COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Preliminary evaluation of the support provided by the ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+)
Date: 2023-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU initiative, European Regional Development Fund, coronavirus disease, economic recovery, epidemic, health care system, investment, public health, small and medium-sized enterprises

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.7.2023  SWD(2023) 261 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Preliminary evaluation of the support provided by the ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+)             {SWD(2023) 249 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The  aim  of  this  document  is  to  present  the  main  findings  and  lessons  drawn  from  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  Initiative  and  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  Plus  (CRII  and 
CRII+). The evaluation focused on the process of reacting to the crisis caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic as it was too early to assess the effects of the response. The document is based 
on the results of an external study completed in December 2022. 

BACKGROUND 

As an immediate response to the public health crisis and its emerging socio-economic impacts, 
the Commission adopted two initiatives in March and April 2020: the Coronavirus Response 
Investment Initiative and the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus. They granted 
Member  States  unprecedented  flexibilities  to  plan  and  implement  COVID-19  anti-crisis 
operations and address the acute needs of the population, by using resources unspent 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). 

The flexibilities in using the ESF under CRII and CRII+ included:  

  eligibility of  coronavirus crisis related expenditure under cohesion policy rules, 

 

retroactive eligibility of expenses, 

  100% co-financing, financial reallocations between Funds and between categories of 

regions, 

  waiver of thematic concentration requirements, 

  not issuing recovery orders for 2020, 

  postponement  of  deadline  for  submission  of  the  Annual  Implementation  Report 

scheduled for 2019, 

  providing working capital to SMEs through financial instruments.  

Flexibilities in using FEAD under CRII and CRII+ included: 

 

reallocation of funding within FEAD operational programmes, 

  use of electronic vouchers / cards, 

  100% co-financing, retroactive eligibility, 

  purchase of personal protective materials and equipment for partner organisations 

 

lighter control and audit trail requirements. 

1 

 
 
 
KEY ACHIEVEMENTS 

Altogether  23  Member  States  (plus  the  UK)  used  the  response  initiatives  to  facilitate 
amendments  to  the  ESF  to  respond  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  In  total,  155  operational 
programmes in these countries were amended (82% of all ESF operational programmes). As 
a result, a large number1 of anti-crisis operations (new or adjusted) could be implemented in 
the thematic areas of health, employment,  social inclusion and education and training.  The 
cumulative target value of ESF actions as a response to COVID-19 was EUR 5 billion, and 
the  ESF  aimed  to  support  4.2  million  people  and  118  thousand  entities2.  Furthermore,  15 
Member  States  used  CRII+  flexibilities  in  FEAD  programmes  to  implement  COVID-19 
operations. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

Effectiveness:  Compared  to  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis  of  2007-2008,  the  EU 
responded  much  more  quickly  and  more  extensively  to  the  socio-economic  challenges 
triggered by COVID-19. The CRII and CRII+ reached their objectives in most Member States 
and  the  UK,  which  used  them  to  address  the  effects  of  COVID-19  on  employment,  social 
inclusion,  education  and  training,  and  health.  The  extensive  use  of  the  transfer  option  has 
shown that the CRII and CRII+ were effective in redirecting and reallocating resources 
where  they  were  most  needed.  The  diversity  of  reallocations  using  CRII  and  CRII+ 
flexibilities in Member States, and different patterns of reallocation flows between and within 
funds, show that the reallocation of funds was used to suit national contexts and meet national 
needs. Reallocation was more commonly used in the ESF than FEAD, even when accounting 
for the different sizes of the funds. 

ESF  and  FEAD  absorption  rates  continued  to  increase  in  2020  and  2021  in  line  with  the 
previous trend, despite the crisis context and the issues created for the delivery of operations 
by, for example, COVID-19 restrictions. This indicates that support and flexibilities provided 
through  the  CRII  and  CRII+  helped  Member  States  to  maintain,  and  in  some  cases 
improve, their level of contracting and expenditure. 

Governance arrangements remained largely unchanged, though in several countries there 
was better cooperation between institutions involved in the crisis response, sometimes in the 
form of ad-hoc working groups, increasing the effectiveness of the use of the CRII and CRII+ 
flexibilities. 

Efficiency: the CRII and CRII+ facilitated an efficient process for using remaining funds to 
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. They 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. 

1  The  supporting  study  identified  355  anti-crisis  operations.  This  number,  however,  is  subject  to  limitations.  The  financial 
budget of the operations could not be calculated.  
2 Based on the voluntary COVID-19 programme specific indicators. As not all operational programmes/operations used the 
indicators, the overall size of the intervention under the CRII and CRII+ might be underestimated. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
There  was  very  limited  evidence  of  the  consideration  or  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits 
arising at Member State level from the CRII and CRII+ and their use in the ESF and FEAD. 
There was, however, some anecdotal evidence that the initial costs to Managing Authorities 
due, for example, to the need to familiarise themselves with the flexibilities or introduce new 
indicators,  were  generally  outweighed  by  benefits  in  terms  of  time/resource  cost  savings, 
compared to pre-pandemic programming. Monitoring of the ESF crisis response improved 
compared to the 2008-2009 economic crisis, thanks to the voluntary indicators developed by 
the Commission, which were used by 80% of the ESF operational programmes. 

Coherence: ESF and FEAD operations implemented under CRII and CRII+ were in line with 
actions  supported  by  the  two  funds  before  the  pandemic.  Alongside  some  new  operations 
introduced during the pandemic, the majority of  ongoing ESF and FEAD operations were 
adjusted to the circumstances imposed by the COVID-19 crisis. The most important 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 short-term working arrangements). 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. 

ESF  and  FEAD  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  were  consistent  with  other  EU 
instruments supporting the crisis response i.e. the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF), Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) and Recovery 
Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU). Moreover, they were 
well integrated into the packages of crisis measures at national level. 

Relevance: CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities were relevant for the  Managing Authorities to 
quickly  programme  operations  and  address  the  needs  stemming  from  COVID-19’s  social, 
economic and health impacts. Some of the flexibilities (for example, the 100% co-financing 
rate and the flexibility to use the ESF allocation to finance ERDF investment priorities and 
vice versa) were still being used under REACT-EU and Cohesion’s Action for Refugees 
in Europe (CARE). 

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 
bodies). They have also demonstrated their relevance to vulnerable groups such as homeless 
people, people with caring responsibilities, persons with disabilities, older people, 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+. 

The pandemic resulted in an evolution of the needs of target groups and the emergence of new 
needs. Some of these needs were short-term e.g. maintaining jobs during lockdowns. However, 
many  of  the  needs  stemmed  from  systemic  problems  which  were  only  exacerbated  by  the 

3 

 
 
pandemic, like the resilience of healthcare systems or inequalities in access to education. CRII 
and  CRII+  operations  continue  to  be  relevant  in  terms  of  addessing  structural 
weaknesses as well as  tackling  new challenges, such as digitalisation  and the shift  to the 
green economy. 

Contribution to the crisis response: the CRII and CRII + provided flexibility to Member 
States to quickly react to the COVID-19 crisis and implement operations more quickly than 
might have been possible without them, supporting several areas of intervention.  

The CRII and 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. The CRII and CRII+ also allowed the scope of existing operations to be 
adjusted  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 

Apart from addressing structural inequalities and supporting long-term investments, the ESF 
and FEAD have also proved to be critical crisis-response instruments, while still pursuing 
the same core objectives. This highlights the crucial role that such funds can play in a crisis 
response context. 

Extending  flexibilities  to  national  and  regional  procedures  is  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  or  coordinating 
bodies  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. To the same end, increasing the involvement of social partners was also seen 
as an area for further development in terms of helping to ensure that the design of operations 
corresponds as much as possible to the needs on the ground.  

A balance needs to be struck between flexibility in implementation and proportionate 
monitoring and reporting, which ensure the traceability of operations and their outcomes. 
Difficulties in monitoring and evaluating crisis response operations can limit the lessons learnt 
for how funds such as the ESF and FEAD can be used in the future. 

Anti-crisis operations have revealed investment areas where ESF and FEAD operations could 
continue  to  focus  during  the  post-pandemic  recovery  phase,  thereby  building  on  the 
investments  that  were  piloted  during  COVID-19.  These  could  include  digitalisation  in 
different policy areas, adaptation support for workers and employers, targeted support for the 
most vulnerable groups and investments to strengthen healthcare systems. The lessons learnt 
during the COVID-19 crisis are, to an extent, relevant to the needs emerging in the context of 
the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.The implementation of anti-crisis operations 
under ESF and FEAD supported the building of crisis response capacity at EU, national and 

4 

 
 
regional levels, and the development of new ways of working that can contribute to a better 
targeting and alignment of resources to pursue the EU’s cohesion policy priorities in 2021-
2027.  

5