific 
indicators  proposed  by 
the  Commission  prove 
relevant  for  the  anti-
crisis operations and do 
they 
a 
allow 
proportionate 
monitoring? 

for 

the 
1f.  What  were 
effects 
of 
reprogramming  under 
in 
CRII  and  CRII+, 
particular on the level of 
per 
allocations 
region, 
categories  of 
territorial 
dimension, 
thematic 
objectives/investment 
priorities  and  thematic 
concentrations? 

Review of monitoring and evaluation adopted at Member State level and 
assessment of proportion of: adoption of specific measures to monitor 
implementation,  use  of  COVID-19  programme  specific  indicators. 
Evaluative judgement on basis of evidence collated as to whether these 
indicators are perceived as and can be judged as proportionate.  

Evaluative  judgement  on  extent  to  which  reprogramming  reflects 
territorial dimension considerations 

(Level  of)  changes  in  funding  allocations  per  category  of  region  (less 
developed,  transition,  more  developed)  using  financial  data  from  AIR 
Table 7 

(Level of) changes in funding between and across thematic objectives 
and investment priorities 

Extent to which the minimum thematic concentrations specified in Article 
4 of the ESF Regulation were maintained (at least 20% of total resources 
allocated  to  TO9  at  MS  level;  for  developed  regions,  at  least  80%  of 
resources to be allocated to up to 5 of the IPs set out in Article 3(1) of 
the  ESF  Regulation,  for  transition  regions  70%,  and  for  developed 
regions 60%). 

262 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Data source / method 
task 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
database, 
2020 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring systems (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

MS  evaluations  and 
studies 

research 
Primary 
through 
targeted 
consultations (interviews 
and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
research 
case 
studies 

for 

Validation focus-groups 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Efficiency 

enable 

2.  Did  the  CRII  and 
an 
CRII+ 
efficient  process  to  use 
the  remaining  funds  in 
view  of  the  changing 
priorities? 

2a. 
the 
Was 
reprogramming process 
simplified 
and 
accelerated  thanks  to 
CRII and CRII+? 

Time taken to institute changes as a result of CRII and CRII+, assessed 
through tracking the growth over time in: 

  Value  of  ESF  actions  to  combat  or  counteract  the  effects  of  the 

COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost) 

  No.  of  additional  responses  using  flexibilities  without  formal  OP 

amendments (ESF). 

  No. of Member States and no. of amendments using simplified OP 

amendment process (ESF). 

  No.  of  programmes  that  benefit  from  the  100%  co-financing  rate 

(ESF). 

  No. of Member States making programme amendments and no. of 

amendments (FEAD): 

  No.  of  programmes  that  benefit  from  the  100%  co-financing  rate 

(FEAD). 

  No. of programmes that introduce emergency measures to respond 
to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (including  introduction  of  indirect 
delivery  through  vouchers),  through  uploading  of  amendment  in 
SFC (FEAD). 

Additional  evaluative 
judgement  on  extent  of  simplification  and 
acceleration  based  on  collation  of  evidence  (perspectives  and  desk-
research). 

(To  extent  possible  and  with  caveats)  contextual  comparison  with 
changes in allocation levels in the 2014-2020 programming period. 

2.  Did  the  CRII  and 
CRII+ 
an 
efficient  process  to  use 
the  remaining  funds  in 

enable 

2b.  Were  changes,  in 
the 
of 
process 
implementation 
including monetary and 

Evaluative  judgement  on  the  basis  of  evidence  gathered  concerning 
whether, and the extent to which, non-monetary and monetary costs and 
benefits occasioned by use of the CRII/CRII+ provisions were identified 
for  different  stakeholders  (e.g.,  Managing  Authorities,  Intermediary 

263 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

view  of  the  changing 
priorities? 

Relevance 

3. Were CRII and CRII+ 
relevant 
the 
immediate  reaction  to 
the crisis? 

for 

Relevance 

3. Were CRII and CRII+ 
relevant 
the 
immediate  reaction  to 
the crisis? 

for 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data source / method 
task 

Bodies,  beneficiary  organisations,  organisations 
implementing 
operations on the ground), and any comparisons were undertaken with 
existing ESF and FEAD implementation.   

nonmonetary costs and 
benefits, stemming from 
the  amendments  under 
CRII+, 
CRII 
and 
identified 
the 
different stakeholders in 
comparison  with  ESF 
and 
FEAD 
implementation  without 
CRII provisions? 

for 

relevant 

3a.  Were  the  changes 
introduced  by  CRII  and 
CRII+ 
to 
MS/MA  needs  to  react 
quickly  to  the  crisis? 
Which  were  the  most 
Which 
relevant? 
changes 
additional 
been 
would 
relevant? 

have 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated as to the degree 
of relevance to MS, and any additional changes that would have been 
relevant, assessment of difference in relevance of specific flexibilities on 
basis of levels of use derived from evidence base collated. 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 
database, 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring systems (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

MS  evaluations  and 
studies 

3b.  How  relevant  are 
the 
operations 
following 
programmed 
the  adoption  of  CRII 
and CRII+ to the needs 
the 
emerging 
Were 
ground? 
resources  redirected  to 
where they were mostly 
needed 
(including 
territorial  and  thematic 
aspects)? 

on 

Use of common indicators concerning participation to assess changes in 
the  proportions  of  the  ESF  specific  target  groups,  relating  to  the  total 
number  of  participants  per  IP,  to  examine  the  thematic  aspect  of 
resource redirection. 

research 
Primary 
through 
targeted 
consultations (interviews 
and surveys) 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated as to the degree 
of relevance to participant/end recipients.  

Evidence of extent of alignment between reprogramming of resources 
and levels of socio-economic effects of COVID-19 (geographically and 
thematically).  I.e.  extent  to  which  resources  were  diverted  to  those 
regions  most  affected  in  terms  of  e.g.,  employment  effects,  economic 
output etc. 

Primary  and  secondary 
case 
research 
studies 

for 

Validation focus-groups 

Eurostat  data  on  socio-
at 
economic 

effects 

264 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Relevance 

3. Were CRII and CRII+ 
the 
relevant 
immediate  reaction  to 
the crisis? 

for 

Data source / method 
task 

geographical 
thematic levels. 

and 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated as to the degree 
of  relevance  to  participant/end  recipients  by  target  group  (including 
‘traditional’  and  new)  and  the  extent  to  which  evolving  needs  are 
addressed.  

3c. 
the 
(How)  have 
needs  of  the  traditional 
ESF  and  FEAD  target 
in  particular 
groups, 
in  vulnerable 
people 
situations 
including 
people  with  a  migrant 
background, 
marginalised 
Roma 
people,  persons  with 
disabilities  or  chronic 
diseases, 
homeless 
people,  children  and 
elderly  people,  evolved 
and  did  the  ESF/FEAD 
adapt to potentially new 
needs?  Are  new  target 
groups addressed? 

Coherence 

Coherence 

4.  Are  the  operations 
under 
implemented 
CRII 
CRII+ 
and 
coherent  with  other 
actions  in  the  areas  of 
employment, 
social 
inclusion, education and 
health? 

4a.  Are  the  immediate 
operations 
anti-crisis 
following 
supported 
CRII 
CRII+ 
and 
adoption  coherent  with 
operations 
implemented  so  far  by 
ESF and FEAD? 

4.  Are  the  operations 
under 
implemented 
CRII 
CRII+ 
and 
coherent  with  other 
actions  in  the  areas  of 
employment, 
social 
inclusion, education and 
health? 

other 

4b.  How  do  operations 
implemented 
under 
CRII and CRII+ interact 
with 
actions 
undertaken under other 
EU 
instruments  e.g., 
ERDF,  SURE?  Are 
there 
complementarities, 

Evaluative judgement on extent of internal coherence between anti-crisis 
operations  and  existing  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  on  the  basis  of 
evidence collated, including assessment of (level of) complementarities, 
synergies, overlaps and contradictions. 

research 
Primary 
through 
targeted 
consultations (interviews 
and surveys) 

Evaluative  judgement  on  extent  of  external  coherence  between  anti-
crisis  operations  and  relevant  other  actions  on  the  basis  of  evidence 
collated, 
(level  of)  complementarities, 
synergies, overlaps and contradictions. 

including  assessment  of 

Primary  and  secondary 
research 
case 
studies 

for 

Validation focus-groups 

MS  evaluations  and 
studies 

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main evaluation 
questions 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data source / method 
task 

Coherence 

4.  Are  the  operations 
under 
implemented 
CRII+ 
and 
CRII 
coherent  with  other 
actions  in  the  areas  of 
employment, 
social 
inclusion, education and 
health? 

Contribution 
to 
reaction 

crisis 

the 
5.  What  was 
contribution of ESF and 
FEAD  under  CRII  and 
CRII+ to crisis reaction? 

Contribution 
to 
reaction 

crisis 

5.  What  was 
the 
contribution of ESF and 
FEAD  under  CRII  and 
CRII+ to crisis reaction? 

synergies,  overlaps  or 
contradictions  between 
them? 

4c. Is there a coherence 
between the immediate 
operations 
anti-crisis 
following 
supported 
CRII 
CRII+ 
and 
adoption,  and  middle- 
and  long-term  plans  to 
use  ESF  and  FEAD 
(under  EU-REACT  and 
ESF+)? 

5a. What are the types, 
objectives, 
target 
groups  and  targets  of 
anti-crisis 
the 
funded  by 
operations 
ESF and FEAD? 

into 

5b.  How  are  the  ESF 
and  FEAD  operations 
fitting 
the 
national/regional  anti-
crisis 
reactions  and 
what role do they play in 
strategies  aimed  at 
mitigating the effects of 
the crisis? 

Evaluative judgement on extent of coherence between immediate anti-
crisis  operations  and  the  broader  crisis  response  through  REACT-EU 
and the ESF+ on the basis of evidence collated, including assessment 
of (level of) complementarities, synergies, overlaps and contradictions. 

Review of (re-)programming allocations and focus using SFC2014-2020 
database, OPs, AIRs and additional primary/secondary evidence. 

Evaluative  judgement  based  on  evidence  gathered  principally  through 
targeted consultations, case studies and focus groups as to the (extent 
of) the role played by the CRII and CRII+ in national and regional anti-
crisis responses. 

266 

Primary  and  secondary 
research 
case 
studies 

for 

Validation focus-groups 

MS  evaluations  and 
studies 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 database 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 4: Overview of benefits and costs 

This Annex presents an overview of benefits and costs resulting from CRII and CRII+ 

Table A 31 – Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Type 

Citizens / Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off or 
recurrent 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Costs 

Administrative 
burdens related to 
understanding 
CRII/CRII+ 
flexibilities and 
their effects on 
implementation 
scope and 
processes, 
alongside 
implementation of 
new monitoring 
requirements (e.g. 
COVID-specific 
indicators) 

Administrative 
burdens related to 
communicating 
CRII/CRII+ 

One-off 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

No reliable 
data 
identified 

Evidence indicates that CRII and CRII+ required 
familiarisation time and resources for MAs and 
associated Ministries with a role in ESF and FEAD 
programming. No reliable or usable evidence on 
quantification could be gained from stakeholders 
due to a lack of consideration and formal 
assessment of additional costs. Qualitative data 
indicate that administrative costs varied between 
Member States and regions according to 1) level 
of take-up of flexibility; 2) extent of formal 
amendments requested; 3) extent to which 
national legislative and/or perceived audit 
requirements/risk influenced the resource MAs felt 
they were required to provide. Qualitative data 
also indicate that these costs were generally not 
seen to be onerous and were outweighed by the 
administrative benefits gained from simplification 
and administrative waivers associated with CRII 
and CRII+ 

One-off 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

No reliable 
data 
identified 

Evidence indicates that MAs had to use resource 
to communicate opportunities generated through 
the CRII and CRII+ to delivery organisations, 
whether in the form of Calls for Proposals or via 

267 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

flexibilities and 
their requirements 
to organisations 
involved in the 
delivery of 
operations 
responding to the 
pandemic and 
other interested 
stakeholders 

Recurrent to 
end of 
programming 
period 

Benefits 

Direct benefits: 
Reduced 
administrative 
burden relative to 
standard ESF and 
FEAD 
implementation as 
a result of CRII 
and CRII+ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

No reliable 
data 
identified 

268 

dialogue on the administrative requirements of 
operations adjusted or developed through CRII 
and CRII+ flexibilities. Communication to other 
stakeholders – e.g. sectoral bodies, employer 
representative organisations etc. was also cited as 
requiring resource. No reliable or usable evidence 
on quantification could be gained from 
stakeholders due to a lack of consideration, formal 
assessment and/or quantification of these 
additional costs. Stakeholder feedback from MAs 
suggests that these costs were generally not seen 
to be onerous and were outweighed by the 
administrative benefits gained from simplification 
and administrative waivers associated with CRII 
and CRII+. However, there was some evidence 
that delivery organisations felt that the flexibilities 
came with additional requirements concerning 
data monitoring and new indicators, occasioning 
some administrative burden. This could not be 
consistently estimated and indeed appeared to 
vary according to delivery context, including the 
nature of the operation concerned, and the extent 
of use of new indicators and monitoring 
requirements on the part of MAs in particular. 

There is strong qualitative evidence that CRII and 
CRII+ have reduced administrative burden 
through flexibilities relating to simplification and 
waivers of administrative requirements. While no 
reliable or quantifiable data was available, MA 
stakeholders acknowledged the light touch 
requirements for agreeing amendments to OPs, 
and felt that there were time savings, relative to 
standard programming processes, due to: 
simplification of procedures (including approval 
procedures), shorter processing times, and a 
reduction in administrative burden.  

As a result of MAs and implementing 
organisations focusing on responding to and 
recovering from the crisis, rather than evaluation 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

of the process response to the crisis, quantified 
benefits are not available, as time saved has not 
been measured by Member States. 

269 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 5: Consultation synopsis report 

Consultation strategy  

This  report  presents  an  overview  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  for  the  Study 
supporting the preliminary evaluation of  ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response 
Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+). In line with the technical specifications, due to the 
technical nature of CRII / CRII+, the evaluation did not include a public consultation. Instead, 
the evaluation relied on targeted consultations that  were adapted to the specific types of 
stakeholders  involved  in  the  design,  programming  or  implementation  of  COVID-19  anti-
crisis operations enabled by CRII / CRII+ and aimed to gather stakeholder views at the EU, 
national  and  regional  levels.  The  table  below  presents  an  overview  of  all  stakeholder 
consultation activities including the stakeholder types that took part in them. All stakeholder 
consultation activities were informed by the Evaluation Matrix and provided evidence across 
the  study’s  five  evaluation  criteria.  The  remainder  of  the  section  provides  a  summary  of 
each stakeholder consultation activity while further details are available in Annex 2. 

Different  consultation  activities  were  conducted  to  engage  a  variety  of  stakeholders, 
including interviews with EU, national and regional-level stakeholders, two online surveys 
targeting (national and regional) ESF Managing Authorities and national FEAD Managing 
Authorities  and  two  online  validation  focus  groups.  Other  targeted  consultations  were 
conducted  as  part  of  nine  case  studies  of  good  practices  of  ESF  and  FEAD  operations 
implemented to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in the Member States. These included in-
depth interviews with key stakeholders involved in the programming and implementation of 
the selected operations. A summary of the consultation activities in included below, followed 
by an analytical summary of the results of the consultations across evaluation criteria. 

Table A 32 – Overview of stakeholder types across consultation activities 

Type of stakeholder 

Interviews 

Online 
surveys 

Case studies  Focus Groups 

 

 

 

 

 

of 
Representatives 
European Commission 

the 

EU-level social partners 

National  ESF 
Managing Authorities 

and  FEAD 

Regional 
Authorities 

ESF  Managing 

Relevant  ministries  involved  in 
the 
reprogramming  of  ESF/ 
FEAD under CRII/ CRII+ 

ESF Committee Members 

FEAD Expert Group Members 

Other 
bodies 

relevant 

government 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

270 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

National  Public  Employment 
Services 

National social partners 

Organisations  delivering  ESF-
funded projects 

FEAD Partner organisation 

Civil society organisations  

Research 
organisations 
conducting research on COVID-
19 response at EU level 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview of consultation activities 

The  targeted  consultations  aimed  to  gather  the  views  of  stakeholders  involved  in  the 
programming and implementation of ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations enabled by CRII 
and  CRII+  flexibilities.  The  targeted  consultations  consisted  of  several  activities,  as 
described below. 

Interviews  

During March - June 2022, 32 interviews took place with several stakeholder types across 
a sample of 10 EU countries that has been selected373 while an additional 9 interviews took 
place with EU-level stakeholders. The interview protocols for both categories of interviews 
are available in Annex 2. The sampling criteria sought to ensure effective representation at 
EU and national levels within Europe, and cover both governmental and non-governmental 
organisations relevant to the task.  

Interviews were used to inform the five evaluation criteria and capture insights that were not 
available in secondary sources and were impossible to retrieve through the survey’s close-
ended questions. As part of the stakeholder consultation strategy, the research team did 
not involve the same stakeholders in subsequent activities to avoid stakeholder fatigue. 

373 For more information on the sampling process, refer to Annex 2. 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Online Surveys 

In March 2022 a survey was administered to all national and regional MAs of ESF (hereafter, ESF survey) and to the national authorities of 
FEAD (hereafter, FEAD survey). The surveys remained open until 10 June 2022 and sought to collect quantifiable, and qualitative evidence 
around the five evaluation criteria. The survey questionnaire, including the data collection, analysis and reporting protocols are available in 
Annex 2 on Methods and analytical models used. 

Table  A  33  shows  the  distribution  of  regional  and  national  MAs’  responses  to  the  ESF survey,  which  collected  60  responses  covering  20 
Member States and 79 out of the 187 OPs.374  

Table A 34 shows the distribution of national MAs’ responses to the FEAD survey, which collected 15 responses covering 14 MS and the same 
number of OPs.  

Table A 33 – Distribution of regional and national MAs responses to the ESF survey 

Cou
ntrie
s 

Cou
ntrie
s 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I

F

R
F

R
H

U
H

E

I

T

I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

K
S

I

S

K
U

1 

2 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

8 

3 

3 

9 

1 

2 

- 

4 

3 

1 

1 

- 

- 

9 

5 

- 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Table A 34 – Distribution of national MAs responses to the FEAD survey 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I

F

R
F

R
H

U
H

E

I

T

I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

K
S

I

S

K
U

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

2 

1 

- 

To increase the response rate, a total of five reminders have been sent to managing authorities on behalf of the contractor and DG EMPL. 

374  The discrepancy between the number of respondents and the number of OPs is due to the fact that respondents could select multiple OPs. More information on the survey’s data collection 
and analysis are available at the following sections of this report. 

272 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Case studies 

During August – October 2022, nine case studies took place aiming to collect evidence across the five evaluation criteria through looking at 
specific  examples  of  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  enabled  under  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiatives.  Based  on  the  technical 
specifications, the research team has conducted eight case studies for ESF operations in ES, GR, IT375, LV, PL, RO, SE and one case study 
for a FEAD operation in LU. These are shown at the table below: 

Table A 35 – Case studies for ESF operations 2022  

Country 

OP 

Name of operation 

Level 

TO 

IP 

Greece 

ESF Regional Operational Programmes (All) 

Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff 
during the COVID-19 crisis376 

Regional 

9 

9iv 

Italy 

Italy 

2014IT05SFOP005 

2014IT05SFOP002 

Latvia 

2014LV16MAOP001 

Support for distance learning377 

New Skills Fund378 

Improving the qualifications of medical and paramedical staff, in terms of 
Covid and any other health crisis379  

Support for medical practitioners who provide treatment for patients to 
prevent public health crises380 

Regional 

10 

10i 

National 

National 

8 

9 

8v 

9iv 

Luxembourg  2014LU05FMOP001 (FEAD) 

Purchase and distribution by POs (partner organisations) of vouchers or 
electronic  cards  to  be  exchanged  for  food  and/or  basic  material 
assistance381  

National 

- 

- 

Poland 

2014PL05M9OP001 

Street working Academy project382 

National 

9 

9i 

375 Two ESF operations enabled by the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative have been selected from Italy as case studies. 
376 Ενίσχυση των Μονάδων και Φορέων Υγείας του Υπουργείου Υγείας με επικουρικό προσωπικό για την ανταπόκριση στις ανάγκες λόγω της επιδημίας COVID-19  
377 Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a distanza 
378 Fondo nuove competenze  
379 Uzlabot ārstniecības un ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju (Covid un citām veselības krīzēm) 
380 Atbalsts ārstniecības personām, kas nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības veselības krīžu situāciju novēršanai 
381 Achat et distribution par les OP de bons ou de cartes électroniques à échanger contre des denrées et/ou de l’assistance matérielle de base  
382 Akademia streetworkingu 

273 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Country 

OP 

Name of operation 

Level 

TO 

IP 

Romania 

2014RO05M9OP001 

Spain 

2014ES05M9OP001 

Support for vulnerable people in the context of the COVID-19 
epidemic383 

National 

9 

9ii 

Actions aimed at preserving employment during the COVID-19 crisis of 
young workers (ERTE) Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI Operational 
programme384 

National 

8 

8ii 

Sweden 

2014SE05M9OP001 

Competence development for laid-off and employed personnel in 
economically vulnerable sectors 

National 

10 

10iii 

The sample of countries sought to include operations from different parts of the EU and cover both national and regional operations focusing 
on a wide range of thematic areas and target groups. To evidence the case studies, the research team used both primary research and a total 
of  23  interviews  involving  27  stakeholders  from  governmental  bodies  relevant  for  the  design  of  actions,  managing  authorities,  and 
organisations implementing the actions on the ground. The research protocols for the stakeholder interviews are available in Annex 2 while 
the full case studies are available in Annex 6. 

383 Sprijin pentru persoanele vulnerabile in contextul epidemiei COVID-19 
384 Acciones encaminadas a preservar el empleo durante la crisis del COVID-19 de los trabajadores jóvenes (ERTES)  

274 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Focus groups 

During September 2022, two validation focus groups (FGs) took place aiming to validate 
the study’s findings and cover any remaining gaps.  

The  first  FG  took  place  on  27/09/2022  and  it  was  dedicated  on  the  use  of  ESF  under 
CRII/CRII+. The FG gathered in total 21 participants, including representatives of Managing 
Authorities in eight Member States,385 representatives of organisations that implement ESF 
operations,386 as well as representatives of the European Commission and the contractor. 
All participants were provided with an input paper and an agenda ahead of the FG meeting, 
to facilitate a fruitful discussion.The FG’s agenda, and proceedings are available in Annex 
2. 

The second FG took place on 28/09/2022 and it was dedicated on the use of FEAD under 
CRII/CRII+. The FG gathered in total 14 participants, including representatives of Managing 
Authorities  in  three  Member  States,387  representatives  of  organisations  that  implement 
FEAD  operations,388  as  well  as  representatives  of  the  European  Commission  and  the 
contractor. Similar to the ESF FG, all participants were provided with an input paper and an 
agenda ahead of the FG meeting, to facilitate a fruitful discussion. The FG’s agenda and 
proceedings are available in Annex 2. 

Methods, limitations and robustness of stakeholder 
consultation activities 

All stakeholder interview notes  across all consultation activities were incorporated in a 
pre-filled MS Excel File as shown in the Table below. To minimise biases, interview-data 
analysis  was  conducted  by  other  researchers  than  the  ones  conducting  the  interviews. 
Interview  data-analysis  was  an  iterative  process,  with  researchers  synthesising  the 
responses of  different  stakeholders  across  each evaluation  question  and cross-checking 
this  information  with  other  sources  (i.e.,  SFC2014  database,  Annual  Implementation 
Reports, surveys, focus groups). For the focus-group data, no MS Excel File was used as 
the relatively  small  number  of participants made  possible to  include the notes  in a Word 
document.  Similar  to  interview  data  analysis,  proceedings  were  reported  under  each 
evaluation question. 

Table A 36 – Interview data analysis protocol 

Interviewee unique identification code 

Research Question in relation to a specific 
evaluation criterion 

Interviewee unique identification code 

Stakeholder’s answer 

Survey  administration  has  been  conducted  through  EUSurvey  while  survey-data 
analysis  has  been  conducted  using  EUSurvey’s  automatic  functions  and  MS  Excel. 
Percentages and counts have been retrieved for all numerical variables while open-ended 
answers have also been exported in a MS Excel.  

Overall, the information retrieved through stakeholder consultations was triangulated vis-à-
vis the information of the SFC2014 database, the Annual Implementation Reports and the 
Cohesion Database, as appropriate.  

385 BE, EE, GR, HU, IT, LU, PL, SK 
386 PL (Foundation Institute of Regional Development (FIRR)), PT (Institute for Employment and Vocational Training (IEFP)) 
387 HR, LT, RO 
388 FR (Restos du Coeur), ES (Red Cross) 

275 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

An overall challenge of the stakeholder consultation activities was ensuring a representative 
sample  of  Member-States  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  process.  To  overcome  this 
challenge, several e-mail and telephone reminders have been sent to stakeholders. This 
resulted in stakeholder activities including the input of a total of 64 interviews and 75 
survey responses from a wide cast of stakeholders across 22 Member-States. Despite 
this,  these  stakeholders  are  not  representative  of  the  full  ESF  and  FEAD  Managing 
Authorities  and  implementing  organisations  population.  For  example,  the  ESF  survey 
responses covered 42% or 79 out of the 187 OPs and the FEAD survey responses covered 
50% or 14 out of the 28 OPs. Overall, both surveys were answered by a broad range of 
Managing Authorities (including regional in the case of the ESF) across a range of countries 
across the EU, including those that made most use of the ESF and FEAD flexibilities, those 
that used them less and the few that did not use them at all. The survey responses thus 
also captured responses from countries that were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to 
different degrees.  

Overview of consultation activities: Main findings 

This section briefly presents the results of the consultation activities. For a more detailed 
account of the results of the consultation activities, please refer to the main report sections. 

To what extent was CRII and CRII+ successful? 

Based on the evidence collected through all stakeholder consultation activities, CRII and 
CRII+  are  largely  viewed  as  an  effective  intervention  in terms  of  helping  Member-States 
respond to the COVID-19 crisis.  

Across  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities,  stakeholders  from  22  Member  States,  EU 
bodies and  EU-level organisations largely share the view that the speed at which CRII and 
CRII+ were adopted and the range of flexibilities they enabled in the use of ESF and FEAD 
were effective in supporting a more rapid anti-crisis response at the national and regional 
levels across a large majority of the Member States and the UK. Stakeholders also shared 
the view that flexibilities enabled time savings by reducing administrative burden involved 
in the reprogramming process and facilitated a quicker roll-out of operations compared to 
standard  processes  and  timings.  The  consultations  conducted  for  this  study  indicated, 
however, that such time efficiencies were not necessarily transferred at the level of the 
operations’  beneficiaries,  as  the  management  and  auditing  system  for  implementing 
organisations remained in general as they had been before the COVID-19 pademic. CRII / 
CRII + operations were reported by stakeholders as being coherent with previous ESF and 
FEAD operations, as well as with the Member States’ efforts to address COVID-19 needs 
through  national/  regional  and  other  EU  instruments  (ERDF,  SURE,  REACT-EU). 
Stakeholders also largely agreed that the ESF and FEAD anti-crisis operations under CRII/ 
CRII+ were relevant to the needs of the Member States and also to the needs of individuals 
and  entities  most  affected  by  the  pandemic.  Overall,  the  consulted  stakeholders’  had  a 
positive  perception  of  the  contribution  of  ESF  and  FEAD  under  CRII  and  CRII+  to  crisis 
response  in the  Member  States  and  the  UK,  in particular  related  to  providing  necessary 
liquidity,  the  flexibility  to  programme  operations  in  line  with  emerging  priorities,  and  a 
notable reduction of administrative procedures.  

Effectiveness 

The evidence collected through the stakeholder consultation activities suggests that CRII 
and CRII + are viewed as effective measures to respond to the COVID-19 crisis.  

In particular, 72% or 37 out of the 51 of respondents to the ESF survey who reported to use 
CRII / CRII+, noted that as a result of the coronavirus response initiatives they were 

276 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

able to respond quicker to emerging needs on the ground either to a great extent (49% 
or 25 out of the 51) or to a medium extent (23% or 12 out of 51). In addition, over half of 
respondents in the same survey noted that as a result of CRII / CRII+, they could, to a 
medium or great extent: 

  more  easily  access  funds  for  measures  /  projects  related  to  COVID-19  anti-crisis 

response (70% or 36 out of 51) 

  enable new or adjusted operations (70% or 36 out of 51) 

  streamline operations and respond more efficiently to the COVID-19 crisis (59% or 

30 out of 51) and 

  more quickly re-direct unspent resources where they were most needed (59% or 30 

out of 51)  

Just under half of respondents (47% or 24 out of 51) noted that they were able to simplify 
the application procedures and rules for project implementation to a great or medium extent, 
while  approximately  a  third  of  respondents  reported  that  as  a  result  of  CRII  /  CRII+ 
flexilibities they were able to decrease administrative burden (37% or 19 out of 51) or ease 
logistical and human resource resouce constraints (33% or 17 out of 51).  

Respondents  to  the  FEAD  survey  who  reported  to  use  CRII  /  CRII+,  replied  in  a  similar 
fashion. In particular, 90% or 9 out of the 10 respondents to the FEAD survey who reported 
to use CRII / CRII+, noted that as a result of the coronavirus response initiatives they 
were able to respond more quickly to emerging needs on the ground either to a great 
extent (50% or 5 out of 10) or to a medium extent (4 out of 10). Half of the respondents to 
the same survey noted that as a result of CRII / CRII+, they could, to a medium or great 
extent, more easily access funds for measures / projects related to COVID-19 (50% or 5 
out of 10) and decrease administrative burden (50% or 5 out of 10).  

Targeted  interviews  corroborate  the  evidence  on  the  effectiveness  of  CRII  and  CRII+  in 
helping Member-States respond to COVID-19 crisis. Both EU and national interviewees 
have commented that the coronavirus response initiatives were in place extremely quickly, 
with interviewees involved in ESF programming and/or implementation in IT, GR, LT, PL 
and SI highlighting the role of specific CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities (such as the re-allocation of 
funds  within  the  OPs  and  the  simplified  procedures  for  OP  amendments)  in  easing 
administrative burden, enabling quick access to existing financial resources, the rapid re-
direction of  unspent  resources to  where  they  were  most  needed,  and  the  introduction  of 
new or adjusted operations.  

Interviewees consulted in the framework of the case studies also positively noted  the 
speed  and  range  of  the  flexibilities  provided.  For  instance,  stakeholders  from  Greece 
highlighting the usefulness of CRII / CRII + flexibilities in speeding-up the programming and 
implementation of an horizontal operation supporting with over 6,000 professionals public 
healthcare  providers  across  all  Greek  regions.  Stakeholders  in  the  validation  focus 
groups also highlighted the importance of the flexibilities in providing necessary liquidity 
and enabling a rapid crisis response in the Member States, especially at the onset of the 
pandemic.  

These findings are consistent with the survey results. Based on these, 73% of respondents 
(37 out of 51) to the ESF survey, reported to have used CRII / CRII + flexibilities to adjust 
operations and respond to the COVID-19 crisis to a great or medium extent. An overview 
of the flexibilities that were most used from Member States is available in the main report.  

Consultation activities examined the governance/ implementation structures that have been 
established or  used for the  reprogramming  process  under  CRII  and  CRII+  and  identified 
277 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

reported 

that  national  and/or 

external factors that influenced the effectiveness of the CRII and CRII+ initiatives. In this 
context,  stakeholders 
regional  administrative  and 
organisational procedures (43 out of 51 respondents), and the internal coordination process 
in their countries (41 out of 51 respondents), were a positive force in enabling an effective 
use of CRII flexibilities to as least some extent. The same holds for Member States’ pre-
crisis  preparedness,  with  over  half  of respondents  to the  ESF MA  survey  noting that the 
level of pre-crisis preparedness played a positive role in enabling the effective use of CRII 
flexibilities to as least some extent (31 out of 51), as did the regionalisation of ESF (29 out 
of  51).  These  positive  drivers  were  confirmed  by  stakeholders  through  the  rest  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation  activities.  For  example,  an  interviewee  from  Italy  noted  that  the 
work one region had done prior to the COVID-19 crisis around examining expenditure on 
health personnel and simplifying health related indicators helped that region manage their 
spending levels during the crisis. 

The  picture  is  less  clear  about  the  role  of  social  partners  in  reprogramming.  While  the 
evidence from the ESF survey suggests that horizontal principles389 were taken into account 
in the use of CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities to a great extent (13 out of 51), to a medium extent (13 
out of 51) or at least to some extent (15 out of 51), evidence from the sequential consultation 
activities  and  primary  research  suggest  that  there  might  still  be  some  scope  for  further 
improving this area in future crisis situations. However, this finding appears to be country-
specific, as social-partner involvement varies across Member States, and in some reported 
cases social partners were involved in substantial ways in ESF reprogramming processes 
under  CRII  (e.g.,  in  SE).  Stakeholders  noted  that  the  main  barrier  to  further  taking  into 
account the  horizontal  partnership principles of the  Common  Provision  Regulation in the 
case of the ESF and the FEAD regulation390 principles was the crisis situation itself and the 
need to make decisions as quickly as possible.  

Finally, stakeholders also shared their views on the extent to which other ESF horizontal 
principles391  and  the  FEAD  regulation  principles392  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the 
reprogramming  process.  In  this  respect,  over  half  of  the  respondents  in ESF  and  FEAD 
surveys  reported  that  these  principles  were  considered  to  at  least  some  degree. 
Interviewees  at  EU  and  Member-State  level  have  given  different  responses  that  are  in 
generally in line with the above findings. For example, some countries (GR, SI) noted that 
as beneficiaries of EU funds, they were obligated to take these principles into account; as 
such, their responses were guided by each of these principles.  CZ, FR, and PL similarly 
noted that the articles continued to be taken into account. SI noted that while article 8 was 
considered, health and safety measures took priority, with the Member State using funding 
to  buy  face  mask  which  must  be  thrown  away  after  the  use;  a  measure  which  didn’t 
contribute to their sustainable development targets.  

Efficiency 

Stakeholder consultation activities inquired about how, and to what extent, CRII and CRII+ 
helped  ESF  and  FEAD  Managing  Authorities  to  redirect  the  unspent  resources  where 
needed, as well as the extent to which the coronavirus response initiatives simplified and 
accelerated  the  reprogramming  process.  On  both  occasions,  stakeholders  reported  a 
positive picture, albeit hard-evidence around changes in monetary and non-monetary costs 
and benefits are limited.  

389 The Common Provisions Regulation horizontal principles are: Article 5 - Partnership and multilevel governance, Article 7 
- Promotion of equality between men and women and non-discrimination; Article 8 - Sustainable development. 
390 The FEAD principles are: Article 5 (9) FEAD Regulation - Partnership; Article 5 (11) FEAD Regulation - Equality between 
men and women and non-discrimination; Article 5 (14) – FEAD Regulation – Dignity of the most deprived persons: “The 
Commission and the Member States shall ensure that aid provided in the framework of this Fund respects the dignity of the 
most deprived persons”. 
391 Article 7 (equality between men and women and non-discrimination); Article 8 (sustainable development) 
392 Article 5 (11) FEAD Regulation - Equality between men and women and non-discrimination; Article 5 (14) – FEAD 
Regulation – Dignity of the most deprived persons 

278 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

In  particular,  more  than  half  of  the  51  ESF-survey  respondents  reported  that  making 
Coronavirus  crisis  related  expenditure  eligible  under  cohesion  policy  rules  (38  out  of  51 
respondents), Article 25a (7) retroactive eligibility (35 out of 51 respondents), and Article 
25a (6): simplified procedure for OP amendments (31 out of 51 respondents) helped them 
respond  more  efficiently  (process  wise)  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  to  a  great  or 
medium extent. Targeted interviews corroborate these findings with stakeholders from BG, 
LT,  SI,  GR,    for  instance,  noting  that  CRII  and  CRII+  enabled  the  rapid  re-direction  of 
unspent resources to where they were most needed. Greece, for instance, highlighted the 
use of retro-active eligibility in using approx. EUR 332 million of unspent resources from its 
regional operational programmes to fund healthcare operations. 

CRII/CRII+  flexibilities  have  also  been  reported  as  efficient  in  simplifying  and 
accelerating  the  ESF  and  FEAD  reprogramming  process  compared  to  standard 
timings. In particular, over eight in ten respondents to the ESF MA survey (42 out of 51) 
reported that as a result of CRII / CRII+ they were able to respond quicker to the needs on 
the  ground to a great or medium extent. Nearly seven in ten (35 out of 51) noted that they 
were able to streamline operations to address the COVID-19 crisis to a great or medium 
extent, while over half (28 out of 51) noted they were able to simplify the reprogramming 
process relative to previous/standard ESF implementation to a great or medium extent, and 
to support different stakeholders more efficiently to a great or medium extent (30 out of 51).  

Feedback from the open-response questions of the ESF survey provides examples of how 
the  reprogramming  process  was  simplified  and  accelerated.  Respondents  in  this 
survey  (for  instance  in  PL  and  HU)  reported  the  time  efficiencies  resulting  from  the 
European Commission’s flexibility in communicating in advance in an informal way that an 
amendment  will  be  possible,  or,  equally,  from  the  rapid  response  of  the  European 
Commission to amendments (e.g., UK). Targeted interviews and focus groups provide 
similar evidence, with Member States (e.g., LT, PL in interviews, and BE in focus groups) 
highlighting  the  role  of  CRII  /  CRII+  in  simplifying  and  accelerating  the  reprogramming 
process. Case studies also showcase several examples backing the above findings. For 
example,  in  Sweden,  CRII  flexibilities  simplified  and  accelerated  the  support  given  to 
employees  working  in  vulnerable  sectors,  laid  off  individuals,  and  individuals  using  the 
short-term  work  scheme,  with  stakeholders  agreeing  that  CRII  enabled  a  quicker 
reprogramming process relative to the standard processing times. As the sample size in the 
FEAD-survey is small, the evidence supporting the aforementioned statements is limited, 
but  overall  supports  the  same  conclusions  as  in  the  case  of  the  ESF.  Given  the  greater 
flexibility  of  the  FEAD  operational  programmes,  however,  stakeholders  often  noted  that 
there  was  already  flexibility  inbuilt  in  the  programmes  to  enable  a  quick  reaction  to  the 
pandemic, but even in these cases stakeholders indicated that the flexibilities offered under 
the amended FEAD regulation further accelerated the programming and implementation of 
anti-crisis  operations  and  enabled  their  adaptability  to  the  new  circumstances.  On  some 
occasions, despite the procedural simplifications which decreased administrative burden on 
the  one  hand,  they  resulted  in  additional  time  spent  by  staff  in  understanding  the  new 
procedures and implementing them. No Managing Authorities involved in the study reported 
having increased their staff during the pandemic, but the crisis situation often resulted in a 
higher workload for the existing staff (e.g., in LU, HU).393  

Despite the positive picture in terms of efficiency, stakeholder consultations also pointed for 
some issues that can be improved in the future. For example, some stakeholders noted as 
negative drivers in terms of efficiency the fact that ESF’s management and auditing system 
for beneficiaries largely remained as it had been before the crisis (e.g., the administrative 
requirements of beneficiaries such as submitting documentation including expenses, etc.,). 
At the same time, other stakeholders pointed to delays stemming from national legislation 
(e.g., procurement law). Further examples of barriers to efficiency are provided in detail in 
the case studies.  

393 Based on Focus Groups 

279 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Coherence 

Across  all  stakeholder  consultations,  participants  reported  a  good  level  of  coherence 
between  ESF  and  FEAD  anti-crisis  operations  and  other  actions  in  the  areas  of 
employment, social inclusion, education and health. In addition, stakeholders reported that 
ESF  and  FEAD  anti-crisis  operations  are  broadly  aligned  with  these  Funds’  existing 
operations,  while  noting  that  some  types  of  investments  and  actions  were  prioritised  in 
recognition of the higher needs on the ground (e.g. supporting workers, employers and the 
self-employed  through  subsidies,  often  in  the  form  of  short-time  working  schemes;  and 
supporting healthcare institutions and personnel, e.g. through the acquisition of medical and 
protective equipment). Equally, anti-crisis operations were reported as being aligned with 
other actions funded by national and/or regional budgets and through other EU instruments 
(ERDF,  SURE,  REACT-EU).Some  stakeholders also emphasised  that  there  are  plans  to 
continue some of the CRII/ CRII+ operations implemented under ESF+ and thus contribute 
to the sustainability of the investment during the pandemic and reinforce its outcomes (e.g. 
continuing investments in digital skills for teachers and learners).  

More  concretely,  over  half  of  ESF  and  all  FEAD  Managing  Authorities  reported  in  the 
relevant  surveys  that  their  anti-crisis  operations  are  coherent  with  their  existing 
operations to a medium or great extent (32 out of 51 for ESF, 10 out of 10 for FEAD). This 
coherence relates to several aspects including the operations’ objectives, scope, and target 
groups.  For  example,  as  a  response  to  COVID-19,  some  FEAD  anti-crisis  operations 
expanded  their  scope  (e.g.,  through  accompanying  measures  in  Bulgaria).  In  Greece, 
health  operations  for  specific  target  groups  were  already  in  place  before  COVID-19  and 
expanded to the general population during the crisis.  

CRII  and  CRII+  operations  are  also  largely  aligned  with  national  level  policies  to 
mitigate the effects of the pandemic in the four policy domains relevant for this study, with 
10  out  of  24  respondents  to  the  ESF  MA  survey  indicating  that  national  measures  were 
complementary to some, medium or great extent.394 For example, to mitigate employment 
effect,  governments  introduced  short-time  work  schemes  and  job  retention  programmes 
across  the  Member  States  expanding  the  support  to  non-standard  employees,  such  as 
temporary agency workers.395 To increase protection for people with limited or no links to 
the labour market (i.e. children, students, social assistance beneficiaries), Member States 
quickly provided social assistance support.396 For the self-employed, Member States also 
begun to provide income support.397  

Most EU and national stakeholders consulted also considered that the ESF and FEAD 
operations  implemented  under  CRII  and  CRII+  are  aligned  with  other  operations 
financed through other EU funding mechanisms (e.g., ERDF, SURE) and that there is 
no particular duplication or overlap at the EU or national level. This was also confirmed by 
respondents  to  the  ESF  survey  of  MAs,  who  indicated  that  there  were  no  contradictions 
between the operations enabled by CRII and CRII and other actions undertaken under the 
other EU instruments (22 out of 51 respondents), 398 and corroborated further in the specific 
examples of operations during the case-studies. 

Finally, stakeholder consultations also pointed to a good level of coherence between the 
immediate  crisis  response  measures  introduced  under  the  CRII  and  CRII+  and  the 
medium to long term response that Member States plan to facilitate through ESF+ and 
REACT-EU. Respondents to the survey of the ESF Managing Authorities indicated that CRII 
and CRII+ operations were aligned to the use of ESF under REACT-EU and ESF + to some 
(11 out of 51 responses), a medium (12 out of 51 responses) or great extent (14 out of 51 

394 11 respondents could not answer the question.  
395 ESPN 2021, p.14 
396 ESPN 2021, p.17 
397 Eurofound (2021), p.77 
398 In total, 23 out of 51 respondents could not answer the question and only 2 out of 51 respondents indicated that the 
operations were contradictory to a great extent.  

280 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

responses). For instance, post-COVID recovery for the employers supporting e-businesses 
will be funded through REACT-EU in Lithuania, complementing operations enabled by the 
coronavirus  response  initiatives.  Some  stakeholders  noted  that  some  immediate  crisis 
responses will be discontinued in ESF +, acknowledging the role of CRII/ CRII+ in enabling 
immediate crisis response and the role of other instruments to address post-crisis recovery 
needs sustainably. 

How did CRII and CRII+ make a difference and to whom? 

All  in  all,  stakeholder  consultation  suggest  that  CRII  and  CRII+  made  a  difference  to 
Member States’ responsiveness to the COVID-19 crisis, enabling them to respond quicker 
than their standard time to the emerging needs on the ground. The contribution of CRII and 
CRII+  can  also  be  seen  through  looking  at  indicators  such  as  its  target  financial  value, 
which, at the time of writing, is EUR 5.1 billion.399 

Contribution to crisis reaction 

The  evidence  collected  from  the  consultation  activities  shows  that  CRII  and  CRII+ 
contributed to Member States’ capacity to provide a more rapid crisis response to 
the  negative  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  using  ESF  and  FEAD  for  anti-crisis 
measures across policy areas and target groups. However, the extent of the contribution to 
the crisis varies across different Member States. 

ESF survey findings indicate that nearly 40% of the Managing Authorities that responded 
to the question on contribution to the crisis reaction (20 out of 51) would have used ESF for 
anti-crisis measures without the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. Equally, 50% of FEAD survey 
respondents (5 out of 10) would have used FEAD for anti-crisis measures without the CRII 
and/or CRII+ flexibilities. Among respondents of the ESF survey, 24% of respondents (12 
out  of  51)  indicated  allocations  would  have  been  spent  as  planned  initially  for  ESF 
operations, but a similar ratio of respondents (15 out of 51 respondents) said allocations 
would have been difficult to spend in the absence of the flexibilities introduced by CRII / 
CRII+.  Among  FEAD  survey  respondents,  60%  indicated  allocations  would  have  been 
spent as planned initially for FEAD operations (6 out of 10 respondents to the question). 
Nonetheless,  there  is  wide  agreement  that  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  enabled  ESF  and 
FEAD funds to be deployed more quickly.  

Targeted interviews at the national and EU levels also provide a mixed picture of the CRII 
and CRII+ contribution the crisis reaction. In Lithuania, an interview respondent indicated 
the measures for employment couldn’t have been implemented in the absence of CRII due 
to the new target group (employees in furlough), while the healthcare measures could have 
been implemented in the same manner given there were no changes to the OP. Interview 
respondents from France reported they would have implemented the measures without the 
CRII flexibilities. EU level interviewees reported that the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were 
important  in  the  contribution  to  the  crisis  and  absorbed  many  of  the  unexpected  socio-
economic costs of the pandemic. Social partners highlighted in particular the possibility to 
move around  and reallocate funds. This flexibility  was very  useful  in the  contribution  the 
crisis reaction. However, other EU-level stakeholders mentioned it would have been useful 
to enable mechanisms to distribute funds directly to the implementing organisations rather 
than only at the national level, as the funds may not always necessarily have gone where 
they  were most  needed (e.g.,  in  cases  where the  information  about  local  needs  was not 
available to national stakeholders in time).  

399 Cohesion Database (n.d.) Coronavirus Dashboard. For more information, visit: 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/ 
Data extracted 11/10/2022 

281 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overall, most interview respondents (both national and EU level) nevertheless indicated 
that the flexibilities introduced by the CRII and CRII+ contributed to a quicker response to 
the  situation  on  the  ground.  Indeed,  as  highlighted  in  the  Polish  case  study,  the 
reallocation  of  funds,  reprogramming  of  the  OP,  the  possibility  of  adjusting  projects, 
simplifying  procedures  and  paths  for  approving  projects,  etc.,  contributed  to  a  quick 
response to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the preparation of ESF funds 
-  such  as  the  support  for  the  homeless.  Both  the  ESF  and  FEAD  focus  groups  also 
confirmed that the flexibility of the CRII and CRII+ measures were key to their ability to react 
to the crisis situation.  

Is CRII and CRII+ still relevant? 

Consultation  activities  suggest  that  CRII  and  CRII+  were  relevant  in  providing  Member-
States with the necessary flexibility to reprogram their OPs and respond to the needs that 
emerged or accentuated due to the COVID-19 crisis. Consultations also suggest that such 
flexibilities can also be relevant in future crisis but also in a non-crisis context. 

Relevance 

Targeted  consultation  activities  showed  that  CRII  and  CRII+ were  relevant  in terms  of 
supporting the immediate reaction to the crisis. 

From the ESF survey, when asked how relevant the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were to the 
needs  of  their  institution  to  react  quickly  to  the  COVID-19-induced  crisis,  78%  of 
respondents (40 out of 51) said that the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to a great 
or medium extent. From the FEAD survey, when asked how relevant the CRII and CRII+ 
flexibilities were to the needs of their institution to react quickly to the COVID-19-induced 
crisis, 60% of respondents (6 out of 10) said that they were relevant to a great or medium 
extent, with a further 20% (2 out of 10) saying that they were relevant to some extent.  

Reasons given by respondents in the ESF survey for the relevance of the CRII and CRII+ 
measures include the fact that the flexibilities have enabled the reprogramming of resources 
towards measures targeted at responding to the COVID-19 crisis, from a health, social and 
economic  perspective.  The  most  relevant  flexibilities  used  by  respondents  in  the  FEAD 
survey were the 100% co-financing rate for the 2020-21 accounting year, the use of FEAD 
to  purchase  personal  protective  materials  and  equipment  for  partner  organisations,  the 
simplified  procedure  for  OP  amendments,  the  use  of  lighter  control  and  audit  trail 
requirements  and  the  postponement  of  the  deadline  for  the  submission  of  Annual 
Implementation Reports (AIRs). 

When respondents to the ESF survey of Managing Authorities were asked which types of 
new operations400 financed under ESF at national/ regional level were the most relevant 
for the needs on the ground, the most commonly cited operations were actions to protect 
jobs,  actions  to  support  workers  (both  cited  by  25  respondents),  actions  to  support 
healthcare systems (cited by 22 respondents), and actions to support employers and 
the self-employed (cited by 20 respondents). Actions to support healthcare workers and 
patients was also cited by 13 respondents. In the FEAD survey when Managing Authorities 
were asked about the relevance of new operations financed under FEAD for the needs on 
the ground, the most cited operations were delivery of food aid to those at risk (cited by 
3 respondents) and the provision of information about other social inclusion activities 

400 New operations are actions that have been implemented at national/ regional level specifically to mitigate the effects of 
the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of the flexibilities introduced by the CRII and/or CRII+ and which have not been 
implemented before. They are different from adjusted operations, which are actions that have been adapted or adjusted 
from their previous form or focus specifically as a result of the COVID-19 crisis and the flexibilities introduced by the CRII 
and/or CRII+. 

282 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

upon the delivery of food packages, such as counselling and knowledge development 
(cited by 3 respondents).  

Consulted stakeholders through interviews show agreement with the findings of the survey, 
with both national and EU level stakeholders confirming the relevance of the CRII and CRII+ 
measures in terms of supporting the immediate reaction to the crisis. This included ensuring 
continuous support to existing target groups of ESF and FEAD funding as well as assisting 
new  target  groups,  such  as  technically  unemployed  people.  Respondents  to  the  ESF 
survey in Poland, for instance, noted that the focus was on job protection, which has helped 
to protect many jobs in the market and thus provided a livelihood for many families affected 
by COVID-19.  

A majority of the MAs interviewed commented how quickly the funding was made available 
to them. This was also confirmed in the Luxembourg case study by the FEAD MA, who 
were able to set up an online platform, for FEAD recipients to order their food and basic 
material aid products remotely, by the end of March 2020 thanks to the rapid availability of 
funds through CRII and CRII+. An interviewee in Italy noted that although the flexibilities 
were  useful,  a  process  of  negotiation,  albeit  very  rapid,  was  needed  with  the  European 
Commission,  which  somewhat  slowed  down  the  reaction  to  the  crisis.  EU  level 
interviewees emphasised that the extra funding was made available quickly to Managing 
Authorities, but distribution to implementing organisations took longer. 

Implementing  organisations  interviewed  were  generally  unable  to  comment  on  the 
relevance of the CRII and CRII+ measures due to a lack of knowledge about the flexibilities 
and how they were implemented. However, during the ESF focus group, a representative 
from Portugal, highlighted that they had to upskill trainers to deliver courses online in just 
one month at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis and this was done through CRII, which was 
highly relevant to the needs on the ground. 

283 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND 
FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annex 6:  Case studies of good practices 

Eight case studies refer to ESF actions and one case study refers to FEAD actions, enabled 
by CRII/CRII +. In general, the case studies cover actions programmed at both national and 
regional  level,  cover  all  ESF  TOs,  include  both  general  and  specific  target  groups  and 
originate from countries representing different geographies across the EU. 

284 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Greece – ESF Regional Operational Programmes (All) 

Qualitative case study: Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 crisis (Ενίσχυση των Μονάδων και 
Φορέων Υγείας του Υπουργείου Υγείας με επικουρικό προσωπικό για την ανταπόκριση στις ανάγκες λόγω της επιδημίας COVID-19) 

National context 

Overview of 
the COVID-19 
situation in 
the Member 
State 

COVID-19 has put healthcare systems in the European Union and the UK under enormous pressure.401 As Figure A 40 below shows, albeit Greece’s 
cumulative  number  of  reported  cases  during  the  first  wave  of  the  pandemic  was  relatively  lower  compared  to  its  Southern neighbours,  the  country’s 
healthcare system was still put under stress. Greece’s economic crisis in 2009 exacerbated its healthcare system’s historical inefficiencies resulting in a 
decline on several healthcare indicators.402,403 Compared to other EU countries, Greece has shown the largest annual decrease of health expenditure 
between 2009 – 2015 (6.6 per cent).404 In absolute terms, during the same period, Greece’s health expenditure fell from EUR 15.3 billion to EUR 8.1 
billion, reaching EUR 8.4 billion in 2018.405 The conscription of private doctors during COVID-19 confirms the anaemic healthcare system of the country.406 
However, the case of Greece should not be seen in isolation from that of its European counterparts, with COVID-19 highlighting inefficiencies in healthcare 
systems across Europe.407,408  

401 EPIPOSE project. European Union’s SC1- PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme. Project number 101003688. Available at: https://www.covid-hcpressure.org/home/  
402 Maresso A, Mladovsky P, Thomson S, Sagan A, Karanikolos M, Richardson E, Cylus J, Evetovits T, Jowett M, Figueras J, Kluge H, editors. (2015). Economic crisis, health systems and health 
in Europe: Country experience [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2015. PMID: 28837306. Available at: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447858/  
403 Economou C, Kaitelidou D, Karanikolos M, Maresso A. (2017). Greece: Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition. 19(5):1-166. PMID: 29972131 
404 Economou, C. (2018) The effects of the financial crisis and the memorandums in the Greek Health System in Dimoulas, K., - Kouzis, Y. eds (2018). Crisis and Social Policy. Impasses and 
solutions. Topos Publications, Greece. ISBN: 978-960-499-277-5 [in Greek]. 
405 Kapsalis, A., Koumarianos, V., Kourachanis, N. Eds. (2021). Social Policy, Authoritarian Liberalism And The Pandemic. Print. ISBN: 978-960-499-393-2. [in Greek]. The reference years noted 
in the paper are 2009 – 2014. 
406 COVID19.gov.gr (2021). Activation of the Emergency Plan of the Ministry of Health, for mandatory inclusion of private doctors in the National Health Service for a certain period of time, in 
order to support public structures [in Greek]. Available at: https://covid19.gov.gr/energopoiisi-tou-schediou-ektaktis-anagkis-tou-ypourgeiou-ygeias-gia-ypochreotiki-entaxi-idioton-iatron-sto-esy-
gia-orismeno-chroniko-diastima-prokeimenou-na-syndramoun-tis-dimosies-domes/  
407 Lupu, D., Tiganasu, R. (2022). COVID-19 and the efficiency of health systems in Europe. Health Econ Rev 12, 14  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00358-y  
408 See also, EPIPOSE project. European Union’s SC1- PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme. Project number 101003688. Available at : https://www.covid-
hcpressure.org/home/healthcarepressure/healthcarespending/  

285 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 40: Distribution of cumulative reported cases in the first COVID-19 wave409 

Distribution of cumulative reported cases (logarithmic scale)

10000000

1000000

100000

10000

1000

100

10

1

)
e
l
a
c
s

g
o
l
(

s
e
s
a
c

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

Spain

Italy

Portugal

Greece

Malta

Cyprus

3
0
-
0
2
0
2

4
0
-
0
2
0
2

5
0
-
0
2
0
2

6
0
-
0
2
0
2

7
0
-
0
2
0
2

8
0
-
0
2
0
2

9
0
-
0
2
0
2

0
1
-
0
2
0
2

1
1
-
0
2
0
2

2
1
-
0
2
0
2

3
1
-
0
2
0
2

4
1
-
0
2
0
2

7
1
-
0
2
0
2

8
1
-
0
2
0
2

9
1
-
0
2
0
2

0
2
-
0
2
0
2

1
2
-
0
2
0
2

2
2
-
0
2
0
2

3
2
-
0
2
0
2

4
2
-
0
2
0
2

5
2
-
0
2
0
2

6
2
-
0
2
0
2

7
2
-
0
2
0
2

8
2
-
0
2
0
2

5
6
1
1
-
-
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
Week

National and 
regional 
measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

As a response to COVID-19, Greece took several responses at national-level in the field of healthcare. This section discusses two types of responses: 
financial and non-financial ones.  

In terms of non-financial responses, Greece, similar to other EU countries, has followed a stringent approach, adopting a broad mix of measures to limit 
the spread of COVID-19.410 The national measures and in particular a strict stay-at-home policy have limited the spread of COVID-19,411 without, however, 
escaping criticism for aggravating domestic gender-based violence and intervening too far in terms of regulating private life.412  

Apart from measures limiting the spread of COVID-19, the Greek government took several responses at the organisational-level. For example, Greece 
has seven health regions which are responsible for all health service providers within their territory (e.g., hospitals). During COVID-19, the Governors and 
Deputy Governors of these Health Districts had regular meetings with the Minister of Health to coordinate the anti-crisis response and allocate resources 
to healthcare service providers based on their needs. To the same end, the Greek government instructed healthcare service providers and businesses 

409 Author’s elaboration based on European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control data. For more information, refer to: qap.ecdc.europa.eu (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved 
07/09/2022 from: https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/COVID-19.html#country-comparison-tab  
410 A detailed account of measures is available at global-monitoring.com (n.d.). COVID-19 pandemic – Greece. Available at: https://global-monitoring.com/gm/page/events/epidemic-
0001942.ugWbZWZFtsIc.html?lang=en  
411 Dimitrios Moris, Dimitrios Schizas (2020). Lockdown During COVID-19: The Greek Success  In Vivo Jun 2020, 34 (3 suppl) 1695-1699 ; DOI : 10.21873/invivo.11963  
412 Kapsalis, A., Koumarianos, V., Kourachanis, N. Eds. (2021). Social Policy, Authoritarian Liberalism And The Pandemic. Print. ISBN: 978-960-499-393-2 [in Greek]. 

286 

 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

producing medical equipment to record and update their stocks in an electronic database.413,414 Other organisational responses included a 24/7 psycho-
social support helpline,415 dedicated websites for volunteers416 and ‘makers’417 using 3D printers to design face shields,418 and others.419  

Figure A 41: COVID-19: Government Stringency Index420  

In  support  of  its  healthcare  system,  through  targeted  financial  responses,  Greece  mobilised  both  national  and  European  Funds.  In  terms  of  utilising 
national funds, the main actions of the Greek government were supporting health service providers with new hires, increasing the number of intensive-

413 COVID-19.gov.gr (2020). Stock supplies to address COVID-19 [in Greek]. Available at: https://covid19.gov.gr/apothemata-ylikon-gia-tin-antimetopis/  
414 See also, Government Gazette 5243 / 12.11.2021. Available at: https://antiseptics-suppliers.businessportal.gr/kya-121721.pdf  
415 COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Telephone line for psychosocial support in relation to COVID-19 [in Greek]. Available at: https://covid19.gov.gr/tilefoniki-grammi-psychokinonikis-yp/  
416 COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Programme “Become a Volunteer” to address COVID-19 [in Greek]. Available at:  https://covid19.gov.gr/programma-gine-ethelontis-gia-tin-ant/  
417 For a definition of the maker movement, see techopedia.com (2012). Maker Movement. Available at: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28408/maker-movement   
418 COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Makers.gov.gr website for producing and supplying medical equipment is available [in Greek]. Available at: https://covid19.gov.gr/se-litourgia-i-selida-3d-makers-gov-
gr-gia-tin-paragogi-ke-prosfora-exoplismou-prostasias-apo-ton-covid-19/  
419 Further measures are available at the website COVID-19.gov.gr in Greek language. 
420  Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R. et al. (2021). A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nat Hum Behav 5, 529–538 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8  

287 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

care-units  (ICUs)  and  COVID-beds  and  securing  medical  supplies  and  equipment.421  Other  actions  included  procuring  an  EUR  2.475  million 
epidemiological study,422 increasing testing in health centers and regional clinics,423 and others.  

In terms of utilising EU funds, Greece made extensive use of the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives to mobilise ESF  and ERDF. On top of 
these funds, the country used REACT-EU and the EU Solidarity Fund to respond to the crisis. The Figure below shows the contribution of ESF, ERDF, 
and REACT-EU to the anti-crisis response in Greece.424  

In  terms  of  ESF,  Greece’s  anti-crisis  response  in  the  field of  healthcare  was  given  primarily  through its  regional  operational  programmes  (ROPs).  In 
particular, the action Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 crisis was programmed in all ROPs with a 
total financial target of EUR 263,518,710.20 (CV30).425 This 24-month action supports approx. 293 (CV33)426 health service providers through recruiting 
healthcare and other types of professionals in all regions of Greece. More information on this action is available at the next section.  

Next to this action, the sectoral OP Public Sector Reform (2014GR05M2OP001) supported anti-crisis responses in the field of healthcare with a total ESF 
contribution  of  EUR  62 million  (CV30)  and  a  REACT-EU  contribution of  EUR  100  million.  In  turn,  the  remaining  sectoral  OPs  supported  other,  non-
healthcare actions. For example, the OP Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning (2014GR05M9OP001) supported actions in 
the  field  of  education,  such  as  distance  learning,  while  the  OP  Competitiveness,  Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation  (2014GR05M9OP001)  supported 
actions in the field of employment (also through REACT-EU) such as short-term-work-arrangements.427 

421 COVID19.gov.gr (2021). Activation of the Emergency Plan of the Ministry of Health, for mandatory inclusion of private doctors in the National Health Service for a certain period of time, in 
order to support public structures [in Greek]. Available at : https://covid19.gov.gr/energopoiisi-tou-schediou-ektaktis-anagkis-tou-ypourgeiou-ygeias-gia-ypochreotiki-entaxi-idioton-iatron-sto-esy-
gia-orismeno-chroniko-diastima-prokeimenou-na-syndramoun-tis-dimosies-domes/  
422 Greecevscorona.gr (n.d.) Greece versus Corona. Available at: https://greecevscorona.gr/  
423 COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Free COVID-19 tests in health centers and regional clinics throughout Greece [in Greek]. Available at: https://covid19.gov.gr/dorean-test-anichnefsis-koronoiou-sars-
cov-2-se-kentra-ygeias-kai-perifereiaka-iatreia-se-oli-tin-ellada/ The extent to which the action was exclusively financed through national Funds is uncertain. 
424 All target values of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic (CV30, CV31, CV33) in this report are based on data from the 
Cohesion Database on 20/09/2022. For more information, refer to: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/ 
425 Based on data from the Cohesion Database on 20/09/2022. For more information, refer to: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-
RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/. It is important to note that on some occasions, there is a difference between the data on the Cohesion Database and Greece’s ESIF information system 
[anaptyxi.gov.gr]. Based on data from Greece’s ESIF information system on 20/09/2022, the target financial value of the action is EUR 333,096,126.07 million. It is plausible to expect that data 
from Greece’s ESIF information system will be updated at the Cohesion Database in forthcoming amendments of OPs. 
426 Based on data from the Cohesion Database on 06/12/2022. For more information, refer to: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-
RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/. It is important to note that on some occasions, there is a difference between the data on the Cohesion Database and Greece’s ESIF information system 
[anaptyxi.gov.gr]. See also, footnote above. 
427 Based on information from the SFC2014 database and interview with NSFR Executive Unit – Education Sector. 

288 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 42: ESF, ERDF and REACT-EU support to Greece’s COVID-19 response428 

EU financial support in sectoral OPs (logarithmic scale) 

EU financial support in regional OPs

95,2

1000,00

100,00

10,00

1,00

)
e
l
a
c
s

g
o
l
(

R
U
E

n
o
i
l
l
i
m

410,80

100

62,00

1607

19,80

Human Resources
Development
Education and
Lifelong Learning
- GR - ESF/YEI

Reform of the
Public Sector - GR
- ESF/ERDF

Competitiveness
Entrepreneurship
and Innovation -
GR - ERDF/ESF

R
U
E

n
o
i
l
l
i
m

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

39,5

11,5 8,2

8

7,9

30

11
13

23

17

ESF

REACT-EU

ESF

ERDF

Regarding ERDF, the picture is less clear. The Fund, topped-up with approx. EUR 490 million through a transfer from the Cohesion Fund (CF), appears 
to have targeted both non-health-care related actions (such as providing working capital to SMEs) but also health-care actions (such as actions upgrading 
hospitals’ infrastructure and providing them with medical-technical equipment). The target financial value of these actions can be captured in Greece’s 
ESIF information system but is not visible in the Cohesion Database. This is possibly due to the fact that the non-paper-indicators used to track ESF/ERDF 
actions will be applied in forthcoming programme amendments. Despite this, data from the Cohesion Database show indications of ERDF support to the 
field of health. For example, EUR 11 million was programmed at the ROP Thessaly - ERDF/ESF (2014GR16M2OP003) and was administered through 
two calls. The 2nd call accounted for EUR 2.5 million and focused exclusively on providing medical-technical equipment for intensive-care-units (ICUs) 
and curative (acute) care beds in the region. Finally, EUSF contributed an EUR 16 million for recruits at Greece’s military hospitals. 

Last, alongside national and EU funds, the civil society and both for- and not-for-profit organisations contributed with in-kind or financial support to the 
healthcare system in Greece. 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

428  Based on information from the Cohesion Database on 04/09/2022. For more information, refer to: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-
POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r//.  It is important to note that on some occasions, there is a difference between the data on the Cohesion Database and Greece’s ESIF information system 
[anaptyxi.gov.gr]. Based on data from Greece’s ESIF information system on 20/09/2022, the target financial value of ESF support to the regional-operational-programmes is EUR 333,096,126.07 
million. This includes EUR 15.5 million to the OP Continental Greece (2014GR16M2OP007) which is not visible in the graph. It is plausible to expect that data from Greece’s ESIF information 
system will be updated at the Cohesion Database in forthcoming amendments of OPs. 

289 

 
 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of 
key 
information 
about the 
ESF 
interventions 
implemented 
in response 
to COVID-19 

This  section  focuses  on  ESF  interventions  implemented  in  response  to  COVID-19  crisis.  All  in  all,  ESF’s  total  target  value  of  actions  to  combat  or 
counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic amounts to EUR 756,124,172.2 (CV30) in Greece, with the aim to support through this amount 463,887 
ESF participants (CV31) and 32,731 entities (CV33).429  

The largest share of this value (EUR 410.8 mill or 55 per cent of total expenditure) was made available in the OP Human Resources Development, 
Education and Lifelong Learning (2014GR05M9OP001) for actions in the field of education. Flagship actions include supporting primary- and secondary-
education units with social workers and psychologists (EUR 33.8 million), supporting distance-learning at all educational-levels (EUR 13.9 million),430 
providing financial aid to apprentices,431 and others.  

Responses at the field of healthcare account for a smaller share of this value (EUR 325.5 million or 42 per cent of total expenditure). As shown earlier, 
these responses were programmed:  

  Under all 13 ROPs [TO-9, 9iv] through the horizontal action Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 

crisis with a total financial value of EUR 263.5 million [CV30]432 

  At the OP Public Sector Reform (PA1, PA2, TO-9, 9iv) through several actions including:433 

1. 

Improving population vaccination coverage for the flu and pneumococcal disease during the COVID-19 epidemic crisis with a value of EUR 57.6 
million 

2.  Actions of the General Secretariat for Anti-Criminal Policy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic with a value of EUR 3.9 million 

3.  Supply of sanitary material to the Elderly Care Units as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic with a value of EUR 2.85 million 

4.  Grant for personal protective surgical masks from the pharmacy of EOPY to address the COVID-19 pandemic with a value of EUR 2.1 million 

5.  Supply of health material for Social Welfare Centres to deal with the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic with a value of EUR 0.5 million 

Finally, a fraction of ESF’s contribution in Greece (EUR 19.8 million or 3 percent of total ESF target expenditure) was given to the OP Competitiveness, 
Entrepreneurship and Innovation (2014GR05M9OP001), which supports actions in the field of  employment. An explanatory factor for this small share 
might be the use of SURE, ERDF and REACT-EU to support actions in the same field. 

Brief description of the selected operation 

The action Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 crisis434 is the COVID-19 anti-crisis action selected 
for this report. The action is an initiative of the NSRF Executive Agency - Ministry of Health. The action started in 2020 for a duration of 2 years and it was 
programmed under all 13 ROPs under TO-9, IP 9iv. The target financial value of this action was EUR 263.5 million (CV30) with Greece’s ESIF information 

429 Based on information from the Cohesion Database on 04/09/2022. For more information, refer to: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-
POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/. It is important to note that on some occasions, there is a difference between the data on the Cohesion Database and Greece’s ESIF information system 
[anaptyxi.gov.gr]. See also, the footnotes above. 
430 Based on the authors’ correspondence with NSFR Executive Unit – Ministry of Education and Greece’s ESIF Information System data (anaptyxi.gov.gr) on 10/09/2022. For more information, 
refer to anaptyxi.gov.gr  
431 Ec.europa.eu (2022). European Social Fund Plus. Financial aid helps apprentices through pandemic. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/projects/financial-aid-
helps-apprentices-through-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3WJBQAYoyG3I6OcyKF4fbml5fulgdd4Bj4l5RneSx7VWu6TWPxsxHLgaA  
432 Based on data from Greece’s ESIF information system on 20/09/2022, the target financial value of ESF support to the regional-operational-programmes is EUR 333,096,126.07 million.  
433 Based on Greece’s ESIF Information System data (anaptyxi.gov.gr) on 10/09/2022.  
434 In Greek: Ενίσχυση των Μονάδων και Φορέων Υγείας του Υπουργείου Υγείας με επικουρικό προσωπικό για την ανταπόκριση στις ανάγκες λόγω της επιδημίας COVID 19. 

290 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

system reporting a target financial value of EUR 333.5 million.435 Through this action, Greece was able to almost double its new hires in public healthcare 
institutions across all regions to respond to the crisis. The new hires through this action  were 6,557, with almost 80% of them (5,110) completed by 
October  2020.  Adding  the  national  funding,  the  total  number  of  new  hires  exceeded  12,000.  These  ESF-funded  hires  supported  approx.  294  public 
healthcare providers across Greece (CV33) with Greece’s ESIF information system reporting a slightly higher number of 364 supported providers. 

To enable this action, Greece used CRII and CRII+ flexibilities436 to make all coronavirus crisis related expenditure eligible under CP rules, and several 
other flexibilities. In particular, the country used financial resources from its National Public Investment Programme to streamline the recruitment of staff 
in the field of healthcare in March 2020 and then used the flexibility of Article 25a (7)  – retroactive eligibility437 to reimburse these financial resources 
through the unspent financial resources in its regional-operational programmes. This enabled Greece to rapidly respond to the increasing pressure at its 
healthcare system through new hires of healthcare and other types of professionals (doctors, nurses, technical staff such as electricians, plumbers, and 
other professionals helping hospitals to adapt to the new circumstances). Therefore, it offers an interesting example of using the exceptional flexibilities 
of the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives. Other CRII+ flexibilities facilitating this action that have been used by different regional Managing 
Authorities were the following: 

  Reallocation of Funds within operational programmes 

  Article 25a (6) – No amendments to PAs 

  Article 25a (7) - Selection of operations prior to approval of the amended programme 

  Article 25a (9) – postponement of AIR 2019 submission 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Key 
challenges 
and factors 

In  Greece,  at  the  onset  of  COVID-19,  there  were  discussions  to  use  ESF  for  the  virus’s  early  detection  in  closed  facilities  where  there  could  be 
overdispersion of the virus e.g., in refugee camps. However, the exponential increase of the virus across the country made apparent that focusing ESF 
resources on the Fund’s traditional target groups (e.g., vulnerable groups) was not a viable option. Therefore, Greece parted from this idea and instead 
supported the general public through recruiting approx. 6,557 new hires for health service providers in all its regions, with more than 5,000 staff being 
hired until October 2020. Out of the 6,557 new hires, 582 were medical staff (i.e., doctors) and 5.975 ancillary staff (i.e., nurses and technical staff making 
e.g., oxygen installations at hospitals). 

In general, enabling the operation in a rapid fashion was possible due a combination of European (CRII / CRII+) and national factors. Initially, the option 
of  Article  25a  (7)  –  Retroactive  eligibility  helped  Greece  to capitalise  a national  flexibility,  i.e.,  to  first  program  and prepay  an  ESF  action  through  its 
National Investments Program and then roll it over in its operational programmes to make it eligible under ESF-expenditure.  

This  enabled  Greece  to  begin  recruiting  staff  for  its  public  health  service  providers  already  in  March  2020  –  several  months  before  the  action  was 
programmed in its ROPs. Therefore, to begin with, the action was effective in terms of enabling a rapid initial response to COVID-19.  

While this initial response was positive, the National Investments Program had finite resources and thus sustaining recruitment through it – at least with 
the same pace – would have stalled without ESF Funds. This meant that Managing Authorities had to quickly program the action in their ROPs. Here, a 
series of CRII / CRII + flexibilities from Regulation’s 2020/558 Article 25a  (see also, above) helped Managing Authorities to save time and program the 

435 For more information, see: anaptyxi.gov.gr and previous footnotes. 
436 Regulation 2020/460, Article 30 (3). For more information, see: Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.099.01.0005.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:099:TOC  
437 Regulation 2020/558, Article 25a (6). For more information, see: Regulation (EU) 2020/558 Of the European Parliament and of the council Of 23 April 2020. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0558  

291 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

action within a few months, thus making ESF Funds available timely. In this context, CRII / CRII + were effective in helping  Greece sustain recruitment 
and hire staff timely.  

Apart from the above, the coordinated action of several government bodies (i.e., Executive Unit of NSFR – Ministry of Health, the ESF Actions Coordination 
and Monitoring Authority, and the Managing Authorities) played a critical role in making the action effective. 

The  Executive  Unit  of  NSFR  –  Ministry  of  Health  designed  the  action  in  record-time  relative  to  the  pre-pandemic  situation  and  stepped-up  as  its 
coordinator-beneficiary in all 13 ROPs. In this capacity, it took over a critical amount of administrative burden from over 160 beneficiaries (hospitals, etc.) 
which  would  otherwise  have  had  to  file  an  individual  application  for  the  action.  This  was  important,  as  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  action’s 
beneficiaries had no prior experience with ESF and was under extreme pressure due to the epidemiological situation on the ground. To further reduce 
administrative burden on these beneficiaries, the Executive Unit provided them with targeted support to help them fulfil their administrative obligations 
such as registering expenses at Greece’s ESIF Information System etc. As a result, even the OPs which programmed the action in October 2020 were 
able to make payments within the same year. 

In turn, the ESF Actions Coordination and Monitoring Authority gave clear steering to the MAs of the ROPs in terms of the programme-amendments. 
Last, primary research conducted for this study suggests that MAs requested the minimum amount of documentation from the public healthcare institutions 
to ease their administrative burden.  

In terms of challenges, despite the above flexibilities, the ESIF management and auditing system remained stringent. Therefore, MAs had to follow their 
standard administrative procedure to launch the action, i.e., receive and check applications, etc. Equally, the action’s beneficiaries such as hospitals 
which did not have prior experience with the ESIF management and auditing system still had to submit documentation such as personnel timesheets to 
the MAs, during a period of increasing pressure. Here, a postponement or simplification of these obligations might have been an option. 

Access to 
funding 

Greece, similar to other countries such as Spain, was able to access ESF easier in the current programming period than in the previous one, when it was 
in a sovereign debt crisis. This finding is consistent with this evaluation’s results which indicate that the ESF’s response was faster and larger in scope 
during the COVID-19 crisis than in the 2008-2009 economic crisis. A potential explanation for this might be that COVID-19’s implications were EU-wide 
and not specific to a number of Member-States.  

Monitoring 
and 
evaluation 

Overall 
assessment 

The operation’s concept is simple, and the monitoring and evaluation arrangements suggested by the European Commission during the pandemic438 
have been effective in capturing its effects. All ROPs used the non-paper indicators CV30439 and CV33440 with primary research suggesting that these 
were straightforward and allowed effective monitoring, accountability, transparency and communication.441   

All in all, CRII / CRII + flexibilities can be considered as effective in helping Greece respond to the COVID-19 crisis. Through these flexibilities, Greece 
was able to make 6,557 new hires and support almost all public healthcare service providers across the country, including hospitals, the national blood 
donation center, the national emergency aid center, and others. Recruitment was fast, sustainable, and proportionate to the needs of each health region 
and their healthcare institutions. In addition, primary research suggests this action targeting the general public did not come at the expense of other 
actions targeting vulnerable groups. Instead, a careful assessment of using the unspent financial resources was made to avoid negative effects.442 Last, 
while ESF posed an administrative burden to hospitals facing increasing needs, it also helped them build administrative capacity that can be useful in 
terms of enabling them use ESF in the future. 

438 EGESIF (2021). Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to COVID-19 pandemic. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  
439 Value of ESF actions to combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost). 
440 Number of entities supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
441 Interview with NSFR Executive Unit – Ministry of Health in 2022 
442 Interview with Managing Authority - Central Macedonia in 2022  

292 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid 
response to 
the COVID-19 
crisis 
through ESF / 
FEAD 

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives 
and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Coherence 

Overall, there are several indications suggesting that CRII / CRII + flexibilities simplified and accelerated the ESF reprogramming process.  

In particular, regional Managing Authorities’ choice to redirect funds to IP-9iv and amend their operational programme at a later stage to correct financial 
tables / budget between IPs, helped them to accelerate the reprogramming process and program the action between August and October 2020. While 
an assessment of costs and benefits linked to the programming and implementation of this operation (relative to the pre-pandemic period) is not available, 
interview data suggests that in the absence of the flexibilities enabled by CRII/CRII+, programming the action might have taken up to 6 months more and 
possibly rolled over to 2021. This resulted in significant time savings which enabled quick actions on the ground. In its absence, existing hospital staff 
(including the first new hires) would have faced enormous pressure that might have been critical in light of ample bibliographical evidence suggesting that 
they were suffering from high burn-out rates (up to 55%) even prior to COVID-19.443 This  would also mean that the new hires would not have been 
available during 2020 when the pressure on the healthcare system was the highest. Therefore, the option to amend operational programmes at a later 
stage was critical in helping the operation to efficiently produce results on the ground when they were needed.  To the same  end, the remaining Article 
25a flexibilities such as the postponement of AIR 2019 submission helped MAs to free their time and focus on the programming of the action. Finally, 
interview data suggests that in the absence of the simplifications stemming from Article 25a flexibilities (see above), the option to use Article 25a (7) – 
retroactive eligibility to recover national funds with ESF funds would have been unattractive due to the administrative burden, in particular for amounts 
less than EUR 1 million. In that case, the option might have been to use national funds instead.  

Despite the above, it is worth noting that the Fund’s management and auditing system did not decrease, with the administrative burden for the Managing 
Authorities (e.g., launching calls for proposals, receiving and checking files) and beneficiaries (e.g., submitting expenses) being the same. 

The operation was relevant for the Ministry of Health as it enabled it to quickly respond to the needs emerging as a result of the pandemic and almost 
double its hires for hospitals across Greece. The operation was also relevant for regional MAs as it enabled them to respond  to the emerging needs on 
the ground within their regions and on some occasions, absorb unspent resources that would have otherwise been lost.  

Furthermore, the operation was relevant in terms of addressing in a holistic fashion the needs of the hospitals as it provided them both with healthcare 
professionals, i.e., doctors and nurses, but also with technical staff that was responsible for critical functions e.g., installing plumbing systems for new 
ICUs. At the same time, the operation was relevant for other organisations working on the ground such as health centers, the  National Emergency Aid 
Center and the National Blood Donation Center that were amid increasing pressure, which also benefitted from new hires. 

As indicated earlier, in Greece there are seven health regions, with each being responsible / overlooking hospitals falling within their jurisdiction. During 
the COVID-19 crisis, a Central Board including the governors of all seven health regions had regular meetings with the Minister of Health and allocated 
staff to each of the health region’s hospitals on a rolling basis, based on their needs. Therefore, the action was relevant in terms of providing human 
resources  in  regions  based  on  the  epidemiological  situation  on  the  ground.  The  action  remains  relevant,  as  Greek  hospitals  and  other  healthcare 
institutions are still addressing an increasing number of COVID-19 cases due to the virus’s consecutive waves.  

443 Cnn.gr (2017). One out of two health professionals in public hospitals exhibits burnout-syndrome [in Greek].  Available at: https://www.cnn.gr/ellada/story/67049/syndromo-burnout-
paroysiazei-1-2-epaggelmaties-ygeias-sta-dimosia-nosokomeia  

293 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Coherence 
with ESF 
initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 
crisis 

Coherence 
with national 
and regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Coherence 
with other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

While Greece’s sectoral and regional OPs do not have a priority axis (PA) dedicated to healthcare, ROPs included even prior to COVID-19 several actions 
aiming to enhance access to healthcare for specific target groups. These actions were programmed under TO-9, 9iv.444  

For example, all ROPs included the flagship action “Provision of services in Primary Health Care”, through the operation of Local Health Teams (TOMY), 
for vulnerable groups of the population. The action aims to address long-known illnesses at the field of primary healthcare445 and has a financial target of 
EUR 163 million. ROPs also included other horizontal actions at the field of healthcare. These actions support structures addressing the needs of specific 
target groups such as people with addictions, including youth addictions, people with mental health issues, the elderly, and others.446  

Therefore, in Greek ROPs, under TO-9 - 9iv, actions at the field of healthcare already had an important role, with a high level of investment, especially at 
the most-developed regions of Central Macedonia and Attica where the needs are larger.  

The action Reinforcing the Capacity of Health Institutions with additional staff during the COVID-19 crisis was thus coherent with existing ESF-actions at 
the field of healthcare, as it essentially extended the access to healthcare services from specific target groups to the general public. 

The action has also shown a high degree of complementarity with national measures. In particular, national contribution to recruitment was higher in 
regions where the ROP could not maximise the impact of CRII / CRII+ (i.e., contribute with a large financial value) due to a  pre-existing high level of 
absorption or high commitment of resources. By the same token, national contribution was lower in regions where the ROP had a high number of unspent 
financial resources to sponsor the action in question. Therefore, ESF and national budget worked in complementarity. 

The action has shown a high degree of coherence with other ESF, but also with other ERDF, and REACT-EU healthcare-related actions.  

Greece used ESF in its ROPs to improve access to services and in its sectoral OP Public Sector Reform [2014GR05M2OP001] to prevent deaths through 
purchasing pneumococcal and flu vaccines and PPEs. REACT-EU topped-up the same OP with EUR 100 million in PA16, IP13i. In this, a REACT-EU 
flagship action sought to increase Greece’s early prevention and testing capabilities through operating 500 mobile nurse health teams collecting biological 
material from potential or existing COVID-19 patients at their home, and other actions. ERDF was also used to purchase medical-technical equipment 
and repurpose hospital facilities.447  

Therefore, this ESF action complemented other ESF, ERDF, and REACT-EU actions, with each addressing specific needs in relation to COVID-19. The 
Figure below illustrates this relationship between the different Funds. 

444 9iv Investment Priority – Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high quality services, including health care and social services of general interest  
445 Economou C, Kaitelidou D, Karanikolos M, Maresso A. (2017). Greece: Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition. 19(5):1-166. PMID: 29972131 
446 For more information, visit anaptyxi.gov.gr  
447 The actual financial target financial value of ERDF unavailable at SFC2014. For more information, see footnote 24. 

294 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 43: Coherence of ESF, ERDF, REACT-EU448 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment 
of 
contribution 
of ESF under 
CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis 
reaction  

ESF under CRII and CRII+ supported with EUR 332 million Greece’s public healthcare service providers including hospitals, the national blood donation 
center, the national emergency aid center, etc. and thus had a critical role in the anti-crisis response at the healthcare field.449 

Through CRII / CRII +, Greece was able to streamline and maintain a high volume of new hires through its national resources knowing that it will be able 
to reimburse these resources at a later stage through Article 25a (7). Furthermore, the country’s regional MAs using CRII / CRII + flexibilities were able 
to accelerate the programming of the action and implement it faster, compared to their standard timeline. As a result, more than 80% of the action’s new 
hires  (i.e.,  5,110)  were  placed  in public  healthcare  service providers  between  the  1st and  2nd  wave  of  the pandemic until  October  2020.  This  helped 
healthcare service providers absorb the initial pressure from the first two waves of the pandemic, including the pressure to  the existing healthcare staff 
that was facing even prior to COVID-19 high rates of burn-out syndromes.  

Apart from the contribution to the anti-crisis response, the ESF action also had a positive impact on public healthcare services providers through helping 
them repurpose and upgrade their facilities, but also through helping them build administrative capacity which can be help them use the Fund for the 
future both in emergency and non-emergency situations.  

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 

In terms of supporting Greece’s healthcare system, the action has shown its results early-on, with 80% of the total 6,557 new hires assuming their 
post at public healthcare services providers as soon as October 2020. The new healthcare staff has helped hospitals to optimise their resource allocation 
to address both COVID-19 and other patients, for example, through placing experienced staff in ICUs and newly hired, inexperienced staff in less critical 

448 The Figure Reports the target financial values based on the Cohesion database data on 29/09/2022. As shown previously, actual values might be different. For more information, see footnote 
24. 
449 For more information on the target financial values of the operation, see footnote 24. 

295 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

cases. In addition, the new healthcare staff helped Greece to begin its national vaccination plan, which first took place in hospitals until vaccination centres 
were set up at the primary healthcare level. The same staff has also helped Greece improve its testing capabilities, as it often performed COVID-19 tests 
in closed-facilities such as nursing homes. Last, the technical staff such as plumbers or electricians made possible the repurposing and upgrading of 
buildings leading to an increase of hospital-beds, including ICUs.  

Adding another layer of complexity, one of the early results of this action is its impact on the organisations that took part in this action. As shown earlier, 
during this period, the NSFR Executive Unit – Ministry of Health stepped up as the action’s coordinator, assuming a considerable administrative burden 
from the action’s beneficiaries such as hospitals who had little to no prior experience with ESF. The Unit further helped these beneficiaries navigate their 
administrative  responsibilities  through  continuous,  tailor-made  training.450  As  a  result,  the  action’s  beneficiaries  were  able  to  respond  to  these 
responsibilities with minimum to no errors and they were able to build their administrative capacities for future uses of ESF. An indication of this, is the 
fact that to date there is a high absorption rate and there is no record of late payments to staff hired through ESF operations. 

Therefore, all in all, the action had an impact on both the healthcare system but also on the constellation of the organisations that took part in it. These 
organisations have shown a high degree of cooperation and flexibility during a period when the public sector was teleworking to make the action possible. 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons 
learnt 

There are several lessons learnt from this action.  

In the EU policy-making field, it is critical to provide a fast, proportionate response, and clear steering. The interview data strongly suggest that this has 
been achieved through the Coronavirus Response Initiatives and the European Commission’s clear messages in terms of eligible measures under the 
ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address COVID-19 crisis.451 The fact that the legal framework was made available in March and April 2020 as well 
as the legal framework’s flexibilities were seen as a very positive, timely and proportionate response to the emerging needs on the ground. Drawing on 
the current experience, interview data suggests that maintaining these reflexes and making such flexibilities available also on other occasions, such as 
smaller-scale crises at Member-State level, is worth consideration.  

Another lesson to consider at the EU / national policy-making field, is to think about – to the extent possible – interventions across the whole ESF’s value 
chain. For example, while the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative was a positive development in providing Member-States with unprecedented 
flexibilities in programming COVID-19 anti-crisis actions, it did not reduce the administrative burden or bottlenecks in relation to the implementation of 
these  actions.  In  Greece,  there  are  at  least  two  examples  illustrating  this  point.  The  first  example  comes  from  the  action  in  question,  for  which  it  is 
questionable whether hospitals in the absence of the Executive Unit – Ministry of Health would have been able to fulfil the administrative burden in light 
of  their  lack  of  experience  and  the  pressing  needs  on  the  ground.  The  second  example  comes  from  an  action  from  the  OP  Human  Resources 
Development, Education, and Lifelong Learning in which national procurement rules have caused bottlenecks in an operation aiming to enable distance-
learning through the provision of IT equipment. 

Moving at the organisational field, a lesson learnt is that when there is coordination and clear steering from the central level, it is possible to achieve 
effective results, even in remote working conditions. On this particular action, several changes took place at the organisational level, including providing 
hospitals with technical assistance to respond to ESF administrative requirements and having them open a separate bank account at the Bank of Greece, 
to enable the NSFR Executive Unit – Ministry of Health to monitor cash flows.  At the organisational field, another lesson learnt is that moving forward, it 
is  useful  for  Member-States  to  think  of  more  effective  ways  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  ESIF  Management  and  Auditing  system  and  reduce 
administrative burden (e.g., checking applications, gathering documentation, monitoring cash flows, etc.). For example, in relation to the action in question, 
having a cloud database in which hospitals could upload documentation related to management and auditing might have been useful in terms of monitoring 
of expenses and reducing email traffic. However, there is not enough evidence to support whether the aforementioned options would have been viable, 
or effective. In this context, there might be scope for an exchange of good practices at the EU-level. Last, staying within the same field, in countries where 

450 For example, see Edespa-ygeia.gr (n.d.) Supporting beneficiaries at the field of health. Available at: http://www.edespa-ygeia.gr/el-gr/ipostiriksi-dikaiouxwn-tomewn-ygeias/ipostiriksi-
dikaiouxwn-tomewn-ygeias  
451 European Commission, DG EMPL (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address the COVID-19 crisis.  

296 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

there is a regionalisation of ESF, it is useful to think of more flexible structures to support beneficiaries of national-level actions that are implemented 
horizontally in regional OPs. To illustrate the point, the NSFR Executive Unit – Ministry of Health that was the action’s coordinator was eligible for technical 
assistance from the 13 ROPs. However, to claim this technical assistance, it had to fill-in 13 separate applications. This resulted in the Unit not using the 
technical assistance as it would have caused an extra administrative burden in a pressing period. On future occasions, some flexibilities on such issues 
might reduce administrative burden and address the needs on behalf of beneficiaries.  

All in all, the experience during this period had a positive impact both on the healthcare field and on the constellation of organisations working in this 
action both in relation to COVID-19 but also in terms of future-crises. 

Annexes 

I: 
Bibliography 

1.  Anaptyxi.gov.gr 

2.  Cnn.gr  (2017).  One  out  of  two  health  professionals  in  public  hospitals  exhibits  burnout-syndrome  [in  Greek].    Retrieved  21/09/2022  from: 

https://www.cnn.gr/ellada/story/67049/syndromo-burnout-paroysiazei-1-2-epaggelmaties-ygeias-sta-dimosia-nosokomeia  

3.  Cohesion  Database 

(n.d.).  Retrieved  22/09/2022 

from:  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-

COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/.  

4.  COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Free COVID-19 tests in health centers and regional clinics throughout Greece [in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: 
https://covid19.gov.gr/dorean-test-anichnefsis-koronoiou-sars-cov-2-se-kentra-ygeias-kai-perifereiaka-iatreia-se-oli-tin-ellada/  The  extent 
to 
which the action was exclusively financed through national Funds is uncertain. 

5.  COVID19.gov.gr (2020). Makers.gov.gr website for producing and supplying medical equipment is available [in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 
from: https://covid19.gov.gr/se-litourgia-i-selida-3d-makers-gov-gr-gia-tin-paragogi-ke-prosfora-exoplismou-prostasias-apo-ton-covid-19/  

6.  COVID19.gov.gr 

(2020).  Programme 
https://covid19.gov.gr/programma-gine-ethelontis-gia-tin-ant/  

“Become  a  Volunteer” 

to  address  COVID-19 

[in  Greek].  Retrieved  20/09/2022 

from:  

7.  COVID-19.gov.gr (2020). Stock supplies to address COVID-19 [in Greek]. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: https://covid19.gov.gr/apothemata-ylikon-

gia-tin-antimetopis/  

8.  COVID19.gov.gr  (2020).  Telephone  line  for  psychosocial  support  in  relation  to  COVID-19  [in  Greek].  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from: 

https://covid19.gov.gr/tilefoniki-grammi-psychokinonikis-yp/  

9.  COVID19.gov.gr (2021). Activation of the Emergency Plan of the Ministry of Health, for mandatory inclusion of private doctors in the National 
from: 

Health  Service 
https://covid19.gov.gr/energopoiisi-tou-schediou-ektaktis-anagkis-tou-ypourgeiou-ygeias-gia-ypochreotiki-entaxi-idioton-iatron-sto-esy-gia-
orismeno-chroniko-diastima-prokeimenou-na-syndramoun-tis-dimosies-domes/  

[in  Greek].  Retrieved  20/09/2022 

to  support  public  structures 

for  a  certain  period  of 

in  order 

time, 

10.  Dimitrios Moris, Dimitrios Schizas (2020). Lockdown During COVID-19: The Greek Success  In Vivo Jun 2020, 34 (3 suppl) 1695-1699 ; DOI 

: 10.21873/invivo.11963  

11.  Ec.europa.eu  (2022).  European  Social  Fund  Plus.  Financial  aid  helps  apprentices  through  pandemic.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/projects/financial-aid-helps-apprentices-through-
pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3WJBQAYoyG3I6OcyKF4fbml5fulgdd4Bj4l5RneSx7VWu6TWPxsxHLgaA  

12.  Ecdc.europa.eu  (n.d.).  Country  comparison.  Retrieved  07/09/2022  from:  https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/COVID-

19.html#country-comparison-tab  

297 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

13.  Economou  C,  Kaitelidou  D,  Karanikolos  M,  Maresso  A.  (2017).  Greece:  Health  System  Review.  Health  Systems  in  Transition.  19(5):1-166. 

PMID: 29972131 

14.  Economou, C. (2018) The effects of the financial crisis and the memorandums in the Greek Health System in Dimoulas, K.,  - Kouzis, Y. eds 

(2018). Crisis and Social Policy. Impasses and solutions. Topos Publications, Greece. ISBN: 978-960-499-277-5 [in Greek]. 

15.  Edespa-ygeia.gr (n.d.)  Supporting beneficiaries at the field of health. Retrieved 21/09/2022 from:  http://www.edespa-ygeia.gr/el-gr/ipostiriksi-

dikaiouxwn-tomewn-ygeias/ipostiriksi-dikaiouxwn-tomewn-ygeias  

16.  EGESIF  (2021).  Non-paper:  List  of  programme  specific  indicators  related  to  the  cohesion  policy  direct  response  to  COVID-19  pandemic. 

Retrieved 22/09/2022 from: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

17.  EPIPOSE project. European Union’s SC1- PHE-CORONAVIRUS-2020 programme. Project number 101003688. Retrieved 01/09/2022 from: 

https://www.covid-hcpressure.org/home/  

18.  European Commission, DG EMPL (2020). Typology of indicative measures under the ESF and YEI that can be mobilised to address COVID-19 

crisis.  

19.  Global-monitoring.com 

Greece. 
monitoring.com/gm/page/events/epidemic-0001942.ugWbZWZFtsIc.html?lang=en  

COVID-19 

pandemic 

(n.d.). 

– 

Retrieved 

01/09/2022 

from: 

https://global-

20.  Government Gazette 5243 / 12.11.2021. Retrieved 07/09/2022 from: https://antiseptics-suppliers.businessportal.gr/kya-121721.pdf  

21.  Greecevscorona.gr (n.d.) Greece versus Corona. Retrieved 20/09/2022 from: https://greecevscorona.gr/  

22.  Hale,  T.,  Angrist,  N.,  Goldszmidt,  R.  et  al.  (2021).  A global panel  database  of  pandemic policies  (Oxford  COVID-19  Government  Response 

Tracker). Nat Hum Behav 5, 529–538 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8  

23.  Kapsalis, A., Koumarianos, V., Kourachanis, N. Eds. (2021). Social Policy, Authoritarian Liberalism And The Pandemic. Print. ISBN: 978-960-

499-393-2. [in Greek]. The reference years noted in the paper are 2009 – 2014. 

24.  Lupu,  D.,  Tiganasu,  R. 

(2022).  COVID-19  and 

the  efficiency  of  health  systems 

in  Europe.  Health  Econ  Rev  12,  14  

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-022-00358-y  

25.  Maresso A, Mladovsky P, Thomson S, Sagan A, Karanikolos M, Richardson E, Cylus J, Evetovits T, Jowett M, Figueras J, Kluge H, editors. 
(2015). Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe: Country experience [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory 
on Health Systems and Policies; 2015. PMID: 28837306. Retrieved 07/09/2022 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447858/  

26.  Regulation  (EU)  2020/460  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  March  2020.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from:  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.099.01.0005.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:099:TOC  

27.  Regulation  (EU)  2020/558  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2020.  Retrieved  20/09/2022  from:  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588165247288&uri=CELEX:32020R0558  

28.  SFC2014 database 

II: 
Stakeholder 
consultations  

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the Ministry of Health and the Regional Managing Authority of Central 
Macedonia, in Greece.  

298 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Italy – ESF Operational Programme Lazio (2014IT05SFOP005)  

Qualitative case study: Support for distance learning services (Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a distanza), Lazio Region  

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 situation in 
the Member State 

Italy was the first European country to be hardly hit the pandemic.452 Between March 2020 and October 2022, there have been more than 22 
million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and about 177 thousand deaths associated with the diagnosis of infection. In the EU27, total excess deaths 
exceeded 500,000 in 2020 and 650,000 in 2021, with Italy's contribution falling from about 19% in the first year of the pandemic to less than 10% 
in 2021 and early 2022.453 As a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Italy introduced lockdown measures that severely limited commercial and 
economic activities and forced schools and training providers to deliver teaching online. This contributed to negatively impact the economy, 
leading to an estimated GDP contraction of 8.9% in 2020 and a reduction of 10.3% in employment levels with respect to the previous year. 

Regions which reported the highest increases in the standardized rate of mortality in 2020 were Piedmont, Valle D'Aosta, Lombardy and the 
Autonomous Province of Trento. Although Lazio was the only region to report a mortality rate in 2020 slightly lower than the previous five-year 
period,454  the Lazio Region had among the highest hospitalization rates (30.5 percent), along with Valle d'Aosta (40.8 percent) and Umbria 
(28.2 percent); while the regions with the highest proportion of COVID-19-positive patients in the ICUs were Umbria (6 percent), Tuscany (2.6 
percent) and Lazio (2.3 percent), as highlighted by the National Health Observatory.455 

National and regional 
measures to mitigate 
the crisis 

The Lazio region designed and implemented a number of measures to mitigate the COVID-induced economic and social crisis in the region. 
Some of  these  measures  were  created  at  a  regional  level, trying  to address  local  needs.  Other  measures  were  trickled  down  from  national 
government and related agencies – in some cases the application and some level of management of such measures were implemented by the 
Region, in others this was managed centrally.  

When looking at financial and non-financial responses at the national level, the Italian government introduced several decrees aimed at limiting 
the socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. The main ones were:  

  Cura Italia Decree (Law Decree no.18 of March 17, 2020), which in addition to introducing measures to strengthen the national health 
service and economic support for families, workers and businesses, represents the regulatory basis for the allocation of cohesion policy 
resources in the face of the COVID-19 crisis; 

 

Liquidita’ Decree (Law Decree no.23 of 8 April 2020), introduced urgent measures regarding access to credit and tax compliance for 
companies, special powers in strategic sectors, as well as interventions in the field of health and work and extension of administrative 
and procedural deadlines; 

  Rilancio Decree (Law Decree no.34 of 19 May 2020), which governed the use of cohesion policy funds to combat the emergency and 
extends the scope of intervention of the Cohesion Fund, establishing some conditions for the reprogramming of the national and regional 

452 Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022). When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?. Statistical Methods and Applications, 31, 181–195 . Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4.  
453 ISTAT (2021), Impatto dell’epidemia covid-19 sulla mortalità totale della popolazione residente. Retrieved 11/10/2022 from: https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-
annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf  
454 Ibid. 
455  Osservatorio sulla salute nelle regioni italiane (2021), Il prezzo del COVID-19 in Italia, dai decessi al calo del PIL, i numeri di oltre 15 mesi di pandemia. Available at: 
https://osservatoriosullasalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Focus-Covid-19.pdf  

299 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Operational Programs of the 2014-2020 ESI Funds and providing for a specific agreement between the Minister for the South and 
Territorial Cohesion and the Administrations holding the programmes; 

  Ristori Decree (Law Decree no. 137 of October 2020) introduced urgent financial measures related to the epidemiological emergency 
from COVID-19. The decree included non-refundable grants, suspension of tax payments and social security contributions, new weeks 
of the ‘cassa integrazione’ wage supplement scheme and a two-month extension for ‘Emergency Income’ support. In addition, there 
has  been  a  Ristori  Bis  Decree  (Law  Decree  No.  149  of  Nov.  9,  2020)  to  support  companies  and  workers  in  the  economic  sectors 
affected by the additional restrictive measures. 

Financial responses in the Lazio Region were addressed especially to those most exposed to the negative impact of the pandemic. The most 
important  initiative  has  been  ’Regione  Vicina’,  a  package  of  eleven  interventions,  also  co-financed  through  the  ESF,  designed  to  support 
businesses and citizens in need following the health emergency caused by COVID-19. These included e.g.:  

  A EUR 40 million investment to support specific categories defined ‘at risk’, such as workers whose contracts have been suspended or 
terminated due to the COVID-19 crisis and students. More specifically, Regione Lazio provided EUR 200 - 600 grants for trainees who 
had  to  interrupt  or  suspend  their  internship,  domestic  helper-caregivers,  key  workers  involved  in  door  to  door  delivery  services  to 
purchase  personal  protective  equipment  (PPE),  people  who  are  unemployed  or  suspended  from  work  because  of  the  COVID-19 
emergency and not receiving any other form of income support (social safety nets, citizenship income), and university students, for the 
purchase of PC/Notebooks, tablets, SIM cards, internet connection equipment.  

 

Investments  for  specific  industries,  with  EUR  8  million  to  institutions  such  as  museums,  libraries  and  archives,  EUR  5,6  million  to 
cinemas  and  theatres,  EUR  1,6  million  to  independent  bookshops.  In  addition,  the  region  allocated  more  than  EU  20  million  to 
businesses in the tourism sector, EUR 5.2 million to those active in the sports sector, and EUR 10 million to those in the construction 
and infrastructure industry. 

  A EUR 14 million support package benefitting parents in need to seek help for looking after their children while working from home, and 
EUR  5  million  to  support  refugee  centres  for  women  in  the  region,  which  registered  a  higher  number  of  requests  for  help  during 
lockdown. 

As seen above, the Italian government and its Regions immediately adopted a wide range of measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. Italy 
maintained one of the longest school closures in the EU: from March until June 2020, when the Piano Scuola 2020– 2021 (School Plan 2020– 
2021) for start the reopening was adopted.456 The measures taken by Italy, particularly the strict lockdown restrictions and the pausing of in-
person education, slowed the transmission rate of the virus.  

However,  the  national  long-term  closure  of  schools  also  highlighted  the  important  role  of  household  resources  (e.g.,  digital  equipment,  the 
availability of physical space for the student in the house). In addition, the pandemic and the subsequent closure of schools exacerbated existing 
inequalities in education and their consequences in terms of educational opportunities 457. Although many children and young people were able 
to  take classes  online, many did  not  have  the  necessary  tools  to  participate  for  economic  or  territorial  reasons  due  to digital gaps  between 
individual municipalities. Looking at data for the period before the start of the pandemic, Lazio was in line with the national average in terms of 
households reached by basic fixed-line broadband. In fact, in 2019, 96% of households in Lazio Region had access to the internet (in line with 
the national figure at 95%), and fast or ultrafast connections (download speed >100Mbps) reached almost half (48%) of the households (versus 
37% at the national level). However, when deepening the territorial analysis in Lazio municipalities, the digital gaps between municipalities are 

456 Cordini, M. and De Angelis, G. (2021). Families between care, education and work: The effects of the pandemic on educational inequalities in Italy and Milan. European Journal of Education, 
56 (4). 
457 Ibid. 

300 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

substantial, as well as the wide gap between the capital and the rest of the territory, since 49% of municipalities did not have any access to a 
fast internet connection, which is necessary to access online lessons.458 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information about the 
ESF/ FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 
response to COVID-19 

Italy extensively used the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to meet the population’s and businesses 
needs  during  the  crisis.  All  national  and  regional  Operational  Plans  registered  amendments  in  their  actions,  reallocations  of  funding  across 
Priority Axes and programmes, and almost all opted for the 100% co-financing option. 

Changes  were  made  to  the  national  Operational  Programmes,  providing  support  in  areas  of  healthcare,  social  inclusion,  employment  and 
education and training. Since the latter is the focus of this case study, this section focuses on the changes adopted in the  two national OPs 
concerning education and training. Changes were made in: 

 

 

The  OP  Education  (CCI  2014IT05M2OP001  Priority  Axis  (PA)  1,  Investment  Priority  (IP)  10.i),  where  the  Managing  Authority  (the 
Ministry for Education) allocated additional funding to be distributed as a loan to students in a situation of economic disadvantage, thus 
supporting equal opportunities and the right to study. The measure aimed to target 536,891 students by 2023,459 and looking at the 
implementation reports submitted by the Managing authority in October 2022, the measure ison track to achieve its target value, having 
supported 394,573 participants by 2021.460 The intervention used the COVID-specific monitoring indicator CV31. 

The OP Research and Innovation (CCI 2014IT16M2OP005 PA 1, IP10.ii), where the Managing Authority (Ministry for Education) aimed 
at supporting access to education, in particular supporting students in situations of economic fragility, higher education institutions and 
agencies providing economic support to students (Agenzie per il Diritto allo Studio). The amendment to this OP included the following 
actions (i) the total or partial exemption from the annual university taxes for students with economic challenges, (ii) the provision of 
scholarships  and/or  other  support  measures  in  favour  of  capable  and  deserving  students  who  meet  the  eligibility  requirements 
(economic conditions and/or merit requirements) including students with disabilities; and (iii) the 2-month extension for deadlines for 
PhD students, with the subsequent extension of their scholarships. Although the total budget for the intervention is not available, the 
Managing Authority allocated €39,632,000 to the first two actions described above (i and ii). According to the implementation report 
submitted by the Managing Authority in October 2022, the measure had a target of 93,606 students involved by 2023 and reached 
43,093 participants. The measure was only applicable to transition and less developed regions. This means that students in Lazio were 
not eligible given that this is a ‘More developed’ region.  

The Regional Operational Programmes for the Lazio Region (PO Lazio CCI 2014IT05SFOP005), managed by the Lazio Region also used CRII 
and CRII+ flexibilities. Analysis of the documentation submitted in the SFC2014 shows amendments to this OP, in the employment, health, social 
inclusion, and education and training areas461. The amendments were made to enable the following types of operations in the Lazio region:  

  Support for workers who had to convert to tele and flexible forms of work (PA1, IP8.v and PA4, IP11.ii), by providing grants to SMEs, 
freelances and workers in public institutions for consulting and training projects aimed at the adoption of teleworking business plans, 
including the purchasing of equipment. This also included grants for the purchase of personal protective equipment. 

  Support for socio-educational services, health and care services, or proximity services to assist the population during the pandemic (PA 
1, IP 9.iv). The funding has been used by support services in many ways, including to: increase the capacity to support and take care 
of fragile individuals and groups; strengthen healthcare services; provide income support for workers in need; provide grants to those 
who had internships suspended due to the containment measures of the epidemiological emergency; purchase PPE; support childcare 

458 Open Polis (2021). La poverta’ educative nel Lazio. Available at: https://www.openpolis.it/esercizi/le-disuguaglianze-digitali-nel-lazio/  
459 256,598 less developed areas, 26,857 in transition, and 253,436 in more developed areas. 
460 227,647 participants in less developed areas, 19,327 in transition areas, and 147,599 in more developed areas. 
461 Lazio Region has one single OP covering all the thematic areas mentioned. 

301 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

services  and  hospital  staff.  Information  available  to  date  indicates  that  these  operations  supported  through  the  ESF  under  the 
coronavirus response investment initiatives were included in the ‘Regione Vicina’ initiative (see above), which combined national and 
EU funding to respond to a wide range of needs on the ground.  

  Support for distance learning services (Priority Axis 3, Investment priority 11.i), which is the subject of this case study and is described 

Brief description of the selected operation 

below. 

The ‘Support for distance education services’ (‘Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a distanza’) was enabled by an amendment to the Lazio OP under 
the coronavirus response initiative and included the provision of services, educational packages and computer equipment aimed at educational 
institutions and training organisations based in the region. A key aim was to overcome the digital divide in accessing distance education and 
vocational training during the COVID-19 epidemiological emergence. Similar interventions were applied in many other Italian regions with similar 
processes. The budget allocated to the intervention was EUR 3.5mil462 when initially launched in 2020, to which was added an additional EUR 
1.5mil in 2021.  

Thanks to this amendment, educational institutions and training organisations could apply for funding. The funding would be administered by the 
school and could be used to support several measures, such as: 

 

Training to teachers and other staff of educational institutions on the use of tools for the delivery of the distance learning; 

  Provision (purchase/rental) of equipment and technical material dedicated to distance education; 

  Production of educational materials and content for distance learning; 

  Grants  to  support  university  students  lacking  the  necessary  tools  and  means  of  Internet  connectivity  for  participation  to  online 

educational activities activated by the Universities of the Lazio Region; 

  Purchase of computer equipment (such as tablets and personal computers, SIM cards) for distance education for all the students of the 

regions; 

Regarding the implementation of this amendment, the Lazio region defined the above support measures, taking into account the complementarity 
and non-overlap with the initiative  financed by the Operational Programs in the charge of the National Authorities. These measures applied to 
the entire regional territory of Lazio. 

Effectiveness 

Priority target groups 
and economic sectors 

The  priority  target  groups  for  the  intervention  ‘Support  for  distance  learning  services’  enabled  through  the  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  were 
students, young people in education, individuals in Vocational Education and Training as well as teachers based in the Lazio region. Beneficiaries 
of the intervention were schools, higher education institutions and training providers.  

The intervention was designed to support these groups and recognising the challenges they were facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 
particular,  the  impact  of social  distancing  measures and the  national  long-term  closure  of  schools  was  recognised  as potentially  generating 
inequality, given the already existing digital gap across municipalities in terms of connectivity and digital access.  

462 Lazio Europa (2020). Lavoro, formazione e inclusione Por fse, “connettività scuole”. Available at https://www.lazioeuropa.it/bandi/por_fse_connettivita_scuole-714/  

302 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Key challenges and 
factors 

As highlighted above, the support aimed at bridging inequalities to digital access and therefore, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic access 
to education. In the context of Lazio region, this is strongly linked to the weak digital infrastructure and connectivity, and especially the limited 
presence of fast broadband coverage in rural areas. The funding also aimed to improve the digital skills of teachers and training providers, which 
requested support once training and education got moved online.  

That  said,  despite  the  provision  of  funding  for  the  purchasing  of  equipment  such  as  tablets  or  PC  for  students  being  reported  as  useful, 
beneficiaries indicated that in many cases the lack of infrastructure represented the main challenge for students to access classes and courses 
online. This could not be provided in the context of ESF funding, as it essentially does not allow this type of investment.  

Access to funding  

The Managing Authority reported that based on information available to date, the intervention was successful among beneficiaries, with many 
sending requests for funding. However, it was also highlighted that some schools encountered delays or impediments due to the high level of 
reporting and accountability requested to beneficiaries. This seemed to be a hurdle especially for smaller institutions who do not have the in-
house capacity or specific skills in the areas of monitoring and accounting. 

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

The  Managing  Authority  followed  the  monitoring  arrangements  in  place  and  did  use  the  specific  indicators  created  by  the  Commission  for 
monitoring of those interventions aiming to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in communities. As with the accountability requests mentioned above, 
the Managing Authority reported the high level of detail requested as part of the monitoring as a potential hurdle for smaller beneficiaries.  

Overall assessment  

The ESF has been essential to intervene and support the population and protect the right to education in the Lazio region during the pandemic, 
given the impact of the virus and the ensuing lockdowns on the education and training system. The flexibilities enabled through the coronavirus 
response initiative contributed to the institution's rapid reaction to the crisis.  

Efficiency 

Efficiency in enabling 
a rapid response to 
the COVID-19 crisis 
through ESF  

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to needs on 
the ground 

As seen above, the relaxation of some procedures as well as the 100% co-financing guaranteed a quicker programming and implementation of 
the ‘Support for distance learning services’ initiative relative to what would have been possible in the absence of the flexibilities. However, several 
schools faced several challenges in accessing the funds due to the required expenditures reporting procedures, which indicates that there were 
some procedural challenges that delayed access to funding in some cases. 

The new measures enabled by the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to the general objectives of the ESF to  improve digital skills in 
education, and further increased their relevance due to the need for accelerated digitalisation in education during the pandemic.. As the evidence 
available to date about the selected operation indicates, supporting the neediest students and families has been highly relevant to cushion the 
increasing inequalities in education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Lazio region  

Relevance to priority 
target groups and 
economic sectors 

The ‘Support for distance learning services’ was essential in providing equipment and technical material dedicated to distance education, grants 
to support university students lacking the necessary tools and means of internet connectivity for participation to online educational activities as 
well as for the purchase of computer equipment. As confirmed by the interviewed stakeholder, the action remains relevant, as distance education 
is still practiced, and many students lack economic resources to afford the required equipment. 

Coherence 

Coherence with ESF 
initiatives 

The operation was coherent with pre-existing ESF operations aimed to systematise various interventions directed at schools and students. The 
Lazio region OP, for example, did include before the pandemic funding in order to reduce and prevent early school leaving as well as promoting 
equal access, by supporting the upskilling of teachers in schools, as well as providing monetary support for the families in  need. Similarly, the 

303 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

implemented before 
the COVID-19 crisis 

OP also included measures to support university students in their learning path, including by providing opportunities for traineeship and work 
placements. The selected operation is thus aligned with previous objectives but has enabled a prioritisation of the focus on digital skills and the 
acquisition of equipment needed for distance learning, in light of the consequences of the pandemic on the education system and the resulting 
needs.  

Coherence with 
national and regional 
measures during the 
COVID-19 pandemic 

The operation was coherent with other ESF operations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. As seen above, the national OP ‘Education’ 
provided loans during the COVID-19 pandemic to support students in a situation of economic disadvantage . Additional measures were also 
supported by the national budget, notably the emergency funding provided by the Ministry of Education to support primary and secondary schools 
across  Italy  to  adapt  their  spaces  and  allow  social  distancing  for  those  students  allowed  to  attend  in-person  training  and  education.463  The 
Ministry allocated EUR 50million to the regions (the main beneficiaries), which then distributed the funding to the final users.   

Coherence with other 
EU funding 
mechanisms during 
the COVID-19 
pandemic 

The selected operation also has some linkages with other EU funding mechanisms aiming to support education and training among younger. As 
an example, the Lazio region is using some of the funding from ERDF to promote education in the areas of environmental education and access 
to training in this specific area.464   

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of ESF 
and FEAD under CRII 
and CRII+ to the crisis 
reaction  

The operation played a key role in cushioning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent risk of higher inequalities both due to 
economic and territorial gaps. Without this OP amendment, it would not have been possible to support the beneficiaries of 'Sostegno ai servizi 
di didattica a distanza' through other instruments/fundings. 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of early 
results/ impact on 
organisations and 
participants and 
stories of change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

The initiative aimed to target 15,000 participants (indicator CV31f) and support 400 entities (CV33f) by 2023465. In the latest implementation 
report submitted by the Lazio region in July 2022, the Managing Authority reports that the initiative reached 5,328 participants and 138 entities.  

The Managing Authority also highlighted the positive feedbacks received from headmasters, and teachers as well as students.  

The main lessons learnt regards the lack of capacity in small organisations (e.g., schools) in  managing both the reporting and the monitoring 
dimension required by the SiGem, i.e., the Lazio Region monitoring system for interventions financed by the ESF, ERDF and other national and 
regional funds. This was a challenge to the effectiveness of the operation on the ground.  Notwithstanding, the introduced flexibility in the use of 
the  ESF  through  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives allowed  for  a  quicker  reprogramming  and  implementation  process  relative  to  standard 

463 Ministry of Education (2021). Assegnazione dei contributi alle istituzioni scolastiche paritarie primarie e secondarie, ai sensi dell’articolo 58, comma 5 del decreto-legge 25 maggio 2021, n. 73. 
Available at: https://www.orizzontescuola.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/m_pi.AOOGABMI.Registro-DecretiR.0000291.30-09-2021.pdf  
464  Lazio  Region  (2022). 
sostenibilita/bando-partecipazione-offerta-formativa  
465 POR Lazio, accessed via the Shared Fund Common Management System (SFC2014) on 10.10.22 

Il  Bando  di  partecipazione  all’Offerta  educativa.  Available  at:  https://www.regione.lazio.it/cittadini/tutela-ambientale-difesa-suolo/educazione-ambientale-

304 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

procedures and timings. This flexibility has substantially contributed to the crisis response in the Lazio region and  enabled the prioritisation of 
support for digital skills and equipment necessary for distance learning at a critical point in time. However, although the European Commission 
and the more experienced actors were able to adapt quickly, crisis response requires time and resources to learn the procedures (even simplified 
ones) of the ESF, especially in the case of smaller organisations or institutions that use the ESF for the first time.  

Consulted  stakeholders  considered  these  interventions  as  not  only  an  investment  in  the  sustainability  of  the  education  system  during  crisis 
periods, but also as a longer-term investment in skills and infrastructure.  

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

1.  Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022), When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?, Statistical Methods and Applications 31, 181–195 . 

Retrieved 11/10/2022 from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4 

2.  Cordini,  M.  and  De  Angelis,  G.  (2021),  Families  between  care,  education  and  work:  The  effects  of  the  pandemic  on  educational 

inequalities in Italy and Milan, European Journal of Education, 56 (4). 

3.  Desjardins,  R.  and  Rubenson,  K.  (2011).  An  Analysis  of  Skill  Mismatsch  using  Direct  Measures  of  Skills.  Paris:    OECD  Education 

Working Paper No. 63. 

4.  European  Commission.  (2013).  The  Survey  of  Adult  Skills  (PIAAC):  Implications  for  education  and  training  policies  in  Europe.; 
Desjardins, R. (2020). PIAAC Thematic Review on Adult Learning (OECD Education Working Papers No. 223, Issue. https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/content/paper/864d2484-en  

5. 

ISTAT  (2021),  Impatto  dell’epidemia  covid-19  sulla  mortalità  totale  della  popolazione  residente  Retrieved  11/10/2022  from: 
https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf 

6.  Open  Polis  (2021),  La  poverta’  educative  nel  Lazio.  Retrieved  11/10/2022  from:  https://www.openpolis.it/esercizi/le-disuguaglianze-

digitali-nel-lazio/  

7.  Osservatorio sulla salute nelle regioni italiane (2021), Il prezzo del COVID-19 in Italia, dai decessi al calo del PIL, i numeri di oltre 15 
mesi di pandemia. Retrieved 11/10/2022 from: https://osservatoriosullasalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Focus-Covid-19.pdf  

II: Stakeholders 
consultations  

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the ESF Managing Authority of the Lazio Region in Italy. 

305 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Italy – ESF Systems for Active Employment Policies (2014IT05SFOP002) 

Qualitative case study: New Skills Fund (Fondo Nuove Competenze)  

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in the 
Member State 

Italy was the first European country to be hardly hit the pandemic466. Between March 2020 and October 2022, there have been more than 22 million 
confirmed cases of COVID-19 and about 177 thousand deaths associated with the diagnosis of infection.467 In the EU27, total excess deaths exceeded 
500,000 in 2020 and 650,000 in 2021, with Italy's contribution falling from about 19% in the first year of the pandemic to less than 10% in 2021 and 
early 2022468. As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy introduced lockdown measures that severely limited commercial and economic activities 
and forced schools and training providers to deliver teaching online. These measures, necessary as they were to curb the spread of the virus and the 
pressure on the healthcare system, negatively impacted the economy, contributing to a GDP contraction of 9% in 2020.469 

National and 
regional 
measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

Given the severity of COVID-19 in Italy, the Italian government put in place several financial and non-financial responses, which accompanied traditional 
automatic fiscal stabilisers, to cushion the negative impact of the pandemic. Overall, the COVID-19 fiscal stimulus amounted to 36.7% of GDP,470 with 
an increase in welfare budget expenditures during the first wave of the pandemic amounting to roughly 2.7% of 2019 GDP overall. National interventions 
to mitigate the effects of the pandemic focused on job-protection measures for employees, including some categories of non-standard workers,471  ad-
hoc payments for the self-employed (EUR 31.2 billion, i.e., 1.75% of GDP), minimum-income schemes and other forms of social assistance (EUR 7.35 
billion, i.e., 0.41% of GDP); and general support for the healthcare system (EUR 6.7 billion: 0.38% of GDP).472  

In terms of non-financial responses, Italy immediately implemented a strict approach by adopting a wide range of measures, similar to the ones adopted 
by other EU member states, to limit the spread of COVID-19. Despite a slow and late reaction,473 anti-COVID-19 measures taken by Italy, particularly 
the strict lockdown measures and social distancing, have helped to limit the spread of the virus.    

In the employment area, Italy adopted several measures to cushion the consequence of the economic crisis caused by the lockdown measures. On 16 
March 2020 the Italian Government introduced the “Cure Italy Decree” (Decreto Cura Italia) which extended the applicability of existing short-time work 
schemes (CIGO and CIGS) to all the labour force by introducing the reduction of working time due to COVID-19 as an additional reason for firms to 
claim CIG benefits474 . This extension concerned firms of any size and from all sectors475 as well as all employees, independently of their contractual 
arrangement. The amount of the Italian COVID-19 STW allowance corresponded to 80% of the previous wage for hours not worked up to a ceiling of 

466 Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022). When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?. Statistical Methods and Applications, 31, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4  
467 Johns Hopkins University, COVID-19 Dashboard. Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html  
468 ISTAT (2022). Rapporto Annuale 2022, La situazione del paese. Available at: https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf  
469 Data.worldbank.org (n.d.). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2021&locations=IT&start=2011 
470 Corti, F., Núñez Ferrer, J., Ruiz, T. and Regazzoni, P. (2021). Comparing and assessing recovery and resilience plans. A six country’s NRRP analysis. CEPS Working paper. 
471 Spasova, S., and Regazzoni, P. (2022). Income protection for self-employed and non-standard workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Social Security Review, 75: 3– 24. 
472 Jessoula M., Pavolini E., Raitano m. and Natili M. (2021). Italy: COVID-19 impact on social protection and social inclusion policies, ESPN Thematic Report, European Social Policy Network 
(ESPN), Brussels: European Commission. 
473 Ibid. 
474 Ibid. 
475 OECD (2020). Employment Outlook 2020: Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis. OECD Publishing, Paris 

306 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

EUR 998.18 or EUR 1,199.72 in case of wages below and above EUR 2,159.48, respectively.476 The scheme was extended several times and by 
different decree-laws (e.g., "Relaunch Decree") to protect workers whose working hours were reduced due to the new social distance measures.    

As illustrated by the Italian National Social Security Institute (INPS) annual report,477 between 2019-2021, the use of the CIGO and CIGS covered 6.9 
million workers. About 700,000 workers were included in this short-time work scheme before COVID-19 (between January 2019 and February 2020), 
5.5 million entered during the first March-May 2020 lockdown, and, finally, another 750,000 workers joined later. Two years after the outbreak of the 
pandemic, 64 percent of those who were included in job retention schemes are still employed by the same company (4.4 million employees), 21 percent 
of beneficiaries are employed by another company, 5 percent are on NASpI (New Social Insurance for Employment), and the remainder are in other 
labour market status (e.g., inactive, unemployed, transited to self-employment, retired). 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information 
about the ESF/ 
FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 
response to 
COVID-19 

Based on the mapping conducted for this study, 61 ESF interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ package were newly introduced or adjusted in Italy 
at  national  and  regional  level.  In  the  employment  area,  Italy  submitted  8  amendments  to  national  OPs  and  53  at  regional  level,  to  support  the 
implementation of operations aimed at supporting businesses, self-employed and employees negatively impacted by the economic crisis following the 
COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to support youth employment and apprenticeship. In the health area, Italy submitted 2 amendments to national OPs 
aimed at improving access to health services, and 6 at regional level, which enabled the implementation of operations supporting the national health 
system in order to offer additional compensation to staff, recruitment of new employees, purchase of additional equipment (PPE and technical material), 
as well as supporting training for staff. In the social inclusion area, 3 amendments were submitted to national OPs and 14 amendments to regional 
OPs, which facilitated support and access to service to individuals and families in socio-economic vulnerable situations, (exacerbated by COVID-19) 
with socio-educational services, health and care services, or proximity services. And finally, in the education area, 2 amendments to national OPs, and 
20 at regional level were submitted, to support operations aimed at reinforcing access to education supported by public funds as well as the provision 
of loans to support students in a situation of economic disadvantage. 

Brief description of the selected operation 

The  ‘Fondo  Nuove  Competenze’  (‘New  Skills  Fund’),  was  a  new  operation  introduced  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  as  a  tool  to support 
businesses that during the periods of national or regional lockdown wanted to invest in the training and reskilling of their employees.  This national 
operation aimed to increase the level of human capital in the labour market and hence facilitate the gradual resumption of work or the reallocation of 
workers toward more productive jobs following the easing of restrictions. The New Skills Fund, supported by the ESF, reimburses the cost, including 
social security and welfare contributions, of the hours of reduced work allocated to the attendance in skills development trainings by those workers who 
could not work because of lockdown measures.  

The  intervention  was  announced  in  May  2020  as  part  of  the  ‘Decreto  Rilancio’  (article  88  del  decree  34,  August  2020),  and  formally  launched  in 
November 2020.478 It had a budget of EUR730mil, of which EUR 230mil were allocated from Italy’s ESF National Operational Plan for Active labour 
market policies (Piano Operativo Nazionale Sistemi di politiche attive per l'occupazione PON SPAO), and EUR 500mil allocated with national resources. 
Companies could submit their application by the end of June 2021. 

476 Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S. and Regazzoni, P. (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 
crisis. An analysis of policies in 35 countries. European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
477 INPS (2022). Conoscere il paese per costruire il future. Available at: 
https://www.inps.it/docallegatiNP/Mig/Dati_analisi_bilanci/Rapporti_annuali/XXI_Rapporto_Annuale/XXI_Rapporto_Annuale.pdf 
478 ANPAL (2020). Decreto Direttoriale n. 461 del 04.11.2020, Available at: https://www.anpal.gov.it/documents/552016/880566/anlpa.ANPAL.Registro_Decreti%28R%29.0000461.04-11-
2020.pdf/712a1fde-4878-b264-1e2d-d7490791dd87?t=1604504150553  

307 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

This first version of the ‘New Skills Fund’ was considered by the Managing Authority as a “test” and “exploration”479 given its quick development and 
adoption in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The intervention was then confirmed through 2022 with the so called ‘Decreto Milleproroghe’, given 
the high popularity of the initiative among beneficiaries. In fact, the Managing Authority reported that the funding available in the first iteration of the 
programme was not enough to support the high number of requests presented by beneficiaries.  For  this reason, the Managing Authority allocated 
further funding using resources from REACT-EU programme (EUR 1 billion) and additional national funding of EUR 600 million (as reported in art. 11-
ter of Decree 146/2021 and art. 10-bis of Decree 152/2021). In this second iteration on the intervention the Managing Authority also slightly revised the 
programme, by changing the level of monitoring information requested to the applicants and thus extending the use of the New Skills Fund to a wider 
range of companies.  

The total amount of funding allocated to this intervention was therefore EUR 2,33 billion, of which EUR 1,1billion (47%) came from national resources, 
EUR 1billion (43%) from REACT-EU funding, and EUR 230million (10%) from the ESF.  

The Managing Authority for the intervention is ANPAL, the government agency overseeing active labour market policies in Italy. The agency planned 
the  intervention  and  disseminated  communications  to  potential  beneficiaries,  alongside  offering  support  on  how  to  submit  funding  requests  and 
providing  guidance  on  eligibility.  In  addition,  ANPAL  also  was  responsible  to  select  the  awarded  projects  submitted  by  potential  beneficiaries  and 
confirm them with the Regions where beneficiaries were located. Finally, ANPAL liaised with the agency responsible for the practical allocation of the 
funding (INPS) and was responsible for the monitoring of investments. 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Target groups for the intervention were all employees working in private companies of any economic sector eligible for financial contributions and for 
whom working hours were reduced as a result of the pandemic. In order to be eligible, employers had to fill a collective agreement and submit it to their 
regional administration before 31 December 2020. Such collective agreements had to provide information on the training projects designed to improve 
the workers’ skills, report how many workers companies wanted to involve in trainings and how many hours would be allocated to this activity (which 
could  not  exceed  250  hours  per  worker).  Training  courses  could  be  delivered  by  external  support  (e.g.,  using  VET  providers)  or  internally  by  the 
company itself, subject to proof that companies met the specified requirements. The agreement also had to highlight what the needs of the enterprise 
were with regard to the new skills to be acquired as well as any pathways for the development of new skills to increase the workers’ employability. 

Key challenges 
and factors 

Given the challenges posed to the Italian economy by the rapid spread of the virus early in 2020 and the ensuing lockdown measures, the government 
responded to the existing challenges by using available national and EU funds, including the ESF, to support companies and workers across sectors 
and regions. New Skills Fund was implemented in Italy as early as May 2020, and therefore within two months from the national lockdown measures. 
This suggests a quick reaction, not only in the reprogramming of the ESF,  enabled by the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities, but also by making available and 
using resources available nationally.  

That said, the Managing Authority reported that the emergency period, linked to the new type of intervention also presented some challenges. The 
main one was linked to the administrative burden posed by the large number of requests submitted by potential beneficiaries to the agency. More 
specifically, the challenges were linked to the due diligence processes and to the time-consuming procedures to follow to check the accounts of the 
various companies who submitted requests. This had an impact on the delays the Managing Authority had to face in the payment of the funding. ANPAL 
is attempting to solve this issue in the second iteration of the project (the New Skills Fund launched in 2022), by reducing the amount of information 
requested to beneficiaries and by developing a new IT system for managing the operation. 

Access to 
funding  

Beneficiaries responded positively to the intervention, and exceeded the prior assessment of the Managing Authority, which reported that they were 
not expecting this number of requests from businesses. Given that the number of requests exceeded the funding available, the  Managing Authority 
proceeded on a ‘first come first serve’ basis, until the confirmation of the additional funding, which happened in February 2022.  In general, however, 
most of the companies who submitted a request did receive the subsidy, with a particularly low rejection rate. 

479 Interview with Agenzia Nazionale Politiche Attive del Lavoro (ANPAL) in 2022. 

308 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation arrangements suggested by the European Commission during the pandemic480 appear – based on evidence available to 
date - to be effective in capturing the effects of the intervention. The Managing Authority reported using for this specific policy the COVID specific 
indicators CVR1481 and CV33482 with primary research suggesting that these were straightforward and allowed effective monitoring, accountability, 
transparency and communication.  

Overall 
assessment  

Based  on  the  proportion  and  origin  (EFS  vs.  national  funding)  of  budget  allocated  to  the  operation,  ESF  funding  had  a  central  importance  in  the 
implementation of the new operation, as 10% of the overall budget came from ESF. The CRII and CRII+ package, in particular, allowed the Managing 
Authority to implement this new measure and providing a quick response to the crisis in support of companies and employees affected by the pandemic 
and  the  ensuing  lockdown.  In  addition,  the  large  response from  beneficiaries  clearly  demonstrated  the  need  for such  a  measure  in  the context  of 
emergency. Evaluation activities are necessary to assess the effectiveness this intervention in increasing workers’ skills and their employability in the 
longer term, and the sustainability of the measure beyond immediate crisis response. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid response 
to the COVID-19 
crisis through 
ESF  

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Available data suggest that CRII/CRII+ allowed efficiency in the reprogramming processes. The Managing Authority confirmed the swiftness of the 
response from both the Commission and colleagues at Member State level coordinating the response at a national (Anpal, Ministry of Labour) and 
regional level (Conferenza delle Regioni, Tecnostruttura). This quick response from all parties allowed the creation of new measures using a shorter 
time when compared to the usual processes. However, no considerations about efficiency were included in the design stages of this intervention nor 
were they formally assessed later on hence no quantitative information is available about changes in non-monetary and/or monetary costs and benefits 
stemming from CRII/ CRII+ relative to ESF implementation without the response initiatives. The Managing Authority reported this was mainly due to 
the emergency context, which required a quick response from the Public Administration.  

During the intense period of lockdown that characterised the COVID-19 pandemic especially in 2020 and for a good proportion of 2021 in Italy, many  
companies had to reduce the working hours of their workers. The New Skills Fund’ responded to  the need of companies wanting to maintain their 
employees active and using the time available to increase capacity and skills of their workers. As seen above, the projected  number of beneficiaries 
was initially smaller than the number of applications submitted, indicating the extent of the need on the ground for the support enabled by the operation. 

As highlighted above, the intervention was planned to respond to the needs of companies and their employees during the lockdown periods of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Primary research shows that there are discussions related to implementing a similar intervention in the future,  but potentially 
focusing on specific segments of the labour force, and most likely young people and women. This shows that the learnings, systems and structure built 
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic for ‘New Skills Fund’ will be retained in the Managing Authority’s systems and processes, but adapted to 
respond to needs developing in the post-COVID-19 period and further targeted at specific sectors and/or groups. 

480 EGESIF (2021). Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to COVID-19 pandemic. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  
481 Number of participants maintaining their job 6 months after the end of support. 
482 Number of entities supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

309 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Coherence with 
other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

The selected operation is coherent with pre-existing and parallel operations implemented via the National Operational Plan for Active labour market 
policies (Piano Operativo Nazionale Sistemi di politiche attive per l'occupazione PON SPAO). The main aims of the OP are employment and social 
inclusion  (through  employment)  of  the  most  vulnerable  and  to  counteract  the  phenomenon  of  undeclared  work,  as  well  as  providing  services  for 
businesses and public institutions, including support for skills development, in order to increase employment and employability of workers. The initiative 
has also linkages with other national OPs, such as the one aiming to support employment among younger people (Piano Operativo Nazionale Iniziativa 
occupazione giovani PON IOG), which, among its objectives, aims to provide educational opportunities for young people not in education, employment 
or training. ‘New Skills Fund’ expanded the remits of the existing National OPs facing specific needs that emerged during the COVID-19 emergency 
phase.  The  measure  also  links  to  the  various  operations implemented  at  regional  level  to  support  students  and  people  in  training and  ensure  the 
continuation of education. As an example, the regional OP in Emilia Romagna Region included measures to support training of new skills in the leading 
sectors of the regional economy, such as agro-food, tourism, retail and services, in order to upskills and reskill adults and young people and support 
businesses in accessing high qualified workers483.  

The new operation was coherent with the national and regional measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the  job-protection measures for 
employees, including some categories of non-standard workers484 and the ad-hoc payments for the self-employed485. All these initiatives to mitigate 
the negative effects of the pandemic on employment were aimed at supporting the situation of those groups who, because of the reduction of the 
activity, from the closure of businesses and industries, or because they involved a high risk to health as they involved direct contact between people. 

Similar conclusions can be made about the coherence of this intervention with the initiatives provided via other EU funding mechanisms, such as the 
REACT-EU, which partly also support this initiative. In fact, the EUR 4.7 billion funding granted to Italy via REACT-EU is also being used to implement 
interventions supporting job creation and retainment, such as the EUR 2.7 billion to reduce taxes paid by employers on social contributions by 30% 
and the EUR 200 mil to reduce the social contribution for employers hiring people under the age of 36486. 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 

As highlighted above, the contribution of ESF under CRII/CRII+ to the intervention corresponds to 10% of the total budget of  the operation. Although 
this is a relatively small contribution, the research suggested that the opportunity to reprogram the available resources has been important to kick start 
the designing phase of the operation in the first months. Furthermore, if we consider the contribution that came through REACT-EU, this percentage 
rises to 30%, which is significant for a measure of this size. The strong political interest in the intervention also had an important role in the deployment 

483 Regione Emilia Romagna (2019). Training of new skills in the leading sectors of the regional economy. Available at: https://formazionelavoro.regione.emilia-romagna.it/sito-fse/POR-2014-
2020/beneficiari/occupazione  
484 Non-standard workers were included in the Extraordinary Wages Guarantee Fund (Cassa integrazione guadagni straordinaria–CIGS). 
485 Self-employed workers received a EUR 600 per month lump-sum. 
486 European Commission (2021). REACT-EU: €4.7 billion to support jobs, skills and people most in need in Italy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lv/ip_21_4731  

310 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

of the intervention, which allocated large sums to the policy since its beginning. The ESF funding under the coronavirus response initiatives allowed 
the initial scoping phase necessary to test feasibility and gauging interest on the programme. 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 
organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

In 2021, the ‘New Skills Fund’ approved requests from 6,710 companies and 375,866 workers and in the following year (2022) 7.513 companies and 
332.955 workers487. Although monitoring information has not been reported by the Member State via the implementation reports yet, it looks these 
numbers  exceed  the  targets  set  by  the  Managing  Authority  in  their  National  OP,  which  aimed  at  86,995  participants  maintaining  their  jobs  and  at 
supporting 4,572 Entities by 2023. This mismatch between number of projected beneficiaries and the large number of requests for support submitted 
by beneficiaries is a marker of the management and implementation challenges highlighted by the Managing Authority during the interview. 

Monitoring  data  from  ANPAL  also  indicate  that  the  funding  was  approved  for  most  of  the  companies  who  requested  it,  with  only  264  rejected  or 
incomplete application.488 In terms of geographical location of the companies sending their application, ANPAL noted that the take up was generally 
homogeneous across areas (North, Central region and South), with a slight prevalence of applications from companies based in the central regions of 
Italy (46% of requests in 2021 and 49% in 2022489). Most of the companies who received the funding (85.5% on average between the two years of the 
funding) were  small companies, with less than 50 employees, and more than half (55%) were companies with less than 15 employees.490 This may 
suggest that the intervention has been particularly appreciated by smaller companies that find it challenging to access skills development opportunities 
for their employees. Finally, ANPAL estimated that workers who benefitted from this operation were 4.8% of the total number of workers employed in 
the private sector491, which provides an indication of the large scale of the intervention. 

The research highlighted the importance of quick reactions from all parties involved in the programme (the European Commission, Managing Authorities 
at  national  and  regional  level,  coordination  bodies,  agencies).  This  has  resulted  in  an  efficient  coordination  and  decision-making  process  and  is 
perceived by stakeholders consulted for this study as having been one of the key success factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the operation.    

1.  ANPAL (Feb 2022), Il ‘New Skills Fund’  - Prospettive e prime evidenze, 1st Feb 2022. Retrieved 11/10/2022 from: https://www.anpal.gov.it/-

/fondo-nuove-competenze-ammesse-a-finanziamento-7.500-aziende-per-oltre-330mila-lavoratori 

2.  ANPAL 

(2020) 

461 
https://www.anpal.gov.it/documents/552016/880566/anlpa.ANPAL.Registro_Decreti%28R%29.0000461.04-11-2020.pdf/712a1fde-4878-
b264-1e2d-d7490791dd87?t=1604504150553 

04.11.2020, 

12/10/2022 

Direttoriale 

Retrieved 

Decreto 

del 

n. 

from: 

3.  Baptista, I., Marlier, E., Spasova, S., Peña-Casas, R., Fronteddu, B., Ghailani, D., Sabato, S. and Regazzoni, P. (2021), Social protection and 
inclusion  policy  responses  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  An  analysis  of  policies  in  35  countries.  European  Social  Policy  Network  (ESPN), 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 

487 ANPAL (2022). Il Fondo Nuove Competenze - Prospettive e prime evidenze. Available at: https://www.anpal.gov.it/-/fondo-nuove-competenze-ammesse-a-finanziamento-7.500-aziende-per-
oltre-330mila-lavoratori  
488 Ibid. 
489 For comparison, in 2021 24% of requests came from companies based in the southern regions, and 30% from the northern regions. In 2022, 25% of requests came from companies based in 
the southern regions and 26% from the northern regions. Data: ibid 
490 Ibid. 
491 Ibid. 

311 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.  Cerqua, A. and Di Stefano, R. (2022), When did coronavirus arrive in Europe?, Statistical Methods and Applications 31, 181–195 (2022). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-021-00568-4 

5.  Corti, F., Núñez Ferrer, J., Ruiz, T. and Regazzoni, P. (2021), Comparing and assessing recovery and resilience plans. A six country’s NRRP 

analysis. CEPS Working paper. 

6.  Desjardins, R. and Rubenson, K. (2011). An Analysis of Skill Mismatsch using Direct Measures of Skills. Paris:  OECD Education Working 

Paper No. 63.  

7.  European Commission. (2013). The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): Implications for education and training policies in Europe.; Desjardins, R. 
Issue.  https://www.oecd-

(2020).  PIAAC  Thematic  Review  on  Adult  Learning  (OECD  Education  Working  Papers  No.  223, 
ilibrary.org/content/paper/864d2484-en   

8. 

9. 

INPS 
https://www.inps.it/docallegatiNP/Mig/Dati_analisi_bilanci/Rapporti_annuali/XXI_Rapporto_Annuale/XXI_Rapporto_Annuale.pdf 

Conoscere 

Retrieved 

costruire 

(2022), 

11/10/2022 

futuro. 

paese 

per 

il 

il 

from: 

ISTAT  (2022),  Rapporto  annuale  2022  La  situazione  del  Paese.  Retrieved  11/10/2022  from:  https://www.istat.it/storage/rapporto-
annuale/2022/Rapporto_Annuale_2022.pdf  

10.  Jessoula M., Pavolini E., Raitano m. and Natili M. (2021).  Italy: COVID-19 impact on social protection and social inclusion policies, ESPN 

Thematic Report, European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Brussels: European Commission. 

11.  OECD (2020), Employment Outlook 2020: Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris 

12.  Spasova,  S.,  and  Regazzoni,  P.  (2022)  Income  protection  for  self-employed  and  non-standard  workers  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 

International Social Security Review, 75: 3– 24. 

13.  Interviews  should  be  referenced  as:  “Interview  conducted  with  a  representative  of  an  organisation/ institution  in  [add country  name],  [add 

month and year].  

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the national ESF Managing Authority (ANPAL) in Italy.  

312 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Latvia – Growth and Employment - ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI (2014LV16MAOP001)  

Qualitative case study: Improving the qualifications of medical and paramedical staff, in terms of Covid and any other health crisis492  

Qualitative case study: Support for medical practitioners who provide treatment for patients to prevent public health crises493 

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in the 
Member State 

Although  on  individual  level  the  direct  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  health  in  Latvia  (in  terms  of  mortality  rate)  is  below  EU  average  (as 
presented in the Final Report) (Annex 1 – Appendix 4), it has had a significantly negative impact at system level due to the long-lasting (pre-existing) 
unfavourable conditions related to healthcare personnel and infrastructure. Latvia has been one of the countries where the pandemic has amplified 
pre-existing inequalities, especially access to healthcare for people with chronic diseases, affecting elderly people in particular.  

The  COVID  pandemic  shed  light  on  the  severity  of  the  long-lasting  shortage  of  medical  personnel,494  especially  nurses,  and  overload  of  general 
practitioners (‘family doctors’). The shortage of healthcare personnel in Latvian regions which experienced an uneven distribution of health professionals 
was already addressed by specific objective (SO) 9.2.5. of the ESF Operational Programme before the pandemic. However, the pandemic situation 
shifted the distribution of patient flows between regional and multi-profile university hospitals in Riga, putting more strain on large university hospitals,495 
The dynamic of the overall flow of COVID-19 patients between April 2020 and September 2022 is included in the Figure below. This shows that first 
wave when the number of COVID patients with medium and medium to severe symptoms spiked was between December 2021 and May 2021, the 
second wave lasted between October and November 2021 and the third – February and March 2022. 

492 Uzlabot ārstniecības un ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju (COVID un citām veselības krīzēm) 
493 Atbalsts ārstniecības personām, kas nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības veselības krīžu situāciju novēršanai  
494 Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2016). A Qualitative Study on Health System Bottlenecks in Latvia. Available at: https://www.vmnvd.gov.lv/lv/media/293/download  
495 Interview with Responsible Ministry (of Health), September 2022. 

313 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 44: Number of patients with medium and moderate to severe course of COVID-19 in Latvia, April 2020 – 
September 2022496  

Source: Interactive infographic by the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 

According to the OECD, unmet healthcare needs in Latvia were among the highest in the EU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 
share of individuals reporting having forgone medical care during first 12 months of pandemic in Latvia was 29%, while the EU average was 21%.497 
Unmet needs are caused by high out-of-pocket expenditure and a benefits package that is comparatively narrow and limited by a quota system of 
public healthcare services. As a result, 15% of households experienced catastrophic spending (defined as household out-of-pocket spending exceeding 
40% of total household spending net of subsistence needs) on health.  

Alongside  hospitals,  the  workload  of  the  Emergency  Service  has  increased  significantly  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  This  was  caused  by  the 
decision of the government of Latvia in March 2020 to activate the State Disaster Medicine Plan, which stated that the Emergency Medical Service 
was in charge of managing the initial response to the outbreak. Emergency Medical Service teams were deployed to conduct testing of suspected 
cases and to transport patients to hospital if necessary. The Service was also tasked with monitoring and increasing hospital capacity by reducing 
unrelated and non-urgent treatments, and distributing personal protective equipment498. 

To increase the capacity of the healthcare workforce, extra overtime work was allowed as an exception for medical staff working in the Emergency 
Medical Service and inpatient care, supported by salary supplements funded from the state budget. Among other steps, private healthcare providers 
were involved in the provision of equipment and support for healthcare personnel. However, Latvia still struggled with material and staff shortages in 
the healthcare sector during the peak of the second wave of the pandemic.499 ESF funds under the CRII/ CRII+ were also mobilised to mitigate this 
impact. 

The general framework for state anti-crisis measures was established in the Law on measures to prevent and cope with the national threat and its 
consequences due to the spread of COVID-19500 (March, 2020), and later – in the Law on consequence management of COVID-19 infection501 and 

National and 
regional 

496 spkc.gov.lv (n.d.). Retrieved on 16 September 2022; regularly updated. Available at: https://www.spkc.gov.lv/lv/COVID-19-statistika#stacioneto-skaits-ar-apstiprinatu-COVID-19-infekciju 
497 OECD & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2021). State of Health in the EU: Latvia. Country Health Profile 2021. Available: 
https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/m/latvia-country-health-profile-2021  
498 Ibid.  

314 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

the COVID-19 Infection Control Act502 (August, 2020). Under this framework, a range of regulations were established and several substantive laws 
were amended (e.g., on budget etc.) for each particular type of measure. 

In general, the anti-crisis measures in healthcare were aimed at increasing the capacity of health care personnel both qualitatively (knowledge) and 
quantitatively (increasing the number of personnel, wages, adjusting hospitals infrastructure to care of COVID patients etc.). Support was provided by 
the state budget (from contingency funds, ~ EUR 549 million spent up to 31.12.2021.)503. This can be grouped into several key types of operations 
(while the full range of activities includes ~ 680 lines of support measures): 

 

Increasing the  hospital's  share  of  capital  of state-owned  public  hospitals  to  improve  their  infrastructure, purchase medical  equipment  and 
supplies; 

  Purchase of medical equipment and supplies for other (regional) public hospitals; 

 

Funding for increasing the number of intensive care beds; 

  Purchase of vaccines and related medical supplies, funding to increase vaccination coverage and improve public health and safety; 

 

Improving access to psychological support and mental health services for the Latvian population; 

  Compensation of increased workload (incl., overtime work) until 31.12.2020 and allowances between 01.01.2021-30.11.2021 for medical staff 
(incl., general practitioners) and other employees of the responsible authorities for work under conditions of increased risk and pressure of a 
public health emergency caused by the outbreak of and response to COVID-19; 

 

Funding to cover expenditure related with response to COVID-19 on the organisation and performance of laboratory tests; 

  Provision of rehabilitation after COVID-19. 

Two temporary amendments of laws were introduced for adjusting to shortages (and prevent potential shortages) of healthcare personnel: (1) extra 
overtime work was allowed and (2) the validity of the current registration or certificate of all medical practitioners and medical support persons was 
extended by six months (Clause #28 of the Law on the action to be taken by public authorities during the emergency situation related to the spread of 
COVID-19).504 

In addition, ESF funds under CRII/ CRII+ (see below both case studies) were aimed to support the above mentioned investments.505,506 

499 Ibid.  
500 likumi.lv (n.d.). Par valsts apdraudējuma un tā seku novēršanas un pārvarēšanas pasākumiem sakarā ar COVID-19 izplatību. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313373-par-valsts-
apdraudejuma-un-ta-seku-noversanas-un-parvaresanas-pasakumiem-sakara-ar-COVID-19-izplatibu  
501 likumi.lv (n.d.). COVID-19 infekcijas izplatības seku pārvarēšanas likums. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/315287-COVID-19-infekcijas-izplatibas-seku-parvaresanas-likums  
502 likumi.lv (n.d.). COVID-19 infekcijas izplatības pārvaldības likums. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/315278-COVID-19-infekcijas-izplatibas-parvaldibas-likums  
503 Review of all measures in healthcare supported by the state budget available: Ministry of Health (n.d.). “Piešķirto valsts budžeta līdzekļu sadalījums un izlietojums COVID-19 laikā”. 
[Breakdown and use of state budget allocations during COVID-19] Available at: https://www.vm.gov.lv/lv/pieskirto-valsts-budzeta-lidzeklu-sadalijums-un-izlietojums-COVID-19-laika  
504 likumi.lv (n.d.), Par valsts institūciju darbību ārkārtējās situācijas laikā saistībā ar Covid-19 izplatību. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313730-par-valsts-instituciju-darbibu-arkartejas-
situacijas-laika-saistiba-ar-COVID-19-izplatibu  
505 Later REACT-EU funding was used for further address the needs of the healthcare sector in Latvia.  Under REACT-EU funding in healthcare, investments: (1) addressed challenges of 
burnout by providing an incentive system for the Emergency Medical Service staff working in COVID-19 conditions (SO 14.1.3: Health sector recovery measures (ESF) of OP), and (2) improve 
capacity of regional and university-type hospitals to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare facilities, and to prepare these facilities to be continuously prepared for other 
emergencies by improving health infrastructure and material and technical support (under SO 13.1.5: Health sector recovery measures (ERDF) of OP). 
506 Latvijas Republikas Finanšu ministrija (2014). Darbības programma “Izaugsme un nodarbinātība”. Available at: https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/Planosana/dp_konsolideta_versija.pdf 

315 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of 
key 
information 
about the 
ESF/ FEAD 
interventions 
implemented 
in response 
to COVID-19 

In implementing these measures, Latvia has used CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities, e.g. Article 25a (2): Reallocation between Funds and Article 25a (5): Waiver 
of thematic concentration. Four ESF interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ package were found. Three have been implemented in the past through 
the ESF, but also new ones have been introduced that had not been implemented before the pandemic: 

 

Three operations in the area of social inclusion (TO 9iv: access to services) with a focus on healthcare and disease prevention: two aimed to 
increase access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality healthcare services through support to healthcare personnel; one measure aimed 
to improve access to health promotion and disease prevention services; 

  One operation in the area of education (TO_10.iii), aiming to enhance equal access to lifelong learning. 

The new COVID-19 CV31 indicator (Number of participants supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic) was used 
to monitor the implementation of the operations under CRII/CRII+. This indicator was acknowledged as relevant for Latvia 507, including its coherence 
to indicators used in this area of operations before the pandemic. 

Brief description of the selected operation 

Two interrelated operations were selected as good practices: 

1.  Existing ESF operation (SO 9.2.6.) was adjusted and the title was amended to “Uzlabot ārstniecības un ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju (COVID un 

citām veselības krīzēm)” [Improve the qualifications of medical and medical support staff (for COVID and other health crises]. Originally, SO 9.2.6. was 
developed for continuing healthcare personnel education, including due to the requirement to prove their further education every five years by passing re-
registration and re-certification.508  

Under CRII/ CRII+, pre-existing support to training was supplemented as follows: “in health areas related to the COVID-19 virus, as well as other public health crises, on 
the basis of fact that COVID-19 affects many organ systems, could be considered a cross-cutting disease and treatment practices in many healthcare areas have to be 
adjusted to the care of COVID-19 patients. According to the National OP509 and Regulations of Cabinet of Ministers (No. 718/ 8.11.2016.)510, the adjusted scope of the 
operation is as follows: 

  Objectives: in light of the rapid development of medical science, improving the skills of medical and medical support staff in priority areas such as cardiovascular, 

 

oncology, paediatric, perinatal and neonatal, and mental health, as well as COVID-19 infection and other health areas related to the public health crisis 
Target groups: healthcare personnel - medical and medical support staff, social workers and pharmaceutical care providers: 
o  Targeted: 28 000–30 000 healthcare service providers up to 31.12.2023; additional information indicates that some specific targets include: 80 nurses trained 

specifically for intensive care of COVID-19 patients and 100 persons who renewed their registration as medical practitioners;511 

o  Values achieved by 31 August 2022:  the total number of trained personnel is 29 760 participants, but information under specific indicators includes 43 

nurses trained for intensive-care for COVID-19 patients and 99 persons who renewed their registration as medical practitioners; 

  Coverage: National 
 

Type: adjusted operation 

507 Interviews with representatives of the Managing Authority and Responsible Ministry (of Health), September 2022.  
508 See Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2016). A Qualitative Study on Health System Bottlenecks in Latvia. Available at: https://www.vmnvd.gov.lv/lv/media/293/download 
509 Latvijas Republikas Finanšu ministrija (2014). Darbības programma “Izaugsme un nodarbinātība”. Available at: https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/Planosana/dp_konsolideta_versija.pdf 
510 Likumi.lv (n.d.). ‘Darbības programmas "Izaugsme un nodarbinātība" 9.2.6. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Uzlabot ārstniecības un ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju" īstenošanas 
noteikumi’n. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/286413-darbibas-programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-9-2-6-specifiska-atbalsta-merka-uzlabot-arstniecibas-un-arstniecibas-atbalsta [with 
amendments of 17.08.2021.] 
511 Interviews with representatives of the Ministry of Health, September 2022.  

316 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Total budget: 14 683 597 EUR (ESF – 12 481 057 EUR) as approved in August 2020. The budget and number of targeted persons receiving support under SO 
9.2.6. was decreased in August 2020. 

2.  New  operation  (SO  9.2.7.)  “Atbalsts  ārstniecības  personām,  kas  nodrošina  pacientu  ārstēšanu  sabiedrības  veselības  krīžu  situāciju  novēršanai”  [Support  for 
medical personnel who provide treatment of patients to prevent public health crises] was introduced with respective amendments of National OP and Regulations 
of Cabinet of Ministers (No. 802/ 17.12.2020.)512. These documents define objectives, target groups, and budget provided below. Introduction of (SO 9.2.7.) was 
fully supported by CRII/ CRII+. The operation is aligned with the pre-existing operation SO 9.2.5., aiming to attract of healthcare personnel in regions before 
pandemic. The pre-existing operation excluded Riga city and multi-profile university hospitals, as well as did not address specific needs raised by COVID pandemic. 

  Objectives: support for healthcare providers treating patients to prevent public health crises, including ensuring adequate numbers of healthcare staff in the public 

sector; ensuring practice exchanges between general practitioners – those on retirement to successors. 

 

Target groups:  

o  Targeted: healthcare personnel  – 270 persons (230 professionals in hospitals and 40 general practitioners in Riga) who should work in the sector 6 
months after receiving support up to 31.12.2023; in practice, the attracted personnel need to stay in public healthcare services for at least 5 years;  
o  Values achieved by August 2022: 233 persons (229 professionals in hospitals and 4 general practitioners in Riga); it is expected that the target will be 

fully reached by May-June 2023. 

  Coverage: Regional, largely focused on capital city – Riga (due to the increased workload experienced by large, multi-profile clinical university hospitals in Riga 

when dealing with COVID patients). 

Type: new operation 

 
  Total budget: 3 million EUR (ESF – 2,55 million); by August 2022: ~ 1,85 million spent 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

For the operation aiming to improve the qualifications of medical and medical support staff  for COVID and other health crises (SO 9.2.6), the target 
groups remained the same as before, but new needs were identified. At the start of COVID-19, the need was identified for medical staff involved in 
patient  care  to  acquire  COVID-19  related  knowledge  in  their  own  profile,  especially  in  intensive  care.  Accordingly,  stakeholders’  working  groups 
identified the need to broaden the range of training topics considering the scope of ESF interventions (investment in training of people and restriction 
to increase and pay wages directly). As the workload of healthcare staff increased, the challenge was to support their motivation to combine work with 
learning. Adapting training to a distance/ online learning format also took some time. 

For the operation aiming to  support for medical personnel who provide treatment of patients to prevent public health crises (SO 9.2.7), successive 
stakeholders’ working groups were organised with the representatives of various associations of health professionals (doctors, nurses associations 
etc.),  the  management  of  large  university  hospitals  and  representatives  of  health sector  training  institutions  to  identify priority  categories  of  health 
practitioners and potential sources from where these workers could be recruited, as well as what training under SO 9.2.6 should be provided to them 
as a priority in order to be able to further participate in SO 9.2.7.  

Target groups: all healthcare personnel involved in the care of COVID-19 patients, especially, doctors' assistants (at the Emergency Medical Service), 
nurses and nursing assistants. Potential resources of staff were identified among senior students of medical college and residential doctors, as well as 
former  healthcare  personnel  –  persons  who  have  obtained  relevant  medical  education,  but  have  left  the  profession  (both  keeping  their  record  as 
healthcare staff in the Register and not) or left working in Latvia (moved abroad). 

512 Likumi.lv (n.d.). Darbības programmas "Izaugsme un nodarbinātība" 9.2.7. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Atbalsts ārstniecības personām, kas nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības 
veselības krīžu situāciju novēršanai un 14.1.3. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Atveseļošanas pasākumi veselības nozarē"" īstenošanas noteikumi. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/319779-darbibas-
programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-9-2-7-specifiska-atbalsta-merka-atbalsts-arstniecibas-personam-kas-nodrosina [need to switch to original version] 

317 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Key criteria to identify target groups:  

  Statistics on the number of nurses per 10 000 inhabitants (total and in Riga), distribution of nurses by age groups (a gap of 1500 nurses in 

hospitals was identified)513; 

  Number of vacancies and required qualifications in key healthcare areas (Emergency Medical Service and hospitals); 

  Distribution of general practitioners by age groups in Riga and the availability of general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in Riga: 

130 general practitioners of retirement age would work in Riga up to the end of 2020514;  

  Records of registration of healthcare staff in the Register of Healthcare personnel supervised by the Health Inspectorate;  

  Registration questionnaire of healthcare personnel who have expressed their willingness to be involved in COVID-19 patient care.  

Challenges: a need for healthcare personnel, especially, nurses, is higher than supported by operation support for medical personnel who provide 
treatment of patients to prevent public health crises (SO 9.2.7) (and also the pre-existing SO 9.2.5.), but the problem cannot be resolved by allocation 
of larger funding. The main reason is long-lasting shortages in human resources in general and those who might be involved in the care of COVID-19 
patients, so further investments are needed for reaching sufficient number of healthcare personnel. 

Key challenges 
and factors 

CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  facilitated  a  rapid  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  by  enabling  ESF  funds  to  support  actions  aimed  at  increasing  the 
accessibility of affordable and sustainable healthcare personnel. Although the overall needs of the healthcare sector in Latvia are higher, the ESF 
mobilisation  made  it  possible  to  support  the  recruitment  of  the  professions  most  needed  to  mitigate  the  health  crisis  that  COVID-19  caused. 
Stakeholders consulted for this study indicated that possible actions were identified early on, based on information related to the CRII/ CRII+ package, 
which  enabled  consultations  with  stakeholders  on  the  most  crucial  needs  of  the  healthcare  sector  as  early  as  March-April,  2020.  The  package  of 
proposals developed (together with other sectors) and the corresponding amendments to the OP were approved by the government on 30 June 2020; 
the amendments were approved by the European Commission quickly, in less than a month (on 22 July 2020)515. 

An important support for the rapid preparation of the necessary operations enabled by the coronavirus response initiatives was the pre-existence of 
similar operations: (1) for SO 9.2.6, the range of training topics had to be extended; and (2) for SO 9.2.7, the experience of operation SO 9.2.5 (attraction 
of medical staff to the regions) was used to develop the SO 9.2.7 framework. Here, the speed of receipt of applications requesting support, the capacity 
of implementing organisations to process the applications received, the actual amount of support granted which was observed for operation SO 9.2.5 
were used to calculate an adequate scope for operation SO 9.2.7, including the target group to be reached and the amount of funding to be requested. 

Access to 
funding  

The CRII and CRII+ flexibilities enabled the financing of the new measure of SO 9.2.7 (which was not previously planned in OP) and adjusting of SO 
9.2.6  for  emerging new  needs  under  COVID-19  pandemic.  Initially,  the health  sector  received  substantial support  from  the  national  budget.  In  the 
meantime, in response to CRII/ CRII+ activities, proposals were made to amend the ESF OP so that those activities for which ESF funding could be 
mobilised would be supported from the ESF.  

Overall, Latvia chose to follow the normal approval procedure for ESF activities to be sure of their eligibility, and the initial support from the national 
budget eased the pressure for urgent amendments to the OP. This approach differs substantially from the one taken by the Latvian government during 

513 See: MK 07.08.2017. rīkojums Nr. 394 “Par konceptuālo ziņojumu "Par veselības aprūpes sistēmas reformu" [Cabinet of Ministers Order No 394 of 07.08.2017 "On the Conceptual Report "On 
the Health Care System Reform""], point 145. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/292718-par-konceptualo-zinojumu-par-veselibas-aprupes-sistemas-reformu-  
514 Initial Impact Assessment Report (annotation) of the draft Cabinet of Ministers Regulation "Preliminary Impact Assessment Report of the Specific Support Objective 9.2.7 of the Operational 
Programme "Growth and Employment" "Support to medical practitioners providing treatment to patients to prevent public health crises" 
515 Esfondi.lv (2020). Eiropas Komisija apstiprina Latvijas priekšlikumus ES fondu finansējuma pārdalēm COVID-19 seku mazināšanai. Available at: https://www.esfondi.lv/jaunumi/eiropas-
komisija-apstiprina-latvijas-priekslikumus  

318 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

the 2008-2009 economic crisis. At that time, the government chose to reduce public debt and the availability of ESF funds for various sectors was 
postponed. 

It should be noted that in the 2007-2013 programming period, ESF support to the health sector was limited and included activities related to continuing 
training of medical staff.516 In the 2014-2020 programming period (including the extension 2020-2023), ESF support to the increase of capacity of 
human resources in healthcare was significantly extended. Major investments in increase  of capacity of healthcare sector specific to the 2014-2020 
period were a precondition that enabled the effective use of CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities to support the sector.  In the absence of pre-existing measures, 
CRII  investments in  the  health  sector might not  have  been  supported  in  Latvia  due  to time  investments  and  the  administrative  burden  involved  in 
developing entirely new activities.  

The  stakeholders  consulted  for  this  study  consider  that  the  COVID-19  specific  indicators  proposed  by  the  Commission517  continued  the  previous 
tradition of indicators used for the monitoring and evaluation of the ESF’s impact in Latvia. Therefore, the consulted stakeholders generally perceive 
these as effective to monitor the implementation of the operations under CRII/CRII+. However, data for the reporting of these indicators is more easily 
collected  for the monitoring and evaluation of operation SO 9.2.7. activities. Here, the Regulations of Cabinet of Ministers, which provide the framework 
for the implementation of the operation SO 9.2.7, give the values of the CV30 and CV31 indicators  to be achieved. In Latvia, the CVST indicator is 
supplemented by national indicators and their values so that participants benefit from support not only in short-time work arrangements, but also in the 
long-run  (i.e.,  a  five  year  period).  For  the  adjusted  operation  SO  9.2.6,  the  Regulations  of  Cabinet  of  Ministers  have  not  established  indicators 
corresponding to CV30 and CV31. 

According to the stakeholders consulted for this study, the proposal to use these indicators came at a later stage, so Latvia needed to adjust their 
reports to them. For operation SO 9.2.7, the aggregation of data was simple as this was a new operation. Here, the indicators allow effective monitoring 
and evaluation. For operation SO 9.2.6, this proposal introduces additional administrative burden due to the need to separate beneficiaries under the 
CRII/ CRII+ package. The stakeholders indicated the challenge came with the fact that the COVID-19 indicators were not introduced in the CRII/ CRII+ 
regulations, but came later. Hence, the difficulty was to collect the data for the indicators once the operation had already started. However, organisations 
implementing SO 9.2.6 try to collect these data identifying relevance of training by curriculum content and counting corresponding participants.  Hence, 
the introduction of indicators together with the CRII/ CRII+ regulations would have facilitated their use since the beginning of the operations. These 
data are collected internally by the Ministry of Health but not available publicly (as in the case of the indicators of operation SO 9.2.7). 

Drawing on the above, the CRII and CRII+ package enabled targeted support in an area where the investment needs were not previously identified, 
especially, in the case of operation SO 9.2.7. (Support for medical personnel who provide treatment of patients to prevent public health crises). Without 
CRII/ CRII+ to provide support, this would not have been possible. The state budget support was based on the use of existing healthcare workforce, 
while  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  encouraged  the  search  for  new  resources  from  which  to  attract  healthcare  personnel.  As  a  result,  the 
combination of SO 9.2.6. (training) and SO 9.2.7. (support of healthcare personnel) activities allowed to re-attract to the sector medical staff who had 
left  the  medical profession and  enable  earlier  involvement of  medical students  in  healthcare  provision  by  offering  targeted  COVID-19  training and 
immediate support. 

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

Overall 
assessment  

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a rapid 
response to the 

Stakeholder interviews indicate that Latvia used CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities (Article 25a (2) and Article 25a (5)) but other measures remained as usual. 
Although there has not been any cost-benefit analysis conducted so far, evidence from the interviews suggest the flexibility to reallocate funds for 
adjusting operation SO 9.2.6. and the introduction of the new measure SO 9.2.7. through the OP enabled the support of the national crisis response. 
The elaboration and administration of amendments in the ESF OP was provided by the same organisations – the Managing Authority, the Responsible 

516 See description of the operation 3.2 of the Operational Programme “Human Resources and Employment, 2007-2013”. Available: https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/04-
kohezijas_politikas_nakotne/dp_aktivitates/1dp/FMProgr_1DP_30092011.pdf  
517 European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

319 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

COVID-19 crisis 
through ESF  

Ministry (Health) and implementing organisations, so no additional administrative costs occurred. In addition, experience in the implementation of SO 
9.2.5. (having resulted in ~ 800 supported healthcare professionals) was taken into account into design of SO 9.2.7.  

Stakeholders also emphasised that the benefits of timely access to affordable health services have been  facilitated by the implemented operations – 
SO 9.2.6. in improving knowledge and SO 9.2.7. in increasing number of healthcare staff, thus making health services affordable. However, it is difficult 
to  assess  costs  and  benefits  in  comparison  to  ESF  implementation  without  CRII/CRII+  provisions  and  identify  their  values  for  different  types  of 
institutions or organisations. Interviewed stakeholders indicated that the calculation would have to include the cost-effectiveness of the medical service 
provided, future complications avoided or an estimation of harm if the person does not receive adequate treatment, etc., parameters that are generally 
difficult to assess. In addition, staff who received support from these two measures could receive support from the state budget (funding for wages of 
healthcare personnel) that were not covered by the ESF.  This complementarity may reinforce positive effects at the individual level. 

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

In interviews, both the Managing Authority, the Responsible Ministry (Health) and the organisations implementing operations acknowledged that the 
operations were initially planned within the ESF framework - investment in human resources, but not to support salaries or services which were also 
very crucial issues in the COVID-19 context. The evidence indicates that government stakeholders were aware from the outset  about which actions 
should be supported under CRII/CRII+. Within this scope, the adjusted or new measures enabled by the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to 
the general objectives of the ESF and needs on the ground, supporting training and the attraction of healthcare personnel at university hospitals and 
the  Emergency  Medical  Service  in  Riga.  To  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  operations,  support  for  wages  for  various  types  of  staff  (healthcare 
professionals, responsible authorities in healthcare and organisations implementing actions) was ensured from the state budget, but later – also from 
REACT-EU specifically to the staff of Emergency Medical Service. 

However, some measures were adjusted during the implementation of the operations at organisational levels. More evidence is available with regard 
to SO 9.2.7. General practitioners of retirement age, who were one of the sub-target groups of the operation, did not use their e-mails, so initially the 
implementing organisation failed in the delivery of information about opportunities to receive support under the operation. To solve this gap, the PR 
specialist of the SO 9.2.5. operation (which had been implemented before the pandemic with national funding) who had experience in similar type 
actions  in  regions,  was  attracted  to  convey  information  to  the  general  practitioners  of  the  target  group  during  a  personal  conversation.  However, 
comparing with the target group of hospital staff that benefited from the operation, the response of general practitioners of retirement age in Riga has 
so far been low (4 out of 40), which calls for further assessment of the barriers to participation in the support measure. However, the objective to attract 
general practitioners in Riga is still relevant in the Latvian context, so only adjustments on implementation level might be needed.  

Both operations (SO 9.2.6. and SO 9.2.7.) were (and still are) relevant to the needs of the target groups and the healthcare  sector as the human 
resource allocation was based on a needs-assessment process both in the area of further training and support while working in the sector. Needs-
assessment in the area of further training (SO 9.2.6) included the evaluation of work tasks of mid-level personnel who takes care of patients and specific 
training needed to provide COVID-19 related care. Representatives of professional associations (e.g., the Latvian Nurse Association) – were involved 
in the needs-assessment. Needs-assessment in the area of support of healthcare personnel (SO 9.2.7) included consultations with various stakeholders 
– employers, educators and government institutions, and assessment of the willingness of non-practising medical staff to return to healthcare was 
measured by a survey. All these activities enabled the design and implementation of measures corresponding to the needs of sector. 

Both cases (operations SO 9.2.6. and 9.2.7.) are coherent with and complementary to ESF initiatives implemented in healthcare sector before the 
COVID-19  crisis.  As mentioned  above,  operation  SO  9.2.6. was  adjusted  to  COVID-19  by  extending  the  issues to be addressed  in  the  training of 
medical professionals,  including a particular focus on the needs that re-emerged in the context of COVID-19. Accordingly, within the framework of 
continuing medical education existing in Latvia, the CRII/ CRII+ allowed the adaptation of medical training to the current needs of the sector. Similarly, 
operation SO 9.2.7. was built on the experience of attracting healthcare staff to the regions (under SO 9.2.5), which had already shown good results 

320 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

by the time CRII/CRII+ was introduced. In fact, operation SO 9.2.5 had timely averted a potential crisis in the regions, and the CRII/ CRII+ support was 
fully redirected to the implementation of similar activities in university hospitals and to support medical staff in Riga. 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Both operations (SO 9.2.6. and 9.2.7.) are coherent with and complementary to national measures implemented in healthcare sector during the COVID-
19 pandemic. As mentioned above, representatives of responsible institutions consulted for this study indicated that the quantitative targets of CRII 
operations, without further national budget support to the wages of healthcare professionals, might have been reduced (e.g. in relation to attracting and 
supporting healthcare personnel and the pace of their recruitment). To ensure that this potential obstacle related to sufficient funding was diminished 
as much as possible, an increase of wages was provided from the state budget (and later – also from REACT-EU, see below).  

National measures were also focused on the adjustment of infrastructure to the care needs of COVID-19 patients, the provision of medical equipment, 
means of personal protection, protection from burnout, etc. Their aim was to provide a safe working environment and sufficient equipment for medical 
staff. Here, no overlaps or inconsistencies were observed. Stakeholders interviewed for this study emphasised that in the planning process, particular 
attention was paid to ensuring that each operation/ action had its own objective and that there were no overlaps. For example, initially, operation SO 
9.2.7 was planned to be implemented under the pre-existing SO 9.2.5 framework, but after assessing the specificity and needs of the target group and 
the geographical coverage of the operation, it was decided to implement it as a separate operation.  

Coherence with 
other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Both operations (SO 9.2.6. and 9.2.7.) are coherent with and complementary to other EU funding mechanisms investing in healthcare sector during 
the  COVID-19  pandemic.  According  to  the  ESF  OP,518  since  September  2021,  the  implementation  of  operation  SO  9.2.7  was  supported  by  the 
implementation of the new measure of SO 14.1.3, funded by REACT-EU. Operations SO 9.2.6. and 9.2.7. allowed to ensure support to training and 
attraction of workplace to hospitals, while the operation supported by REACT-EU was aimed to provide special support to wages of the staff of the 
Emergency Medical Service, which had additional responsibilities in managing the response to the outbreak of COVID-19, including testing against 
COVID-19 at mobile sites, airports, shelters and social care facilities, and providing care and transport to hospitals for patients infected with COVID-19 
when the condition is critical and symptoms are severe. The workload of Emergency Medical Service staff increased also due to high number of sick 
or self-isolated staff that caused additional strain on the Service, thus, increase of motivation and prevention of burnout were needed. Besides REACT-
EU actions under ESF, additional measures were also introduced by REACT-EU actions under ERDF aimed to adjust facilities of large hospitals to the 
special needs of care of COVID patients. Before, these measures were supported by the state budget. 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

In the Latvian healthcare sector, ESF under CRII/ CRII+ introduced initiatives which supported actions within a wider anti-crisis response context, with 
main contribution given by the national budget and REACT-EU. As reported by the interviewees, the CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities (1) allowed the reallocation 
of available funds under Article 25a (2), (2) facilitated a change of thinking about sources of healthcare professionals, and (3) allowed to adjust training 
of healthcare staff to rapidly changed needs for knowledge. On the last two issues, interviewees emphasised that the contribution was (and still is) 
significant despite the relatively limited budget allocated for the operations (especially, SO 9.2.7.). However, as mentioned before, the budget for the 
SO 9.2.7. was calculated based on capacity of organisations implementing activities and number of potential beneficiaries, so the scope of operation 
is deemed relevant to the given circumstances by the consulted stakeholders.  

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 
organisations 
and 

The early results are more visible for operation SO 9.2.7. (support for medical personnel who provide treatment of patients) as this is a new and highly 
demanded measure introduced as the result of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities. Altogether, 233 persons of 270 targeted have been supported by August 2022, 
including 229 professionals out of 230 targeted in hospitals. Thus, this part of operation has timely results as the most severe increase of COVID-19 
patients  was  observed  between  October  2021  and  May  2022.  The  following  measures  have  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the 
operation: 

518 Latvijas Republikas Finanšu ministrija (2014). Darbības programma “Izaugsme un nodarbinātība”. Available at: https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/Planosana/dp_konsolideta_versija.pdf 

321 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

participants 
and stories of 
change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

 

 

 

the  ability  of  the  different  stakeholders  of  the  healthcare  sector  to  work  together  effectively  in  defining  the  objectives,  target  groups  of 
interventions and their specific needs for training to be involved into care of COVID-19 patients;  

various approaches used to identify potential human resources to attract to care of COVID-19 patients being in initial medicine education or 
working outside the sector; 

the individual approach to professionals (medical students, professionals who have left industry or work abroad) expressing an interest to be 
involved into care of COVID-19 patients by investigating their needs, provision of information, motivation and personal contacts. 

As indicated previously, the achieved results of SO 9.2.7. in support of knowledge exchange and transfer of medical practice for general practitioners 
at retirement age are lower – 4 GPs out of 40 targeted by August 2022. 

As the result of training provided under SO 9.2.6, the organisations implementing the operation emphasised that 99 healthcare professionals have 
returned to the sector and will work in provision of public services at least five years. The total number of healthcare professionals trained in health 
areas related to the COVID-19 are not available at the time of the drafting of this report. 

At EU level, two important lessons were noted by consulted stakeholders: (1) the introduction of flexibilities in ESF funding, enabling the adjustment of 
target groups or operations to rapidly changing needs of services (including the healthcare sector), especially, in terms of training staff, and (2) reduced 
response time from the European Commission: documents submitted were processed within significantly shorter timeframes, which made the use of 
the ESF more efficient and access to funding more rapid. In addition, earlier discussions and agreement (involving key actors at EU and national level) 
about the monitoring and evaluation of operations introduced in crisis situations could facilitate a more in-depth understanding of their impact.  

At national level, the experience of the introduction of temporary amendments in regulations, extending deadlines for fulfilling particular requirements 
(e.g., the extension of the validity of the current registration or certificate of medical practitioners) has been already used in attracting medical personnel 
from Ukraine to the Latvian healthcare sector. Another long-lasting contribution has been made in increasing the readiness of healthcare professionals 
and other stakeholders (both organisational and in terms of training and knowledge) in tackling potential health crises in future. 

At healthcare sector level, establishing cooperation networks and value of efficient consultation involving relevant stakeholders increased the accuracy 
of targets and their correspondence to the sector’s actual needs. As a result, the achievement of the objectives and the use of ESF funds were simplified 
as a result of the coronavirus response initiatives (alongside other initiatives), as no further adjustments was needed. The  results of SO 9.2.7 have 
evidenced that the design and implementation of actions focusing on target group needs may have good results in terms of re-attraction of healthcare 
personnel who had previously left the medical profession. 

1.  Baltic 

Institute  of  Social  Sciences 
https://www.vmnvd.gov.lv/lv/media/293/download  

(2016).  A  Qualitative  Study  on  Health  System  Bottlenecks 

in  Latvia.  Available: 

2.  Cabinet of Ministers (2016). Regulations of Cabinet of Ministers # 718/ 8.11.2016. “Darbības programmas "Izaugsme un nodarbinātība" 9.2.6. 
specifiskā  atbalsta  mērķa  "Uzlabot  ārstniecības  un  ārstniecības  atbalsta  personāla  kvalifikāciju"  īstenošanas  noteikumi”  [Rules  for  the 
implementation of the specific support objective 9.2.6 "Improving the qualifications of medical and medical support staff" of the Operational 
Programme  "Growth  and  Employment"].  Available:  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/286413-darbibas-programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-9-2-6-
specifiska-atbalsta-merka-uzlabot-arstniecibas-un-arstniecibas-atbalsta 

322 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

3.  Cabinet  of  Ministers  (2017). Ministru  Kabineta  07.08.2017.  rīkojums  Nr.  394  “Par  konceptuālo  ziņojumu "Par  veselības  aprūpes  sistēmas 
reformu””  [Cabinet  of  Ministers  Order  #  394/  07.08.2017  "On  the  Conceptual  Report  "On  the  Health  Care  System  Reform"”].  Available: 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/292718-par-konceptualo-zinojumu-par-veselibas-aprupes-sistemas-reformu-  

4.  Cabinet  of  Ministers  (2020). Regulations  of  Cabinet  of  Ministers  #  802/  17.12.2020.  “Darbības  programmas  "Izaugsme  un nodarbinātība" 
9.2.7.  specifiskā  atbalsta  mērķa  "Atbalsts  ārstniecības  personām,  kas  nodrošina  pacientu  ārstēšanu  sabiedrības  veselības  krīžu  situāciju 
novēršanai  un  14.1.3.  specifiskā  atbalsta  mērķa  "Atveseļošanas  pasākumi  veselības  nozarē""  īstenošanas  noteikumi”  [Rules  for  the 
implementation of the specific support objective 9.2.7 "Support to medical practitioners providing treatment to patients to prevent public health 
crises  and  specific  support  objective  14.1.3  "Recovery  measures  in  the  health  sector""  of  the  Operational  Programme  "Growth  and 
Employment"].  Available:  https://likumi.lv/ta/id/319779-darbibas-programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-9-2-7-specifiska-atbalsta-merka-
atbalsts-arstniecibas-personam-kas-nodrosina  

5.  Ministry  of  Finance  (2011).  Darbības  programma  “Cilvēkresursi  un  nodarbinātība”.  [Operational  Programme  “Human  Resources  and 
https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/04-

Available: 

Employment, 
kohezijas_politikas_nakotne/dp_aktivitates/1dp/FMProgr_1DP_30092011.pdf  

2007-2013”]. 

6.  Ministry of Finance (2014). Darbības programma “Izaugsme un nodarbinātība” [Operational Programme "Growth and Employment"]. W ith 

amendments. Available: https://www.esfondi.lv/upload/Planosana/dp_konsolideta_versija.pdf  

7.  Ministry of Health (n.d.). “Piešķirto valsts budžeta līdzekļu sadalījums un izlietojums COVID-19 laikā”. [Breakdown and use of state budget 
allocations during COVID-19] Available: https://www.vm.gov.lv/lv/pieskirto-valsts-budzeta-lidzeklu-sadalijums-un-izlietojums-COVID-19-laika 

8.  Ministry of Health (03.12.2020). Ministru kabineta noteikumu projekta „Darbības programmas „Izaugsme un nodarbinātība” 9.2.7. specifiskā 
atbalsta  mērķa  „Atbalsts  ārstniecības  personām,  kas  nodrošina  pacientu  ārstēšanu  sabiedrības  veselības  krīžu  situāciju  novēršanai” 
sākotnējās  ietekmes  novērtējuma  ziņojums  (anotācija)  [Initial  Impact  Assessment  Report  (annotation)  of  the  draft  Cabinet  of  Ministers 
Regulation  "Preliminary  Impact  Assessment  Report  of  the  Specific  Support  Objective  9.2.7  of  the  Operational  Programme  "Growth  and 
Employment" "Support to medical practitioners providing treatment to patients to prevent public health crises"]. 

9.  OECD  &  European  Observatory  on  Health  Systems  and  Policies  (2021).  State  of  Health  in  the  EU:  Latvia.  Country  Health  Profile  2021. 

Available: https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/m/latvia-country-health-profile-2021  

10.  Saeima (2020). Likums “Par valsts institūciju darbību ārkārtējās situācijas laikā saistībā ar COVID-19 izplatību” [Law on the action to be taken 
by public authorities during the emergency situation related to the spread of COVID-19]. Available: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/313730-par-valsts-
instituciju-darbibu-arkartejas-situacijas-laika-saistiba-ar-COVID-19-izplatibu  

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance in Latvia. 

323 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Luxembourg – FEAD Operational Programme (2014LU05FMOP001)  

Qualitative case study: Food aid and/or basic material assistance (Aide alimentaire et/ou assistance matérielle de base) 

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in 
Luxembourg 

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted food security and over 90% of European Food Banks experienced an increase in demand for emergency food 
assistance.519 Luxembourg was in a fortunate situation at the start of the pandemic by comparison. It entered 2020 with its FEAD food product stocks 
full, meaning it was able to handle the early supply shortages of the pandemic very well.520  This was important, as, due to being a small country with 
no local food production, it could have been severely affected by COVID-19 supply shortages.  

However,  as  in  many  countries,  lockdown  measures  affected  everyday  economic  life  in  Luxembourg,  as  well  as  voluntary  activities,  such  as  the 
distribution of food products to those in need. Overall, across Europe, analysis indicates that, despite the social restrictions and other challenges of the 
pandemic, food banks were able to redistribute a significantly higher amount of food, through organisational innovations.521 The same has been true 
for  Luxembourg,  especially  in  the  context  of  this  FEAD  case  study,  where  implementing organisations  came  up  with  new  ways  to  ensure socially 
vulnerable people got access to the help they needed. Notably, only three out of the 16 social groceries  and ‘banque alimentaire’ that make up the 
National Group for FEAD in Luxembourg had to close during the first three lockdown months (they re-opened in July 2020), , something stakeholders 
interviewed were very proud of.522 

From February 2020 to September 2022, there was a 6.3% increase in social benefit recipient numbers in Luxembourg (compared to an EU average 
of 3.6%).523 Despite being a wealthy country, Luxembourg has many vulnerable people living or working there. In fact, the cost of living has been 
steadily increasing over the past years, and in 2019, Luxembourg recorded the highest increase in the EU of the monetary poverty gap for the working-
age population living in households with very low work intensity.524 This is because households have high levels of debt compared to their incomes, 
with mortgages (often due to housing costs) making up around 80% of household debt in 2019.525 A 2019 report indicated that this increase in debt 
could mean that lower income households would struggle in the event of an economic downturn.526  

This proved to be the case during the COVID-19 crisis, as shown by a report done by Caritas. Out of the 445 requests through their Corona Helpline 
between  7  April  and  31  August  2020,  67%  of  those asking  for  help  had  either never  asked  for social  assistance before  or  had  not  needed social 
assistance in the last 12 months.527 Furthermore, a majority of these cases (93.3%) mentioned concerns over the cost of living and housing.528 

519 FEBA (2020). European Food Banks in a post COVID-19 Europe, Interim report (2022), p.22. 
520 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022.  
521 FEBA (2020) European Food Banks in a post COVID-19 Europe, Interim report (2022), p.22. 
522 Interview with Red Cross and Caritas, conducted in 2022. 
523 Monitoring report on the employment and social situation following the COVID-19 outbreak (Winter 2021-2022).  
524 ESPN (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Luxembourg 
525 European Commission (2019). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT- Country Report Luxembourg 2019- Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  EUROPEAN  COUNCIL,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE  EUROPEAN  CENTRAL  BANK  AND  THE  EUROGROUP  2019  European  Semester:  Assessment  of 
progress on structural reforms, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, SWD(2019) 1015 final. Available 
at: https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-luxembourg_en.pdf 
526 Ibid.  
527 Caritas.lu (2020). Available at :https://www.caritas.lu/sites/default/files/revendications_caritas_luxembourg_version_definitive-20201008.pdf  
528 Caritas.lu (2020). Available at :https://www.caritas.lu/sites/default/files/revendications_caritas_luxembourg_version_definitive-20201008.pdf  

324 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The cost of living in Luxembourg also affected non-EU migrants in an irregular situation who were particularly exposed to the COVID-19 crisis due to 
being more heavily exposed to the risk of poverty in general.529 Non-EU migrants in an irregular situation were particularly affected by the pandemic, 
as due to their irregular legal status they could not access any of the general social security measures in place in Luxembourg during the pandemic 
(discussed below). In addition, these irregular migrants could not leave Luxembourg due to the lockdown travel restrictions; they were thus faced with 
these high costs of living without support at the onset of the pandemic.530 

National and 
regional 
measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

Luxembourg has undertaken several national measures to counter the effects of the pandemic, particularly to continue to facilitate social inclusion. The 
cost of living in Luxembourg has already been mentioned as a key concern for many inhabitants of the country, with house prices and rent being very 
high for many people relative to their income. Due to loss of work and uncertainty about future income during the pandemic, two novel national measures 
were passed to help in this regard. The first was a suspension of evictions in respect of residential leases (from 25 March 2020 to 25 July 2020; and 
again, from 23 December 2020 to 31 March 2021), and the second was a freeze on rent increases (from 20 May 2020 until at least 30 June 2021).531 
This avoided people being forced out onto the streets during an emergency period. An additional measure put in place by the State of Luxembourg in 
2020 was an increase in rent subsidy (adapted due to the COVID-19 crisis) to between 134 EUR and 294 EUR.532  

Another very important measure brought in by the State of Luxembourg in 2020 was a double allocation on the ‘allocation de vie chère’ (cost of living) 
benefit for eligible households, namely residents who face financial difficulties.533 The municipality of Sanem, where the Eis Epicerie Zolwer social 
grocery is based, added an additional 70% of the original allowance for persons in need.534  

Non-EU migrants in an irregular situation were one of the vulnerable groups identified during the COVID-19 crisis. Many of them found themselves 
without  employment  and  without  state  aid  at  the  outset  of  the  pandemic  due  to  their  irregular  status.  From  April  2020,  a  support  organisation  for 
immigrant workers (ASTI) ensured that this group of people could benefit from social groceries to facilitate access to cheaper food and basic products. 
For geographic reasons, almost 80% of this group of people used the Caritas social grocery in Luxembourg city.535 

Another key measure brought in through national funding that targeted towards people benefiting from the FEAD operation described in this case study, 
involved the distribution of free face masks between November 2020 and December 2021 to all people over the age of 15 receiving FEAD products.  
Due to organisational issues and budget limitations, the Managing Authority of FEAD couldn’t afford the purchase of masks by public procurement on 
its own. In the end the Ministry of Health was able to implement this measure.536 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information 
about the FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 

Luxembourg used the CRII/CRII+ package in just two operations, one under ESF and one (this case study) under FEAD. Both operations were at the 
national level. 

The ESF operation ‘prise en charge du chômage partiel suite à la suspension de certaines activités pour éviter la propagation du COVID-19’ (addressing 
partial unemployment due to the suspension of certain activities because of COVID-19) was a new operation introduced during the pandemic through 
the  use  of  CRII/CRII+.537  Its  aim  was  to support companies  in  economic  difficulty  to  avoid  redundancies  and also  provide  economic  assistance  to 

529 ESPN (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, Luxembourg. 
530 Interview a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
531 ESPN (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, Luxembourg. 
532 Information provided by Caritas. 
533 Information provided by Caritas. 
534 Interview with Eis Epicerie Zolwer, conducted in 2022.  
535 Information provided by Caritas. 
536 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
537 SFC database. 

325 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

response to 
COVID-19 

employees in partial unemployment due to the COVID-19 crisis. The CVST and CVR1 indicators were used to monitor how many participants benefited 
from the scheme (target 1,000) and how many were in employment after 6 months (target 1,000).538  

The FEAD operation analysed here, ‘aide alimentaire et/ou assistance matérielle de base’, used CRII/CRII+ measures, such as the possibility to use 
100% co-financing (instead of 85%) to pay for the additional fees to the intermediary partner organisation, to ensure the continuation of sourcing and 
distribution of FEAD products for those in need (a 86.35% co-financing rate was used in the end).539 The Managing Authority also utilised the extra 
funding through the technical assistance for an e-platform through which FEAD users could pre-order their products and select a timeslot to pick them 
up in, in order to reduce social contact.   

Brief description of the selected operation 

The national FEAD operation ‘aide alimentaire et/ou assistance matérielle de base’ (food and basic material assistance provision), falls under the OP 
I and began in 2014 and ends in 2023. This operation ensures the purchase and distribution of FEAD products540 to vulnerable people through épiceries 
sociales (social groceries) and the banque alimentaire (food bank). The Managing Authority works with several partner organisations to implement the 
operation. The intermediary partner organisation, Spëndchen, coordinates with the offices sociaux (social offices) and the providers of FEAD products 
and is in charge of ensuring their distribution. The 16 social groceries that distribute the FEAD products are run by Caritas Luxembourg, Red Cross 
Luxembourg, NGO Cent buttek, and Eis Epicerie Zolwer (a standalone organisation in the south of Luxembourg).  The ‘banque alimentaire’ operates 
slightly differently and delivers ‘packages’ to social workers who distribute them to beneficiaries.541 It should be noted that the five organisations work 
independently of one another, and their main function remains as social grocery rather than distributor of FEAD products.  

The objectives of the operation are to foster social inclusion and to reduce poverty in Luxembourg as per the Europe 2020 strategy. The target group 
of the operation is socially vulnerable persons and/or households addressed mainly by the ‘offices sociaux’ and a few assigned NGOs. In 2019, 12,621 
persons (5,123 households) benefited from this operation. In 2020, around 200 more households were helped through the operation (5,331), although 
the number of individual persons was largely the same (12,579).542  

538 Coronavirus dashboard. 
539 SFC database. 
540 FEAD products include olive oil, sunflower oil, milk, pasta, rice, sugar, tuna, toilet paper, shampoo, soap, toothpaste, shower gel, and (from November 2020) surgical facemasks 
541 Résumé du rapport annuel FEAD 2020. 
542 SFC2014 database. 

326 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 45: Number of households or people who contacted the social groceries of Red Cross and Caritas in 
2019 and 2020, between 1 January and 31 December each year (Luxembourg, households, or people) 

Source: ESPN, Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, Luxembourg (2021) 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the operation was adjusted to include face masks as a FEAD product to be distributed to all persons over the age of 
15 receiving FEAD support (between November 2020 and December 2021). Technical Assistance was used to create an e-platform for buttek.lu543 for  
those entitled to FEAD support to pre-order their products and select a time slot in which to pick them up, so as to avoid social contact in the groceries. 
During the period March 2020-June 2020, the three Cent Buttek social groceries had to close to protect the volunteers who worked there (mostly over 
60  years  of  age  and  therefore  at  a  higher  risk  from  COVID-19).  To  help  people  still  access  the  FEAD-provided  products  they  needed,  they  were 
redirected to the next nearest social groceries.544 Normally, recipients of FEAD-provided products can only go to their local social grocery,545 so this 
measure ensured that the distribution continued to those who needed it despite the extraordinary circumstances.  

Unfortunately, due to the social distancing measures introduced by the national government, many wider FEAD activities had to be suspended during 
the COVID-19 crisis, e.g., workshops, cooking classes, and the general “social” element of the groceries that provided support for the people using 
them.546  

The budget for this operation was 4,404,660 EUR from the EU (3,944,600 EUR from FEAD + 460,000 EUR in REACT-EU funding), which was topped 
up by national funds of 696,119 EUR to make a total budget of 5,100,779 EUR.547   

327 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

People  who  are classified  as socially  vulnerable  or  deprived  by  the  ‘offices  sociaux’,  represent  the  priority  target  group  for  FEAD  assistance.  The 
products are stocked in the social groceries, along with the non-FEAD products that the groceries receive through donations from different sources, 
especially from supermarkets (anti-waste measures).  

To be eligible to receive products provided through the FEAD, the individuals/households in question also have to be eligible to use the social groceries. 
The premise is that the daily supply of goods in the social grocery are a third of the usual market price. To gain access to the social groceries a social 
worker will meet with the person/household to determine their monthly income and expenditure (rent, insurance, bills). If they have less than a certain 
amount of money left for daily supply goods (‘reste à vivre’) they are given access. They are then allowed to spend 25 EUR a week (per adult) in the 
social groceries (given the reduced prices in the groceries, this 25 EUR is the equivalent of 75 EUR in a normal supermarket), or for those in an even 
more difficult financial situation, they are given a voucher amounting to 25 EUR a week from the social services.548  

During the COVID-19 crisis, there was not a huge difference in either the number of people using the social groceries or, for the most part, the types 
of  people  using  the  social  groceries.  This  was  due  to  the  measures  taken  by  the  national  government  being  so  effective,  for  example  the  double 
allocation on the ‘allocation de vie chère’ benefit.549 However, for a short period, namely during the first few months of the lockdown, Caritas noticed 
that some new groups were using the social groceries. These were people who had lost their job at the very beginning of the pandemic and for some 
reason were unable to receive help from the state.550 A new group of people also given access to the social groceries during the pandemic was migrants 
in an irregular situation.  

The Red Cross social groceries did not notice any change in the people using the groceries,551 and the Eis Epicierie Zolwer actually saw a decrease in 
people using the groceries in 2020/21 due to the generous measures of the national and local government, doubling the cost-of-living benefit for eligible 
households (just 99 people receiving FEAD products used the Eis Epicerie Zolwer in 2021, compared to 181 in 2018).552 

Key challenges 
and factors 

The public procurement process for FEAD products, such as face masks, was one of the key challenges in responding rapidly to the COVID-19 crisis. 
While not the case for face masks, it was fortunate that there had just been a large restocking of products at the end of the 2019/beginning of 2020, 
right before the COVID-19 crisis started, as it meant that the social groceries had products to distribute. By contrast, in the latest procurement in 2022, 
there were many products that were unavailable.553 Therefore, the key to responding in a crisis under this operation is having the products to distribute. 
Even if logistical adjustments can be made (such as creating an e-platform or allowing FEAD recipients to use different social groceries and not just 
their local one), there must be products to distribute.554 

The rapid deployment of the extra FEAD funding was an important factor in being able to launch the e-platform for FEAD recipients to pre-order their 
products, thus avoiding unnecessary social contact in the social groceries. Given that the Managing Authority had never considered using electronic 

543 Buttek.lu (n.d.). Available at : https://www.buttek.lu/  
544 Résumé du rapport annuel FEAD 2020. 
545 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
546 Interview with Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
547 SFC database. 
548 Interview with Caritas, conducted in 2022. 
549 Ibid. 
550 Ibid. 
551 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
552 Interview with Eis Epicerie Zolwer, conducted in 2022. 
553 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
554 Ibid. 

328 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Access to 
funding  

vouchers for food and basic material aid previously (and there are still no discussions in favour of this), the platform was put together extremely quickly 
(from 28 March 2020) using the Technical Assistance money that was newly available thanks to CRII/CRII+.555  

Another challenge was three of the social groceries had to close due to the age of the volunteers running them. Extra organisation and transportation 
mechanisms were needed to deliver the FEAD products intended for the closed Cent Buttek social groceries to the Red Cross and Caritas ones, as 
well as facilitating the permission needed for FEAD recipients to collect their products in a different social grocery to their local one.556   

According to the Managing Authority, the access to FEAD funding during the COVID-19 crisis was rapid, which led to the buttek.lu e-platform being set 
up by the end of March 2020. The issue was that there were sometimes uncertainties over what measures would be covered. Protective shields in the 
social groceries were covered by the resources of the Red Cross and Caritas, who could absorb these costs more easily as large organisations; Caritas 
also had to hire extra staff to help in the Luxembourg City social grocery due more people using their shop after the Cent Buttek grocery in Luxembourg 
City had to close. Staff furthermore had to stay longer and ensure that everything was clean, and they needed people to count the number of people 
in the shop at the same time (max. 7).  In addition to using the online buttek.lu platform, through Caritas FEAD recipients specifically could also order 
their products by phone since the package of products is the same every month .557  For the Red Cross, similar measures that they had to cover 
themselves were implemented (extra staff, longer hours, hand sanitizer stations, queuing facilities outdoors). However, they were also able to use the 
buttek.lu online platform that had been put in place by the Spëndchen through FEAD funding.558 

Therefore, the financial burden of the day-to-day running of the social groceries, outside the scope of providing the FEAD products to recipients through 
the buttek.lu platform, which was indeed covered by FEAD, was left to the individual organisations running the groceries. 

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

For FEAD operations, no COVID-19 specific indicators were used. However, as confirmed by the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, there is a 
formal monitoring and evaluation system in place for the food and basic material assistance operation, but it was not modified during COVID-19 or for 
the CRII/CRII+ adjustments due to no substantial differences being observed .559  

The  National  Group  for  FEAD  in  Luxembourg,  which  involves  all  the  organisations  working  on  the  Operational  Programme,  facilitates  open 
communication,  analyses  of  national  statistics  and  reflects  on  the  progress  of  implementation.  For  example,  the  buttek.lu  platform  was  a  topic  of 
conversation as to why it was not as successful as hoped. The conclusion drawn was that the lack of success was not due to lack of funding (they were 
able to set up the platform quickly), but rather that the system did not have the full effect intended because the social groceries also stock non-FEAD 
products. Therefore, when people were coming to pick up their FEAD orders, they were also going inside the social groceries to look at the non-FEAD 
products on offer, thus defeating the purpose of distanced pre-ordering of FEAD products.560  

Caritas specifically, however, did monitor the increase in numbers in their Luxembourg City social grocery during the COVID-19 crisis. For example, 
they provided a temporary access to the social grocery during the pandemic to 59 households (107 people). They also gave access to non-EU migrants 
in an irregular situation, which amounted to an extra 119 households (207 people) gaining access to the Caritas Luxembourg City shop. Finally, due to 
the closure of the Cent Buttek shops, many users of these shops were redirected to the next nearest social grocery, i.e., the Luxembourg City one.561 

Overall 
assessment  

A key reflection of interviewees from the FEAD Managing Authority is that when dealing with the crisis, the priority was to maintain the access to and 
distribution of FEAD products.  As no substantial differences appeared in the statistics during the pandemic, there was no reason to install a specific 
COVID-19 monitoring and evaluation system. Overall, the FEAD fund deployment can be considered effective, particularly as adjustments were made 
to the operation very quickly. The e-platform was created rapidly and quicky became used by FEAD recipients. Furthermore, the fact that the CRII/CRII+ 
regulations were implemented so quickly alleviated the stress of financial and administrative burdens on the Managing Authority, providing additional 

555 Ibid. 
556 Interview with Spëndchen, conducted in 2022. 
557 Interview with Caritas, conducted in 2022. 
558 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
559 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
560 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
561 Information provided by Caritas. 

329 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

flexibility and avoiding additional administrative and logistical costs that would otherwise have occurred. However, there were some instances where 
access  to  funding caused  issues,  notably in  the procurement  of  face masks  to  distribute to  FEAD  recipients  and  in covering  the specific  costs  for 
adjustments the social groceries needed to make their shops safe to facilitate continued distribution of products (both FEAD and non-FEAD). In these 
instances, a perceived lack of clarity concerning what measures could fall under the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities led to national funding and other resources 
being used to ensure the safety of FEAD recipients and social grocery volunteers and staff. While these were challenges to effectiveness, they were 
not seen as significantly altering the overall impact of the project. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid response 
to the COVID-19 
crisis through 
ESF / FEAD 

The feedback from the Managing Authority is that they were able to act quickly following on the onset of the crisis and did not have to wait too long for 
access to the funding.  Thanks to the flexibilities they could start working on the e-platform straight away, which was quite an expensive adaptation of 
the operation, by putting it under Technical Assistance.562 The e-platform for FEAD recipients was live from 28 March 2020 (and is still in use in special 
cases) and would not have been possible to put in place as quickly or efficiently without the flexibilities.563 

In fact, many of the extra costs during the pandemic could be absorbed by FEAD. The Spëndchen, the intermediary partner organisation, receives an 
annual financing agreement to cover its costs for FEAD. At the end of the year, any extra costs are analysed, and, if eligible, taken into account by the 
FEAD Managing Authority.. The CRII/CRII+ measures enabled the Managing Authority to consider the additional costs incurred by the Spëndchen in 
2020, due to extra logistical issues and the modifications to the buttek.lu website to allow FEAD recipients to order and reserve their products online.564 
Given that CRII/CRII+ were implemented rapidly at the start of the crisis, this meant that, in turn, important changes to the operation could happen 
quickly. 

Figure A 46: Online login to the buttek.lu e-platform to order FEAD products 

Source: Screenshot from PowerPoint provided by Luxemburgish FEAD MA 

All the social groceries were likewise able to implement safety measures in their stores quickly, as well as start distributing masks for free once they 
became a product for whom those receiving FEAD support were eligible. However, the financial burden of these measures fell not on FEAD, but on 

562 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
563 Ibid. 
564 Ibid. 

330 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

national funding and individual costs incurred by the social groceries. Therefore,  while the flexibilities supported efficiency in the sense of (rapidly) 
ensuring a continued service for social grocery users and FEAD recipients, the financial burden was significant for the social groceries in order to do 
this. 

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

For the Managing Authority the relevance of the operation to the needs on the ground was mainly linked to the safety of FEAD recipients and volunteers 
or staff working in the social groceries. Therefore, the changes made to use the new buttek.lu e-platform to facilitate social distancing and to provide 
face masks and protective shields in the social groceries were seen as highly relevant. In fact, the decision to include face masks on the list of FEAD 
products, rather than hand sanitiser or soap, was due to the situation of most people receiving FEAD products, namely that they were less able to avoid 
social contact than other members of society due to their jobs and needing to take public transport.565 

For the implementing organisations, namely the social groceries, being able to ensure the continued distribution of FEAD products to FEAD recipients 
without any real negative effects was viewed as being extremely relevant to the needs on the ground. FEAD recipients did not have to worry about 
getting their FEAD parcel each month, they did not need to queue or make sure they got to the shop as they knew it would be prepared for them 
regardless, and even delivered. This meant they could limit their time in social groceries, thus enabling them to social distance as was necessary during 
this period.566 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

The operation was, and still is, relevant to the needs of the target groups outlined in the Operational Programme, namely socially deprived persons. 
Given only a few new groups started using the social groceries and received FEAD products during the 2020 lockdown, the relevance of the operation 
to the priority target groups remained largely the same, as they continued to be able to receive their FEAD products every month which remained 
important. Furthermore, given that FEAD recipients had the option to order their FEAD parcels not just online, but also over the phone (Caritas), meant 
that there was no reliance on stable internet access or access to a library or internet café, which could have limited the ability of some recipients to 
receive the products that they needed during this period.  

Furthermore, the focus on the people, rather than just handing out the food packages, was seen as relevant to the target groups of the operation, as 
the social groceries did as much as they could to maintain the “social” aspect by hiring extra people to be there to speak to FEAD recipients waiting in 
line to collect their parcel outside the shops. Red Cross interviewees highlighted that a lot of the “social” aspect was lost due to activities run by the 
groceries being cancelled, and constantly changing personnel, due for example to staff getting COVID-19 themselves, led to less personal relationships 
with customers.567  Caritas interviewees noted the importance of being able to have extra personnel present to listen to the recipients’ problems; this 
was viewed as particularly important given the increased rate of loneliness during the COVID-19 crisis due to the lockdowns.568 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

This operation is consistent with the FEAD operation in place before the COVID-19 crisis, as the adjustments made to the operation were to ensure a 
continuation of food and basic material assistance provision to socially vulnerable people and facilitate social inclusion. The changes were to ensure 
the safety of both the staff/volunteers in the social groceries (through the implementation of protective shields, as well as the three-month-long closure 
of  three groceries  while  facilitating  FEAD  recipients  going to  the  next  nearest  grocery  to  pick  up  their  products), and FEAD  recipients  themselves 
(through the distribution of masks and encouraging limited social contact through the e-platform).  

565 Interview with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, conducted in 2022. 
566 Interview with Caritas, conducted in 2022. 
567 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
568 Interview with Caritas, conducted in 2022. 

331 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

It is important to highlight that the distribution of FEAD products in the social groceries is just one of their functions. Therefore, measures undertaken 
through FEAD funding are always coherent with national measures regarding the functioning of the social groceries. During the COVID-19 crisis, the 
social groceries implemented social distancing measures that were imposed nationally in the shops in order to stay open and continue to allow people 
to come and collect their FEAD and non-FEAD products. The social services in Luxembourg provide access to vulnerable people to the social groceries 
and therefore also decide as well if people are entitled to FEAD products. The fact that extra measures were put in place during the pandemic by the 
social services to allow temporary access to new vulnerable groups, as highlighted by the Caritas Luxembourg City social grocery, was important to 
help people struggling with the effects of the pandemic, as well as giving non-EU migrants (in an irregular situation) access, who had previously “slipped 
through the net”.569 

REACT-EU funding was used by the FEAD MA in addition to the CRII/CRII+ measures from 2021.570 The funding contributed to the existing FEAD 
operation  and  absorbed  some  of  the  extra  costs  of  the  adjustments,  e.g.,  running  the  e-platform,  extra  staff  etc.  The  FEAD  Managing  Authority 
highlighted that they found the REACT-EU funding to be very useful in the crisis context. 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Coherence with 
other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

The contribution of the food aid and basic material assistance operation through FEAD to respond to the COVID-19 crisis was moderate. It is clear that 
the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities facilitated the implementation of the buttek.lu e-platform, which was an innovative solution to social distancing requirements. 
Indeed, the crucial point here is that it was implemented so quickly (28 March 2020) due to access to funding at the very beginning of the crisis. It is 
also important to note the 100% co-financing rate which contributed to the MA and the Spëndchen being able to quicky coordinate an adequate crisis 
response by allowing for extra costs in setting up the e-platform, sourcing FEAD products and finally distributing them to the social groceries all over 
Luxembourg. The flexibility in adding face masks to the list of free FEAD products to distribute in the social groceries was  also very useful, although 
they were procured and financed by the national government. This meant that FEAD recipients continued to receive food and basic material assistance 
packages regularly throughout the pandemic, and more safely, due to the extra precautions taken with social distancing and by providing free face 
masks.  

However, it should be noted that the positive contribution of FEAD through CRII/CRII+ was not necessarily fully felt in the individual social groceries 
who had to face many of the costs associated with social distancing to protect staff and customers alike. Ultimately, this is because the social groceries 
operate independently of the FEAD funding and also sell non-FEAD products at a discounted price to those most in need in Luxembourg, as part of 
national government social welfare measures. Large organisations like the Red Cross and Caritas were also able to absorb these extra costs more 
easily and stayed open throughout the pandemic, which meant that FEAD recipients continued to receive the packages they needed. Caritas also 
absorbed extra people into its Luxembourg City social grocery, and the flexibility in being able to do this meant that people were not left behind.  

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 

As a result of the Luxembourg City Cent Buttek grocery closing, the Luxembourg City Caritas social grocery had to provide for the people who had 
been going to the Buttek shop. This meant that Caritas had more people coming to their shop in 2020/21 and they therefore needed more staff as a 

569 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
570 SFC database. 

332 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

Lessons learnt 

result to cater for this. This short-term change in number of social grocery users meant at least 314 more people were using the Caritas Luxembourg 
City social grocery than usual.571  

Another key change was delivering FEAD products from the social groceries, or arranging pick-up slots in the shops, as previously social grocery users 
had always come directly into the shop to pick up their FEAD package or to buy the other non-FEAD discounted products. The possibility to order the 
products online or call the social grocery to arrange a delivery or pick-up slot was an innovative solution to the social distancing measures in place 
which helped to keep FEAD recipients and social grocery staff safer during the crisis. The fact that the e-platform is still being used, at least in the Red 
Cross social groceries,572 to help with FEAD recipients who have mobility issues or aggressive tendencies, is a story of change in the organisation of 
the social groceries that would not have happened without the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities that facilitated the set-up of this e-platform.  
It should be noted though, that there is no data on whether the Cent Buttek shops are still using the platform. The Eis Epicerie Zolwer did not use the 
online platform, but they did offer a separate delivery service.573 However, due to the reduced number of people using the Eis Epicerie Zolwer for 
FEAD products, fewer measures to promote social distancing were needed compared to the Caritas Luxembourg City social grocery which saw a 
significant increase in users.  This was due to the closure of the Cent Buttek grocery located near Luxembourg City, as well as this Caritas grocery 
being located near the ASTI centre, which gave access to migrants in an irregular situation to the social groceries.  

Regarding the effects on individuals, it was clear from the interviews with stakeholders that they regretted having to put a  stop to many of the more 
“social” activities on offer at the social groceries e.g., workshops, cooking classes etc. The social distancing measures and lockdown meant that the 
“social” aspect of the grocery was reduced. So, even though none of the participants lacked for FEAD products during the COVID-19 crisis due to the 
extra efforts and measures put in place, the sense of engagement with the community and additional support was somewhat lost.574 

Lessons learnt 

The key lessons learnt from the implementation of the food aid and basic material assistance operation in Luxembourg during the COVID-19 crisis vary 
from individual, to organisational, to the policymaking/programming levels.  

At an individual level, it was clear to the partner organisations implementing the operation that when confronted with a crisis such as this, they can 
count on people to help. Caritas had many volunteers calling them to ask if they needed extra help during this period, and the experience has been the 
same in the latest crisis Europe is facing with the war in Ukraine.575  

From the organisational standpoint, one of the lessons learnt for Managing Authority and the Spëndchen was the fact that they were  well stocked on 
FEAD products before the start of the COVID-19 crisis. This was not due to planning but helped the early efforts in the pandemic to keep the steady 
distribution of products to those in need. Therefore, while it is difficult to fully plan for these crisis situations, a lesson could be that preparation as far 
as is possible, by building resilience into the supply chain, can have an important impact on dealing with future crises. For example, now with the 
Ukraine  crisis  and  the  supply  shortages  related  to  it,  the  Spëndchen  is  having  more  difficulties  in  sourcing  FEAD  products  and  having  enough  to 
distribute to FEAD recipients.576 

One of the crucial issues for the Managing Authority was the internal public procurement procedures for face masks. The lack  of clarity as to whether 
they could be covered under FEAD due to the definition of hygienic and control standards at the time, as well as the high prices of  face masks on 
international markets in mid-2020 slowed them down and it was fortunate that the national government was able to help. 

571 Based on figures provided by Caritas. 
572 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 
573 Interview with Eis Epicerie Zolwer, conducted in 2022. 
574 Interview with the Red Cross and Eis Epicerie Zolwer, conducted in 2022. 
575 Interview with Caritas, conducted in 2022. 
576 Interview with Spëndchen, conducted in 2022. 

333 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

In addition, it was useful to have the CRII support to cover the set-up costs of the e-platform for FEAD recipients to order their products. However, as 
the National Group for FEAD in Luxembourg learnt during the crisis, having an e-platform did not guarantee reduced social contact for FEAD recipients 
or social grocery volunteers/staff. This was due to people still checking the social shops for non-FEAD products, thus not reducing social contact as 
effectively as the Managing Authority and the Spëndchen had hoped. However, ultimately the CRII/CRII+ measures helped them to set up the platform 
quickly. The platform has also proved useful after the pandemic in enabling people with mobility issues or people with aggressive tendencies to order 
their FEAD products remotely, thereby continuing to receive these packages without putting themselves or others at risk.577 A lesson is thus the potential 
ongoing utility of such platforms in the context of the needs of particular groups, even if the platform did not fully reduce social contact to the degree 
intended during the pandemic. 

Finally, at the policymaking/programming level, the FEAD MA highlighted the decrease in the FEAD budget for the next programming period and the 
fact that the extra funding received through REACT-EU was very useful in mitigating the crisis and would be useful in future crisis situations too.  

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

1.  Caritas. (2020). Revendications de Caritas Luxembourg : une amélioration de la prise en charge de personnes et familles en situation de 

précarité en temps de crise au-delà. Luxembourg. 
https://www.caritas.lu/sites/default/files/revendications_caritas_luxembourg_version_definitive-20201008.pdf  

2.  Ecorys. (2022). Interim Report.  
3.  ESPN. (2021). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, Luxembourg; Baumann, M., Baumann-Croisier, P., 

Bouchet, M., and Urbé, R. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24613&langId=en  

4.  European Commission. (2022). SFC database 2014-2020 (SFC2014). https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sfc2014/frontoffice/ui  
5.  European Commission. (2022).  Monitoring report on the employment and social situation  following the COVID-19 outbreak (Winter 2021-
2022). The Employment Committee and The Social Protection Committee. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=25237&langId=en    
Brussels. 

6.  European 

Commission. 

Luxembourg 

(SWD(2019) 

Country 

(2019). 

Report 

1015). 

2019. 

https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-luxembourg_en.pdf 

7.  European  Commission.  (2022).  Coronavirus  Dashboard.  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-

COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/  
Interview conducted with a representative of the FEAD Managing Authority in Luxembourg, August 2022. 
Interview conducted with a representative of the Spëndchen in Luxembourg, August 2022. 

8. 
9. 
10.  Interview conducted with a representative of Caritas in Luxembourg, September 2022. 
11.  Interview conducted with a representative of the Red Cross in Luxembourg, September 2022. 
12.  Interview conducted with a representative of the Eis Epicerie Zolwer in Luxembourg, September 2022. 
du 
in 
13.  Ministry 

Integration 
https://mfamigr.gouvernement.lu/fr/publications/rapport/FEAD/feadres20.html 

the  Grand-Duchy. 

(2020).  Résumé 

for  Family 

and 

rapport 

annuel  FEAD 

2020.  

14.  Spëndchen asbl. (2022). Buttek website. https://www.buttek.lu/ 

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the Ministry for Family and Integration in the Grand-Duchy of 
Luxembourg and implementing organisations (Spëndchen asbl, Caritas, Red Cross, Eis Epicerie Zolwer). 

577 Interview with the Red Cross, conducted in 2022. 

334 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Poland – Knowledge Education Growth - ESF/YEI (2014PL05M9OP001) 

Qualitative case study: Akademia streetworkingu (Project under 9i: social inclusion) 

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in 
Luxembourg 

The COVID-19 pandemic was a massive and unexpected shock for societies and economies across the globe. In Poland, the first confirmed COVID-
19 case was on 4th March 2020.578 Since the beginning of the outbreak in Poland, national authorities have confirmed 6 253 044 infections, including 
6,122 201 new infections and 130,803 re-infections.579 On 20th September 2022, infection with COVID-19  was confirmed in 16.58% of the Polish 
population.580 The authorities reported that 5,335,950 people have recovered and 117,367 people died due to COVID-19.581 Poland is divided into 16 
voivodeships (regions). The highest number of cases were reported in two of the three most populated voivodeships - Mazowieckie region at 946,249 
(15.47%)  and  Slaskie  region  at  743,385  (12.15%).  The  table  shows  the  confirmed  number  of  people  with  SARS-CoV-2  virus  infections  in  Polish 
voivodeships’. 

Table A 37 – Number of infected people with COVID-19 in Polish regions and their share in total confirmed cases 

Voivodeship (region) 

Number of infected 
people 

Share of infected 
people 

1  mazowieckie 
2  slaskie 
3  wielkopolskie 
4  malopolskie 
5  dolnoslaskie 
6  pomorskie 
7 

lodzkie 

8  kujawsko-pomorskie 
9 

lubelskie 

10  zachodniopomorskie 
11  podkarpackie 
12  warminsko-mazurskie 

946 249 

743 385 

598 503 

482 524 

471 810 

407 515 

380 219 

374 029 

325 797 

298 933 

253 182 

211 494 

15.47% 

12.15% 

9.78% 

7.89% 

7.71% 

6.66% 

6.22% 

6.11% 

5.33% 

4.89% 

4.14% 

3.46% 

578 Ministerstwo Zdrowia (2020). Pierwszy przypadek koronowirusa w Polsce. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/zdrowie/pierwszy-przypadek-koronawirusa-w-polsce 
579 Koronawirus w Polsce (2022). Przyrost potwierdzonych zakażeń SARS-CoV-2 w Polsce. Available at: https://koronawirusunas.pl/ (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
580 Ibid. 
581 Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (2022), Data on 20th September 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/wykaz-zarazen-koronawirusem-sars-cov-2.  

335 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

13  podlaskie 
14 

lubuskie 
15  opolskie 
16  swietokrzyskie 

158 751 

158 428 

153 284 

153 185 

2.60% 

2.59% 

2.51% 

2.50% 

Source: Own compilation based on data Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej582 

The emergence of the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and the  outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic have triggered governments around the world, 
including Poland, to design and implement restrictions on economic and social activities. These measures aimed to reduce the  number of infections, 
and spread of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, avoid overloading health services and reduce the death levels as quickly as possible. The University of Oxford 
decided to develop the online tool The Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) which collects systematic information on policy 
measures that governments have taken to tackle COVID-19.583 Within this, a Stringency Index records the strictness of ‘lockdown style’ policies that 
primarily restrict people’s behaviour.584 In Poland, this index shows that during the first wave of the pandemic (March–June 2020), the second wave 
(November- April 2021) and the third wave (December 2021-February 2022), the policy response was similar to that observed in Italy, Germany or 
Spain. Generally, established restrictions and their strictness levels were high. However, the Polish government lifted restrictions earlier than in these 
other countries. 

582 Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (2022). Raport zakażeń koronawirusem (SARS-CoV-2). Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/wykaz-zarazen-koronawirusem-sars-cov-2 
583 University of Oxford (n.d.). Covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Available at: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker   
584 The University of Oxford developed 4 policy indices, which aggregate the data into a single number from 0-100. This is a measure of how many of the relevant indicators a government has 
acted upon, and to what degree. One of those four is The Stringency index which is a synthetic measure that assesses the strength of economic restrictions based on a dozen indicators. The 
indicators of which the Stringency Index is composed are school closures, workplace closures, cancellation of mass events, assembly restrictions, public transport closures, public information 
campaigns information, recommendations to stay at home, restrictions on cross-border traffic, controls on foreign travel, testing policies, contact tracing, face covering, vaccination strategy, available 
at: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker. 

336 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 47: Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Stringency Index Average in Poland585  

585 Hale, Thomas and Samuel Webster (2020). Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Data use policy: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY standard., Stringency Index Average, 
Available at: https://public.knoema.com/etibpqe/oxford-covid-19-government-response-tracker?regionId=PL 

337 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 48: Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker. Stringency Index Average in Poland, Italy, Spain 
and Germany586 

In Poland, most restrictions were introduced during the first wave of the pandemic in March 2020 (between 10 and 31 March). After 24 May 2020, 
restrictions were gradually lifted till the 24th of October 2020. Restrictions included social distancing, wearing masks in public spaces, suspension of 
border traffic, restrictions on citizens’ movement and on public transportation vehicles, and the closure of sports, cultural and educational entities.587 
Many companies had to temporarily close businesses, especially services such as restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, shopping centres, fitness centres, 
etc.  During  three lockdowns,  Poland  operated  under  a strict  sanitary  regime588  to  protect  the  health  and  well-being of  the  population.  Restrictions 
included the closing of large stores and public spaces like parks or beaches and public buildings.  

In consequence, the lockdown meant fewer opportunities for vulnerable social groups like homeless people to request money or food from passing 
citizens. The homeless and people using shelters no longer had access to usual food supplies, washing facilities and basic hygiene (soap, showers), 
or even a safe place to stay, as public restrooms and services, in general, were closed down. Additionally, in general, homeless people do not have 
easy access to health care, vaccinations or disinfectants, etc. Moreover, many homeless people suffer from various chronic illnesses, which increases 
their vulnerability to potential COVID-19 infection.589 As a result, homelessness has also become a huge epidemiological problem.590 Alongside the 
above, social isolation increasingly affected people experiencing homelessness as city centres emptied,591 with restrictions being forced on homeless 
people even though they were not always in a position to obey them. 

According to case study interviewees, homelessness is generally considered an urban issue and the homeless are often highly represented in bigger 
cities in Poland. Their appearance beyond large cities, in smaller or rural towns, and villages, is rare.592 Therefore, it was principally the municipal 
authorities for larger urban locations that needed to face and solve the problems and issues of caring for homeless people during COVID-19. 

338 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The Polish Ministry of Family and Social Policy analyses homelessness. The number of homeless people has been calculated since 2015, based on 
estimations. Such an analysis is complicated, and complete measurement is impossible because only some homeless people use institutional care. In 
reality, the number of homeless people may be much higher. The data for 2019 is the most valid, as there has been no measurement of the number of 
homeless people during COVID-19.593 According to the analysis of the Ministry of Family and Social Policy, 30,330 homeless people were identified in 
Poland in 2019 (25 369 men (83.6%) and 4 961 women (16.4%). The number of homeless people is decreasing. The Ministry’s estimation showed 
36 161 homeless in 2015 and 33 410 in 2017.594 The decrease was observed among both women (by more than 500) and men (by more than 2,500).595 
Proportionally, most homeless people were in the 41-60 age bracket - 13 801 - in 2019.  

Analysing the data by voivodeship in Poland, the highest numbers of homeless people are in Mazowieckie and Slaskie regions, both more than 4 000. 
In Pomorskie and Dolnoslaskie, the number of homeless was estimated at around 3000 people in both regions in 2019.596 

The Street work Academy project (PL: Akademia Steetworkingu) had a nationwide scope; however, the main activities were implemented in  cities in 
voivodeships/regions where the homelessness problem is the biggest – Warszawa (Mazowieckie region), Gdańsk (Pomorskie region), Gliwice (Slaskie 
region), Jelenia Góra and Wroclaw (Dolnoslaskie region).597 In those cities, the homeless services providers were often the only option for homeless 
people to access basic support or basic medical care. However, government-run, municipality-run or public-run shelters were often overcrowded, not 
adapted to sanitary restrictions and without sufficient space for physical distancing. Additionally, a lot of homeless people were further affected as they 
were exposed to so many diseases598. The pandemic provided an opportunity for governments and authorities in municipalities and regions to change 
the way they shaped public and social policies relating to the homeless. ESF funds under the CRII/ CRII+ were also used to mitigate the problems of 
homeless people. 

National and 
regional 
measures to 

The Polish government implemented several legal and financial measures to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including an increase in 
budget expenditure. The general framework for state anti-crisis measures was established in the act adopted on March 2, 2020, which implemented 
special regulations (PL: specustawa) aiming to counter the COVID-19 pandemic.599 On April 3, 2020, the government adopted a special regulation 

in 

the 

and 

(n.d.). 

ejtn.eu 

current 

Covid-19 

restrictions 

(2020).  Departament  Analiz,  Sytuacja  społeczno-gospodarcza  Polski  w  dobie  pandemii.  Available  at:  https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-

586 Ibid. 
587  Santander  Bank  Polska  S.A., 
content/uploads/2020/12/FOB_Santander_Sytuacja_spoleczno-gospodarcza_Polski_w_dobie_pandemii.pdf 
588 
Republic 
rules 
19%20current%20rules%20and%20restrictions%20in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Poland.pdf  
589 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
590 Gumowski P. (2022). COVID-19 jako problem zdrowia publicznego w odniesieniu do osób bezdomnych.  Available at: https://www.termedia.pl/koronawirus/COVID-19-jako-problem-zdrowia-
publicznego-w-odniesieniu-do-osob-bezdomnych,45089.html 
591 FEANSTA (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on homeless people and services. Available at: https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/magazine/2020/Full_Magazine_Autumn_2020.pdf  
592 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
593 Ministry of Family and Social Policy (n.d.). Bezdomność. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pom-spol-bezdomnosc 
594  Collected  data shows  that  around  33 410  homeless  people lived  in  Poland  in  2017  (around  5500  women  and  around  27910  men).  Naczelna  Izba  Kontroli  (2019).  Działania  wspierające  i 
aktywizujące osoby bezdomne. Available at: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,22486,vp,25161.pdf. 
595  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social Policy  (2019).  Wyniki  Ogólnopolskiego  badania  liczby  osób  bezdomnych  -  Edycja  2019.  Available  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/wyniki-ogolnopolskiego-
badania-liczby-osob-bezdomnych-edycja-2019  
596 Naczelna Izba Kontroli (2019). Działania wspierające i aktywizujące osoby bezdomne. Available at: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,22486,vp,25161.pdf 
597 Ministry of Family and Social Policy (n.d.). Bezdomność. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pom-spol-bezdomnosc 
598 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022; and Ayobade A. (2022). The plight of homeless destitute during COVID-
19 in a selected location in Lagos State. Available at: https://journals.aphriapub.com/index.php/JSWDS/article/download/1531/1458/3014 
599 Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych (n.d.). Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach związanych z zapobieganiem, przeciwdziałaniem i zwalczaniem COVID-19, innych 
chorób zakaźnych oraz wywołanych nimi sytuacji kryzysowych. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000374  

https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/20043/Covid-

Available 

Poland. 

at: 

of 

339 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

mitigate the 
crisis 

introducing mechanisms to address the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.600 The aim of the legislation was to make expenditure more 
flexible,  and  the  response  to  the  emerging  crisis  smoother.  Later,  the  Ministry  of  Funds  and  Regional  Policy  prepared  an  explanatory  document 
containing FAQs and clarifications for beneficiaries to access flexibilities and implement operations offered by this act.601 

Based on the above-mentioned legal acts, the Polish government prepared and enacted an aid package consisting of Anti-Crisis Shield: (Tourism 
Shield; , Industry Shield/ Branch Shield),602 and Financial Shield 1.0603, forming  a package of financial- and nonfinancial instruments and mechanisms 
to mitigate the economic and social impact of the pandemic, hence supporting entrepreneurs and citizens.  

The Polish government estimates that the value of the support offered under the Anti-Crisis Shield and Financial Shield will amount to over PLN 312 
billion (EUR 69.3 billion), which is equivalent to around 14% of Poland’s 2019 GDP. The amount included 212 billion for the protection of jobs and 
security of workers and the economy, and 100 billion as additional financial support under the Financial Shield 1.0.604  

The Anti-Crisis Shield is based on five pillars:  

1.  protection of jobs and security of workers (level of support - PLN 30 billion) 

2. 

financing for entrepreneurs (level of support - PLN 74.2 billion) 

3.  health care (level of support - PLN 7.5 billion) 

4.  strengthening the financial system (level of support - PLN 70.3 billion) 

5.  public investment (level of support - PLN 30 billion).605 

Additional  temporary  support  was  established  for  non-governmental  organisations,  culture,  sport,  agriculture,  municipalities  and  regional 
administrations, people with disabilities, foreigners, patients, and public administrations.606 Support activities and aid for homeless people have been 
provided in the Anti-Crisis Shield as additional, temporary and non-financial support to the package for non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The 
shield  package  included  several  measures,  with  the  most  important  being  changes  in  public  procurements  and  the  mode  of  commissioning  and 
accounting for public tasks.607 Until the state of the epidemic is cancelled, public administration bodies may commission NGOs and other relevant 
organisations to implement measures to counteract COVID-19 without an open tender. Such an approach was seen as essential for organisations that 

r. 

w 

2020 

600  Internetowy  System  Aktów  Prawnych  (n.d.).  Ustawa  z  dnia  3  kwietnia  2020  r.  o  szczególnych  rozwiązaniach  wspierających  realizację  programów  operacyjnych.  Available  at: 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000694 
601 Minister Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej (2020). Ustawa z dnia 3 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach wspierających realizację programów operacyjnych w związku z wystąpieniem 
COVID-19 
at: 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/91854/Aktualizacja_Zbior_interpretacji_specustawa_funduszowa_lipiec_06_07_20.pdf   
602 Anti-Crisis Shield 2.0 – 18 April 2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 2.0 – 18 April 2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 3.0 – 15 May 2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 4.0 – 23 June 2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 5.0 – 14 October 
2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 6.0 – 18 December 2020; Anti-Crisis Shield 7.0 – 1 February 2021; Anti-Crisis Shield 8.0 – 26 February 2021; Anti-Crisis Shield 9.0 – 26 April 2021.Anti-Crisis Shields 5.0–
9.0 were targeted at specific sections of the economy (the so-called ‘Industry Shields)/ ‘Branch’ Shields). These were accompanied by the two programmes Financial Shield PFR managed by the 
Polish Development Fund Group. (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 
603  Polski  Instytut  Ekonomiczny  (2021).  Tarcza  Antykryzysowa,  Koło  ratunkowe  dla  firm  i  gospodarki.  Availabe  at:  https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PIE-Raport_Tarcze-
antykryzysowe.pdf  
604 Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (n.d.). Tarcza antykryzysowa. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa. 
605 Ibid. 
606 Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (n.d.). Tarcza Antykryzysowa, Dodatkowe Wsparcie. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa/dodatkowe-wsparcie (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
607  Centrum  Rozwoju  Społeczeństwa  Obywatelskiego  (2020).  Wystąpienie  Wicepremiera  Piotra  Glińskiego:  Tarcza  antykryzysowa  dla  III  sektora.  Available  at:  https://niw.gov.pl/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/20200320-Tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-III-sektora.pdf 

wybranych 

przepisów. 

wyjaśnień 

Available 

Zbiór 

340 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

arranged emergency aid on their own for groups particularly at risk of the negative and harmful effects of the epidemic  – elderly people, the lonely, 
refugees, and the homeless - financing it from various sources.608 

The Anti-Crisis Shield introduced regulations for staff employed by homeless shelters, dormitories and other centres providing social  services during 
the pandemic. They allowed employees, who were under quarantine in the above-mentioned institutions to perform paid work instead of receiving 
sickness leave benefits.609 The Ministry of Family and Social Policy also released a set of recommendations regarding procedures to be followed by 
institutions such as shelters and isolation centres.610 These included transforming night shelters into around-the-clock centres, limiting turnover of staff 
and the homeless people.  

As part of the Anti-Crisis Shield and its update, a number of instruments and measures were implemented to support citizens. Social protection and 
inclusion measures in response to the pandemic in Poland consisted of 8 general measures, consisting of targeted forms of support. 

The list of social protection and inclusion measures included: 

1.  Measures related to unemployment benefits  

a)  Unemployment benefit (Zasiłek dla bezrobotnych)  

b)  Solidarity supplement (Dodatek solidarnościowy) 

2.  Measures of job protection provided through support to employers, employees and the self-employed 

a)  Lockdown allowance (Świadczenie postojowe)  

b)  Exemption from social insurance contributions  

c)  Relief on social security contributions payment  

d)  Partial co-financing of part of salaries and the social insurance contributions due on those salaries  

e)  A 3-month co-financing of the salaries of employees in the event of economic downtime or reduced working time, and payment 

of social security contributions  

f) 

Increased subsidy for the salaries of employees with disabilities  

g)  Loans for the self-employed and micro companies  

3.  Measures related to sickness benefits and sick pay  

a)  Sickness benefits and sick pay during quarantine (Zasiłek chorobowy i wynagrodzenie chorobowe podczas kwarantanny) 

4.  Measures related to health insurance  

a)  Extension of coverage of treatment for COVID-19 to the whole population (Rozszerzenie prawa do leczenia COVID-19 na całą 

populację) 

b)  COVID-19 diagnosis (Diagnoza w kierunku COVID-19) 

c)  Medical home care (Domowa opieka medyczna – DOM)  

d) 

Individual patient account (Indywidualne konto pacjenta) 

Bezdomność.pl. 

608 Sadło, K. (2020). Tarcza antykryzysowa dla organizacji pozarządowych. Available at: https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-organizacji-pozarzadowych 
609 
pl/aktualno%C5%9Bci/art_20200501_tarcza3standardy  
610 Ministerstwo Rodziny i Polityki Społecznej (n.d.). Procedura dla podmiotów prowadzących placówki udzielające wsparcia osobom bezdomnym w czasie epidemii oraz instrukcja postępowania 
w sytuacji podejrzenia u osoby bezdomnej zarażenia wirusem SARS-CoV-2. Available at: https://sites.google.com/view/bezdomnosc-pl/aktualno%C5%9Bci/art_20201105_procedury_covid  

https://sites.google.com/view/bezdomnosc-

antykryzysowa 

bezdomnym. 

Available 

osobom 

Tarcza 

pomoc 

(n.d.). 

3.0 

at: 

a 

341 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

5.  Measures related to minimum income schemes and other forms of social assistance 

a)  Remote administrative procedure in social assistance  

b)  Cash assistance for participants in rehabilitation centres for people with disabilities  

c)  Payment of integration benefits during the suspension of training courses in social employment institutions  

6.  Measures related to housing support  

a)  Temporary suspension of evictions  

b)  Rent subsidy (Dopłata do czynszu) 

7.  Leave for parents whose children are unable to attend a school or a pre-school service by reason of COVID-19 

a)  Additional care allowance (Dodatkowy zasiłek opiekuńczy) 

8.  Other important temporary social protection/inclusion measure adopted in the  context of the pandemic, which does not fall into any  of the 

categories listed in the previous sections  

a)  Polish Tourist Voucher (Polski bon turystyczny).611 

The Anti-Crisis Shield established 2 main temporary measures related to housing support to prevent citizens from eviction and avoid increasing the 
number of homeless people.  

1.  Temporary suspension of evictions (Czasowe zawieszenie eksmisji)612 

The suspension of enforced evictions was introduced in the Anti-Crisis Shield 1.0. Initially, the measure extended to all persons subject to this procedure; 
later one exception was made – for perpetrators of domestic violence.  

2.  Rent subsidy (dopłata do czynszu)613 

Temporary financial support during the pandemic aims to reduce the rental cost of housing for people whose income has fallen 

during the pandemic. The support was directed at households entitled to a housing allowance614 and the rent subsidy amounted up to 75% of the flat 
rent, but no more than PLN 1 500 per month.  

Additionally, the Ministry of Family and Social Policy provided financial support through a Call for tenders for organisations helping the homeless615 

The main objective of the funded programme is to inspire and support actions aimed at preventing and solving the problem of homelessness through 
four modules: prevention, activation, infrastructure and innovation. In 2020, the Ministry conducted three calls for tenders - one basic and two additional 

611  Chłoń-Domińczak  A.,  Sowa-Kofta  A.,  Szarfenberg  R. 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24618&langId=en   
612  Starzewski,  Ł.  (2021).  Zakaz  eksmisji  z  mieszkań  w  pandemii  –  co  z  prawami  właścicieli?  Rzecznik  pisze  do  MS.  Biuro  Rzecznika  Praw  Obywatelskich.  Available  at: 
https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/zakaz-eksmisji-w-pandemii-rpo-pisze-do-ms 
613 Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii (2021). Dopłaty do czynszu. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-technologia/doplaty-do-czynszu 
614 The basic form of financial support for rental costs in Poland is a housing allowance. 
615  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy  (n.d.).  Pokonać  bezdomność.  Program  pomocy  osobom  bezdomnym  -  Edycja  2020.  Available  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pokonac-
bezdomnoscprogram-pomocy-osobom-bezdomnym---edycja-2020  

the  COVID-19  crisis.  Poland.  Available  at: 

(2021).  Social  protection  and 

inclusion  policy 

responses 

to 

342 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

open calls. The Ministry received 269 offers and signed up 78 agreements for the total amount of PLN 10 006 million616. The Programme had one 
further call in 2021 and one call in 2022. 

The  Anti-Coronavirus  Shield  is  complemented  by  a  Fund  Anti-Coronavirus  Package  prepared  by  the  Ministry  of  Funds  and  Regional  Policy 
(Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej).617 Its two most important objectives are: to channel EU funds to fight the coronavirus and to guide those 
who have benefited from European funds safely through the economic turbulence. At the time of preparing the changes - March 2020 - tens of thousands 
of projects were in progress in Poland. The implemented solutions are applicable until the end of 2023.  

The Ministry also prepared special recommendations for Marshals Offices on the possibility of allocating money from the European Social Fund for 
projects ensuring the health and safety of people in social care homes or children's homes. They made it possible to purchase masks and gloves, but 
also, for example, to finance the temporary relocation of people from such facilities to safer places (e.g. assisted living facilities). The budget was up to 
PLN 1 billion from ESF funds.618 

As part of measures to support social inclusion, PLN 20 million was released for low-percentage or even 0% capital loans for social economy entities 
(e.g. work cooperatives, social integration centres, and public benefit organisations). In addition, repayment rules for loans to social economy entities 
were amended. "Loan holidays" were introduced and the repayment period was extended. In the case of a difficult financial situation, it was possible 
to reduce the interest rate to 0% for up to 12 months.619 

It is estimated that the total direct support for wages and the social protection benefits, including funds from ESF, introduced in Poland in response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic was almost PLN 34 billion (EUR 7.55 billion), equivalent to 1.5% of 2019 GDP, with the bulk related to the exemption from 
social security contributions and wage support.620 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information 
about the ESF/ 
FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 
response to 
COVID-19 

Based on the mapping task conducted for the evaluation, there were  identified 83 ESF interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ packages that 
were implemented as new or adjusted at the national and regional levels in Poland.  

The national level: 9 EFS interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ packages: 

 

 

TO8:  labour  market:  two  interventions,  both  adjusted  under  8ii:  sustainable  integration  into  to  labour  market  of  young  people  aimed  at 
maintaining the possibility of employment for young people up to 29 years of age, in particular, those without employment and low levels of 
education (ESF) and (YEI). 

TO9: social inclusion: four interventions: one intervention adjusted under 9i  active inclusion: Strengthening the potential of institutions working 
for social inclusion and three interventions under 9iv access to services: one new - Countering the effects of the  Covid-19 pandemic and two 
adjusted – (1) Development of supported housing for people at risk of social exclusion as de-institutionalized forms and (2) Implementation of 
pro-quality activities and organizational solutions in the health care system facilitating access to inexpensive, durable and high-quality health 
services. 

616  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy  (n.d.).  Sprawozdanie  z  programu  „POKONAĆ  BEZDOMNOŚĆ.  PROGRAM  POMOCY  OSOBOM  BEZDOMNYM”  za  2020  rok.  Available  at: 
https://www.gov.pl/attachment/7a866824-8635-4b92-a1eb-4b677d6cbc48.  
617 Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (2020). Funduszowy Pakiet Antywirusowy. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy 
618  Serwis  Rzeczpospolitej  Polskiej  (2020),  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  czyli 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-jak-ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/ 
619  Portal  Funduszy  Europejskich  (2020).  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  czyli 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-jak-ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/ 
620  Chłoń-Domińczak  A.,  Sowa-Kofta  A.,  Szarfenberg  R.,  (2021).  Social  protection  and  inclusion  policy  responses  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  Poland.  European  Commission.  Available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24618&langId=en  

i  Polityki  Regionalnej  walczy  z  koronawirusem.  Available  at: 

i  Polityki  Regionalnej  walczy  z  koronawirusem.  Available  at: 

jak  Ministerstwo  Funduszy 

jak  Ministerstwo  Funduszy 

343 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

 

 

TO10: education: two adjusted interventions under 10i. reducing and preventing early school leaving and promoting equal access to education, 
including formal, non-formal, and learning pathways for reintegrating into education and training aimed at (1) improving the functioning and 
increasing the use of the school support system in terms of the development of key competences and universal skills and (2) increasing the 
use by schools and institutions of modernized content, tools and resources supporting general education.  

TO11: institutional capacities of public administration, public services and stakeholders: one adjusted intervention under 11ii. Capacity building 
for all stakeholders delivering education, lifelong learning, training and employment social policies aimed at increasing the participation of 
social partners in shaping skills strategies and human capital development. 

The regional level: 76 EFS/ERDF interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ packages, three new and 71 adjusted.  

 

TO8: labour market: 27 interventions: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

8i: access for job seekers and inactive – 16 interventions  

8iii: self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation – 2 interventions 

8v: adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change) – 1 intervention 

8vi: active ageing – 8 interventions 

 

TO9: social inclusion: a minimum 20% of ESF must be dedicated to TO9: 33 interventions: 

o 

o 

o 

9i: active inclusion – 4 interventions 

9iv: access to services – 21 interventions 

9v: social economy – 8 interventions 

 

TO10: education: 16 interventions: 

o 

o 

o 

10i: reducing and preventing early school leaving and promoting equal access to education, including formal, non-formal, and learning 
pathways for reintegrating into education and training – 10 interventions 

10iii: enhancing equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups in formal, non-formal and informal settings – 2 interventions 

10iv: improving labour market relevance of education and training systems – 4 interventions 

 

TO11: institutional capacities of public administrations, public services and stakeholders: 0 interventions  

The highest number of identified regional interventions was in the Swietokrzyskie region (8 interventions) and in Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Podlaskie 
(both 7 interventions). 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Brief description of the selected operation 

The case study operation is in the field of social inclusion. At national level, the Knowledge Education Growth Operational Programme (KEG OP) was 
adapted and the project “Street work academy” (PL: Akademia streetworkingu) was adjusted. In budgetary terms, the project value is PLN 6 897 281,59 

344 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

co-financed by the ESF. The project initially planned to support 250 homeless people621 whereas, by the end of September 2020, the total number of 
supported people was 4,232. 

The objective of the operation is to provide assistance to homeless people in public spaces, in a crisis situation including COVID-19 pandemic.622 The 
project was implemented between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2021.623 Using the CRII flexibilities, the original Street work academy project was expanded 
and quickly changed in response to the pandemic to cover several additional activities. The activities to support the homeless during the pandemic 
took place from June to September 2020.624 Additional activities included providing street workers with PPE, as well as supporting homeless people or 
people  at  risk  of  homelessness,  via  access  to  shelters,  to  protect  them  from  potentially  getting  infected  and  spreading  the  infection  further.  This 
intervention was implemented in 54 regional centres of the St. Brother Albert Aid Society (Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta)625. While the project scope 
was national, direct implementation was focused on five large Polish cities: Warsaw, Wrocław, Gdańsk, Gliwice, and Jelenia Góra. 

Two main interventions were implemented as part of the project: providing help in institutions, and secondly providing help on the streets. The first set 
of interventions included changing the functioning of institutions – in Gdańsk and Wrocław night shelters were transformed into all-day centres, so that 
people staying in them weren’t forced to wander around the city during the day; and secondly, in all 5 cities shelters were isolated from the outside 
world. People staying in them were discouraged from leaving and the institutions provided food, hygiene products, cigarettes, and leisure activities to 
fill the time.  In  order  to  enter one  of  the  ‘isolated’ institutions  participants needed to  undergo  a 14  day  quarantine  (shortened  to 10  days  after  the 
government’s recommendations changed). To enable that, in all 5 cities special isolation units were set up providing additional spaces where people 
could be isolated. In Gdańsk, Warsaw, Gliwice, and Jelenia Góra, those were set up in special units constructed using specially adapted containers. 
Work organisation was adapted to the pandemic; usually, shifts lasted twelve hours, and then the staff changed. However, to minimise the risk of 
bringing the virus into the institution, staff worked in longer cycles and could spend several days at the centre at a time (e.g. 7 days in Gdańsk – this 
differed per city).626 

The second group of interventions were carried out in the streets. All 5 participating cities relied on streetworkers, who in addition to their regular tasks, 
were responsible for giving away free PPE, providing up-to-date information on the pandemic, and signposting to additional help available (like e.g. the 
isolation centres). In some cases street workers also provided food. In Warsaw, Gdańsk, and Wrocław, street workers were assisted by special buses 
(SOS buses), which visited daily to provide homeless people with medical assistance, information, medical safety gear, and food. The buses were 
staffed with social workers, street workers, and paramedics.627 

Priority target groups and economic sectors 

621 Interviews with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected operation on a national level and an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland in August and 
September 2022. 
622  Interview  conducted  with  representatives  of  an  implementing  non-governmental  organisation  in  Poland,    September  2022;  and  Towarzystwo  Pomocy  im.  Św.  Brata  Alberta,  Akademia 
Streetworkingu. Available at: http://www.bratalbert.org/akademia-streetworkingu-kopia.html 
representative of an implementing non-governmental organisation 
623 Jaskulski. P. et. al. (2020). „Wypracowanie i przetestowanie procedur pracy streetworkerów i świadczenia przez nich pomocy osobom bezdomnym przebywającym w przestrzeni publicznej w 
sytuacji  kryzysowej,  w  tym  pandemii  wirusowej  COVID-19”.  Available  at:  https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-
19.pdf 
624 Interviews with representatives of the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level and representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 
2022. 
625 Jaskulski. P. at. al. (2020). „Wypracowanie i przetestowanie procedur pracy streetworkerów i świadczenia przez nich pomocy osobom bezdomnym przebywającym w przestrzeni publicznej w 
sytuacji  kryzysowej,  w  tym  pandemii  wirusowej  COVID-19”.  Available  at:  https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-
19.pdf 
626 Ibid. 
627 Ibid 

345 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

As a result of the CRII flexibilities, the target group for the project changed. Initially, the project was supposed to support only street workers. However, 
as the KEG PO included entities like non-governmental organisations and other social economy entities which help homeless people as one of its 
target groups. Therefore, there was no need to formally change the operational programme. Nevertheless, new activities were identified for the targeted 
groups of the OP as a result of the pandemic. Homeless people and people at risk of homelessness as a vulnerable social group did not have access 
to shelters, usual food supplies, money, washing facilities and basic hygiene. Homeless people do not have easy access to health care, so it was 
obvious  that  they  would  need  complex  support,  so  all  the  above-mentioned  needs  were  foreseen  in  the  adjusted  St.  Brother  Albert  Aid  Society 
(Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta) project.628  

The key priority groups targeted by the project include mainly homeless people, but also people at risk of homelessness (drug addicts, people living in 
poverty, people with disabilities etc.). Stakeholders noted that the CRII and CRII+ mechanisms enabled support to be targeted at people in great need 
of basic needs such as a place to sleep, food, clothing, basic medical care, or personal protective equipment.629 Interviewees from the implementing 
authorities and the St. Brother Albert Aid Society (Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta) highlighted that the broad definition of the project target groups 
helped reach out to those in desperate need.  

Fifty-four organisations of the St. Brother Albert Aid Society across Poland benefited from the project’s support, receiving 32,000 masks, 60 cartons of 
gloves (total: 6,000 pieces), 104 thermometers and 298 personal protection kits, which included: 2 pairs of goggles (total: 596 pieces), 2 FFp3 masks 
(total: 596 pieces), 2 visors (total: 596 pieces), 2 coveralls (total: 596 pieces), 3 aprons (total: 894 pieces) and 2 glove packs (total: 596 boxes containing 
59600 pieces).630 

Despite the above successes in meeting target group needs, the following project’s challenges were noted:  

 

The project sometimes struggled to secure enough places for people with disabilities.631 

  Sometimes it was difficult to avoid scaring away potential clients. It is normally a challenge to build trust with these groups, but with  COVID, 
when people were scared and not sure what was happening, that task was even harder. In order to mitigate these issues, streetworkers limited 
the amount of data collected or offered anonymity to those engaged.632 

Key challenges 
and facts 

The CRII and CRII+ flexibility enabled a rapid response to the challenges arising for the homeless and the people at risk of  homelessness. As the 
respondents emphasised, the project's target group's needs were much higher than many ESF participants and many more people required support.  

The flexibilities provided meant that the original project could be quickly expanded from simply providing training for street workers to include more 
complex  initiatives  targeting  the  specific  needs  of  homeless  people  resulting  from  the  new  situation.  Instead  of  setting  up  a  new  project,  these 
interventions could be incorporated into a running project making the whole procedure a lot faster.633 The Ministry’s agreement to adjust the project 
also helped secure funds for the support and protection of the staff who helped the homeless.  

As respondents explained, it was not easy to recruit cities to participate initially, but as the pandemic took hold, more and more cities wanted to join the 
project.634 Due to the experience and reputation of the St. Brother Albert's Society, the project was planned smoothly, securing partners among city 

628 Ibid. 
629 Interview conducted with representatives of the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level and an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
630 Jaskulski. P. at. al. (2020). „Wypracowanie i przetestowanie procedur pracy streetworkerów i świadczenia przez nich pomocy osobom bezdomnym przebywającym w przestrzeni publicznej w 
sytuacji kryzysowej, w tym pandemii wirusowej COVID-19”. Available at: https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-
19.pdf  
631 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
632 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
633 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level and an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland in 
August and September 2022. 
634 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 

346 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

authorities  and  obtaining  additional  funding  to  purchase  or  rent  the  necessary  infrastructure  -  without  those  factors,  the  project  would  not  have 
succeeded.635  

As one interviewee explained, the CRII and CRII+ flexibility helped in smooth project adjustment and later approval, mainly the rapid re-direction of 
unspent resources to where they were most needed, simplified application procedures and rules for project implementers.636 The association was thus 
able to collaborate with its local partners without signing and arranging official partnerships and was able to easily commission tasks and manage 
finances more easily. Despite simplifying procedures, it was noted however that inspections and audits are still quite challenging for the St. Brother 
Albert Society. The project has been controlled several times by different public institutions, and the institutions have had inconsistent comments and 
recommendations. One interviewee thus requested that the administrative burden be further reduced in future.637 

The  main  challenge  cited  was  to  organise  the  infrastructure  in  the  context  of  COVID  restrictions,  including  the  location  of  the  emergency  shelter 
containers provided. Unfortunately, people often did not want the containers for the homeless to be near their homes or the overnight accommodation 
to be organised in a sports hall. 

Access to 
funding  

Overall, the CRII flexibilities were assessed as suitable, transparent, well-designed and relevant in terms of their role in facilitating access to funding.638 
Respondents cited that funding could be secured and deployed exceptionally quickly. It was also noted that without establishing the CRII and CRII+ 
mechanisms, it would not have been possible to implement the adjusted Street work Academy project. Thus, it would have been difficult to guarantee 
assistance to more than 4,200 homeless people. This perspective was consistent across the Managing Authority, the implementing authority and the 
St. Brother Albert Aid Society, which runs the project.  

Following initial project development, support for the homeless was proposed in the next versions of the Anti-Crisis Shields (2.0 and upwards).639 Thus, 
public funds from the ESF were among the first to be used to help vulnerable social groups like the homeless and people at risk of homelessness. An 
essential element in project funding was EU funds' eligibility and retroactive eligibility, which could be incurred before the project was actually approved 
and then reimbursed. According to respondents from NGO and the implementing authority, this approach helped organise aid immediately.  

Unfortunately, respondents from both the managing and implementing authorities found it difficult to compare the crisis caused by the COVID pandemic 
with the economic crisis of 2008-2009. 

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

According to information collected from the respondents and the data analysis, three new indicators were introduced for national and regional OPs. 
The  European  Commission  proposed  and  subsequently  introduced  indicators  that  corresponded/matched  with  the  Polish  proposal.  The  indicators 
introduced were  

  CV31 - Number of participants supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,  

  CV30 - Value of ESF actions to combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost) and  

  CV33 - Number of entities supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.640  

635 Interview conducted with a representative of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in Poland, August 2022. 
636 Interviews conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022.  
637 Interviews conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
638 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level and the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level 
in Poland in August and September 2022. 
639  Chłoń-Domińczak  A.,  Sowa-Kofta  A.,  Szarfenberg  R., 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24618&langId=en   
640  European  Commission,  (2021).  NON-PAPER:  List  of  programme  specific  indicators  related  to  the  cohesion  policy  direct  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Available  at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf  

the  COVID-19  crisis.  Poland.  Available  at: 

(2021).  Social  protection  and 

inclusion  policy 

responses 

to 

347 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The data shows that under the ESF: 

  Number of participants supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across Poland – 1 988 600, of which 

9i – 9 423 people, of which the Street working Academy project – 4 232 people; 

  Number of entities supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic – 77 797, of which 9i – 2 188 entities, of 

which the project – 54 entities; 

  Value of ESF actions to combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost) - PLN 4 282 710 457, including 9i - 

PLN 40 731 061, of which PLN  5 571 373,48 were allocated to the project.641 

According to interviewees from the implementing and managing authorities, the indicators were sufficient to monitor the progress and scale of the 
assistance and support provided.642 From the perspective of St. Brother Albert's Society, the field data collection system could be improved. They did 
not have a proper reporting system, and data collection was a challenge for staff, street workers, and the project manager.643 

The CRII and CRII+ package made it possible to provide support in an area that was not previously required on such a scale in Poland. The EU funds 
made it possible to implement a pilot project that tested street workers' previously acquired knowledge and experience. The project was unique in the 
country, and its results exceeded the expectations of both the project providers and the public administration. Thanks to the CRII and CRII+ flexibility, 
it was possible to design, test and implement a practical aid tool including successful delivery of public services in extreme pandemic conditions. The 
collaboration established within the cities during project implementation allowed the municipal authorities to continue the project's activities after its 
end.644 This fact helps to evidence effective project implementation while also showing that further measures to support the homeless are needed. This 
latter aspect is reflected in the report Analiza społeczno-gospodarcza wraz z diagnozą obszarów interwencji EFS prepared for the Ministry of Funds 
and Regional Policy. The authors recommend that measures to reduce homelessness, poverty and social exclusion have to be further strengthened 
under the ESF in Poland.645  

In respondents' opinion, assistance from national funds would not be possible on such a scale. The project provided aid to a group of people who were 
left without basic livelihood support during the first months of the pandemic.646 The project’s experience was also felt to be instructive in respect of the 
humanitarian crisis caused by the Russian invasion in Ukraine, where displaced / homeless people may require support.647 

It is apparent from the interviews that the managing and implementing institutions have a positive opinion of the implementation of the CRII and CRII+ 
in  Poland  as  efficient,  timely,  and  transparent.  Reallocation  of  funds,  reprogramming  of  the  OP,  the  possibility  of  adjusting  projects,  simplifying 
procedures and paths for approving projects, etc., contributed to a quick response to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the preparation 

Overall 
assessment  

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid response 

641 Data provided by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Development and during the interviews conducted with the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level in Poland in 
August and September 2022. 
642 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level and the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national 
level in Poland, August and September 2022.  
643 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022 
644 Interview conducted with a representative of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in Poland, August 2022. 
645 Ministrstwo Funduszy i Rozowju Regionalnego, (2020) report Analiza społeczno-gospodarcza wraz z diagnozą obszarów interwencji EFS, available at: 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/98143/Analiza_spolgosp.pdf (Accessed on: 22.09.2022) 
646 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national and an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland , August 
and September 2022. 
647 Interview conducted with a representative of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022 

348 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

to the COVID-19 
crisis through 
ESF  

of ESF funds - such as the support for the homeless.648 The Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy also recognised that the CRII and CRII+ mechanisms 
enabled an instant reaction. Appropriate legislation could easily be introduced, and funds didn’t have to be approved in a long process prior to the 
intervention, but could simply be reimbursed after.649 

Respondents reported that a cost-benefit analysis including non-monetary and monetary costs for the Street work academy project had not been carried 
out. Also, no evaluation study or impact assessment was carried out. An evaluation study, including PI.9i will be commissioned by the end of 2022.650 
However,  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  project,  taking  into  account  the  scope  and  scale,  was  unusual  for  Polish  conditions.  Therefore  they 
acknowledge that it would be challenging to develop a cost-benefit analysis as they would not have detailed data for the non-monetary and monetary 
costs assumptions of the project.  

Accepting  the  above  limitations,  both  the  Managing  Authority  and  Intermediary  Body  representatives  emphasized  that  the  project  was  worth  the 
investment and that, in broad terms, the benefits could be judged to have exceeded the funds invested. They emphasized the importance of over 4,000 
people being supported and assisted compared to the originally planned 250. When analysing the achieved values of indicators in the project, it can 
be concluded that the cost-effectiveness of the implemented project was much higher than initially planned. The cost per 1 participant was approximately 
PLN 1,300. The funds invested can also be assessed in the context of helping to implement activities that can be delivered in future, as the municipal 
authorities are continuing the project in each of the five cities.651 It was noted, for example, that additional financial resources were crucial, especially 
during the first phase when the infrastructure was being set up. After the project kicked off, it was relatively easy to keep it running.652 

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

Respondents indicated that the objectives and measures taken by the project were relevant to the needs of the project’s target groups on the ground. 
According to the Ministry of Funds, the operations were relevant, the CRII and CRII+ mechanisms enabled a rapid response from institutions providing 
social services, and the planned intervention (Akademia Streetworkingu) was successful in helping a significant number of people from a key target 
group  requiring  support.  It  was  thus  a  much-needed  and  relevant  response  to  the  crisis  caused  by  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19.653  Likewise,  the 
organisations involved in delivery felt that the project was extremely relevant. Unfortunately, due to the limited financial ESF sources, the project was 
only  implemented  in 5  cities, so  the gaps  in  addressing  needs  were  geographical.  However,  once  the  project  gained publicity  more  municipalities 
expressed interest in joining.654 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

The  project  was  and is  relevant  to the needs of  the  targeted  groups (homeless  people  and  people  at  risk of  homelessness).  These  social groups 
suffered  greatly  during  the  pandemic  and  are  not  always  among  the  priority  support  groups  for  governments.  Additionally,  homeless  people  were 
particularly negatively affected by the lockdown, as many institutions and public spaces were closed, so those people faced a complicated and difficult 
situation overnight. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that Polish shelters and institutions for homeless people and people at risk of homelessness 
were not adapted to the social crisis, the pandemic and coronavirus restrictions. The authors of analysis stated that “Poland’s response to the crisis 
was  rather  mediocre.  Numerous measures  were  introduced  to  ensure  safety  within  shelter  and institutions offering  buffering  zones, but  in  the  first 

648 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level and the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national 
level in Poland, August and September 2022. 
649 Interview conducted with a representative of the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level in Poland, September 2022. 
650 Interview conducted with a representative of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in Poland, August 2022. 
651 Interviews conducted with representatives of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level and the Managing Authority responsible for ESF on the national level 
in Poland, August and September 2022. 
652Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
653 Interview conducted with a representative of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in Poland, September 2022. 
654 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 

349 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

weeks of the epidemic, the supply of personal protective equipment and disinfectants was a serious issue”.655 The support provided was thus highly 
relevant and needed. 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

The original project and the adjusted one were consistent with the ESF’s objectives. As already indicated, the Managing Authority did not need to 
reprogram the OP in the area of PI 9i - social inclusion. The initial version of the project was in line with the training and educational activities that were 
programmed for the ESF in the OP. According to the Managing Authority, the extension added to the Street work Academy project as a response to 
COVID-19 was coherent with the previous activities and interventions carried out. Previous interventions planned included providing workshops and 
training to street workers.656 According to the organisation responsible for implementing the project, the newly trained staff were in turn important for 
carrying out the second part of the project, especially street work done to reach people living on the streets.  

However, adapting the project to the coronavirus restrictions and established lockdown rules required designing a pilot with a package of activities that 
had not been implemented in Poland before. The adjusted project was the first of its kind in the country and on such a scale. Compared to other 
European countries, Poland had no experience creating such spaces, e.g., for refugees. 

The actions under IP 9i. and the project Street work Academy were coherent and complementary to other activities implemented by national, regional 
or local authorities. Resources from both ESF and national budgets were focused on providing the broadest possible support to homeless people and 
those at risk of homelessness.  

The  St.  Brother  Albert  Aid  Society  (Towarzystwo  Św.  Brata  Alberta)  project  also  benefited  from  the  resources  of  a  government  institution  -  the 
Government Strategic Reserve Agency (Rządowe Centrum Rezerw Startegicznych)  - which had access to PPE, disinfectants, beds, respirators or 
other necessary items and infrastructure needed to protect health and life. This support was vital as demand exceeded supply.657  

At the beginning of the pandemic, the municipal authorities in Gdańsk were planning on implementing a similar intervention. Thanks to the CRII and 
CRII+ mechanisms, the St. Brother Albert Aid Society (Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta could expand these original plans and activities.658 As indicated 
above, the authorities of Gdansk, as well as the other four cities, contributed from their own budgets for the purchase and rental of infrastructure. 

As indicated in previous sections, projects and actions of this scale and scope could not have been fully implemented with national funds alone. Actions 
implemented at the national, regional or city levels were coherent and complementary.  

Coherence with 
other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 

The desk research shows that the operation under IP9i was coherent with other EU funding as for instance, REACT-EU and FEAD. Total REACT-EU 
allocation for Poland was €1,912,742,575.659  Allocation to OP Knowledge, Education, and Growth under the REACT-EU initiative was increased by 
€310.5 million to help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic.660 In addition, all 16 regional OPs received additional funding, so the financial aid from FEAD 
were managed both at the national and regional level661. The additional resources were devoted primarily to providing assistance to the most vulnerable 

655 FEANTSA, Homeless in Europe (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on Homeless people and services. Available at: 
https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/magazine/2020/Full_Magazine_Autumn_2020.pdf 
656 Interview conducted with a representative of the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in Poland, August 2022. 
657 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
658 Interview conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 
659 REACT-EU Fostering crisis rapid and resilience, available at: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/REACT-EU-Fostering-crisis-repair-and-resilience/26d9-dqzy/ (Accessed: 28.11.2022) 
660 Komisja Europejska, Polityka spójności UE: 310,5 mln euro dla Polskiavailable at: https://poland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/polityka-spojnosci-ue-3105-mln-euro-dla-polski-2021-06-
02_pl (Accessed: 29.11.2022) 

661 Komisja Europejska Przedstawicielstwo w Polsce (2021). Skuteczna pomoc dla regionów i miast. Available at: https://poland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/skuteczna-pomoc-dla-
regionow-i-miast-2021-10-11_pl  

350 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

social  groups,  job  retention  and  job creation,  to  support  measures  for  youth  employment  and  skills development  and  to  increase  access  to  social 
services662. What is more, the funds provide support to primary health care and other entities with stationary and round-the-clock health services.663 
The Polish government also implemented necessary support by changing the FEAD rules for buying, providing and distributing food to the needy. The 
change in FEAD did not require reprogramming the OP, only an adjustment to the public health and lockdown regime in Poland.664 This was likewise 
seen as complementary to the selected ESF operation by the consulted stakeholders. 

The financial support for social welfare homes (PL: DPS: domy pomocy społecznej) and other care institutions was noted as another coherent initiative 
within the ESF on the country level. The government decided that the voivodship Marshals665 would receive up to PLN 1 billion (approximately € 213 
million) from ESF funds. The aid was part of the Fund Antivirus Package, which was developed by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy.666 Each 
OP implemented activities and projects that supported the protection and life of the homeless. 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

As discussed above, the flexibility of CRII and CRII+ enabled rapid support to be provided to those in need at a crucial point and responded to significant 
needs on the ground. The support provided by the project’s activities far exceeded the initial objectives (over 4000 homeless people were supported, 
relative to the 250 targeted initially).  

Activities to support institutions assisting the most vulnerable social groups like the homeless and people at risk of poverty were implemented at different 
levels and with different funding sources. ESF funds were provided under both IP 9i and TO9 social inclusion or TO11 - institutional capacities of public 
administration, public services and stakeholders. The new measures enabled by the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant to the general objectives 
of the ESF of allowing NGOs and other social economy entities to support and provide aid to homeless people and people at risk of homelessness.  

In addition, the funds allocated for pandemic mitigation reached 100% co-financing, which significantly increased the availability of funds in Poland to 
counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Furthermore, because the project was tested and implemented under extreme crisis conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in different cities and 
parts of Poland and the St. Brother Albert Aid Society (Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta) has 54 offices across Poland, it was easier to share the project's 
gained experience during the vast humanitarian crisis which Poland faced in a result of the Russian war in Ukraine. The learnings from the ESF project 
were highly relevant in view of the unexpected and high number of Ukrainians entering Poland. The already organised infrastructure and accumulated 
knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic on how to create spaces for those in need and provide safe conditions were used to address the additional 
emerging needs during. The project's trained street workers could also facilitate the required aid and support and coach volunteers. 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 

Early results are evident from the project examined by the case study. In terms of quantifiable outputs, the number of supported people far exceeded 
those planned - over 4,000 compared to the 250 planned within the project's budget. More broadly, it was noted that a very important indicator is the 

Parlament 

Europejski 

(2022).  Wsparcie 

662 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/pl/sheet/215/wsparcie-na-rzecz-odbudowy-sluzacej-spojnosci-oraz-terytoriom-europy-react-eu-  
663 Komisja Europejska Przedstawicielstwo w Polsce (2021). Skuteczna pomoc dla regionów i miast. Available at: https://poland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/skuteczna-pomoc-dla-regionow-
i-miast-2021-10-11_pl  
664 
https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/magazine/2020/Full_Magazine_Autumn_2020.pdf 
665 Marshall Offices are the authorities in Polish regions (NUTS2) responsible for regional operational programmes. 
666 Portal Funduszy Europejskich (2020). Funduszowy Pakiet Antywirusowy - sprawdź jak to działa!. Available at: https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/Strony/Wiadomosci/Funduszowy-Pakiet-
Antywirusowy-sprawdz-jak-to-dziala  

(REACT-EU). 

FEANTSA, 

COVID-19 

odbudowy 

terytoriom 

Homeless 

Homeless 

spójności 

Available 

Available 

services. 

służącej 

Europe 

Europy 

(2020). 

people 

impact 

rzecz 

oraz 

The 

and 

on 

na 

of 

in 

at: 

at: 

351 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

impact on 
organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

fact that there was not a single COVID19 infection among homeless people and staff during the implementation of the support. 667 Another key early 
result of the project is that it is being sustained in terms of delivery by the municipalities. The public services developed were also cited as being helpful 
when refugees from Ukraine arrived in Poland in February-April 2022. In addition, it was reported that other municipalities not involved in the original 
project are interested in the solutions and are open to receiving guidance and/or training. The pilot project was tested to help groups most vulnerable 
to  system  neglect due  to  the epidemiological crisis.  The  implemented  activities  and public  services have  passed  the  test,  and  the  project is  being 
successfully continued and enhanced by city public authorities. The project is being scaled up, i.e., adapted in other cities. The solutions implemented 
- the Street bus or the SOS bus - have successfully reached people on the street who could not benefit from institutional support in shelters. Throughout 
the project period of testing (June-September 2020) the buses served 90 268 meals, and 8 729 items of clothing for 75 571 people (an average of 259 
people per day). This means almost 100,000 fewer situations where there could potentially be a contagion in a public space.668 It is also worth noting 
that the paramedics working on board the buses provided first aid several times a day and provided pre-medical first aid to people coming for support. 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

Key lessons include: 

 

 

 

 

The  administration  tested  a new  ESF  management  and  implementation  model,  which  proved  itself in  the  COVID-19 emergency  and  was 
successfully adapted during the humanitarian crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine, as the ESF was also aligned with the expenditure for this 
new target group. This has helped evidence the key role that crisis-response funding can play. 

The advantage of the European Commission's proposed CRII and CRII+ mechanisms was their high level of flexibility and broad coverage. 
Their ‘eventual successors’ should be designed similarly to be easily adapted in each Member State.  

In general managing the financial and administrative side of the project remained a burden for delivery organisations, sometimes seen as 
being too big to handle, though it was acknowledged that some of the facilitations introduced by the CRII and CRII+ mechanisms really helped 
particularly: simplified application and quicker payment procedures, access to existing financial resources and rapid re-direction of unspent 
EU funds to where they were most needed, simplification of procedures and rules for the project implementers (beneficiaries). This suggests 
that the positive reductions in burdens can be, and need to be, further expanded. 

From the delivery organisation perspective, it was noted that the focus on evaluation and monitoring through indicators sometimes overlooks 
people being supported and their needs or capabilities; from this view projects should not be focused so much on indicators and should not 
lose sight of the actual human it is set to help. 

  Being able to combine ‘soft’ and infrastructural projects was very much appreciated by the St. Brother Albert Aid Society (Towarzystwo Św. 
Brata  Alberta).  They  also  mentioned  that  an  opportunity  to  network  and  exchange  experiences  with  partners/sister  organisations  abroad 
brought  valuable  insights  and  enabled  organisations  to  better  plan  implementing  some  solutions  at  home.  This  took  place  outside  the 
framework of the project but was deemed to be an important activity which supported the exchange of good practices and learnings.  

 

Training and workshops are still an unsaturated market and there are still needs especially among groups working with difficult clients (like 
street workers) for training and learning. 

667  Interview  conducted  with  representatives  of  an  implementing  non-governmental  organisation  in  Poland,  September  2022;  and Jaskulski.  P.  et.  al.  (2020).  „Wypracowanie  i  przetestowanie 
procedur  pracy streetworkerów  i świadczenia  przez  nich  pomocy  osobom  bezdomnym  przebywającym  w  przestrzeni  publicznej  w  sytuacji  kryzysowej,  w  tym  pandemii wirusowej  COVID-19”. 
Available at: https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-19.pdf 
668 Interviews conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland and the Intermediate Body responsible for the selected project on a national level in 
Poland in August and September 2022; and Jaskulski. P. et. al. (2020). „Wypracowanie i przetestowanie procedur pracy streetworkerów i świadczenia przez nich pomocy osobom bezdomnym 
przebywającym 
at: 
https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-19.pdf  

COVID-19”. 

kryzysowej, 

przestrzeni 

publicznej 

wirusowej 

Available 

pandemii 

sytuacji 

tym 

w 

w 

w 

352 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

  Auditing – the organisation recognised that because of the large scope of this project they had to undergo multiple audits, all of which used 
different indicators and focused on different things. This was seen as exhausting and while they recognise the need for audits, they suggest 
those should be done by one entity.669 

1.  Ayobade,  A.    (2022),  The  plight  of  homeless  destitute  during  COVID-19  in  a  selected  location  in  Lagos  State,  available  at: 

https://journals.aphriapub.com/index.php/JSWDS/article/download/1531/1458/3014 (Accessed on: 22.09.2022) 

2.  Centrum  Rozwoju  Społeczeństwa  Obywatelskiego,  Wystąpienie  Wicepremiera  Piotra  Glińskiego:  Tarcza  antykryzysowa  dla  III  sektora 

https://niw.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20200320-Tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-III-sektora.pdf (Accessed on: 21.09.2022) 

3.  Chłoń-Domińczak A., Sowa-Kofta A., Szarfenberg R., (2021), Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Poland, 

available at: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=24618&langId=en (Accessed on: 22.09.2022)   

4.  Covid-19  current 

rules  and 

restrictions 

in 

the  Republic  of  Poland,  available  at:  https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/20043/Covid-

19%20current%20rules%20and%20restrictions%20in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Poland.pdf (Accessed on: 12.09.2022) 

5.  European Commision, (2021), NON-PAPER: List of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, available at:  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/indicators_covid19_response_en.pdf (Accessed 
on: 12.09.2022) 

6.  FEANTSA,  Homeless 

in  Europe 

(2020),  The 

impact  of  COVID-19  on  Homeless  people  and  services,  available  at: 

https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/magazine/2020/Full_Magazine_Autumn_2020.pdf (Accessed on: 13.09.2022) 

7.  Gumowski  P. 

(2022),  COVID-19 

jako  problem  zdrowia  publicznego  w  odniesieniu  do  osób  bezdomnych,  available  at: 

https://www.termedia.pl/koronawirus/COVID-19-jako-problem-zdrowia-publicznego-w-odniesieniu-do-osob-bezdomnych,45089.html 
(Accessed on: 13.09.2022) 

8.  Hale, Thomas and Samuel Webster (2020). Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Data use policy: Creative Commons Attribution 
CC BY standard., available at: https://public.knoema.com/etibpqe/oxford-covid-19-government-response-tracker?regionId=PL (Accessed on: 
20.09.2022) 
Internetowy  System  Aktów  Prawnych.  Ustawa  z  dnia  2  marca  2020  r.  o  szczególnych  rozwiązaniach  związanych  z  zapobieganiem, 
przeciwdziałaniem  i  zwalczaniem  COVID-19,  innych  chorób  zakaźnych  oraz  wywołanych  nimi  sytuacji  kryzysowych.  Available  at: 
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000374  (Accessed on: 12.09.2022) 

9. 

10.  Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych. Ustawa z dnia 3 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach wspierających realizację programów 

operacyjnych. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000694 (Accessed on: 12.09.2022) 

11.  Jaskulski. Paweł. Et. Al. (2020). „Wypracowanie i przetestowanie procedur pracy streetworkerów i świadczenia przez nich pomocy osobom 
bezdomnym  przebywającym  w  przestrzeni  publicznej  w  sytuacji  kryzysowej,  w  tym  pandemii  wirusowej  COVID-19”.  Available  at: 
https://www.bratalbert.org/files/brat_albert/ogloszenia/przetargi/akademia%20streetworkingu/Pozostale/raport_covid-19.pdf  (Accessed  on: 
20.09.2022) 

12.  Komisja  Europejska  Przedstawicielstwo  w  Polsce, 

(2021),  Skuteczna  pomoc  dla 

regionów 

i  miast,  Available  at: 

https://poland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/skuteczna-pomoc-dla-regionow-i-miast-2021-10-11_pl (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

13.  Koronawirus w Polsce, available at: https://koronawirusunas.pl/ (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
14.  Minister Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej. (2020). Ustawa z dnia 3 kwietnia 2020 r. o szczególnych rozwiązaniach wspierających realizację 
programów  operacyjnych  w  związku  z  wystąpieniem  COVID-19  w  2020  r.  Zbiór  wyjaśnień  wybranych  przepisów.  Available  at: 

669 Interviews conducted with representatives of an implementing non-governmental organisation in Poland, September 2022. 

353 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/91854/Aktualizacja_Zbior_interpretacji_specustawa_funduszowa_lipiec_06_07_20.pdf 
(Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

15.  Ministrstwo Funduszy i Rozowju Regionalnego, (2020) report  Analiza społeczno-gospodarcza wraz  z diagnozą obszarów interwencji EFS, 

available at: https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/media/98143/Analiza_spolgosp.pdf (Accessed on: 22.09.2022) 

16.  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy,  (2019),  Wyniki  Ogólnopolskiego  badania  liczby  osób  bezdomnych  -  Edycja  2019,  available  at: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/wyniki-ogolnopolskiego-badania-liczby-osob-bezdomnych-edycja-2019 (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

17.  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy,  Bezdomność,  available  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pom-spol-bezdomnosc  (Accessed  on: 

20.09.2022) 

18.  Ministerstwo Rodziny i Polityki Społecznej. Procedura dla podmiotów prowadzących placówki udzielające wsparcia osobom bezdomnym w 
czasie  epidemii  oraz  instrukcja  postępowania  w  sytuacji  podejrzenia  u  osoby  bezdomnej  zarażenia  wirusem  SARS-CoV-2.  Available  at: 
https://sites.google.com/view/bezdomnosc-pl/aktualno%C5%9Bci/art_20201105_procedury_covid (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

19.  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy,  Pokonać  bezdomność.  Program  pomocy  osobom  bezdomnym  -  Edycja  2020,  available  at: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/pokonac-bezdomnoscprogram-pomocy-osobom-bezdomnym---edycja-2020 

20.  Ministry  of  Family  and  Social  Policy,  Sprawozdanie  z  programu  „POKONAĆ  BEZDOMNOŚĆ.  PROGRAM  POMOCY  OSOBOM 
BEZDOMNYM” za 2020 rok, available at: file:///C:/Users/agnieszka.gorniak/Downloads/2020_Sprawozdanie_z_Programu.pdf (Accessed on: 
19.09.2022) 

21.  Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii, (2021), Dopłaty do czynszu, available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-technologia/doplaty-do-czynszu 

(Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

22.  Ministerstwo  Zdrowia,  Pierwszy  przypadek  koronowirusa  w  Polsce,  available  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/zdrowie/pierwszy-przypadek-

23.  Naczelna 

koronawirusa-w-polsce  (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
Kontroli, 

i 
(2019), 
https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,22486,vp,25161.pdf (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

wspierające 

Działania 

Izba 

aktywizujące 

osoby 

bezdomne, 

available 

at: 

24.  Ogólnopolska Federacja na rzecz bezdomności, (2020). Przeciwdziałanie COVID-19 w placówkach dla osób bezdomnych okresie marzec-

czerwiec 2020, available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xs-rIQnXahxT67035lFrdtvIlymQ5z3B/view 

25.  Polski  Instytut  Ekonomiczny,  (2021),  Tarcza  Antykryzysowa,  Koło  ratunkowe  dla  firm  i  gospodarki,  availabe  at:  https://pie.net.pl/wp-

content/uploads/2021/09/PIE-Raport_Tarcze-antykryzysowe.pdf  (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

26.  Portal  Funduszy  Europejskich,  (2020),  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  czyli  jak  Ministerstwo  Funduszy  i  Polityki  Regionalnej  walczy  z 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-jak-

koronawirusem, 
ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/ (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

available 

at: 

27.  Portal  Funduszy  Europejskich, 

(2020),  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy 

- 

sprawdź 

jak 

https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/Strony/Wiadomosci/Funduszowy-Pakiet-Antywirusowy-sprawdz-jak-to-dziala 
22.09.2022) 

to  działa!,  available  at: 
on: 

(Accessed 

28.  Sadło, K., (2020), Tarcza antykryzysowa dla organizacji pozarządowych, avalibale at:  https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/tarcza-antykryzysowa-dla-

organizacji-pozarzadowych (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

29.  Santander  Bank  Polska  S.A., 

(2020)  Departament  Analiz,  Sytuacja  społeczno-gospodarcza  Polski  w  dobie  pandemii, 

https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FOB_Santander_Sytuacja_spoleczno-
gospodarcza_Polski_w_dobie_pandemii.pdf (Accessed on: 12.09.2022) 

30.  Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/wykaz-zarazen-koronawirusem-sars-cov-2. Data on 20th 

September 2022. (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

31.  Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, Tarcza antykryzysowa, available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

354 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

32.  Serwis Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, (2020), Funduszowy Pakiet Antywirusowy, czyli jak Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej walczy z 
https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/strony/wiadomosci/funduszowy-pakiet-antywirusowy-czyli-jak-

koronawirusem, 
ministerstwo-funduszy-i-polityki-regionalnej-walczy-z-koronawirusem/ (Accessed on: 19.09.2022) 

available 

at: 

33.  Serwis  Rzeczpospolitej  Polskiej,  (2020),  Funduszowy  Pakiet  Antywirusowy,  avaliable  at:  https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/funduszowy-

pakiet-antywirusowy (Accessed on: 12.09.2022) 

34.  Serwis 

Rzeczpospolitej 

Polskiej, 

Tarcza 

Antykryzysowa, 

Dodatkowe 

Wsparcie, 

avaliable 

at: 

https://www.gov.pl/web/tarczaantykryzysowa/dodatkowe-wsparcie (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

35.  Starzewski, Ł., (2021). Zakaz eksmisji z mieszkań w pandemii  – co z prawami właścicieli? Rzecznik pisze do MS. Biuro Rzecznika Praw 

Obywatelskich, available at: https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/zakaz-eksmisji-w-pandemii-rpo-pisze-do-ms (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 
36.  University of Oxford, Covid-19 Government Response Tracker, available at: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-

government-response-tracker (Accessed on: 20.09.2022) 

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the Ministry of Family and Social Policy and the Ministry of 
Development Funds and Regional Policy in Poland and implementing organisations (St. Brother Albert Aid Society). 

355 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Romania – Human Capital - ESF/YEI (2014RO05M9OP001) 

Qualitative case study: Support for vulnerable people in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic (Persoane vulnerabile aflate în situaţii de dependenţă 
sau în risc de excluziune socială) 

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in the 
Member State 

At the start of the pandemic, the Romanian government promptly took measures to spread and limit the impact of the disease. Authorities followed 
WHO recommendations, implementing similar measures to other countries affected by coronavirus. However, challenges were faced at various stages 
of pandemic control, due in large part to an inadequate healthcare system infrastructure, and sociocultural determinants. Furthermore, as the country 
has a sizeable diaspora, major difficulties were faced when large numbers of individuals from highly affected areas in other parts of the world returned 
to Romania 

In light of the evolution of the international situation, on 11.03.2020, by Decree of the President of Romania no. 195 of March 16, 2020, the state of 
emergency was established on the territory of Romania, being extended, by the Decree of the President of Romania no. 240/14.04. 2020 up to and 
including May 14. After May 14, 2020 and until June 2021, in order to mitigate the effects generated by the risk of infection with the SARS-Cov-2 virus, 
a state of alert was established throughout Romania. The establishment of the state of alert and the measures taken to prevent the risk of infection 
generated a series of economic imbalances with direct effects on the labour market. 

Like in Central and Eastern European countries, the second and third waves of the pandemic hit Romania hard. The pandemic put the healthcare 
system  under  huge  pressure,  due  to  past  under-investment,  shortages  of  health  professionals,  and  lack  of  adequate  protective  and  medical 
equipment670.  In  response  to  the  virus  surge,  strict  containment  measures  were  put  in  place,  including  a  national  lockdown  in  spring  2020,  and 
substantial resources were allocated to hospitals for the purchase of equipment and the expansion of capacity. 

A catastrophic fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania raised international concern due to a rapid surge in the number of infections and 
the high associated mortality. A country of approximately 19 million inhabitants, Romania recorded close to 20,000 daily infections, with more than 500 
daily deaths, by mid-October 2021.671 In total, from January 2020 to September 2022, there have been 3,219,274 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 
66,951 deaths, reported to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 

670 Dascalu S. (2020). The Successes and Failures of the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Romania. Front. Public Health 8:344. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00344  
671 BBC (2021). Covid: Romania's health system torn apart by pandemic. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58992090 

356 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 49: Reported cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths EU-27  

Source: Research team based on data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control672 

After a good start on 27 December 2020,673 the vaccine rollout slowed down dramatically between May and September 2021, with the number of daily 
doses administered standing well below the EU average. Despite initiatives to encourage vaccine uptake, the government’s objective of vaccinating 
more than half the population by September 2021674 has still not been reached (42.4% compared to the EU average of 72.6%).  

357 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 50: Cumulative uptake (%) of full vaccination in the total population in Romania as of October 2022 

Source: Research team based on data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control675 

Many  European  countries,  including  Romania,  share  the  ongoing  challenge  of  vaccination  hesitancy  among  some  population  groups.  Research 
suggests that there is a social gradient in COVID-19 vaccination intention along the dimensions of gender, education, household income, race, and 
ethnicity. There are also a number of other relevant factors that are related to potential vaccination uptake, such as occupational groups, individuals' 
levels of religiosity and nationalism, trust in media and the government, individuals' risk perception, etc. 

Despite  strong  economic  performance,  Romania  still  faces  significant  challenges  to  ensuring  a  faster  and  more  inclusive  economic  convergence. 
Regional development has been uneven across the country, with regional disparities, in terms of GDP per capita, much higher than in the OECD on 
average (Figure 36, Panel A). Strong economic growth has benefitted mostly urban centres, notably Bucharest, Cluj, Timisoara and Sibiu, with Southern 
and North-Eastern regions remaining among the poorest in the EU. Urban/rural disparities reflect uneven access to jobs and infrastructure (education, 
healthcare, and transport). Around a third of the population in these regions were at-risk of poverty in 2020 (figure below, Panel B). 

672 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (n.d.). COVID-19 situation update for the EU/EEA. Available at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea. 
673 Romanian Government (2020), Press Release of 27 December 2020. Available at: https://vaccinare-covid.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Comunicat-presa_situatie-vaccinari_final.pdf 
674 Digi24 (2021). 'My objective is to have 10.4 million people vaccinated in September’. Available at: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/florin-citu-obiectivul-meu-este-de-a-avea-104-
milioane-de-persoane-vaccinate-in-septembrie-1433408 
675 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (n.d.). COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker. Available at : https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-
tracker.html#uptake-tab. 

358 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 51: Regional disparities are high with pockets of poverty in rural areas 

A. Regional disparities
Coefficient of variation, 2019

B. At-risk-of poverty 2
Percentage of population in each region

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0

T
R
P

N
V
S

E
W
S

P
S
E

C
R
G

S
U
A

U
E
D

N
A
C

R
B
G

A
R
F

L
O
P

R
U
T

L
R

I

D
C
E
O

¹

S
R
E
E
P

E
Z
C

N
U
H

U
T
L

U
O
R

X
E
M

K
V
S

L
H
C

2018-19

2020

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Bucuresti
- Ilfov

 Centru Nord-
Vest

Vest

Sud -
Muntenia

Sud-Est Nord-
Est

Sud-Vest
 Oltenia

Source: OECD Regional Economy database; and Eurostat676. 

The risk of poverty is particularly high for families with children, people with low work intensity, low education level, or with disabilities, and Roma. The 
prevalence of poverty among the Roma is exacerbated by their relatively high geographical concentration in deprived areas where high-quality public 
services are missing. The Fundamental Rights Agency Report (2020) found that measures taken as a response to the pandemic disproportionately 
impacted marginalised and socially excluded groups (Roma and Travellers), who are particularly sensitive to changes in the labour market. 

People living in more socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods and minority ethnic groups also have higher rates of almost all of the known 
underlying clinical risk factors that increase the severity and mortality of COVID-19. The pandemic has amplified pre-existing inequalities in, for example, 
access to health care and other areas (work, housing, etc.). COVID-19 has also interacted with and exacerbated existing social inequalities in chronic 
disease  and the  social determinants  of  health.677  Based  on Eurostat  data  from 2020,  Romania has  some  of  the  highest material  deprivation  rates 
among the EU countries, including the second highest among the elderly (65 years and above). 

359 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 52: Material Deprivation rate by age group in 2020 

Source: Eurostat678 

In  this  context,  private  initiatives  such  as  Telefonul  Vârstnicului679,  the  only  national,  free  and  confidential  telephone  line  dedicated  to  seniors  in 
Romania, recorded double the number of daily calls from the elderly between March 16 and April 6, 2020, reaching up to 100 interactions with elderly 
people on some days. The number of new callers, who request support for the first time through the special telephone line, had progressively increased. 

Educational performance has stagnated over the past years at a low level and risks deteriorating with the COVID-19 crisis. In 2018, 41% of 15-year-
old students were unable to achieve a minimum level of proficiency in reading. Illiteracy could significantly rise after 2020, as school closures have 
deepened learning gaps. Poverty hit disproportionally those with low educational attainment levels. Half of the low educated were at-risk of poverty in 
2018, while only 1.3% of tertiary educated lived with less than 60% of the median income, the highest gap in the EU. 

The  shift  to  online  learning  due  to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  exacerbated  existing  inequalities,  leaving  behind 
disadvantaged and vulnerable students, increasing the degree of risk of social exclusion in all sectors of education. From a study carried out by IRES680, 
launched in May 2020, it emerges that approximately 900,000 children do not have access to their own device to access online education, which proves 
that  accessibility  is  one  of  the  main  problems  facing  the  pre-university  education  system  in  Romania  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
According to the same study, 12% of children in Romania do not have a stable Internet connection that would allow them to participate in these learning 

676 OECD (2022). OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2022. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/e2174606-en.  
677 Bambra C, Riordan R, Ford J, et al. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities, J Epidemiol Community Health, 74:964-968. 
678 Eurostat (2022). Material Deprivation rate by age group EU-SILC survey. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tessi082/settings_1/table?lang=en [Accessed 
20.09.2022] 
679 Fundatia Regala Margareta a Romaniei (n.d.). Telefonul Vârstnicului înregistrează un număr record de solicitări în perioada pandemiei.Available at: https://www.frmr.ro/telefonul-varstnicului-
inregistreaza-un-numar-record-de-solicitari-in-perioada-pandemiei/  
680 Institutul Roman pentru Evaluare si Strategie (2020). Accesul Copiilor Școlari din România la Educație Online. https://ires.ro/articol/394/accesul-copiilor--colari-din-romania-la-
educa%C8%9Bie-online-- [Accessed 25.09.2022] 

360 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

activities. Until October 5, 2020, the student without internet lost approximately 300 hours of school, so we can estimate that this number of school 
hours has increased considerably in recent months, against the background of keeping schools closed throughout Romania. 

The  Romanian  labour  market  benefited  from  the  strong  economic  growth  of  the  past  years  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic.  The 
employment rate is approaching the EU average (71% vs 72% in 2020) and the unemployment rate of 5% is not substantially higher than its pre-
pandemic level of 4% - the lowest in 20 years. Across the EU, employment dropped by 1.5% and 1.6% in the Euro area after a period of continuous 
growth that resulted in record numbers of employment in 2019.681 There were clear signs of a substantial recovery between January 2021 and January 
2022, with the unemployment range dropping substantially in almost all Member States, with only Romania and Latvia showing small drops.682 However, 
youth unemployment topped 20% in 2021 and inactivity remains one of the highest in the EU especially for women (female inactivity rate of 41% vs. 
EU average of 32%, 2020). The gender employment gap stands at over 19%, one of the highest in the EU.  

A key remaining challenge for social policies from before the pandemic is the rising inequality, exacerbated by the pandemic. Income inequality has 
been increasing for years and is among the highest in the EU, while the redistributive effect of taxes and benefits is below the EU average. 

National and 
regional 
measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

Among the main measures adopted to mitigate the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Decree no.195/2020 established the state of emergency 
in Romania in the field of health and aimed to grant immediate access to medical services and medicines whilst ensuring the safety of patients and 
doctors. These included granting and validating medical services without the use of the national health and social insurance card, the non-mandatory 
submission of health insurance within 3 days of receiving services or care, the possibility of giving medical prescriptions by family doctors without the 
need  for  new  reassessments  by  a  specialist,  the  establishment  of  remote  consultations  and  care  as  well  as  the  possibility  to  receive  electronic 
prescriptions. In terms of social inclusion measures, Decree no. 95/2020 created the possibility of submitting electronic requests for social benefits and 
created provisions related to the extension of the accreditation and licences of social services provides. Emergency Ordinance no. 30/2020 came with 
a series of clarifications regarding social assistance benefits: 

 

 

The social benefits which were previously conditional on children and young people attending education courses, continued to  be provided 
regardless of whether they participated in the activities of online education or not; 

The daily food allowance that children with special educational requirements benefit from was granted without being conditioned by the number 
of days of tuition and school attendance; 

  Education incentives provided by Law no.248/2015 encouraging participation in preschool education of children from disadvantaged families 

were not conditional on regular attendance in kindergartens; 

 

The support given to parents returning to work before the end of parental leave was continued for a period of 90 days as well as the allowance 
for raising a  child with disabilities; 

  Similarly, the benefits granted to parents raising a child beyond 2 years old (3 years old for children with disabilities) were continued during 

the state of emergency.  

By Emergency Ordinance no. 32/2020 it was established during the state of emergency that carrying out work for the local authority by people who 
received the guaranteed minimum income was suspended. The Ordinance also provided the continuation of the grants given to Romanian associations 
and foundations administering social assistance units.  

681 European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social Europe in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: reducing disparities 
and addressing distributional impacts: annual review. p.26. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
682 Eurostat, series on unemployment [une_rt_m]. Data seasonally adjusted. 

361 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Finally,  Military  Ordinance  no.  8/9.04.2020 provided measures  for  the  organisation  and  operation of social  services  in residential care,  including a 
prohibition on terminating or suspending social services in residential centres for the elderly as well as for children, and adults with or without disabilities 
and other vulnerable categories, preventative isolation measures, mandatory insurance for the centres’ staff and necessary protection and equipment.  

A new ‘National Strategy on social inclusion and poverty reduction for the period 2022-2027’683 was adopted by the Romanian government. The strategy 
provides a general intervention framework for achieving social cohesion and combating the challenges generated by poverty and social exclusion which 
were accentuated by the economic crisis and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main objective is reducing the number of people exposed 
to the risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 7% until 2027. The government has also approved four strategic objectives: ensuring  decent living 
standards for all and combating transitory situations of poverty, so that they do not turn into structural problems of poverty and social exclusion; 

 

social investments, direct interventions on the main causes of poverty transmission across several generations; 

  modernisation of the social protection system; 

 

improving the administrative capacity to coordinate these measures; 

The financing of the objectives and measures provided for in the action plan will be supported, mainly, from European funds, but also from the national 
budget. Pending approval from the European Commission, the funding will be provided through the ESF Operational Program Inclusion and Social 
Dignity  (2021-2027),  Operational  Program  Education and  Employment  (2021-2027),  as  well  as  through  investments  of the  National  Recovery  and 
Resilience Plan (NRRP). A total of 0.2 billion EUR (approx. 0.7% of the NRRP) has been devoted to Component 13 -Social Reforms under Pillar 5: 
Health and economic and social resilience.684 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information 
about the ESF/ 
FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 
response to 
COVID-19 

The ESF interventions linked to the CRII and CRII+ package in Romania focused on addressing the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 
the area of employment, education and training, social inclusion and healthcare. Actions were implemented under the Operational Programme Human 
Capital, thematic objectives TO8, TO9 and TO10 and targeted both more developed and less developed regions in Romania. Four of the operations 
were changes to existing measures, adapting them to better respond to the epidemic whilst three were new measures, introduced specifically to mitigate 
the COVID-19 effects.  

The ESF has been the primary Fund used to support social services, retention of employment, support to vulnerable groups and  others in Romania. 
Based on the data available on the Coronavirus dashboard, a total of 111,500 ESF participants are targeted as part of operations aimed at combating 
the effects of the pandemic.  

To mitigate the effects of the virus on social inclusion, actions were taken to ensure access to services for the elderly and people with disabilities who 
were dependant or at risk of social exclusion. The coronavirus response initiatives also contributed to supporting operations supporting other vulnerable 
groups during the pandemic (e.g. supporting refugees through funding to a dedicated priority axis which allowed for the implementation of measures 
supporting them through actions covering transport, food, hygiene, clothes, etc.). In the area of employment, the main measures taken aimed to provide 
support  to  workers  by  facilitating  labour  market  participation,  providing  coaching  and  upskilling  opportunities,  as  well  as  supporting  employers  by 
providing grants for the creation of new employment opportunities, for the organisation of internship and apprenticeship schemes and mobility bonuses. 
Finally, ESF interventions were used in the healthcare area, to increase the number of people benefiting from health programs and services aimed at 
prevention, early detection (screening), diagnosis and early treatment for the main pathologies. Moreover as Figure A 53: illustrates, a total of 250,000 
EUR was allocated for medical equipment and a total of 50,000 EUR to purchase personal protective equipment.  

683 Ministry of Labour (2022). Available at: http://mmuncii.ro/j33/images/Documente/MMSS/Anexa_HG_440_2022_MO_Partea_I_359Bis.pdf  
684 European Parliament (2022), EPRS. Available at : https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733641/EPRS_BRI(2022)733641_EN.pdf  

362 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 53: COVID-19 / CRII : Financial Support to the health sector to combat the COVID-19 pandemic (total 
public cost - ERDF/ESF - CV1-2-3-4-5) 

Source: Coronavirus dashboard 

Finally,  three  programmes  received  ERDF  and  ESF  reinforcement  under  REACT-EU,  as  illustrated  by  the  Figure  below.  This  included  a  total  of 
700,057,177  EUR  for  the  Large  Infrastructure  Programme,  550,000,00  EUR  for  the  Competitive  Programme  and  234,000,000  for  Operational 
Programme Human Capital. 

Figure A 54: REACT-EU - EU fund allocations to specific programmes in Romania 

Source: REACT-EU Dashboard685 

363 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Brief description of the selected operation 

The operation ‘Support for vulnerable people in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic’ is an adjusted operation under Priority axis 4 ‘Social inclusion 
and combating poverty’ and was implemented in 2020 The specific objective 4.4 aimed to reduce the number of people belonging to vulnerable groups 
by  providing  social,  medical,  socio-professional  services,  and/or  professional  training  (as  appropriate  to  the  specific  needs  for  socio-professional 
integration). 

The general objective of the adjusted operation was to increase the quality of life and combat situations of risk and vulnerability for elderly and  people 
with disabilities isolated at home or institutionalised by directly allocating funding to social workers and vulnerable people affected by the pandemic, for 
the purchase of protective materials, covering the costs of transport and accommodation for social workers who travelled in the community to support 
people with disabilities or the elderly, as well as to subsidise the incomes of the social workers involved. 

The operation also had two specific objectives: 

 

 

Increasing the quality of life and combating situations of risk and social exclusion for at least 100,000 elderly people and people with disabilities, 
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Increasing the capacity of at least 1,000 public authorities (social assistance institutions) to respond to the needs of vulnerable people in the 
context of the COVID-19 epidemic. The target group were territorial administrative units (UAT),686 that were supported through the operation. 

Eligible institutions included the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. In practice, the Ministry was the lead body implementing the operation, in 
partnership  with  actors  operating  in  the  area  of  social  assistance,  respectively  actors  providing  community  medical  assistance  with  national 
representation. 

The operation aimed to support more than 100,000 elderly and people with disabilities, affected by the isolation imposed by the pandemic, by hiring 
1,000 social workers within the selected public authorities. The selection of social workers was done through an open call of the Ministry of Labour and 
Social Protection. The operation also included the setting up of a national call centre that coordinated and monitored requests from vulnerable people 
who needed support, as well as the mapping and analysis of social needs at the national level. The implementation was undertaken by the Ministry of 
Labour and Social Protection, in partnership with the Non-Governmental Professional Association of Social Assistance (ASSOC). 

The Call Centre service, included as an activity in the operation, provided the following types of measures: 

 

 

offering advice and information in order to direct people from the target group to public authorities or to civil society structures or to public or 
private providers who can support them in order to overcome the situation of vulnerability in the context of the measures taken by the authorities 
in order to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus; 

contacting the responsible public authorities at the local or central level or the relevant social actors (civil society or social service providers) 
in order to identify specific support measures for people in a vulnerable situation; 

  monitoring the implementation of the necessary support measures for people in the target group in order to monitor the exit from the state of 

vulnerability in the context of the measures taken by the authorities; 

 

the identification of elderly people and people with disabilities and the problems and needs these people face in the context of the pandemic; 

685 cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu (n.d.). REACT-EU Dashboard. REACT-EU - EU fund allocations to specific programmes. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Categorisation/REACT-
EU-EU-fund-allocations-to-specific-programme/9dui-aysw  
686 Municipalities and towns in Romania are basic administrative-territorial units. 

364 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

 

the creation of a permanent database with the cases of people in difficulty and its transmission to the local or central public authorities in order 
to substantiate the necessary actions to improve the vulnerability situation. 

The total budget of the project was 18,000,000.00 EUR (EU contribution + national contribution). The budget allocation was dedicated to both the less 
developed regions (North-East, North-West, West, South-West Oltenia, Centre, South-East and South-Muntenia), as well as the developed region of 
the capital (Bucharest Ilfov). 

The priority target group consisted of: 

  Vulnerable persons, respectively elderly persons in isolation at home or with  restrictions of travel, people with disabilities and families who 

take care of people with disabilities during the period of the epidemic with COVID-19 

  Staff of public/private authorities/agencies that provide social services and employment of vulnerable groups 

The measures aimed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 virus which disproportionately affected people in a vulnerable situation, especially the 
elderly and people with disabilities. In addition to the vulnerability given by advanced age and pre-existing physical or mental disabilities respectively, 
restrictions on movement due to lockdown made it more challenging for these vulnerable groups to meet their primary needs: food, care needs, the 
need for medication, etc. 

In  this  context,  "elderly  persons"  were  defined as  persons who  have  reached  the  age of  65  years.687  "Vulnerable  group"  designated individuals  or 
families who were at risk of losing their ability to meet their daily living needs due a situation of illness, disability, poverty, drug or alcohol addiction or 
other situations that lead to economic and social vulnerability.688 

Key challenges 
and factors 

The management authority monitored the existing needs at the national level and the possibilities to finance the measures that Romania carried out 
immediately in response to COVID-19 crisis. The institution also contributed and had permanent discussions with the relevant ministries regarding the 
measures developed at the national level, and they accommodated these strategies with the existing programs and operations, ensuring a correlation 
between  the  measures  carried  out  at  the  national  level  and  technical  and  financial  possibilities.  The  interviews  suggested  that  a  greater  financial 
allocation would have been useful, as the needs were high. 

Access to 
funding  

The process for the beneficiary organisations was the standard ESF process, and it was not different from the existing procedures before the pandemic. 
The  Authority  did  not  encounter  any  problems,  delays  or  impediments  that  would  have  required  a  different  approach,  a  change  of  procedures  or 
modifying the documents necessary for the project call. The management authority also did not consider that there were barriers in the programming 
or implementation phase. The call was based on the operational program and the procedures already in place, ensuring a correlation between identified 
needs and financing potential. When the applicant's guidelines were developed, they were put up for public consultation so that all the structures and 
entities interested in the financed priorities could share their view regarding the proposal. Any modification of the programs, including the creation of a 
new axis for REACT-EU, is subject to the approval of the Monitoring Committee which has 40% of the social partners in its composition, which ensured 
that social partners were consulted.   

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

Limited information is available in this area. The authority followed the standard ESF monitoring arrangements already in place. For this operation, the 
managing authority only used Article 25a (1): 100% co-financing rate for the 2020-2021 accounting period. The COVID-19 specific indicators used 
were:  CV30 Value of ESF actions to combat or counteract the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (total public cost),  CV31 Number of participants 
supported in combating or counteracting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and CV33 Number of entities supported. 

687 In accordance with the provisions of art. 6. lit. bb) from Law no. 292/2011 – Social assistance law, with amendments and additions. 
688 Source: Law 292/2011 with subsequent amendments and additions. 

365 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overall 
assessment  

With the exception of 100% co-financing and reallocations, no other flexibility was used in Romania. The reallocations were done between priority axes 
and investment priorities within the same program to support measures related to furlough and social welfare for the elderly. No funds were transferred 
from other operational programs or between regions.  

Overall, the flexibilities enabled by the coronavirus response initiatives were considered effective in supporting the Managing Authority to deploy funds 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. To a large extent, the 100% EU co-financing flexibility contributed to the institution's rapid and flexible reaction to the 
crisis situation and it was considered very useful. A larger fund allocation would have helped in the implementation of the measures responding to the 
epidemic. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid response 
to the COVID-19 
crisis through 
ESF  

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

The evaluation of the program has not yet been carried out, nor did the Managing Authority or other organisations formally assessed any changes in 
the non-monetary and monetary costs stemming from the amendments under CRII and CRII+ in comparison with ESF programming and implementation 
without  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives.  Overall,  however,  stakeholders  consulted  for  this  study  indicated  that  the  flexibility  and  simplification 
measures introduced through CRII and CRII+ were useful and led to the implementation of a more rapid process to tackle the immediate effects of the 
pandemic. This enabled time savings that resulted in an accelerated implementation of the operation and support offered to individuals in need. 

While no formal evaluation has been carried out to date, there are indications that the objectives and activities of the selected operation were relevant 
to the needs on the ground to a large extent. The Managing Authority of the Human Capital Operational Programme within the Ministry of European 
Funds launched a public consultation in April 2020 for the preparation of the project call which would support vulnerable people in the context of COVID-
19. The consultation invited proposals and suggestions to the applicant’s guide.  

Furthermore, financing for social protection in Romania was 15.2% of GDP in 2019 according to Eurostat data,689 of which only a very small amount is 
allocated to social services (below 0.3% of GDP). This lack of funding means that many of the necessary social services are not provided to potential 
beneficiaries, including the elderly. The COVID-19 pandemic, through the imposed restrictions, has affected all aspects of people's lives and especially 
access to health services, social services and social participation. Being at an increased risk of contracting the virus, the elderly had to substantially 
reduce their interactions with both family and public institutions, which limited their access to social and medical-social services. The lack of participation 
of the elderly in group activities presents a number of risks for the quality of their life, such as: social isolation, aggravation of the feeling of loneliness 
and physical and mental health problems690.  

The COVID-19 epidemic has also created a situation of heightened risk for people with disabilities institutionalized. Thus, the data from September 25, 
2020, regarding the exposure of people from centres for the elderly or residential centres for children or adults with disabilities showed that from 55,000 
beneficiaries, 1,017 residents were infected and 325 residents who died as a result of infection with the new virus.691 The risk for institutionalized people 
with disabilities to contract the virus was higher as a result of living in the extended group of residents of these institutions, and the risk of extreme 
consequences was accentuated by pre-existing health problems in many cases692. 

689 Eurostat (2019). Social protection receipts relative to GDP. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Social_protection_statistics_-_financing 
690 Quality of Life Research Institute (2021).The quality of life of the elderly. Trends and risks in context the pandemic. Available at: https://www.iccv.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Raport-CV-
varstnici-.pdf  
691 ANDPDCA (2020). The situation of the COVID-19 spread at the level of social services for categories vulnerable. Available  at: https://copii.gov.ro/1/situatia-raspandirii-covid-19-la-nivelul-
serviciilor-sociale-rezidentiale-pentru-categorii-vulnerabile-10-aprilie-2020/ 
692 Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the World Bank (2020). Diagnosis of the situation of people with disabilities in Romania. Available at: http://anpd.gov.ro/web/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Diagnoza-situatiei-persoanelor-cu-dizabilitati-in-Romania-2020-RO.pdf 

366 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Given the limited financing available in Romania for social protection and the negative impact of the pandemic on the elderly and their access to health 
and social services, the operation analysed in this case study aimed to increase the provision of relevant services to this vulnerable group in the context 
of COVID-19. 

The elderly and people with disabilities often face significant challenges, material deprivation and limited access to key services, challenges which were 
all amplified by the pandemic and required immediate support.  Romania has some of the highest material deprivation rates among the EU countries, 
including the second highest rate among the elderly (65 years and above).  51% of elderly people (65 years and above) say they have difficulty or great 
difficulty meeting basic needs compared to 22% in the young population.693 Compared to other EU countries, Romania has the highest proportion of 
elderly people in difficulty.  Moreover, people with severe functional limitations have a higher risk of poverty than other people. In 2018, if the poverty 
rate is 21% for people without limitations, it is 32% for people with severe limitations.694 In this context, the operation selected for this case study is 
very relevant due to the support provided to elderly people in isolation but also to people with disabilities.  

The operation selected for this case study was considered coherent to a large extent with pre-existing ESF operations. The adjusted operation was 
developed under the previous objective of reducing the number of people belonging to vulnerable groups. Similar measures supporting vulnerable 
groups, including the elderly and people with disabilities, were already being implemented under ESF (and FEAD). However, the management authority 
adapted  the  selected  operation  based  on  the  new  and  increasing  needs  identified  in  the  context  of  COVID-19.  The  initiative  intended  to  support 
vulnerable people who were already supported before COVID-19, but the flexibilities introduced allowed for more targeted support to be offered, as 
well as enabled more individuals to be reached. 

For example, similar ESF projects have been implemented during the 2014-2020 programming period to promote social inclusion and address poverty 
in marginalised communities. In the community of Vizantea-Livezi, a total of 252 people were supported through an ESF funded project by providing 
them with integrated support services, including health care for elderly people living alone or without family support. Similarly, in the City of Isaccea an 
ESF project provided social assistance to 145 people over 65 years old helping them carry out basic tasks within their homes as well as engaging them 
at the community level through social events in order for them to overcome the situation of vulnerability.  

The selected operation has also been coherent with other measures financed during the pandemic, which offered personal protective materials and 
educational activities targeting vulnerable people including students from disadvantaged backgrounds which could not access online classes during 
lockdown. 

The selected operation is also to a large extent coherent with national measures as they were part of strategic measures at the national level which 
were being implemented by the Central Government. This includes the projects already under implementation at the level of the Ministry of Labour and 
Social  Protection,  respectively  the  ‘Creation and  implementation  of  integrated community  services  to combat  poverty and social  exclusion  and the 
Development of the System of Social Assistance for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion’. These projects are aimed at developing integrated 
services at the level of disadvantaged communities and are co- financed through the ESF Operational Programme Human Capital, Priority Axis 4. 

The selected operation was also coherent with actions implemented through other EU funding mechanisms. In the area of social inclusion, Romania 
was  allocated  through  REACT-EU  94,000,000  EUR  for  ESF  measures  enhancing  access  to  services  and    30,000,000  EUR  for  promoting  social 
entrepreneurship through the ESF projects. Overall, REACT-EU allocated a total of 978,896,299 EUR in the area of active inclusion and  3,833,009 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 
implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Coherence with 
other EU 

693 European Quality of Life Survey (2016). Living standards and deprivation - Is your household able to make ends meet? Available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/european-quality-
of-life-survey  
694 Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the World Bank (2020). Diagnosis of the situation of people with disabilities in Romania. Available at: http://anpd.gov.ro/web/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Diagnoza-situatiei-persoanelor-cu-dizabilitati-in-Romania-2020-RO.pdf 

367 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

EUR for active and healthy aging interventions in Romania. Moreover, the investment in social inclusion actions targeting the elderly will be continued 
in the 2021-2027 ESF programming period, through actions programmed under an Operational Program dedicated to combating poverty and care for 
the elderly, worth 1 billion EUR.  

Romania was also a recipient of the loans available under the Temporary Support to Mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE), which 
reinforced  Member  States’  capacity  to  tackle  the  negative  economic  and  social  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak.  Under  this  instrument, 
Romania received a loan of 3 billion EUR. The loan was used mostly for employment and health related measures, including preserving employment 
and supporting employees during the crisis, and health related expenditure such as bonuses for healthcare workers, protective gear and medicines 
and vaccines. 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

Operations under ESF under CRII and CRII+ contributed to extending the target group of pre-existing operations aimed at supporting the elderly and 
social workers, and the process that went into the reprogramming process also fed into the development of the national strategy on social policies, as 
well as the development of national strategies aiming to strengthen social assistance capacity at the national level. The flexibilities introduced also led 
to  reinforcing  collaborations  between  government  institutions  and  other  organisations  in  the  process  of  deciding  which  operations  should  be 
implemented during the pandemic and which groups were most in need. The need to analyse legislative changes in order to respond as promptly as 
possible  to  the  CRII/  CRII+  flexibilities  and  to  modify  programs  was  also  highlighted  as  having  impacted  the  dynamics  of  decisions  made  at  the 
institutional level, driving more efficient processes. 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 
organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

Overall, the selected operation reached its target of providing support to 100,000 of elderly persons and hiring 1,000 social care staff, as stated by a 
report on good practices in the Romanian central public administration.695 No information is available at the time of writing of this report about how 
many  people  with  disabilities were  reached  under  the  selected  operation.  One  of  the  immediate  effects  of implementing  this  type  of services  was 
reducing the effects of the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic on the vulnerable elderly persons. Beyond the operationalisation of a single national centre 
that centralises the needs of people affected by the state of emergency and alert, and the qualified support they receive from the 1,000 assistants at 
the national level, the operation provided a first mapping and analysis of social needs in Romania. The project also allows for the first time the national 
analysis of real social needs, for the efficient planning of the future Operational Program funded under ESF+. Starting with  the 2021-2027, Romania 
will for the first time have an Operational Program dedicated to combating poverty and care for the elderly, worth 1 billion EUR.  

The  ESF  provided  substantial  support  to  mitigating  the  negative  effects  of  the  pandemic in  Romania,  in  particular  in  relation  to  some  of  the  most 
vulnerable groups, including the elderly and the persons with disabilities. The pandemic increased the risks facing individuals in these groups, alongside 
children from disadvantaged communities, including their already limited access to social and medical services, poverty, and  isolation.  Resources 
mobilised from the ESF under the coronavirus response initiatives contributed to expanding financial assistance for vulnerable individuals and providing 
support during the pandemic. Through the operation, the elderly and people with disabilities were offered advice and information on support measures 
available  and  were  directed  to  public  authorities,  civil  society  structures  or  public/private  providers.  The  established  call  centre  supported  the 
identification of elderly people and people with disabilities and the problems and needs these people face in the context of the pandemic and led to the 
creation of a permanent database with the cases of people in difficulty which was shared with local or central public authorities in order to substantiate 
the necessary actions. 

695 General Secretariat of the Government (2020). Report on good practices in the central and local public administration in the transmission of public information and in cooperation with non-
governmental organisations to fight COVID-19 in 2020. Available at: http://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/1-Raport-ADMINISTRATIE-COVID-19-00000003.pdf 

368 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

The  flexibilities  enabled  the  Managing  Authority  to  use  unspent  funds  to  implement  the  selected  operation,  and  in  the  process  to  also  reinforce 
coordination with other organisations as well as build its staff capacity. The quick reactions from all parties involved as well as the coordination and 
clear steering from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection resulted in an efficient coordination and decision-making process and represented a 
key factor that contributed to the effectiveness of the operation. The contribution of CRII and CRII+ mechanisms was their high level of flexibility and 
broad coverage. 

The process that led to the decision to programme the activities included in the selected operation also contributed to broader policy thinking related to 
national social inclusion strategies and the programming of enhanced social inclusion activities targeting the elderly under ESF+ in the 2021-2027 
period. The operation provided the first mapping and analysis of the social needs of the most vulnerable groups in Romania.  

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

The list of the main data / literature sources consulted as part of this case study includes:  

1.  BBC.  (23  October  2021).  Covid:  Romania's  health  system  torn  apart  by  pandemic.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58992090 

[Accessed September 2022]. 

2.  Dascalu  S  (2020)  The  Successes  and  Failures of  the  Initial  COVID-19  Pandemic  Response in  Romania.  Front.  Public  Health 8:344.  doi: 

10.3389/fpubh.2020.00344. 

3.  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and  Control.  COVID-19  situation  update  for  the  EU/EEA.  https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-

2019-ncov-eueea. [Accessed 20.09.2022] 

4.  European Commission (2021). Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2021: towards a strong social Europe in the aftermath 
review.  p.26.  Available  at: 

reducing  disparities  and  addressing  distributional 

impacts:  annual 

Prevention 
https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#uptake-tab. [Accessed 20.09.2022] 
EU-SILC 

Deprivation 

COVID-19 

Disease 

Material 

Control. 

group 

rate 

age 

and 

Vaccine 

by 

6.  Eurostat. 

Tracker. 

survey. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tessi082/settings_1/table?lang=en [Accessed 20.09.2022] 

7.  Fundatia  Regala  Margareta  a  Romaniei.  Telefonul  Vârstnicului  înregistrează  un  număr  record  de  solicitări  în  perioada  pandemiei. 

8. 

https://www.frmr.ro/telefonul-varstnicului-inregistreaza-un-numar-record-de-solicitari-in-perioada-pandemiei/ [Accessed 25.09.2022] 
Institutul  Roman  pentru  Evaluare  si  Strategie.  Accesul  Copiilor  Școlari  din  România  la  Educație  Online.  https://ires.ro/articol/394/accesul-
copiilor--colari-din-romania-la-educa%C8%9Bie-online-- [Accessed 25.09.2022] 

9.  OECD 

(2019b),  PISA  2018  Results 

(Volume 

I):  What  Students  Know  and  Can  Do,  PISA,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 

https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.  

10.  OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e2174606-en. 
11.  REACTEU  Dashboard.  REACT-EU  -  EU  fund  allocations  to  specific  programmes.  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-

Categorisation/REACT-EU-EU-fund-allocations-to-specific-programme/9dui-aysw [Accessed 28.09.2022] 

12.  World Bank (2020a) Simulating the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures on Schooling and Learning Outcomes: A Set of Global 

Estimates (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group 

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the ESF Managing Authority in Romania (The Ministry of European 
Investments and Projects).  

369 

the  COVID-19  crisis: 

of 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/57771 
Centre 

for 

5.  European 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Spain – Youth Employment ESF/YEI (2014ES05M9OP001) 

Qualitative case study: Actions aimed at preserving employment during the COVID-19 crisis of young workers (ERTE) (Acciones encaminadas a 
preservar el empleo durante la crisis del COVID-19 de los trabajadores jóvenes) 

National context 

Overview of the 
COVID-19 
situation in the 
Member State 

The declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020 caused an unprecedented economic shock in the Spanish economy. 
As the figure below shows, Spain had by far the highest unemployment rates in the EU both prior to and following the COVID-19 crisis. While almost 
all Member States suffered a fall in the rate of employment following the pandemic, Spain was among the countries where the steepest drops were 
observed (-2.3%).696 

Figure A 55: Unemployment rates by Member States, % of labour force from 15 to 74 years 

Source: Eurostat, series on unemployment [une_rt_m]. Data seasonally adjusted (Ecorys, Interim Report) 

In 2020, employment dropped by 1.5% in the EU and 1.6% in the Euro area after a  period of continuous growth that resulted in record numbers of 
employment in 2019,697 with specific groups more clearly impacted (such as young people, low-skilled workers, people in poor living conditions, older 
people and persons with disabilities.698 In particular, the pandemic worsened the already delicate situation of Spanish youth, still recovering from the 
consequences of the 2008-2009 economic crisis.699 The effects of the new unprecedented economic recession on youth were highlighted by the Bank 

696 Ecorys (2022), Interim Report. 
697 Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) (2021). p.26 
698 Ecorys (2023). Study supporting the preliminary evaluation of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) 
699  Ministerio  de  Trabajo  y  Economía  Social 
https://www.mites.gob.es/ficheros/ministerio/estadisticas/documentos/Nota_impacto_COVID_Octubre-2020.pdf  

Impacto  Del  Covid-19  Sobre  Las  Estadísticas  Del  Ministerio  De  Trabajo  Y  Economía  Social.  Available  at : 

(2020). 

370 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

of Spain in its report 'The crisis of covid-19 and its impact on the economic conditions of young generations',700 revealing that one in three under 30 
years of age (35%) had no income, a figure that increased five points since before the pandemic began.  

The COVID-19 crisis had a more severe impact on non-essential, low productivity sectors, which are traditionally associated with high levels of youth 
employment. As highlighted by the OECD, youth tended to be more likely to work in sectors most affected by lockdown and social distancing measures 
such as accommodation and food services, sectors experiencing net job destruction in both the second and third quarters of 2020 due to the COVID-
19 pandemic.701 In its report, the Bank of Spain also drew attention to the fact that the sectors most affected by the pandemic were in the so-called 
"social industries" (referring to services such as restaurants, tourism, leisure, commerce, artistic activities, etc.), which are also those where there is a 
greater presence of young workers, and incomes are lower. As reported by the Bank of Spain, in the first quarter of 2020 33% of the employed youth 
population were employed in commerce and hospitality, two of the sectors of activity most at risk due to the fall in demand.  In general, in Spain, the 
unemployment rate of young people 15 to 24 years old surged at the onset of the pandemic by over 10 pp. in just four months to reach 40.4 % (more 
than three times the increase observed for those aged 25 and over). The strong increase was driven by new entrants who, in the context of limited 
hiring, were not able to get their first job, in particular in the tourism sector.702  

National and 
regional 
measures to 
mitigate the 
crisis 

Following the Royal Decree 463/2020 of March 14, which declared a state of alarm in Spain, and the consequent health crisis caused by COVID-19, 
the Spanish government adopted a series of urgent measures to support economic reactivation and employment in the context of  the new scenario 
defined by the pandemic.  

By October 2020, eight pieces of legislation at the national level provided initial measures to address the COVID-19 crisis: Royal Decree-Law 6/2020,703 
Royal  Decree-Law  7/2020,704  Royal  Decree  463/2020,705  Royal  Decree-Law  8/2020,706  Royal  Decree  465/2020,707  Royal  Decree-Law  9/2020,708 
Royal Decree-Law 10/2020,709 and Royal Decree-Law 11/2020.710 These included measures that address health and the economy at large, with a 
particular emphasis on the tourism industry, small and medium size enterprises (SMEs), and the self- employed, as well as persons affected by the 
lockdown measures.711  

in 

in 

of 

on 

de 

their 

over 

crisis. 

Spain 

Banco 

Effects 

(2021). 

(2021). 

España 

Europe: 

financial 

European 

Economic 

COVID-19 

COVID-19 

Parliament 

developments 

700 
the 
and 
https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGenerales/economia/Arc/Fic/arce110221en.pdf  
701 OECD (2021). Tackling the cost-of-living crisis. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/employment-outlook/2022/  
702 
Youth 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.pdf  
703 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2022). Disposición 4972 del BOE núm. 76 de 2022. Available at: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2022/03/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2022-4972.pdf  
704 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020). Real Decreto-ley 7/2020, de 12 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para responder al impacto económico del COVID-19. Available at: 
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3580  
705 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020). Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el 
COVID-19. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2020/BOE-A-2020-3692-consolidado.pdf  
706 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020).  Real Decreto-ley 8/2020, de 17 de marzo, de medidas urgentes extraordinarias para hacer frente al impacto económico y social del COVID-19. Available 
at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3824  
707 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE)(2020). Real Decreto 465/2020, de 17 de marzo, por el que se modifica el Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma 
para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-19. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3828  
708 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020). Real Decreto-ley 9/2020, de 27 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas complementarias, en el ámbito laboral, para paliar los efectos derivados del 
COVID-19. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2020-4152  
709 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE)(2020). Real Decreto-ley 10/2020, de 29 de marzo, por el que se regula un permiso retribuido recuperable para las personas trabajadoras por cuenta ajena que 
no presten servicios esenciales, con el fin de reducir la movilidad de la población en el contexto de la lucha contra el COVID-19. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2020-
4166  
710 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE)(2020). Real Decreto-ley 11/2020, de 31 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes complementarias en el ámbito social y económico para hacer frente 
al COVID-19. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2020-4208  
711 KPMG (2020). Government and institution measures in response to COVID-19. Available at:  https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/spain-government-and-institution-measures-in-
response-to-covid.html  

economic 

Available 

Available 

situation. 

social 

and 

at: 

at: 

371 

 
                                                
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

In general, the social and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was mitigated, in large part, by income maintenance measures for families, 
workers and self-employed, together with liquidity guarantee instruments provided for companies.712 With regards to the effects on the labour market, 
the  Bank  of  Spain  reported  that  extensive  use  of  furlough  schemes  (ERTE  by  their  Spanish  acronym),  a  form  of  short-time  working  arrangement 
(STWA), significantly mitigated the impact of the crisis on workers’ incomes, helping contain the increase in the unemployment rate. For example, after 
the peak recorded employment suspensions in April (3.5 million people on average for the month), by end-January 2021 the suspensions of employment 
had dropped to almost 740,000 workers, or 3.9% of total employees.713 The subject of this case study, the use of ERTE to preserve the employment 
of young people through the ESF/YEI, is one example of the use of STWAs in this context. 

The Temporary Employment Regulation Scheme (Expedientes de Regulación Temporal de Empleo - ERTE) was regulated through Royal Decree-Law 
8/2020714 during the COVID-19 crisis, as a labour flexibility measure that would enable companies to reduce or suspend employment contracts. ERTE 
in general were already regulated by the 1980 Workers’ Statute. However, Spain did not have a tradition of using ERTE as a measure to deal with 
crisis situations. Therefore, through the regulation of ERTE, Spain joined the European model of response to crises, with a formula typical of reduction 
systems of working time (STWAs).  

Within  the  framework  of  European  Union  initiatives,  the  Regulations  (EU)  No. 460/2020 and  No.  558/2020  were  approved  to make  the  use of  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds, including the European Social Fund, more flexible in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In general, these 
measures allowed Spain to re-allocate 2.5 billion EUR of cohesion policy funds to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, making it the highest amount to be 
invested in the coronavirus response in the EU. The bulk of support was used to strengthen the response capacity of the health system in all the 
regions,  to  purchase  medical  equipment,  increase  hospital  capacity  and  hire  additional  medical  staff.  ERDF  has  financed  the  purchase  of  2,100 
ventilators, the creation of more than 3,700 additional hospital beds and 9 laboratories for tests, as well as the acquisition of protective equipment for 
healthcare staff. At the same time, more than 5,500 SMEs received support from ERDF for working capital, through grants and financial instruments to 
help them to overcome low activity during the lockdown (in Cataluña, Castilla y Leon, Andalusia, Murcia, etc). ERDF also financed the digitalization of 
the education and public administration sectors, to face the challenges of the necessary increase in on-line activities (the national programme “Educa 
en digital”). Spain also benefited from the 100% EU co-financing rate in all the programmes until the end of June 2021.715 In the area of employment 
of the ESF, new actions were launched and a there was a considerable increase in certain expenses, in particular those related to benefits for young 
people affected by Temporary Employment Regulation Scheme. 

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key 
information 
about the ESF/ 
FEAD 
interventions 
implemented in 
response to 
COVID-19 

Based on the mapping conducted for this study, there were 15 CRII/ CRII+ ESF interventions identified that were newly introduced or adjusted in Spain 
at national and regional level as follows:  

 

 

 

eight interventions in the area of employment (TO_8) aimed at preserving or improving access to employment; 

five interventions in the area of health (TO_9.iv) aimed at improving access to health services;  

one intervention in the area of social exclusion (TO_9.i) aimed at preserving employment during the crisis, specifically of people belonging to 
groups in a vulnerable situation or at risk of social exclusion;  

Del 

MITES 

(2020). 

Impacto 

712 
Covid-19 
https://www.mites.gob.es/ficheros/ministerio/estadisticas/documentos/Nota_impacto_COVID_Octubre-2020.pdf 
713 Banco de España, (2021).  Economic and financial developments in Spain over the COVID-19 
Crisis. Available at: https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGenerales/economia/Arc/Fic/arce110221en.pdf  
714 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020). Real Decreto-ley 8/2020, de 17 de marzo, de medidas urgentes extraordinarias para hacer frente al impacto económico y social del COVID-19. (2020) 
https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3824  
715 European Commission (n.d.). Cohesion policy action against coronavirus. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-response/#26  

Estadísticas 

Economía 

Ministerio 

Available 

Trabajo 

Social. 

Sobre 

Las 

Del 

De 

Y 

at:  

372 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

 

and one intervention in the area of education (TO_10), aimed at reinforcing teaching in schools supported by public funds. 

Brief description of the selected operation 

Within the area of employment, the co-financing percentage of 100% was applied in the accounting year 2020-2021 to all the Axes of the Operational 
Programme (OP) - Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI Operational programme (Programa Operacional Empleo Juvenil - POEJ)- as provided in article 
25 of Regulation (EU) No. 2020/558, of April 23, 2020, in order to ease the burden on public budgets and improve the response to public health crisis. 
In general, this option of 100% European co-financing was one of the most popular measures with the majority of modified programmes. As highlighted 
in the Coronavirus Dashboard data, Spain took up the option of 100% EU co-financing to change most of its programmes (41 out of 45)716. 

The increase in the 100% co-financing rate contributes to providing the State with the necessary resources to guarantee that the objectives of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy are met to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in addition to those objectives specific to the Operative Program.717 
Moreover, the increased budgetary contribution in the 2020-2021 year favours a greater absorption and reaction capacity to achieve the objectives of 
the Programme, among them, responding to the common needs of the regional and national Operational Programs financed by ESF and supporting 
the authorities and intermediate bodies of the ESF for the implementation and development of measures that maximize the effectiveness and efficiency 
in the management of co-financed operations.718   

More specifically, CRII/CRII+ allowed to finance new measures to facilitate businesses with ERTE, to make sure that workers continued to receive, at 
least 70% of their salary while removing the obligation from businesses of having to make social contributions which according to the review of the 
Programme was 20,000 million EUR.719 

The operation selected for the case study in the area of employment  - the Youth Employment  - ES - ESF/YEI Operational programme (Programa 
Operacional Empleo Juvenil - POEJ) - was adapted to include new specific objectives within Axis 1 and Axis 5:  

  Axis 1: SO 8.2.5 “Preserve employment during the COVID-19 crisis” was created to help mitigate the effects of the crisis on the labour market 
in Spain through measures to finance temporary mechanisms to make employment more flexible, ERTE, for young workers under 30  years 
of age, so as to avoid the destruction of employment. For this specific objective, there were 284,204,824 EUR allocated from the financial 
allocation of the Administrative Unit of the Spanish Public Employment Services (SEPE) of Axis 1 and Axis 8 in its entirety.720 

  Axis 5: SO 8.2.5 “Preserve employment during the COVID-19 crisis of young people not employed and not integrated in education or training 
systems” was created to protect young people, specifically: those not integrated in the education systems or training, as well as those that are 
at risk of social exclusion and from vulnerable communities, who were beneficiaries of the Youth Guarantee (Sistema Nacional  de Garantía 
Juvenil – SNGJ) from within ERTE mechanism. An amount of 98,507,450 EUR from the Spanish Public Employment Services (SEPE) were 
allocated to this specific objective from Axis 5.721 

As reported by the Managing Authority responsible for the OP - the Administrative Unit of the European Social Fund in Spain (UAFSE)- when interviewed 
for the case study, the restructuring of Axis 1 allowed ERTE to be granted to employed youth while the reorganisation of Axis 5 also allowed unemployed 
young people covered by Youth Guarantee to continue to receive the aid. 

716 As of 30/06/2022. European Commission. Coronavirus Dashboard: EU Cohesion Policy Response to the crisis. (2022) https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-
DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/  
717 Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Economy. Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020) 
718 Ibid. 
719 Ibid. 
720 Ibid. 
721 Ibid. 

373 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

A review of relevant documents shows ESF aid was redistributed between axis 8 and axis 1 of the OP, with the aim of provide a financial allocation to 
the new specific objective created to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 crisis at the request of intermediate bodies.722 In order to allocate funds to 
the new specific objectives, a redistribution of the financial allocation was proposed from Axis 8 to Axis 1 of the intermediate body – the Spanish Public 
Employment Services (SEPE). The proposed distribution of funds across Axis looked as follows: 

2020 Programme 

EUR 

Axis 5 

528.380.741,00 

Youth Employment Initiative 

264.190.370,50 

Total most developed regions 

164.061.653,50  

Total transition regions 

96.588.747,00  

Total less developed regions 

3.539.970,00  

Axis 1 

284.204.824,00  

Total most developed regions 

63.439.096,00 

Total transition regions 

204.876.190,00  

Total less developed regions 

15.889.538,00  

Axis 8 

TOTAL ESF 

0,00 

548.395.194,50  

Total most developed regions 

227.500.749,50  

Total transition regions 

301.464.937,00  

Total less developed regions 

19.429.508,00  

Intermediate body: Spanish 
Public Employment 
Services (SEPE) 

812.585.565,00  

Source:  Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020), p.10 

722 Spanish Operational Programme, Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI Operational programme (Programa Operacional Empleo Juvenil – POEJ (v7, p61)) 

374 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Furthermore, corresponding funds were reallocated in 2020 between Operational Programs, at the request of the intermediate bodies of the Valencian 
Community, Catalonia and Cantabria.723 This was motivated by the level of absorption of their financial allocation in axis 1 of the POEJ and the increase 
in the need for additional resources in these Regional Operational Programs arising from the COVID-19 health crisis. Concretely, a total amount of 
8,167,349 EUR was reallocated from the 2020 budget to assign it to the Regional Operational Programs in of Valencia, Catalonia and Cantabria in 
response to the new needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The following changes were proposed: 

Operational Programme 

Axis 1 

Axis 8 

TOTAL 

CANTABRIA  

-498.585,00  

0,00 

-498.585,00  

VALENCIAN COMMUNITY 

-4.007.032,00  

-959.747,00  

-4.966.779,00  

CATALONIA 

-2.701.985,00  

0,00 

-2.701.985,00  

TOTAL 

-7.207.602,00  

-959.747,00  

-8.167.349,00  

Source:  Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020), p11. 

The review of the OP shows that additional Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) allocation for Spain was incorporated for the 2020 annuity approved by 
Regulation 2020/1041, of July 15, 2020, which modified Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 regarding the increase in financial allocation from the Youth 
Employment Initiative. In accordance with the provisions of the said Regulation and following article 30 of  regulation 1303/2013,  the transfer to the 
ESF  of  50%  of  the  additional  resources  for  the  specific  allocation  of  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  was  requested,  in  order  to  constitute  the 
corresponding specific investment of the ESF required.724 As a result, 50% of the additional amount for the year 2020 from the Youth Employment 
Initiative (13,832,141 EUR) was assigned to Axis 5, in order to preserve employment during the COVID-19 crisis through benefits for workers affected 
by ERTE. 

Given the negative youth unemployment trends in Spain following the 2008-2009 economic crisis and the overrepresentation of youth in sectors that 
were not essential, yet they were hit by the health crisis, this group was a likely candidate for support through the ERTE short time working schemes 
introduced by state measures and enabled through the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, to alleviate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The case study interviews revealed that given the available funds in the ESF Youth Programme, youth was a target group reached thanks to the new 
measures enabled by the Commission, which allowed the release of these funds for their use in the new context of the COVID-19 pandemic.725 

The modification of the Youth Employment OP through adding new specific objectives, thanks to the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, enabled the financing 
of ERTE specifically for youth in all economic sectors given that the consequences of the health crisis  affected all economic sectors within the first 
stages of the state of emergency lock-down measures. Case study evidence indicates that this effectively mitigated the pandemic's immediate negative 
effects for youth by enabling a high number of employment relations to be maintained during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported 
by an interviewee, if the financial support from the EU had not been received via the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities, the ERTE measures would have been 

Effectiveness 

Priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

723 Ibid  (v7, p.72)) 
724 Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Economy. Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020) 
725 Approved by Regulation 2020/1041, of July 15, 2020, which modified Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 regarding the increase in financial allocation from the Youth Employment Initiative 

375 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

applied in a much more limited way, and companies would have laid off workers, and the recovery would have been much slower, as happened in the 
previous crisis. Access to an ERTE through the OP was made available to youth from all sectors that had activity difficulties due to COVID-related 
reasons and to all employees (including nonstandard workers).726 The review of the OP shows that it targets young people not in employment, education 
or training (NEET), inactive or unemployed. The OP specified also supporting the inactive because in certain cases, one had to be registered in the 
SNGJ to obtain a job that granted ERTE. The interviewee explained that in certain cases the requirement of being registered in the SNGJ is required 
prior to obtaining the job that has allowed them to be in ERTE. One of the reasons that led the government to create the SNGJ, instead of directly using 
existing jobseeker databases, was that it tried to attract inactive young people. However, young people in ERTE as such are not inactive, at the moment 
prior to its application, since in order to benefit from ERTE, young people had to be working.  

Both women and men up to 29 years old including from multiple disadvantaged groups were targeted the same. As reported by stakeholders, this was 
an effective measure that allowed the Spanish Public Employment Services (as the main implementing institution) to access the funds needed to deliver 
the support to youth groups affected by the COVID-19 through ERTE in a relatively short period of time after the declaration of  the state of alarm in 
Spain. 

Stakeholders interviewed for the case study from both the implementing institution and the MA responsible for the OP highlighted that, as the pandemic 
progressed  and  lockdown  measures  continued,  sectoral  differences  in  the  allocation  of  ERTE  started  to  become  evident.  This  was  confirmed  by 
evidence collected through desk research. For example, data from the Spanish Public Employment Service (SEPE) shows that the hospitality and 
catering industry (food and beverage services), which accounted for 36% of companies and 33% of workers on ERTE, had been the worst affected.727 
Moreover, another source showed that between February and June 2020, the sectors that benefited from the largest share of ERTE were on the sectors 
of hospitality, artistic and recreational activities.728 

MITES 

726 European Social Policy Network (ESPN) (2022). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. 
727 
Covid-19 
https://www.mites.gob.es/ficheros/ministerio/estadisticas/documentos/Nota_impacto_COVID_Octubre-2020.pdf  
728 
https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGenerales/economia/Arc/arce080720.pdf  

del  COVID-19 

Estadísticas 

Ministerio 

Impacto 

Impacto 

España 

empleo 

(2020). 

(2020). 

Banco 

Sobre 

sobre 

crisis 

Las 

Del 

Del 

De 

de 

de 

de 

El 

el 

la 

Trabajo 

Y 

Economía 

Social. 

Available 

at: 

los 

jóvenes 

y 

las  mujeres. 

Available 

at: 

376 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 56: ERTE by sector 

Source: Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, and Bank of Spain. 

Based on internal data based on 65,000 beneficiaries until 31 December 2022, a government stakeholder interviewed for the case study reported 
observing some differences in the profiles of beneficiaries, e.g. that half of the participants had lower education levels, that there are regions where 
there  are  more  recipients  with  migrant  background  (Canarias),  and  that  there  are  regions  where  there  are  specific  sectors  where  support  was 
concentrated (Andalucía, Murcia).  

Notwithstanding  the  observed  differences  in  the  characteristics  of  the  recipients  of  ERTE,  the  interviewees  reported  the  CRII  flexibilities  were  an 
effective measure that helped to fund ERTE for youth where support was needed by not limiting it to specific sectors, but being widely available to 
youth so that it could be used on a needed basis based on the developments of effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Key challenges 
and factors 

CRII and CRII+ flexibilities enabled a rapid response to the COVID-19 crisis by enabling ESF funds to be made available to support actions aimed at 
preserving employment of young workers (ERTE) during the crisis. This was confirmed by both the MA and implementing institution interviewed. 

Both the interviewees from the implementing institution and from the MA responsible for the OP stated the new regulation of ERTE was a key factor 
that was necessary prior to reprogramming the funds through CRII/CRII+ flexibilities. Although ERTE existed prior to the pandemic, the adaptation of 
the measure to the crisis through the new Regulation was necessary to be able to grant support in the context of the pandemic. Evidence from desk 
research shows the new ERTE 2020 regulation (due to COVID-19) included a relaxation of the requirements by reducing the processing time to grant 
ERTE (from 15 days to 5 or 12, depending on the type of ERTE) and simplifying the procedure by making it optional to have an implementation report 
by the labour inspectorate.729 This, together with the newly available ESF funds, enabled through the CRII/CRII+ package, “allowed for the process of 

729 European Social Policy Network (ESPN) (2022). Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, p. 25 

377 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

granting  ERTE  to  be  more  agile  and  provided  a  softer  landing  into  the  crisis,  implementing  measures  with  more  rationality”,  as  reported  by  the 
interviewed implementing institution.  

With regards to the challenges, the interviewee from the implementing institution - Spanish Public Employment Services (SEPE) - highlighted the main 
challenge was dealing with a significant increase of end recipients. As reported by an interviewee, there were triple or quadruple the number of end 
recipient requests within the context of the crisis, while there were fewer employees and less capacity to deal with requests internally in the institution. 

Access to 
funding  

The  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  enabled  financing  of  the  new  measure  of  ERTE  for  youth,  which  were  not  previously  ESF-funded  measures.  The 
evidence collected through desk research and case study interviews shows that reprogramming of the OP and additional specific objectives enabled 
through these flexibilities were key in providing access to funding during early stages of the crisis, following the declaration of the state of alarm in 
March 2020. 

As reported by both interviewees from the implementing institution and MA responsible for the OP consulted for the case study, the funding reallocation 
and adjustment of measures enabled by the CRII flexibilities allowed to finance the ERTE to youth, which would not have been possible to efficiently 
finance with national funds alone in such a short period of time otherwise. The interviewee from the implementing institution indicated government 
funding sources would not have had the financial capacity to finance the increased number of ERTE, or at least not during such an extended period 
which was needed under the health crisis caused by COVID-19.  

Evidence shows there were some delays in disbursing the funds to beneficiaries through this measure. The review of relevant documents shows that 
the ERTE regulation (Royal Decree-Law 8/2020730) was adopted in March 2020 and ERTE for youth through the OP started to be implemented in 
October 2020. The interviewee from the implementing institution reported end recipients had to experience some months delays  in their payments. 
This was due to the unavoidable need to adapt the aforementioned regulation, the reallocation of ESF funds following CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, as 
well as the increased number of requests (ERTE) due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, there were alternative solutions 
found to cover the delays in payments, such as signing an agreement between the implementing institution and the banks to advance payments to end 
recipients.  Overall,  both  interviewees,  from  the  implementing  institution  and  MA,  agreed  that  access  to  funding  enabled  through  CRII/CRII+  was 
relatively quick and the response to the new pandemic context was done in a rapid manner, considering the bureaucratic work needed to co-finance 
ERTE measure under ESF.  

To avoid payment delays to beneficiaries, the interviewee mentioned it would have been useful to have available a global fund financed by businesses 
that would allow to pay beneficiaries while there was the delay from the Spanish Public Employment Services (SEPE) to disburse the ESF additional 
funds  due  to  the  unavoidable  administrative  process  to  set  up  the  ERTE  scheme  through  the  ESF  Youth  OP.    The  interviewee  added  the  RED 
mechanism (mecanismo RED), which is a flexibility measure to stabilise employment activated by the Council of Ministers for a specific economic 
sector for a specific time cycle, will be the new procedure to maintain the employment in a period of economic crisis and with this mechanism the lesson 
learnt in ERTES COVID will be put in practice.  

Evidence collected through desk research confirmed that the State is looking at these types of measures as part of the labour reform included in the 
Spanish Recovery and Resilience Plan731,732 (reform 6,733 Chapter 23),734   influenced by the experience of the CRII operation. As laid out in the plan, 

730 Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2020). Real Decreto-ley 8/2020, de 17 de marzo, de medidas urgentes extraordinarias para hacer frente al impacto económico y social del COVID-19. 
Available at: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3824  
731  Gobierno de España (n.d.). Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia – Políticas Palanca y componentes. Available at: https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/politicas-y-componentes 
732 European Commission (n.d.). Spain’s recovery and resilience plan. Available at : https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility/spains-
recovery-and-resilience-plan_en  
733 “Reform of the Law that regulates the Training System Professional for employment in the workplace to adapt it to the actions of the National Plan for Active Employment Policies and the new 
needs detected”’ 
734 Gobierno de España (n.d.). Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia. Componente 23: Nuevas políticas públicas para un mercado de trabajo dinámico, resiliente e inclusiv. 
Available at: https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/politicas_y_componentes/componente-23-nuevas-politicas-publicas-para-un-mercado-de-trabajo-dinamico-resiliente-e-inclusivo  

378 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

one of the strengths that is envisaged from the labour reform is in the regulation and financing of structural ERTE, to change the current ordinary rule 
—not the extraordinary ones approved during the pandemic— to promote the development of this tool of internal flexibility in companies, that was very 
little used until COVID-19 arrived. The labour reform lays out plans for financing ERTE through a tripartite fund in which companies, workers and the 
Administration will make their contributions. In the case of the first two, it points to the use of the surplus collection for unemployment insurance during 
good times; the contribution by the State would come in the form of exemptions in contributions. The reform also points out that for its initial deployment 
it would resort to credits from the European Recovery Fund.735  

The implementing institution interviewed for the case study also stressed the access to funding enabled through the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities was an 
unprecedented novel measure. Not only did it allow access to funding, but it also provided, for the first time, a general European response towards a 
global crisis which was not the case during the 2008–2009 economic crisis.  

Monitoring and 
evaluation 

As stated in the Reprogramming Report of  the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (2020), the changes in the financial 
allocations after the 2020 CRII-related reprogramming gave rise to the modification in the values of the targets of the performance indicators. In general, 
these were decreased for all the Specific Objectives in proportion to the decrease in financial allocation, except for the Specific Objective 8.2.5, which 
received the financial endowment and for which a new output indicator (CVST “Number of participants who have benefited from an ERTE”) and new 
result indicator (CVR1 “Number of participants who maintain their employment 6 months after the end of the ERTE”) were created. The values of the 
indicators that were modified were those collected in Axis 1 and Axis 5. 

For the financial framework of axis 1A, the following indicators were used: 

 

Financial indicator: A target of 100% of the financial allocation in total cost of the corresponding axis has been established, equivalent to 
160,669,356 EUR. 

  Output Indicators: 

Indicator 

Men 
(Target 
Value) 

Women 
(Target Value) 

Total (Target 
Value) 

Data source 

A  8.2  CO01  “Unemployed  – 
including 
term 
unemployed” 

long 

19.623 
(more 
developed) 

19.623 (more 
developed) 

39.246 (more 
developed) 

Information system FSE2014 

A  8.5  CVST  “Employed  people 
affected by ERTE” 

27.746 
(more 
developed) 

27.745 (more 
developed) 

55.491  (more 
developed) 

ERTE Beneficiary data May 2020 

735 El País (2021). Los ERTE estructurales se financiarán con un fondo que pagarán los trabajadores, las empresas y la Administración. Available at: https://elpais.com/economia/2021-05-
05/los-erte-estructurales-se-financiaran-con-un-fondo-que-pagaran-los-trabajadores-las-empresas-y-la-administracion.html  

379 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Source: Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020),p.17 

  Result indicator: 

Indicator 

“Participants  who 
1 
CVR 
maintain 
their  employment  6 
months  after  the  end  of  the 
ERTE” 

Men 
(reference / 
target value) 

Women 
(reference 
/ target 
value) 

Total 
(reference 
/ target 
value) 

Data source 

45%/45% 

55%/55% 

66%/66% 

ERTE Beneficiaries May 2020 

Source:  Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020),p.18 

For the financial framework of axis 5, the following indicators were used: 

 

Financial indicator: A target of 100% of the financial allocation in total cost of the corresponding axis has been established, equivalent to 
3,030,231,074 EUR. 

  Output indicators:  

Indicator 

Men 
(Target 
Value) 

Women 
(Target 
Value) 

Total 
(Target 
Value) 

Data Source 

Axis  5  CO01  “Unemployed  – 
including 
term 
unemployed” 

long 

Axis 5 CVST “Employed persons 
affected by ERTE” 

  Result indicator: 

494.527   514.713  

1.009.240  

Information system FSE2014 

46.167  

46.167  

92.334  

Information system FSE2014 

Indicator 

Men 
(reference / 

Women 
(reference 

Total 
(reference 

Data source 

380 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

target 
value) 

/ target 
value) 

/ target 
value) 

“Participants  who 
CVR 
1 
maintain 
their  employment  6 
months  after  the  end  of  the 
ERTE” 

45%/45% 

55%/55% 

66%/66% 

ERTE Beneficiaries May 2020 

The interviewees reported that Covid programme-specific indicators736 were used however, they were also considered not to be very relevant in the 
context of ERTE as the indicator on employment after 6 months included employed people and those in ERTE (without caveat on ERTE beneficiaries 
as a different category). The interviewee from the implementing institution consulted for the case study stated the information was adapted to inform 
the type of indicators needed to be reported. The required data for the ESF annual report was collected, as well as more in-depth analysis to justify the 
financing under REACT EU. 

The review of the Annual Implementation Report indicates that more than 98,256 young people were supported by Temporary Employment Regulation 
Files (ERTES) (44.8% women and 55.2% men) implemented under the POEJ within the specific objectives (Axis 1 and 5) . From these, 4,232 young 
people (46.1% women and 53.9% men) have a job 6 months later. The report does not clarify whether these show the targets of output indicators have 
been achieved. At the same time, the report clarifies that the results are underrepresented since there is a gap between the number of participants and 
the results obtained. The true effect in terms of the result of the POEJ will have to be estimated at its completion on December 31, 2023, when all the 
actions that are in progress have been completed.737 

Drawing  from  the  evidence  collected  for  the  case  study,  the  CRII  and  CRII+  package  was  considered  an  effective  measure  to  avoid  fast  raising 
unemployment levels for this group, as a consequence of the economic inactivity due to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Firstly, it enabled a more rapid 
and  flexible  process  to  respond  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  by  making  funds  available  through  ESF  to  fund  newly  regulated  ERTE  for  young  people. 
Secondly, the CRII flexibilities allowed to make early use of funds to finance ERTE for youth in the sectors where it was immediately needed. Given 
the  global  nature  of  the  pandemic  with  lockdown  measures  affecting  all  parts  of  society,  the  measures  were  widely  available  to  the  target  group 
regardless of the economic sector, which was an effective way to reach the target group. Finally, given the negative effects of unemployment for youth, 
the CRII flexibilities were considered effective to mitigate the early effects of the pandemic on the labour market by making more funds available for 
use for the target group. 

Considering the provisions of the European Commission, the Administrative Unit of the European Social Fund (UAFSE) in Spain was able to implement 
exceptional measures that allowed the adjustment of ESF operations.  

Overall, although there have not been any official cost-benefit assessments conducted so far, evidence from the interviews suggest the flexibility to 
reallocate funds for new measures introduced through the OP enabled to support the immediate crisis response following the declaration of state of 
alarm and accelerated the reprogramming process that allowed to finance ERTE for youth under the OP more rapidly. The implementing institution 
interviewed described it as being a good measure in terms of cost/benefit given that the additional specific objective was implemented within the same 
administrative structures of the Operational Programme; hence no additional administrative costs were accrued.  

Overall 
assessment  

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
enabling a 
rapid response 
to the COVID-19 
crisis through 
ESF / FEAD 

736 European Commission (2022). Cohesion Open Data Platform - Programme: Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI. Available at: 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/programmes/2014ES05M9OP001  
737 Annual Implementation Report 2021 – Anexo I: Informe para la ciudadania (2022).  

381 

 
                                                
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Relevance 

Relevance of 
objectives and 
measures to 
needs on the 
ground 

Relevance to 
priority target 
groups and 
economic 
sectors 

Coherence 

Coherence with 
ESF initiatives 

Within the field of intervention of the ESF, the crisis derived from the pandemic caused the need to launch new actions, as well as a considerable 
increase in certain expenses, in particular those related to benefits for young people affected by Temporary Employment Regulation Files (ERTES).  

The objectives and new measures were relevant to the needs on the ground of young people, most likely to be in precarious jobs and working among 
the economic sectors most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as described in previous sections. The CRII and CRII+ flexibilities allowed to create 
two  new  specific objectives  relevant  to  support  the  needs  of  the  target  group  derived from  the  COVID-19  crisis  (8.2.5 of  Axis  1  and  Axis  5)  while 
remaining relevant to the general objectives of the ESF of supporting access to employment and supporting young students in the transition to  the 
labour market through relevant training.  

The CRII flexibilities enabled the reallocation of funds in support of the two new specific objectives of the ESF Youth Employment OP in Spain, aiming 
to support youth employment in Spain. In that way, being able to finance ERTE through the OP helped to maintain youth in employment (Axis 1), 
including those that were benefiting from the Youth Guarantee (Axis 5).  

The reduction of youth unemployment was one of the main challenges of the EU for the ESF period 2014-2020 and specifically in Spain. Therefore, 
the additional ESF measures enabled by the CRII and CRII+ can be considered relevant given that they aimed to avoid rising unemployment levels 
amongst a key ESF target group – young people - who were particularly affected by the negative effects of the pandemic. 

Evidence collected through desk research shows that young people were particularly affected by the crisis. An analysis published by a thinktank738 
(Funcas, 2020) confirmed that young people were among those who have been most affected by the slowdown in economic activity from the pandemic, 
particularly those people with the lowest incomes, who carry out their work activity in economic sectors specifically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
In addition, the report highlighted the newly unemployed young people also have less accumulated seniority, which leads to few contributory benefits 
and concluded that, if it were not for public containment measures such as ERTE, the impact on these groups would  have been much greater.739 
Likewise, the first Emergency Report on Youth740 highlighted how job insecurity threatened young people in the short them (they will be the first to be 
fired at the end of the ERTE) and in the medium term (those who keep their jobs potentially being the most exposed to dismissal if the threat of economic 
crisis materializes (in part) as a result of coronavirus). 

The measure was considered relevant by both interviewees from the Managing Authorities responsible for the Youth Employment OP, and implementing 
institution from the Public Employment Services, as a way to deal with the immediate socio-economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis affecting the young 
population. Given the global nature of the crisis, the new measures enabled through the flexibilities also were considered relevant by the interviewees 
as they enabled the use of ERTE for young people irrespective of the economic sector in which they work, while also providing support in particular to 
those sectors most affected. As reported by the Bank of Spain, 33.0% of the young employed population in the first quarter of 2020 was dedicated to 
commerce and hospitality, two of the sectors of activity at greatest risk due to the drop in demand.741 “There was no minimum or maximum target 
number of people to reach since everyone who needed it and had the right could access it”’.   

The new specific objective of the Youth Employment Spanish OP enabled by the CRII/CRII+ package was coherent with the ESF objectives in Spain 
of reducing youth unemployment as well as the objectives of the OP with regards to promoting employment of youth. The OP is the main instrument 

738 Funcas (2020), El plan NGEU en España: retos estructurales y revisión de propuestas. Available at: https://www.funcas.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Xifr%C3%A9.pdf  
739 Comunidad de Madrid (2022). Estudio sobre el impacto socio-economico del COVID-19 en la población joven de la Comunidad de Madrid, p154. Available at: 
https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf ,  
740 Gobierno de España (2021).  Presentación del Informe Juventud en España 2020. Available at: http://www.injuve.es/prensa/noticia/presentacion-del-informe-juventud-en-espana-2020  
741 Comunidad de Madrid (2022). Estudio sobre el impacto socio-economico del COVID-19 en la población joven de la Comunidad de Madrid. Available at: 
https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf 

382 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

implemented 
before the 
COVID-19 crisis 

through which the Youth Employment Initiative is implemented and Youth Guarantee systems are launched in Spain, seeking to reduce the youth 
unemployment rate in Spain through an improvement in qualifications and the promotion of hiring and self-employment of the population of young 
people over 16 years of age and under 30, who are not employed or integrated into the social security systems, education or training, regardless of 
their educational level. Therefore, by linking the ERTE scheme under the ESF OP, it was possible to offer more coherent and more specific support to 
youth. 

Coherence with 
national and 
regional 
measures 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

The new operation was coherent with the national and regional measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the new state regulation on 
ERTE adapting previous ERTE regulation to the needs following the pandemic (inactivity across economic sectors due to the state of lock-down). The 
new measures enabled through CRII and CRII+, allowed to finance ERTE through ESF, aimed at enabling companies the maintenance of employment, 
thus alleviating the destruction of jobs taking place due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, ERTE measures were also financed from other sources, 
including the Operational Programme for Social Inclusion and Social Economy (POISES) and the Operational Programme for Employment, Training 
and Education (POEFE) programmes of the ESF which allowed to extend it to other target groups (people with disabilities, and  older than 30 years 
old). 

In Spain, many of the initiatives and strategies to mitigate the negative effects on employment were aimed at mitigating the situation of those groups 
who, because of the reduction of the activity, from the closure of businesses and industries, or because they involved a high risk to health because 
they involved direct contact between people, were compelled to reduce or cease their economic activity, such as youth.742  

A new package of economic and social measures (articulated through Royal Decree-law) was approved to continue supporting companies and workers 
that reinforced, complemented, and extended the decisions adopted earlier to counteract the impact of COVID-19. 

The  operation  was  coherent  with  other  EU  funding  mechanisms  such  as  REACT-EU,  the  Youth  Guarantee,  and  temporary  Support  to  mitigate 
Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) funds, which were also used in the Spain to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. For instance, SURE 
covered the cost of ERTE not financed through ESF, in virtue of the available funds.743 The new operation allowed to make use of immediate available 
resources to implement measures targeted at vulnerable persons to support employment, specifically young people in this case, while these additional 
funding mechanisms became available aiming to continue and extend the crisis response and crisis recovery measures delivered through the CRII and 
CRII+ packages.  

Coherence with 
other EU 
funding 
mechanisms 
during the 
COVID-19 
pandemic 

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of 
contribution of 
ESF and FEAD 
under CRII and 
CRII+ to the 
crisis reaction  

The flexibilities allowed unutilised and available funds in the Youth Employment OP programme to be reallocated to finance ERTE, specifically for the 
youth target population during early states of the pandemic in 2020. This contributed to a faster release of funds, while additional new funds became 
available through the REACT-EU package. Overall, the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities contributed to provide rapid support to a key target group, which 
was heavily affected by the pandemic due to the precarious nature of employment contracts amongst the target group and the nature of the sectors 
most affected by the pandemic (which employed high numbers of young people). The CRII and CRII+ flexibilities for ESF contributed to the Member 
State’s capacity to provide a more rapid response to mitigate fast-rising levels of youth unemployment through ERTE, which the state alone would not 
have  been  able  to  provide,  given  the  numbers  of  people  affected  by  the  pandemic,  the  duration  of  the  state  of  urgency,  and  the  wide-ranging 
consequences of the pandemic. SEPE reported that out of the total spend of ERTES (18.264 million EUR) corresponding to 5,894,021 people, it is 
estimated that the Youth Employment OP will cover around 2% (384,5 million EUR of the total spend in ERTES at national level). Data until December 
2022 shows SEPE had certified 192 million EUR corresponding to 97,934 people through ERTES financed by the Youth Employment OP through ESF. 

742 CIELO (2021). La pandemia COVID-19, mercado de trabajo y medidas laborales en España. Available at: https://www.cielolaboral.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/fita_noticias_cielo_n3_2021.pdf  
743 Reprogramming Report of the 2014-2020 ESF Operational Programme for Youth employment (September 2020) 

383 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of 
early results/ 
impact on 
organisations 
and 
participants 
and stories of 
change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

Annexes 

The review of the desk research and qualitative evidence from interviews shows that the new measure enabled through the CRII and CRII+ package 
had an overall positive impact by making funds available to finance ERTE, and a bit under 100,000 participants reached with the new measure as part 
of the OP as described in the Monitoring and Evaluation section.  

The CRII/CRII+ flexibility measures made it possible to re-programme part of the funding aid that was allocated from the ESF in such a way that a 
substantial part of the expenses incurred to alleviate the socioeconomic effects of the pandemic could be co-financed. Moreover, it enabled Member 
States to obtain a European co-financing rate of 100% for ESF expenses declared to the European Commission during the accounting year between 
July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021, allowing greater liquidity in this situation of increased spending due to the pandemic.  

Furthermore, as reported by the implementing institution interviewed, the measure contributed to a “mentality change” with respect to the Short-Time 
Working  Arrangements  which  in  other  Member  States  (Germany)  were  already  used  as  a  measure  to  cover  temporary  suspension  of  contracts. 
Likewise, this helped to set in motion the reform of implementing processes to continue to offer the measure in future in crisis situations. The specific 
measure  of  ERTE  was  not  a  measure  traditionally  used  in  Spain  but  based  on  the  experience  during  the  pandemic,  the  interviewee  from  the 
implementing institution reported it is being considered for the new funding period. 

Both  interviewees  consulted  for  the  case  study  indicated  the  new  measures  enabled  the  mitigation  of  the  crisis  in  terms  of  youth  unemployment, 
allowing to maintain youth in employment in the immediate term. Evidence collected through desk research from the Bank of Spain,744 however, also 
warned that their suitability for safeguarding sustainable employment may be limited [in the long term] and restructuring is required at the sector and/or 
firm level. In such cases the Bank of Spain also suggested such workers should be considered as a priority group for access to training. The interview 
from the implementing institution commented this is being explored for future measures.  

The research highlighted a number of lessons learnt. The specific regulation enabling ERTE could be implemented for youth, through the immediate 
available funds, thanks to the reallocation enabled through the CRII and CRII+ packages while additional new funds became available through the 
REACT-EU.  The new  measures through the OP enabled by the CRII and CRII+ package were found useful to mitigate the negative effects of the 
pandemic on young people, helping to avoid the very high unemployment levels that would likely have occurred otherwise for this group due to their 
precarious situation in the sectors of activity most affected by the COVID-19 health crisis (e.g. hospitality) 

It  would  be  important  to consider  the  administrative capacity  needed  to implement  the  measure  in  a crisis  situation  so  that delays  in  payments  to 
beneficiaries can be avoided by increasing human resources if necessary. The global approach to combat the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary 
work schemes to preserve employment was unprecedented. In the context of future potential crises (that are not as widely spread), it may be useful to 
consider these types of temporary work schemes in a more targeted way, for example targeting specific economic sectors or sub-sets of target groups 
depending on the nature of the crisis. 

The temporary work schemes or similar interventions may be needed as a result stemming from the Ukrainian war or other future crises, therefore the 
flexibility  to  change  priorities and  reprogramme  the  ESF  to  meet  immediate  needs  and objectives  was  seen in  very  positive  terms by  government 
representatives.  

744 Banco de Espana (2021). Economic and financial developments in Spain over the COVID-19 crisis. Available at : 
https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGenerales/economia/Arc/Fic/arce110221en.pdf  

384 

 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

I: Bibliography 

1.  Annual Implementation Report 2021 – Anexo I : Informe para la ciudadania (2022).  
2.  Arce, Óscar. n.d. ‘El impacto de la crisis del COVID-19 sobre el empleo de los jóvenes y las mujeres’. 
3.  Banco 

developments 

Economic 

financial 

Spain 

over 

and 

de 

(2021) 
https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/IntervencionesPublicas/DirectoresGenerales/economia/Arc/Fic/arce110221en.pdf  
4.  CIELO.  La  pandemia  COVID-19,  mercado  de  trabajo  y  medidas  laborales  en  España.  (2021).  https://www.cielolaboral.com/wp-

COVID-19 

España. 

crisis. 

the 

in 

5. 

content/uploads/2021/04/fita_noticias_cielo_n3_2021.pdf  
‘Cohesion  Policy  Action  against  Coronavirus’.  n.d.  Accessed  29  July  2022.  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-
response/#26. 

6.  Comunidad  de  Madrid.  Estudio  sobre el impacto socioeconomic  del  COVID-19  en  la  población joven de la  Comunidad  de  Madrid  (2022,  

7. 

p154). https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf  
‘Coronavirus 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/CORONAVIRUS-DASHBOARD-COHESION-POLICY-RESPONSE/4e2z-pw8r/. 

Dashboard: 

Response’. 

Accessed 

Cohesion 

Policy 

n.d. 

28 

July 

2022. 

8.  Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal,. n.d. ‘Me ha afectado  un ERE o ERTE’. Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Accessed 28 July 2022. 

https://www.sepe.es/HomeSepe/Personas/distributiva-prestaciones/quiero-cobrar-el-paro/afectadoERE.html. 

9.  European  Commission,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Fondazione  Giacomo  Brodolini,  Applica,  and 
Ockham  IPS.  2021.  ESF  Data  Support  Centre:  Final  ESF  Synthesis  Report  of  Annual  Implementation  Reports  2019  Submitted  in  2020. 
https://op.europa.eu/publication/manifestation_identifier/PUB_KE0321163ENN. 

10.  European  Commission.  Cohesion  policy  action  against  coronavirus.  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/coronavirus-

response/#26 

11.  European  Parliament,  Youth 

in  Europe:  Effects  of  COVID-19  on 

their  economic  and 

social 

situation 

(2021). 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.pdf 

12.  Injuve, Instituto de La Juventud. ‘Juventud En Riesgo. Análisis de Las Consecuencias Socioeconómicas de La COVID-19 Sobre La Población 
Joven En España. Informe 2’. (2020). http://www.injuve.es/observatorio/formacion-empleo-y-vivienda/consecuencias-economicas-covid-19-
en-la-juventud-informe-2. 

13.  La Moncloa.Enero finaliza con 105.043 trabajadores en ERTE- COVID [Prensa/Actualidad/Inclusión, Seguridad Social y Migraciones]’. (2022). 
Accessed  29  July  2022.  https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/serviciosdeprensa/notasprensa/inclusion/Paginas/2022/020222-evolucion-erte-
covid.aspx. 

14.  Malo, Miguel Ángel.. ‘El empleo en España durante la pandemia de la COVID-19’, (2021) 
15.  OECD, Tackling the cost-of-living crisis (2021) https://www.oecd.org/employment-outlook/2022/  
16.  Ruiz, Joan Antoni Alujas. ‘Efectos del covid-19 sobre el empleo en España’. J. A., (2008). 
17.  Spanish Operational Programme, Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI Operational programme (Programa Operacional Empleo Juvenil – POEJ  

(v7) 

18.  ‘UAFSE  -  Unidad  Administradora  Del  Fondo  Social  Europeo.  El  Fondo  Social  Europeo Con  El  Empleo Juvenil  (POEJ)’.  n.d.  Accessed  3 

August 2022. https://www.mites.gob.es/uafse/es/po-completo/poej/index.htm. 

Other: 

1.  https://www.funcas.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Xifr%C3%A9.pdf 

2.  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662942/IPOL_STU(2021)662942_EN.pdf 

3.  https://www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/docs/wb021/contenidosEstaticos/adjuntos/es/34/53/93453.pdf 

385 

 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

4.  https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/doc/juventud/cd-estudio-impacto-covid-juventud.pdf  

5.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility/spains-recovery-and-resilience-

plan_en 

6.  https://planderecuperacion.gob.es/politicas-y-componentes 

7.  https://www.heraldo.es/noticias/economia/2021/05/03/la-pandemia-agudiza-la-crisis-de-los-jovenes-y-uno-de-cada-tres-menores-de-30-

anos-no-tiene-ingresos-1489155.html 

8.  https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/temas/fondos-recuperacion/Documents/16062021-Componente23.pdf 

II: Stakeholder 
consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of Managing Authority in charge of Youth Employment OP (POEJ) and the 
implementing institutions (the Public Employment Services (SEPE)) in Spain. 

386 

 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Sweden – Investments in growth and employment – ESF/YEI (2014SE05M9OP001) 

Qualitative case study: Competence development for laid-off and employed personnel in economically vulnerable sectors 

National context 

Overview of the COVID-19 situation in 
the Member State 

Despite social distancing measures and swift government action, the pandemic triggered a severe recession in Sweden that 
interrupted several years of economic growth and caused sharp increases in unemployment.745 The pandemic exacerbated 
pre-existing labour market issues, notably unfilled vacancies for highly qualified workers and high unemployment for low-
skilled workers and immigrants.746  

However, GDP in Sweden fell less than in many other economies in Europe partly due to reinforced short-time work which 
provided  support  for  firms  that  became  temporarily  unprofitable.  Under  the  short-time  work  scheme,  financed  by  the 
government, employers lowered labour costs by reducing employees’ working hours and employees received most of their 
regular salary.747 For the year of 2020, the Swedish Agency for Growth Analysis estimates that over 100 000 Swedish jobs 
were saved as a result of the short-time work scheme.748 Looking forward, OECD (2021) recommends a strengthening of 
public  employment  services  to  better  support  jobseekers,  in  particular  immigrants  and  women,  and  ensuring  that  labour 
market policies support businesses and workers in ways that facilitate the transition away from declining businesses towards 
growing sectors.749 

Unlike  many  other  European  countries,  Sweden  mainly  based  its  COVID-restrictions  on  individual  responsibility  and 
recommendations without implementing a full societal lockdown.  Schools remained open for children aged under 17 and 
higher education institutions were largely closed and went online.750 Sweden’s health policy did also not include mandatory 
restriction measures to limit the number of people in public places, and face mask usage in public was not recommended. 
In  contrast,  Denmark,  Finland  Norway  had  stricter  measures  (including  lockdowns)  in  place  as  early  as  March  2020.751 
Compared to other Nordic countries, Sweden was hardest hit by the pandemic in terms of number of people getting the virus 
(see figure below).752  

745 OECD (2022). Sweden: invest in skills and the digital economy to bolster the recovery from COVID-19, says OECD.  Available here.  
746 Ibid. 
747 tillvaxtanalys.se (n.d.). Effects of short-time work – lessons from the financial crisis. Available at: https://www.tillvaxtanalys.se/in-english/publications/pm/pm/2021-06-15-effects-of-short-time-
work---lessons-from-the-financial-crisis.html.  
748 Ibid. 
749 Ibid. 
750 Hallin, A. E., Danielsson, H., Nordström, T., & Fälth, L. (2022). No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic evidence from primary school reading assessments. International Journal of 
Educational Research, 114, 102011. 
751 Irfan, F. B., et al. (2022). Coronavirus pandemic in the Nordic countries: Health policy and economy trade-off. Journal of Global Health, p.12. 
752 Saunes, I. S. et al. (2022). Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic. Health Policy, 126(5), 418-426. 

387 

 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Figure A 57: 2020, Distribution of cumulative reported cases in the first COVID-19 wave per 
million people (vertical axis)  

National and regional measures to 
mitigate the crisis 

Source: Johns Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 Data753 

The economic national response to mitigate the impact of the pandemic was substantial and consisted of a set of flexible 
measures, estimated to be worth around 24 billion EUR (240 billion SEK).754 The most expensive measure were short-time 
work schemes, accounting for 9.5 billion  EUR (95 billion SEK), described by some scholars as being “very generous”755, 
which by May 2020 was used by 9 % of the total labour force and 15% of all firms.756 With the government as the guarantor, 
the scheme allowed firms to reduce the amount of time their employees had to work by 20, 40 or 60% (May to July also 
80%).  After 1 January 2021, there were slightly less generous arrangements in place that granted firms access to short-time 
work under more restrictive conditions.757  

At the beginning of 2021, the Swedish government also decided on a decree that provided employers, benefitting from the 
short-time work scheme, compensation for expenses related to skills activities aimed at improving or validating the skills of 
employees. The government reimbursed 60% of the costs for skills activities carried out during time freed up under the short-
time work scheme.758 The skills activities can be for employees of different education levels, young employees as well as 

753 ourworldindata.org (n.d.). Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases.  
754 Hensvik, L., & Skans, O. (2020). Covid-19 crisis response monitoring: Sweden. IZA Country Report. 
755 Ibid. 
756 Ibid. 
757 Ibid. 
758 Swedish Government (2022). Ersättning för kostnader för kompetensinstaser vid korttidsarbete, Available here. 

388 

 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

those with long working experience, as well as for large, medium and small-sized employers. For this broad target group, 
both general and company-specific training/validation can be organised.759760 

Other national support measures for the private sector included761: 

  Adjustment  support  grant  for  companies  (available  March  2020-  September  2021,  reinstated  for  December 
2021, January 2022 and February 2022):  Depending on the time period the company applied, the grant could be 
used by companies that had a turnover loss of at least 30, 40 or 50%. The maximum subsidy rate, i.e. the amount 
of financial aid, was between 70% - 90% of the company’s fixed costs.  

  Subsidies  for  sole  traders  and  partnerships  (available  March  2020-September  2021):  Sole  traders  and 
partnerships benefited from special subsidies. Sole traders experiencing a turnover loss of at least 30, 40 or 50% 
(depending  on  the  period  they  applied),  benefited  with  financial  compensation  worth  75  or  90%  of  their  losses. 
Partnerships benefited from a similar subsidy that offered support worth 90% of turnover losses. 

  Support for employers coping with high sick leave costs (available 30 September 2021 and again for the period 
December 2021 to March 2022): The state reimbursed employers for sick-leave costs that were higher than normal. 
The amount of compensation was determined partly by the cost of sick pay and partly by the employer's total salary 
expenditures. The compensation was higher for smaller companies.   

  Deferral of tax payments for employers (available until 30 September 2021 and again for the period December 
2021 to March 2022): In addition to the above measure, the state supports employers facing ’unusually’ high sick-
leave costs by deferring tax payments. The amount of support was determined partly by the cost of sick-leave and 
partly by the employer's overall salary costs. The compensation was higher for SMEs.  

  Reduced  employer  and  social  security  taxes  for  young  people  (ongoing):  To  counteract  the  negative 
consequences  of  the  pandemic  for  young  people  in  the  labour  market,  employer  taxes  for  19–23  year  olds  is  
reduced from 31% to 19% between January 2021 and March 2023. The measure makes it easier for companies to 
retain and hire staff while supporting some of the worst affected industries that employ a high share of young people. 
During June, July and August 2021, employer taxes for young people were reduced again. 

  Support for companies in case of lockdown:  In case of a lock-down, the government has prepared a lockdown 
support that can be used by companies that are forced to close their operations. The support would cover up to 
100% of the companies' fixed costs, including salary expenditures.  

At a regional level 

While having limited influence of labour market conditions and taxes, regional governments play a central role in managing 
health  care,  including  taking  care  of  disease  prevention  and  control  and  stocking  medical  equipment  (e.g.,  testing 
equipment). 762 Many regional governments were criticised during the spring of 2020 for not having prepared for a pandemic 

759 Ibid. 
760 Swedish Tax Agency (2022). Tax guidance. Available here: https://www4.skatteverket.se/rattsligvagledning/edition/2022.10/408008.html  
761 Swedish Government (2022). För företagare med anledning av covid-19. Available here. 
762 Tegnell, A. (2021). The Swedish public health response to COVID‐19. Apmis, 129(7), 320-323. 

389 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

and having relied too heavily on a ‘just in time’ philosophy that proved inadequate for the pandemic.763 Throughout the health 
crisis,  discrepancies  between  the  regions  became  clear  as  they  adopted  different  policies  for  healthcare  services, 
procurement of material, and vaccination of priority groups among other areas. The regional differences sparked a public 
debate on whether health care should be managed at a regional level and a nationwide survey published found that 7 out of 
10 Swedes were in favour of making healthcare a national competency.764  

Overview of identified ESF/FEAD interventions implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis 

Overview of key information about the 
ESF/ FEAD interventions implemented 
in response to COVID-19 

The COVID-19 crisis response was limited to the ESF-call “competence development for laid-off and employed personnel in 
economically vulnerable sectors” which was announced on April 17 2020 and stayed open until May 5 2020 (typically, ESF-
calls in Sweden stay open for 2 months). Applications were then processed within 3 weeks (typically, processing takes 8 
weeks).765  Involved  stakeholders  reported  that  this  was  unusually  quick,  and  that  there  was  a  sense  of  urgency  and 
determination at the time to make a positive difference in a difficult time.766    

The  Ministry  of  Labour  and  the  Swedish  ESF  Council  (the  managing  authority)  used  article  30.5  to  transfer  unallocated 
resources available under CRII to enable the call. No other CRII flexibility e.g. Article 25a (1) were used. Instead, the CRII 
call did not require co-financing due to the fact that the programme area 1 otherwise had, on average, a higher co-financing 
than 50%.767  

 In order to speed up the process, the ESF Council gathered available funds to make one single joint call for both the national 
and regional levels. Deviating from the normal procedure, where regional sub-committees gather to award projects, a new 
constellation was formed with the chairwoman/man of each regional ESF-region. This new regional committee was in charge 
of awarding 80% of the projects across all regions. In parallel, a national decision board awarded projects with funds available 
at the national level, awarding 20% of the available funds. 

Accordingly, CRII permitted a swift reallocation of funds that enabled the prioritisation of vulnerable individuals on the labour 
market, allowing the ESF Council to make a call for proposal in a timely and targeted manner. The Ministry further highlighted 
that the reprogramming of ESF under CRII resulted in the fastest use of ESF-funding to date and that the most significant 
difference was the possibility to make programme changes through notifying the European Commission, typically requiring 
an approval.768 

Brief description of the selected operation 

More  specifically,  the  aim  of  the  call  was  to  stimulate  skills  development  in  industries  that  were  hit  the  hardest  by  the 
pandemic. The expected results were that individuals taking part in skills development would strengthen their position in the 
labour market within their employment or be better equipped for taking up jobs in other companies or parts of the economy. 

763 Pierre, J. (2020). Nudges against Pandemics: Sweden’s COVID-19 Containment Strategy in Perspective. Policy and Society 39 (3): 478–493. doi:10.1080/14494035.2020.1783787. 
764 lakartidningen.se (2022). Sju av tio vill att staten tar över ansvaret för vården. Available at: https://lakartidningen.se/aktuellt/nyheter/2022/05/sju-av-tio-vill-att-staten-tar-over-ansvaret-for-
varden/.  
765 Interview conducted with representative of Swedish ESF Council, September 2022. 
766 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Swedish ESF Council and an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (August – September 2022). [] 
767 See Article 120.1 of EU Regulation 1303/2013, where it is stated that the co-financing rate is determined for each intervention area (i.e. programme area in the Swedish case). 
768 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of Labour, September 2022.  

390 

 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Within the framework of the call, the ESF Council financed 22 projects with a total value of 30 million EUR, starting at the 
earliest in June 2020 and continuing until the end of December 2022.  The project beneficiaries that were granted funding 
were education providers (7,49 million EUR) followed by regions (7,38 million EUR), universities (3,18 million EUR), trade 
unions (2,9 million EUR) and municipalities (2,61 million EUR), among other stakeholders.769 

Below follows an overview of the 22 operations enabled by CRII, sorted by geographical nodes and regions as categorised 
by the Swedish ESF-Council.  

Northern node 

Northern Norrland: 

1. 

‘Coming together for jobs and future‘ with a value of approx. 458 471 EUR (SEK 5 001 184) 

2. 

‘Prenotification of unemployment in Västerbotten‘ with a value of  458 362  EUR  (SEK 5 000 000) 

3. 

‘The Hive‘ with a value of 1 666 48  EUR (SEK 1 817 866)  

Central Norrland: 

4. 

‘Commercial power‘ with a value of 733 121 EUR (SEK 7 997 180) 

Central node 

Northern central Sweden: 

5. 

‘Lifting power in Dalarna‘ with a value of 494 153  EUR (SEK 5 390 419) 

6. 

‘Transition in Gävleborg‘ with a value of  550 052  EUR (SEK 6 000 190)  

7. 

‘Competence matching IRV Corona‘ with a value of  526 334  EUR (SEK 5 741 460) 

Central Sweden: 

8. 

‘Competence for the future‘ with a value of 511 150  EUR (SEK 5 575 831) 

9. 

‘Action for competence in the hospitality sector‘ with a value of  1 123 221  EUR (SEK 12 252 546) 

10.  ‘CompCor (competitive competence in Corona Times)‘ with a value of 810 757  EUR   (SEK 8 844 064)  

11.  ‘E-courses the hospitality industry Sörmland‘ with a value of 360 203  EUR  (SEK 3 929 237) 

12.  ‘Ace competences‘ with a value of 210 507  EUR (SEK 2 296 290)  

Southern node 

769 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 

391 

 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Småland and the islands: 

13.  ‘Future proof industry with a value of 1 058 496  EUR (SEK 11 546 496) 

14.  ‘STORK with a value of 680 512  EUR (SEK 7 423 303) 

Southern Sweden: 

15.  ‘CoSkill with a value of 2 933 519 EUR (SEK 32 000 000) 

16.  ‘GR Competence transition with a value of 2 674 810 EUR (SEK 29 177 901) 

17.  ‘Kompa Halland‘ with a value of 1 410 300 EUR (SEK 15 384 118) 

Stockholm: 

18.  ‘A step in the right direction‘ with a value of 1 833 493 EUR (SEK 20 000 484)  

19.  ‘Growth power’ with a value of 1 669 539 EUR (SEK 18 212 001) 

Effectiveness 

Priority target groups and economic 
sectors 

Nationally awarded projects   

20.  ‘Competence for competitiveness’ with a value of  6 869 341  EUR  (SEK 74 933 530) 

21.  ‘re:Skills Textile & Fashion’ with a value of 1 508 173  EUR (SEK 16 451 762) ‘Professional language in the transport 

industry’ with a value of 447 204  EUR (SEK 4 878 285) 

Prior to announcing the call for conducting ESF-funded projects during the pandemic, the ESF Council discussed with the 
Regional Partnerships770 (influencing decisions to fund projects) whether the call should specify and make direct references 
to sectors particularly impacted by the crisis. These discussions eventually led to  not including such references as it was 
observed that the most vulnerable sectors may change rapidly over the course of the pandemic. As it transpired, the call 
attracted applications  from a wide  range  of  sectors,  especially  among  those  hardest  hit by  the  pandemic  including  retail 
(37%)771, hotel and restaurants (15%), manufacturing (14%), business and legal sectors (11%).772 Against this background, 
the ESF Council makes the assessment that the call was effective in reaching stakeholders in most need of support.773 

Considering target groups, the call was aimed at 1) employees in sectors suffering from the pandemic 2) employees enrolled 
in short-term work schemes, and 3) individuals who had been notified that they might lose their employment. However there 
seems to have an imbalance among the target groups benefitting from the scheme, considering that projects became more 

770 Sweden make use of structural fund partnerships to ensure regional influence in the allocation of EU funds, where key regional and local actors participate. 
771 As share of all applications received by sector. 
772 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
773 Interview conducted with representative of Swedish ESF Council, September 2022. 

392 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

relevant for companies and employees (group 1), and less relevant for individuals using the short-term scheme and those 
had been laid-off (see figure below).774 According to one interviewee, these two groups are hard to reach as they are ‘out of 
office’ temporarily or permanently.775 Outreach efforts are further made complex by GDPR regulations, which prevent the 
sharing of personal contact details without their consent.776   It is also possible to imagine that employers may be reluctant 
to let workers who are already working restricted hours engage in training rather than work. 

Figure A 58: Participants reached in the ESF call competence development for laid-off and 
employed personnel in economically vulnerable sectors by February 2022 (latest available 
figures):777 

Employed

Laid off (with advance notice)

Short term work

Key challenges and factors 

At  a  national  level,  many  projects  had  difficulty  to  get  started  after  they  were  granted  funds,  which  may  have  been  a 
consequence of the short call period (April 17-May 5, 2020). This meant that there was limited time for preparatory analysis 
and planning, and many projects found it challenging to move into operational and implementation phases.778 An external 

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

774 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
775 Interview conducted with representative of Science Park Borås [Sweden] [01.09.2022] 
776 Ibid. 
777 Ibid. 
778 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 

393 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

evaluation also found that the ESF Council's urgent processing of applications resulted in projects receiving grants despite 
‘ambiguities’ in their applications.779 

In conversation with project representatives, a number of additional challenges became apparent  – tied to how the ESF-
funding was set up and administrated. At odds with trends throughout society where digital services are available ‘anytime 
and  anywhere’,  course  participants  were  obliged  to  notify  their  participation  well  in  advance,  which  made  the  training 
inflexible.  Course  participants  were  also  requested  to  provide  signatures  when  taking  the  courses,  log  their  hours,  and 
provide a signature of the responsible person at the HR department of their company. A project representative voiced concern 
that these requirements may have prevented participants from enrolling and completing their courses.780  

At an administrative level, projects were requested to report on indicators such as the number of individuals participating, 
time they were in classes, and the number of courses they had taken. A project representative argued further that it would 
be more effective if the projects reported on the impact achieved instead (e.g. how/if learnt skills are used).  In an anecdotal 
way, the representative also commented that there were more efficient ways to spend time and money than ‘tracking down’ 
the  right  colleagues  at  HR  departments  or  sending  several  reminders  to  participants  to  ensure  that  they  provide  their 
signatories in time. 781 

"Digitalisation should not only be about making content digital, but also about making 
reporting  more  flexible.  There  are  several  participants  who  have  completed  courses 
without providing a signature (being an obligation) and as a result they are not awarded 
a diploma. – Project representative 782 

The rigid procedures and rules attached to ESF-funding also meant that the project had to spend significant resources to 
ensure  compliance.  As  the  project  developed  and  updates  in  the  original  project  plan  were  made  (e.g.  a  new  company 
joining), the project plan had to be revised and formally reapproved by the ESF Council, which was another process taking 
up valuable resources.  

Another final factor highlighted by interviewed stakeholders was that it would have been rewarding to include big companies 
in their activities, which are currently prevented by the EU state-aid rule to participate. Involving larger firms would have 
created knowledge spill overs between them and SMEs and created an ‘interesting dynamic’ at group level. Importantly, it 
may also have helped to reach more participants. 783   

Stakeholders involved in programming CRII operations point out that this type of feedback is recurrent across several of the 
funded  projects.  They  argue,  however,  that  there  are  good  reasons  for  having  strict  procedures  and  rules  (regarding 
participation,  for example)  in place  as  it  ensures  that  funds  are  used  for  what  they  are  intended  to in  a transparent  and 
purposeful way. Acknowledging the need to constantly improve existing funding-mechanisms and procedures, stakeholders 
also stressed that there is a balance to be struck between being flexible and adhering to legal requirements.  

Access to funding  

Interviewees consulted highlight that funding was sufficient and accessible. The availability of funding made it convenient to 
use ESF under CRII following the outbreak of COVID-19, when the numbers of lay-offs and short term workers were quickly 

779 Ibid. 
780 Interview conducted with representatives of an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022).  
781 Ibid. 
782 Ibid. 
783 Ibid. 

394 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Overall assessment  

rising. The region of Stockholm did not have enough projects under the call, which led to funds being shifted to the national 
level. 

According to the ministry, operations under CRII are included in programme area 1 (related to upskilling), using the same 
result indicator as other measures in the same area: "Proportion of participants with an improved labor market situation six 
months after the end of the operation" (with a target value of 28%). No outcome for CRII operations has yet been reported 
(it will probably be available this spring). For programme area 1 as a whole, the outcome so far is 41%. 

Additionally, the ESF Council also uses its own indicator asking participants directly after their completion in an operation if 
their position on the labour market has improved. Their findings suggest that 55% of the participants in CRII-operations, 
directly after completed participation, state that their situation on the labour market situation has improved. This suggests 
that CRII provides good results. 

The Swedish Monitoring Committee (ÖK) has the task of monitoring the implementation of the Social Fund Programme in 
agreement  with  the  Swedish  ESF  Council  and  has  been  established  in  accordance  with  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No. 
1303/2013  on  common  provisions  for  the  Structural  Funds.784  The  government  appoints  the  parties  to  be  part  of  the 
monitoring committee and appoints the chairman of the ÖK. The organisations, in turn, appoint their representatives as full 
members  and  alternate  members  of  the  Monitoring  Committee.  Organisations  include  a  range  of  stakeholders  including 
public universities and public agencies (of employment, employers, migration and insurance among other areas). To facilitate 
the ESF-call announced, the Monitoring Committee held an ad-hoc meeting in order to approve programme changes shifting 
funds between priority categories. 785 

To ensure monitoring for projects under the call, follow-ups are carried out by ESF-coordinators who ensure that rules and 
requirements are followed. The coordinators perform desktop research on a monthly basis as projects receive payment and 
on-site visits take place once per project cycle. When projects come to an end, a final report is requested and needs approval 
by the ESF Council. 786 

As an example among the operations that received funding, the reskilling project re:skill Text & Fashion, gathered data by 
requesting participants to fill in a short survey directly after having completed their training/course. Interviews with course 
participants were also carried out by an external evaluator.787 

Drawing  on  the  above,  CRII  flexibilities  were  effective  in  helping  Sweden  respond  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  Despite 
representing a comparatively small measure financially, the call provided efficient and targeted support that complemented 
the overall Swedish COVID-19 response.  According to a survey (by the Monitoring Committee), 52% of participants claimed 
that they had improved their position on the labour market thanks to projects under the call.788 For supported projects, the 
funds arrived quickly, which under regular conditions would have taken 7-8 weeks longer. 789 Over the course of the call, 
project owners  had less time to write applications and to conduct initial analysis and planning, and followed a simplified 

784 Arbetsordning för Övervakningskommittén för det nationella socialfondsprogrammet 2014–2020. Swedish ESF Council. 2014 (revised 2017). Available here.  
785 Ibid. 
786 Interview conducted with representative of Swedish ESF Council (September 2022). 
787 Interview conducted with representative of an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022).  
788 Figure mentioned in an interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of labour (August 2022) . Survey publication not yet published. 
789 Interview conducted with representative of Swedish ESF Council (September 2022).] 

395 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in enabling a rapid response 
to the COVID-19 crisis through ESF  

application  procedure.790  The  short  tender  process  meant  that  some  operations  struggled  moving  from  the  planning  to 
implementation  phase  due  to  insufficient  preparations.791  Consulted  government  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the 
reprogramming of ESF under CRII indicated that it was a strong measure that helped the government handle the type of 
crisis situation that COVID-19 caused, and that a similar measure may be used again in the future if needed.792 Several EU 
funding opportunities issued in a short time frame (CRII, CRII+, REACT etc.) were deemed important to support anti-crisis 
response at national level  and enabling a quick access to funding in times of crisis, notwithstanding the time investment 
needed to process the different options.   

Project representatives also appreciated the quick processing, and the level of flexibility they were given in developing the 
project as it evolved, noting that further flexibility in funding and implementation rules and indicators that are more outcome-
based (see section on Key challenges and factors).793 

At the time of writing794, the general perception shared by stakeholders that contributed to the study is that funds have been 
used efficiently. Overall, CRII flexibilities simplified and accelerated the support given to employees working in vulnerable 
sectors, laid off individuals, and individuals using the short-term work scheme.  No assessments were made at institutional 
or organisational level about any changes in monetary or non-monetary costs and benefits arising from the implementation 
of ESF during the pandemic relative to pre-pandemic times.795 

Stakeholders are in agreement that CRII enabled a quicker reprogramming process relative to standard processing times, 
which allowed the government authorities to respond to the quickly evolving situation on the ground and direct funding where 
it was needed. It is further worth noting that the projects experienced difficulties  in reaching laid off workers. While a final 
evaluation has not been issued yet, an interim evaluation found that until November 2021, when 59% of the project cycle 
had been completed, only 22% of the participants targeted by the projects had been reached.796 Among those reached there 
further seems to be an overrepresentation among employed staff, while employees enrolled in short-term work schemes, 
and individuals who had been notified they may lose their employment, seemed to have benefitted much less.  This may be 
due to these groups being ‘out of office’ temporarily or permanently.797 GDPR regulations are further making outreach efforts 
more  complicated,  preventing  the  sharing  of  personal  contact  details  without  consent.798  It  was  also  reported  that  that 
employees in short-term work schemes sometimes do not receive the approval of their employers to engage in trainings 
during their restricted working hours.799 Overall, a relatively quick economic recovery may have impacted the extent to which 
the project reached intended beneficiaries.  

790 Interview conducted with a representative of an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022).  
791 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
792 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of Labour (September 2022).   
793 Ibid. 
794 A final report analysing the efficiency of the call is under production reports the Swedish ESF Council. 
795 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of Labour and ESF-Council (August – September 2022).    
796 The call did not make any specific mentioning of targets related to the number of participants. These figures were generated by adding the numbers indicated in the project applications compared 
with how many participants the projects reported to have reached. Source: Ramboll (2022). 
797 Interview conducted with an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022).] 
798 Ibid. 
799 Interview conducted with an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022).  

396 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Relevance 

Relevance of objectives and measures 
to needs on the ground 

Relevance to priority target groups and 
economic sectors 

Regarding relevance to existing needs, the Swedish government has made it a national priority to address the skills shortage 
and tackle high unemployment.800 The pandemic made the economy slow down, which resulted in reduced production, freed 
up time among employees and increased risks for layoffs. This situation therefore provided rationale and impetus for the 
ESF call on competence development for laid-off and employed personnel in economically vulnerable sectors.  However, as 
the pandemic has gradually become less serious, the call seems to have become less relevant as individuals have found it 
more difficult to set aside time for the project’s skills development efforts.801  

Considering the needs on the ground, the call may have had more limited relevance for laid-off individuals and those using 
the short-term scheme, despite them being included in the target group. Yet, in other ways, projects seemed to have taken 
the interest of vulnerable groups on the labour market , including migrants and women, into account. Reflecting the horizontal 
ESF principles802, funded projects have been found to prioritise, for example, target female-dominated sectors and digital 
accessibility. Moreover, most of the awarded projects are in line with established and widely recommended practices for 
gender mainstreaming.803 

While the call financed projects primarily aimed at employed individuals, it was often in the hands of companies to allow their 
employees to participate in the scheme. The reason for this was that projects often recruited via interested companies, and 
employees  often  needed  the approval  of  their employers  to  participate  in skills  development  activities  offered.  Reaching 
individuals  therefore  became  more  difficult  than  reaching  employers.  The  call  also  became  more  relevant  to  employed 
individuals and less relevant for laid off individuals and employees enrolled in short-term work schemes. This would suggest 
a skewed relevance depending on the target group. 

With  regards  to  sectors,  those  with  the  highest  shares  of  applications  were  retail  (37%  ),  hotel  and  restaurants  (15%), 
manufacturing (14%), business and legal sectors (11%). Stakeholders from other sectors such as real estate (4%), culture 
(3%),  construction  (3%)  and  transport  (3%)  applied  to  a much lesser degree.804  This  suggest  that  the call  was  far more 
relevant to some sectors than others but also suggests that sectors in need benefitted from the projects support. 

Coherence 

Coherence with ESF initiatives 
implemented before the COVID-19 crisis 

Operations implemented under CRII did not represent a considerable change, but are a continuation of previous operations. 
Even prior to the pandemic, the ESF Council had a mandate to finance projects that involve skills development, employment 
measures  and  integration  initiatives  under  ‘programme  area  1’.  The  objectives  remain  to  reduce  unemployment  and 
exclusion, to strengthen Sweden’s long-term supply of skills and growth and to increase cohesion within the EU.805 

800 The Swedish Government (2021). Partnerships produce solid results for the labour market of the future. Available here.  
801 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
802 Gender equality, respect for fundamental rights, equal opportunities and non-discrimination. 
803 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
804 Ibid. 
805 esf.se (n.d.). English - Swedish ESF Council. Available at: https://www.esf.se/en/.  

397 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Coherence with national and regional 
measures during the COVID-19 
pandemic 

Coherence with other EU funding 
mechanisms during the COVID-19 
pandemic 

The ESF call aimed at competence development, enabled by CRII flexibilities,  was complementary to national measures 
considering the rising unemployment and high number of individuals under the short-term work scheme.  As has been noted, 
the  short-term  scheme  was  one  of  the  most  significant  and  used  measures  in  the  Government’s  toolbox  to  tackle  the 
pandemic.  Eichhorst  (2022)806  makes  the  assessment  that  the  short-term  scheme  was  broadly  successful  in  stabilising 
incomes of large groups of workers and the Swedish Agency for Growth Analysis estimates that over 100 000 Swedish jobs 
were saved as a result of the short-time work scheme. An ESF Council report due to be published before the end of 2022 
analysing the call will likely bring further insight into the alignment of CRII operations with other national measures. 

Sweden has continued to prioritise skills development in other strands of the ESF, including REACT-EU and CARE. 

Within REACT-EU (in Sweden, with a larger budget than CRII of 293 million EUR807), the target groups remain women and 
men who have become unemployed during the pandemic and who need to strengthen their position in the labour market. 
The REACT-EU funds in Sweden will primarily finance initiatives for the unemployed, such as young people or foreign-born 
people, who need support to get into work or formal education, or who need skills development for the transition to work. 
Similar to the CRII-call no co-financing is required.808  

In the framework of CARE, the objective is to support Ukrainian refugees with language support or training helping them to 
participate in the society and the labour market. Similar to the CRII-call no co-financing is required.809 Examples of measures 
include labour market matching interventions, skills mapping, re-and upskilling measures and provision of social information 
and advice.  

Contribution of ESF and FEAD under CRIII and CRII+ to the crisis reaction 

Assessment of contribution of ESF and 
FEAD under CRII and CRII+ to the crisis 
reaction  

In light of the national measures listed above (total worth of 24 billion  EUR), the support offered by CRII810 (30 million EUR) 
can  be  considered  comparatively  small.  Yet  among  consulted  stakeholders,  it  was  highlighted  that  CRII  had  provided 
targeted and smart support at a precarious time for vulnerable groups in the private sector. 811  

“Skills development may not be first priority in times of crisis. However, without the ESF-
call large numbers of organisations and employees in great need for skills development 
would have been without it” – Employee at the Swedish ESF Council 812 

Despite the high relevance of the announcement initially, there are indications that the relevance of the call has decreased 
over time. As the pandemic became less severe and economic activity picked up, skills development has become a lower 
priority. Many companies quickly moved from focusing on competence development to facing an increased demand again 
and focusing on hiring new staff instead.813  For the announcement to remain relevant, ongoing adjustments would be needed 
that meet the evolving needs on the ground. Nonetheless, governments’ stakeholders indicated that CRII flexibilities enabled 

806 Eichhorst, W., Marx, P., Rinne, U., & Brunner, J. (2022). Job Retention Schemes during COVID-19: A Review of Policy Responses. IZA Policy Paper No. 187. IZA Institute of Labor 
Economics. 
807 Figure provided by the Ministry of Labour. 
808 esf.se (2022). React-EU – insatser för att motverka ekonomiska konsekvenser under pandemin. Available at: https://www.esf.se/vara-fonder/react-eu/.  
809 esf.se (2022). Care – digitalt informationsmöte. Available at: https://www.esf.se/kalender/care-digitalt-informationsmote/.  
810 CRII+ was not used by Sweden. 
811 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of labour, an organisation involved in the implementation of the action and the Swedish ESF Council (August – September 2022).  
812 Ramboll. (2022). Klusterutvärdering av ESF-rådets utlysning Kompetensutveckling för permitterad, varslad och anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. 
813 ibid. 

398 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

quick decisions and deployment of ESF funds based on emerging needs, which is essential in a crisis situation. Flexibility 
was not perceived as interfering with objectives being achieved, but as enabling a higher degree of complementarity with 
national policies. 

Overview of early results/ impact on organisations and participants & Stories of change 

Overview of early results/ impact on 
organisations and participants and 
stories of change 

Lessons learnt 

Lessons learnt 

According to the Ministry of labour, the number of participants in CRII operations is aimed to be 22,600.  In September 2022, 
the number of reported participants amounted to 8 300 (37% of the target).814 

Early results suggest that CRII-operations have generated good results among participants. While the results for the indicator  
"Proportion  of  participants  with  an improved labour  market situation six  months  after  the end  of  the  operation" is  not  yet 
available, 55% of the participants in CRII operations, directly after completed participation, state that their situation on the 
labour market situation has improved. 

At operational level,the project re:skill Textile and Fashion, aimed at equipping workers in the textile and fashion industry 
with new skills, further reported that participants were very positive about the distance courses the project offered, saying 
that these these were timely, relevant and of high quality. Some participants, however, expressed disappointment that the 
courses  were only being offered in a digital format, wishing to participate and exchanging with people physically.815 The 
target of the project of involving 100 organisations  was exceeded as 250 companies (among these many entrepreneurs) 
joined  the  project.  The  target  of  1000  workers  was,  however,  not  reached.  At  the  end  of  September  2022  around  500 
participants had been reached and project representatives estimated that 600-700 will have been reached by the end of the 
project (in December 2022). When asked the question why they did not reach their targets in terms of participants, project 
owners consulted for this study explained that the primary reason was that the crisis did not turn out as severe as it was 
originally expected (see more under Key challenges and factors). 816 

A first lesson learned was that there is a flexibility among key government institutions, demonstrated by their quick response 
to  emerging  needs  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  ESF  Council  developed  a  new  working  model  that  coordinated 
national and regional levels of decision-making, and at record speeds a new call was announced and project applications 
were processed. The accelerated process brought both benefits and disadvantages. On the one hand, it meant quick access 
to funding for project owners and less ‘red tape’, with less time having to be spent on writing applications and conducting 
initial  analysis  and  planning.  On  the  other  hand,  it  meant  that  some  projects  struggled  to  move  from  planning  to  the 
implementation due to insufficient preparations.  

It can also be observed that calls in times of crisis may have difficulty to remain relevant. The ESF-call gradually lost some 
of its relevance as the pandemic faded and needs on the ground evolved. In times of economic recovery, skills development 
became less of a priority compared to returning to the workforce. 

For  individuals  the  call  seemed  to  have  had  an  uneven  impact,  benefitting  mainly  those  who  remained  employees  in 
vulnerable sectors, but less those who were in most need i.e., individuals using the short-term work scheme and those who 
had been notified that they would lose their employment. For these two groups, this might be a consequence of the difficulty 

814 Interview conducted with representatives of the Ministry of Labour (September 2022). 
815 Interview conducted with an organisation involved in the implementation of the action (September 2022). 
816 Ibid. 

399 

 
 
 
                                                
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

Annexes 

I: Bibliography 

the projects had in reaching individuals with information on the initiative and making the skill activities compatible with existing 
work-schedules  (in  the case of  individuals  using  the  short-term  work scheme).  For  future  calls  and  projects,  reflection  is 
needed on how to better communicate with these groups and how to facilitate their participation.  

Reflection is further needed on how outcomes of the projects are reported. In the current framework, examples of outcomes 
reported include who and how many participated, as well as the number of hours they logged when taking the courses, and 
so on. Consulted stakeholders at project level suggest instead measuring some aspect of short-term impact in addition to 
standard common indicators (i.e. to what extent participants used their newly learned skills and the extent to which it improved 
any skills or employment outcomes).  

Considering the economic sectors that participated, it became clear that some sectors applied more than other (e.g. retail 
making  up  37%  of  the  application  and  construction  3%).  This  may  be  a  result  of  some  sectors  being  harder  hit  by  the 
pandemic.  However,  it  may  also  be  a  consequence  of  lacking  awareness  of  ESF-funding  opportunities in  these sectors, 
which if so, would require more targeted communication. More research would be needed to find out why some sectors tend 
to participate more than other. 

Finally, it is not surprising that a unique and unprecedented type of call brought a range of challenges. Stakeholders consulted 
are, however, largely positive about the call that was enabled by the reprogramming of ESF under CRII and report they 
would be positive about similar measures being taken in the future. 

1.  Arbetsordning  för  Övervakningskommittén  för  det  nationella  socialfondsprogrammet  2014–2020.  Swedish  ESF 

Council. 2014 (revised 2017). Available here. 

2.  Askim,  J.,  &  Bergström,  T.  (2022).  Between  lockdown  and  calm  down.  Comparing  the  COVID-19  responses  of 

Norway and Sweden. Local Government Studies, 48(2), 291-311. 

3.  Care - digitalt informationsmöte - Svenska ESF-rådet. (2022) 
4.  Effects of short-time work – lessons from the financial crisis - Tillväxtanalys (tillvaxtanalys.se) 
5.  Eichhorst, W., Marx, P., Rinne, U., & Brunner, J. (2022). Job Retention Schemes during COVID-19: A Review of 

6. 

Policy Responses. IZA Policy Paper No. 187. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. 
Irfan, F. B., Minetti, R., Telford, B., Ahmed, F. S., Syed, A. Y., Hollon, N., ... & Brusselaers, N. (2022). Coronavirus 
pandemic in the Nordic countries: Health policy and economy trade-off. Journal of Global Health, 12. 
7.  Johns Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 Data Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases - Our World in Data 
8.  OECD.2022. Sweden: invest in skills and the digital economy to bolster the recovery from COVID-19, says OECD.  

Available here. 

9.  Press release: Unique redistribution of social fund funds - Svenska ESF-råd 
10.  Ramboll  2022.  Klusterutvärdering  av  ESF-rådets  utlysning  Kompetensutveckling  för  permitterad,  varslad  och 

anställd personal inom ekonomiskt utsatta branscher. April 2022 

11.  REACT-EU - Swedish ESF Council (2022). 
12.  Saunes, I. S., Vrangbæk, K., Byrkjeflot, H., Jervelund, S. S., Birk, H. O., Tynkkynen, L. K., ... & Karanikolos, M. 
(2022).  Nordic  responses  to  Covid-19:  Governance  and  policy  measures  in  the  early  phases  of  the  pandemic. 
Health Policy, 126(5), 418-426. 

13.  Sju av tio vill att staten tar över ansvaret för vården (lakartidningen.se) 
14.  Social Fund ÖK - Swedish ESF Council 
15.  Swedish Government (2022). För företagare med anledning av covid-19. Accessed 26.09.2022, available here.  
16.  Tegnell, A. (2021). The Swedish public health response to COVID‐19. Apmis, 129(7), 320-323. 

400 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE 
INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

II: Stakeholder consultations 

Stakeholders consulted as part of this case study included representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the ESF 
Council and an implementing organisation in Sweden. 

17.  Turnover support for partnerships with at least one natural person as a partner - Regeringen.se 
18.  Website of selected operation: www.reskill.nu (accessed 30.09.2022) 

401 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ESF AND FEAD 
UNDER THE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE INVESTMENT INITIATIVES (CRII AND CRII+) 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You 
can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You 
can contact this service: 

–  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
–  at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  
–  by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained 
by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

402