REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF)
Date: 2024-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European social policy, employment aid, employment policy, gender equality, innovation, labour mobility, microfinance, social change, social economy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.7.2024  COM(2024) 254 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF) {SEC(2024) 184 final} - {SWD(2024) 146 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  Key evaluation findings .................................................................................................... 3 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 5 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 5 

2.4  Coherence and complementarity ........................................................................................ 6 

2.5  Relevance ............................................................................................................................... 6 

3.  Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 7 

3.1 

3.2 

Lessons already capitalised ................................................................................................. 7 

Lessons to inform future policy .......................................................................................... 9 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

This  report  summarises  the  main  findings  and  lessons  learnt  of  the  Staff  Working 
Document  (SWD)  presenting  the  results  of  the  Commission’s  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  2014-2020  (EaSI)  including  the  final 
evaluation  of  the  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  2010-2016  (EPMF).  The 
Commission launched the evaluation of the two programmes1 in 2021. In line with the Better 
Regulation  Guidelines,  the  evaluation  looked  at  their  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
coherence/complementarity and EU added value.  

The  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  2014  -  2020  (EaSI)2  was  designed  to 
contribute  to  the  modernisation  of  employment  and  social  policies  (PROGRESS  axis);  to 
facilitate access to labour markets and job mobility (EURES axis); and to increase access to 
microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship  (Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis).  EaSI 
was implemented by the Commission in the Member States and other participating countries 
(EFTA/EEA, EU candidate countries and potential candidates).  

The  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  2010  -  2016  (EPMF)3  was  initiated  by  the 
Commission with the aim of extending the outreach of microfinance to particular groups  at-
risk  and  to  micro-enterprises.  The  EPMF,  implemented  by  the  European  Investment  Fund 
(EIF) in the EU Member States, was followed up by a new generation of financial instruments 
under the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis of the EaSI programme. 

The  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  is  based  on  data  collected  through  an  external 
supporting  study  and  an  evaluation  carried  out  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee (EESC). European Investment Fund (EIF) representatives were actively involved 
in  the  evaluation,  providing  data,  information  and  expertise4.  It  also  takes  stock  of  the 
preceding ex ante and ex post EaSI evaluations while acknowledging the respective EaSI mid-
term (2017)/EPMF interim (2014) evaluations. Due account is taken as well of the results of 
the EURES Regulation ex post evaluation (2021)5 to strengthen the EURES axis findings, as 
well  as  of  the  INOVA+  study    (2022)6  on  social  experimentation  projects  to  enhance  the 
PROGRESS axis findings. 

A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  was  consulted,  including  national  authorities,  programmes’ 
beneficiairies,  private organisations, social enterprises, financial  intermediaries,  civil  society 

1The respective legal bases and the scope of the EaSI and EPMF programmes provide for evaluation requirements. Article 38(1) of the EaSI 
Regulation states that “The final evaluation provided for in Article 13(4) of this [EaSI] Regulation shall include the final evaluation provided 
for in Article 9 of the Decision 283/2010”. 
2EaSI  Regulation  (EU)  No  1296/2013  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0238:0252:EN:PDF), 
amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1046). 
3EPMF Decision No 283/2010/EU (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:087:0001:0005:EN:PDF). 
4The EaSI budget was managed mostly directly by DG EMPL based on calls for proposals and tenders. Out of the three instruments grouped 
under  the  EaSI  3rd  axis  (Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis),  the  Guarantee  Instrument  and  the  Capacity  Building  Investments 
Window  were  implemented  indirectly  (the  Commission  entrusted  their  management  to  the  EIF)  while  the  Funded  Instrument  was 
implemented directly by  the Commission.  Both  financial instruments  set up  under  EPMF  (Guarantee  Instrument  and  Funded  Instrument) 
were implemented by the EIF as well through indirect management mode.  
5The EURES Regulation ex post evaluation was carried out according to the EURES Regulation (2016/589). Its scope included four clusters 
of activities implemented: services to jobseekers and employers, the EURES Portal, targeted mobility schemes and cross-border partnerships. 
Link to SWD(2021) 217 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0217&rid=6). Link to Regulation 
(EU) 2016/589: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.107.01.0001.01.ENG. 
6Link 
en/format-PDF/source-search. 

study:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a3aa5b7-0254-11ed-acce-01aa75ed71a1/language-

INOVA+ 

to 

2 

 
 
 
 
organisations and citizens. Overall, more than 400 stakeholders provided feedback during the 
entire consultation process7. 

This  report  summarises  the  evaluation’s  key  findings  and  identifies  shortcomings/areas  for 
improvement where the Commission could pay specific attention in the current programming 
period.  It  also  provides  an  overview  of  the  improvements  already  implemented  under  the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) EaSI strand8. 

2.  Key evaluation findings 

EaSI and EPMF prompted a multiplier effect by funding a range of complementary activities 
(studies,  social  experimentation,  capacity  building  and  mutual  learning  platforms)  and  by 
piloting  initiatives  to  stimulate  employment,  labour  mobility,  and  access  to  finance  for 
vulnerable  groups  and  social  enterprises.  The  key  findings  presented  below  are  structured 
along the five evaluation criteria. 

2.1 Effectiveness  

Evidence-based  policy-making  and  visibility  of  social  innovation.  EaSI  has  proven 
effective  in  supporting  evidence-based  policymaking.  It  provided  comparative  analytical 
knowledge  and  mutual  learning  opportunities,  based  on  a  broad  thematic  approach  and 
geographical  coverage.  Social  experimentation  emerged  as  one  of  the  most  visible  and 
successful activities, with a large spectrum of social interventions targeting the most in-need. 
The mainstreaming/embedding of the social experimentation results in the policy making was 
nevertheless  limited  by  the  lack  of  appropriate  dissemination  channels  and  incentive 
mechanisms linking EaSI and ESF together and with the national stakeholders/policymakers. 
Overall,  the  evaluation  reveals  an  insufficient  dissemination  of  EaSI  funding  opportunities, 
results and best practices. 

Greater  stakeholders’  ownership  and  capacity  to  impact  policy  making.  EaSI  was 
effective  in  boosting  stakeholders’  capacity9  to  partake  in  and  to  influence  policymaking. 
Knowledge generated and exchanged allowed policymakers in the participating countries and 
at the EU-level to ground policy choices on robust evidence. It also increased awareness and 
ownership of EU policy in the social field among the public. The support for EU-level NGOs 
allowed them to secure long-term sustainability and to become a critical source of expertise, 
both for national policymakers and for the EU institutions. Nevertheless, the need for the EU-
level NGO networks to reapply each year to recurrent calls for proposals translated in a state 
of uncertainty for these networks and generate administrative burden (both on applicants’ side 
and the Commission services’ side). 

Creating a stable communication link between the EU and grassroot organisations. The 
operating  grants  awarded  to  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  secured  their  long-term 
sustainability and enabled them to become more professional by employing regular staff. By 

7Depending on the identified stakeholder group, dedicated methods and tools were used to conduct the consultations: a questionnaire-based 
online  public  consultation,  semi-structured  interviews,  focus  groups  and  targeted  surveys  with  key  stakeholders.  These  consultations 
complemented data and information collected through other methods, such as the desk research and case studies.  
8Link to the ESF+ Regulation (2021/1057): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1057. 
9EU-level  NGO  networks,  national  administration  representatives,  cross-sector  social  experimenters,  microcredit  providers,  social 
entrepreneurs  benefited  from  the  programme’s  support  via  direct  operating  and  action  grants,  as  well  as  training  activities  and 
dissemination/information materials. 

3 

 
 
 
supporting  capacity  building  and  sharing  of  experiences,  it  also  allowed  increased  national 
membership  and  brought  member  organisations  closer  together  by  creating  a  sense  of 
community.  As  a  result,  EU  policy  has  become  more  visible  and  relevant  for  these 
organisations.  

Enhanced labour mobility, making it easier to fill labour shortages. EaSI was effective in 
facilitating matchmaking between vacancies and jobseekers’ needs, by contributing to labour 
market  transparency  and  by  providing  relevant  information  on  working/living  conditions  in 
the EU. The evaluation showed the growing utility of the EURES Job Mobility Portal, as well 
as of the cross-border partnerships and targeted mobility schemes that generated together an 
increased number of job placements at EU-level. These services also improved the perception 
of  cross-border  employment  and  facilitated  the  geographical/occupational  mobility  of 
workers.  The  evaluation  shows  that  these  positive  results  were  however  undermined  by  an 
incomplete posting of national vacancies by end-2020 and by the insufficient visibility of the 
EURES placement services to the employers. 

Finance more accessible for vulnerable groups, micro-enterprises and social enterprises. 
EaSI  and  EPMF  were  both  highly  effective  in  supporting  financial  intermediaries  to  reach 
persons with difficulties in accessing finance to create or develop  a business and to provide 
finance  to  social  enterprises.  Agreements  with  financial  intermediaries  made  it  possible  to 
provide  a  greater  number  of  loans  to  final  target  groups  and  leveraged  more  liquidity  than 
expected, both under EPMF and EaSI10. An additional effect was the constant increase in both 
geographical and target groups coverage11. The evaluation indicates that the support to some 
categories  (mainly  women  and  unemployed  people)  decreased  over  time,  while  support  to 
seniors and people coming from third countries increased significatively. 

Enhanced  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship  ecosystems.  With  the  view  of 
reinforcing  the  capacity  of  financial  intermediaries  to  implement  the  financial  products  
provided  under  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis,  EaSI  provided  training  and 
advisory  services  to  microcredit  providers.  From  a  quantitative  perspective,  the  support 
delivered  exceeded  its  initial  target,  while  qualitatively  the  increased  capacity  of  the 
microcredit  providers  emerged  as  being  a  key  EaSI  achievement,  thus  enhancing  the 
microfinance and social entrepreneurship ecosystems in the participating countries.    

Countries’ inequal participation in EaSI. While the EaSI calls for proposals were open to 
all eligible countries, applicants from countries with more experience/know-how in applying 
to  EU funding (due to  the proximity  to  the EU institutions and/or more intensive/pro-active 
dissemination of information about EU funding opportunities) submitted proportionally more 
high  quality  proposals  than  other  countries  (notably  small  countries,  more  recent  Member 
States  and  candidate/potential  candidate  countries).  Therefore,  they  had  more  chances  to  be 
selected under the direct management mode (based on the calls for proposals’ quality criteria). 

Integration of ‘horizontal’ principles across the two programmes. The evaluation revealed 
that  for  stakeholders  -  notably  EU-level  NGO  networks,  but  also  EaSI  grants  beneficiaries, 

10The number of microloans provided grew from ‘0’ (the point of comparison before the launching of the EPMF) to around 32 000 in 2014 
(value through EPMF) and to around 97 000 in 2020 (through EaSI). 
11EIF was able to reach many more countries under EaSI thanks to the increased budget and the extended geographical scope (including as 
well  candidate  countries,  potential  candidates  and  EEA-EFTA  countries).  The  support  provided  under  EaSI  covered  around  30  countries, 
while the EPMF support covered around 20 countries. 

4 

 
 
 
and the EaSI/EPMF financial intermediaries - the horizontal principles enshrined in both legal 
bases12 have been the guiding principle in implementing the programmes.  

2.2 Efficiency  

Cost-effective  implementation  of  the  activities.  The  cost-effectiveness  analysis  indicated 
that  sufficient  resources  were  allocated  among  the  activities  and  that  the  objectives  were 
effectively  achieved.  Stakeholders  perceived13  the  efforts  related  to  the  implementation  of 
activities to be proportionate to the benefits, and considered the budget allocated as sufficient 
to achieve the intended results. However, this efficiency was slowed down by administrative 
burden in the projects’ application, award and implementation stages, in particular for small 
structures  and  the  EU-level  NGO  networks,  commanding  limited  financial  and  human 
resources. 

Proper  allocation  of  resources  and  overall  absence  of  waste.  The  economic  efficiency 
analysis indicated that the conversion of inputs into results was done in the most cost-efficient 
manner possible. The demand for the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship was higher than 
expected,  but  this  was  successfully  topped-up  using    the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investment (EFSI) guarantee. The evaluation also indicates that the administrative costs were 
constant  and  well-planned  across  the  entire  period.  The  governance-related  costs  were 
substantially lower than expected, which implies a high level of efficiency14.  

2.3 EU added value  

Achieving impacts and fostering cooperations that would not have otherwise  occurred. 
The  evaluation  showed  that  EaSI  offered  participating  countries  a  concrete  platform  for 
knowledge-sharing  and  mutual  learning,  consolidated  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  and 
allowed them to multiply their memberships across the EU. It also improved the cooperation 
within the EURES system to facilitate labour mobility at the EU level. Both EaSI and EPMF 
increased  the  support  for  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship  at  the  EU  level  via  an 
innovative  cooperation  with  the  EIF.  They  also  stimulated  cooperation  and  mutual  learning 
among stakeholders from public, private and civil society sectors, which otherwise have few 
incentives to work together, as well as a better alignment with the target groups’ needs.  

Generating  EU  added  value  compared  with  the  national  level.  The  evaluation 
demonstrated  that  EaSI  was  the  most  suitable  vehicle  for  EU-wide  deliverables,  such  as 
comparative databases, studies and mutual learning activities - topics that are not always the 
top priorities at other government levels. Equally, without EaSI support, it would be unlikely 
that  national  schemes  would  be  able  to  support  social  experimentation  across  participating 
countries  and  EU-level  NGO  networks.  In  addition,  there  were  no  other  EU  resources 

12The evaluation also analysed how – in pursuing its goals – the EaSI programme integrated the horizontal principles defined in Article 4 of 
the EaSI Regulation, i.e. paying attention to vulnerable groups; guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection; and promoting a high 
level of quality and sustainable employment.  Similar horizontal principles were incorporated in EPMF general objectives (Article 2 of the 
EPMF Decision). 
13Although the evaluation lacked quantitative evidence on costs and benefits of some outputs (notably the analytical knowledge generated, 
but  also  the  results  of  the  capacity  building,  mutual  learning  and  social  experimentation  activities),  the  analysis  was  completed  with  an 
understanding of how the activities met the needs of the targeted groups. 
14The  general  administrative  costs  include  expenses  related  to  monitoring,  evaluation,  coordination  meetings,  IT  development,  audit, 
communication. The governance costs include monetary costs (related to the organisation of EaSI Committee meetings, costs incurred with 
the  programme’s  monitoring  and  evaluation)  and  non-monetary  costs  (total  full-time  employees  involved  in  the  coordination  of  the 
programme).  However,  no  robust  conclusion  could  be  made  on  the  governance  costs,  given  the  insufficient  information  on  the  ex  ante 
methodological approach used for the estimations. 

5 

 
 
 
available  which  are  specifically  designed  for  cross-border  partnerships,  targeted  mobility 
schemes and an EU-level vacancies Portal. 

Strengthening  access  to  funding  for  micro-  and  social  enterprises  at  the  EU  level.  The 
EaSI programme provided support to specific target groups which otherwise would have not 
been possible. The evaluation showed that at the national level, EaSI and EPMF filled a clear 
gap  identified  in  the  corresponding  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship  markets.  The 
programmes  achieved  this  by  lowering  the  risks  for  the  financial  intermediaries,  thus 
facilitating access to, and availability of, finance for the unemployed, disadvantaged people, 
microenterprises and social enterprises.  

2.4 Coherence and complementarity 

Avoiding  duplication  of  efforts  and  generating  efficiency  gains.  EaSI,  by  gathering 
together fragmented but complementary funds under one ‘umbrella’, enhanced the EU added 
value,  while  avoiding  a  duplication  of  efforts.  The  rationalisation  of  instruments,  rules  and 
procedures  under  the  EaSI  banner  reduced 
time  spent  for  programming  and 
implementation, as well as the monetary/non-monetary resources invested, thereby generating 
efficiency gains. The evaluation confirmed that EaSI support was more effective and efficient 
in meeting the stakeholders’ needs than the fragmented support provided separately under its 
predecessor programmes15.   

the 

Complementarities  between  EaSI  and  ESF.  The  two  programmes  had  similar  objectives 
but varied in their approach to achieve them, i.e. using direct/indirect management mode for 
one  and  shared  management  for  the  other.  Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  revealed  a  lack  of 
synergies between them, mostly related to the scaling up of the social innovations tested under 
EaSI. The evaluation points to an insufficient dissemination of EaSI results at national level, 
notably  among  the  ESF  Managing  Authorities,  and  to  the  lack  of  incentives/mechanisms  to 
facilitate  transition  from  the  direct  management  mode  into  the  shared  management  mode. 
Some  complementarities  were  also  identified  between  the  EaSI  third  axis  and  ESF  -  which 
were  rare  prior  to  the  launching  of  EaSI16  -  representing  an  improvement  compared  to  the 
previous  periods,  where  the  potential  complementarities  between  EPMF  and  ESF  were 
underexploited. 

Complementarities  between  EaSI  and  other  Union  programmes.  Despite  similarities  in 
terms  of objectives  and  target  groups, the EaSI focus was  sufficiently different (in terms of 
objectives, activities, target groups, geographical scope and policy priorities) compared with 
other  EU-level  funds  (Erasmus+,  Horizon  2020,  EURAXESS,  Interreg,  COSME,  InnovFin) 
thus avoiding overlaps. The evaluation revealed a consensus on the importance of maintaining 
different types of support at the EU level, whilst ensuring increased coordination between EU 
programmes targeting the same groups. 

15EaSI was built on and provided for the continuation of activities carried out by  three previously existing instruments: the Programme for 
Employment  and  Social  Solidarity  (PROGRESS),  the  network  of  European  Employment  Services  (EURES)  and  the  European  Progress 
Microfinance Facility (EPMF).  
16Based  on  the  EPMF  interim  evaluation  supporting  study  (2014),  a  European  Parliament  in-depth  analysis  (page  16)  of  the  evaluation 
findings, estimated that only 20% of EPMF financial intermediaries reported cooperation with entities supported by the ESF. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
2.5 Relevance  

Clear and continuous need for all types of actions assessed. The evaluation demonstrated 
that  there  is  a  clear  and  continuous  need  for  analytical  activities  to  support  policy  evidence 
including 
stakeholders’ 
participation/impact  on  policies,  instruments  to  facilitate  the  geographical  and  occupational 
mobility, as well as to improve access to finance, in particular of vulnerable groups. 

experimentation, 

capacity 

building 

enhance 

social 

to 

Successful in adapting to new priorities and challenges. The evaluation showed that EaSI 
was successful in adapting to new challenges and priorities (refugee crisis, Brexit, Covid-19 
pandemic, twin green and digital transitions), due to the diversity/ complementarity between 
its activities as well to its relative simple  programming/implementation under direct/indirect 
management modes.  

Contribution to the target groups’ wellbeing and to the overarching policy goals. Taking 
stock  of  the  demonstrated  economic,  social  and  financial  benefits  for  the  target  groups,  the 
evaluation  concluded  that  EPMF  and  EaSI  enhanced  people’s  well-being,  environment  and 
empowerment in line with the EU 2020 Strategy, the European Pillar of Social Rights and the 
UN Sustainable Development Goals.  These benefits  are likely  to  continue over the medium 
and long term, also considering the activities’ continuing relevance and sustainability.  

Consensus  on  the  importance  of  maintaining  this  type  of  support  at  the  EU  level.  The 
evaluation  indicated  that  the  current  ESF+  architecture,  with  a  combined  system  of  shared, 
direct and indirect management could enhance the positive effects and scalability of the EaSI 
activities,  whilst  ensuring  increased  coordination  with  EU  programmes  targeting  the  same 
groups. 

3.  Conclusions 

Despite  the  relevance  in  contributing  to  address  societal  challenges,  the  limited  scale  and 
financial sources of the two programmes meant they did not influence socio-economic trends 
at  large.  The  evaluation  also  identified  specific  potential  areas  for  improvement  where  the 
Commission  could  pay  specific  attention  when  programming  actions  under  the  successor 
ESF+, as well as other partners involved in the current implementation, such as the European 
Labour Authority (ELA) and InvestEU17. 

3.1 Lessons already capitalised 

Below  is  explained  how  ESF+  -  building  notably  on  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation 
conclusions  -  integrated  in  its  architecture  lessons  learned  confirmed  by  the  EaSI  ex  post 
evaluation. 

•  Structured  communication  and  dissemination.  The  EaSI  strand  funding  opportunities 
and results are promoted since 2021 via the Funding and Tenders Portal. This Portal offers 
a  real  one-stop-shop,  not  only  for  finding  opportunities  but  also  for  the  daily  projects’ 

17In the period 2021 - 2027, EaSI became an integrated part of a consolidated single fund, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). Many of 
the  former  stand-alone  programme  EaSI  provisions  were  preserved,  providing  continuity  of  its  objectives,  while  accentuating  their  social 
dimension in the context of supporting the European Pillar of Social Rights. The financial instruments for microfinance and social enterprises 
implemented under the former EaSI  were deployed under the InvestEU Fund, while the EURES network coordination office function was 
transferred to the European Labour Authority (ELA) established in 2019. 

7 

 
 
 
interactions  with  the  EU18.  It  provides  a  unique  entry  point  for  a  fully  electronic 
management  of  centrally  managed  grants  and  procurement  contracts.  All  centrally 
managed  EU  programmes  are  covered,  providing  easy  access  to  funding  and  tender 
opportunities  based  on  keywords  and  full-text  search.  Procurement  section  will  be 
implemented further in  view of a fully integration of the procurement service (paperless 
handling  as  for  grants).  Additionally,  the  National  Contact  Points  for  the  EaSI  strand 
promote  the  EaSI  strand  opportunities  and  results  in  the  participating  countries’ 
languages. A structured stakeholders’ consultation19 is also organised before the adoption 
of each EaSI strand annual work programme.  

•  Better conditions for social innovation upscaling. The ESF+ Regulation incentives the 
Member  States  to  take  advantage  of  a  new  integrated  approach  to  promote  social 
innovation. Thus, the EaSI strand continues to test new policy approaches at a small-scale 
through  social  experimentation  and  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  social  innovation  upscaling, 
mainstreaming and/or replication activities under the ESF+ shared management strand or 
other funds. However, these legal provisions20 were paired with new means to support the 
social  innovation,  notably  the  transnational  cooperation21  funding  the  Social  Innovation 
Competence Centres and the National Contacts Points22. The digital and green transitions 
goals are also increasingly mainstreamed in the EaSI strand actions; for instance, a call for 
proposals aiming to test social innovation approaches to foster green and digital transition 
in  schools,  training  centres,  at  work  and  in  local  communities  was  already  launched  in 
2022. 

•  Synergies  with  other  Union  programmes.  The  ESF+  seeks  in  particular  to  ensure 
complementarities with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European 
Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF),  Erasmus+,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  the 
Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  (AMIF),  as  well  as  with  Horizon  Europe  and  the  Digital 
Europe Programme. One example of synergy between the ESF+ and Erasmus+ consists in 
the joint financing of the EUROPASS system, which is a notable example of cooperation 
between the ESF+ and Erasmus+23. 

•  Simplified  governance.  The  ESF+  operates  both  under  shared  and  direct  management 
modes  and  relies  on  a  new  simpler  governance  structure.  The  ESF+  Committee  is 
supported  by  two  specialised  technical  working  groups,  one  for  the  shared  management 

18The projects are promoted at the Projects & Results section, while the eGrants system – accessible via the same Portal – became the single 
gateway  for  all  exchanges  (submission,  evaluation,  implementation  and  reporting)  between  applicants  and  the  Commission.  Additional 
information  and  statistics on proposals, success  rates,  funded  projects and  participants is available on the  Portal  as  well.  Furthermore,  the 
Portal also hosts a ‘News & events’ section with news about the EaSI strand. Here the Commission informs about EaSI events, including 
those organised in Member States and participating countries and publishes articles informing about the strand. 
19This yearly strategic dialogue exercise has two parts: on one hand the EU level civil society organisations are consulted through an online 
dialogue meeting; and on the other hand, the EU level social partners are consulted in an email exchange. 
20While the ESF Regulation included a provision (Article 9) for the promotion of social innovation, the  ESF+ Regulation requires Member 
States to dedicate at least one priority to support social innovation and social experimentation and/or scaling up of innovations tested on a 
small scale under the EaSI strand and other Union programmes. The maximum co-financing rate for such priorities may be increased to 95% 
for a maximum of 5% of the national resources under the ESF+ strand under shared management.  
21As  per  the  Article  15  of  the  ESF+  Regulation,  Member  States  may  support  transnational  cooperation  actions  under  any  of  the  specific 
objectives of the programme. A financial envelope of EUR 175 million (in 2018 prices)  was allocated for transnational cooperation, with a 
view to accelerating the transfer, and facilitating the scaling up, of ‘innovative solutions’. Therefore, six consortia were selected to set up 
Social Innovation Competence Centres and drive social innovation locally, regionally, nationally, and transnationally. Covering 25 countries 
and mobilising 148 organisations, they are currently helping managing authorities to programme and implement social innovation actions, as 
well as to support organisations on the ground with capacity building, knowledge transfer and networking measures. 
22A complementary support initiative consists in the National Contact Points (NCPs) financed under the direct management strand. While the 
focus  of  the  Competence  Centres  is  on  the  social  innovation,  the  NCPs  inform  about  all  EaSI  strand  activities,  including  financing 
opportunities, application requirements and projects’ results. 
23The ESF+ and Erasmus+ are active in similar fields, notably helping people gain new skills, upskilling to answer the needs of the industrial 
sectors, improving digital competences, as well as the quality of education and training. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
and one for the EaSI strand. This governance design allows for stronger synergies in both 
programming  and  implementation  phases,  while  better  connecting  diverse  types  of 
activities  and  beneficiaries.  As  per  the  resources  allocation,  the  EaSI  strand  focuses 
increasingly  now  on  balancing  competing  needs  and  priorities,  while  the  previous 
boundaries (indicative shares allocation) between axes have been completely removed. 

•  Enhanced  budgetary  flexibility.  The  ex  post  evaluation  confirmed  the  EaSI  mid-term 
evaluation  finding  that  the  flexibility  clause  foreseen  to  adjust  funding  among  the  three 
axes (Article 33 of the  EaSI Regulation24) was in practice  an inefficient  provision  given 
the  important  potential  administrative  burden  generated  to  operate  these  changes.  Based 
on  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  findings,  the  Omnibus  Regulation  (2018)  introduced 
amendments to the EaSI Regulation to make the budget more flexible. A consequence was 
that Article 33 became obsolete and was therefore deleted from the EaSI legal basis. In the 
period 2021 - 2027, the three compartments of the former EaSI Programme (PROGRESS, 
EURES  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship)  were  abolished  together  with 
simplification and flexibility of financing. 

•  Simplified  and  reinforced  performance  measurement  system.  The  evaluation  shows 
that  simplification  and  rationalisation  of  the  programme’s  monitoring/evaluation  system 
are necessary to reduce administrative burden on the EC services and stakeholders25. The 
ESF+ Regulation (based on the EaSI programme mid-term evaluation findings that were 
confirmed  by  the  ex  post  evaluation)  identifies  5  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs) 
easily understandable, practical, and feasible to report on the progress of the EaSI strand 
towards its objectives. Data collected using complementary methods, such as interviews, 
focus  groups,  and  surveys  are  foreseen  in  the  new  monitoring/evaluation  system  to 
provide a good understanding of stakeholder’s perceptions and interactions. To effectively 
review  the  linkages  between  policy  and  programme  implementation,  data  triangulation 
methods  are used to  pull together the range of data available, including  quantitative and 
qualitative information.  

3.2 Lessons to inform future policy 

Several  areas  for  improvements  could  be  addressed  under  the  EaSI  strand  but  also  -  when 
appropriate  -  under  ELA  (the  business  owner  of  the  EURES  Portal  since  2019)  and  the 
InvestEU (bringing together the multitude of earlier EU financial instruments, including those 
implemented under EaSI). 

•  Improving  the  EaSI  strand  visibility  by  increasing  the  frequency  and  adapting  the 
timing of publishing the information on opportunities for financing; by disseminating 
more  results,  country-specific  examples  and  good  practices;  by  creating  projects’ 
online databases; by ensuring that the information reach a wide audience in terms of 
geographical  coverage  and  types  stakeholders;  by  making  websites’  content  more 
user-friendly  and  accessible  for  the  general  public,  including  by  providing  multi-
language information.  

24The EaSI Regulation webpage on Europa includes the amended version of the Regulation, where Article 33 has been deleted. 
25Based on the experience with the EaSI performance measurement  system – with a total of 42 headline and complementary indicators  – a 
simplified system with a limited number of quantitative indicators was established to measure the EaSI strand performance in 2021 - 2027.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Ensuring more visibility of the social experimentations’ results (notably among the 
ESF+ shared management Managing  Authorities) and of the  EURES Portal  (notably 
among employers).  

•  Exploring  new  ways/incentives  to  increase  the  share  of  social  experimentations 
upscaled, the share national vacancies published on the EURES Portal, and access of 
women and unemployed people to the financial instruments’ market. 

•  Improving the connection between the EURES Portal and the Europass Portal by 
proposing one account to access all applications through an unique EU log-in for both 
EURES  and  Europass;  by  facilitating  the  navigation  between  EURES  and  Europass; 
and by removing the overlapping functionalities26.   

•  Exploring ways to reduce the action grants and operating grants’ administrative 

burden both on the applicants’ side and the Commission’s services side. 

•  Enhancing synergies with EU-level  funds targeting similar groups, notably those 
implemented  by  DG  EAC,  DG  GROW  and  DG  RTD  and  additional  synergies  with 
other funds, for instance those targeting rural population (EAFRD). 

•  Improving  the  mainstreaming  of  horizontal  principles  across  the  EaSI  strand 

activities notably those related to disability and accessibility matters.  

•  Improving the mainstreaming of the digital and green transitions’ goals across the 
EaSI strand activities. Contributing to improve the use of digital financial services, in 
particular  by  vulnerable  people  who  are  the  least  likely  to  benefit  from  the 
digitalisation of financial services (including in rural areas). 

•  Providing  additional  funding  to  allow  proven  social  experimentations  to  be  up-
scaled  and/or  transfered  to  other  actors  or  contexts  thus  creating  a  wider  impact,  to 
the  microfinance  sector 
facilitate 
development27, and to address new social, environmental and digital challenges. 

the  social  enterprises’  growth, 

to  support 

•  Ensuring  an  appropriate  evaluation  timeframe  and  scope,  notably  for  activities 
such  as  those  related  to  the  capacity  building,  social  experimentation  and  the  labour 
market transparency that require time to take effect. 

Looking forward, an integrated EaSI strand within the ESF+ appears as a key vehicle to foster 
employment  and  social  innovation  in  Europe,  to  create  synergies  with  the  ESF+  shared 
management  strand,  to  support  the  EU  and  Member  States’  employment,  social  and  skills 
policies (notably implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights), to enhance the capacity 
of stakeholders, and to promote wider uptake of funded initiatives. 

26DG EMPL and ELA are currently discussing the details of these technical improvements. 
27The evaluation shows that the initial budget for the EaSI third axis was insufficient (a top-up was necessary to bridge this funding gap). 

10