COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Preliminary evaluation of the support provided by 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) 249 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Preliminary evaluation of the support provided by ESF and FEAD under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+)            {SWD(2023) 261 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ................................ 5 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................... 5 

2.2.  Points of comparison ................................................................................... 14 

2.2.1.ESF and FEAD before the COVID-19 crisis ............................................ 14 

2.2.2.ESF after the financial crisis of 2007-2008 ............................................... 16 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? .................... 17 

3.1.  Take-up of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities .......................................................... 17 

3.2.  Reallocation of available funds .................................................................. 19 

3.3.  Anti-crisis operations implemented under the ESF and FEAD .............. 20 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ......................................................... 24 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ...................... 24 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? .................................... 33 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? ............................................................... 35 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learnt? ........................................... 43 

5.1.  Conclusions .................................................................................................. 43 

5.2.  Lessons learned ............................................................................................ 48 

Annex I:   Procedural Information .................................................................... 52 

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used ........................................ 53 

1.  Brief overview of the methodology ............................................................ 53 

2.  Limitations, mitigating measures and robustness of findings ................. 55 

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the 
evaluation questions (by criterion) ............................................................ 57 

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs ......................................................... 63 

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report .................................... 65 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Accompanying measures 

Activities provided in addition to the distribution of food and/or 
basic material assistance with the aim of alleviating social 
exclusion and/or tackling social emergencies in a more 
empowering and sustainable way 

AIR 

ALMP 

Beneficiary 

CARE 

CF 

CPR 

CRII 

CSR  

DG EMPL 

DG REGIO 

Annual implementation report 

Active labour market policies 

A public or private body responsible for initiating or both 
initiating and implementing operations 

Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe 

Cohesion Fund 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 

Country-specific recommendations 

Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy 

End recipient 

The most deprived person or persons receiving FEAD support 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

EUSF 

FEAD 

GDP 

IP 

ISCED 

MA 

MS 

NEET 

OP 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Union Solidarity Fund 

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 

Gross domestic product 

Investment priority 

International Standard Classification of Education 

Managing authority 

Member State 

Person not in employment, education or training 

Operational programme 

2 

 
 
Operation 

Participant 

Participation 

PES 

PPE 

Operation means a project, contract, action or group of projects 
selected by the managing authorities of the programmes 
concerned, or under their responsibility, that contributes to the 
objectives of a priority or priorities 

A person benefiting directly from an ESF intervention who can 
be identified and asked for their characteristics, and for whom 
specific expenditure is earmarked 

A participant can take part in several ESF operations. The 
monitoring system records therefore the number of 
‘participations’ 

Public employment service 

Personal protective equipment 

REACT-EU 

Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe 

RRF 

SFC 

STWA 

SURE 

TO 

YEI 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

System for fund management in the European Union 

Short-term working arrangements 

Support to mitigate unemployment risks in an Emergency 

Thematic objective 

Youth Employment Initiative 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  provides  an  early  assessment  of  the  use  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) in operational programmes 
funded by the ESF (European Social Fund) and FEAD (Fund for European Aid to the Most 
Deprived), and of the role that both funds played in response to the public health crisis 
caused  by  COVID-19.  The  European  Commission  adopted  the  Coronavirus  Response 
Investment Initiative on 13 March 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, to provide 
immediate  liquidity  to  Member  States'  budgets  through  the  quick  mobilisation  of  cash 
reserves  from  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF).  As  the  crisis 
unfolded, it proved necessary to complement the original set of flexibilities with additional 
package of measures. The Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus was proposed 
on 2 April 2020. In this evaluation the two initiatives are analysed jointly. 

Given the early stage of implementation of the operations under CRII and CRII+ at the 
time of the evaluation, the evaluation focuses on the process of reacting to the crisis, 
rather than on the impacts of the operations. It aims to assess whether the Commission 
and the Member States replied quickly and in an appropriate way to the urgent needs that 
emerged during the pandemic.  

the  EU’s 

the  speed  of 

The assessment of the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria is adapted to align with 
the  specificities  of  this  evaluation.  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency 
concentrates  on 
the 
flexibility/simplification measures introduced by CRII and CRII+ to enable an immediate 
crisis response at national level. The evaluation looks at the coherence of CRII and CRII+ 
operations with the operations implemented under the ESF and FEAD before the crisis, as 
well as with other relevant EU initiatives. Relevance is evaluated both from the perspective 
of  the  needs  of  Managing  Authorities/Member  States  and  participants/end  recipients  of 
support. Rather than addressing the EU added value criterion, the evaluation assesses the 
role played by ESF and FEAD operations within national anti-crisis strategies.  

the  crisis,  and 

response 

to 

Two intervention logics were used for the analysis. The first one depicts CRII and CRII+ 
as a crisis tool and is used to assess all the evaluation criteria, with particular focus on the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency.  The  second  intervention  logic  describes  ESF  and  FEAD 
operations implemented under CRII and CRII+ and serves the assessment of coherence, 
relevance and the role played by these operations within national anti-crisis strategies.  

The evaluation covers programmed crisis responses at the EU level and at the national and 
regional levels in the EU Member States and the UK1 in the areas of employment, social 
inclusion,  healthcare  and  education  and  training.  The  timespan  of  the  analysis  extends 
from March 2020, when the CRII package was adopted, to September 2022. 

This evaluation is based on a supporting study carried out between December 2021 and 
December 2022. It involved the analysis of data available in the database of the System for 
fund management in the EU (SFC), surveys with ESF and FEAD managing authorities, in-

1  After  the  UK’s  withdrawal  from  the  EU  on  31  January  2020  the  adopted operational programmes  continued  to be 
implemented and the UK was covered by CRII initiatives. 

4 

 
                                                           
depth interviews with EU, national and regional level stakeholders, case studies and focus 
groups. 

The evaluation findings will feed into the ex-post evaluations of the ESF 2014-2020 and 
FEAD,  both  due  by  December  2024,  which  will  provide  deeper  assessments  of  crisis 
response  operations.  The  conclusions  and  lessons  learnt  from  this  evaluation  could  be 
useful if the Member States and the Commission are faced with major crisis situations in 
the  future  and  need  to  use  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus  (ESF+)  for  initiatives  that 
respond to the crisis. The findings of the evaluation can also contribute to the discussions 
on the future of cohesion policy and the role it can play in possible future crises.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1. 

 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  posed  unprecedented  challenges  for  the  labour  market, 
social inclusion, healthcare and education systems in Europe. In the area of health, the 
pandemic led to a large number of people being infected with COVID-19, excess mortality, 
a fall in life expectancy, people suffering from mental distress, and long-lasting symptoms, 
etc.2 The rapid growth in cases of COVID-19 challenged the capacity of national healthcare 
systems.  In  the  initial  focus  on  acute  COVID-19  treatment,  management  of  non-
communicable diseases was severely scaled down, which compromised access to health 
services for all.  

The  developing  pandemic  and  measures  to  stop  the  spread  of  the  virus  resulted  in  a 
decrease in economic activity. As a consequence, it became much harder for people to 
keep their jobs or find work, particularly those without permanent contracts and in sectors 
which could  not  shift  to telework.  In 2020, employment  fell by 1.5% in  the EU after a 
period of continuous growth that resulted in record numbers of people in work in 2019. 
The  decline  in  employment  particularly  affected  young  people  and  people  living  in  a 
different  country  than  the  one  they  were  born  in.  Lockdown  measures  aggravated  the 
existing  social  inequalities  and  living  conditions,  affecting  the  most  vulnerable  groups 
(including  low-income  households,  homeless  people,  older  people  and  persons  with 
disabilities) to the largest extent. The pandemic also exacerbated difficulties in accessing 
services that had migrated online. In the area of education and training, the shift from face-
to-face  to  distance  learning  to  ensure  continuity  magnified  inequalities,  hitting  already 
disadvantaged students hardest3. 

The public health crisis risked leading to liquidity shortages and significant negative effects 
on EU economies and societies in the long-term such as falling levels of employment, a 
slowdown  in  economic  growth  and  increasing  social  inequalities.  This  called  for  rapid 
intervention. 

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 

2 OECD (2021), Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
3 Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2021. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
Investment  Initiative  (CRII)4  and  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative 
Plus (CRII+)5, which were launched by the European Commission in March and April 
2020.  These  initiatives  amended  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)6  of  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). FEAD’s legal basis7 was amended in 
April 2020  by Regulation  (EU) 2020/559. The ESF Regulation8 was not  amended as it 
allowed    to  support  the  new  types  of  actions  that  could  be  necessary  in  the  crisis 
circumstances to continue to pursue the objectives of the ESF.  

The general objective of CRII and CRII+ (Figure 1) was to mitigate the effects of the public 
health  and  socio-economic  crisis  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  specific 
objectives  included  mobilising  unused  support  from  the  Funds  and  enabling  Member 
States and the UK to address the acute needs of their populations during the pandemic by 
quickly redirecting funding and adjusting existing operations. 

CRII and CRII+ constituted a set of changes in the rules governing the implementation 
of  ESF  and  FEAD  operational  programmes  (OPs)  and  were  not  accompanied  by  any 
additional  budget. The list of flexibilities  for the ESF included:  (i)  the reallocation of 
funds within and between OPs; (ii) the reallocation of money between different funds (e.g. 
from ERDF to ESF); (iii) a 100% co-financing rate for the 2020-2021 accounting period; 
(iv) retroactive eligibility (enabling Member States to incur expenses and reimburse them 
at a later stage through the ESF); (v) reallocation of funds between different categories of 
regions; (vi) the flexibility to programme actions under the thematic objective where the 
needs  were  most  acute;  (vii)  postponement  of  the  submission  of  the  Annual 
Implementation Report for 2019; (viii) not issuing recovery orders for 2020.  

Box 1. CRII and CRII+ flexibilities introduced to Common Provisions Regulation 

CRII - Regulation (EU) 2020/460 

CRII Plus - Regulation EU 2020/558558 

  Making expenditue related to the COVID-
19  crisis  eligible  under  cohesion  policy 
rules 

  Article  30a 

(5):Common  Provisions 
Regulation  notification,  non-substantial 
transfers 

  Article 25a (1): 100% co-financing rate for 

the 2020-21 accounting period 

  Article  25a  (2):  reallocation  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 eligibility   

  Article  25a  (5):  waiver  of 
concentration requirements 

thematic 

4 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). 
5 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. 
6  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. 
7 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. 
8  Regulation  (EU)  No 1304/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013  on  the  European  Social  Fund  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1081/2006. 

6 

 
                                                           
  Article  139  (7):  Not  issuing  recovery 

  Article  25a  (6):  no  amendments 

to 

orders for 2020 

partnership agreements 

  Article 25a (7): retroactive eligibility 

  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 (9): postponement of deadline 
annual 

the 
for 
implementation report for 2019 

submission 

of 

  Article  25a  (10):  waiver  of  submitting 
evidence  (e.g.  updated  business  plans) 
instruments  provide 
financial 
where 
working capital to SMEs 

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

sampling for auditing 

Flexibilities in the use of FEAD included: (i) a simplified procedure for amendments to 
operational programmes to streamline the help offered by the fund for needs on the ground; 
(ii)  the  reallocation  of  funds  within  the  FEAD  operation  programmes;  (iii)  the 
postponement  of  the  deadline  to  submit  annual  implementation  reports  for  2019;  (iv)  a 
100% co-financing rate for the 2020-21 accounting year; (v) retroactive eligibility; (vi)  the 
use of electronic vouchers and cards; (vii) the use of FEAD to purchase personal protective 
equipment and materials for partner organisations; (viii) the non-reduction of eligible costs 
due to delays in the delivery of food and/or basic material aid. 

Box 2. Flexibilities in reprogramming FEAD (Regulation EU 2020/559) 

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

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

  Article  30:  less  onerous  control  and 

audit trail requirements 

  Re-allocation of money within the OP 

  Article  9 

(4):  notification,  non-

substantial transfers 

  Article  13(1):  postponement  of  the 

deadline to submit 2019 AIRs  

  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 purchase 
personal  protective  equipment  and 
materials for partner organisations  

  Article  26a:  non-reduction  of  eligible 
costs  due  to  delays  in  the  delivery  of 
food and/or basic material aid 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Article  26b  (1):  claims  for  expenses 
where  the  implementation  of  services 
was suspended 

The direct effect of CRII and CRII+ should be visible in the take-up of the flexibilities that 
were introduced. It can be measured by the number of operational programmes modified 
with or without formal amendments and the number of Member States using the proposed 
flexibilities.  

These  initiatives  to  tackle  COVID-19  resulted  in  new  and  adjusted  ESF  and  FEAD 
operations and the mobilisation of non-utilised funds to deal with the crisis. The results 
can be measured by the  number of anti-crisis  operations,  the number of  recipients  who 
received help, the amount of funding allocated to operations, and the changes in financial 
absorption rates. 

The  ultimate  impacts  include  the  intended  role  of  the  funds  response  in  ensuring 
functioning health systems through facilitating necessary public investments in healthcare; 
mitigating  negative  effects  on  growth;  facilitating  effective  economic  recovery; 
diminishing pressure on public finances; and providing the necessary support to businesses 
and  people.  In  particular,  the  response  initiatives  were  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). 

At the level of operations, ESF and FEAD under CRII and CRII+ continued to pursue their 
objectives (access to employment, social and health services, education, food and material 
assistance)  however  with  an  emphasis  on  maintaining  the  continuity  of  services  and 
enabling access to them in the new reality shaped by the pandemic. Therefore, the new and 
adjusted operations resulting from CRII and CRII+ constitute the main change in the ESF 
and FEAD intervention logics (Figure 2). 

The general, high-level objective was 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. As concerns health, the specific objective is to support 
the  provision  of  health  services  and  for  social  inclusion,  to  provide  access  to  social 
services for the disadvantaged. As regards employment, the support aims specifically at 
adaptation  of  workers,  enterprises  and  entrepreneurs.  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 raised by the pandemic.  

The activities concern the specific new and adjusted operations planned for the ESF and 
FEAD to support the COVID-19 response. Some ESF activities span across thematic areas 
(as reflected in the flexibility given to programme some of the operations articulated as 
activities under different thematic objectives).9 The most important changes in the use of 

9 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 COVID-19 crisis’.  

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ESF and FEAD relative to the pre-pandemic situation are visible at the level of activities 
within operations. 

9 

 
 
10 

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

11 

 
 
For health, activities cover a range of ESF operations including: the purchase of necessary 
equipment and supplies; the hiring of additional healthcare personnel and helping to pay 
the salaries of existing staff; training for healthcare; the provision of mobile or temporary 
healthcare facilities; support for distance and  online healthcare  and  healthcare  at  home; 
and the provision of medical assistance or home care services for vulnerable groups.  

Employment-related  activities  include:  the  use  of  short-time  work  arrangements;  the 
recruitment of additional staff for professional cleaning services; support  for employers 
and workers to set up teleworking arrangements; support for employers and workers to put 
in place occupational health and safety measures; support for self-employed people and 
small businesses by financing information technology solutions.  

Social inclusion operations funded by the ESF include: support for people experiencing 
homelessness or exclusion from housing and who are exposed to COVID-19; healthcare 
and  social  services;  support  for  volunteers  and  volunteering  activities;  and  support  for 
emergency social aid, including the payment of salaries of people in work.  

ESF-funded activities in education and training include support for distance learning e.g. 
digital skills training for teachers and students; the purchase or rent of equipment such as 
laptops or broadband connections; and the fast-track graduation of medical and social care 
personnel (e.g. support for fast-track examinations or reviewing curricula or qualification 
requirements). 

Similarly, activities delivered through FEAD encompass new and adjusted operations to 
address the additional challenges faced by the most deprived as a result of the pandemic. 
These include the expansion and redirection of food and basic material assistance to the 
most deprived, including via indirect delivery through electronic vouchers, along with the 
provision of personal protective equipment and the provision of (enhanced and targeted) 
non-financial, non-material assistance.  

The  wide  range  of  operations  presented  as  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 direct response of cohesion 
policy to the COVID-19 pandemic,10 including through the ESF.  

Results  can  be  articulated  to  align,  where  suitable  indicators  are  available,  with  the 
programme-specific result indicators used to measure the COVID-19 response through the 
funds. These concern the number of ESF participants who kept their job 6 months after the 
end  of  support  provided  through  the  new  and  adjusted  operations,  and  the  number  of 
participants  gaining  a  qualification  upon  leaving  supported  by  activities  to  combat  the 
effects of the pandemic. In addition, results also capture the aim of the response initiatives 
to ensure that: (i) people and healthcare systems are supported; (ii) that people 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; 
(iii)  that  people  are  supported  to  continue  in  education  and  training  and  to  achieve 
qualifications, and that education systems continue to function. 

10 As initially outlined in the European Commission ‘Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the 
cohesion policy direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic’  
12 

 
 
                                                           
The final element of the intervention logic for ESF and FEAD support under the CRII and 
CRII+  relates  to  expected  impacts.  These  aim  to  ensure:  (i)  more  resilient  and  better-
functioning  healthcare  systems;  (ii)  sustained  employment  and  better-adapted  workers, 
businesses and entrepreneurs; (iii) increased social inclusion and reduced levels of poverty 
levels; (iv) the provision of well-functioning education and training able to resist the effects 
of the pandemic; (v) and, more broadly and in the medium to longer-term, that people and 
national economies are better able to recover from the health, social and economic crises 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

CRII and CRII+ constituted an immediate crisis response. In May 2020, the Commission 
proposed NextGenerationEU as a comprehensive recovery plan to allocate €750 billion 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 boost investment in research. It comprises:  

- 

the Recovery and Resilience Facility11, including €723 billion in loans and grants 
to support Member State reforms and investments;  

-  REACT-EU12, making €47.5 billion available through the ERDF13, the ESF and 

FEAD to extend the measures delivered through CRII and CRII+; and, 

-  additional  money  for  other  EU  programmes  or  funds  such  as  Horizon  2020, 

InvestEU and the Just Transition Fund.  

The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  reached  an  agreement  on  the  plan  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 EUR 1.8 trillion. 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 temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE)14 
is  another key  instrument  in  the EU’s strategy to support employment  and mitigate the 
negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, it provided more than EUR 91.8 
billion in loans to help support approximately 31 million people and 2.5 million companies 
in  19  Member  States15.  SURE  was  designed  to  support  short-time  work  schemes  and 
similar  measures,  to  help  Member  States  protect  jobs  and  thus  employees  and  self-
employed people against the risk of unemployment and loss of income. When adopting the 

11 Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility. 
12 Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards additional resources and implementing arrangements to provide assistance 
for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a 
green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy (REACT-EU). 
13 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. 
14 Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of 19 May 2020 on the establishment of a European instrument for temporary 
support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE) following the COVID-19 outbreak. 
15  BE,  BG,  CY,  CZ,  EE,  EL,  ES,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  and  SK.  https://economy-

finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-financial-assistance/sure_en.  

13 

 
                                                           
SURE regulation in May 2020, the Council decided to extend its scope to support health-
related measures. 

2.2.  Points of comparison  

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

 

 

the  ESF  and  FEAD  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  programmed  strategically 
with a long-term view, in line with the European Semester;  
the ESF after the financial crisis of 2007-2008. 

The first point of comparison allows demonstrating how the ESF and FEAD have changed 
after  the  reprogramming  under  CRII  and  CRII+  comparing  to  the  Funds  programmed 
strategically  with  a long-term  view, in  line with the European Semester.  It  was used to 
describe the changes in allocations, target groups and (re-) programming process. 

The second point of comparison aims to compare the ESF during the pandemic with its 
earlier responses in the crisis situations. The financial crisis of 2007-8 was selected due to 
its scale and broad impact it had on the economies and societies. This point of comparison 
is used to assess the speed, the scale and the relevance of the crisis response. 

2.2.1.  ESF and FEAD before the COVID-19 crisis 

In the 2014-2020 programming period, the aims of the ESF were carried out through 187 
Operational Programmes in the 27 Member States and the UK. The operations could be 
carried out  until  the  end of 2023.  Investments  could  be programmed under one of  four 
thematic objectives (TO), which were further divided into investment priorities (IPs). 

ESF  investments  in  employment  and  mobility  (TO8)  focused  primarily  on  access  to 
employment  (IP8.i)  and  adaptability  to  change  (IP8.v).  The  types  of  operations  funded 
included  work-based  learning,  support  for  entrepreneurs,  and  integrated  pathways  to 
employment16.  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.  Employment operations targeted 
several  types  of  groups:  unemployed  people,  who  constituted  most  of  the  participants 
(67%); people aged 25-54; women, and low-skilled individuals17. 

A  total  of  EUR  31.3  billion  (EU  and  national  co-financing)  was  allocated  by  Member 
States to TO9  (social inclusion)  operations at  the start  of the 2014-2020 programming 
period. This represented approximately 25% of the total ESF allocation. ESF investments 
in  promoting  social  inclusion  and  combatting  poverty  and  discrimination  focused  on 
several  types  of  operations.  These  included:  (i)  reducing  barriers  to  employment  and 
upgrading skills, in particular for people in vulnerable situations; (ii) improving access to 

16 Study for the evaluation of ESF support to employment and labour mobility, European Commission (2020). 
17 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
quality services in health, education, childcare and long-term care; (iii) supporting social 
entrepreneurship18.  

TO9 operations targeted a wide range of groups and organisations, including:  

-  people with a low level of skills;  
- 
self-employed people;  
- 
recipients of minimum income;  
-  Roma and other ethnic minorities;  
-  people with a migrant or foreign background;  
-  persons with disabilities or a chronic illness, or who require long-term care; 
- 
-  SMEs and micro companies;  
- 
short (less than 12 months) and long-term unemployed (for 12 months or longer); 
-  public administrations and public services (including workers in public services); 
-  homeless people and people affected by substance abuse.19  

single parents;  

ESF investments in education and training (TO10) at the beginning of the 2014-2020 
programming  period  amounted  EUR  39.2  billion  (EU  and  national  co-financing), 
representing  32%  of  total  planned  funding  for  the  ESF20.  Most  interventions  aimed  to 
support general secondary and post-secondary education and training (under IP10.i) and 
higher education (under IP10.ii)21. The planned operations aimed to reach a wide variety 
of  groups,  including  teachers  and  students  of  all  ages,  early  school  leavers  and 
disadvantaged groups (e.g. Roma, older workers, low-skilled adults)22.  

During the 2014–2020 programming period, the ESF also supported improvements in the 
institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities  and  stakeholders,  and  efficient  public 
administration (TO11).23 17 Member States (BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, 
LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  programmed  support  under  TO11  within  the  ESIF, 
amounting  to  a  total  of  around  EUR  4.2  billion  (with  3.6  billion  allocated  through  the 
ESF).24 Actions could target areas such as transparency and accountability,  civil service 
systems, service delivery and e-services, the organisation and management of government, 
policymaking coordination and implementation, and the functioning of the judicial system.  

The selection of ESF priorities under all thematic objectives was decided at the beginning 
of  the  2014-2020  programming  period  (and,  later  on,  through  amendments  to  the  OPs) 
with  a  view  to  respond  to  national  and  regional  needs,  as  well  as  in  response  to  the 
European  Semester  priorities  and  country-specific  recommendations,  which  seek  to 
coordinate socio-economic policies to boost growth, reduce poverty and create jobs across 
the EU. Thematic evaluations of the ESF indicated that, based on data available by the end 

18 Study supporting the 2020 evaluation of promoting social inclusion, combatting poverty and any discrimination by the 
European Social Fund, European Commission (2020). 
19 Ibid. 
20 Study for the Evaluation of ESF support to education and training, European Commission (2020).  
21 Ibid. 
22 Ibid. 
23 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.  
24 Progress assessment of ESF support to public administration, European Commission (2020). 

15 

 
                                                           
of 2018, OPs were largely aligned with the country-specific recommendations made under 
the European Semester process.  

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 (97.56%) was allocated to Operational Programmes 
type I i.e. to food and basic material assistance. The remaining value (2.44% of funding) 
was dedicated to OP II i.e. social inclusion. 23 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, 
EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LU,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  and  the  UK 
adopted OP I and only 4 Member States adopted OP II (DE, DK, NL, SE).   

FEAD operations focused on providing food and material assistance to the most deprived, 
including  children  at  risk  of  poverty,  homeless  people,  people  older  than  65  with  low 
pensions,  migrants,  and  persons  with  disabilities.  FEAD  also  funded  accompanying 
measures  such  as  psychological,  social  and  other  support  (through  OP  I)  and  social 
inclusion activities (through OP II).25 Apart from the purchase of food and basic assistance 
products, and their transport and distribution, there were a variety of outreach activities  to 
assess  needs  and  identify  end  recipients,  which  often  involved  public  authorities,  non-
governmental organisations and local networks . 

2.2.2.  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 
and society in general. The swiftness and scale of ESF support, through the actions taken 
under CRII and CRII+ at EU level, is compared in this report with the ESF’s reaction to 
the earlier crisis, where relevant and where data is available. This comparison can be made 
despite the different socio-economic contexts, the different nature of the two crises, the 
different  effects  on  economic  sectors  and  on  specific  groups  in  the  population,  and  the 
different timing as regards 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 European sovereign debt crisis that coincided with 
it,  put  huge pressure on Member States. A double-dip  recession ensued and  around 6.7 
million jobs were lost between 2008 and 201326. At the time, the European Commission 
launched  the  2008  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan27  which,  alongside  national 
recovery plans, boosted expenditure in key labour market policy areas. Member States 
developed  national  recovery  plans  that  aimed  to  accelerate  the  absorption  of  EU  funds 
(including the ESF) to support economic recovery and social inclusion,  and to maintain 
jobs,  create  new  jobs  and  foster  job  mobility  and  reskilling  and  upskilling28.  Austerity 
policies (focusing on reducing budget deficits) were also a response to the crisis in some 
Member States.  

As part of the Recovery Plan, the EU introduced several mechanisms that accelerated ESF 
spending  and  simplified  procedures.  Member  States  in  turn  adjusted  the  operational 
programmes  by  reallocating  funds  between  priority  axes,  target  groups  and  types  of 
measures, and by simplifying procedures for the management and implementation of the 

25 FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation Final Report, European Commission (2018).  
26 European Parliament  (2019). A decade on from the crisis - Main responses and remaining challenges.  
27 Communication from the Commission to the European Council – A European Economic Recovery Plan (2008).  
28 Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis, Metis GmbH and wiiw (2012). 

16 

 
                                                           
ESF.29 In April and May 2009, amendments to the ESF regulations introduced several 
measures to support the crisis response at Member State level. These included: 

-  providing  additional  liquidity  by  extending  the  eligibility  period  and  permitting 
unspent budgets from the 2006-2007 programming period (amounting to EUR 7 
billion) to be commissioned 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 upon certain conditions;  
-  providing measures to reduce the administrative burden on project beneficiaries, 

e.g. using a flat rate for reimbursing project costs30.  

Some Member States modified their operational programmes to enable these measures to 
be implemented (e.g. by reallocating funds between or within priority axes, adjusting target 
groups, or expanding the types or scope of activities), while others operational programmes 
were  already  flexible  enough  to  enable  changes  without  formal  amendments31.  The 
evaluation of the ESF’s reaction to the financial and economic crisis found that 84 out of 
117 OPs (72%) were changed in response to the crisis, and that most did not require the 
formal  approval  of  the  European  Commission  (with  only  27  cases  requiring  a  formal 
modification  of  the  OP).32  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 201033. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1.  Take-up of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities 

From  March  2020  to  September  2022,  23  Member  States  (plus  the  UK)34  used  the 
Coronavirus  Response  Initiatives  to  amend  their  ESF  operational  programmes  to 
respond to the COVID-19 crisis (a total of 219 amendments under thematic objectives 8-
11).  

The  flexibility  to  reallocate  money  between  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds was the flexibility most used by Member States in respect of the ESF (14 countries, 
45  amendments),  followed  by  reallocation  within  OPs  (11  countries,  80  amendments). 
Nine countries took up the option of 100% co-financing through 51 separate amendments. 
Reallocation  of  money  between  categories  of  region  was  less  used  (5  countries,  7 
amendments),  as  was  CPR  notification  (4  countries,  19  amendments)  and  reallocation 
between OPs within the same fund or category of region (3 countries, 12 amendments). 
No countries used the other flexibilities35 when requesting formal amendments. At least 

29 Ibid. 
30 The European Social Fund: supporting economic recovery, European Commission (2008). 
31 Ibid. 
32 Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis, Metis GmbH and wiiw (2012). 
33 Ibid. 
34BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK.  
35 See Box 1.36 In the case of 5 out of 219 amendments identified, the ‘type of amendment’ could not be conclusively 
determined. This concerned regional OPs for Ceuta, Mayotte, Melilla, Lorraine et Vosges, and Reunion (one amendment 
in each case).  

17 

 
 
                                                           
11  Member  States  applied  retroactive  eligibility,  which  did  not  require  a  formal  OP 
amendment. The table below summarises the use of the CRII flexibilities. 

Table 1 ESF CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used36 

Type of amendment 

Legal basis 

Number of 
MS(incl. UK) 

Number of 
amendments to ESF 
OPs 

ESF total 
Reallocation of money between funds  Article 25a(2)  
Reallocation within the OP 
CPR - 100% co-financing 
Reallocation of money between 
categories of regions 
CPR notification 
Reallocation between OPs within the 
same fund/category of regions 
Retroactive eligibility 

Article 25a(1) 
Article 25a(3) 

Article 25a (7) 

Article 30(5) 

24 
14 
11 
9 
5 

4 
3 

11 

219 
45 
80 
51 
7 

19 
12 

N/A* 

Source: SFC 2014-2020 and Ecorys survey data.  
*Ammendments were not required to make use of the flexibility on retroactive eligibility.  

15 Member States37 used CRII+ FEAD flexibilities to support existing or implement new 
COVID-19  operations.  The  flexibility  used  by  most  Member  States  between  March 
2020 and September 2022 has been the possibility of 100% co-financing, introduced by 
11 of the 15 Member States. Five Member States reallocated funds within FEAD OPs 
(5), and six Member States made use of the flexibility to use FEAD funding to purchase 
PPE.  

Table 2 FEAD CRII and CRII+ flexibilities used between March 2020 and September 2022 

CRII / CRII 
+ 
flexibilities

Article 26 (2): 
use of FEAD 
to purchase 
PPE 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 
AIRs for 2019 
FEAD re-
allocation 
within the OP 

A
T 

BE  B
G 

C
Z 

ES  F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

IT  L
T 

L
U 

PL  PT  R
O 

S
K 

 

   

   

   

   

   

 

   

 

 

   

   

   

 

 

   

   

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

   

36 In the case of 5 out of 219 amendments identified, the ‘type of amendment’ could not be conclusively determined. 
This concerned regional OPs for Ceuta, Mayotte, Melilla, Lorraine et Vosges, and Reunion (one amendment in each 
case).  
37 AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SK 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
   
   
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

 

 

   

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: SFC 2014-2020 and Ecorys survey data 

 

 

 

 

   

  

3.2.  Reallocation of available funds 

Section  3.1  demonstrated  that  the  flexibility  to  shift  funding  between  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  as  well  as  within  ESF,  were  among  the  most  used 
flexibilities.  Overall,  around  EUR  1.2  billion  was  shifted  from  the  ERDF  (EUR  871 
million) and the Cohesion Fund (EUR 341 million) to the ESF, while  around EUR 493 
million were moved from the ESF to the ERDF, resulting in a net increase in ESF funding 
of approximately EUR 0.7 billion.  

Figure 3 Reallocations between the ESF, the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund (CF) under the 

Coronavirus response initiatives between May 2020 and September 2022 

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 28 September 2022) 

Between  May  2020  and  April  2022  23  countries38  reallocated  ESF  funding  between 
TOs, within or between ESF OPs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most 
significant change in allocation by TO has been an increase in funding for TO9 of just over 
EUR 2 billion. Conversely, the allocation to TO 10 fell by over EUR 1.3 billion.  

Table 3 Net change in ESF funding by TO in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, May 2020 to 
April 2022 (EUR million) 

TO 8 

TO 9 

TO 10 

TO 11 

TA 

Total 

38 BE, BG ,CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 

19 

 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Employment 
and mobility 

Social inclusion 
and health 

Education and 
training 

Public 
administration 

Technical 
assistance 

EU-27 and UK 

214,899,331 

2,087,259,641 

-1,325,032,331 

-252,323,471 

-83,627,809 

641,175,361 

Source: SFC2014-2020 (data extracted on 26 September 2022) 

On social inclusion, Article 4 of the ESF Regulation specifies that at least 20% of ESF 
resources should be allocated to TO9. No Member State formally reported having to use a 
waiver for this requirement. However, the waiver is in effect in a small number of cases. 
For  three  Member  States  (DK,  FI  and  SK),  the  latest  approved  version  of  their  OP(s) 
allocates  less  than  20%  to  social  inclusion.  As  stated  in  the  2020  Final  ESF  Synthesis 
Report39,  this  is  possible  for    priority  axes  with  social  innovation  or  transnational 
cooperation operations.  

For all categories of region, most of the funding was likewise reallocated towards TO9. 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. 
Overall EUR 304 million were transferred between categories of region, while EUR 143 
million were transferred within the same category of region. 

At the level of ESF Investment Priorities (IPs) reallocations were mostly directed towards 
IP 9.iv (access to social and health services), which increased its allocated budget by 79% 
or  around  EUR  3  billion,  and  IP  8.v  (adaptability  of  workers  and  employers)  which 
increased by 26% or approximately EUR 1.3 billion. 

The requirement to concentrate on a limited number of investment priorities (Article 4.3 
of the ESF Regulation) was not met in the case of only 10 OPs in two countries (IT and 
PL). In five of the OPs, the defined minimum thematic concentration was already not met 
before the pandemic, in 2019, while in the others the shifts between investment priorities 
resulted in the threshold not being met. 

Member  States’  requests  for  financial  reallocations  under  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives were less frequent for the FEAD than the ESF. Only a few Member States (AT, 
CZ, HU, RO, SK) asked for reallocations within an OP. In addition, the amounts involved 
were comparatively small relative to the ESF. 

3.3.  Anti-crisis operations implemented under the ESF and FEAD 

Member  States  and  the  UK,  using  the  flexibility  granted  by  the  Coronavirus  Response 
Investment Initiatives, programmed numerous anti-crisis operations through the ESF and 
FEAD to address the effects of COVID-19.40 ESF anti-crisis operations identified had a 
target  financial  value  of  EUR  5.1  billion  and  aimed  to  support  approx.  4.2  million 

39 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,  European  Commission  Directorate-General  for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, and Lindeboom, G. (2020).  
40 The terms ‘COVID-19 anti-crisis operations’, ‘anti-crisis operations’, and ‘operations’ are used interchangeably.  

20 

 
 
                                                           
participants  and  120,000  entities41,42.  The  equivalent  figures  for  the  FEAD  are  not 
available43. 

The monitoring system does not include any earmarking of anti-crisis operations, which 
were  often  implemented  without  formal  modifications  to  OPs.  Most  of  the  anti-crisis 
operations  identified  were  implemented  under  TO8  and  TO9,  followed  by  TO10,  and 
TO11, with few anti-crisis operations. 

Figure 4 Identified ESF COVID-19 anti-crisis operations44  

Thematic Objective 8 
Empoyment and labour 
mobility 

Thematic Objective 9 
Social Inclusion and 
health 

Thematic Objective 10 
Education and training 

Thematic Objective 11 
Public administration 

120 operations 

153 operations45 

76 operations 

6 operations 

Source: SFC 2014-2020 

The  employment-related  actions  that  have  been  identified  were  implemented  mainly 
under TO8 and aimed at protecting jobs (44 actions), supporting employers and the 
self-employed (40) and supporting employees (34). ‘Actions to protect 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 ones46. 
Around  three  quarters  of  these  schemes  (74%  or  28  out  of  38)  were  limited  to  income 
support, but there are examples of more active STWS where, for instance, wage support 
was combined with training or help to find a job. Other actions to protect jobs included 
providing economic incentives for companies to retain and hire staff, as well as to maintain 
their activities through, e.g. teleworking arrangements. Actions supporting employers and 
the  self-employed  primarily  helped  companies  to  adapt  to  change.  These  projects 
commonly targeted specific types of businesses (e.g. small or micro-enterprises) or sectors 
(e.g., manufacturing or food), or specific types of employees (e.g., managers or workers). 
Actions to support workers were primarily aimed at helping to mitigate the negative effects 
of COVID-19 on ESF participants and helped people back into the labour market. These 
included passive measures such as emergency cash benefits, as well as active measures 
such  as  professional  development,  and  help  to  find  or  take  up  a  job.  A  few  actions  to 

41 Cohesion Open Data Platform, Coronavirus Dashboard, data retrieved on 3 October 2022.  
42 The aggregated target values most probably underestimate the actual scale of ESF reaction to the COVID-19 crisis as 
the COVID-19 programme specific indicators were used on a voluntary basis and were not monitored for all anti-crisis 
operations.  
43 FEAD did not use COVID-19 specific indicators to track the target values for FEAD COVID-19 anti-crisis operations 
and therefore it is not possible to quantitatively track such values across the Member States.  
44 The mapping of ESF anti-crisis operations was undertaken in the framework of the Ecorys supporting study to this 
evaluation,  based  on  the  data  from  SFC2014  and  AIR  2022.  The  number  of  operations  is  subject  to  the  limitations 
explained in Annex II.2. 
45 Under TO9, 15 operations are employment-related, 74 operations are healthcare-related, and 64 operations are related 
to social inclusion. 
46 BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES,, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
support  young  people  who  were  not  in  employment,  education  or  training  (NEETs), 
typically through the YEI, were also identified. Such actions supported people up to 29 
years  of  age  with  training  and  a  range  of  support  services  to  find  a  job  (e.g.  through 
placements in good-quality jobs and internships).  

Social inclusion anti-crisis operations took place in 13 Member States47. Most actions 
were programmed under TO9, while a few that combined social inclusion with education 
were  programmed  under  TO10.  Most  actions  promoted  social  inclusion  by  ensuring 
access to services. Support for social service providers included, for example, financial 
support and help for staff, as well as help to ensure that service providers could adapt their 
usual ways of working e.g. by providing services through tele-counselling or vouchers to 
maintain  and  improve  people’s  access  to  support  services.  Other  actions  supported  the 
social inclusion of vulnerable groups by providing targeted support. These operations 
supported, for example, people experiencing homelessness or persons with disabilities, to 
mitigate the additional challenges they faced because of the pandemic. To the same end, 
some operations in Member States supported people with caring responsibilities via several 
means such as financial support to help them access services.  

In  total,  13  Member  States48  implemented  healthcare-related  actions.  These  can  be 
broadly categorised as involving either ‘actions to support healthcare workers and patients’ 
or ‘actions to support healthcare systems’, with a few operations combining both aspects. 
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  these  operations  include 
hiring professionals (including nurses, doctors, technicians, or re-engaging retired staff), 
improving the infrastructure in hospitals (e.g. oxygen supplies) and financing of PPE and 
medical  equipment  to  enable  healthcare  systems  to  respond  to  COVID-19.,  Some 
operations  aimed  to  support  healthcare  workers  by  giving  bonuses  or  providing 
opportunities to improve their skills and qualifications. In some Member States, operations 
also provided additional healthcare support for specific target groups that are particularly 
vulnerable  to  COVID-19,  including  older  people  or  persons  with  disabilities.  Other 
operations aimed to improve awareness of health issues among people at risk of poverty 
or social exclusion, e.g. by providing information or running campaigns to raise awareness. 

Education and training operations were identified in 14 Member States49. One third 
of these aimed to ensure the continuity of education and training, mainly by supporting the 
development  and/or  implementation  of  distance-learning  services.  Commonly,  these 
operations helped teachers to develop digital education content and the relevant skills to 
deliver  it.  Several  operations  (20  in  total)  provided  more  direct  financial  support  by 
purchasing  equipment  or  through  other  capital  investment  to  ensure  continuity.  This 
typically involved the purchase of laptops and tablets for students, as well as providing 
funding  to  develop,  for  example,  the  digital  infrastructure  in  education  and  training 
institutions at all levels of education. In some cases, financial support to pay for equipment 
was  specifically  targeted  at  disadvantaged  students.  Other  operations  included,  for 
example,  scholarships  or  the  provision  of  psychosocial  services  to  support  pupils  and 
students affected by the pandemic. Moreover, several actions aimed to support economic 

47 BG, DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK 
48 BE, BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, UK 
49 BG, DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK 
22 

 
                                                           
recovery  after  COVID-19  through  reskilling  and  upskilling,  including  education  and 
training  focused  on  both  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 the digital and green transition.  

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  initiatives  adjusted  to  respond  to  the  emergency.  Operations  focused  on 
supporting  employers  and  workers  in  public  services,  in  particular  by  setting  up 
teleworking arrangements and providing health assistance to people. They also focused on 
increasing the capacity of administrations and public services to develop innovative and 
experimental  administrative  practices  that  help  them  to  modernise  and  become  more 
efficient.  Operations  also  aimed  to  improve  the delivery  of  services  and  enhance  smart 
working during the pandemic; and to increase the participation of social partners in shaping 
skills  strategies  and  staff  development,  to  better  adapt  them  to  the  needs  of  the  labour 
market and the economy.  

FEAD anti-crisis operations focused on continuing to provide food and basic material 
assistance through electronic vouchers, e-platforms, and other arrangements. These 
included home deliveries of food-packages and providing PPE to volunteers in distribution 
centres. Examples of other types of operations include one in the Netherlands that provided 
social networking activities for the elderly, while in Spain a FEAD operation worked on 
modernising (digitalising) the recording  and storage of data on individual  recipients.  In 
Bulgaria, a FEAD operation combined the delivery of individual food packages with health 
screening actions and actions to improve awareness of health issues.  

Member States differed in the number of anti-crisis operations that they implemented. It is 
possible to identify three broad groups of Member States: those with over 80 operations,50 
those  with  15  to  40  operations,51  and  those  with  less  than  15  operations.52  In  general, 
Member States with more Operational Programmes, i.e., where there is a regionalisation 
of  the  ESF,  tended  to  have  more  operations.  Also,  countries  that  were  badly  hit  by  the 
pandemic (e.g. higher infection and mortality rates and a bigger 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 financial liquidity in the pandemic and the 
existence of alternative sources of funding were also important factors, alongside the level 
of  unspent  resources  at  the  end  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  The  number  of 
operations does not reflect the amount of financing involved53.  

Most of the COVID-19 anti-crisis operations in Member States were based on existing 
operations that were topped up with funds to meet increased demand or adjusted/expanded 
in scope to meet new demands. New operations were less frequent.54 Most ESF operations 
started in 2020 (237 operations) with much fewer (23) starting in 202155. Two thirds of the 
ESF  operations  identified  were  implemented  at  regional  level  (280),  with  the  rest 

50 IT, PL 
51 DK, EL, FR, ES, PT 
52 BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 
53  Linking  the  targets  of  financial  indicators  (CV30)  to  identified  operations  in  the  SFC  2014  was  not  possible  as 
indicators are reported at the level of IPs and not operations.   
54 109 out of the 354 identified operations are classified as new.  
55 For some operations, the starting date could not be identified in the SFC2014 database. 

23 

 
                                                           
implemented  at  national  level  (67)56.  These  operations  typically  covered  the  whole 
population of a Member State. 

The ESF anti-crisis operations tended to target the general public that was eligible for 
ESF support, or organisations serving the general public, rather than specific ESF 
target groups (e.g. older workers, persons with disabilities, etc.). Likewise, there was a 
particular  focus  on  people  in  ‘technical  unemployment’  as  opposed  to  the  traditionally 
defined  ‘unemployed’  or  ‘economically  inactive’.  Almost  a  third  of  the  crisis-response 
operations therefore focused, through STWS, on employed and self-employed people who 
were  forced  to  reduce  their  working  hours  or  stop  working  completely  during  the 
pandemic. There were, however, some cases of operations to support specific ESF target 
groups, such as actions aimed at supporting homeless people, older people, people with 
caring responsibilities, or persons with disabilities.  

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Broad take-up of flexibilities and redirection of resources to meet urgent needs 

The  Coronavirus  Investment  Initiatives  reached  their  objectives  as  defined  in  the 
intervention logic (Figure 1). At the operational level the flexibilities were widely used 
to reprogramme the ESF57 and, to lesser extent, the FEAD58 in response to the pandemic, 
as  shown  in  section  3.1.  A  total  of  155  ESF  OPs  in  24  countries  were  subject  to 
amendments i.e. 82% of all ESF OPs, which is a higher proportion than in reaction to the 
financial crisis59. While amendments to OPs were relatively common in the pre-pandemic 
period, the volume of amendments increased following the introduction of CRII/CRII+. 
The possibility to reallocate resources between Funds was used most often. Member States 
also took advantage of the option to reallocate funding within the ESF to target specific 
needs arising from the pandemic.  

Around  three  quarters  (37  out  of  51)  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  ESF  managing 
authorities felt that the flexibilities enabled their institutions to respond more quickly 
to emerging needs by reallocating funding. Likewise, the rapid response enabled by the 
CRII, including administrative simplification and the responsiveness of the Commission 
to requests for amendment, was seen as a key reason for the widely perceived effectiveness 
of the response initiatives60. The in-depth interviews carried out in the framework of the 
case studies  highlighted that the simplified procedures for OP  amendments  helped ease 
logistical and staffing constraints. The simplified procedures also enabled quick access to 
existing  financial  resources,  the  rapid  redirection  of  considerable  amounts61  of  unspent 
resources  to  where  they  were  most  needed  (see  Section  3.2),  and  the  introduction  of  a 
substantial number62 of new or adjusted operations (see Section 3.3). Again, this very much 

56 For seven operations the level of implementation is could not be identified. 
57 See Table 1 
58 See Table 2 
59 See point 2.2.2 for comparison. 
60 See Annex V 

61 See Table 3 
62 See Figure 4 

24 

 
 
                                                           
reflects the specific objectives and expected results of CRII and CRII+ , as detailed in the 
discussion of the intervention logic of the response initiatives in Section 2.1 (Figure 1).  

Flexibilities were used slightly less often for FEAD programming and reprogramming (15 
Member  States  in  total  used  the  flexibilities).  Evidence  from  interviews  and  the  FEAD 
focus group suggests63 that the FEAD OPs were already relatively flexible as regards the 
use  of  funding,  and  that  the  overall  broad  scope  of  FEAD  (in  terms  of  programming 
operations and supporting a wide range of target groups) meant that reallocation of funds, 
or other changes, were required less often than for the ESF.  

Simplified and accelerated programming  

The  CRII  and  CRII+  facilitated  an  efficient  process  for  using  remaining  funds  to 
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and to the changed priorities that resulted from it. 
Key flexibilities that helped to support this were permitting expenditure on crisis response 
measures  under  cohesion  policy  rules,  retroactive  eligibility  for  expenditure,  and 
simplified procedures to amend OPs.  

Nearly three quarters (72%) of amendments were accepted within one month, with 19% 
accepted between one to two months, and 9% accepted after two months. Compared to the 
pre-pandemic context, this supports the positive assessment of the efficiency and  speed 
enabled  by  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  2020.64 Again,  this  acceleration  in 
approving  amendments  under  the  CRII  and  CRII+  is  evidence  that  the  Commission’s 
processes became more efficient.  

Stakeholder  have  given  positive  feedback  on  the  extent  to  which  the  reprogramming 
process was simplified and accelerated because of the CRII and CRII+. For example, more 
than eight in ten (42 out of 51) respondents to the ESF MA survey said that their institution 
was able, to a great or a medium extent, to respond more quickly to needs on the ground 
because of the flexibilities provided. Nearly seven in ten (35 out of 51) noted that they 
were able, to a great or medium extent, to streamline operations to address the COVID-
19  crisis,  while  over  half  (28  out  of  51)  noted  they  were  able  to  simplify  the 
reprogramming process compared to previous or standard ESF implementation, and to 
support different stakeholders more efficiently (30 out of 51).  

Box  3  Developing  the  skills  of  laid-off  and  employed  staff  in  economically  vulnerable 
sectors in Sweden 
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 open from 17 April 
to 5 May 2020 (typically, ESF-calls in Sweden stay open for 2 months). The Ministry of Labour 
and the Swedish ESF Council (the managing authority) used Article 30.5 of the ESF Regulation 
to transfer unallocated resources available under CRII to make it possible to  launch the call. 
Applications were processed within 3 weeks (typically, processing takes 8 weeks). Stakeholders 
reported that this was unusually fast, and that there was a sense of urgency and determination at 
the time to make a positive difference during a difficult time. 

63 See Annex V 
64 European Court of Auditors, Special report on ‘Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19’, February 

2023. 

25 

 
                                                           
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 meet to award projects, a new committee was formed with the chairperson of 
each ESF region. This new regional committee oversaw the award of 80% of the projects across 
all regions. In parallel, a national decision board financed projects with funds available at the 
national level, awarding 20% of the available funds. 
Accordingly, the CRII permitted a swift reallocation of funds so that vulnerable individuals on 
the labour market could be given priority, allowing the ESF Council to make a call for proposals 
in a timely and targeted manner. The Ministry also 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  by  notifying  the  European 
Commission, instead of waiting for their approval. 

By way of comparison, a respondent from Slovenia estimated that, without the accelerated 
reprogramming  process,  it  might  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 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  simplifications  and  flexibilities,  ESF  funds  were 
available 7 to 8 weeks earlier than experienced under normal conditions. This gives a clear 
idea of how the speed of the programming response facilitated through the CRII was often 
translated  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.  However,  stakeholders  also  acknowledged  that  using  the  flexibilities  also 
created a burden as the formal OP modifications still had to be processed and staff had to 
familiarise themselves with the new rules using the flexibilities. This was a challenge in 
the early phase of the pandemic as all actors involved in administering the funds had to 
respond to the pandemic and develop or adapt their operations rapidly. The simplification 
was not applied to the same extent to procedures at the level of beneficiaries, but there 
are  examples  where  the  Managing  Authorities  or  coordinating  bodies  made  additional 
efforts to assist implementing bodies with the necessary procedures, which often proved 
critical to the success of the operations. 

Box  4  Reinforcing  healthcare  institutions  with  additional  staff  during  the  COVID-19 
crisis65 in Greece 
This new operation was coordinated by several government bodies: the Executive Unit of the 
NSFR – Ministry of Health, the ESF Actions Coordination and Monitoring Authority, and the 
Managing Authorities of 13 Regional Operational Programmes. 
The  Executive  Unit  of  the  NSFR  –  Ministry  of  Health  designed  the  action  in  record  time, 
compared  to  the  pre-pandemic  situation,  and  stepped  up  its  role  as  the  coordinator  in  all  13 
ROPs. In this capacity, it took over a critical amount of the administrative burden from over 
160  beneficiaries  (hospitals,  etc.),  which  would  otherwise  have  had  to  file  individual 
applications for the action. This was important, as the overwhelming majority of the action’s 
beneficiaries had no prior experience of the ESF and were under extreme pressure due to the 
epidemiological situation on the ground. To further reduce the administrative burden on these 
beneficiaries,  the  Executive  Unit  provided  targeted  support  to  help  them  fulfil  their 
administrative obligations, such as registering expenses in Greece’s ESIF information system. 
As  a  result,  even  the  OPs  that  programmed  the  action  in  October  2020  were  able  to  make 
payments in the same year. 

65  In Greek: Ενίσχυση των Μονάδων και Φορέων Υγείας του Υπουργείου Υγείας με επικουρικό προσωπικό για την 
ανταπόκριση στις ανάγκες λόγω της επιδημίας COVID-19. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
In  turn,  the  ESF  Actions  Coordination  and  Monitoring  Authority  gave  a  clear  steering  on 
programme  amendments  to  the  managing  authorities  of  the  ROPs.  Lastly,  primary  research 
conducted for this evaluation suggests that MAs requested a minimum amount of documentation 
from public healthcare institutions to reduce their administrative burden.  

There  has  been  very  limited  evidence  of  formal  or  even  informal  consideration  or 
assessment of costs and benefits at Member State level from the CRII and CRII+, and their 
use in the contexts of the ESF and the FEAD. Equally, there were very limited plans to 
evaluate the immediate crisis response on the ground under the CRII and CRII+. Where 
evaluation  arrangements  have  been  put  in  place,  they  typically  do  not  focus  solely  on 
measures introduced by CRII and CRII+, reflecting the fact that Member States carried out 
various anti-crisis operations that relied on both EU and national emergency funds. 

Monitoring of the ESF’s reaction to the crisis improved significantly compared to the 
aftermath of 2007-2008 financial crisis, thanks to the use of indicators developed by the 
Commission66. The evaluation of the ESF reaction to the economic and financial crisis had 
concluded that there were very few evidence-based results available on the effectiveness 
of  crisis-related  interventions  in  the  labour  market.67  While  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  exchanged  a  wide  range  of  information  on  the  financial  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, has hampered attempts to evaluate the support provided.  

Following their publication in May 2020, and availability in the SFC2014 system, use of 
the Commission’s indicators increased steadily across ESF OPs and Member States. While 
only  30  operational  programmes  (out  of  188)  and  11  Member  States  had  adopted  the 
indicators  by  September  2020,  by  early  2021  this  had  risen  to  91  programmes  and  17 
Member States. By September 2022, 25 Member States (all, except the Netherlands and 
Austria)  and  the  UK  were  using  the  indicators  in  150  OPs  i.e.  80%  of  all  ESF-funded 
programmes68. This provides strong evidence, particularly in the context of the voluntary 
nature of these 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 
enhanced  the  ability  to  monitor  and  assess  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  the 
CRII and CRII+, as indicated in other sections of this document. 

Enhanced cooperation between institutions involved in the crisis response 

Formal governance and implementation structures relevant to the programming and 
management of operations largely remained the same as in the pre-crisis period. Ad hoc 
working groups with a specific crisis response role were set up in several Member States 
(BE,  DK,  EL,  FR).  In  addition,  there  was  close  and  ongoing  cooperation  between 
ministries  and  other  organisations  on  the  COVID-19  response  (PT  and  BE  Flanders). 
Ad hoc  groups  and  informal  collaboration  were  generally  seen  as  improving  the 
effectiveness  of  the  response  through  the  ESF,  as  part  of  overall  national  pandemic 
responses. 

66 European Commission ‘Non-paper: List of programme specific indicators related to the cohesion policy direct response 
to the COVID-19 pandemic’. 
67 Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis, Metis GmbH and wiiw (2012).  
68 Cohesion Open Data Platform 

27 

 
 
                                                           
The  evidence  is  broadly  positive  overall  on  the  role  that  national  governance, 
administrative and implementation arrangements played ensuring the effectiveness of the 
response measures financed under the CRII and CRII+. Most respondents to the ESF MA 
survey,  for  example,  indicated  that  national  and/or  regional  administrative  and 
organisational procedures (43 out of 51 respondents), and the internal coordination process 
in their country (41 out  of 51 respondents), played a positive role in enabling  the CRII 
flexibilities to be used effectively, at least to some extent. However, in a small number of 
cases national administrative contexts were seen as having a negative effect on effective 
use of CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. Although flexibilities were introduced quickly under 
CRII and CRII+, national laws and structures slowed down or reduced the extent to which 
they could have a positive effect (LT, GR and PL).  

A  small  number  of  interviewees  at  EU  and  Member  State  level  also  noted  that  social 
partners  became  more  involved  in  consultation  processes,  mainly  on  employment 
operations. However, there was a mixed picture overall in terms of the extent to which 
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  dialogues  between  ministries  and  partner  organisations. 
Effective  engagement  and  partnership  was  particularly  highlighted  in  the  Swedish  and 
Portuguese contexts.  

There  was  limited  evidence  of  horizontal  principles69  being  taken  into  account  in  the 
response to COVID-19. Stakeholders generally felt this was due to the need to respond 
rapidly, which took precedence over a more thorough implementation of the principles70. 

Provision of liquidity and continued implementation of the ESF and FEAD 

The CRII and CRII+ also allowed the implementation of ESF and FEAD operations 
to  continue,  which  were  often  affected  by  the  consequences  of  the  pandemic.  This 
supported,  therefore,  the  goal  of  the  intervention  logic  to  free  up  money  for  the  crisis 
response.  The  core  flexibilities  offered  in  the  reprogramming  process  were  key  to  an 
efficient response 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 
an essential part of the response, given that countries would otherwise have had money 
locked into other operations that were no longer a priority, and would have been restricted 
in their ability to use key EU funds as part of national responses to the pandemic. 

As  a  result,  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  did  not  impact  the  financial 
performance of the ESF. Figure 5 shows the development of the overall ESF absorption 
rate  and  the  increase  in  overall  use  of  the  funding  by  15  and  16  percentage  points 
respectively in 2020 and 2021 compared to the preceding years.  

Figure 5 Development of the absorption rate of the ESF, 2014-2021 

69 Partnership (Article 5 CPR and Article 6 ESF Regulation), Equality between men and women and non-discrimination 
(Article 7 CPR and Articles 7 and 8 ESF Regulation), Sustainable development (Article 8 CPR). 
70 See Annex V 

28 

 
                                                           
Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

This trend is confirmed by comparing the ESF absorption rates in the programming periods 
2014-2020  and  2007-2013.  Figure  6  shows  a  theoretical  dotted  line,  illustrating  the 
absorption rates for 2014-2020 theoretically shifted to begin one year later, with the result 
that the financial absorption trends of the two programming periods almost coincide71. It 
demonstrates that the absorption rate in 2014-2020 was delayed and slower throughout the 
entire 7-year period. However, no significant differences in expenditure can be observed 
between the two programming periods, or even between 2019, 2020 and 202172.  

Figure 6 

Comparison of ESF absorption rates 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform 

For FEAD, the absorption rate increased continuously, reaching 83.9% in September 2022, 
with an increase of 14 percentage points from 2020 to 2021, underlining the importance 
of FEAD during the COVID-19 pandemic and the efforts by Member States to help 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. Similarly, it can be inferred that the flexibilities and support offered under the 

71 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. 
72 Ibid. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
CRII and CRII+ to the pandemic response through the FEAD are likely, at least in part, to 
have  helped  Member  States  to  ensure  the  continuity  of  their  FEAD  programming  and 
expenditure. Indeed, 2020 saw an increase in payments to FEAD beneficiaries (EUR 552 
million against EUR 477 million in 2019 and EUR 503 million in 2018). 

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

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 29 September 2022) 

Internal coherence and complementarity with other EU instruments 

Most ESF and FEAD ongoing operations were adjusted to the circumstances imposed 
by the COVID-19 pandemic. 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  (e.g.  measures  not 
aimed  at  activation,  mostly  STWSs).  An  overview  of  the  different  types  of  anti-crisis 
operations is included in Section 3.3 of this report. The coherence of ESF operations before 
and  during  the  COVID-19  crisis  was  maintained  at  the  level  of  the  objectives.  The 
temporary changes to the areas that ESF operations focused on during the pandemic were 
necessary so that the ESF could pursue its general objectives. 

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.  FEAD  operations  were  adjusted  to 
respond to the circumstances imposed by the pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns and 
social  distancing  rules.  The  main  changes were  as  regards  how  end  recipients  were 
reached (e.g. the introduction of e-vouchers for the first time or the use of other digital 
methods to distribute food and other essential items) and in the operational processes of 
the implementing organisations. 

Several instruments were created or adjusted at the EU level to serve the crisis response 
(ERDF, SURE, EU-REACT – see Section 2.1). The existing procedures and a continuous 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dialogue between the Commission and the managing authorities allowed Member States 
to  align  operations  funded  by  various  instruments  and  mechanisms,  which  helped  to 
encourage synergies and avoid double funding.  

The ERDF complemented ESF support in several areas, including investments in social, 
health, research, innovation, business and educational infrastructure. During the pandemic, 
in healthcare for example, the upskilling and training of healthcare personnel was funded 
through ESF while support for healthcare infrastructure, transportation of vaccines and the 
vaccination  process  was  funded  through  the  ERDF.  The  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities 
strengthened  complementarity  through  financial  reallocation  mechanisms  between  the 
funds.  

16  of  the  Member  States  that  used  SURE  also  planned  to  use  the  ESF  to  support 
STWS through the flexibility offered by CRII and CRII+ (BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK)73. 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 and CRII+ were targeted at a wide range 
of sectors, without any particular focus. The use of ESF funding in combination with SURE 
funding  for  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 bigger budget of SURE, its 
use  indicates  that  ESF  support  was  not  sufficient  for  the  needs  on  the  ground  in  the 
countries  whose  economies  and  employment  situation  were  most  affected  by  the 
pandemic.  

REACT-EU,  in  line  with  its  objectives,  was  often  used  to  extend  (in  duration  and 
scope) the measures introduced under CRII and CRII+. For example, in Italy REACT-
EU funds (EUR 4.7 billion) further complemented CRII and CRII+ operations to create 
and keep people in jobs, by giving employers tax reductions on social contributions. 

The  analysis  of  allocations  shows  the  complementarity  between  the  immediate  crisis 
reaction under CRII and CRII+ and REACT-EU support, which creates a bridge between 
long-term cohesion policy and COVID-19 crisis measures. Figure 8 illustrates the focus 
on health and social inclusion operations (TO9) in the immediate response to the pandemic, 
while  in  the  medium  term,  the  vast  majority  of  additional  REACT-EU  funding  was 
allocated to TO8, to fund employment-related operations that bring people closer to the 
labour market and (back) into employment. 

73 Based on mapping of the CRII and CRII+ ESF operations identified in the SFC2014 database in the timeline of this 
preliminary evaluation, based on OP amendments submitted before October 2022.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 8. Comparing the ESF reallocated under CRII and CRII+ and REACT-EU funding 

Source: SFC2014-20 and Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 28 September 2022) 

It was a challenge, however, for managing authorities, project beneficiaries (organisations 
implementing  initiatives  supported  by  the  ESF  and  FEAD)  and  representatives  of  key 
target  groups  to  ensure  consistency  in  implementing  the  different  EU  initiatives, 
funding mechanisms  and regulations  that were launched  in a short  period of time 
(CRII  and  CRII+,  REACT-EU,  SURE,  CARE)  and  which  overlapped  with  the 
beginning  of  the  new  programming  period.  It  led  to  the  perception  of  an  increased 
administrative burden to manage the instruments and required further detailed guidance 
about the opportunities they offer and their different priorities. 

Integration of ESF and FEAD into national crisis responses 

CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  increased  the  opportunities  for  Member  States  to 
integrate  the  ESF  and  FEAD  into  national  strategies  to  respond  to  COVID-19. 
Decisions on which funds to use for different measures were taken on the basis of the needs 
on  the  ground  and  the  sources  of  financing  available  at  the  time.  Flexibilities  such  as 
retroactive eligibility allowed Member States to make quick decisions on the needs on the 
ground and to use the ESF to recover the financial investment later. Without the CRII and 
CRII+ flexibilities,  the integration of ESF  and FEAD in  national  strategies would  have 
been more limited because of the complexity of reprogramming the funds under normal 
procedures. 

Box 5 Healthcare operations in Latvia 
In Latvia, the operations ‘Improving the qualifications of medical and paramedical staff’ and 
‘Support for medical practitioners who provide treatment for patients to prevent public health 
crises’ were aligned to national measures in the healthcare sector during the pandemic. National 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
funding increased the budget available through ESF (as REACT-EU funding also did later) 
to help recruit healthcare professionals and top up their salaries. Other measures funded by the 
national budget focused on healthcare objectives, e.g. by adapting infrastructure to the needs of 
COVID-19  patients  and  providing  medical  equipment  and  PPE.  Stakeholders  who  were 
interviewed emphasised that as part of the planning process involving the ESF and other funds, 
attention was paid to ensuring that each operation or action had its own objectives and that there 
were no overlaps. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

Exceptional speed and flexibility 

In terms of process, the  CRII and CRII+ gave Member States the flexibility to react 
swiftly to the COVID-19 crisis and carry out operations through the ESF and FEAD 
more quickly than would have been possible without them, especially at the beginning 
of the pandemic (see Section 4.1).  

The  additional  scope  available  for  ESF  and  FEAD  operations  in  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19 crisis was also viewed positively by stakeholders. The ESF survey indicates, 
however, that nearly 40% (20 out of 51) of the Managing Authorities that responded to the 
question would have used the ESF for crisis response measures even without the CRII and 
CRII+  flexibilities.  Still,  27%  (14  out  of  51)  of  respondents  indicated  that  allocations 
would have been difficult to spend in the absence of the flexibilities introduced by CRII / 
CRII+. Similarly, half (5 out of 10) of FEAD survey respondents would have used FEAD 
for crisis response without the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities. No FEAD survey respondents 
indicated that allocations would have been difficult to spend without the flexibilities. Even 
in these cases, however, there was wide agreement that CRII/ CRII+ flexibilities simplified 
and accelerated the process. 

One of the factors that limited the contribution of the CRII and CRII+ to the crisis 
response was the limited flexibility in the national procedures for COVID-19 actions 
and a lack of administrative capacity in the implementing organisations (e.g. in GR, 
IT). The limited capacity of beneficiaries (e.g. hospitals, schools or SMEs) to manage the 
reporting and monitoring requirements was a challenge to the effectiveness of operations 
on the ground (see also Section 4.1).  

A  focus  on  results,  strategic  planning,  shared  management  and  bottom-up 
approaches, as well as the resulting procedural requirements, are key features of the ESF 
and  lead  to  lengthy  and  complex  programming  and  implementation.  In  the  exceptional 
COVID-19 circumstances, these procedures were relaxed to ensure liquidity and a rapid 
response. They were not eliminated altogether however, and were sometimes compounded 
by  national  rules,  which  were  often  applied  without  the  same  kind  of  flexibility,  as 
discussed above). These national rules also shape and, to a certain extent, limit the ESF’s 
role in crisis response. They are nonetheless critical to supporting the post-pandemic 
recovery and ensuing that a focus on the long-term socio-economic challenges in the 
ESF’s key areas of activity can be maintained. 

Increasing funding, extending the scope of crisis measures and testing new solutions 

33 

 
 
 
The  funds  made  available  through  the  ESF  and  FEAD  under  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives  played  a  role  within  the  wider  crisis  response,  where  actions  were  also 
supported by other EU initiatives and financial instruments, as well as national and regional 
budgets.  

The  CRII  and  CRII+  generally  added  value  to  crisis  response  at  national  level  in 
several fields, rather than in single areas. Some countries with fewer operations focused 
on  one  thematic  area  of  intervention:  two  ESF  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  in 
Belgium targeted healthcare  and operations in  Czechia, Cyprus and Estonia focused on 
employment  (one  operation  in  each  country).  This  approach,  however,  was  not 
predominant,  as  Bulgaria’s  four  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  addressed  all  four 
thematic areas, and Lithuania’s operations concentrated on employment (one operation) 
and healthcare (two). Latvia’s operations targeted education (one operation) and healthcare 
(three).  Slovenia  planned  two  operations  on  employment  and  one  on  social  inclusion. 
Countries with a higher number of operations addressed at least three (DK, SK) or all four 
areas (e.g., DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT, RO). Among the countries that made the most use 
of the available flexibility, some have focused more on employment operations (PT, DK, 
IT), some more on healthcare (FR), while others planned a similar number of operations 
in all areas (PL). 

Flexibility in the CRII and CRII+ also allowed 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 and 
CRII+  in  13  countries)74,  there  are  social  inclusion  operations  that  included  a  health 
component, focusing on improving access to services for the most vulnerable people75.  

The ESF and  FEAD under CRII and CRII+  helped alleviate the negative effects  of the 
COVID-19 pandemic by complementing other EU level and national measures as part 
of  a  concerted  effort,  but  they  would  have  been  insufficient  as  stand-alone 
instruments. Because the 2014-2020 ESF was at an advanced stage of implementation 
when the pandemic hit, the unspent funds remaining were limited. However, they could be 
used rapidly and often served as a test case before upscaling a measure with national or 
REACT-EU funding.  

Box 6 New Skills Fund, Italy 
Fondo  Nuove  Competenze  was  a  new  operation  introduced  in  Italy  during  the  pandemic 
to support businesses that wanted to invest in training and reskilling their employees during the 
periods of national or regional lockdown. This national operation aimed to increase people’s 
skills 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, reimbursed the cost (including social security contributions) of the reduction in working 
hours due to participation in training by those workers who could not work because of lockdown 
measures. 

74 In BE, BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, and the UK.  
75 In EL (Crete), IT (national OP, Lazio, Sardegna), PL (Kujawsko-Pomorskie), RO and SK. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                           
Due to high demand, the initial budget of EUR 730 million, of which EUR 230 million were 
allocated  from  Italy’s  ESF  national  operational  plan  for  active  labour  market  policies,  was 
increased by EUR 1 billion of funding from REACT-EU and additional national funding of EUR 
600 million. 
The  ESF  contribution  under  CRII/CRII+  corresponded  to  10%  of  the  total  budget  of  the 
operation. Although this is relatively small, the opportunity to reprogramme the available 
resources was important in kick-starting the design phase of the operation in the first few 
months. The ESF funding under the coronavirus response initiatives made the initial scoping 
phase possible, which was necessary to test the feasibility of the initiative and gauge the level of 
interest in it. 

The ESF and FEAD made it possible to extend the crisis measures to additional target 
groups  which  otherwise  would  have  been  excluded  from  support.  As  the  ESF  and 
FEAD  have  the  objectives,  experience  and  outreach  channels  to  target  and  support 
disadvantaged groups, they often covered needs within broader national strategies. More 
information on the target groups supported is in Section 4.3. 

Box 7 Actions in Spain to maintain young people’s jobs during the COVID-19 crisis 
The  Temporary  Employment  Regulation  Scheme  (Expedientes  de  Regulación  Temporal  de 
Empleo  -  ERTE)  was  set up  by  Royal  Decree-Law  8/2020 during  the  COVID-19  crisis  as a 
labour  flexibility  measure  that  would  enable  companies  to  reduce  or  suspend  employment 
contracts.  General  ERTE  schemes  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.  
The CRII and CRII+ flexibilities made it possible to add new specific objectives and reallocate 
available  funds  in  the  Youth  Employment  OP  to  finance  ERTE,  specifically  for  the  target 
population of young people during the early stages of the pandemic in 2020. This contributed to 
a faster release of funds, while additional new funds became available through the REACT-EU 
package. Almost 100,000 participants were reached with the new measure as part of the OP. 
Overall, the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities helped to give 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). They increased the Member State’s capacity 
to mitigate fast-rising levels of youth unemployment through ERTE, which it would not have 
been able to do alone, given the numbers of people affected by the pandemic, the duration of the 
state of emergency, and the wide-ranging consequences of the pandemic. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Responding to the needs of the institutions implementing the ESF and FEAD  

The broad take-up of CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, and the contributions that the ESF and 
FEAD made to the general crisis response proves that the flexibilities introduced by CRII 
and CRII+ helped Member States to respond quickly to the crisis. Most respondents 
to the Managing Authorities’ surveys, both from the ESF and FEAD, indicated that the 
CRII and CRII+ flexibilities were relevant, either to a great extent or a medium extent, to 
the needs of their institution in reacting quickly to the COVID-19 crisis. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
CRII and CRII+ were, by definition, temporary mechanisms designed to respond to needs 
stemming from the public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, 
some of the flexibilities (for example the100% co-financing rate, the flexibility to use the 
ESF allocation to finance ERDF investment priorities and vice versa) are still applicable 
under  REACT-EU  and  CARE,  which  demonstrates  their  continued  relevance  in  crisis 
situations.  Moreover,  there  are  important  lessons  to  be  learnt  from  the  process  that 
enabled a quick response to the pandemic, which have been applied in the context of the 
Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, although the ESF and FEAD might not have 
been used to the same extent in the two crisis situations. 

Box 8 Street Work Academy in Poland 

The  objective  of  this  operation,  implemented  under  the  national  operational  programme 
Knowledge,  Education  and  Growth,  was  to  provide  assistance  to  homeless  people  in  public 
spaces, in a crisis situation that included the COVID-19 pandemic. The project was implemented 
between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2021. Using the CRII flexibilities, the original Street Work 
Academy  project  was  expanded  and  quickly  adapted  in  response  to  the  pandemic  to include 
additional  activities.  The  activities  to  support  homeless  people  took  place  from  June  to 
September 2020. 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. 

CRII and CRII+ flexibilities enabled rapid support for those in need at a crucial point and 
responded to significant needs on the ground. The support provided by the project’s activities 
exceeded the initial objectives by far (over 4,000 homeless people were supported, compared to 
the 250 initially targeted).  

The project was tested and implemented under extreme crisis conditions during the COVID-19 
pandemic in different cities  and  parts  of  Poland. The  beneficiary,  the  St.  Brother  Albert  Aid 
Society (Towarzystwo Św. Brata Alberta), has 54 offices across Poland. Therefore, it was easy 
to apply the experience gained during the project in the context of the humanitarian crisis which 
Poland faced as a result of the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine: the lessons learnt from 
the project were highly relevant in view of the unexpected and high number of Ukrainians 
entering Poland. The newly organised infrastructure and the knowledge accumulated during 
the COVID-19 pandemic on how to create safe conditions and spaces for those in need were 
used to address additional needs that emerged during the refugee crisis.  

Addressing needs on the ground 

Resources  were  redirected  through  the  ESF  under  the  coronavirus  response 
initiatives to some of the key groups who faced challenges in the pandemic, such as 
healthcare workers (PL, LV, GR), those at risk of losing their jobs (in the 16 MS supporting 
short-time work arrangements), inactive people and students engaged in remote learning 
(IT, PL), people working in the cultural sector (PT), students at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion  (IT,  EL),  and  people  living  in  institutions,  older  people  and  persons  with 
disabilities (PL, RO, UK).  

The  extent  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  use  that  Member  States  made  of  the 
flexibilities  under  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  impacted  the  number  and 
characteristics of ESF and YEI participations. The cumulative number of ESF and YEI 
participations increased by 36% in the EU-27 and the UK between the outbreak of the 
pandemic and the end of 2021.  

36 

 
 
While the increases are below the average in around one third of the countries, 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 due to the 
short-time working arrangement set up in 2021 under the new IP 9.iv, funded by EUR 36 
million reallocated from the Cohesion Fund to the ESF.  

Figure 9 Cumulative increase in ESF and YEI participations (end 2021 vs end 2019) 

%
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 & UK average: 
36%

CY EL 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

Increase 2020 & 2021

EU-27 & UK

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The  general  population  and  organisations  serving  the  general  population,  such  as 
healthcare services, were one of the main targets of the crisis operations under the 
ESF. The overall lack of specificity of the target groups for the crisis operations indicates 
that most operations were aimed at benefiting anyone affected by the COVID-19 crisis, 
rather  than  focusing  specifically  or  exclusively  on  certain  groups.  A  small  proportion 
(nearly 40) out of the 354 identified operations under CRII and CRII+ specifically targeted 
inactive and unemployed people, who are often described as ‘vulnerable’ groups and/or at 
risk of social exclusion.  

Measures focusing on employed people (e.g. STWS) meant that operations across all age 
groups  were  reorganised  to  address  urgent  needs,  and  this  affected  the  composition  of 
participants by age group. As can be seen in Figure 10, in 20 countries (AT, BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, , HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, RO, SE, UK), the proportion of 
participations among those under 25 years of age decreased, which  resulted in most 
of these Member States in an increase in the proportion of those aged 25 to 54, rather than 
an increase in the proportion of those above 54 years of age.  

Figure 10. Changes in the proportion of ESF and YEI participations by age group by 
country (2020-2021 vs 2014-2019) 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

L
E

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

K
U
&
7
2
-
U
E

under 25 years of age

25-54 years of age

above 54 years of age

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

This analysis of monitoring data also shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic there 
was a significant shift in the labour market status of people participating in ESF and 
YEI  initiatives,  with  a  12  percentage  points  increase  in  2020-2021  in  the  number  of 
employees in the EU-27 and the UK, compared to pre-crisis levels (2014-2019). Looking 
at country-level data, the most significant change is reported in Cyprus where, before the 
crisis, 91% of people supported by the ESF and YEI were unemployed, while during the 
crisis  97%  were  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.  

Figure 11 Change in the share of ESF and YEI participations by labour market status 2021 

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

L
E

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

K
U
&
7
2
-
U
E

Change in the share of employed people 14-19 to 20-21

Change in the share of inactive people 14-19 to 20-21

Change in the share of unemployed people 14-19 to 20-21

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

Overall,  since  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  the  share  of  women  increased 
slightly from 52.5% (2014-2019) to 54.0% in 2020-2021 in the EU-27 and the UK. As 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
shown in Figure 12 below, the differences between countries ranged between a fall of 15 
percentage points in the Netherlands and a rise of 11 percentage points in Austria.  

Figure 12 Share of women in ESF and YEI participations (2014-2019 and 2020-2021) 

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

U
L

E
D

E
B

K
U

T
A

L
N

R
F

K
D

S
E

T
I

O
R

Y
C

T
M

K
U
&
7
2
-
U
E

I

G S
B

E
I

K
S

T
P

T
L

I
F

R
H

Z
C

L
P

E
S

U
H

E
E

V
L

L
E

2014-2019

2020-2021

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The share of ESF and YEI participants with  a disability 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, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Figure 13 Share of ESF and YEI participations of persons with disabilities  

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

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

2014-2019

2020-2021

EU-27 & UK average 2014-2019

EU-27 & UK average 2020-2021

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 
*For IE no participations were reported for 2020-21 

The  share  of  migrants  supported  decreased  slightly  from  14.9%  (2014-2019)  to  13.1% 
(2020-2021) in the EU-27 and the UK. A few COVID-19 operations targeting people with 
a  migration  background  (e.g.  in  DE-Saarland)  were  identified,  while  migrants  were  in 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
some cases included in measures that targeted vulnerable groups or people at risk of social 
exclusion in general. 

Figure 14 Participations of migrants in ESF and YEI operations (change from 2014-2019 to 
2020-21) 

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

LU

BG

ES

BE

SK

AT

RO

DK

FR

SI

SE

UK

LT

FI

PT

PL

CZ

DE

HRMT

CY

EE

NL

LV

EL

HU

IT

Source: Cohesion Open Data Platform (data extracted on 8 September 2022) 

The suspension of several economic activities, nationwide lockdowns and the closure of 
educational  institutions  increased  social  exclusion,  poverty,  and  discrimination  of 
disadvantaged groups, such as persons with disabilities, people with a migrant background 
or homeless people. The negative impacts of the pandemic were  disproportionately higher 
for these groups, both in terms of infection rates and access to social, health and education 
services. Despite a lack of specific targeting and the addition of measures aimed at people 
in employment, the share of vulnerable groups in ESF operations did not fall substantially. 
Even  without  specific  targeting,  the  CRII  and  CRII+  operations  have  included 
participants with a vulnerable profile. 

Figure 15 Number of FEAD end recipients per type of assistance, and the proportion of 
whom were women (2014-2021) 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
3.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

0

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

600.000

400.000

200.000

0

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

45%

52%

50%

50%

48%

100%

36%

50%

42%

0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total number of people receiving basic material assistance

Share of women

54%

49%

44%

47%

48%

50%

49%

52%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total number of people receiving food support

Share of women

74%

84%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total number of people receiving support through vouchers, cards or other methods of indirect delivery

Share of women

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

1

0,5

0

100%

45%

48%

49%

50%

49%

51%

50%

50%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total number of people receiving social inclusion assistance

Share of women

0%

Source: SFC 2014 

As regards FEAD food and material aid, in addition to the traditional end recipients, new 
target  groups  emerged  during  the  COVID  crisis.  Non-traditional  groups  receiving 
FEAD-funded aid included people with higher levels of skills or education (e.g. workers 
who have been furloughed, students who lost summer jobs or scholarships, single parents, 
self-employed people, workers without an employment contract, etc.) and people with new 
needs to be addressed (e.g. psychological support, need for information).76 However, the 
characteristics of the end recipients of food support did not change much during the 
crisis. At the level of the EU-27, there was a fall in the number children aged 15 years or 
below  receiving  food  support,  but  this  trend  was  mainly  driven  by  changes  in  three 
countries  (EE,  HU  and  SK)  and  reflects  amendments  to  the  rules  in  these  countries  on 

76  FEAD  Community  Thematic  Seminar  on  ‘New  beneficiaries  of  FEAD-funded  measures  and  new  practices 
implemented during the Covid-19 crisis’. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                           
additional support for families with children, and an increase in the number of people aged 
65 and above. 

Operations financed under FEAD continued to be relevant to the needs on the ground and 
centred  on  delivering  food  aid,  providing  information  about  social  inclusion  activities 
when  delivering  food  packages,  and  providing  basic  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. 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. There were big increases in the provision of basic material 
assistance 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 people helped by social inclusion measures remained constant from 2019 
to 2020. In addition, in 2020 and 2021 0.6 million people in France and Romania received 
vouchers, cards or other instruments of indirect delivery of assistancee. The proportion of 
people receiving assistance who were women remained relatively constant at around 50% 
across the EU-27 for food support and social inclusion measures, while the share dropped 
from  nearly  50%  to  36%  from  2019  to  2020  as  regards  the  provision  of  basic  material 
assistance. The share of women among people who received vouchers, however, reached 
74% in 2020 and 84% in 2021.  

The pandemic resulted in an evolution in the needs of target groups and the emergence 
of new needs. Some of these needs were short-term e.g. keeping jobs during lockdowns. 
However, many of the needs stemmed from systemic problems that were only exacerbated 
by  the  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 and facing new challenges, such as digitalisation and the shift to 
the green economy. CRII and CRII+ operations supported, for example: (i) the introduction 
of  digital  education  technologies  in  higher  education  and  schools,  to  prevent  dropout 
(under TO10); (ii) digitalisation processes in SMEs and public services and the upskilling 
of employees and managers to support telework (under TO8); (iii) access to education for 
vulnerable people through the acquisition of laptops or tablets and training in the proper 
use of teleworking equipment; (iv) the improvement of equipment and services in medical 
establishments  (under  TO9).  The  digitalisation  challenges  that  emerged  during  the 
pandemic, or that were exacerbated by it, require further investments in the post-pandemic 
period to help education and training systems, public services, and working conditions to 
adapt to the digital age. 

Box 9 Support for distance education services in Lazio, Italy 
In  Italy  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. Lazio 
was in line with the national average in terms of households with a basic fixed-line broadband 
connection. However, the digital gaps between municipalities were substantial, as was the wide 
gap between the capital and the rest of country, since almost half of municipalities did not have 
access to a fast internet connection, which is necessary to access online lessons. 
The operation ‘Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a distanza’ was enabled by an amendment to the 
Lazio  OP  under  the  coronavirus  response  initiatives  and  included  the  provision  of  services, 
educational  packages  and  computer  equipment  for  educational  institutions  and  training 

42 

 
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 pandemic. 
The operation was essential in providing equipment and technical material for distance 
education, grants for university students without the necessary tools and internet connection to 
participate in online educational activities, and grants for the purchase of computer equipment. 
Distance  learning  is  still  taking  place,  and  many  students  can’t  afford  to  buy  the  necessary 
equipment.  However,  although  funding  to  buy  equipment  such  as  tablets  or  computers  for 
students  has  been  useful,  beneficiaries  have  indicated  that  in  many  cases  the  lack  of 
infrastructure  is  the  main  obstacle  to  accessing  courses  and  classes  online.  In  this  light, 
stakeholders  considered  that  the  operation  was  not  only  an  investment  in  sustaining  the 
education  system  during  the  crisis,  but  also  a  longer-term  investment  in  skills  and 
infrastructure. 

Due  to  the  need  to  respond  to  COVID-19  in  general  but  also  thanks  to  the  adjusted 
operations,  ESF  and  FEAD  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). Therefore, the experience gained with 
CRII and CRII+ operations will be put to use when implementing operations under ESF+ 
in 2021-2027. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economies, health and education systems, and the 
livelihood of millions of people 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,  necessitating  faster  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 provided liquidity and aid packages, to health and 
social initiatives.  

The ESF and FEAD, alongside other EU funding instruments and mechanisms, adapted 
rapidly to tackle the socio-economic challenges caused by the pandemic, 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 rapid 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 CRII and 
CRII+ provisions in ESF and FEAD-funded programmes, and the role that the ESF and 
FEAD played in response to the public health crisis caused by COVID-19. The assessment 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
shows that, compared to the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the EU responded much 
faster and more extensively to the socio-economic challenges triggered by COVID-
19.  

The intervention logic chains setting out how the initiatives intended to support the crisis 
response (Figure 1), and how ESF and FEAD could address the new needs (Figure 2), have 
worked as anticipated. The programming flexibilities, as envisaged in the intervention 
logic for CRII and CRII+, meant that it was possible to give support quickly to Member 
States and the UK by mobilising unused funds from the ESF and FEAD and transferring 
money from other funds (ERDF and the Cohesion Fund). The intervention logic for ESF 
and FEAD support under the CRII and CRII+ focused on concrete operations. Here the 
evidence 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 
markets, education, and social inclusion. The results and impacts of the actions undertaken 
using the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities have not been evaluated by this study, as this is a 
preliminary evaluation, but will be assessed as part of the broader ESF and FEAD ex post 
evaluations.  However,  outcomes  at  the  level  of  beneficiary  organisations  and  end 
recipients  were  explored  as  far  as  possible  through  case  studies  of  good  practices,  and 
broadly indicate that the types of effects anticipated in the intervention logic have been 
achieved. 

Effectiveness 

The CRII and CRII+ have been effective in giving Member States the flexibility to 
reprogramme the ESF and FEAD to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. The range of 
flexibilities were used more in the context of the ESF than FEAD, even when accounting 
for  the  different  sizes  of  the  funds.  The  possibility  provided  by  the  CRII  to  reallocate 
money  between  funds  was  the  most  used  flexibility  within  the  ESF,  followed  by 
reallocation within OPs and 100% co-financing. Within FEAD, the possibility of 100% 
co-financing was the flexibility used by the greatest number of Member States.  

Since  May  2020,  23  countries  reallocated  ESF  funding  between  TOs  in  response  to 
COVID-19, within or between ESF OPs. At the level of the EU-27 and the UK, the most 
significant  change  has  been  an  increase  of  funding  for  TO9  (social  inclusion  and 
health) of almost EUR 2 billion. The increase in allocations to TO8 (employment) was 
less significant, at nearly EUR 215 million. Allocations to TO10 (education and training) 
fell by just over EUR 1.3 billion and for TO11 (public administration) by EUR 252 million. 
This  reflects  the  focus  on  employment,  health  and  social  inclusion  following  the 
introduction  of  the  response  initiatives.  The  CRII  and  CRII+  made  it  possible  to  adapt 
operations and, at times, to develop new ones, to address specific effects of the pandemic 
(e.g. impacts on health systems, employment and on already vulnerable groups at risk of 
social exclusion). The reallocation may have potentially negative longer-term effects on 
education and training, however, given that, generally, this area was not prioritised through 
the ESF during COVID-19 to the same extent as employment, health and social inclusion. 

Compared to the ESF, FEAD reallocations were less frequent and only requested by a 
small number of Member States (AT, CZ, HU, RO and SK). Evidence shows that CRII+ 
was however effective in supporting the reallocation of funds in specific national contexts 
to  ensure  the  continued  provision  of  food  and/or  basic  material  assistance  to  the  most 
deprived people and to accommodate new target groups. 

44 

 
Following  the  introduction  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+,  the  trends  in  absorption  rates 
remained  largely  unchanged  for  both  the  ESF  and  FEAD,  despite  the  challenging 
context of the pandemic. This suggests that the flexibilities played a role in maintaining 
the support provided by the ESF and FEAD. Minimum threshold for allocation of resources 
to social inclusion required by the ESF Regulation was also largely maintained. 

The CRII and CRII+ contributed to new ways of cooperating between governmental 
and  non-governmental  stakeholders  across  different  policy  areas  (e.g.  cross-
departmental working groups). They also contributed to greater cooperation between funds 
under the EU’s Cohesion Policy, which helped to better align initiatives at EU, national 
and regional levels during the pandemic. 

Efficiency 

The  CRII  and  CRII+  facilitated  an  efficient  crisis  response.  Facilitating  the  use  or 
reallocation of unspent funds helped to refocus spending on the specific challenges of the 
pandemic. The very rapid adoption of the initatives after the outbreak of the pandemic, 
compared to the timing of the EU support package after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, was 
crucial to its effectiveness and relevance and to the role it played in Member States. 

The CRII and CRII+ simplified and accelerated the processes to amend operational 
programmes  and  reallocate  resources,  which  helped  Member  States  to  act  quickly. 
Flexibilities  were  generally  seen  as  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on  managing 
authorities and the resources they needed. However, their use created an intial burden as 
formal OP modifications were still necessary (though the procedure was simplified) and 
staff  needed  to  familiarise  themselves  with  the  new  rules.  Moreover,  simplification 
procedures  were  not  always  extended  to  the  level  of  beneficiary  organisations,  which 
represented  an  obstacle,  given  the  need  for  urgent  action,  especially  at  the  onset  of  the 
pandemic.  

In the state of emergency, monitoring and cost-benefit considerations were not the centre 
of attention for the people and organisations programming and implementing the CRII and 
CRII+  operations.  However,  the  new  (non-paper)  indicators  were  a  significant  step 
forward  compared  to  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 not mandatory, 
they were used extensively and supported the efforts to measure the COVID-19 response. 
The relatively good take-up was due to the fact that Member States considered that the new 
indicators were relevant and that they were proportionate to the monitoring required. 

Coherence 

ESF and FEAD operations under CRII/ CRII+ were largely aligned with  previous 
ESF  and  FEAD  measures  and  their  overall  objectives.  ESF  operations  during  the 
pandemic prioritised some existing areas of intervention through operations adjusted to the 
COVID-19 circumstances, but also new operations 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 organisations serving the general public, rather than on specific 
ESF  target  groups  (e.g.  older  workers,  persons  with  a  disability  etc).  However,  ESF 

45 

 
operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  continued  to  support  vulnerable  groups  as  well,  for 
example  by  ensuring  that  groups  such  as  homeless  people  or  persons  with  disabilities 
continued  to  have  access  to  social  and  health  support  services.  Under  CRII+,  FEAD 
operations continued to provide food and basic material assistance to the most deprived, 
despite some changes in the characteristics of the end recipients.  

ESF and FEAD CRII and CRII+ operations were coherent with operations funded 
by  national  budgets  and  other  EU  instruments  (including  the  ERDF,  SURE  and 
REACT-EU).  The  study  identified  many  examples  of  complementarities  between  the 
operations  implemented  through  various  EU  and  national  financial  mechanisms.  While 
some  operations  received  funding  from  a  variety  of  funding  sources  (in  particular,  the 
support given 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.77   

ESF and FEAD operations under CRII and CRII+ proved to be well integrated in 
national pandemic response strategies, providing help in key areas such as the social 
inclusion  of  vulnerable  groups  (e.g.  homeless  people,  older  people  or  persons  with  a 
disability),  in  education  and  training  (by  focusing  on  digital  skills),  and  in  supporting 
healthcare systems and staff.  

Apart  from  continuing  or  extending  CRII  and  CRII+  operations,  the  complementarity 
with REACT-EU is particularly evident at the level of allocations. While funds under 
CRII and 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. 

Relevance 

The EU’s response to the pandemic through the CRII and CRII+ package was relevant 
to the needs of the Member States and  helped governments to  address  the needs of 
individuals and organisation that emerged from or were exacerbated by the crisis. Due to 
the  simplifications,  the  acceleration  of  the  reprogramming  process,  the  possibility  to 
reallocate finances, and the retroactive eligibility of expenses, the funds could contribute 
in a timely and meaningful way to the crisis response in the Member States and the UK. 
This  contribution  was  particularly  important  in  countries  where  the  pandemic  had  the 
greatest  impact,  and  in  those  countries  where  it  was  a  challenge  to  find  the  necessary 
liquidity to deploy crisis mitigation measures. The relevance of the ESF’s scope of action 
is further confirmed by the net increase in ESF allocations of EUR 0.7 billion following 
the transfers from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund.  

ESF operations under CRII and CRII+ supported and were relevant to the needs of 
individuals and entities affected by the pandemic (e.g. companies and organisations or 
institutions providing social and healthcare services). Due to the change in focus of  the 
ESF under CRII and CRII+, there have been changes in the composition of participants, 
by age group and by employment status. Despite the broad definitions of the target groups 

77 At the end of April 2020, for instance, in the EU-27 there were  more than 42 million applications for support for 
workers on short-time work or similar schemes, which corresponded 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 Institute.  

46 

 
                                                           
in  the  operations  implemented  under  CRII  and  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 even though new priorities 
and  target  groups  had  to  be  addressed,  such  as  workers  at  risk  of  losing  their  jobs, 
companies at risk of bankruptcy andworkers in healthcare.  

FEAD  operations  during  the  pandemic  continued  to  target  the  most  deprived  people 
through food and other material aid, with a key difference being the increased support to 
partner  organisations  which  had  to  overhaul  their  standard  procedures.  This  could  be 
because  they  needed  to  deliver  food  to  individuals’  homes,  to  develop  more  targeted 
outreach activities, and enable access to grocery stores in a way that complied with  social 
distancing rules). The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of CRII/CRII+ flexibilities led to 
a  significant  increase  in  2020  in  the  number  of  FEAD  end  recipients,  (linked  to  the 
provision of support to the most vulnerable groups), indicating the relevance of FEAD 
actions during the pandemic.  

Some of the CRII/CRII+ flexibilities are still necessary and continue to be used under 
REACT-EU  and  CARE.  The  continued  relevance  of  CRII/  CRII+  operations  is 
evidenced by the fact 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  to  create  and  safeguard  jobs. 
Furthermore,  as  the  COVID-19  crisis  highlighted  or  exacerbated  some  long-standing 
structural  challenges,  the  lessons learned  from the process  of  reacting to  the crisis,  and 
from the crisis operations themselves, are useful both to prepare for future crises and to 
plan long-term structural investments. 

Contribution to broader crisis response 

By  enabling  unspent  funding  from  the  2014-2020  programming  period  to  be  used 
quickly, the CRII and CRII+ helped reduce the impact of the pandemic on healthcare 
systems,  companies  and  individuals.  The  initiatives  meant  that  different  kinds  of 
employment, social inclusion, healthcare, and education and training operations (both new 
operations  and  ones  that  were  adjusted  relative  to  the  pre-pandemic  period)  could  be 
planned and carried out in the Member States and the UK. Most CRII and CRII+ operations 
extended existing initiatives but adjusted them to the pandemic context. CRII and CRII+ 
operations focused on: (i) initiatives that helped healthcare systems to continue to function 
(these operations were often new); (ii)  access to services for vulnerable individuals; (iii) 
short-time  work-schemes,  which  focused  on  passive  measures  to  support  workers  and 
employers and to protect jobs; (iv) improving digital skills and digitalisation in education 
and training, and in public services and businesses.  

The broad scope of the operations in most countries shows that the Member States 
used the ESF to support crisis response across all or most areas facing challenges, 
rather  than  concentrating  on  single  areas.  This  approach  is  consistent  with  the 
intervention  logic  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  and  the  widespread  negative  impact  of  the 
pandemic on employment, healthcare, social inclusion and education in all countries. 

The results of the survey of the Managing Authorities show that the Member States would 
have used the ESF and FEAD for their crisis response even without the CRII and CRII+ 
flexibilities. However, the initiatives made a difference by accelerating and simplifying 
the processes involved. Compared to the response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the 

47 

 
CRII  and  CRII+  also  added  value  through  their  cross-fund  and  cross-policy 
approach,  which  increased  the  money  available  for  crisis  operations  and  extended  the 
scope of these operations. 

Overall, due to the relatively limited funds still unallocated at the end of the 2014-2020 
programming period for the whole cohesion policy (EUR 37 billion), the role of CRII and 
CRII+ was not huge in scale, but the CRII and CRII+ operations increased the scale of 
national measures, brought attention to target groups that might have otherwise been 
omitted and allowed new operations or approaches to be tested. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

ESF  and  FEAD  objectives  address  structural  challenges  but  have  also  proved  their 
added value in supporting crisis response: 

  ESF and FEAD programmes adapted to the rapidly developing needs caused 
by the COVID-19 crisis, while continuing to pursue their long-term objectives 
of supporting jobs and social inclusion, combating poverty and providing aid to the 
most  deprived  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  investing  in  education  and  (vocational) 
training. 

  The  COVID-19  pandemic  impacted  every  country  and  every  human  activity.  In 
this context, pursuing the objectives of the ESF and FEAD meant that changes had 
to be made at the level of actions and that it was often a challenge to maintain the 
status quo (employment, access to education, healthcare or social services), which 
justified  support  for  passive  measures  (in  particular  through  short-time  work 
schemes). Similarily, the broad character of the crisis justified the broad definitions 
of target groups in operations under the CRII and CRII+. However, beyond the 
COVID-19 crisis, the support for passive measures, with insufficient targeting 
and  not  in  combination  with  complementary  active  measures,  may  have 
negative implications for achieving the ESF’s long-term objectives.  

  One strength of the ESF and FEAD as crisis response instruments was their existing 
implementation structures, which made it possible to channel funds quickly to the 
actors  on  the  ground.  This  was  especially  true  in  Member  States  with  limited 
budgets  for  ALMPs  or  social  services,  where  the  ESF  made  a  significant 
contribution to national employment and social policies. Therefore, the possibility 
to adjust existing operations and flexibility at the level of investment priorities 
were key to ensuring a rapid reaction to the crisis.  

  Flexibility emerged as the most crucial feature of an effective crisis response 
instrument.  The  stakeholders  consulted  for 
this  preliminary  evaluation 
acknowledged the value of the CRII and CRII+ flexibilities, and largely supported 
the idea of making them permanent, so that the ESF and FEAD could be adapted 
more  quickly  to  needs  emerging  on  the  ground  in  both  crisis  and  non-crisis 
situations.  The  new  regulations  for  the  2021-2027  programming  period  already 
take this lesson into account by including an emergency clause on their use in crisis 

48 

 
 
contexts. The idea of allowing greater flexibility in implementation in general could 
be explored in preparation for the post-2027 programming period. 

The more active involvement of partners during the pandemic in some cases helped 
Member States to gather information on the needs on the ground as they emerged and 
developed, and informed the design of 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  their  likely 
evolution  in  the  short  to  medium  term)  and  to  design  appropriate  measures  to 
respond  to  them.  Member  States  used  a  variety  of  channels  to  gather  this 
information,  including  the  knowledge  of  social  partners  and  non-governmental 
organisations  about  local  and  regional  developments,  which  provides  useful 
information for similar operations in the future.  

The capacities of institutions and organisations, and the extension of EU flexibilities 
to national and regional rules, are equally important for an effective crisis response. 

  Despite  simplifications  at  EU  level,  the  study  showed  that  at  times  it  has  been 
challenging  to  carry  out  procedures  at  an  administrative  level,  especially  when 
corresponding simplifications at national or regional levels were not implemented. 
It  proved  difficult  in  these  cases  to  urgently  carry  out  new  operations  with  new 
the  administrative 
beneficiaries  who  had 
requirements. This implies the need to continue to focus on simplification and 
flexibility in delivering support, and extending this approach, where possible, 
at national level to reflect developments in the use of EU instruments.  

themselves  with 

to  familiarise 

  Likewise, the evidence indicates that, where possible, combining EU flexibilities 
with national ones to address crises can make operations even more efficient and 
effective. 

Flexibility is needed, but it is also necessary to ensure that appropriate monitoring and 
evaluation mechanisms are in place to ensure that operations and their outcomes can 
be tracked, even during a crisis. 

  There are inherent trade-offs between providing a wide range of flexibilities 
in the use of the ESF and FEAD  (which have helped the crisis response to be 
effective and efficient) and ensuring that the monitoring of implementation is 
proportionate  (which  may  add  some  additional  burdens,  particularly  in  crisis 
situations). The introduction of a dedicated priority axis78 to amended OPs, as was 
later the case for REACT-EU, would have made it easier to identify and track the 
actions implemented by 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 

78 An operational programme consists of priority axes. In principle, a priority axis concerns one Fund and one category 
of region. It corresponds to a thematic objective and comprise one or more of the investment priorities of that thematic 
objective, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules. 

49 

 
                                                           
of  the  operations  under  CRII  and  CRII+  were  existing  operations  that  had  been 
adjusted. 

  Further considerations about how to set up monitoring and evaluation systems that 
capture  essential  information  about  the  implementation  of  similar  flexibility 
packages,  especially  in  crisis  situations,  would  contribute  to  a  more  robust  and 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of their outputs, results and impacts. In 
addition, discussions and agreement (involving key actors at EU and national 
level) at an early stage about the monitoring and evaluation of crisis operations 
could  give  us  a  more  in-depth  understanding  of  their  impact  and  of  any 
implications for the objectives and targets as initially set. This approach could also 
help us to improve how we react to future crises. 

Crisis  operations  have  highlighted  the  areas  of  investment  where  ESF+  operations 
could  focus  more  in  the  future,  combined  with  operations  supported  through  other 
funds during the pandemic recovery phase. the pandemic. 

  A better response to the needs of existing and emerging vulnerable groups has 
been emphasised during the pandemic. The crisis revealed areas where pervasive 
inequalities  still  exist,  which  were  not  necessarily  the  focus  of  previous 
interventions. Future programming can address this by supporting disadvantaged 
groups, including by promoting digitalisation and ensuring equality of digital 
access (as in the crisis response operations that focused on facilitating distance and 
online learning, in part by ensuring access to equipment and training). 

  The pandemic response also highlights how ESF operations can adopt a broader 
approach to supporting the general health of the population by focussing on 
the effective functioning and development of healthcare and social care systems. 
Under ESF+, health actions will continue to focus on strengthening these systems 
in the pandemic recovery phase.  

  Since  the  2007-2008  crisis,  ESF  actions  to  support  workers  and  employers  had 
focused on active measures (ALMPs), whereas during the pandemic there was a 
shift  to  investment  in  passive  measures  to  preserve  jobs  and  avoid  large-scale 
bankruptcies,  due  to  the  crisis  situation.  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  the  ESF+  will 
support  post-pandemic  recovery  actions  in  the  area  of  employment  through  a 
renewed focus on active measures, including those to develop skills or to reskill. 
However, should future crises arise that require support to maintain jobs, as in the 
pandemic, the potential to combine passive measures (e.g. STWS) with active 
measures should be considered. 

  FEAD operations were adapted to the crisis conditions mostly in terms  of  new 
ways of carrying them out, for example through vouchers or home deliveries, and 
by integrating new target groups, such as for people who lost their income due 
to lockdown measures or non-regularised migrants. However, this did not change 

50 

 
overall the characteristics of the end recipients. The lessons learnt from these 
operations can help ESF+ to improve outreach and better address the needs of the 
most deprived people. 

  As  a  result  of  the  CRII  and  CRII+  ESF  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  new  kinds  of  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’s cohesion policy can ensure complementarity and help 
produce effective results. 

  CRII  and  CRII+  flexibilities  encouraged  synergies  between  the  ESF  and  other 
funds, in particular the ERDF, through the opportunity to reallocate unspent funds. 
Such  synergies  between  ESF  and  ERDF  funding  can  enhance  support  for 
structural  change  in  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  expanding  COVID-19 
measures to support sustainable outcomes through investments in people and 
infrastructure  in  the  areas  of  healthcare,  digital  education  or  inclusive 
employment, for example.  

  The implementation of of anti-crisis operations under ESF and FEAD supported 
the building of capacity at EU, national and regional levels and supported the 
development of new ways of working that can contribute to a better targeting and 
alignment of resources to pursue the prorities of the EU’s cohesion policy in 2021-
2027.  

51 

 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

This evaluation was carried out by DG EMPL as an initiative published in Decide with the reference number PLAN/2021/10525. 

As the general public does not have the specific knowledge on the ESF/FEAD programming process, which was in the focus of this evaluation, a public 
consultation was not carried out. The public consultations carried out in the framework of ESF and FEAD ex-post evaluations will cover the operations 
implemented under CRII and CRII+. 

An interservice group (ISG) was set up in June 2021, which included the following DGs: EMPL, AGRI, EAC, ECFIN, JUST, MARE, REGIO, SANTE 
and SG. 

The timeframe for the evaluation was as follows: 

10 May – 7 June 2021 
28 June 2021 
13 September 2021 
14 December 2021 
16 December 2021 
3 February 2022 
7 June 2022 
26 October 2022 
24 March – 17 April 2023  Written consultation of the ISG on the draft staff working document  
18 April 2023 

Publication of the roadmap and feedback period 
1st meeting of the ISG 
Request for services for the external study to underpin the evaluation launched 
Signature of the contract for the study with the consortium Ecorys – 3s   
2nd meeting of the ISG: kick-off meeting for the study 
3rd meeting of the ISG: draft inception report of the study 
4th meeting of the ISG: draft interim report of the study 
5th meeting of the ISG: draft final report of the study 

Approval of the external study 

The evaluation was based on a study carried out by an external team of experts, under contract (VC/2021/00633) through DG EMPL Multiple Framework 
Contract VT/2020/027 for the provision of services related to the implementation of the Better Regulation Guidelines.  

The interservice group assessed the quality of the final report of the external contractor as good. The conclusions and findings of the evaluation are 
considered to be robust, mindful of the limitations and mitigating measures described Annex 2. 

52 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1. 

Brief overview of the methodology  

The study, on which this evaluation report is based, followed mixed-method data collection approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research 
methods. The study focused 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.  

Designing the intervention logics and evaluation matrix 

Two intervention logics were developed, which underpin the approach to the evaluation. The first intervention logic focuses on the flexibilities introduced 
by CRII and CRII+ and their use for ESF and FEAD in the COVID-19 crisis context. The second intervention logic describes 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.  

Evaluation matrix 

An evaluation matrix was designed to address the evaluation questions and guide all subsequent evaluation activities (see Annex III). 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).  

Comparative analysis of the context and crisis reaction 

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

Typology of operations 

53 

 
 
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. Given that the list of indicative measures was 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.  

Analysis of allocations, common indicators and ESF programme specific Covid-19 indicators 

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 is based on monitoring data reported in the Annual Implementation Reports (retrieved in 
September-October 2022). ESF programme specific Covid-19 indicators were analysed to estimate the size of the intervention under CRII/CRII+, identify 
anti-crisis operations and in the case studies to assess the progress in the implementation of the operation. 

Stakeholders consultations 

Targetted  stakeholder  consultations  informed  the  study  in  all  its  aspects,  contributing  to  answering  all  evaluation  questions.  They  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.  

Case studies 

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 eight 
Member States (ES, GR, IT (2 case studies), LV, PL, RO, SE and LU (FEAD case study)) and anti-crisis operations in the areas of employemnt, social 
inclusion, healthcare and education and training.  

Triangulation of the evidence 

The final report of the study brought together all the evidence gathered to address the evaluation questions and provided a summary of the key findings 
across the evaluation criteria, conclusions and lessons learnt.  

54 

 
2. 

Limitations, mitigating measures and robustness of findings 

There were 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.  

The analysis of the changes introduced by the Member States following CRII and CRII+ adoption:  

The  research  team  of  the  supporting  study  reviewed  all  ESF  and  FEAD  operational  programmes  (available  in  the  SFC2014  database),  identified  the 
amendments that were submitted by the Member States for 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.).  

However  it  was  not  possibile  to  identify  all  anti-crisis  operations  nor  calculate  precisely  their  total  budget.  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). Moreover, 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. Finally, most of 
the anti-crisis operations under CRII and CRII+ were adjusted, and for some, there was no need for an official amendment. 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 indicators 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. The overall 
size of the CRII/CRII+ response under ESF and FEAD was probably higher than estimated by the supporting study. 

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. The ESF 
survey received 60 responses covering 20 Member States and 79 out of the 187 OPs. For FEAD 15 responses covering 14 Member States were received. 
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.   

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  

55 

 
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 through simplifying and accelerating it. Efficiency was assessed from the perspective of whether Member 
States  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 that the Member States and organisations that participated in the study have not assessed any differences 
in  costs and benefits  resulting from  reprogramming under CRII/CRII+  relative to  the usual  programming process.  While 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.  

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.  

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Effectiveness 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII 
in 
providing 
additional 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
the 
quickly 
deploying 
available resources? 

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  flexibilities 
in  the  programmes  used 
to respond to the crisis? 

Effectiveness 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII 
in 
providing 
additional 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
the 
quickly 
deploying 
available resources? 

How 

1b. 
absorption rates evolve? 

did 

the 

  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) 

  Number of entities supported in combating or counteracting the effects 

of the COVID-19 pandemic (ESF) 

(Evaluative judgment on basis of evidence collected re key reasons for non-
take-up and (extent of) use of existing flexibilities within crisis response. 

Percentage  of  total  funding  committed  that  has  been  paid  at  different  time 
points post CRII and CRII+ introduction (absorption rate). 

57 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 
database, 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring  systems  (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

Eurostat 
socio-economic context 

statistics 

on 

evaluations 

MS 
studies 

and 

Primary  research  through 
targeted 
consultations 
(interviews and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
research for case studies 

Focus-groups 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII 
in 
providing 
additional 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
the 
quickly 
deploying 
available resources? 

1c.  How  did  governance 
socio-
issues 
and 
context 
economic 
influence 
the 
achievement  of  CRII  and 
CRII+ objectives? 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII 
in 
additional 
providing 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
deploying 
the 
quickly 
available resources? 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
CRII 
in 
providing 
additional 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
the 
quickly 
deploying 
available resources? 

1d. How are the horizontal 
principles (art. 5, 7 and 8 
of  the  CPR)  taken  into 
account 
the 
reprogramming process? 

in 

e.  What  monitoring  and 
evaluation  arrangements 
are  made  to  enable  an 
assessment  of  anti-crisis 
the 
operations?  Did 
programme 
COVID-19 
indicators 
specific 
the 
proposed 
prove 
Commission 
relevant for the anti-crisis 
operations  and  do  they 
allow  for  a  proportionate 
monitoring? 

by 

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. 

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.  

Effectiveness 

and  CRII+ 

1.  How  effective  were 
in 
CRII 
providing 
additional 
flexibility  to  the  MS  and 
deploying 
the 
quickly 
available resources? 

1f. What  were  the effects 
of  reprogramming  under 
CRII  and  CRII+, 
in 
particular  on  the  level  of 
allocations per categories 
territorial 
of 
thematic 
dimension, 
objectives/investment 

region, 

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 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

priorities  and 
concentrations? 

thematic 

(Level  of)  changes  in  funding  between  and  across  thematic  objectives  and 
investment priorities 

Efficiency 

2. Did the CRII and CRII+ 
efficient 
an 
enable 
process 
the 
to  use 
remaining funds in view of 
the changing priorities? 

the 
Was 
2a. 
reprogramming  process 
simplified and accelerated 
thanks to CRII and CRII+? 

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%). 

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. 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 
database, 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring  systems  (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

evaluations 

MS 
studies 

and 

Primary  research  through 
targeted 
consultations 
(interviews and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
research for case studies 

Focus-groups 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

2. Did the CRII and CRII+ 
efficient 
an 
enable 
process 
the 
to  use 
remaining funds in view of 
the changing priorities? 

Relevance 

3.  Were  CRII  and  CRII+ 
relevant for the immediate 
reaction to the crisis? 

Relevance 

3.  Were  CRII  and  CRII+ 
relevant for the immediate 
reaction to the crisis? 

2b. Were changes, in the 
process 
of 
implementation  including 
monetary 
and 
nonmonetary  costs  and 
benefits,  stemming  from 
the  amendments  under 
CRII and CRII+, identified 
for 
different 
the 
in 
stakeholders 
comparison with ESF and 
FEAD 
implementation 
without CRII provisions? 

3a.  Were 
the  changes 
introduced  by  CRII  and 
CRII+  relevant  to  MS/MA 
needs  to  react  quickly  to 
the crisis? Which were the 
most 
relevant?  Which 
additional  changes  would 
have been relevant? 

3b.  How  relevant  are  the 
operations  programmed 
following  the  adoption  of 
CRII  and  CRII+  to  the 
needs  emerging  on  the 
ground?  Were  resources 
redirected  to  where  they 
were  mostly 
needed 
(including  territorial  and 
thematic aspects)? 

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  Bodies,  beneficiary 
organisations, organisations implementing operations on the ground), and any 
comparisons were undertaken with existing ESF and FEAD implementation.   

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. 

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. 

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 
(geographically  and 
levels  of  socio-economic  effects  of  COVID-19 
thematically).  I.e.  extent  to  which  resources  were  diverted  to  those  regions 
most affected in terms of e.g., employment effects, economic output etc. 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 
database, 
Coronavirus dashboard  

Monitoring  systems  (and 
databases)  of  Managing 
Authorities  

evaluations 

MS 
studies 

and 

Primary  research  through 
targeted 
consultations 
(interviews and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
research for case studies 

Focus-groups 

60 

 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Relevance 

Coherence 

Coherence 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

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.  

3.  Were  CRII  and  CRII+ 
relevant for the immediate 
reaction to the crisis? 

people 

3c. (How) have the needs 
of the traditional ESF and 
FEAD  target  groups,  in 
in 
particular 
situations 
vulnerable 
including  people  with  a 
background, 
migrant 
marginalised 
Roma 
persons  with 
people, 
chronic 
disabilities  or 
homeless 
diseases, 
people, 
and 
elderly  people,  evolved 
and  did  the  ESF/FEAD 
adapt  to  potentially  new 
needs?  Are  new  target 
groups addressed? 

children 

the  operations 
4.  Are 
implemented  under  CRII 
and  CRII+  coherent  with 
other actions in the areas 
of  employment,  social 
inclusion,  education  and 
health? 

4a.  Are  the  immediate 
anti-crisis 
operations 
supported  following  CRII 
and  CRII+ 
adoption 
coherent  with  operations 
implemented  so  far  by 
ESF and FEAD? 

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. 

the  operations 
4.  Are 
implemented  under  CRII 
and  CRII+  coherent  with 
other actions in the areas 
of  employment,  social 
inclusion,  education  and 
health? 

4b.  How  do  operations 
implemented  under  CRII 
and  CRII+  interact  with 
other  actions  undertaken 
EU 
under 
instruments  e.g.,  ERDF, 
SURE? 
there 
complementarities, 
synergies,  overlaps  or 

other 

Are 

Evaluative  judgement  on  extent  of  external  coherence  between  anti-crisis 
operations  and  relevant  other  actions  on  the  basis  of  evidence  collated, 
including assessment of (level of) complementarities, synergies, overlaps and 
contradictions. 

61 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

Eurostat  data  on  socio-
economic 
at 
geographical and thematic 
levels. 

effects 

Primary  research  through 
targeted 
consultations 
(interviews and surveys) 

Primary  and  secondary 
research for case studies 

Focus-groups 

evaluations 

MS 
studies 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Main 
questions 

evaluation 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria/indicators 

Data  source  /  method 
task 

Coherence 

the  operations 
4.  Are 
implemented  under  CRII 
and  CRII+  coherent  with 
other actions in the areas 
of  employment,  social 
inclusion,  education  and 
health? 

Contribution  to 
crisis reaction 

was 

5.  What 
the 
contribution  of  ESF  and 
FEAD  under  CRII  and 
CRII+ to crisis reaction? 

Contribution  to 
crisis reaction 

was 

5.  What 
the 
contribution  of  ESF  and 
FEAD  under  CRII  and 
CRII+ to crisis reaction? 

contradictions 
them? 

between 

4c.  Is  there  a  coherence 
the  immediate 
between 
anti-crisis 
operations 
supported  following  CRII 
and  CRII+  adoption,  and 
long-term 
middle-  and 
plans  to  use  ESF  and 
FEAD  (under  EU-REACT 
and ESF+)? 

5a.  What  are  the  types, 
objectives,  target  groups 
and  targets  of  the  anti-
crisis  operations  funded 
by ESF and FEAD? 

5b. How are the ESF and 
fitting 
FEAD  operations 
into  the  national/regional 
anti-crisis  reactions  and 
what  role  do  they  play  in 
strategies 
at 
mitigating  the  effects  of 
the crisis? 

aimed 

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. 

Primary  and  secondary 
research for case studies 

Focus-groups 

evaluations 

MS 
studies 

and 

OPs,  AIRs,  SFC  2014-
2020 database 

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. 

62 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

Table 7. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Cons
umers  

Businesses 

Quantit
ative  

Com
ment 

Quanti
tative  

Com
ment 

Administrations 

Organisations implementing ESF/FEAD 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitat
ive 

Comment 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

NA 

NA  NA 

NA  No reliable data 
identified 

Administrative costs related to 
understanding CRII/CRII+ 
flexibilities and their effects on 
implementation scope and 
processes 

One -off 

NA 

NA  NA 

NA  NA 

Administrative costs related to 
communicating CRII/CRII+ 
flexibilities and their requirements 
to organisations involved in the 
delivery of operations responding to 
the pandemic and other interested 
stakeholders 

One-off 

63 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

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+ 

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 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 resources. 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+.  

NA 

NA  NA 

NA  NA 

NA 

Implementation of new monitoring 
requirements (e.g. COVID-specific 
indicators) 

Recurrent 

NA 

NA  NA 

NA  No reliable data 
identified 

Direct benefits:  

Reduced administrative burden 
relative to standard ESF and FEAD 
implementation as a result of CRII 
and CRII+ 

One-off 

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) 
and shorter processing times.. 

No 
reliable 
data 
identified 

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 
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. 

NA 

NA 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS 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. 

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 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. 

Type of stakeholder 

Interviews 

Online 

surveys 

Case 

studies 

Focus 

Groups 

Table 8 Overview of stakeholder types across consultation activities 

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 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

65 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 selected while an 
additional 9 interviews took place with EU-level stakeholders. 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. 

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. Table 9 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.79 Table 10 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. 

79  The discrepancy between the number of respondents and the number of OPs is due to the fact that respondents could select multiple OPs.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 9 Distribution of regional and national MAs responses to the ESF survey 

Countries 

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 

Countries 

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 

- 

Table 10 Distribution of national MAs responses to the FEAD survey 

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, IT80, LV, PL, RO, SE and one case study for a FEAD operation in LU. 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.  

Table 11 Case studies for ESF operations 2022  

Country 
Greece 

OP 
ESF Regional Operational Programmes (All) 

Name of operation 
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) 

Level 
Regional 

TO 
9 

IP 
9iv 

80 Two ESF operations enabled by the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative have been selected from Italy as case studies. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Country 
Italy 

OP 
2014IT05SFOP005 

Italy 
Latvia 

2014IT05SFOP002 
2014LV16MAOP001 

Luxembourg  2014LU05FMOP001 (FEAD) 

Poland 
Romania 

2014PL05M9OP001 
2014RO05M9OP001 

Spain 

2014ES05M9OP001 

Sweden 

2014SE05M9OP001 

Focus groups 

Name of operation 
Support for distance learning (Sostegno ai servizi di didattica a 
distanza) 
New Skills Fund (Fondo nuove competenze) 
Improving the qualifications of medical and paramedical staff, in 
terms of Covid and any other health crisis (Uzlabot ārstniecības un 
ārstniecības atbalsta personāla kvalifikāciju (Covid un citām 
veselības krīzēm)) 
Support for medical practitioners who provide treatment for patients 
to prevent public health crises (Atbalsts ārstniecības personām, kas 
nodrošina pacientu ārstēšanu sabiedrības veselības krīžu situāciju 
novēršanai) 
Food support and/or basic material assistance (Aide alimentaire et/ou 
assistance matérielle de base) 
Street working Academy project (Akademia streetworkingu) 
Support for vulnerable people in the context of the COVID-19 
epidemic (Sprijin pentru persoanele vulnerabile in contextul 
epidemiei COVID-19) 
Actions aimed at preserving employment during the COVID-19 crisis 
of young workers (ERTE) Youth Employment - ES - ESF/YEI 
Operational programme (Acciones encaminadas a preservar el 
empleo durante la crisis del COVID-19 de los trabajadores jóvenes 
(ERTES)) 
Competence development for laid-off and employed personnel in 
economically vulnerable sectors 

Level 
Regional 

TO 
11 

National 
National 

8 
9 

IP 
11i 

8v 
9iv 

National 

National 
National 

- 

9 
9 

- 

9i 
9ii 

National 

8 

8ii 

National 

10 

10iii 

During September 2022, two validation focus groups (FGs) took place aiming to validate the study’s findings and cover any remaining gaps.  

68 

 
 
The  first  FG  took  place  on  27/09/2022  and  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,81  representatives  of  organisations  that  implement  ESF  operations,82  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 second FG took place on 28/09/2022 and was dedicated to the use of FEAD under CRII/CRII+. The FG gathered in total 14 participants, including 
representatives  of  Managing  Authorities  in  three  Member  States,83  representatives  of  organisations  that  implement  FEAD  operations,84  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.  

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. 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. Similarly to interview data analysis, proceedings were reported under each evaluation question. 

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.  

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 

81 BE, EE, GR, HU, IT, LU, PL, SK 
82 PL (Foundation Institute of Regional Development (FIRR)), PT (Institute for Employment and Vocational Training (IEFP)) 
83 HR, LT, RO 
84 FR (Restos du Coeur), ES (Red Cross) 

69 

 
 
                                                           
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 

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 pandemic. 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.  

70 

 
 
 
 
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 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+ flexibilities they were able to decrease 
administrative burden (37% or 19 out of 51) or ease logistical and human resource resource 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 rated 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.  

71 

 
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 external factors that influenced the effectiveness of the CRII and CRII+  initiatives. In this context, stakeholders reported that 
national and/or 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 principles85 
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 regulation86 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 principles87 and the FEAD regulation principles88 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 

85 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. 

86 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”. 

87 Article 7 (equality between men and women and non-discrimination); Article 8 (sustainable development) 
88 Article 5 (11) FEAD Regulation - Equality between men and women and non-discrimination; Article 5 (14) – FEAD Regulation – Dignity of the most deprived persons 

72 

 
                                                           
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 on changes in monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits was not 
provided.  

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, 

73 

 
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, reported during the focus group). 

Despite the positive picture in terms of efficiency, stakeholder consultations also pointed to 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).  

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 were 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 were 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.  

74 

 
CRII and CRII+ operations were 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.89  

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 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),90 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 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 would 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, the stakeholder consultation suggests 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, was EUR 5.1 billion.91 

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. 

89 11 respondents could not answer the question.  
90 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.  
91 Cohesion Database, Coronavirus Dashboard. Data extracted 11/10/2022 

75 

 
                                                           
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).  

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. 

76 

 
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 operations92 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  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 

92 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+. 

77 

 
                                                           
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. 

78 

 
 
 
 
79