COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instument (2021-2027)
Date: 2025-05-12
Institutions: European Commission, Reform and Investment Task Force
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU financing arrangements, economic and social cohesion, economic reform, structural adjustment, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.5.2025  SWD(2025) 117 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION    accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instument (2021-2027) {COM(2025) 198 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 
1.1.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................ 4 
1.2.  METHODOLOGY APPLIED ........................................................................................................... 5 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 7 
2.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE TSI AND ITS OBJECTIVES................................................................. 7 
2.2.  POINTS OF COMPARISON.............................................................................................................. 10 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 11 
3.1.  EVOLUTION OF THE SITUATION ............................................................................................. 11 
3.2.  CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ......................................................................................................... 13 
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 22 
4. 
4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ................... 22 
4.1.1. EFFECTIVENESS-  HOW  SUCCESSFUL  IS  THE  TSI  IN  PROGRESSING  TOWARDS  ITS 
OBJECTIVES? HOW SUSTAINABLE ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM SUPPORT 
PROJECTS AND HOW COULD THE SUSTAINABILITY OF EFFECTS BE INCREASED?............ 22 

4.1.2. EFFICIENCY-  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  WAS  THE  TSI  EFFICIENT  IN  ACHIEVING  ITS 

OBJECTIVES? .................................................................................................................................... 37 

4.1.3. COHERENCE-  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  IS  THE  TSI  INTERNALLY  AND  EXTERNALLY 

COHERENT? ...................................................................................................................................... 42 
4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? ............. 48 
4.2.1. EU ADDED VALUE- WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL VALUE RESULTING FROM THE TSI 

COMPARED TO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY MEMBER STATES? ..................... 48 
4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT?.......................................................................... 51 
4.3.1. RELEVANCE-  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  ARE  THE  TSI  OBJECTIVES  RELEVANT  TO 
ADDRESS  THE  NEEDS  EXPRESSED  BY  THE  MEMBER  STATES  AND  CORRESPOND 
TO WIDER EU POLICY GOALS? ...................................................................................................... 51 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 54 
5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 54 
5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................... 58 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................. 64 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 65 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................................. 67 
1.  RELEVANCE .................................................................................................................................... 67 
EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................................ 70 
2. 
SUSTAINABILITY........................................................................................................................... 77 
3. 
EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................... 79 
4. 
5.  COHERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 83 
EU ADDED VALUE ......................................................................................................................... 88 
6. 

1 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 

ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................................. 92 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................. 99 

1.  Outline of the consultation strategy ................................................................................. 99 

2.  Overview of the main consultation results ..................................................................... 101 

1.1. 

Summarised results of the open public consultation (OPC) ....................................... 101 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

Summarised results of the targeted survey ................................................................ 113 

Summarised results of the interview programme ...................................................... 130 

Summarised results of the focus group discussions ................................................... 134 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BA 

CA  

CBA 

ComPAct 

CSP  

CSRs  

Beneficiary authority 

Coordinating authority 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Communication ‘Enhancing the European Administrative Space’ 

Cooperation and Support Plan 

Country-Specific Recommendations under the European Semester 

DG REFORM 

Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support 

ERDF  

ESF+ 

JTF  

MFF 

MTE 

OPC  

PACE 

RRF 

RRP 

SRSP  

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund Plus 

Just Transition Fund 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Mid-Term Evaluation 

Open Public Consultation 

Public Administration Cooperation Exchange 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Recovery and Resilience Plan 

Structural Reform Support Programme 

SG REFORM 

The Reform and Investment Task Force 

SWD  

TAIEX  

TSI  

UN SDG  

Staff Working Document 

Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument 

Technical Support Instrument 

United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 

3 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI)  was  set  up  by  Regulation  (EU)  2021/240 
(the ‘TSI Regulation’)1 and entered into force on the 19 February 2021. The TSI is a 
programme  under  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  2021-2027,  and 
successor of the structural reform support programme (SRSP, 2017-2020). With a budget 
of EUR 864 million for the period 2021-2027, the TSI was managed by the Directorate-
General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM)2. 

Structural  reforms  can  be  understood  as  measures  with  long-lasting  effects  on  the 
structure of the economy, the institutional and regulatory framework in which businesses 
and people operate, public governance, or on progress towards relevant policy objectives. 

Since  its  creation  in  2021,  the  TSI  has  provided  tailor-made  technical  expertise  to  any 
Member  State  facing  challenges  in  designing  and  implementing  its  reform  agenda  in  a 
wide  range  of  policy  areas.  This  includes  reforms  that  aim  to  address  challenges 
identified in the European Semester process of economic policy coordination, the EU’s 
policy priorities or reforms undertaken at a Member State’s own initiative. The support is 
demand-driven  and  does  not  require  co-financing  from  Member  States.  Technical 
support  (TS)  is  defined  as  ‘measures  that  help  national  authorities  to  implement 
institutional,  administrative  and  structural  reforms  that  are  sustainable  and  resilience-
enhancing,  strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion  and support  the public 
administration in  the preparation  of  sustainable and resilience-enhancing investments’. 
It  is  distinguished  from  technical  assistance  (TA),  existing  for  example  in  cohesion 
policy,  and  defined  as  ‘support  and  capacity-building  activities  necessary  for  the 
implementation  of  a  programme  or  an  action,  in  particular  preparatory,  management, 
monitoring, evaluation, audit and control activities’. The TSI is an important pillar of the 
EU’s initiative to help Member States mitigate the economic and social consequences of 
the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis, with a focus on recovery and resilience. 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

As required by the TSI Regulation (Article 16), the TSI is subject to an independent mid-
term evaluation to provide evidence on its early implementation, to be submitted to the 
European Parliament and Council. This mid-term evaluation is being undertaken at mid-
point of the implementation of the TSI (2021-2027). 

1 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 February 2021 establishing a Technical 

Support Instrument, OJ L 57, 18/02/2021, pp. 1-16. 

2 Since 1 February 2025, the Reform and Investment Task Force (SG REFORM Reform and Investment 
Task  Force  -  European  Commission)  has  taken  over  its  responsibilities.  References  to  DG 
REFORM  are  kept  considering  the  Directorate-General  was  in  charge  for  managing  the  TSI 
programme during the period covered by the mid-term evaluation. 

4 

 
 
 
This mid-term evaluation covers  all projects  funded under the    2021, 2022 and  2023 
TSI  cycles,  in  all  27 Member  States.  This  constitutes  a  total  of  611  technical  support 
projects,  corresponding  to  886  national  components  of  projects,  for  a  total  budget  of 
EUR 359 million.  The  mid-term  evaluation  analyses  the  operational  cycle  of  the  TSI 
annual  work  programmes,  from  the  reception  and  assessment  of  Member  States’ 
technical  support  requests  to  the  evaluation  of  closed  technical  support  projects  after 
implementation. 

The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  serve  two  aims.  First,  they  can  help  identify 
potential ways to improve the implementation of the TSI until end-2027. Second, it will 
also  be  a  pertinent  reference  point  to  inform  discussions  and  decision-making  for  the 
provision of technical support in the future. 

1.2.  Methodology applied 

The  TSI  mid-term  evaluation  covers  the  five  criteria  set  out  in  the  European 
Commission’s  better  regulation  Guidelines  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  TSI  is 
effective  in  fulfilling  expectations  and  meeting  its  objectives;  is  efficient  in  terms  of 
cost-effectiveness  and  proportionality  of  actual  costs  to  benefits;  is  relevant  to  current 
and emerging needs; is  coherent (internally and externally with other EU interventions 
or international agreements); and has EU added value (i.e. produces results beyond what 
would have been achieved by Member States acting alone). To assess these criteria, the 
evaluation grid, presented in Annex III, includes evaluation questions, judgement criteria, 
quantitative and qualitative indicators and data sources, in line with the Better Regulation 
Guidelines. When possible, findings of this evaluation are compared to the data found in 
the ex ante, mid-term and ex post evaluations of the SRSP as points of comparison. 

This Staff Working Document (SWD) presents the Commission staff’s views on the 
mid-term evaluation of the TSI. This evaluation is informed by: (i) a supporting study3 
carried  out  by  an  independent  contractor  over  a  period  of  11  months  starting  on  21-
December-2023; (ii) a series of four internal workshops organised by DG REFORM; and 
(iii)  monitoring  data,  including  information  collected  after  the  closure  of  TSI  projects 
through the feedback mechanism4. The evaluation methods include a desk review (of DG 
REFORM  monitoring  data,  TSI  projects  documents,  and  other  publicly  available 
documents) and stakeholder consultations. Consultation activities included: (i) an open 
public  consultation;(ii)  three  surveys  targeting  TSI  stakeholders  (technical  support 
providers,  and  coordinating  and  beneficiary  authorities),receiving  289  responses;  (iii) 
three  focus  group  discussions,  gathering  a  total  of  37  participants;  and  (iv)  114 
interviews5. The evaluation also relies on several analyses, including : (i) a cost-benefit 
analysis; (ii) seven case studies, covering 98 projects in various policy areas ; and (iii) 

3  PPMI  and  CSES  (2025),  Supporting  study  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Technical  Support 

Instrument (2021-2027): final report. Publications Office:   
https://op.europa.eu/publication/catalogue_number/HT-01-25-000-EN-N. 

4 The feedback mechanism is explained in detail under Section 3.2. 
5 See all information and detailed analysis of stakeholders’ consultation in Annex V. 

5 

 
 
an  analysis  of  TSI  projects’  contribution  to  the  United  Nations  Sustainable 
Development Goals. 

The  evaluation  process  has  encountered  some  limitations,  particularly,  with  respect  to 
the assessment of effectiveness. The first main limitation relates to the nature and design 
of the TSI: the TSI Regulation does not include the actual adoption and implementation 
of reforms in Member States in the general and specific objectives of the instrument, but 
it but it rather focuses on ‘assisting national authorities in improving their capacity’. In 
addition, the TSI Regulation does not impose specific reporting obligations on Member 
States  concerning  the  use  of  the  support  measures  and  the  status  of  the  reforms 
supported. A second limitation relates to the current monitoring and evaluation system of 
TSI projects which does not capture in a systematic and objectively verifiable manner the  
achievements  of  TSI  projects,  especially  at  outcome  and  impact  level.  Data  collection 
tools  used  (such  as  surveys  and  questionnaires)  rely  on  self-reporting,  which  can 
introduce bias into the measurements. Third, the TSI started in 2021, and around half of 
projects from the 2021-2023 cycles had been closed by the time of this evaluation. The 
outcomes  and  the  longer-term  impacts  of  the  support  may  only  be  observable  in  the 
Member  States  after  some  years,  and  only  if  specific  reforms  have  actually  been 
implemented, so it is possible that several results of projects have not materialised yet. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  includes  mitigation  measures  to  address,  to  the  extent 
possible,  these  limitations  and  ensure  the  reliability  of  findings.  In  particular,  multiple 
data  sources  were  combined  and  cross-referenced,  for  example,  by  complementing  the 
perceptions  of  stakeholders  with  more  objective  data.  In  addition,  a  case  study  on  the 
follow-up  to  SRSP  projects  has  been  carried  out  to  better  analyse  the  use  of  technical 
support measures by Member States and their sustainability in the medium-term. 

It  is  important  to  acknowledge  the  aforementioned  limitations.  Firstly,  because 
acknowledging  them  better  prepares  the  ground  for  the  ex post  evaluation,  which  will 
enable a more accurate assessment of outcomes and impacts once the programme ends. 
Secondly,  recognising  these limitations provides valuable insights  that  can guide future 
planning  and  decision-making.  SG  REFORM  is  currently  working  on  several 
workstreams to improve monitoring and evaluation of the TSI, moving towards a more 
results-oriented monitoring  and evaluation  system  that might  improve the measurement 
of the medium- and long-term impacts of the TSI. 

This SWD is structured as follows: Section 2 summarises the objectives and expected 
outcomes of the TSI, while Section 3 describes how the situation has evolved since the 
TSI adoption in 2021. Section 4 presents the main findings of the evaluation by criteria 
and Section 5 provides conclusions and lessons learned. The annexes provide additional 
information  about  the  procedure  and  the  methodology  followed  for  this  evaluation,  the 
evaluation matrix, the cost-benefit analysis and results of the stakeholder consultation. 

6 

 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Description of the TSI and its objectives 

Building on the lessons learned and in continuation of the SRSP, the TSI was designed as 
a  response  to  the  need  to  provide  Member  States  authorities  with  technical  support  to 
design and implement reforms, as identified in the ex ante evaluation for the proposal of 
establishing  the  SRSP  Programme  (2015)  and  the  impact  assessment  of  the  Reform 
Support  Programme  (2018)6.  The  main  problems  identified  were  the  inadequate 
application  and  implementation  of  Union  legislation  and  the  slow  implementation  of 
reforms  across  Member  States,  and  mainly  explained  by  the  limited  and  uneven 
administrative and institutional capacity of public administration. 

The  general  objective  of  the  TSI  is  to  promote  the  Union’s  economic,  social  and 
territorial  cohesion  by  supporting  Member  States’  efforts  to  implement  reforms.  To 
achieve  the  general  objective,  the  TSI  has  the  specific  objectives  (Article 4  of  the  TSI 
Regulation)  of  assisting  national  authorities  in  improving  their  capacity  to:  (a)  design, 
develop and implement reforms; (b) prepare, amend, implement and revise recovery and 
resilience plans pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/241. 

These  objectives  respond  to  the  needs  and  challenges  faced  by  Member  States  in  their 
reform efforts, notably, the limited institutional and administrative capacity to implement 
reforms;  the  inadequate  application  and  implementation  of  EU  legislation  towards 
achieving Union’s fundamental goals; the slow and uneven implementation of structural 
reforms;  and  the  need  for  more  coordinated  response  and  preparedness  to  cope  with 
economic and social consequences of external shocks and crises such as the COVID-19 
and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 

The intervention logic, presented in Figure 1, includes the following specific elements7 
that are linked to the evaluation criteria: 

-  Needs and challenges addressed by the programme (as identified in the 2015 ex ante 
evaluation, the 2018 Impact Assessment and the TSI Regulation recitals). The extent 
to which the TSI is addressing the needs is assessed under relevance; 

-  General  and  specific  objectives  of  the  programme  as  stated  in  the  TSI  Regulation 
(Articles 3 and 4). The extent of the TSI contribution to these objectives is assessed 
under the effectiveness criterion; 
Inputs,  which  include  the  financial  as  well  as  the  human  resources  and 
administrative  processes  needed  to  manage  and  implement  the  TSI  are  assessed 
under the efficiency analysis; 

- 

-  Eligible activities and policy areas of the TSI as defined in its Regulation; 

-  Outputs, the tangible and measurable products, services or change of different types 
directly resulting from implementing the activities of TSI projects are assessed under 
the effectiveness criterion; 

6  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  document  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the Reform Support 
Programme. SWD (2018) 310. 

7 which are further elaborated on and detailly described in Annex 1 of the supporting study. 

7 

 
 
-  Outcomes, the medium-term changes the TSI projects will contribute to, as a follow-
up of the project by its  beneficiaries are assessed under  effectiveness. They can be 
institutional,  individual  (in  terms  of  behaviour  or  practice)  or  policy  change. 
Outcomes are beyond the direct control of the TSI intervention; 

- 

Impacts, the long-term or broader change at country, regional or sector level that the 
programme’s  implementation  is  expected  to  contribute  to  are  analysed  under 
effectiveness.  Given  that  this  mid-term  evaluation  is  performed  early  in  the 
implementation  of  the  TSI,  impacts  cannot  be  expected  to  have  significantly 
materialised yet. Impacts are beyond the direct control of the TSI intervention; 

-  Other EU programmes with similar objectives, and their relationship with the TSI 

is assessed under the coherence criterion; 

-  External  conditions  affecting  the  implementation  of  the  TSI  are  analysed  under 

effectiveness. 

8 

 
Figure 1- Intervention logic of the TSI 

9 

 
 
2.2.  Points of comparison 

This mid-term evaluation aims to capture the institutional and policy changes that the TSI 
has brought over time. To accurately assess the progress made in implementing the TSI 
and its performance, a comparative analysis is necessary, considering three key points of 
comparison: 

•  The  situation  before  the  intervention,  as  described  in  the  SRSP’s  ex ante 

evaluation published in November 20158. 

•  The situation during the mid-term evaluation of the SRSP, published in February 

2020, which used monitoring data from 20199. 

•  The  situation  during  the  ex post  evaluation  of  the  SRSP,  published  in  October 

2023 using the monitoring data of 202210. 

When  available,  points  of  comparison  are  detailed  in  the  evaluation  matrix  (see  Annex 
III) for each indicators used to answer the evaluation questions. The table below presents 
some  relevant  indicators,  with  quantified  data  measured  at  different  points  in  time,  to 
serve as comparison. 

Table 1- The main points of comparison 

Point of comparison 

Number  of 
infringement 
cases active at the end of the 
year9 (impact-level indicator) 
Share  of  SRSP/TSI  projects 
addressing 
country-
the 
recommendations 
specific 
(CSRs) 

Value in the ex ante 
evaluation of the 
SRSP 

Value in the mid-
term evaluation of 
the SRSP 

Value in the ex post 
evaluation of the 
SRSP 

2014: 1 347 cases 

2017: 1 561 cases 
2018: 1 571 cases 

2019: 1 564 cases 
2020: 1 787 cases 

n/a 

45% of the projects 

58% of the projects 

Progress in the 
implementation of country-
specific recommendations 
(CSRs)10 (impact-level 
indicator) 

2015: 
No/limited  progress: 
52% of CSRs 
Some  progress:  44% 
of 
CSRs 
Full/substantial 
progress: 4% of CSRs 

Execution of commitment 
and payment appropriations  

n/a 

No/limited progress: 
2017: 50% of CSRs 
2018: 61% of CSRs 
Some progress: 
2017: 49% of CSRs 
2018: 37% of CSRs 
Full/substantial 
progress: 
2017: 1% of CSRs 
2018: 3% of CSRs 
Commitment: 
2017: EUR 22.5 
million (100%) 

2019: 
No/limited  progress: 
60% of CSRs 
Some progress: 39% 
of CSRs 
Full/substantial 
progress: 1% of CSRs 

Commitment: 
2019: 
million (100%) 

EUR 78.68 

8 European Commission, 2015. Ex-ante Evaluation Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support 
Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 
1305/2013 

9 European Commission, 2020. Mid-term evaluation of the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) 

2017-2020 – Final evaluation report 

10  European  Commission,  2022.  Supporting  study  for  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Structural  Reform 

Support Programme (2017-2020) 

10 

 
 
 
EUR 83.97 

2018: EUR 29.35 
million (100%) 
Payment: 
2017: 
million (67%) 
2018: 
million (97%) 

2020: 
million (100%) 
Payment: 
2019: 
million (99%) 
2020: 
million (100%) 

EUR 2.63 

EUR 34.62 

EUR 15.23 

EUR 54.65 

Selection rate (ratio between 
submitted 
selected 
and 
requests) 

Number/share of technical 
support projects completed  

of 

Share 
beneficiary 
authorities  in  need  for  the 
further 
technical  support 
(survey data) 
Share 
beneficiary 
of 
authorities satisfied with the 
results  of  technical  support 
(survey data) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

2017: 59% 
2018: 33% 

2019: 45% 
2020: 37% 

SRSP 2017: 44 / 37% 
SRSP 2018: 10 / 8% 

SRSP 2017: 141 / 99% 
SRSP 2018: 122 / 49% 
SRSP 2019: 221 / 87% 
SRSP 2020: 122 / 49% 

65% 

83% 

n/a 

94% 

Sources:  compiled  by  PPMI,  based  on  European  Commission,  2020.  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Structural  Reform  Support 
Programme (SRSP) 2017-2020 – Final evaluation report. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/656262; European Commission, 2022. 
Supporting  study  for  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  (2017-2020),  Final  report. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b5da9cce-5115-11ee-9220-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (with the exception of 
two sources indicated in the footnotes of the table). 

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

3.1.  Evolution of the situation 

According  to  the  TSI  Regulation  (Article 9.1),  Member  States  wishing  to  receive 
technical  support  under  the  instrument  are  required  to  submit  a  request  for  technical 
support  to  the  Commission  by  31 October.  In  addition  to  this  annual  cycle  of  general 
calls, the TSI Regulation foresees dedicated calls to address specific emerging needs of 
Member  States  (Article 9.4),  as  well  as  requests  for  special  measures  in  the  case  of 
unforeseen  and  duly  justified  urgencies  or  circumstances  requiring  an  immediate 
response (Article 12.7). 

Member States have submitted more than 1 700 requests for technical support since 2021 
(TSI 2021-2023 cycles). The number of requests submitted decreased over the evaluation 
period  (763  in  under  TSI  2021,  544  under  TSI  2022,  530  under  TSI  2023).  Under  the 
general call, Member States have submitted 706 requests for the TSI 2021, 512 for TSI 
2022, 530 for TSI 2023. In addition, dedicated calls for requests were organised in 2021 
and 2022: in 2021 a dedicated call for support for EU Member States in preparing their 
resilience and recovery plan for which 38 requests were submitted; in 2022 a dedicated 
call to support EU Member States in dealing with the consequences of Russia’s war of 
aggression  against  Ukraine  (e.g.  in  welcoming  refugees  from  Ukraine  and  phasing  out 
reliance  on  fossil  fuels  from  Russia),  for  which  32  requests  were  submitted11. 

11 Data based on TSI annual reports: 
European Commission, 2023. Report from the Commission to the  European Parliament and the Council, 

Technical Support Instrument Annual Report 2021 and Annual Report 2022. 

11 

 
 
 
Additionally,  in  2022,  Croatia  submitted  four  requests  under  Article 7  of  the  TSI 
Regulation, which allows Member States to request additional TSI support at their own 
expense.  Furthermore,  four  Member  States  submitted  requests  under  Article 7.2  of  the 
RRF Regulation, which is a special mechanism used by some Member States to include 
in their RRP (as estimated costs) payments for additional technical support from the TSI. 
In  total,  voluntary  contributions  reached  3.6  million  made  in  2022  under  the  RRF 
Regulation  (Article 7.2).  Along  the  TSI  early  implementation,  DG  REFORM  has 
developed  new  features  to  address  evolving  needs  and  challenges  in  convergence  with 
EU  priorities,  fostering  collaboration  and  exchange  of  experiences  between  Member 
States. Since 2022, flagships projects were introduced to support reforms largely needed 
across  Member  States  and  linked  to  top  EU  priorities.  Flagships  proposed  for  the  TSI 
2022 were focused on the digital and green transitions, and other priorities such as social 
Europe,  a  more  efficient  public  administration  and  regional  coordination,  equality, 
combating  child  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  migrant  integration  and  support  to  the 
tourism  ecosystem.  In  2023,  flagships  covered  six  thematic  pillars:  green  transition; 
support to children and youth; health, economic, social and institutional resilience; digital 
transformation; social and territorial cohesion; smart sustainable and inclusive growth. 

Multi-country  projects  have  also  been  instituted  as  an  essential  component  of  TSI, 
bringing  a  cross-border  dimension  to  the  provision  of  technical  support.  Starting  with 
two  multi-country  projects  under  TSI  2021,  the  number  of  multi-country  projects  has 
increased  constantly,  with  21  projects  under  TSI  2022  and  35  multi-country  projects 
under  TSI  2023.  Member  States  also  demonstrated  their  interest  in  strengthening 
cooperation at regional level through 21 projects in 202312. 

Another  important  milestone  is  the  Communication  on  Enhancing  the  European 
Administrative  Space  (ComPAct).  Adopted  in  2023,  the  ComPAct  proposes  concrete 
actions  to  help  public  administrations  meet  the  needs  of  people  and  businesses  across 
Europe.  The  actions  are  implemented  through  the  TSI,  and  other  EU  tools  such  as  the 
Digital  Europe  Programme.  As  part  of  the  ComPAct,  the  Public  Administration 
Cooperation Exchange (PACE) was also launched in 2023 as a TSI flagship project. 

To  address  the  regional  and  local  dimensions  of  some  challenges,  authorities  at  sub-
national level  are also  eligible for TSI  support. TSI has  encouraged,  multi-regional and 
multi-city  projects  for  example  through  flagship  projects.  Under  TSI  2022,  DG 
REFORM  proposed  a  flagship  project  specifically  addressed  to  the  regions  on 
‘Enhancing  cooperation  and  quality  of  public  administration’,  as  well  as  on  supporting 
the ‘Just Transition’ (to support Member States address gaps in the implementation of the 
just transition in their regions). Under TSI 2023, DG REFORM proposed a  flagship on 
‘digital 
to  promote  digital 
transformation efforts spearheaded by authorities operating at regional and local level. 

transformation  of  regional  and 

local  authorities’, 

European Commission, 2024. Report from the Commission to the  European Parliament and the Council, 

Technical Support Instrument - Annual Report 2023. 

12 European Commission, 2024. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, 

Technical Support Instrument - Annual Report 2023. 

12 

 
 
3.2.  Current state of play 

The delivery model 

Member States specify in their requests the type of project they consider best suited for 
their needs: 

•  Stand-alone projects in which each technical support project corresponds to a single 

reform in a single country, and 

•  Multi-country/  multi-regional  projects  in  which  each  technical  support  project  is 
composed of several country- or regional- specific reforms13. This type of project can 
be formed in different ways: 

o 

o 

through a single coordinated submission with other Member States, in which 
one  authority  leads  and  initiates  the  request  and  requested  support  measures 
are identical for all participating authorities14; 
through in parallel submissions of individual requests by each Member State 
in which support measures are more adapted to their specific needs15; 

o  based on a merge of stand-alone projects with similar objectives, proposed by 

DG REFORM and subject to the agreement of Member States. 

Member  States  have  designated  within  their  governance  structures  a  national 
coordinating authority to facilitate the coordination and submission of technical support 
requests, as well as to act as the main interlocutor regarding the overall implementation 
of  the  TSI.  The  actual  recipients  of  technical  support  are  the  public  entities,  the 
beneficiary  authorities,  such  as  ministries,  regulatory  authorities,  public  agencies, 
regional/local authorities and other public bodies that have requested support. 

The  Commission  analyses  the  eligibility  and  compliance  of  requests  for  support 
submitted by the Member States based on the principles and assessment criteria defined 
in the TSI Regulation, including the context of the European Semester16 The assessment 
and  selection  process  is  clearly  defined  and  standardised,  and  it  includes  specific 
guidance  to  main  stakeholders  involved  to  ensure  consistency  in  the  application  of  the 
criteria, 
the  successful 
implementation  of  projects  are  met.  During  the  analysis  of  requests,  DG  REFORM 
consults  regularly  other  Commission  departments  and  DGs  to  ensure  that  the  technical 
support provided under the TSI is aligned with EU policies, does not duplicate other EU 
actions and funding and creates synergies with other EU programmes. 

facilitate  decision-making  and  ensure  conditions 

for 

Based  on  TSI  annual  reports,  the  number  of  requests  selected  decreased  over  the 
evaluation  period  (277  in  under  TSI  2021,  239  under  TSI  2022,  231  under  TSI  2023), 
representing less than half of the requests submitted. 

13 Each country- or regional- specific component of the project is referred to as a reform. 
14 Referred to as ‘on behalf’ modality. 
15 Referred to as ‘in parallel’ submission of a multi-country requests. 
16 In line with Article 9.5, requests are analysed taking into account the principles of transparency, equal 
treatment,  sound  financial  management;  based  on  the  criteria  of  urgency,  breadth  and  depth  of  the 
challenges  identified,  support  needs  in  respect  of  the  policy  areas  concerned,  analysis  of  socio-
economic indicators, institutional and general administrative capacity of concerned Member States. 

13 

 
 
The  TSI  is  implemented  through  Financing  Decisions  and  annual  work  programmes, 
approved by the College, which set out the support measures to be implemented for the 
year  concerned,  the  dedicated  annual  budget  and  the  expected  results.  After  the  annual 
financing  decision  is  made, cooperation  and  support  plans (CSPs)17 are signed  between 
the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  concerned18.  CSPs  include  priority  areas  of 
support  as  well  as  the  estimated  financial  contribution  of  the  technical  support. 
According  to  the  TSI  Regulation  (Article 9.6),  the  CSPs  also  identify,  separately  from 
other technical support, the measures linked to the recovery and resilience plans (RRPs) 
for Member States19. 

To implement the selected technical support projects, the Commission leverages the best 
available  expertise,  based  on  needs  and  objectives  expressed  by  the  Member  States. 
Technical expertise can be provided either directly by the Commission through in-house 
expertise or by external providers, using direct or indirect management modes. Technical 
support  providers  include  European  or  international  organisations,  experts  from  EU 
Member  States’  national  administrations  or  private  sector  contractors.  DG  REFORM 
carries  out,  among  other  tasks,  the  financial  management  of  the  contracts,  including 
payments to technical support providers. 

DG REFORM is constantly involved from the design of a project to its implementation 
and evaluation. Once the requests are selected and the implementation mode is defined, 
policy  officers  in  DG  REFORM  engage  actively  with  national  authorities  in  designing 
the project  together,  for  instance with  regard to  shaping  and refining the  project  scope, 
objectives and expected results, activities and outputs or deliverables. Policy officers are 
actively  involved  in  the  management  and  implementation  of  technical  support  projects 
and  in  ensuring  their  quality,  including  via  meticulous  reviews  of  deliverables  and 
outputs.  They  also  ensure  smooth  and  clear  communication  between  technical  support 
providers  and  beneficiary  authorities,  promoting  mutual  understanding.  Each  project 
steering committee also includes a member of DG REFORM staff, together with officials 
from the national authorities. This ensures the project remains aligned with the national 
and EU priorities and adapts to the evolving context if needed. 

DG  REFORM  coordinates  its  work  with  other  Commission  departments  through  a 
permanent  network  of  representatives  of  other  Directorates-Generals.  This  cooperation 
ensures  that  the  technical  support  provided  under  the  TSI  is  aligned  with  EU  policies, 
does  not  duplicate  other  EU  action,  and  contributes  to  synergies  with  other  EU 
programmes. It also facilitates access to technical expertise available in the Commission 
or easily mobilised by other EU programmes. 

17 Article 9.5 established the Cooperation and Support Plans mechanism between the Commission and the 

Member States. 

18Article 10  establishes  that  ‘the  Commission  shall  transmit,  with  the  consent  of  the  Member  State 
concerned,  the  cooperation  and  support  plan  simultaneously  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the 
Council  without  undue  delay.’  The  Member  State  concerned  may  refuse  to  give  such  consent  in  the 
case of sensitive or confidential information the disclosure of which would jeopardise public interests 
of the Member State. 

19 as defined in Article 18 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

14 

 
 
The role of national coordinating authorities is not specified in the Regulation and, as a 
result,  roles  and  responsibilities  differ  across  Member  States  (see  box  below). 
Consultation  activities  revealed  that  the  absolute  majority  of  coordinating  authorities 
reported  not  being  involved  in  the  monitoring  of  the  projects  and  no  coordinating 
authorities reported being involved in the follow-up after the end of the TSI projects. 

Box 1 - The role of national coordinating authorities in the TSI 

Background  information  on  the  role  of  coordinating  authorities:  there  is  no  legal  basis  defining  the 
concept  and  role  of  the  coordinating  authorities  (i.e.  no  references  in  the  SRSP  or  TSI  regulations). 
However, the importance of having a central contact point in Member States became evident very early on. 
In 2016, the SRSS asked each Member State to nominate a  coordinating authority, with the main goal to 
act as an interlocutor of the SRSS. The mandate of the coordinating authorities was further detailed in the 
SRSP  2017  instructions  (‘the  requests  should  be  submitted  by  the  coordinating  authorities’)  and  the 
subsequent  cooperation  and  support  plans  (‘the  coordinating  authority  is  responsible  for  monitoring  the 
effective implementation of the  measures envisaged and achievement of the objectives set out under this 
Cooperation  and  Support  Plan,  and  for  initiating  corrective  actions  as  needed’).  In  2023,  noting  that  the 
scope and size of technical support provided to the Member States largely increased, and together with it, 
the importance and complexity of the role of the  coordinating authorities, DG REFORM proposed to the 
Network of Coordinating Authorities to review the mandate of these actors. The proposal for an advanced 
mandate  was  included  as  an  annex  of  subsequent  CSPs  and  emphasised  their  crucial  role  in  the  TSI 
processes  (including  coordination,  monitoring  and  evaluation).  The  proposal  made  did  not  require  a 
modification of the TSI Regulation. 

Key  findings  from the  mid-term  evaluation:  most  interviewed  coordinating  authorities  identified  three 
key  roles  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  TSI  in  their  Member  State:  communication,  support  for 
beneficiary authorities in preparation of requests and, in some  cases,  prioritisation of requests. In a 
few Member States, coordinating authorities are also performing monitoring activities. 

•  Communication:  a  few  Member  States  developed  a  network  of  the  TSI  focal  points across  the 
public  institutions  to  facilitate  communication  and  support  both  programme  and  individual 
projects  implementation.  Other  authorities  indicated  using  such  measures  as  newsletters  and 
mailing  lists.  Finally,  coordinating  authorities  support  DG  REFORM  in  the  implementation  of 
strategic, thematic, and technical roll-out events. 

•  Coordination  to  avoid  double  funding:  In  their  approach  to  the  prioritisation  of  requests,  the 
majority  of  coordinating  authorities  reported  paying  specific  attention  to  avoid  the  risk  of 
overlapping projects and their funding. 

•  Prioritisation of requests: the coordinating authorities in Member States that are prioritising the 
requests emphasised that this process ensures the projects’ alignment with the national priorities 
and  the  ownership  of  potential  beneficiaries.  For  instance,  the  Estonian  coordinating  authority 
developed a few-steps request preparation process, including a one-page presentation and a pitch 
of  the  request  idea.  The  Maltese  coordinating  authority  aims  to  have  more  holistic  projects, 
therefore  puts  additional  effort  in  bringing  different  institutions  together  for  the  preparation  of 
requests.  However,  some  coordinating  authorities  noted  that  requests  are  not  prioritised  in  their 
Member State, which is typically due to reluctance to put some institutions in front of the others, a 
generally  low  number of requests  in  the  country  or a  limited  overview  of  the national priorities 
from the position of the coordinating authority. 

•  Monitoring: the absolute majority of coordinating authorities reported not being involved in the 
monitoring  of  the  projects.  In  Malta,  a  quarterly  monitoring  system  is  put  in  place,  with  two 
reports  prepared  by  the  focal  points  in  ministries  and  two  events  organised  over  a  year.  No 
coordinating authorities reported being involved in the follow-up after the end of the TSI projects. 
While this was mostly explained by the limited resources dedicated to the function of coordinating 
authority,  the  need  for  more  guidance  from  DG  REFORM  was  expressed  in  a  survey  to 
coordinating authorities performed by DG REFORM. 

The  interview  evidence  mildly  suggests  that  the  role  of  coordinating  authorities  may  depend  on  their 
position in the institutional  network (e.g. institutions responsible for the management of the EU funds 

15 

 
have  a  better  oversight  of  the  projects  supported  by  the  EU  programmes  and  instruments;  authorities 
located in the Office of the Government have a better overview of national priorities) and the size of public 
administration (representatives of coordinating authorities in smaller Member States pointed to the benefit 
of easier communication, coordination and overview). 

Source: based on Commission analysis and PPMI interviews, desk research and analysis. 

DG REFORM assesses the support it provides to Member States both at programme and 
at project level, in order to provide evidence of its achievements in the Member States. 
At  programme  level,  DG  REFORM  evaluates,  at  mid-term  and  ex post,  whether  the 
programme delivers as  expected, remains  relevant  and fit for purpose, following  Better 
Regulation and TSI Regulation requirements. 

At  project  level,  DG  REFORM  has  put  in  place  in  2019  a  two-step  ‘feedback 
mechanism’  to  monitor  and  assess  individual  TSI  projects  after  their  implementation. 
First,  after  closure  of  each  technical  support  project,  ‘satisfaction  questionnaires’  are 
respectively  sent  to  main  stakeholders  (Commission  policy  officers,  beneficiary 
authorities,  and  technical  support  providers)  to  gather  feedback  on  the  project’s  design 
and implementation, the interaction between the stakeholders, as well as on the scope for 
improvement  and  lessons  learned.  Second,  6,  12  or  18  months  later,  another  ‘outcome 
questionnaire’ is sent to the beneficiary authorities only, to assess the extent to which the 
expected project outcomes were achieved, with a score ranging between 1-10. Feedback 
extracted from this mechanism is used to feed into the programme evaluation, as well as 
in communication on the TSI and in the Annual Activity Report. 

In  addition,  DG  REFORM  monitors  and  regularly  reports  on  the  programme’s 
implementation  through  the  TSI  annual  reports,  that  is  submitted  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council as foreseen in the TSI Regulation (Article 15). 

Progress in the implementation of the TSI projects 

Over  the  evaluation  period,  611  technical  support  projects  in  total  have  been 
implemented  under  three  rounds  of  the  TSI  (in  2021,  2022,  and  2023)20.  In  total,  these 
technical support projects led to 886 national project components – 281 in 2021, 280 in 
2022,  and  325  in  2023.  The  number  of  projects  gradually  decreased  over  the  period, 
namely from 258 under the 2021 round to 186 under the 2022 round, and to  167 under 
the  2023  round.  However,  this  overall  decrease  is  explained  by  a  shift  in  the  type  of 
projects funded: while the total number of stand-alone projects decreased, the number of 
multi-country projects increased from 2 (covering 25 national project components) in the 
2021 round to 21 (i.e. 115 national project components) in the 2022 round, and further to 
35  (i.e.  193  national  project  components)  in  the  2023  round,  as  shown  in  Figure  2.  As 
suggested  by  the  supporting  external  study,  the  growing  number  of  multi-country 
projects over the evaluation period indicates the TSI’s capacity to contribute to an overall 
increase in the total number of national project components supported. This reflects DG 

20  The  total  number  of  projects  vary  from  the  external  study  supporting  the  mid-term  evaluation 
considering  data  extractions  were  done  at  different  moments  of  time  (external  study:  19/07/2024; 
SWD:  20/11/2024).  Variations  are  explained  mostly  by  re-programming.  The  most  updated 
information is presented in this SWD. 

16 

 
 
REFORM’s  strategic  approach,  focusing  on  projects  with  larger  budgets  to  enable  the 
provision of support to multiple Member States simultaneously. On average, considering 
TSI  cycles  2021  -  2023,  a  multi-country  project  has  five  participating  countries  with  a 
median  number  of  three  countries  per  project  for  the  aforementioned  cycles.  Projects 
with  the  highest  participation  of  countries  include  the  EU  Supervisory  Digital  Finance 
Academy  (26  countries),  the  Green  Budgeting  Framework  Training  Programme  (23 
countries) and the support to REPowerEU (17). 

Figure 2- Distribution of TSI projects and number of national project components 
(2021-2023) 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

281

256

280

165

2

21

325

132

35

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

TSI 2023

Multicountry

Standalone

Reforms

The increase of multi-country projects has also contributed to the increase in the average 
budget of projects. The average project’s budget has increased from EUR 0.46 million in 
TSI 2021, to EUR 0.65 million in TSI 2022 and to EUR 0.71 million in TSI 2023. The 
average  budget  of  stand-alone  projects  (considering  2021  to  2023  TSI  cycles)  is 
EUR 0.49 million while multi-country projects’ budget is EUR 1.48 million for the three 
TSI cycles covered. 

Figure 3- Average budget per project in EUR million (2021-2023) 

1,80

1,60

1,40

1,20

1,00

0,80

0,60

0,40

0,20

0,00

1,63

1,45

0,68

0,46

0,46

0,65

0,53

0,51

0,71

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

TSI 2023

Standalone

Multicountry

Average

17 

 
 
 
During 2021-2023, stand-alone projects account for about 91% (553 projects) of all TSI 
projects,  while  multi-country  projects  account  for  about  9%  (58  projects).  In  terms  of 
types  of  requests  for  technical  support,  general  requests  were  the  most  common, 
constituting around 79% of all TSI projects (481), while the flagship requests for support 
accounted  for  about  21%  of  all  projects  (130).  Overall,  around  20%  of  stand-alone 
projects  (111)  and  33%  of  multi-country  projects  (19)  were  flagships.  The  detailed 
distribution by types of request is presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 4- Distribution of TSI projects by type of request (2021-2023) 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

254

2

2

12

9

95

70

93

39

25

10

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

TSI 2023

Multi-country  General request Multi-country  Flagship request

Standalone General request

Standalone Flagship request

Out  of  the  611  projects  within  the  2021-2023  rounds  of  the  TSI,  336  were  completed 
(55%), while one project of TSI 2023 had not yet started (0.2%), and 274 projects of the 
programme were still ongoing (44.8%) at the time of this mid-term evaluation. The level 
of  completion  varied  across  different  rounds  of  the  programme  with  95.7%  of  projects 
(247  out  of  258)  from  the  2021  round  and  45.7%  of  projects  (85  out  of  186)  from  the 
2022  round  and  2.4%  of  projects  (4  out  of  167)  completed  for  TSI  2023,  as  shown  in 
Figure 5. 

Figure 5- TSI projects by implementation status (2021-2023) 

11

247

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

101

85

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

Completed

Ongoing

Not started

18 

1

162

4
TSI 2023

 
 
 
The  largest  number  of  projects,  25%  for  all  rounds,  was  implemented  in  the  fields  of 
sustainable  growth  and  business  environment  (153  projects),  governance  and  public 
administration  (120  projects),  and  labour  market,  education,  health  and  social  services 
(113 projects) (see Figure 6). 

Figure 6- Distribution of TSI projects by thematic area (2021-2023) 

Financial Sector & Access to Finance

38

18

17

Labour Market, Education, Health & Social
Services

44

38

31

Sustainable Growth & Business Environment

62

51

40

Governance & Public Administration

42

41

37

Revenue Administration & Public Financial
Management

55

21

21

Horizontal Policies

17

17

21

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160 180

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

TSI 2023

Over the period of analysis, the highest share of multi-country projects was in the field of 
revenue  administration  and  public  financial  management  (24%)  and  governance  and 
public administration (22%). 

As  indicated  in  the  external  study  supporting  the  mid-term  evaluation,  Member  States’ 
demand for technical support has increased significantly over the years. All 27 Member 
States  benefited  from  technical  support  regardless  of  their  size,  geography  or  their 
administrative capacity. DG REFORM has encouraged the continuous exchange of good 
practices  and  expertise  with  and  between  Member  States,  which  in  turn  supported  the 
Member States in preparing, designing, and implementing cutting-edge reforms. 

During the TSI rounds 2021 - 2023, Greece (7.2% of all projects), Portugal (5.8%), Spain 
(5.4%) and Italy (5.4%) had the overall highest share of the TSI projects (see Figure 7). 
Fewer  technical  support  projects  were  implemented  in  Luxembourg  (0.7%  of  all 
projects), Sweden (1.5%) and Denmark (1.6%). As indicated in  the external  supporting 
study, these trends resemble the ones identified in the ex post evaluation of the SRSP. As 
for multi-country projects, countries with the highest participation rate include Belgium 
(6.3%), Germany (5.4%), Spain (5.4%) and Greece (5.1%). 

19 

 
 
Figure 7- TSI projects per Member States by project type (2021-2023) 

17

47

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

17

16 18

11 12

21

12

17 14

11

17

11 10 8

12 12 9 12

34 32 30

33 32

27

25

22 23 22

21 21 23

16

18 17 19 16

y
l
a
t
I

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a
o
P

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

15

14

18

8

5

14 16

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

6

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

7

7

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

6

7

n
e
d
e
w
S

3
3

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

12 10

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

Total standalone projects

Participation in multi-country project (number of reforms)

In  terms  of  delivery  methods21  for  the  2021-2023  annual  cycles,  projects  were 
implemented 
through  810  agreements/contracts  or  components  of  contribution 
agreements.  Procurement  (314  cases;  mostly  implemented  by  private  companies)  and 
international 
components  of  contribution  agreements  (262;  mostly  awarded 
organisations)  were  most  often  used  to  provide  technical  support  to  Member  States,  as 
shown by Figure 8. It is worth noting that contribution agreements might  cover several 
components or projects. A single project can use a mix of methods of implementation to 
tailor the support to the needs of the Member State. 

to 

refers 

‘method  of 

the  Financial  Regulation 

21  While 
to  distinguish 
to 
direct/indirect/shared management,  the term  ‘delivery methods’ (as used in the manual of procedures of 
DG  NEAR/INTPA and by DG BUDG)  is also used in this evaluation to refer to more  specific methods. 
Delivery  methods  used  by  the  TSI  include:  Public  procurement  (technical  support  provided  by  service 
providers under a framework procedure or a negotiated procedure); Grants (technical support provided by 
Member States’ authorities, international organisations and other private or public bodies); delegation and 
contribution  agreements  (technical  support  provided  by  international  organisations  and  other  private  or 
public bodies); TAIEX-TSI Peer-2-Peer (the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument of 
the European Commission); EC internal expertise and private experts; Other administrative arrangements. 

implementation’ 

20 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8- Delivery methods used to implement the TSI (2021-2023) 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

153

88

73

85

94

94

74

15

10

11

7

8

29

39

30

TSI 2021

TSI 2022

TSI 2023

According to the TSI Regulation22, the types of actions eligible for financing under the 
TSI  include  expertise  related  to  policy  advice/change,  formulation  of  strategies  and 
reform  roadmaps  and  legislative,  institutional,  structural  and  administrative  reforms; 
short-term or long-term provision of experts, to perform tasks in specific domains or to 
carry  out  operational  activities;  capacity-building  and  related  supporting  actions  at  all 
governance  levels,  also  contributing  to  the  empowerment  of  civil  society;  carrying  out 
studies,  including  feasibility  studies,  research,  analyses  and  surveys,  evaluations  and 
impact assessments. 

A recent analysis23 of the deliverables and outputs expected by the TSI shows that the 
total number of outputs / deliverables to be provided to Member States surpasses 4 100 
over the evaluation period. Based on the typology of outputs presented in the intervention 
logic of the TSI (see Figure 1), outputs include analytical reports, documents to support 
legislative proposals and law amendments, documents to support policy implementation 
and  institutional  reforms,  capacity-building  deliverables,  communication  deliverables, 
TAIEX deliverables24, and administrative documents25. As shown by Figure 9, the most 
frequent  type  of  deliverable  produced  by  TSI  projects  are  documents  to  support  policy 
implementation  and  institutional  reforms  representing  46%  of  all  outputs/deliverables 
expected from TSI projects. 

22 Article 8. 
23 A specific methodology has been used to count the number of outputs and deliverables. The exercise was 
in  signed 

carried  out  by  DG  REFORM  considering  outputs  and  deliverables 
contracts/agreements. 

indicated 

24  TAIEX  allows  experts  from  national  administrations  to  exchange  expertise  through  expert  missions, 

study visits and workshops. 

25  Types  of  deliverables 

that  cannot  be  classified 

in  a  specific  category  such  as  kick 

off/inception/progress/final reports. 

21 

 
 
 
Figure 9- Outputs and deliverables expected from TSI projects (2021-2023) 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

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

4.1.1.  Effectiveness- How successful is the TSI in progressing towards its objectives? 
How sustainable are the effects of the reform support projects and how could 
the sustainability of effects be increased? 

Progress towards the programme objectives 

Evidence from the supporting study shows that during the period of 2021-2023, the TSI 
successfully pursued its objectives as set in the TSI Regulation26. 

Looking at its general objectives, survey results show that the TSI most strengthened the 
administrative  and  institutional  capacities  to  address  the  challenges  identified  in  the 
country-specific  recommendations  (CSRs)  (81%,  i.e.  116  out  of  143  beneficiary 
authorities agreeing  to  a high  or moderate  extent), to  facilitate socially  inclusive, green 
and digital transition (72%), and to design and implement structural reforms (71%). The 
programme’s contribution to strengthening the administrative and institutional capacities 
was  also  important  regarding  encouraging  investment,  increasing  competitiveness  and 
achieving sustainable economic and social  convergence, resilience and recovery (55%), 
implementing  EU  law  (51%),  preparing,  amending,  implementing  and  revising  RRPs 
(49%), and promoting Union’s economic, social and territorial cohesion (47%). 

One of the specific objectives of the TSI is to improve capacity of national authorities 
to  design,  develop  and  implement  reforms.  All  national  coordinating  authorities 
responding  to  the  survey  agreed  that  the  quality  of  design  and  implementation  of 

26  The  TSI  general  objectives  (Article 3  of  the  TSI  Regulation)  and  specific  objectives  (Article 4)  are 

presented in the TSI Intervention Logic, Figure 1. 

22 

 
 
 
 
structural and administrative reforms in Member States have improved since the start of 
the TSI. The programme supported all types of administrative capacities: 
•  Structures (overall institutional design; coordination and accountability of Member 
States  authorities  and  other  bodies;  clear  delineation  of  responsibilities  and  tasks 
between different institutions; interrelationships between different institutions); 
•  Human  resources  (numbers  and  quality  of  staff  in  terms  of  skills  and  expertise; 
human  resource  management  systems  that  structure  incentives;  securing  the  timely 
availability of experienced, skilled, motivated staff for specific functions and tasks); 
•  Systems  and  tools  (availability  of  instruments,  methods,  guidelines,  manuals, 

systems, procedures, forms, etc., including adaptability to procedures)27. 

Another specific objective is to improve capacity of national authorities to prepare, 
amend,  implement  and  revise  RRPs  in  the  RRF  framework.  Through  the  TSI  annual 
cycles  (2021-2023)  and  the  two  dedicated  calls  for  recovery  and  resilience  plans 
implementation and REPowerEU in 2021 and 2022, Member States received support for 
the  preparation,  amendment,  revision,  and  implementation  of  their  RRPs.  The  TSI  has 
also  supported  the  implementation  of  national  RRPs  by  supporting  more  than  500 
projects linked to specific RRP milestones28. 

Through  the  dedicated  calls,  around  33  projects  in  23  Member  States  specifically 
supported  the  preparation  and  general  implementation  of  the  RRPs.  The  TSI  has  also 
supported  policy-specific  interventions,  across  various  policy  areas  (e.g.  the  green 
transition  component  of  the  RRP  in  Spain,  the  component  on  improving  the  efficiency 
and  transparency  of  public  procurement  of  the  RRP  in  Portugal  and  the  component 
tackling  early  school  leaving  of  the  RRP  in  Romania).  Relevant  capacity-building 
support was also provided under the TSI to some EU Member States to apply the DNSH 
(‘do  no  significant  harm’)  principle  in  the  RRF  and  other  Union  funds  (building  on 
previous analyses carried out by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre29), or 
to the preparation of the national plans for digital skills. 

The  RRF  Regulation  establishes  that  Member  States  may  propose  to  include  in  their 
recovery  and  resilience  plan,  as  estimated  costs,  the  payments  for  additional  technical 
support  in  accordance  with  the  TSI  Regulation  (Article 7).  In  total,  voluntary 
contributions  reached  3.6  million  EUR  made  in  2022  under  the  RRF  Regulation 
(Article 7.2). The mid-term evaluation of the RRF30 highlighted how the TSI contributed 
to supporting the implementation of national RRPs by building necessary administrative 
capacity and producing specific deliverables.  

27 European Commission, 2020. Roadmaps for Administrative Capacity Building: Practical Toolkit. These 
factors  are  also  reflected  in  the  OECD’s  analytical  framework  that  was  designed  to  assess 
administrative capacity in terms of people, organisation (including systems, tools, business processes, 
etc.),  strategic  planning  and  coordination,  as  well  as  enabling  framework  conditions.  OECD,  2020. 
Strengthening  Governance  of  EU  Funds  under  Cohesion  Policy:  Administrative  Capacity  Building 
Roadmaps. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

28 DG REFORM, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, Delivering on Reforms, 2024, p. 15. 
29  Beltran  Miralles,  M.,  Gourdon,  T.,  Seigneur,  I.,  Arranz  Padilla,  M.  and  Pickard  Garcia,  N.,  The 
implementation  of  the  ‘Do  No  Significant  Harm’  principle  in  selected  EU  instruments,  Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/18850, JRC135691  

30 ECORYS, CEPS, CSIL, NIESR, and Wavestone, 2023. Study supporting the mid-term Evaluation of the 

Recovery and Resilience Facility. Final Report. 

23 

 
 
In terms of thematic areas, survey results show that the TSI is perceived to contribute 
to  a  high  extent  to  the  efficient  and  transparent  functioning  of  public  institutions31 
and the digitalisation of public services32. Since the adoption of the ComPAct in 2023, 
more  attention  was  given  to  the  modernisation  of  public  administrations  (including 
human resource management and training of civil servants) (see box below). A flagship 
PACE was also launched – an ‘Erasmus for civil servants’ to foster knowledge  sharing 
and  networking  among  European  civil  servants.  This  integrated  approach  promotes 
harmonisation  within  the  European  Administrative  Space,  complementing  other  EU 
policy instruments for the modernisation of public administrations. 

Box 2- The contribution of the TSI to administrative modernisation 

In 2023, the Commission adopted ComPAct that aims to enhance the European Administrative 
Space  by  reinforcing  its  support  for  the  administrative  modernisation  of  the  Member  States, 
through  three  pillars  (the  Public  Administration  Skills  Agenda,  capacity  for  Europe’s  Digital 
Decade and capacity to lead the green transition) and a set of 25 associated actions. In response to 
this  communication,  DG  REFORM  organised  technical  support  in  the  field  of  governance  and 
public  administration  around 
the  three  pillars  of  ComPAct.  This  approach  promotes 
harmonisation  within  the  European  Administrative  Space  while  still  offering  targeted  technical 
support to specific projects based on requests from Member States. 

More  specifically,  a  flagship  ‘Public  Administration  Cooperation  Exchange’  (PACE;  ‘Erasmus 
for  civil  servants’),  which  aims  at  creating  a  European  community  of  civil  servants  that  share 
good  practices  and  create  bilateral  contacts,  was  established  under  the  TSI  in  2023.  ‘Project-
based’ exchanges provide civil servants with tangible knowledge and experience in the specific 
tasks undertaken by host institutions. PACE already organised 70 exchanges across 17 Member 
States for more than 300 participants. 

This  makes  it  possible  to  use  technical  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  EU’s  policy  for 
support  to  public  administration  reform  in  an  effective  and  coherent  way  together  with  other 
available  instruments  (such  as  the  work  of  DG  REFORM  as  a  knowledge  hub  on  public 
administration  in  the  EU  Member  States  or  the  Expert  Group  on  Public  Administration  and 
Governance gathering experts from all national administrations). For instance, some examples of 
successful  technical  support  projects  will  be  showcased  in  a  newly  developed  toolbox  for 
practitioners on the quality of public administration. 

The  case  study  on  TSI  projects  supporting  public  administration  and  human  resources 
management  demonstrated  that  the  TSI  projects  contributed  to  the  development  of  human 
resources  management  capacity  that  is  in  line  with  ComPAct,  the  Public  Administration  Skills 
Agenda and the EU Skills Agenda. It also highlighted the importance of beneficiary authorities 
having sufficient capacities to adapt the outputs of technical support after the implementation of 
projects based on their national needs and strategic plans. However, this case study did not assess 
any technical support projects funded from the 2023 round of the TSI. Given the limited evidence 
available on the implementation of ComPAct as a recently launched initiative, it is important to 
ensure its monitoring. 

Source: PPMI based on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European 
Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 
2023.  Enhancing  the  European  Administrative  Space  (ComPAct),  COM/2023/667  final;  DG  REFORM, 
2024. Delivering on Reforms, p. 20; DG REFORM, 2024. Technical Support Instrument - Annual Report 
2023; Fasone, C., Dirri, A., & Guerra, Y. (eds.), 2023. Established EU Rule of Law Instruments: State-of-
the-Art Working Paper. LUISS University. 

31 52% of coordinating authorities (15 out of 29) agreeing to a high extent and 31% to a moderate extent. 
32 48% of coordinating authorities (15 out of 31) agreeing to a high extent and 35% to a moderate extent. 

24 

 
 
The changes most frequently perceived by beneficiary authorities as resulting from TSI 
(to a high and moderate extent), were observed in Member States at various levels: 

•  Individual changes such as increased knowledge and skills of staff (94%, 66 out of 

70) and improved individual adaptability to change (77%, 43 out of 56); 

•  Organisational changes such as improved capacities for reform/policy formulation, 
development,  implementation  (89%,  55  out  of  62)  and  improved  organisational 
processes,  procedures,  methodologies  (88%,  59  out  of  67).  More  moderate  changes 
were seen in terms of improved human resource management (50%, 29 out of 58)33; 

•  Policy changes include the production of new information/knowledge (94%, 61 out 
of  65),  the  production  of  new  or  modified  ‘soft’  instruments  (e.g.  standards, 
guidelines  and  recommendations;  86%,  57  out  of  66)  or  ‘harder’  strategic  and 
legislative changes, such as the preparation of improved strategies and reform/policy 
documents  (83%, 50 out of 60). More moderate changes were observed in terms  of 
improved  application  and  implementation  of  EU  law  (54%,  30  out  of  56)  and  new 
legal  acts  adopted  or  existing  legal  acts  modified  (42%,  25  out  of  49).  This  is 
explained by the fact  that  changes to  the primary or secondary legislation are more 
challenging as they require the adoption by governments and/or parliaments. 

Among these changes, some are directly linked to the TSI projects (e.g. new information, 
guidelines and recommendations), while some require more time and follow-up actions 
by Member States (e.g. new legal acts adopted) and depend on other national factors. 

Achievement of TSI projects’ direct outputs 

Over  the  evaluation  period,  TSI  projects  expect  to  provide  to  Member  States  a  total 
number  of  more  than  4 100  outputs  and  deliverables.  According  to  the  results  of  the 
survey  to  beneficiary  authorities  and  providers,  the  most  frequent  types  of  outputs 
expected from the TSI projects in which respondents to the survey were involved include 
the following: 

•  Recommendations (expressed by 72%, 134 out of 186 of beneficiary authorities, 

88%, 60 out of 68 of technical support providers); 

•  Workshops  and  training,  including  related  material  (emphasised  by  70%,  130 

out of 186 of beneficiary authorities, 87%, 59 out of 68 of providers), 

•  Analysis  and  reports  (expressed  by  69%,  129  out  of  186  of  beneficiary 

authorities, 90%, 61 out of 68 of technical support providers); 

•  Action plans and roadmaps (expressed by 62%, 115 out of 186 of beneficiary 

authorities, 85%, 58 out of 68 of technical support providers); 

•  Guidelines  and  handbooks  (expressed  by  55%,  103  out  of  186  of  beneficiary 

authorities, 72%, 49 out of 68 of technical support providers). 

The  successful  implementation  of  TSI  projects  significantly  contributed  to  the 
achievement  of  quality  outputs34.  Almost  all  TSI  stakeholders  participating  in 
consultation  activities  were  highly  satisfied  with  the  outputs  and  success  of  the 
technical  support  projects.  Based  on  survey  findings,  91%  of  beneficiary  authorities 
(163 out  of 179), 94% of coordinating authorities (30 out  of 32), and 93% of technical 
support  providers  (62  out  of  67)  were  overall  very  satisfied  or  satisfied  with  their 

33 These findings are in line with the monitoring data, and the type of expected outcomes receiving more or 

less technical support under the TSI. 

34  Outputs  and  outcomes  expected  from  TSI  implementation  are  presented  in  the  intervention  logic 

(Figure 1). 

25 

 
 
participation in the TSI and the projects’ results. These findings are aligned with results 
collected  from  DG  REFORM  satisfaction  questionnaires  for  TSI  2021  –  2023  closed 
projects:  beneficiary  authorities  scored  the  overall  success  of  the  projects  8.75/10  in 
average.  Similarly,  beneficiary  authorities  reported  an  average  satisfaction  of  8.27/10 
related to the quality of the support delivered. 

Responses  to  open  questions  in  the  targeted  survey  revealed  the  main  reasons  of 
dissatisfaction  with  participation  in  the  TSI  and  the  projects’  results.  For  beneficiaries, 
they  were  most  often  linked  to  the  limited  capacity  and  expertise  of  technical  support 
providers and the insufficient quality  of their deliverables/outputs  that could  negatively 
affect  the  delivery  of  technical  support.  On  the  other  hand,  technical  support  providers 
expressed  that  the  requirement  for  beneficiary  approval  of  each  deliverable  can  cause 
delays in the execution of tasks and related payments, and even additional workload for 
providers, thus posing challenges to financial sustainability. 

Furthermore,  most  beneficiary  authorities  (strongly)  agreed  that  the  providers  of 
technical  support  had  the  required  expertise  and  skills  (91%,  154  out  of  168),  and 
89%  (144  out  of  163)  of  them  (strongly)  agreed  that  they  delivered  according  to  the 
expected quality. It should be noted that according to the survey, the quality of support 
delivered by public procurement was perceived as somewhat lower than that provided by 
the holders of grants and contribution agreements. Specifically, 16% of respondents (12 
out of 75) expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of technical support for procurement, 
compared to only 4% for grants and contribution agreements with pillar-assessed entities 
taken together (2 out of 45). 

Findings  from  the  case  studies  and  interviews  gave  further  insights  on  the  use  of 
different delivery methods, indicating that public procurement providers might be more 
suitable  for  delivering  more  technical  tasks  and  activities,  while  the  involvement  of 
international organisations can increase the reach of TSI results at EU level. 

In  relation  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  technical  support  projects  supporting  the 
implementation of RRPs, evidence from the case study shows that the TSI projects led 
to  the  adoption  of  new  procedures,  actions,  and  standards  aimed  at  enhancing  the 
implementation of the plans. These findings are in line with the mid-term evaluation of 
the RRF35 which highlighted how the TSI contributed to supporting the implementation 
of  national  RRPs  by  building  necessary  administrative  capacity  and  producing  specific 
through 
deliverables.  Similarly,  feedback  collected  from  beneficiary  authorities 
satisfaction  questionnaires 
in  overall,  projects  were  successfully 
implemented (8.8/10) and that the beneficiary authorities have or will use the delivery of 
the projects (an average score 8.5/10)36. 

indicates 

that 

Box 3- Outputs from a TSI project supporting communication of RRP impact 

In the example of a TSI multi-country project in eight Member States supporting communication 
of RRP impact, the following outputs were achieved: 

•  Provided capacity-building workshops to over 700 public officials in all eight Member States 
on  issues  of  common  interest  such  as  RRP  storytelling,  application  of  EU  visibility 

35 ECORYS, CEPS, CSIL, NIESR, and Wavestone, 2023. Study supporting the mid-term Evaluation of the 

Recovery and Resilience Facility. Final Report. 

36  Feedback  collected  through  satisfaction  questionnaires  of  12  projects  closed  related  to  RRP 

implementation. 

26 

 
 
•  Delivered  country-specific 

technical 

requirements or techniques to run effective RRP communication campaigns on social media. 
In  particular,  developed 
communication strategies for three Member States (Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Portugal) 
developed  and  put  in  place  26  communication  plans  for  four  Member  States  (Romania, 
Portugal, the Netherlands, Bulgaria) along with six communication manuals for five Member 
States  (Spain,  Portugal,  Latvia,  Cyprus,  Bulgaria)  and  77  communication  templates  for  all 
eight Member States. 

support  measures. 

•  Produced  and  distributed  over  177  communication  materials  (videos  (Belgium),  articles 
(Latvia),  posts (Cyprus),  infographics  (the  Netherlands) etc.)  on the  social media  platforms 
and  communication  channels  of  RRP  coordinating  authorities  and  implementing  bodies  in 
eight Member States. 

•  Launched  three  pilot  campaigns  in  Latvia  with  an  outreach  of  3.7  million  citizens.  Every 

third resident of Latvia was reached by this campaign with the focus on regions. 

•  Reviewed  national  websites  dedicated  to  RRP  communication  in  three  Member  States 
(Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Portugal),  supported  the  organisation  of  six  events  (Latvia,  Bulgaria, 
Spain, Portugal) and conducted two opinion polls in Bulgaria. 

Despite these positive finding, several challenges emerged during the implementation of 
the  TSI  2021  projects  supporting  RRPs.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  Recovery  and 
Resilience Facility (RRF) in February 2021 and given the need to support Member States 
timely  and  ahead  of  the  annual  cycle,  a  dedicated  call  was  organised  under  the  TSI  in 
July 2021 to respond to the specific emerging need for support for EU Member States to 
prepare,  amend  and  implement  their  RRPs.  Notwithstanding  efforts  to  timely  address 
Member  States’  technical  support  needs,  in  five  Member  States,  misalignments  were 
experienced between the deadlines of the RRP milestones and the delivery schedule of 
TSI support. 

Although  the  RRF  Regulation  acknowledged  the  possibility  of  technical  support  and 
even anticipated the integration of such support into the plans, during the definition of the 
plans,  technical  support  needs  were  not  consistently  included  (with  very  limited 
exceptions  such  as  Romania,  Croatia,  Greece  and  Cyprus).  Member  States  had  to 
therefore  resort  to  the  TSI  call  and  annual  cycles,  trying  to  align  TS  project  and  RRP 
timelines ex post. 

In the case of TSI support to preparation of RRPs, recommendations delivered by the TSI 
were  not  always  taken  forward  by  the  beneficiary  Member  States  and  included  in  the 
final plans adopted. For example in the case of REPowerEU,  16 out of the 17 Member 
States  that  received  technical  support  for  the  preparation  of  their  REPowerEU  chapters 
submitted these chapters to the Commission. However, the final chapters adopted did not 
always  include  all  measures  recommended  through  the  technical  support,  which  may 
hinder the achievement of outcomes.  

Achievement of TSI projects’ results 

Evidence  shows  that  the  TSI  has  made  good  progress  in  terms  of  achieving  its 
expected  outcomes,  which  highly  depends  on the  follow-up  and  use by  beneficiary 
authorities of outputs generated by TSI projects as well as on other national factors. 

In terms  of follow-up process,  evidence from  the case studies shows a  high utilisation 
rate  of  TSI  project  outputs,  stemming  from  the  implementation  of  action  plans, 
roadmaps, and legislative proposals. This was confirmed in the targeted survey, as a total 
of  28%  (18  out  of  65)  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  reported  their  projects  as 
closed/completed  stated  that  the  country’s  authorities  had  already  taken  a  legal  and  or 

27 

 
policy  decision,  43%  (28  out  of  65)  of  them  were  still  involved  in  planning  processes, 
and  20%  (13  out  of  65)  of  them  claimed  that  some  technical  support  deliverables  had 
been  incorporated  into  the  amendment,  implementation  or  revision  of  countries’  RRPs. 
Coordinating  authorities  expressed  similar  views,  with  50%  (12  out  of  24)  of  them, 
indicating that a legal and or policy decision has been already taken as a follow-up of the 
TSI  project.  However,  interviews  and  focus  group  discussions  suggest  that  the  most 
important challenge for the follow-up is the limited availability of financial resources for 
the implementation of the intended reforms. 

According  to  the  targeted  survey,  beneficiary  authorities  almost  unanimously  (94%,  58 
out of 62) used the good practices and lessons learned from technical support projects, 
to  a  high  or  moderate  extent.  Additionally,  the  majority  of  them  have  successfully 
the 
adopted 
recommendations  provided.  The  deliverables  from  technical  support  projects  have 
contributed  to  enhanced  working  practices,  organisational  restructuring,  and  the 
successful implementation of reforms. 

the  new  knowledge  and  skills  acquired  and  have 

implemented 

Data  from  DG  REFORM  outcome  questionnaires  provide  preliminary  insights  on 
outcome achievement of TSI projects37. Out of the 72 outcome questionnaires completed 
for  the  2021-2023  cycles,  beneficiary  authorities  reported  on  average  that  76.8%38  of 
expected outcomes were achieved about a year after the end of the project. Out of the 125 
expected  outcomes  assessed  in  the  outcome  questionnaires39  for  the  2021-2023  cycles: 
44%  of  outcomes  correspond  to  improved  internal  working  procedures,  methodologies 
and processes, organisation with a rate of achievement of 80.1%; 33% correspond to the 
adoption  of  (new)  procedures  and  actions  to  enhance  the  implementation  of  reforms 
among which 77% were achieved; 14% of outcomes concern the adoption of a strategy, 
a new law/act or  modification of  an existing  one  with  a rate of achievement of  70.5%; 
and  only  9%  relate  to  organisational  change,  change  management,  improved  human 
resource management, with a rate of achievement of 69%. 

37  At  this  stage,  outcome  questionnaires  do  not  provide  comprehensive  data  considering  only  55%  of 
projects from the TSI 2021 – 2023 cycles are closed, and outcome questionnaires are sent 6, 12 and 18 
months after project closure. 

38 Beneficiary authorities are requested to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the extent to which outcomes have 

been achieved. 

39 Several outcomes may be assessed in a single outcome questionnaire. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10- Outcomes achieved by TSI projects (2021-2023) 

9%

44%

33%

14%

Adoption of (new) procedures
and actions to enhance the
implementation of reforms

Adoption of a strategy, a new
law/act or modification of an
existing one

Improved internal working
procedures, methodologies and
processes, organisation

Organisational change, change
management, improved human
resource management

that  TSI  projects 

targeted  survey  results  show 

The 
improved  all  types  of 
administrative  capacities,  to  a  perceived  higher  extent  compared  to  the  SRSP  ex post 
evaluation.  According  to  beneficiary  authorities,  technical  support  projects  contributed 
most to the application of different administrative systems and tools (71% of respondents 
agreeing to a high or moderate extent, 42 out of 59), institutional structures (69%, 38 out 
of 55) and human resources (61%, 35 out of 57). Technical support providers also agreed 
(100%, 30 out  of 30) that  the TSI contributed most to the application of administrative 
systems and tools. 

This evidence underscores the significant role of the TSI in improving the internal 
‘mechanics’  of  public  administration  (i.e.  functional  details  of  procedures  and 
processes),  that  lay  solid  foundations  for  reforms  in  EU  Member  States.  Among  all 
expected outcomes, TSI monitoring data confirms that the TSI in 2021-2023 most often 
supported the achievement of ‘improved internal working procedures, methodologies and 
processes,  organisation’  (in  68%  of  projects),  and  ‘adoption  of  (new)  procedures  and 
actions  to  enhance  the  implementation  of  reforms’  (in  60%  of  projects).  On  the  other 
hand, improved ‘organisational change, change management, improved human resource 
management’ was the least frequent outcome (supported by 22% of TSI projects). 

Long-term  results  of  TSI  projects  directly  supporting  RRPs  can  be  assessed  with  their 
contribution to the achievement of RRP milestones. For example, in the case of the TSI 
project  supporting  the  creation  of  a  National  Promotion  Agency  in  Cyprus,  the  TSI 
appeared to be fundamental to fulfil a specific RRP milestone (see box below), but there 
is currently no mechanism to systematically track this long-term contribution. 

Box 4- Results of a TSI project directly  supporting RRP and in line with  country-
specific recommendations 

In the example of the TSI project supporting the creation of a National Promotion Agency (NPA) 
in Cyprus (21CY13), the following results were achieved: 

•  Project’s direct results: The TSI  project supported the Ministry of Finance in its effort to 
establish the NPA. In particular, the project included a comprehensive market assessment for 
the identification of the underlying market failures, partly conducted via a large-scale survey 
to SMEs and interviews with key stakeholders such as investors and debt financiers. In light 

29 

 
 
of the market failures identified, the investment strategy of the NPA was formulated, along 
with  its  legal  &  organisational  structure,  IT  strategy  and  workforce  plan.  Lastly,  a 
comprehensive  roadmap  for  the  implementation  of  the  NPA  was  developed,  taking  into 
account all the aforementioned elements. 

•  Project’s  long-term  results:  The  TSI  contribution  has  been  fundamental  for  the 
implementation  of  milestone  140  of  the  CY-RRP40.  The  roadmap  that  the  Council  of 
Ministers approved for the establishment of the NPA, has been based on the report delivered 
through  the  TSI.  Additionally,  the  TSI  contributed  to  the  implementation  of  2019  CSR 4 
Subpart 7 ‘Improve access to finance for SMEs’ and 2020 CSR 3 ‘Secure adequate access to 
finance  and  liquidity,  especially  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  […]  and  promote 
private investment to foster […] research and innovation’. 

•  On  the  status  of  the  National  Promotion  Agency,  the  appointment  of  key  staff  and 
development of website is expected in September 2025, while the offering of financial tools 
and  services  as  from  October  2025.  This  start  of  operations  is  under  Milestone  141  of  the 
CY-RRP is currently planned for the eighth payment request41.  

Factors affecting technical support and its results 

The  mid-term  evaluation  identified  key  factors,  whether  within  the  control  of  DG 
REFORM or external, that may have contributed or hindered the TSI implementation and 
outputs delivery, as well as their uptake by Member States to achieve results. Factors and 
conditions  affecting  the  project  implementation  (even  if  external)  should  be  identified 
during projects’ preparation and monitored during their implementation. 

One of the key elements of success is the ownership of reforms and the commitment 
of Member States to implement them. According to the external supporting study, a total 
of 93% of coordinating authorities (31 out of 33), 85% of technical support providers (51 
out of 60), as well as 81% (113 out of 139) of beneficiary authorities agreed and strongly 
agreed that the national ownership of reforms was a positive factor to achieve TSI results. 
The results of the cross-case analysis, focus group discussions and interviews confirm the 
importance  of  this  factor  to  the  successful  implementation  of  the  TSI  projects. 
Stakeholders  participating  in  the  survey  indicated  that  continued  commitment  to 
reform  was  also  an  important  factor  for  the  sustainability  of  technical  support42.  In 
particular, multi-regional projects present the risk of limited involvement from EU and 
national  authorities  according  to  focus  group  discussions.  Therefore,  broad  stakeholder 
engagement (e.g. through a comprehensive communication plan) is crucial to mitigate it. 

The  case  studies  provided  evidence  on  the  importance  of  the  national  context  and  pre-
existing political priorities for the implementation of technical support. For example, the 
support  provided  through  the  Green  Budgeting  Training  Programme  (TSI)  played  a 
crucial  role  in  enabling  the  Slovenian  Ministry  of  Finance  to  develop  a  tagging 
methodology  for  assessing  the  environmental  impact  of  budget  lines,  leading  to  the 
successful achievement of a key milestone in its RRP. 

Interviews with beneficiary authorities also highlight the importance of political factors 
on  the  results  of  technical  support  and  their  sustainability.  For  example,  changing 

40 The TSI report itself has been part of the evidence provided by Cyprus, as accompanying evidence. The 
assessment for satisfactory fulfilment of the milestone is found here (Preliminary Assessment, p. 29). 

41 According to the latest reporting from Cyprus (received in end-October 2024). 
42 Coordinating authorities: 63% agreeing to a strong extent (20 out of 32), 38% moderate (12 out of 32) 
Technical support providers: 68% agreeing to a strong extent (44 out of 65), 29% moderate (19 out of 65) 
Beneficiary authorities: 53% agreeing to a strong extent (90 out of 171), 37% moderate (64 out of 171). 

30 

 
 
political agendas and elections sometimes trigger changes to the project teams and often 
necessitate adjustments to the original outputs and ongoing reforms.  Additionally, legal 
obstacles  can  arise  while  translating  recommendations  into  actual  reforms,  particularly 
due  to  the  innovative  nature  of  some  recommendations.  Evidence  shows  that  broader 
conditions  for  political  and  administrative  continuity  are  also  to  be  considered.  In 
countries  with  strong  administrative  cultures,  changes  of  government  have  a  minimal 
influence on project  priorities and continuity. However, in  countries where government 
changes  lead  to  widespread  replacement  of  officials  and  shifts  in  priorities,  the 
sustainability of projects is more likely to be compromised. 

Another  important  factor  identified  is  the  existence  of  adequate  administrative  and 
especially financial capacity that may constrain the absorption of technical support and 
the implementation of recommendations in EU Member States43. It should still be noted 
that during the selection of requests, DG REFORM checks that the conditions are met for 
successful project implementation. For instance, DG REFORM assesses the capacity of 
the  national  authorities  requesting  support  to  allocate  the  resources  necessary  to 
implement and absorb the support measures to be provided and to carry out the reforms 
for which support is requested. DG REFORM also assesses the maturity and the focus of 
the request, as well as the ownership and likelihood that the supported measures will be 
followed up by the authorities. 

Based  on  the  focus  group  discussions  and  interviews,  the  change  of  responsible  and 
experienced  personnel  in  beneficiary  organisations  and  poor  information  transfer  to 
their  successors  negatively  affected  the  implementation  and  follow-up  of  technical 
support projects  as well as the sustainability  of their results, as departing personnel  not 
only  create  capacity  gaps  but  also  take  with  them  critical  knowledge  and  skills.  The 
survey confirmed that the stability of staff in the beneficiary organisation was perceived 
as  influencing  sustainability  of  technical  support,  with  83%  of  beneficiary  authorities 
(140 out of 167) stating  in the survey that stability of staff did or will have a strong or 
moderate  effect.  According  to  satisfaction  questionnaires  for  closed  projects,  policy 
officers  have  scored  an  average  of  8.55/10  the  extent  to  which  beneficiary  authorities 
the 
have 
recommendations and support provided. 

the  appropriate  administrative  capacity 

implement  and  absorb 

to 

Consultation  with  stakeholders  during  the  reform  process  was  also  an  important 
factor highlighted in the survey as influencing the achievement of outcomes, with 89% 
(127  out  of  142)  of  beneficiary  authorities  and  93%  of  technical  support  providers  (56 
out  of  60)  suggesting  that  it  had  a  moderate  or  strong  positive  effect.  This  was  also 
supported  by  the  case  study  evidence.  Evidence  shows  that  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders in the TSI projects influences results and their sustainability. According to 
the representatives of the Commission, the broad participation creates a cascading effect 
within  the  system,  amplifying  the  impact  of  the  reforms.  In  essence,  the  greater  the 
engagement of national stakeholders in these projects, the more profound and lasting the 
changes  are  likely  to  be.  For  example,  the  capacity  of  beneficiary  authorities  to 
effectively  involve  key  stakeholders  and  influence  reforms  more  broadly  in  the 
administration  proved  to  be  crucial  for  achieving  the  outcomes  of  the  projects 

43In the survey, 86% of beneficiary authorities stated that adequate financial resources did or will have a 
strong  (92  out  of  167)  or  moderate  effect  (51  out  of  167)  on  the  sustainability  of  technical  support. 
81%  of  technical  support  providers  expressed  that  adequate  financial  resources  did  or  will  have  a 
strong (22 out of 66) or moderate effect (32 out of 66) on the sustainability of technical support. 

31 

 
 
‘Strengthening  policy  development  and  foresight  in  the  Irish  Public  Service’  and 
‘SHAPE - Strengthening change management process of executives’ in Italy. Similarly, 
early establishment of cooperation between participating institutions and the clarification 
of common goals,  as well as strong interest  and engagement from  stakeholders such as 
NGOs,  financial  market  associations,  and  universities  contributed  to  the  successful 
implementation  of  project  ‘Development  of  a  national  strategy  for  financial  education 
(NSFE) in Poland’. 

Finally,  several  factors  were  expressed  by  stakeholders,  as  likely  to  affect  positively 
long-term  success.  The 
the  sustainability  of  technical  support  and  foster 
dissemination  and  exploitation  of  project  results  to  the  main  stakeholders  was 
identified  in  the  survey  as  one  of  the  most  important  factors,  with  97%  of  beneficiary 
authorities (162 out of 168), national coordinating authorities (30 out of 31) and technical 
support providers (63 out of 65) stating that it could have a strong or moderate positive 
effect on the sustainability of previous projects. The importance of disseminating outputs 
to wider audiences to maximise projects’ impacts was already highlighted in the ex post 
evaluation  of  SRSP.  DG  REFORM  already  took  action  by  publishing  deliverables  of 
closed  projects  on  its  website44,  creating  a  repository  to  compile  and  access  shared 
resources, organising more project closing events to share results with stakeholders and 
disseminating TSI results in several policy areas through thematic factsheets. Systematic 
cross-country  thematic  sessions  also  started  in  2023  to  facilitate  knowledge  sharing. 
However,  focus  group  discussions  and  interviews  showed  that  some  beneficiary  and 
coordinating  authorities  were  not  aware  of  the  publication  of  some  TSI  projects’ 
deliverables. Accessing the experience of other Member States could also be valuable to 
learn from already existing knowledge and avoid projects overlap. 

Access to international expertise provided by technical support providers as well as 
exchange  of  knowledge  among  EU  Member  States  are  also  considered  by  all 
stakeholder  groups  to  have  a  high  or  moderate  positive  effect  on  the  sustainability  of 
technical  support.  Support  to  peer-to-peer  exchanges  via  TAIEX  and  PACE  initiatives 
can therefore contribute to the sustainability of projects by fostering formal and informal 
connections for existing and future collaborations. 

Findings  from  the  study  align  with  lessons  learned  collected  from  DG  REFORM’s 
feedback  mechanism  in  which  policy  officers  have  identified  as  main  success  factors: 
the involvement of beneficiaries and main stakeholders in the design and implementation 
of  the  project,  the  clear  definition  of  roles  and  expectations  of  technical  support 
measures,  the definition of  effective communication  channels, consistent  follow-up and 
monitoring  of  projects,  the  promotion  of  synergies  between  different  Commission 
services and the definition of realistic timelines. 

Based  on  the  case  studies,  Table  2  below  presents  examples  of  TSI  projects  in  various 
policy areas, with their direct results, as well as the concrete steps to reforms taken in the 
Member  States  on  the  basis  of  these  TSI  projects  and  factors  that  contributed  to  (or 
hindered) the achievement of reforms. These examples also show that different types of 
deliverables  from  technical  support  project  led  to  different  types  of  outcomes  in  the 
medium and long term. 

44 As per Article 17 of the TSI Regulation. 

32 

 
 
 
Table 2- Examples from case studies of TSI results 

Project 

Project direct results 

Indirect results / reforms 

Factors identified 

Green Budgeting Framework Training 
Programme 
Green Budgeting 
TSI 2021, 23 MS 

Technical support for preparation and 
implementation of green taxation 
reform in Cyprus 
Green Budgeting and taxation 
TSI 2021, Cyprus 

•  Knowledge on green budgeting frameworks 

and practices (including institutional settings) 

•  Methods and challenges to identify revenue 
and expenditure relevant for environmental 
policies 

•  Recommendations to take better into 
consideration environmental goals in 
budgetary decision-making 

•  Good practice analysis 
•  Policy recommendations and assessment of 

tax reform options 

•  Legal drafts 
•  Stakeholder engagement 

Technical Support for the 
Implementation of the Digital 
Competence Development Programme 
in Poland 
Supporting reforms on digital education 
and skills 
TSI 2021, Poland 

•  Best practice analysis 
•  Governance framework 
• 

Implementation roadmap 

•  Developing a green budget tagging 

methodology. (Slovenia, Greece, Spain) 

•  Adjusting the existing tagging 
methodology (Austria, Ireland) 

Previously defined policy priorities and 
written milestones in green budgeting 
area. (Slovenia) 

The support contributes to CSR 3 2020 
for Cyprus. 

Legislative proposals in Cyprus, with 
draft bills being based on the drafts 
produced during the study 

Poland’s 2020 CSR highlighted the need 
to improve digital skills, particularly for 
teachers and parents, and to build digital 
infrastructure, given that almost half of 
the population lacks basic digital skills. 
This project increased the institution’s 
capacity to formulate, develop, and 
implement reform policies and strategies, 
enabling a more integrated approach to 
educational reforms. Concretely, it 
provided authorities with a precise 
roadmap for the implementation of the 
Digital Competence Development 
Programme by 2030 including various 

Recognition of the urgency of reforms to 
address pressing environmental issues 

Governance and leadership changes pose 
challenges to reforms: concerns about the 
extent to which the new government 
would follow the TSI recommendations 

33 

 
 
research instruments enabling quantitative 
and qualitative monitoring of the 
development of digital competences in 
Poland. 

Introduction of a methodology for the use 
of results accelerators in public 
administration and schools to support the 
operationalisation of measures in the 
framework of the national curriculum for 
primary and lower secondary education 
reform. 

The support was in line with to CSR2020 
to ‘Ensure equal access to quality 
education for all’ and CSR 2019 to 
‘Improve the quality and inclusiveness of 
education at all levels, and foster skills’. 

Lack of capacity to continue the project: 
despite the development of a network of 
mentors and the potential scaling up of 
the results in Slovakia, the establishment 
of the network of these mentors of 
regional centres did not materialise on the 
ground as the Ministry of Education did 
not have the institutional capacity to 
continue the project 

One year after closure of the project, the 
Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) 
has launched a programme to strengthen 
the managerial skills of MEF executives, 
using the competency framework 
developed in the project 

The degree of connectivity within the 
system: the ability of beneficiary 
authorities to effectively engage key 
stakeholders and influence reforms more 
broadly within the administration 

Digital transformation and national 
curriculum reform of primary and 
lower secondary schools in Slovakia 
Supporting reforms on digital education 
and skills 
TSI 2021, Slovakia 

SHAPE - Strengthening change 
management process of executives 
(Italy)  
Public Administration- HR Management 
TSI 2021, Italy 

•  Rapid  results  interventions  and  guidance 

for scaling up their results 

•  Adaptation 

of 

results 
the 
methodology  and  recommendations  for 
its  integration  with  relevant  performance 
management processes 

rapid 

•  Analysis of the options for implementing 
the  curriculum  reform,  its  management 
and 
and 
quality 
recommendation 

assessment 

•  Support  the  design  of  a  methodology  for 
the  management  of  the  new  curriculum 
for primary and lower secondary schools 

Improved managerial competencies and 
skills related to change management and 
agile leadership, use of agile management 
tools and processes for the performance 
management and recruitment of senior 
executives and workforce planning. The 
project was aligned with Italy’s Plan for 
Recovery and Resilience (RRP) which 
emphasised the need to advance public 
administration reform by improving the 
competencies of Italy’s senior executive 
leadership in the areas of change 
management, leadership and innovation. It 
also contributes to the implementation of 

34 

 
CSR 3 (2019) and CSR 4 (2020) for Italy on 
improving the effectiveness of public 
administration by strengthening public 
employees’ skills 

Strengthening policy development and 
foresight in the Irish Public Service 
Public Administration- HR Management 
TSI 2021, Ireland 

Established policy development framework 
to strengthen the coordinated approach to 
policymaking from the centre of government, 
including the strategic foresight and 
anticipation component 

Based on the project’s outputs, the 
beneficiaries have created a policy 
handbook for policy development that 
was further tailored to the Irish context 
and shared across the civil service 

Resources Hub for Sustainable 
Investments in Health – A Joint 
Initiative for the EU 
Follow-up on SRSP project 
TSI 2022, Belgium, Austria, Slovenia 

Recharge and Refuel - Clean, smart 
and fair urban mobility 

Follow-up on SRSP project 
TSI 2022, Belgium 

•  Supporting 

health 

authorities 

in 
understanding  analytical  approaches  and 
tools  related  to  health  investment  and 
financing 

•  Utilising the EU funding mechanisms for 
investment  and  technical  support  in  the 
health sector 

The establishment of a new department 
focused on financing the healthcare sector 
and exploring future EU fund utilisation 
for reforms (Austria) 

The timing of TSI support was the main 
enabling factor, i.e. identification of 
political window of opportunity 

The  recommendations  from  the  first  SRSP 
project  were  instrumental  in  providing  the 
requirements  for  a  regulatory  framework  for 
shared  micro-mobility.  The  TSI  2022  request 
was  in  line  with  CSR  3  on  sustainable 
transport. 
Follow-up actions of the SRSP project are: 
• 

the  data  governance  recommendations 
from  the  SRSP  project  were  included  in 
the Recovery and Resilience Plan 
the beneficiary structured the work based 
on  the  project  recommendations,  this 
coherent  approach  to  data  governance  is 
now seen as a model by the  Flemish and 
Walloon regions and at the federal level. 

• 

35 

•  The  TSI 

• 

•  But 

has 

has 
been 
project 
promoting 
in 
instrumental 
cooperation  and  a  unified  direction 
in transport policies. 
it 
enhanced 
significantly 
collaboration between the four inter-
federal  organisations  –  the  three 
regions and the federal level 
project 
translating 
recommendations 
actual 
reforms,  such  as  new  decrees  or 
ordinances, 
more 
challenging than anticipated. 

the 
into 

proved 

When trying to implement certain parts of 
the newly proposed regulatory framework 
for shared micro-mobility, the beneficiary 
encountered significant challenges, 
particularly in data sharing between 
stakeholders, which is critical for MaaS. 

Legal challenges from private 
stakeholders further complicated the 
process. 

 
Development of a national strategy for 
financial education (NSFE) in Poland 
Follow-up on SRSP projects 
TSI 2021, Poland 

The development of a National Financial 
Education Strategy 

The adoption of the National Financial 
Education Strategy: Public policy for 
improving financial literacy 

Early establishment of cooperation 
between participating institutions and the 
clarification of common goals, as well as 
strong interest and engagement from 
stakeholders such as NGOs, financial 
market associations, and universities 

36 

 
 
4.1.2.  Efficiency- To what extent was the TSI efficient in achieving its objectives? 

TSI implementation and administrative procedures.  

In the framework of TSI projects, strong cooperation was considered as crucial for their 
successful  implementation.  Results  of  the  targeted  survey  showed  that  beneficiary 
authorities regarded  DG REFORM policy  officers’ support as  highly useful45 as  was 
their ability to provide support from the start of technical support to its end46. Similarly, 
cooperation  and  interaction  between  technical  support  providers  and  beneficiary 
authorities  was  viewed  positively47,  as  well  as  the  functioning  of  project  Steering 
Committees48, which was considered as effective. 

Another positive element stressed by programme stakeholders is linked to the perceived 
proportionate  administrative  burden.  The  targeted  survey  demonstrated  that  the 
beneficiary  authorities  and  technical  support  providers  were  very  positive  about  the 
clarity, transparency and user-friendliness of the procedures related to the application 
and  selection  of  requests  for  funding,  monitoring  of  the  projects,  approving 
technical support deliverables and evaluation after the completion of projects, with 
satisfaction levels reaching around or above 90%. 

However,  in  the  targeted  survey,  coordinating  authorities  reported  lower  satisfaction 
levels regarding the clarity, transparency and user-friendliness of the monitoring of TSI 
projects including relevant  IT  tools49. Despite coordinating authorities can  reach out  to 
beneficiaries  to  monitor  the  progress  of  projects,  monitoring  practices  of  coordinating 
authorities differ across Member States. Feedback from coordinating authorities suggests 
they would benefit from improved access to information on project implementation and 
aggregated data at the level of the Member State. The disparity in satisfaction compared 
to beneficiary authorities, where 92% agreed that monitoring was clear, transparent, and 
user-friendly,  might  be  attributed  to  a  different  involvement  in  the  monitoring  of  TSI 
projects.  While  beneficiary  authorities  are  directly 
the  project 
implementation,  coordinating  authorities’  perspective  cover  the  entire  portfolio  of  TSI 
projects  at  national  level.  This  broader  scope  requires  different  tools  and procedures  to 
monitor  TSI  projects  and  to  communicate  their  progress  at  the  national  level.  DG 
REFORM is therefore working on improving the participation of coordinating authorities 
in the monitoring and evaluation of projects. 

involved 

in 

The  results  of  the  targeted  survey  also  show  that  beneficiary  authorities  considered  the 
administrative  burden  of  applying  for  and  implementing  projects  to  be  reasonable 

45 Beneficiary authorities: 71% strongly agree, 120 out of 168; 26% agree, 43 out of 168. 
46 Beneficiary authorities: 65% strongly agree, 108 out of 167; 32% agree, 54 out of 167. 
47 Technical support providers: 61% strongly agree, 41 out of 67; 34% agree, 23 out of 67. 
Beneficiary authorities: 60% strongly agree, 99 out of 166; 34% agree, 56 out of 166. 
48 Technical support providers: 52% of strongly agree, 33 out of 63; 41% agree, 26 out of 63. 
Beneficiary authorities: 45% of strongly agree, 69 out of 152, 49% agree, 75 out of 152. 
49  Coordinating  authorities:  50%  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  the  monitoring  of  projects  including 

relevant IT Tools was clear, transparent and user-friendly. 

37 

 
 
 
and  proportionate50.  Satisfaction  is  slightly  lower  regarding  project  implementation, 
with  78%  of  coordinating  authorities  (25  out  of  32)  and  77%  of  technical  support 
providers  (51  out  of  66)  (strongly)  agreeing  that  the  administrative  burden  was 
reasonable  for  project  implementation.  Specifically,  for  grant  components,  71%  of 
technical  support  providers  (12  out  of  17)  (strongly)  agreed  that  the  administrative 
burden  was  reasonable,  compared  to  79%  for  public  procurement  and  contribution 
agreements  (23  out  of  29  and  11  out  of  14,  respectively).  This  may  be  due  to  less 
experience  among  providers  with  grant  components,  where  only  50%  had  worked  on 
three or more TSI projects, as opposed to 86% for public procurement and contribution 
agreements.  Additionally,  grants  involve  a  reimbursement  mechanism  based  on  actual 
costs,  requiring  more  administration  and  raising  the  risk  of  errors  compared  to  public 
procurement. 

took 

important  steps 

to  simplify  and  streamline  programme 
DG  REFORM 
management.  For  example,  DG  REFORM  updated  financial  templates,  guidance, 
expanded the use of  corporate tools. Efforts have also  been undertaken to  diversify the 
pool  of providers,  especially pillar-assessed entities (such  as international organisations 
and  Member  Sates  organisations),  which  resulted  in  the  signature  of  more  contribution 
agreements with international organisations pillar-assessed entities, with 262 components 
of those agreements used for delivering technical support. 

85%  of  technical  support  providers  (46  out  of  54)  concurred  that  the  contracting 
processes, including IT tools like the adaptation of the EU Funding & Tenders portal for 
technical  support  providers,  were  clear,  transparent,  and  easy  to  use.  Likewise,  92%  of 
technical  support  providers  (44  out  of  48)  stated  that  the  payment  procedures,  along 
with the related IT tools, were also clear, transparent, and user-friendly. However, there 
is scope for further analyses to identify potential improvements to internal processes in 
handling the contracting and payment procedures and related administrative workload. 

As  reported  in  the  Annual  Activity  Reports,  TSI  financial  management  and  internal 
control  processes  are  considered  reliable,  as  the  residual  error  rate  estimated  for  the 
TSI  (calculated  on  a  cumulative  multiannual  basis)  remains  below  the  materiality 
threshold of 2%. The overall risk at closure at DG REFORM of 0.63% in 2021, 1.36% in 
2022 and 0.66% in 202351 indicates that suitable control arrangements were put in place 
and are effective. 

Time-efficiency of the TSI 

The  selection  of  requests  for  support  was  considered  as  timely  and  efficient.  The 
average time from the application deadline to the financing decision (the adoption of the 
respective  work  programme)  was  approximately  four  months  during  the  2021-2024 
period. The targeted survey revealed that 86% (152 out of 176) of beneficiary authorities 
and  90%  (27  out  of  30)  of  coordinating  authorities  agreed  that  the  assessment  and 
selection of technical support requests was implemented in a timely and efficient manner. 

After  the  work  programme  is  adopted,  TSI  projects  move  into  preparation  for 
implementation  and  contracting.  Once  contracting  is  complete,  implementation  begins. 
On average, it took about six and a half months from work programme adoption to 

50On administrative burden related to the submission of requests: 29% strongly agree and 64% agree (out 

of 171 Beneficiary authorities) 

On administrative burden related to the  implementation of projects: 33% strongly agree and 58% agree 

(out of 162 Beneficiary authorities). 

51 Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support. Annual activity reports 2021-2023. 

38 

 
 
the  start  of  technical  support,  with  a  trend  toward  shorter  times  from  2021  to  2023. 
Monitoring  data  showed  varying  start  dates,  prioritising  contracting  timing  based  on 
factors  like  project  readiness  and  reform  urgency.  Multi-country  projects  often  started 
faster  than  stand-alone  ones,  at  around  5.2  months  versus  6.8  months.  However,  since 
there were significantly fewer multi-country than stand-alone projects over the evaluation 
period,  it  remains  to  be  seen  if  this  trend  will  hold  over  time.  Projects  using  umbrella 
agreements typically started earlier (6.2 months, from the adoption of the respective work 
programme)  than  those  with  direct  management  grants  (6.5  months),  delegation 
agreements  (7.0  months),  and  procurement  contracts  (8.2  months).  No  significant 
differences were observed in start times between general and flagship requests. 

The time from application to the start of technical support was about 11 months in 
average  for  TSI  2021-2023  rounds.  This  duration  slightly  but  continuously  decreased 
over the evaluation period (11.1 months in 2021 10.9 months in 2022 and 10.5 in 2025). 
Interviews  with  beneficiary  authorities  and  case  study  results  indicated  that  a  shorter 
duration  between  application  and  project  initiation  is  needed,  especially  in  the  case  of 
pressing need for reforms.  It  is  therefore important  to  reflect to what extent and  how 
the  start  of  projects  may  be  accelerated  while  respecting  the  requirements  of  the 
legal and financial framework. 

to 

the  agreed 

Beneficiary  and  coordinating  authorities  agreed  that  the  preparation  and  the 
implementation phases were carried out in a timely and efficient manner52, with no 
significant  differences  between  the  projects  selected  under  the  general  and  flagship 
requests for technical support. Technical providers agreed that the project duration was 
appropriate for the implementation of the activities and that the projects  were delivered 
according 
timetable.  The  results  of  DG  REFORM  satisfaction 
questionnaires  revealed  a  similar  opinion  of  the  stakeholders  on  the  timeliness  of  the 
implementation  of  technical  support  projects  with  an  average  score  of  8.64/1053.  The 
main reasons to extend TSI projects beyond the original timeline included the COVID-19 
pandemic, overly ambitious initial schedules, changes in the political background, lack of 
capacities  on  the  beneficiary  side,  the  need  for  more  extensive  internal  discussions, 
feedback  from  beneficiaries  and  other  stakeholders,  issues  related  to  the  quality  of 
outputs delivered by technical support providers, changes in the project scope, activities 
and staff, and data availability. 

As raised by the study, further reflection might be needed regarding the annual TSI calls 
and their deadline54, in order potentially to further increase the efficiency of contracting 
and project starts. 

Cost effectiveness of the programme 

The  2021-2023  TSI  rounds  showed  strong  demand  for  TSI  support,  similar  to  the 
previous SRSP, ensuring competition and the selection of high-quality proposals, which 
boosted the programme’s efficiency. However, the capacity to  accept  all proposals  was 
limited by the number of DG REFORM staff available to manage projects and the TSI 

52 The survey revealed that 81% and 86% (out of 176) beneficiary authorities (strongly) agreed respectively 
that preparations and the implementation phase were carried out in a timely and efficient manner. 
53 In satisfaction questionnaires, beneficiary authorities indicate on a scale between 1-10 to what extent the 

provider delivered the support according to the agreed timeline. 

54  According  to  the  TSI  Regulation  (Article 9.1),  requests  for  technical  support  must  be  submitted  by 

31 October of the previous year. 

39 

 
 
budget.  While  the  technical  support  budget  increased  significantly,  the  DG  REFORM 
staff numbers did not grow proportionately. 

On  the  one  hand,  according  to  survey  data,  multi-country  projects  appear  to  be  more 
cost-effective and time-efficient compared to stand-alone projects. In fact, a single multi-
country project requires  a lower administrative burden compared to the management of 
stand-alone projects serving the same national authorities. On the other hand, interviews 
with  national  stakeholders  and  EC  officials  also  revealed  that  the  complex  governance 
and financial structures of multi-country projects may potentially affect their efficiency. 
Regarding  the  flagship  projects,  similar  observations  were  gathered  during  internal 
workshops with DG REFORM staff, in which officials noted that the annual basis of the 
flagships  might  bring  additional  burdens,  as  they  necessitate  frequent  negotiations  with 
stakeholders  and  adjustments  to  the  corporate  tools.  In  addition,  it  was  noted  that  a 
medium-term perspective to the flagship could improve the focus on specific challenges. 

Furthermore, the increasing number of multi-country projects, comprising about 10% of 
all  TSI  projects  from  2021  to  2023  and  growing  steadily  helped  to  share  technical 
support  outputs  across  borders  and  tackle  common  challenges  among  Member  States. 
The  adoption  of  flagship  support  requests  enabled  the  Commission  to  advance  reforms 
that were broadly necessary across Member States and in line with EU priorities. 

The overall cost of controls at DG REFORM was estimated at 4.2% of payments in both 
2021  and  2022,  and  3.7%  in  2023.  These  figures  met  the  management  plan’s  target  of 
keeping  control  costs  below  5%  of  annual  payments.  As  the  total  value  of  payments 
increased, the cost of controls as a percentage of total payments gradually decreased55. 

According  to  the  study  supporting  this  evaluation,  in  2022,  the  estimated  budget  per 
administrative  staff  member  at  DG  REFORM  managing  technical  support  was 
EUR 2.8 million in commitments and EUR 2.2 million in payments, which is comparable 
to the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. However, the budget per staff 
member  across  all  DG  REFORM  personnel  involved  in  the  TSI,  including  policy 
officers,  was  lower,  at  EUR 0.8  million  in  commitments  and  EUR 0.6  million  in 
payments. This discrepancy is likely due to DG REFORM’s more active role in project 
implementation compared to the Commission’s executive agencies56. 

Budget execution from commitment to payments 

terms  of 

financial  management,  DG  REFORM  demonstrated  strong 
In 
performance  in  executing  TSI-related  commitment  appropriations,  with  payments 
increasing  in  tandem  with  the  progress  of  project  implementation.  The  average 
budget per selected request for support under the TSI 2021-2023 rounds of general 
calls increased further, reflecting the tendencies already observed under the SRSP. 
TSI  projects,  typically  taking  two  years  to  complete,  saw  payment  appropriations  rise 
from EUR 26.4 million in 2021, to EUR 60.0 million in 2022, and EUR 106.9 million in 
2023. As evidenced in the analysis of the external study supporting this evaluation, DG 
REFORM  processed payments within set  time limits  – 98% in  2021, and 95% in  2022 
and  2023  –  meeting  their  target  of  over  90%  on-time  payments  set  in  DG  REFORM 
management plan. The average payment processing time was 31 days in 2021, 33 days in 

55 Overall cost of controls was estimated to be 6.7% of the payments executed in 2018, 4.8% – in 2019 and 

4.5% – in 2020. 

56 Calculation from PPMI, see explanations in the supporting study. 

40 

 
 
2022,  and  30  days  in  2023.  The  targeted  survey  indicated  that  88%  (46  out  of  52)  of 
technical support providers agreed that the payment processes were timely. 

Efficiency of TSI projects 

The average budget per selected support request in the TSI general calls from 2021-
2023  continued  to  rise,  following  trends  already  observed  under  the  SRSP.  While  the 
SRSP maintained consistent financing mechanisms and project types over time, the TSI 
saw  an  increasing  portion  of  multi-country  projects.  Overview  is  presented  in  Figure  3 
‘Average Budget per project in EUR million’. 

As  for  the  delivery  methods,  the  targeted  survey  showed  strong  satisfaction  with  the 
chosen delivery methods: 93% of beneficiary authorities (134 of 144), 90% of national 
coordinating  authorities  (19  of  21),  and  96%  of  technical  support  providers  (50  of  52) 
indicated that these methods met their technical support needs. 

Although  TSI  projects  do  not  require  co-financing  from  Member  States,  beneficiary 
authorities  allocate  human  resources  to  prepare  requests  and  handle  administrative 
and  technical  tasks.  Coordinating  authorities  similarly  dedicate  personnel  for  TSI 
coordination. Based on the calculation of the study considering the results of the targeted 
survey,  beneficiary  authorities  spent  an  average  of  13.9  person-days  preparing  a  TSI 
request.  This  time  varies  significantly  due  to  factors  like  policy  work  related  to  the 
reform  and  internal  consultations.  As  evidenced  in  the  study,  preparing  requests  for 
multi-country projects took less time (10.1 person-days, N=42) than stand-alone projects 
(15.5  person-days,  N=89)  due  to  shared  administrative  work.  There  was  no  major  time 
difference  in  preparing  general  versus  flagship  requests.  Based  on  EU  average  labour 
costs, preparing a request  was estimated to cost about EUR 3.5 thousand57. Considering 
the  requests  submitted  in  2021-2023,  the  annual  cost  for  Member  States  preparing  TSI 
requests is estimated EUR 2.2 million, about 1.8% of the average TSI annual budget. 

As  calculated  in  the  Annex  3  of  the  study  and  based  on  the  survey  of  beneficiary 
authorities,  on  average  beneficiary  authorities  spend  100.5  person-days  on 
administrative  and  technical  tasks  for  a  single  TSI  project.  The  time  varies  due  to 
factors  like  project  diversity,  duration,  administrative  arrangements,  and  the  quality  of 
services  from  support  providers.  Based  on  the  calculations  of  the  study,  at  EU  labour 
costs,  carrying  out  tasks  for  one  TSI  project  costs  about  EUR 25.6  thousand.  Based  on 
the  average  number  of  technical  support  projects  under  the  2021  –  2023  cycles,  the 
estimated  total  costs  incurred  by  the  Member  States  in  executing  administrative  and 
technical tasks related to the implementation of TSI projects funded under an annual TSI 
round amount to EUR 7.3 million, representing approximately 6.1% of the average TSI 
annual budget. 

Meanwhile, coordinating authorities (N=32) indicate that the average number of full-time 
equivalents is 1.1, with variations by involvement and resources. Larger countries tend to 
allocate more resources, though there is no clear correlation by size. The annual cost per 
coordinating  authority  is  estimated  at  EUR 69.4  thousand,  with  a  total  yearly  cost  of 
EUR 1.9 million incurred by all Member States, about  1.6% of the  average  TSI annual 
budget. 

57 As per calculation of the external supporting study, in 2023, average hourly labour costs was estimated at 

EUR 31.8 in the EU: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Hourly_labour_costs. 

41 

 
 
Based  on  estimates  provided  by  the  study,  the  combined  annual  costs  for  Member 
States to prepare technical support requests, carry out administrative and technical tasks 
for project implementation, and fulfil coordinating authorities’ duties total approximately 
EUR 11.4 million. This accounts for about 9.4% of the average TSI’s yearly budget. 

Factors influencing the TSI projects implementation 

The  study  identified  several  factors  influencing  the  efficiency  of  TSI  projects 
implementation. According to the targeted survey, the most important factor affecting the 
implementation  of  projects  was  the  cooperation  between  the  European  Commission, 
beneficiary authorities and technical support providers, with 96% (146 out of 152) of 
beneficiary authorities and 98% of technical support providers (60 out of 61) suggesting 
it  had  a  moderate  to  strong  positive  effect.  Results  of  the  case  studies,  focus  group 
discussions  and  interviews  confirm  the  importance  of  this  factor  to  the  successful 
implementation  of  the  TSI  projects.  For  example,  initial  establishment  of  cooperation 
between participating institutions and the definition of common goals, as well as strong 
interest and engagement from stakeholders such as NGOs, financial market associations, 
the  project 
the  successful 
and  universities  contributed 
‘Development of a national strategy for financial education (NSFE) in Poland’. 

implementation  of 

to 

Another  factor  is  the  efficient  functioning  of  the  Steering  Committees,  that  both  the 
beneficiary authorities (95%, 144 out of 152) and technical support providers (94%, 59 
out of 63) identified as having a moderate to strong positive effect. In practice, the survey 
also highlighted that the functioning of project Steering Committees was considered by 
beneficiary  authorities  and  technical  support  providers  as  largely  effective  for  TSI 
projects  selected  under  the  general  requests  for  technical  support  and  to  a  lesser  extent 
for the flagship ones whose complexity require more steering. 

The  study  also  identified  external  factors  that  could  possibly  hinder  the  effective 
in  accessing  necessary 
implementation  of  TSI  projects,  such  as  challenges 
information  and  data  from  national  administrations.  At  the  same  time,  22%  of 
beneficiary authorities (25 out of 112) and 40% of technical support providers (20 out of 
50) suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic was an important external factor having 
a  moderate  or  strong  negative  effect  on  the  delivery  of  technical  support.  The 
negative  influence  of  the  pandemic  was  less  pronounced  during  the  implementation  of 
the TSI compared to the SRSP, due to the different timing of these programmes. 

4.1.3.  Coherence- To what extent is the TSI internally and externally coherent? 

Internal coherence 

Based  on  the  targeted  survey  and  interview  data,  the  evaluation  found  no  significant 
inconsistencies  among  TSI  projects  within  individual  Member  States.  Survey 
respondents  mostly  perceived  the  TSI  projects  as  partially  complementary.  60%  (27 
out  of  30)  of  national  coordinating  and  75%  (47  out  of  63)  of  beneficiary  authorities 
agreed that the TSI projects in their country have synergies and complement each other 
to a high or a moderate extent. 

Evidence  from  case  studies  revealed  limited  evidence  of  collaborative  mechanisms 
and synergies between TSI projects in the same Member State in the same policy field. 
The highest level of complementarity was found in the case of ‘follow-up projects’ (i.e. 
TSI projects  following up on SRSP projects).  For example, in  Austria, the reform  path 
set by the SRSP-supported development of primary healthcare units was continued under 
a TSI multi-country project, through the creation of a new health financing department. 

42 

 
Good  practices  to  develop  synergies  have  been  highlighted  by  the  study,  such  as  the 
facilitator  role  of  the  country  coordinator  in  Greece,  bringing  together  beneficiaries  of 
TSI projects within the same policy field to enhance their understanding of simultaneous 
reforms  and  their  contribution  to  achieving  strategic  aims.  This  points  to  the  need  of 
leadership and a good oversight of the TSI projects, to enhance synergies. 

National  coordinating  authorities  have  a  good  overview  of  TSI  projects  in  a  Member 
State  and  could  have  a  key  role  in  enhancing  synergies  across  projects.  Nevertheless, 
interviews highlighted that coordinating authorities’ involvement varies significantly in 
their  communication  about  the  TSI,  their  prioritisation  of  requests  and  their 
monitoring and follow-up of TSI projects (see box 1). This disparity results in uneven 
support to beneficiary authorities across Member States, affecting the consistency of their 
use of technical support, as well as their monitoring of project results. This uneven and 
limited involvement of coordinating authorities may be explained by the fact that their 
role  is  not  formalised,  that  additional  resources  are  not  dedicated,  as  TSI-related 
activities add to other responsibilities of these institutions. 

External coherence 

The  study  found  the  TSI  to  be  complementary  to  other  EU  programmes  with  similar 
objectives.  Notably,  TSI  projects  support 
the  absorption  of  and  enable  other 
funds/programmes/policy  measures  (e.g.  Just  Transition  Fund).  But  there  is  limited 
knowledge  at  Member  States  level  on  how  to  strategically  combine  various  EU 
instruments to support the whole reform cycle from design to implementation. 

The selection process places a strong emphasis on avoiding overlaps. Overlaps in terms 
of funding were avoided due to the robust two-tier selection process involving national 
coordinating authorities and Commission services. 

First,  national  coordinating  authorities  prioritise  requests  for  technical  support.  In 
addition to the commitment included in the request that there is no overlap with any other 
EU funded actions, many coordinating authorities conduct additional checks on funding 
overlaps in the prioritisation phase (even if some indicated that clear criteria are missing). 

Second,  DG  REFORM  organises  a  consultation  with  other  Commission  services  to 
check that the request would not incur in double funding (i.e. that there is no other EU 
programme  already targeting the same action).  Moreover, the  risk of double funding is 
also signalled by the Commission services during the assessment stage. 

The study points to unique features of the TSI compared to other EU programmes with 
similar  objective  to  enhance  economic  and  social  development  within  the  EU.  Unlike 
technical assistance under other EU programmes (e.g. European Social Fund +, European 
that  provide  administrative  support  for  project 
Regional  Development  Fund) 
implementation,  the  TSI  operates  with  more  thematic  support  and  expertise  and  uses  a 
range of funding mechanisms (see Table 3 below). The study suggests that the purpose 
and the activities of the TSI are complementary to those of ESF+, the European Regional 
Development  Fund  and  the  RRF.  Compared  to  TAIEX  and  Fiscalis  programmes,  that 
focus  on  networking  and  training  as  one-off  activities,  the  TSI  integrates  different 
delivery  methods  and  provides  a  tailored  mix  of  activities  meeting  the  demands  of 
Member  States,  to  strengthen  public  authorities’  capacities  and  support  the  design  and 
implementation of growth-enhancing reforms. 

43 

 
 
European Regional 
Development Fund 

Recovery and Resilience 
Facility 

TAIEX 

Fiscalis Programme 

pandemic, 

Mitigate  the  economic  and 
social  impact  of  the  COVID-
19 
increasing 
sustainability and resilience of 
the  European  economies  and 
societies 

Provide  tailored  support  to 
public 
administrations 
regarding  the  approximation, 
application  and  enforcement 
of  EU  legislation  as  well  as 
facilitate  the  sharing  of  EU 
good practices 

Support  tax  policy  and  the 
implementation  of  Union  law 
taxation, 
relating 
to 
administrative 
capacity 
building  as  well  as  foster 
cooperation 
tax 
authorities 

between 

Table 3- Comparison of interventions with similar objectives at the EU level 

European Social Fund + 

Complement and add value to 
the policies of Member States 
to  ensure  equal  opportunities, 
equal  access  to  the  labour 
and  quality 
market, 
working  conditions, 
social 
protection and inclusion 

fair 

building 

Analytical,  mutual  learning, 
capacity 
and 
networking activities, mobility 
schemes 
social 
experimentation 

and 

Aim 

Activities 

Strengthen  economic,  social 
and  territorial  cohesion  in  the 
European Union 

Investments  in  infrastructure, 
business 
supporting 
innovation, 
enhancing 
research  and  development, 
improving  access  to  services, 
networking, 
facilitating 
cooperation, 
of 
exchange 
experience across sectors 

transition, 

and 
reforms 
Funding 
in  six  pillars: 
investments 
digital 
green 
smart, 
transformation, 
sustainable 
inclusive 
and 
growth,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion, 
and 
resilience, and policies for the 
next  generation 
(including 
education and skills) 

health 

Short-term  (up  to  five  days) 
workshops,  expert  missions 
and  study  visits,  delivered  in 
multiple 
fields, 
policy 
TAIEX-TSI 
including 
(contribution 
the  TSI), 
to 
TAIEX-REGIO  (regional  and 
urban  policy)  and  TAIEX-
Environmental 
Implementation Review (peer-
between 
learning 
to-peer 
environmental authorities) 

events 

TAIEX-TSI 
are 
managed  by  DG  NEAR  and 
funded  from  the  TAIEX-TSI 
budget  line  (no  contributions 
from  Member  States  are 
needed) 

closer 

are 
assistance 

to 
Activities 
(i.e. 
technical 
cooperation, 
project-based 
one-off 
training 
events, 
activities  –  all  of  them  with a 
several 
precondition 
are 
participant 
involved) 
some 
activities could be assimilated 
to  technical  assistance  (such 
as the study visits). 

that 
countries 

although 

May  be  initiated  both  by  the 
participating countries and the 
Commission. Implemented via 
grants 
the 
allocated 
participating countries 

to 

Funding 
mechanisms 

Shared  management, 
co-
funding  by  Member  States. 
Member  States  allocate  funds 
to 
and 
specific 
programmes 

projects 

responsibility, 

the 
Shared 
Member 
States’ 
administrations  choose  which 
projects  to  finance  and  take 
responsibility  for  day-to-day 
management 

Grants  and  loans  to  Member 
States available based on their 
recovery  and  resilience  plans. 
Performance-based funding 

Source: PPMI based on Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1057&from=EN; Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development 
Fund and  on  the  Cohesion  Fund.  Available at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1058;  Regulation  (EU) 2021/241  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the Council of 12 February 2021 
establishing  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility.  Available  at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0241;  TAIEX  and  Twinning  Activity  Report  2023.  Available  at:  https://neighbourhood-
enlargement.ec.europa.eu/taiex-and-twinning-activity-report-2023_en; Fiscalis programme. Available at: https://reform-support.ec.europa.eu/fiscalis-programme_en 

44 

 
 
 
At  Commission  level,  the  main  links  found  between  the  TSI  and  other  instruments 
consists  of  cooperation  channels  (such  as  focal  points,  regular  meetings  and 
consultations) between DG REFORM and other Commission services. 

The  TSI  successfully  managed  to  create  synergies  with  TAIEX,  which  was 
successfully integrated as a delivery method  to  support  peer-to-peer  exchanges of good 
practices  between  EU  Member  States.  According  to  the  survey  to  beneficiary  and 
coordinating  authorities,  the  modernisation  of  labour  market  institutions  (supported  by 
the  ESF+)  and  investing  in  infrastructure  for  employment  services  (supported  by  the 
ERDF)  were  seen  as  the  least  complementary  to  the  TSI58.  These  results  could  be 
explained  by  the  limited  awareness  at  Member  State  level  on  how  the  TSI  could  be 
combined  with  other  EU  programmes  and  instruments  to  ensure  continuous  support 
through  the  entire  reform  cycle,  from  design  to  implementation.  Case  study  findings 
confirmed this lack of a comprehensive view due to the availability of multiple funding 
instruments within the EU policy framework (‘not seeing the big picture’). 

The  highest  complementarity  found  is  between  the  RRF  and  the  TSI,  as  synergies 
between the TSI and RRF are established in both instruments’ regulations. The mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  RRF  highlighted  a  strong  alignment  between  the  RRF  and  the  TSI59. 
This high level of coherence was also confirmed by the survey as well as the mid-term 
evaluation of the RRF60. These synergies between the TSI and the RRF were particularly 
ensured through the provision  of technical  support to  RRPs since 2021, as  one specific 
objectives  of  the  TSI  is  to  assist  national  authorities  in  improving  their  capacity  to 
prepare, amend, implement and revise RRPs. 

It  was  also  facilitated  by  the  continuous  communication  between  SG  RECOVER,  DG 
REFORM  and  DG  ECFIN.  Even  though  the  implementation  of  reforms  is  outside  the 
direct  control  of  the  TSI,  the  performance-oriented  nature  of  the  RRF  was  seen  as  a 
facilitator  to  use  TSI  project  deliverables  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  national 
RRPs to achieve its foreseen outcomes. The targeted survey results suggest that the TSI 
projects  mostly  contributed  to  the  implementation  and,  to  a  more  limited  extent,  to  the 
preparation and revision of the national RRPs61. The interview evidence suggests that this 
result may have been determined by the mismatch in the timelines of the dedicated call to 
support the preparation of the national RRPs and the deadline for the submission of these 
plans. 

Box 5 - TSI support for the preparation and implementation of the national RRPs 

58 Only 45% of beneficiary authorities (33 out of 74) and 65% of coordinating authorities (13 out of 20) 

found these programmes complementary to a moderate or a high extent. 

59 ECORYS, CEPS, CSIL, NIESR, and Wavestone, 2023. Study supporting the mid-term Evaluation of the 

Recovery and Resilience Facility. Final Report. 

60  71%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (63  out  of  89)  and  83%  of  coordinating  authorities  (19  out  of  23) 

indicated complementarity between the RRF and the TSI. 

61 36% of the coordinating authorities (9 out of 25) perceived the TSI as contributing to the revision of the 
RRP to a moderate or a high extent. 38% of them (10 out of 26) perceived the TSI as contributing to 
the preparation of the RRP to a moderate or a high extent. 57% of them (15 out of 26) perceived the 
TSI as contributing to the implementation of the RRP to a moderate or a high extent. 

45 

 
 
 
In February 2021, the Commission launched the RRF. As part of this initiative, Member States 
were required to develop national RRPs that outline their reform and investment strategies up to 
2026. The Commission subsequently launched a dedicated call to support the implementation of 
RRPs during the TSI 2022 cycle. Additionally, four Member States submitted requests under Article 7.2 
of the RRF Regulation, which allows Member States to propose including in their RRP (as estimated costs) 
payments  for  additional  TSI  support.  This  RRF  mechanism  was  used  in  2022  to  support  Cyprus, 
Greece, Croatia and Romania in achieving several milestones and targets. 

As noted in the mid-term evaluation of the RRF, the TSI was crucial in helping Member States prepare 
and implement their RRPs. In the first year of the RRF, Member States benefited from a dedicated TSI 
call,  allowing  the  results  of  the  technical  support  to  be  integrated  into  their  RRPs.  Overall,  the  TSI 
supported more  than 500  projects  linked to RRP milestones over the  evaluation period. TSI  support was 
embedded in RRPs, and after their adoption, Member States could request support under subsequent TSI 
annual  cycles  or  transfer  funds  to  DG  REFORM  for  additional  technical  support.  This  support  has 
significantly enhanced Member States’ capacity to design and deliver their plans effectively. 

Evidence from the case study on RRPs underscores the importance of horizontal capacity-building support, 
particularly  in  project  management  and  auditing.  Results  of  the  targeted  survey  also  highlighted  the 
uniqueness  of  the  TSI-funded  projects,  with  over  71%  of  beneficiary  and  national  coordinating 
authorities  reporting  that  similar  support  for  preparing,  amending,  revising,  and  implementing  the  RRPs 
was unavailable through other means. 

Source:  compiled  by  PPMI,  based  on  interview  evidence,  targeted  survey  and  ECORYS,  CEPS,  CSIL, 
NIESR,  Wavestone,  2023.  Study  supporting  the  mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility; and DG REFORM, Delivering on Reforms, 2024, p. 15. 

Furthermore,  the  TSI  is  coherent  with  the  European  Semester  process,  through  its 
contribution  to  addressing  country-specific  recommendations  (CSRs).  A  total  of 
98% of the Member State requests selected in 2023 concerned support for implementing 
reforms linked to priorities set out under the European Semester framework62, while 44% 
of  the  selected  requests  (101  out  of  231)  were  linked  to  reforms  in  the  context  of 
economic governance processes (e.g. CSRs, Country reports)63. The link to CSRs plays a 
role from the onset, as this is one of the circumstances linked to which MS may submit 
requests,  as  per  the  TSI  Regulation  (Article 9).  More  specifically,  the  selection  process 
includes  CSRs  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  the  requests  (under  the  urgency  criterion). 
This link may deserve further strengthening in the TSI programme, to ensure continuous 
alignment of proposed support requests with EU priorities. This coherence is particularly 
ensured  through  the  provision  of  technical  support  to  RRPs  since  2021,  as  it  was 
mandatory for RRPs to address all, or a significant subset of relevant CSRs issued in the 
context of the European Semester. Evidence from case studies, stakeholder consultation, 
and  desk  research  confirms  the  positive  role  of  the  TSI  to  implementing  CSRs.  The 
majority of surveyed coordinating and beneficiary authorities (respectively 84%, 27 out 
of 32, and 75%, 91 out of 121) stated that TSI projects addressed the CSRs issued in the 
context of the European Semester to a high or a moderate extent. This was confirmed by 
the  case  studies,  that  demonstrated  a  high  level  of  the  TSI’s  contribution  to  the 
implementation  of CSRs. While it is  highly unlikely that a single TSI project  can fully 
address  a  CSR,  the  project  ‘SHAPE  -  Strengthening  change  management  process  of 
executives’ was focused on the 2019-2020 CSRs that highlighted the need to  ‘improve 
the effectiveness of public administration’ in Italy (see example in Table 2). Furthermore, 
the  case  studies  analysed  TSI  projects  in  France  and  Cyprus,  that  are  focused  on  the 
implementation of CSRs related to the reduction of territorial and regional disparities as 

62 European Commission, 2023. TSI programme performance statement 
63 Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, 2024. Technical Support Instrument - Annual Report 

2023 

46 

 
 
well as the development of the civil  service respectively.  However,  challenges remain 
regarding  the  monitoring  of  how  TSI  projects  specifically  contribute  to  fulfilling 
CSRs, due to the limited mandate of the TSI post project implementation. 

In terms of coherence  of TSI projects  with regional  or national  level priorities and 
programmes,  the  study  evidence  points  to  a  high  level  of  complementarity  and 
improvements compared to the SRSP. Survey results show that a total of 86% (24 out of 
28) of coordinating authorities and 66% (85 out of 128) of beneficiary authorities agree 
to  high  or  moderate  extent  that  the  TSI  complements  actions  of  similar  national  and 
regional programmes, for example by addressing the same issues, target groups, aiming 
at the same objectives. At the time of the ex post evaluation of the SRSP, around half of 
surveyed beneficiary authorities (54%) indicated complementarity. An example from the 
case  studies  is  the  TSI  support  to  the  National  Transparency  Authority  in  Greece  that 
contributes to the implementation of the National Public Procurement Strategy 2021-25 
and the National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2022-25. 

The study also shows that the TSI has gained increasing recognition as a valuable tool 
to  support  Member  States  in  the  implementation  of  newly  adopted  EU  legislation. 
Evidence points to the increasing integration of the expertise provided by the TSI to 
support the implementation of EU laws and policies64. 

Finally,  the  evaluation  shows  that  TSI  projects  are  closely  coherent  with  the 
Commission’s horizontal priorities, especially in the fields of economic development, 
digital  and  green  transitions.  The  increasing  number  of  these  projects  contributing  to 
horizontal  priorities  may  be  linked  both  with  the  introduction  of  flagship  requests  and 
with the specificity of the RRF. However, despite a growing number of TSI projects and 
budget dedicated to equality principles (e.g. support for women, people with disabilities, 
migrants), the perceived contribution of the TSI to the promotion of equality remains one 
of  the  lowest  among  horizontal  priorities65.  This  could  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  a 
large  share  of  the  survey  respondents  was  involved  in  the  TSI  2021  projects  that  were 
less oriented towards the promotion of this principle. Furthermore, a vast majority of the 
budget  dedicated  for  the  projects  related  to  gender  equality  (EUR 335.4  million)  was 
assigned to interventions with an expected but not yet achieved positive impact. 

64  The  TSI  was  mentioned  in  53  legal  acts  (i.e.  regulations,  directives,  recommendations,  decisions) 
between 2021-2023 (compared to 24 legal acts mentioning the SRSP between 2017-2020). In terms of 
regulations,  the  TSI  is  foreseen  to  provide  support  to,  among  others,  the  RRF,  Single  Market 
Programme  and  Social  Climate  Fund.  Regarding  decisions,  the  TSI  is  mentioned  among  other 
interventions  to  support  the  implementation  of  measures  envisaged  in  the  Digital  Compass 
Communication,  and  also  highlighted  in  the  Decision  establishing  the  Digital  Decade  Policy 
Programme  2030,  as  well  as  reforms  linked  to  national  or  regional  strategies  on  skills  under  the 
European  Year  of  Skills.  The  TSI  is  mentioned  the  most  in  Commission  and  Council 
recommendations,  as  providing  support  for  tailor-made  reforms  in  multiple  policy  fields,  including 
healthcare, environmental and climate policies, civil society, education and childcare, digital skills. 
65  According  to  the  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities,  the  TSI  has  mostly  contributed  to  EU  digital 
transition  (40%  to  a  high  extent,  59  out  of  149;  26%  to  a  moderate  extent,  38  out  of  149).  The 
contribution of the instrument to EU green transition (33% to a high extent,  45 out of 136) and UN 
SDGs (27% to a high extent, 35 out of 127) has also been pronounced. The contribution of the TSI is 
perceived  as  the most  limited  in  the  area  of  equality  principles,  with  51%  of  respondents  (64  out  of 
126) noting that the instrument has not contributed to this area at all. 

47 

 
 
4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

4.2.1.  EU added value- What is the additional value resulting from the TSI compared 

to what could have been achieved by Member States? 

TSI  stakeholders  highlighted  the  strong  EU  added  value  of  the  TSI,  as  only  15%  of 
surveyed beneficiaries (21 out of 137) and 22% of coordinating authorities (5 out of 23) 
agreed  that  they  could  have  received  similar  technical  support  at  national,  regional  or 
local levels without the TSI. This is in line with the results of the  ex post evaluation of 
the  SRSP,  when  more  than  80%  of  all  stakeholders  (106  out  of  132)  considered  that 
beneficiary  authorities  could  not  have  received  similar  technical  support  or  could  have 
received it only to a limited extent at a national, regional or local level during 2017-2020. 

Among  various  reasons  for  requesting  TSI  support  instead  of  other  programmes, 
most  beneficiary  authorities  selected  the  absence  of  financial  burdens  (103  out  of  186, 
55%) and TSI ability to meet specific requirements not addressed by other programmes 
(101 out of 186, 54%). 

According  to  the  survey,  98%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (161  out  of  164)  and  100%  of 
coordinating  authorities  (30  out  of  30)66  agree  that  the  TSI  is  distinct  from  other 
programmes  due  to  its  capacity  to  mobilise  international  especially  European 
expertise,  collaborative  efforts  with  other  Member  States,  provision  of  tailored 
support, and legitimisation of practices. Interviews with national and EU stakeholders 
revealed  that  involving  international  organisations  in  the  TSI  projects  increases  their 
legitimacy and enhances visibility at the EU level. Combining local experts with context-
specific insights and international providers with a more strategic approach, proved to be 
beneficial. This approach strengthens the credibility and acceptance of reforms, making 
the projects more legitimate and impactful. 

Evidence shows that the EU added value of TSI projects, compared to what could have 
been achieved by the beneficiary authorities without EU support, varies depending on the 
type  of  intervention.  Interviews  highlighted  the  added  value  of  stand-alone  projects  to 
implement national priorities, which tends to increase ownership by Member States since 
the  support  is  specifically  designed  to  their  own  reform  priorities.  Data  on  the 
circumstances of support confirm that, even when they ask for support to implement their 
own reform priorities, Member States are also pursuing Union priorities, reforms in the 
context of the economic governance process or implementation, amendment and revision 
of the RRPs67. Those that are only addressing Member States’ own reform priorities only 
represent 4%. 

66 As explained in Annex V, coordinating authorities from all Member States, except Finland and Sweden, 
responded to the targeted survey. While there is one institution performing this role in each Member 
State, survey invitations were shared with multiple staff members within that institution. As a result, 
the number of responses received may exceed the number of Member States / coordinating authorities. 
67 Out of 780 selected requests in TSI2021-TSI2023, here are the circumstances of request, as assessed by 

POs (the sum is over 100%, since there may be several circumstances for the same request): 
Implementation of Union priorities (e.g. green / digital transitions, CMU, Customs Union, etc.): 72% 

• 
•  Reforms in the context of economic governance process (e.g. CSR, Country reports, etc.): 51% 
• 

Implementation  of  Member  States’  own  reform  priorities  to  support  recovery,  sustainable  economic 
growth, job creation and enhance resilience: 62% 
Implementation,  amendment  and  revision  of  recovery  and  resilience  plans  under  the  Recovery  and 
Resilience Facility: 44% 

• 

48 

 
 
 
Still  the  EU  added  value  of  multi-countries  and  flagship  projects  should  not  be 
underestimated. The TSI produced substantial cross-border and Union-wide results. 
Based  on  survey  data,  95%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (122  out  of  129)  and  93%  of 
coordinating  authorities  (26  out  of  28)  agreed  that  the  TSI  projects  help  address  cross-
border/Union-wide  impacts.  Interviews  highlighted  that  the  added  value  of  multi-
country  projects  lies  in  their  ability  to  address  broader,  cross-border  challenges  while 
promoting  collaboration  and  the  exchange  of  good  practices  among  participating 
countries.  This  appears  particularly  beneficial  in  countries  facing  similar  needs,  as 
illustrated  by  the  projects  involving  Slovakia,  Romania,  and  Poland  in  addressing  the 
displacement  of  Ukrainian  refugees.  The  survey  results  confirmed  that  the  TSI 
produced  substantial  cross-border  and  Union-wide  results.  Based  on  survey  data, 
95% of beneficiary authorities (122 out of 129) and 93% of coordinating authorities (26 
out of 28) agreed that the TSI projects help address cross-border/Union-wide impacts. 

In the case of multi-country projects, interaction with peers from other countries having 
similar  experiences  is  highly  valuable,  fostering  learning  and  improvement  in 
administrative  capacities  across  EU  Member  States.  The  case  studies  revealed  that  the 
learning  process  became  in  some  cases  a  ‘two-way  street’  as  sharing  expertise  and 
insights  was  perceived  as  beneficial  even  by  public  administrations  typically  seen  as 
advanced in a particular policy area. As evidenced in case studies on ‘Green Budgeting’, 
the  multi-country  aspect  allowed  Ireland  to  learn  from  Denmark  about  impact 
assessments,  and  Denmark  to  learn  from  Ireland  about  budget  tagging  and  considering 
the  implementation  of  these  practices.  Similarly,  the  project  ‘Cooperative  Compliance 
Programme in Belgium and Poland – strategies for the full roll  outs and attracting the 
participation  of  the  large  taxpayers’  demonstrated  the  opportunity  for  mutual  learning 
presented by the multi-country modality. Poland gained insights from Belgium’s longer 
experience 
implementing  Cooperative  Compliance  Programmes,  and  Belgium 
incorporated new ideas from the Polish approach. Also, exchanges of experience create 
motivation and interest for countries to become more involved in implementing reforms. 
For example, the case study on ‘Green Budgeting’ illustrates how peer exchanges play a 
crucial role in fostering trust and engagement among Member States, strengthening their 
commitment  to  tracking  public  finances  related  to  green  issues.  Under  the  EU  Green 
Budgeting Programme, 17 peer exchanges were organised, and over 1 200 civil servants 
received training across 23 Member States, further strengthening technical expertise and 
cross-country  collaboration.  These  exchanges  have  also  contributed  to  building  a 
growing community of practitioners dedicated to integrating sustainability into budgetary 
processes and enhancing confidence in the practical implementation of green budgeting 
methodologies. 

According  to  the  targeted  survey,  99%  of  beneficiaries  (174  out  of  175)  and  100%  of 
coordinating  authorities  (30  out  of  30)  identified  the  most  specific  characteristic  of  the 
TSI in promoting the exchange of lessons, good practices, and creation of network of 
expertise.  This  contribution  is  more  strongly  perceived  compared  to  the  ex post 
evaluation of the SRSP, when 86% of national coordinating authorities agreeing/strongly 
agreeing  that  technical  support  increased  the  sharing  of  knowledge  and  good  practices, 

•  Reforms  in  the  context  of  economic  governance  process  (e.g.  CSR,  Country  reports,  etc.): 

51%Implementation of Union law (e.g. infringements): 10% 

•  Preparation of recovery and resilience plans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility: 5% 
• 

Implementation of economic adjustment programmes: 1%. 

49 

 
 
which may be explained by the increase in  the number of multi-country  projects  under 
the TSI. 

Interviews with  national  stakeholders  confirmed  that the TSI offered the opportunity  to 
create  channels  of  communication  with  peers  and  professionals  across  Member  States, 
e.g. 
through  peer-to-peer  engagements,  such  as  TAIEX.  Interviewed  national 
coordinating authorities perceive TAIEX as a useful tool which has a positive effect on 
sharing  of  good  practices  among  the  EU  Member  States.  Some  stakeholders  also 
emphasised  that  TAIEX  allows  formal  and  informal  connections  to  be  built  for  future 
collaboration. In particular, the flagship PACE (launched under the TSI in 2023) aims at 
creating  a  European  community  of  civil  servants  to  share  good  practices  and  create 
bilateral contacts and is implemented through TAIEX. 

According  to  the  survey,  96%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (157  out  of  164)  and  85%  of 
coordinating  authorities  (24  out  of  28)  agreed  that  the  TSI  promotes  the  creation  of  a 
community of experts and foster a continuous cooperation among the Member States. 
The case studies demonstrated the specific role of multi-country projects and flagships 
(stand-alone  and  multi-country)  in  this  respect.  Thanks  to  the  TSI  support  on  Green 
Budgeting,  a  dynamic  community  of  practitioners  emerged,  fostering  collaboration 
through  in-person  meetings  and  open  discussions  that  strengthened  the  exchange  of 
expertise  and  best  practices  among  Member  States.  Projects  on  Health  Systems 
Performance  Assessment  created  a  community  of  practice  among  the  participant  and 
interested  Member  States.  Another  example,  the  EU  Supervisory  Digital  Finance 
Academy  support  project  encouraged  knowledge  sharing  between  EU  supervisors, 
facilitating  the  establishment  of  a  community  of  digitally  savvy  financial  supervisors 
across EU Member States, that will be instrumental in the completion of the Savings and 
Investment Union. 

Interviews with Commission officials confirmed that multi-country projects and flagship 
projects  fostered  continuous  cooperation  among  Member  States  even  beyond  the 
project timelines, by providing platforms for sharing technical knowledge and addressing 
specific  challenges,  leading  to  the  creation  of  communities.  For  example,  in  the  TSI 
project  ‘Cooperative  Compliance  Programme  in  Belgium  and  Poland’,  collaboration 
between the Belgian and Polish teams was strong, with workshops in France and Ireland 
allowing both teams to engage with established compliance programmes, leading to the 
creation  of  a  network  of  cooperative  compliance  experts.  Participants  from  various 
countries  continued  to  engage  bilaterally,  sharing  experiences  and  learnings  from  each 
other  in  specific  areas.  Regular,  in-person  exchanges  are  emphasised  as  essential  for 
sustaining  effective  coordination  and  preventing  stagnation,  suggesting  a  need  for 
structured follow-up mechanisms to enhance the continuous impact of these initiatives. 

According to  the targeted survey,  97% of  both  beneficiary  authorities (141 out  of 145) 
and coordinating authorities (30 out of 31) (strongly) agreed that another added value of 
TSI projects is their contribution to the implementation of the Union law and policies. 
This is higher compared to the results of the ex post evaluation of the SRSP, and may be 
explained  by  the  introduction  of  TSI  flagship  projects.  The  evaluation  also  suggests  a 
significant  contribution  of  the  TSI  not  only  to  (‘hard’)  legislative  changes  but  also  the 
application of (‘soft’) policy instruments. For example, the TSI, aligned with the Gender 
Equality Strategy 2020-2025, devoted a significant share of its budget to support reforms 
related to gender equality (EUR 335.4 million). 

TSI  flagship projects  are designed to  align with  EU priorities, such  as  environmental 
sustainability  and  economic  governance.  They  can  thus  help  meet  new  regulatory 

50 

 
demands  and  contribute  effectively  to  the  achievement  of  EU  priorities  and  common 
goals. In particular, the TSI is showing an increasing contribution to the green transition 
compared to the predecessor programme SRSP. 

According  to  the  targeted  survey,  96%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (129  out  of  135)  and 
96% of coordinating authorities (28 out of 29) agree that the TSI contribution to the twin 
digital and green transitions is highly perceived as a characteristic of the TSI. Interviews 
with national and EU-level stakeholders confirmed the vital role played by TSI projects 
in advancing the green transition, including with the circular economy and zero pollution 
objectives, and enhancing energy efficiency across EU Member States. 

However,  some  concerns  were  raised  about  the  potential  drawbacks  in  the 
implementation of flagship and multi-country projects, in  particular  as regards their 
complexity  (for  example,  when  multi-country  projects  split  into  several  stand-alone 
projects due to different national needs). Additionally, stakeholders noted risks of lower 
ownership or political  commitment from  participating  countries, which  could  affect  the 
long-term success of these projects. 

The  TSI  also  provided  added  value  to  Member  States  in  the  development  of  their 
RRPs, especially in areas not sufficiently covered by other support mechanisms. 74% of 
beneficiary authorities (65 out of 87) and 71% of coordinating authorities (17 out of 24) 
stated that similar technical support for preparing, amending, revising, and implementing 
the  RRPs  was  not  available  apart  from  the  TSI.  Evidence  from  the  case  study  and 
interviews  with  TSI  projects’  stakeholders  in  Lithuania,  Greece,  and  Bulgaria, 
highlighted  the  importance  of  horizontal  capacity  building  to  enhance  the  operational 
capabilities required  for  the effective execution of RRF initiatives, particularly in  areas 
such as project management and audit. 

The mid-term  evaluation of the RRF confirmed that the TSI was able to  address issues 
crucial for the implementation of the RRPs, such as project management and governance, 
by  providing  both  general  and  specialised  support68.  However,  the  timing  of  the  TSI 
support in part limited the added value of the instrument in supporting the preparation of 
the  recovery  and  resilience  plans.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  by  the  time  the  TSI  was  made 
available to Member States, the plans had already been presented, which limited the need 
for support. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

4.3.1.  Relevance- To what extent are the TSI objectives relevant to address the needs 

expressed by the Member States and correspond to wider EU policy goals? 

Consultations provide evidence that there is a continuous need for technical support. As 
evidenced in the targeted survey, overall, the need remains at a similar level as during the 
ex post evaluation of SRSP (83% of beneficiary authorities, 95% of national coordinating 
authorities  and  82%  of  technical  support  providers  in  SRSP  evaluation  indicated  that 
there is a need for further support). 

Evidence from consultations indicate that the TSI objectives are still relevant to address 
the  needs  expressed  by  Member  States  (with  some  variations  observed  between 

68 ECORYS, CEPS, CSIL, NIESR, and Wavestone, 2023. Study supporting the mid-term Evaluation of the 

Recovery and Resilience Facility. Final Report. 

51 

 
 
countries).  According  to  the  targeted  survey,  Member  States  still  face  the  challenges 
when  requesting  technical  support  still  faced  the  challenges  identified  in  the  ex ante 
evaluation of the SRSP, which underlines the continuous relevance of technical support 
over time The most common challenges reported by beneficiary authorities concern: 

•  Limited  administrative  and  institutional  capacity:  70%  (130  out  of  186) 

beneficiary authorities, and 71% (25 out of 35) coordinating authorities69. 

•  The  design  and  implementation  of  structural  reforms,  in  line  with  the  Union’s 
economic and social goals: 35% (66 out of 186) beneficiary authorities, and 51% 
(18 out of 35) coordinating authorities70. 

•  The  application  and  implementation  of  Union  law:  11%  (20  out  of  186) 

beneficiary authorities, and 34% (12 out of 35) coordinating authorities71. 

In addition to these challenges, new needs were also frequently expressed, such as: 

•  Mitigating the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 crisis: 10% 
(19  out  of  186)  beneficiary  authorities,  and  46%  (16  out  of  35)  coordinating 
authorities72. 

•  Addressing  the  challenges  of  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  was 
selected  by  4%  (7  out  of  186)  beneficiary  authorities,  and  31%  (11  out  of  35) 
coordinating authorities73. 

In  terms  of  types  of  activities  needed,  stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  technical 
support  particularly  in  defining  and  implementing  procedures  and  methodologies74  as 
well as in developing and implementing reform strategies75. 

The design of the TSI is assessed as more relevant than the SRSP to address the needs 
of  Member  States.  Recent  adjustments  with  the  introduction  of  multi-country/multi-
regional  projects  and  flagship  requests  for  support,  have  provided  an  opportunity  to 

69 The Member States most in need for this type of support are  Austria (87.5% of respondents from this 
country, i.e. 7 out of 8) and Estonia (75% of respondents from this country, i.e. 3 out of 4). In contrast, 
the Member States where this challenge was the least prominent are Luxembourg, Sweden, Slovakia, 
and Poland (the share of respondents varies from 0 to 14%). 

70 Stakeholders from Lithuania (57% of respondents, i.e. 4 out of 7), Slovakia (50% of respondents, i.e. 7 
out  of  14)  and  Sweden  (50%  of  respondents,  1  out  of  2)  mostly  perceive  this  as  challenge  to  be 
addressed. The Member States where  this need is perceived to a low extent are Luxembourg (0%, 0 
out of 1), Estonia (0%, 0 out of 4), and Malta (11%, 1 out of 9). 

71 The respondents from Hungary (33%, 1 out of 3), Germany (25%, 2 out of 8), the Netherlands (22%, 4 
out of 9), and Malta (22%, 1 out of 9) experience it to a higher extent. However, this need is the least 
recognised by stakeholders from Luxembourg, Sweden, Bulgaria, Belgium, Estonia and Greece (0%). 
72  Concerns  about  economic  and  social  consequences  of  the  pandemic  are  the  most  prominent  among 
respondents from Lithuania (29%, 2 out of 7), Greece (27%, 3 out of 11) and Estonia (25%, 1 out of 
4), while this issue is not a priority for respondents from Luxembourg, Malta, Hungary, Sweden (0%). 
73  Respondents from  Czechia  (22%  of  respondents,  2  out  of  9),  Romania,  Denmark  and  Ireland (16%  in 
each)  and  Lithuania,  Slovakia,  Bulgaria  and  Poland  (14%  each)  marked  them  as  needed  to  be 
addressed, while no need for support in this area was identified by the respondents from Luxembourg, 
Estonia, Malta, Finland, Hungary, Austria and Sweden (0%). 

74 89% of beneficiary authorities and 94% of national coordinating authorities expressed this need to a high 

or moderate extent. 

75 84% of beneficiary authorities and 91% of national coordinating authorities expressed this need to a high 

or moderate extent. 

52 

 
 
better  align  TSI  support  with  EU  priorities  and  improved  the  instrument’s  ability  to 
facilitate the application and implementation of EU legislation. 

The  relevance  of  TSI  projects  to  the  key  needs  of  beneficiary  authorities  and 
Member States, was assessed very positively by all stakeholder groups responding to 
the targeted survey, with improvements compared to the ex post evaluation of SRSP. A 
vast  majority  of  surveyed  beneficiary  authorities  (98%,  170  out  of  174),  coordinating 
authorities  (97%,  32  out  of  33)  and  technical  support  providers  (97%,  65  out  of  67) 
(strongly) agreed that the projects addressed the key needs of the institution / country. 

A total of 91% of beneficiary authorities (136 out of 174) also (strongly) agreed that the 
TSI provided timely support, matching the needs of their institution.  In addition, a vast 
majority  of  surveyed  beneficiary  authorities  (98%,  157  out  of  161)  and  national 
coordinating  authorities  (97%,  26  out  of  29)  (strongly)  agreed  that  the  objectives  of 
technical support project(s) corresponded to the key reform goals of their country. This is 
significantly  higher  compared  to  the  ex post  evaluation,  when  83%  of  beneficiary 
authorities and 73% of national coordinating authorities agreed with this statement. 

According  to  the  case  studies,  four  out  of  five  multi-country  projects  analysed 
contributed  to  the  strengthening  of  the  administrative  and  institutional  capacity  of 
Member States.  Interviews with  coordinating authorities highlighted that the relevance 
of  the  flagship  and  multi-country  projects  relies  in  with  their  collaborative 
component, creating opportunities to cooperate with institutions and entities that would 
not exist otherwise. Nevertheless, it highlighted that the success of multi-country projects 
depends  on  participating  countries  progressing  at  a  similar  pace.  According  to  the 
interviewed coordinating authorities, the flagship requests for support are relevant for the 
Member  States  as  they  are  directly  aligned  with  the  EU  priorities.  However,  some 
coordinating  authorities  emphasised  in  interviews  as  well  as  in  a  survey  conducted  by 
DG REFORM  in  2023 that a balance with  stand-alone projects  (tailored  to  the specific 
needs of Member States) should be kept. 

In terms of policy areas, evidence from  the Eurobarometer data76 shows a very strong 
alignment  between  the  perceived  needs  and  the  support  received  from  the  TSI  in 
some  Member  States.  For  instance,  the  Greek  citizens  perceive  the  highest  need  of 
reforms  in  the public health sector (70%), in  the education sector (58%),  in  the family, 
housing  and  social  protection  sector  (46%)  as  well  as  in  the  employment  and  working 
conditions  sector  (28%),  whereas  25%  of  the  TSI  projects  are  in  the  labour  market, 
education, health & social services area. Similarly, in Austria, 50% of citizens perceive 
the need for public health reforms, 37% for family, housing and social protection, 36% 
for  education  reforms  and  26%  for  employment  and  working  conditions,  while  the 

76  European  Commission,  2023.  Flash  Eurobarometer  526:  Understanding  Europeans’  views  on  reform 
needs. Note: survey respondents could select up to three answers to this question [YOUR COUNTRY] 
undertakes  reforms  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  society.  Reforms  are  actions  taken  to  improve 
institutions, structures or public services. In your opinion, in which areas are reforms most needed in 
[YOUR COUNTRY]?. 

53 

 
 
majority  (35%)  of  the  TSI  projects  in  the  country  are  in  the  labour  market,  education, 
health & social services area. 

Such alignments are also observed in Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania. In contrast, in some 
Member  States,  a  need  for  support  in  public  health  and  education  was  perceived 
significantly higher compared to other areas, but these sectors are less represented in TSI 
support.  For  example,  in  Finland,  54%  of  citizens  perceive  a  need  for  public  health 
reforms  and  47%  for  reforms  in  education,  which  are  the  least  supported  areas  in  this 
country. Similar patterns are observed in Bulgaria and Czechia. 

The  TSI  design  demonstrated  high  flexibility  to  address  Member  States’  unforeseen 
and  emerging  needs  through  dedicated  calls  and  special  measures  outlined  in  the  TSI 
Regulation  (Article 12.7  and  Article 9.3).  The  majority  of  beneficiary  authorities  and 
national coordinating authorities (88% of beneficiary authorities, 136 out of 154 and 74% 
of  national  coordinating  authorities,  23  out  of  31)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the 
design of the TSI was able to address urgent and/or unforeseen needs of the country, with 
improvement  compared  to  the  ex post  evaluation  of  SRSP.  However,  interviews  with 
representatives  of  the  Commission  and  national  coordinating  authorities  highlighted 
some  limitations  in  the  response  to  urgent  needs  through  general  calls  of  the  annual 
cycle, considering the risk that projects do not start until at least one year after the need 
emerges and possible delays in the implementation of projects. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Since its creation in  2021, the TSI  has  provided  technical  support to  Member States to 
improve their capacity to design, develop and implement reforms, as well as to prepare, 
amend, implement and revise recovery and resilience plans (RRPs) under the Recovery 
and Resilience Facility (RRF). 

In 2021-2023, the implementation of the TSI was found to be overall successful in terms 
of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The programme was also found to be highly 
relevant in addressing the needs of beneficiary authorities and  Member States, which is 
mainly due to the design of the instrument. The TSI also had EU added value compared 
to what could have been achieved by Member States alone. 

Effectiveness 

Despite  some  limitations  encountered  in  the  assessment  of  effectiveness,  findings  from 
the  evaluation  show  that  between  2021  and  2023,  the  TSI  made  significant  progress 
towards its objectives as set out in the TSI Regulation. TSI effectively assisted Member 
States in improving their capacity to design and implement reforms. It also supported the 
preparation  and  implementation  of  national  RRPs  by  contributing  to  more  than  500 
projects directly or indirectly linked to specific RRP milestones. 

In relation to support to RRPs, certain misalignments between the deadlines of the RRP 
milestones  and  the  delivery  schedule  of  TSI  support  occurred  during  the  early 
implementation  of  the  support  in  2021.  In  some  cases,  TSI  support  was  provided  too 

54 

 
early  while  in  others  it  arrived  too  late  to  be  used,  which  was  due  to  the  very  narrow 
window  in  terms  of  timing.  These  shortcomings  highlight  the  relevance  of  addressing 
technical support needs of Member States from the outset of funding or policy initiatives, 
ensuring timelines and deadlines are properly aligned. 

to  achieve  changes  at 

A  vast  majority  of  TSI  stakeholders  expressed  high  satisfaction  with  the  success  and 
results  of  technical  support  projects.  TSI  projects  have  delivered  valuable  outputs, 
especially recommendations, workshops, training sessions and training material, analysis 
reports,  action  plans  and  roadmaps,  and  guidelines.  Outputs  have  been  utilised  to  a 
substantial  extent  by  beneficiary  authorities 
individual, 
organisational  and  policy  levels.  This  contributed  to    progress  in  achieving  expected 
outcomes  of  the  TSI.  The  TSI  played  a  significant  role  in  strengthening  all  types  of 
administrative  capacities,  especially  internal  administrative  mechanisms  for  reforms 
across the EU. However, these achievements are highly dependent on national factors, 
such  as  ownership  of  reforms,  availability  of  financial  resources  to  follow  up  on 
recommendations,  staff  stability  as  well  as  political  and  administrative  continuity.  The 
actual  achievement  of  reform  results  depends  on  wider  efforts  of  Member  States, 
considering that the cooperation and support plans, in which their commitment to engage 
in  the  implementation  of  support  measures  is  expressed,  are  not  legally  binding 
documents. Nevertheless, there is good potential to multiply these benefits and improve 
their  sustainability,  by  fostering  (in)formal  connections  for  existing  and  future 
through  a  more  systematic 
collaborations  and  exploiting  existing  knowledge, 
dissemination  of  project  results,  continued  support  from  Commission  officials  and 
exchange of knowledge among Member States. 

Efficiency 

Overall,  the  execution  of  the  TSI  and  its  associated  administrative  processes  has  been 
largely  efficient.  Thanks  to  the  design  of  the  instrument,  there  are  no  reporting 
obligations for Member States, and the administrative burden is very low compared to 
other  EU  instruments,  which  is  praised  by  all  Member  States.  Beneficiary  authorities 
considered  the  administrative  burden  associated  with  the  application  and  project 
implementation processes to be reasonable and proportionate. 

The high demand for TSI support ensured a good level of competition and the selection 
of high-quality proposals, based on the internal scoring attributed to the selected requests 
under the seven criteria assessed.  

To improve efficiency, DG REFORM has implemented lessons learned from evaluations 
of the SRSP, for example by simplifying and streamlining programme management. 
The  introduction  of  multi-country  projects,  representing  about  10%  of  all  TSI  projects 
from 2021 to 2023, helped tackle common issues among Member States. Multi-country 
and  flagship  projects  appear  to  be  more  cost-effective  and  time-  efficient    than  stand-
alone  projects  and  those  selected  under  general  requests.  However,  the  efficiency  of 
multi-country  projects  may  potentially  be  affected  by  the  increased  complexity  of  such 
projects.  

55 

 
In  2021-2023,  the  programme  was  efficient  in  terms  of  process  duration  and  budget 
execution from commitments to payments, achieving a high budget utilisation rate. The 
overall  cost  of  controls  by  DG  REFORM  progressively  decreased  in  2021-2023  and 
remained  in  line  with  the  DG  REFORM  target  and  comparable  with  other  EU 
programmes.  

The total time between the application deadline and the start of technical support slightly 
but  continuously  decreased  over  the  evaluation  period,  amounting  to  11  months  on 
average.  Minimising  the  time  gap  between  the  application  and  the  actual  start  of  the 
project  was  considered  crucial  for  the  success  of  individual  projects  and  their  effective 
contribution to ongoing reforms, especially to respond to urgent needs. Further reflection 
may be considered on the annual deadlines for the submission of general requests and the 
extent  to  which  setting  different  deadlines  could  improve  the  efficiency  at  the  start  of 
technical support.  

TSI projects are implemented through various delivery methods. Beneficiary authorities 
and  technical  support  providers  were  generally  very  positive  about  the  clarity, 
transparency  and  user-friendliness  of  the  procedures  for  application  and  selection  of 
requests  for  funding,  approval  of  deliverables,  project  monitoring  and  evaluation. 
Coordinating  authorities  were  less  satisfied  with  the  monitoring  of  TSI  projects, 
especially with the tools and procedures and the access to relevant information at national 
level. Beneficiary authorities considered the support of DG REFORM policy officers as 
highly useful, from the start to the end of the technical support. 

Coherence 

In terms of internal coherence, the evaluation found no major inconsistencies between 
the  TSI  projects  in  individual  Member  States.  However,  there  is  limited  evidence  of 
collaborative mechanisms between different TSI projects in the same Member State. The 
evaluation also found significant differences in coordinating authorities’ involvement in 
programme  implementation  across  the  EU.  There  is  room  for  exploring  synergies 
between TSI-funded projects in the same Member State in the same policy area. 

During  the  evaluation  period,  the  TSI  demonstrated  increased  external  coherence 
compared to its predecessor, the SRSP, with regional and national level interventions as 
well  as  other  EU  interventions  having  similar  objectives.  The  TSI  operates  in  a 
complementary manner to other EU instruments and programmes. The evaluation found 
the TSI’s purpose and its activities to be complementary to those of the European Social 
Fund Plus, the European Regional Development Fund and the RRF. The TSI is not only 
different in terms of budget implementation methods, but also in its cross-cutting nature 
and broad scope of intervention(not  limited to  a  specific policy sector), the duration of 
support  provided  and  the  type  of  capacities  supported.  Coherence  could  be  further 
improved if Member States strategically combined various EU instruments to support the 
whole reform cycle from design to implementation. The greatest synergies appear to be 

56 

 
developed  with  the  RRF  and  TAIEX77.  By  providing  both  general  and  specialised 
support, the TSI was able to address issues crucial for the implementation of the RRPs, 
such  as  project  management  and  governance.  Evaluation  evidence  highlighted  the 
significance  of  TSI  support  in  strengthening  the  operational  capabilities  required  to 
effectively  execute  RRF  initiatives.However,  the  evaluation  raised  concerns  from  some 
Member States on the need to have a more comprehensive view due to the availability of 
multiple funding instruments within the EU policy framework. 

The TSI is also consistent with the European Semester process, through the role it plays 
in  addressing country-specific  recommendations  (CSRs) issued as  part of the European 
Semester.  Most  coordinating  and  beneficiary  authorities  stated  that  TSI  projects 
supported reforms addressing CSRs to a high or a moderate extent. This was confirmed 
by the case studies, which demonstrated that the TSI played a major rolein implementing 
CSRs.  However,  challenges  remain  regarding  the  systematic  monitoring  of  how  TSI 
projects specifically contribute to carrying out CSRs, due to the limited mandate of the 
TSI after project implementation.  

Finally, TSI projects are closely aligned with the Commission’s top priorities, such as the 
digital and green transitions.  The increasing number of TSI projects contributing to top 
priorities  may  be  linked  with  the  introduction  of  flagship  requests.  The  TSI  has  also 
gained  recognition  as  a  valuable  tool  to  support  Member  States  in  implementing  EU 
legislation. 

EU added value 

The  TSI  exceeded  what 
individual  Member  States  could  have  accomplished 
independently.  In  particular,  the  TSI  offers  international  -  especially  European  - 
expertise  that  is  typically  unavailable  at  local,  regional  or  national  levels,  addressing 
specific  needs  that  Member  States  would  struggle  to  meet  alone.  By  combining 
international  and  local  expertise,  the  TSI  proved  to  be  beneficial  -  with  local  experts 
offering  context-specific  insights  and  international  providers  providing  more  strategic 
approach - and helped to increase the credibility and acceptance of reforms.  

The TSI provided EU added value by supporting the development and implementation of 
the RRPs. The TSI produced significant cross-country impacts, and delivered high EU 
added  value  by  building  communities  of  experts  and  sustained  cooperation  among 
Member States. By offering the chance to create channels of communication with peers 
and professionals across various Member States, the TSI facilitated the sharing of lessons 
learned and good practices across Member States. Also, TSI projects have played a major 
role  in  implementing  EU  policies  and  priorities  and  supporting  the  digital  and  green 
transitions.  In  this  regard,  flagship  projects  (encompassing  both  standalone  and  multi-
country projects) add value by supporting EU priorities, driving regulatory compliance, 
and  promoting  the  application  of  EU  law.  However,  stakeholders  noted  that  flagship 

77  TAIEX  (Technical  Assistance  and  Information  Exchange)  is  an  EU  institution  building  tool,  which 
mobilises public sector expertise from EU Member States in a Team Europe spirit to support reform 
processes around the world. 

57 

 
 
projects  risk  diverging  from  the  specific  aim  of  the  TSI,  which  is  to  provide  support 
tailored  to  the  needs  of  specific  Member  States.  There  is  a  strong  consensus  among 
stakeholders  consulted  on  the  TSI’s  significant  contribution  to  the  digital  and  green 
transitions.  In  particular,  the  TSI  contributes  more  to  the  green  transition  than  its 
predecessor, the SRSP. 

Multi-country  projects  are  seen  as  valuable  because  of  their  ability  to  tackle  broader, 
cross-border  challenges  while  boosting  collaboration  and  the  sharing  of  good  practices 
among  participating  countries.  However,  concerns  were  raised  about  their  complexity 
and the fact that these projects may lead to lower ownership and political commitment by 
participating countries, potentially undermining their success. 

Relevance 

Findings  from  the  consultation  suggest  that  the  TSI  is  a  highly  relevant  instrument, 
well-tailored to the needs of Member States and their beneficiary authorities, with 
improvements in areas identified in the ex post evaluation of SRSP. Evidence shows that 
there  is  still  a  need  for  technical  support,  especially  in  developing  and  implementing 
procedures and methodologies.  

Most  consulted  beneficiary  authorities  and  coordinating  authorities  agreed  that  the  TSI 
was suitable to provide technical support, and confirmed that TSI projects were able to 
address  the  main  needs  of  their  institutions,  mainly  thanks  to  the  design  of  the 
instrument,  and  in  a  timely  manner.  All  stakeholders  view  the  TSI’s  design  and 
structure  as  highly  relevant  for  strengthening  the  administrative  and  institutional 
capacity  of  Member  States  to  design  and  implement  the  reforms  needed  to  tackle  the 
challenges faced. 

However,  it  is  important  to  consider  these  positive  findings  in  the  context  that  TSI 
support is provided at almost no cost to all Member States whose requests are accepted, 
regardless  of  their  capacity  to  organise  their  own  technical  support.  Interviews 
highlighted some limitations in the response to urgent needs through general calls of the 
annual  cycle,  considering  the  necessary  duration  for  projects  to  start  after  the  need 
emerges.  However,  The  TSI  design  demonstrated  high  flexibility  to  address  Member 
States’  unforeseen  and  emerging  needs  through  dedicated  calls  and  special  measures 
outlined in the TSI Regulation. Compared to the ex post evaluation of SRSP, and thanks 
to  these  modalities,  most  beneficiary  authorities  and  national  coordinating  authorities 
agreed  that  thanks  to  its  design,  the  TSI  was  able  to  address  urgent  and/or  unforeseen 
needs  of  the  country.  The  introduction  of  flagship  requests  for  support  and  of  multi-
country and multi-regional projects made it possible for the programme to better address 
EU priorities and to improve the application and implementation of EU law. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

The evaluation highlighted several improvements in the TSI compared to its predecessor, 
the SRSP, demonstrating a more active involvement of stakeholders and a greater cross-
country  dimension.  The  main  lessons  learned  from  the  TSI  mid-term  evaluation,  based 
on its findings and conclusions, are set out below:  

58 

 
Design of the TSI 

•  The  demand-driven  nature  of  the  TSI  helps  ensure  Member  State’s  ownership  of 
projects and stakeholders’ commitment, which are crucial for the success of reforms, 
although concrete achievements are highly dependent on national factors. Projects’ 
alignment  with  the  European  Semester  framework  and  relevant  EU  priorities  is 
ensured during the selection process, through the selection criteria. 

•  The current design of the TSI suffers from limitations in tracking specific outcomes 
in Member States because its legal base does not directly refer to the achievement of 
reforms, nor does it impose specific requirements on Member States to report on the 
status  of  supported  reforms.  In  the  future,  these  observations  should  be  taken  into 
account and ways should be explored to improve the focus on reforms. Additionally, 
specific  reporting  obligations  should  be  considered,  while  ensuring  that  the 
administrative  burden  remains  proportionate  to  the  activities  carried  out  under  the 
instrument. 

•  Technical support should maintain enough flexibility to cater to the needs of Member 
States and adapt to shifting political priorities and situations. Public authorities might 
encounter  both  internal  and  external  changes  -  including  policy  changes,  economic 
and  social  challenges,  and  changing  legal  and  regulatory  landscapes  -  which 
necessitate technical support and assistance to adjust to new objectives and strategies. 
•  The  TSI’s  design  has  been  generally  effective  in  addressing  the  needs  of  Member 
States,  but  the  annual  cycle  might  limit  its  ability  to  respond  to  urgent  needs  of 
Member  States.  While  the  TSI  effectively  addressed  some  urgent  needs  through 
dedicated calls, these calls require significant time and resource investment. 

TSI project implementation 

•  Evaluation  findings  highlight  the  importance  of  identifying  the  most  appropriate 
project type for technical support, considering Member States’ strengths, weaknesses, 
needs and  contexts.  Multi-country and  flagship projects  (covering stand-alone and 
multi-country  projects)  proved  to  be  highly  relevant  in  addressing  EU  priorities, 
fostering  collaboration,  and  sharing  good  practices  across  borders.  Stand-alone 
projects  appear  to  be  more  appropriate  and  better  tailored  to  address  more  specific 
needs,  as  they  enable  more  targeted  reforms,  ensuring  more  engagement  by 
beneficiary authorities.  

•  A variety of delivery methods were used across technical support projects, with high 
satisfaction  rates  among  stakeholders.  Evidence  demonstrates  that  private  providers 
may  be  more  suitable  to  deliver  technical  tasks,  while  international  organisations 
appear  to  be  better  suited  to  contribute  to  broader  strategic  issues,  and  ensure  a 
consistent  response  across  the  EU  to  the  same  type  of  need  in  the  case  of  multi-
country  projects.  Using  a  tailored  mix  of  delivery  methods  –  such  as  combining 
TAIEX  with  other  methods  –  proved  to  be  an  effective  approach,  particularly  for 
complex or multi-country projects.  

•  Nevertheless, further efforts are needed to ensure the effective use of TSI deliverables 

and concrete follow-up by Member States. 
The  ad-hoc  support  of  DG  DIGIT  providing  expert  advice  has  been  assessed  as 
beneficial for the implementation of projects. This support has been exacerbated after 
the  Interoperable  Europe  Act  Regulation  (EU)  2024/903. 
the  adoption  of 

59 

 
 
Remarkably, the “Statistical Interoperability Node” project was awarded the special 
“ASEDIE 25 years” prize due to the value provided. 

Facilitator role of the Commission   

•  The  evaluation  found  that  the  Commission  has  played  a  significant  role  in  the 
implementation  of TSI projects.  In particular, DG REFORM  policy officers’  close 
involvement  was  crucial  in  supporting  project  design  (to  facilitate  implementation) 
and  addressing  diverse  challenges  encountered  during  implementation.  Their 
continuous operational supervision was important too. 

• 

•  Stakeholders indicated that further  support  by Commission  policy officers might  be 
useful after the completion of TSI projects to ensure the sustainable achievement of 
long-term results. 
In  some  cases,  closer  involvement  of  policy  officers  from  specific  Directorates-
General  of  the  Commission  was  highlighted  as  beneficial  for  improving  the 
the 
implementation  of  TSI  projects,  especially  for  TSI  projects  related  to 
implementation of EU law (in the case of complex EU legislative requirements, such 
as the ‘do no significant harm’ principle). 

Results and sustainability of the technical support 

•  Beneficiary  authorities  have  used 

the  outputs  of  TSI  projects  -  such  as 
recommendations,  findings  from  workshops,  and  analysis  reports  -  to  achieve 
changes at individual, organisational and policy level. 

•  The  success  of  technical  support  and  the  achievement  of  long-term  sustainable 
results  depend  on  Member  States’  consistent  and  systematic  follow-up    of 
technical  support  projects.  Continued  ownership  by  national  authorities  proved  to 
be a crucial factor to ensure that they take follow-up action and that outputs delivered 
by technical support projects are used. The evaluation found that this follow-up also 
depends  on  national  factors,  such  as  ownership  of  reforms,  availability  of  financial 
resources, staff stability, and political and administrative continuity. 

•  However, apart from  filling in the satisfaction and outcome questionnaires, national 
authorities  have  not  yet  formally  committed  to  following  up  on  technical  support 
projects (e.g. by adopting relevant reforms). Further reflection may be considered on 
how to incentivise Member States to more consistently and systematically follow up 
on  technical  support  projects  and  report  on  this  follow  up.  There  is  also  a  need  to 
strengthen the  monitoring and evaluation of the technical support to better track 
achievements,  objectively  and depending  on the  type of measures  (e.g. training and 
capacity-building,  support  for  specific  reforms,  recommendations  to  national 
authorities, etc.), as well as to use lessons learned to improve new projects. 

Multiannual dimension 

•  The TSI currently lacks a medium- to long-term programming approach, which 
would  connect  technical  support  to  other  programmes  to  improve  their 
effectiveness  and  create  a  coherent  strategic  vision  for  technical  support  in  a 
given Member State. However, this needs to be reconciled with the annual nature of 

60 

 
 
 
 
the  instrument,  which  is  enshrined  in  the  TSI  Regulation.  A  short-term  strategic 
overview of the TSI’s implementation is provided in cooperation and support plans, 
but these documents are not legally binding. In 2021-2023, the alignment of technical 
support with the ongoing reforms at national level was also ensured through national 
RRPs. 

•  Some consideration may also be required on the definition of flagship projects. For 
example, it might be advantageous to develop flagship projects with a medium-term 
perspective,  spanning  multiple  years  or  calls  for  technical  support.  A  medium-term 
perspective on flagship projects could bring more focus to specific challenges faced 
by Member States and the EU as a whole and, at the same time, improve efficiency 
by  reducing  the  administrative  burden  linked  to  annual  consultations  with  different 
Commission services and Member States and the adjustment of corporate tools on an 
annual basis. 

Thematic and policy dimension 

•  Since  2023,  initiatives  such  as  the  European  Administrative  Space  (ComPAct)  – 
including  the  Public  Administration  Cooperation  Exchange  Programme  (PACE)  – 
have  proposed  specific  actions  implemented  through  the  TSI,  to  help  public 
administrations  meet  the  needs  of  people  and  businesses  across  the  EU.  These 
initiatives  have  highlighted  the  added  value  of  the  TSI  in  strengthening  the 
administrative capacity of public administrations at national, regional and local level, 
and  ensuring  all  citizens  have  access  to  timely  and  high-quality  public  service 
provision.  If  successfully  implemented,  these  initiatives  and  projects  could  serve  as 
an inspiring example in terms of policy integration, coherence and effectiveness 
in the provision of technical support across policy areas. 

•  The  ComPAct  initiative  provides  a  good  platform  and  ‘knowledge  hub’  for  the 
provision  of  technical  support  in  the  field  of  governance  and  public  administration, 
complementing other EU instruments.  

•  Over the years, technical support projects have generated a wealth of thematic policy 
knowledge.  In  the  evaluation  period,  DG  REFORM  played  a  more  active  role  in 
disseminating  outputs  and  deliverables  of  technical  support,  which  could  be 
strengthened  to  better  use  them  in  all  thematic  fields.  The  EU  Supervisory  Digital 
Finance  Academy  platform  constitutes  a  good  practice  example  of  effective 
dissemination  to  foster  the  use  of  materials  and  deliverables  from  other  and  closed 
projects, especially in the same thematic area. 

•  Through  the  TSI,  Member  States  have  benefitted  of  tailored  technical  expertise  to 
design  and  implement  digital  reforms.  It  supported  projects  that  enhance  digital 
governance,  modernise  public  administration,  and  improve  public  service  delivery 
through the adoption of digital technologies and foster cross-border interoperability.  

Country dimension 

•  The evaluation found that there is a need for improved coordination and synergies 
between TSI-funded projects in the same Member State. Some consideration may 
also  be  required  on  how  to  further  improve  the  overview  and  follow-up  of  support 
provided, developing a more holistic vision of country support. This might also help 

61 

 
 
 
to strengthen synergies and complementarities between different EU programmes and 
to better align timelines and country-specific deadlines. 

•  Over  the  evaluation  period,  the  role  of  DG  REFORM  country  coordinators  and 
coordinating  authorities  proved  key  to  ensuring  the  country  relevance  of  the 
technical  support  measures  delivered,  identifying  any  issues  emerging  during  the 
implementation phase, and proposing adequate mitigation measures.  

•  Evidence shows  untapped  potential  for  coordinating  authorities  to  monitor the need 
for and use of technical support deliverables at national level to achieve medium- and 
longer-term  results  (e.g.  adopt  the  relevant  reforms)  as  well  as  to  adopt  a  strategic 
approach  towards  combining  technical  support  with  other  EU  programmes  and 
instruments.  

•  The evaluation  found that the  engagement  of coordinating authorities might  depend 
on their position within the institutional  framework, the size  of the Member State’s 
public  administration,  and  the  resources  dedicated  to  this  task.  Strengthening  the 
institutional  framework  and  introducing  reporting  obligations  for  Member  States 
might increase the effectiveness of the programme. 

•  A more formalised and  unified role for coordinating authorities has the  potential to 
strengthen ownership of reforms (through an improved prioritisation of requests) and 
improve  the  monitoring  of  projects  across  Member  States,  while  keeping  some 
flexibility  in  tailoring  the  role  of  coordinating  authorities  to  the  specific  context  of 
each Member State. 

Cross-country dimension 

•  The  TSI  has  demonstrated  significant  cross-country  impacts,  with  multi-country 
projects  tackling  broader,  cross-border  challenges  and  strengthening  collaboration 
and the sharing of knowledge and good practices among participating countries. 
•  The  programme  has  built  communities  of  experts  and  sustained  cooperation  among 

Member States, delivering high EU added value.  

•  The  TSI  has  also  been  instrumental  in  increasing  the  credibility  and  acceptance  of 

reforms, boosting their legitimacy and visibility at national and EU levels. 

•  The  introduction  of  multi-country  and  multi-region  requests  has  also  brought 
significant  efficiency  gains,  by  enabling  the  selection  of  multiple  requests  under  a 
single  contract  or  agreement.  However,  these  projects  present  a  certain  risk  of 
diluting  country-specific  needs, 
the  engagement  of  Member  States 
progressing at different paces.  

limiting 

•  The  introduction  of  flagship  requests  was  considered  a  success  as  they  enabled  a 
better  alignment  between  national  reforms  and  EU  priorities,  driving  regulatory 
compliance, and promoting the application of EU law. These projects could cater to 
more long-standing, structural challenges across Member States and the EU at large. 

Synergies with other EU programmes 

•  The  TSI  has  been  effective  in  supporting  the  implementation  of  reforms,  with  a 
significant  number  of  reforms  linked  to  specific  RRP  milestones.  Incorporating 
technical  support  from  the  outset  of  implementation  of  funds  and  other  policy 
instruments, as it has happened in specific cases for the RRF, could be advantageous, 

62 

 
 
 
and  could  help  ensure  that  administrative  capacity  requirements  are  satisfied,  and 
timelines are synchronised. 

•  The  TSI  has  been  consistent  with  other  EU  processes,  such  as  the  European 
Semester,  and  has  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  EU  priorities,  including  the 
digital and green transitions. 

•  The  TSI  can  improve  the  effectiveness  of  other  programmes  by  building  the 
administrative and institutional capacity required for their successful implementation. 
However,  the  evaluation  showed  that  some  Member  States  would  prefer  to  have  a 
more  comprehensive  view  given  the  availability  of  multiple  funding  instruments 
within the EU policy framework. 

63 

 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instrument (TSI), in the middle of the 
programme’s  operating  time,  has  been  completed  in  line  with  Article 16  of  the 
Regulation establishing the TSI. The Decide planning entry for the mid-term evaluation 
is PLAN/2023/1833. 

The  evaluation  was  led  by  the  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for 
Structural  Reform  Support  (DG  REFORM),  under  the  guidance  of  an  Interservice 
Steering Group (ISSG) composed of 25 Commission services (DG AGRI, DG CLIMA, 
DG  CNECT,  DG  COMP,  DG  DEFIS,  DG  DIGIT,  DG  EAC,  DG  ECFIN,  DG  EMPL, 
DG ENER, DG ENV, DG ESTAT, DG FISMA, DG GROW, DG JUST, DG MARE, DG 
MOVE, DG NEAR, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG SANTE, SJ, SG and SG RECOVER and 
DG  TAXUD)  established  in  July  2023.  The  ISSG  helped ensure the representativity  of 
the evidence considered, the validity of the analysis and the reliability of conclusions. In 
particular,  the  ISSG  was  consulted  seven  times:  27 September  2023,  16 January  2024, 
22 February  2024,  13 June  2024,  5 September  2024,  24 October  2024  and  22 January 
2025. 

This evaluation is based on evidence gathered via different channels and an overview is 
presented  in  Annexes  II  and  III.  This  evaluation  relies  primarily  on  an  external 
independent  supporting  study  commissioned  by  the  Commission  that  started  in 
21/12/2023 and ended in 1/12/2024. The ‘Supporting study for the mid-term evaluation 
of the Technical Support Instrument (2021-2027)’ was awarded to PPMI in cooperation 
with  CSES  under  specific  contract  No  REFORM/SCTP2023/011,  implementing 
framework contract No GROW/2021/OP/0001 – Lot 1. 

In  addition,  a  call  for  evidence  was  published  on  Have  your  Say  with  an  Open  Public 
Consultation for 12 weeks, that was launched on 18 March and closed on 10 June 2024. 

64 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Overall approach 

The  supporting  study  builds  on  a  solid  evaluation  methodology  and  is  informed  by  the 
results  of  the  open  public  consultation  (OPC),  targeted  survey,  interviews,  focus  group 
discussions,  cross-case  analysis,  monitoring  data  of  the  Directorate-General  for 
Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM) as well as other findings of desk research. 

The supporting  study combined several  data collection and analysis activities  to  collect 
solid  evidence  and  provide  well-informed  answers  for  the  replies  to  the  evaluation 
questions. 

The  following  data  collection  methods  were  used:  desk  research,  stakeholder 
consultation  (OPC, targeted survey, interview programme and focus group discussions) 
as  well  as  case  studies.  In  addition,  to  ensure  the  validity  and  reliability  of  evaluation 
findings, the supporting study triangulated different data sources (to the extent possible) 
by complementing the perceptions of stakeholders (e.g. interview results) with objective 
data (e.g. administrative and monitoring information). 

Data collection 

1.  Desk  research  -  The  desk  research  consisted  of  two  key  elements:  (i)  a  review  of 
publicly  available  documents  and  (ii)  an  analysis  of  internal  administrative  and 
monitoring data received from DG REFORM 

2.  Stakeholder consultation  

Table 4: Summary of consultation activities 

Activity  

Duration  

Target audience  

Open public 
consultation 
(OPC)  

18 March – 
10 June 
2024  

Targeted 
survey  

19 April - 
19 May 
2024  

Member State 
coordinating authorities, 
Industry/business/ 
workers’ and other 
organisations, public 
authorities, 
researchers/consultants, 
general public  
Beneficiary and 
coordinating authorities, 
technical support 
providers  

65 

Number of 
participants  

Number of 
Member 
States 
represented  

Type of 
data 
analysis  

51  

17 + 1 non-EU 
country  

Descriptive 
statistics  

289  

27  

Descriptive 
statistics  

 
 
 
Interview 
programme  

29 April – 
21 October 
2024  

Focus group 
discussions  

3 June – 
11 July 
2024  

DG REFORM officials, 
Representatives of other 
DGs and services of the 
European Commission 
involved with the TSI, 
beneficiary and 
coordinating authorities, 
technical support 
providers  
Beneficiary, coordinating 
authorities and technical 
support providers  

114  

25  

Content 
analysis  

37  

20  

Content 
analysis  

Note:  A  total of  300  survey  responses were received, but only 289 were analysed after cleaning the targeted survey 
data;  While  some  interviews  involved  a  few  (up  to  four)  participants,  the  count  refers  to  the  total  of  number  of 
interviews carried out. 

3.  Case  studies  and  comparative  analysis  -  The  case  study  programme  consists  of 
seven thematic case studies that cover 21 stand-alone, and five multi-country projects 
funded  by  the  TSI  during  2021-2023.  Overall,  the  case  study  programme  covers  a 
total  of  98  projects  in  all  EU  Member  States  and  TSI-related  policy  areas  (each 
corresponding to a different unit of DG REFORM). 

Overall, the mid-term evaluation provides robust evaluation findings built on the analysis 
of  a  high  quality  and  representative  data  collected  through  desk  research,  stakeholder 
consultation activities and thematic case studies. 

66 

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

1.  RELEVANCE 

QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

To what extent are the TSI objectives relevant to address the needs expresses by the Member States and correspond to wider EU policy goals? 

Section 4.1.1. 

To what extent are 
the TSI objectives 
relevant to address 
the needs expressed 
by the Member 
States beneficiary 
authorities?  

• 

• 

•  Member  States  are  still  facing 

in 

in 

identified 

line  with 

the 
the  ex ante 
challenges 
evaluation  of  the  SRSP,  such  as  limited 
administrative and  institutional  capacity, 
challenges  in  implementation  of  the  EU 
law  and  design  and  implementation  of 
the 
structural  reforms 
Union’s  economic  and  social  goals,  but 
some of them – to a lesser extent. 
All  stakeholder  groups  involved  in  the 
TSI  projects  positively  assess 
the 
relevance of technical support to the key 
needs  of  beneficiary  authorities  and 
Member 
notable 
improvements  compared  to  the  ex post 
evaluation of the SRSP 
There is a continuous need for technical 
support, with the greatest demand for the 
definition 
of 
and 
procedures and methodologies. 

implementation 

States, 

with 

are 

Member  States 
still 
facing  challenges  identified 
in  the  ex ante  evaluation  of 
the SRSP 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  needs  and 
the 
challenges 
programme  

of 

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
the 
support  providers  who  agree 
institution/Member  State 
limited 
administrative  and  institutional  capacity  (in 
%) (by Member State, type of stakeholder)  

faces 

that 

of 

and 

that 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
the 
support  providers  who  agree 
institution/Member  State faces challenges in 
the  design  and  implementation  of  structural 
reforms  in  line  with  the  Union‘s  economic 
and  social  goals  (in  %)  (by  Member  State, 
type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
of 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree 
the 
institution/Member  State faces challenges in 
the application and implementation of Union 
law  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 
stakeholder)  

beneficiary 

that 

and 

by 

stakeholder 

SRSP  Mid-term  evaluation:  67%  (no 
disaggregation 
group 
available) 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities 72% 
National coordinating authorities 68% 
Technical support providers 62%  

by 

stakeholder 

SRSP  Mid-term  evaluation:  43%  (no 
group 
disaggregation 
available) 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities 30% 
National coordinating authorities 68% 
Technical support providers 46%  

by 

stakeholder 

SRSP  Mid-term  evaluation:  14%  (no 
disaggregation 
group 
available) 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities 11% 
National coordinating authorities 23% 
Technical support providers 11%  

Number of infringement cases (by year)  

2014118: 1 247 cases 
2020: 1 786 cases  

the  key 
Stakeholders’  perception  on 
challenges  that  prevent  the  government  and 
public  institutions  to  design  and  implement 
reforms: 

n/a  

67 

Targeted  online 
OPC  

survey, 

Desk  research  (European 
Commission,  2023.  Report 
from 
the  Commission: 
Monitoring the  application 
of  European  Union  law 
2022 Annual Report)  
interviews 
OPC, 
(beneficiary  and  national 
coordinating 
authorities, 
the Commission)  

 
 
 
There  is  a  continuous  need 
for  technical  support  from 
Member States/institutions  

The  TSI  meets  the  needs  of 
Member States  

• 
Lack of skills or inadequate skills 
•  Weak  coordination  between  public 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

institutions 
Frequent  political  changes  /  lack  of 
continuity  due  to  changes  in  political 
priorities 
Low  adequacy  /  understanding  by  the 
administration of society’s needs 
Excessive bureaucracy 
Lack of staff or financial resources 
Lack of a long-term vision and strategy 
to  design  relevant  and  sustainable 
reforms  
of 

beneficiary 

of 

and 

and 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  there  is  a 
continuous  need  of technical  support  (in %) 
(by  Member  State,  type  of  project,  type  of 
stakeholders)  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
project  addressed  the  key  needs  of  their 
institution/country (in %) (by Member State, 
type of project, type of stakeholders)  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
provided timely support, matching the needs 
of 
(in  %)  (by 
Member  State,  type  of  project,  type  of 
stakeholders)  
• 

institution/country 

beneficiary 

their 

and 

of 

to 

improve 

Existence  of  overlap  between  the  key 
policy  areas  supported by the  TSI  in  a 
Member  State  and  perceived  need  of 
reforms 
the  following 
areas: 
Green transition and climate adaptation 
including  cost  of 
Energy  supply, 
energy (electricity, gas, petrol) 
Digitalisation of public services 
Public health system and services 
Education and school services 
Functioning 
institutions (including the judiciary) 

public 

of 

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

68 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

83% of beneficiary authorities 
95% 
of 
authorities 
82% of technical support providers  

national 

• 

coordinating 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

95% of beneficiary authorities 
86% 
of 
authorities 
95% of technical support providers  

national 

• 

coordinating 

Targeted online survey  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

Desk 
(Eurobarometer), OPC  

research 

 
• 

• 
• 

Support  to  businesses  and  enterprises 
(e.g.  green  loans  to  SMEs,  access  to 
capital markets) 
Taxation systems and policies 
Employment,  including  access,  work 
opportunities, and conditions 

•  Migration 
• 
• 

Family, housing, social protection 
Education  for  financial  decisions  in 
everyday life 
The  efficiency  and  accountability  of 
public institutions 
Defence readiness  

• 

• 

To what extent did 
the design of the TSI 
take into account 
lessons learned from 
the implementation 
of its predecessor 
programme, the 
SRSP, to better 
address Member 
States 
needs/priorities?  

To what extent are 
TSI projects 
(including multi-
country projects and 
flagship technical 
support projects) 
appropriate for 
enhancing the 
administrative and 
institutional capacity 
of Member States to 
design and 
implement the 
reforms needed to 
tackle the challenges 
faced?  

Section 4.1.2. 
Changes  in  the  design  of  the  TSI  that  took 
place  in  2021-23  made  the  instrument  more 
suitable  to  address  the  needs  of  Member 
States. 

better 

Changes  in  the  design  of  the 
the 
TSI 
the 
needs/priorities 
Member States  

reflect 
of 

Existence  of  changes  in  the  design  of  the 
TSI,  allowing  the  needs/priorities  of  the 
Member States to be better reflected (links to 
the sub-question 1.1)  

n/a  

research 

Desk 
(Annual 
Work  Programmes  and 
Activity  Reports  of  DG 
REFORM),  interviews  (the 
Commission)  

• 

• 

Section 4.1.3 
TSI is perceived as a suitable instrument 
for  providing  technical  support,  to  a 
slightly  higher  extent  than  in  the  SRSP 
ex post evaluation. 
Objectives of the TSI align more closely 
with  the  Member  States’  key  reform 
goals, 
the  SRSP  ex post 
evaluation. 

than 

in 

•  Multi-country  projects  contribute 

administrative 

to 
strengthening 
and 
institutional  capacities  of  beneficiary 
authorities, but their success depends on 
participating  countries  progressing  at  a 
similar pace. 
Flagship  requests  for  support  are  in 
particular  relevance  to  Member  States 
due to their direct alignment with the EU 
priorities. 

• 

The  TSI’s  design  is  suitable 
to  address 
the  needs  of 
Member States  

of 

of 

and 

and 

instrument 

beneficiary 

beneficiary 

to  provide 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support providers who agree that the TSI- is 
suitable 
technical 
support  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 
project, type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
the 
support  providers  who  agree 
project(s)  design 
the 
problem,  definition  of  the  objectives  and 
results to achieve, definition of the activities 
to  carry  out)  was  appropriate  (in  %)  (by 
Member  State,  type  of  project,  type  of 
stakeholder)  
national 
Share 
and 
coordinating  authorities  agree 
the 
that 
objectives  of  technical  support  project(s) 
corresponded to the key reform goals of their 
country  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 

that 
(identification  of 

beneficiary 

of 

69 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

98% of beneficiary authorities 
91% 
of 
authorities 
95% of technical support providers  

national 

• 

coordinating 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

95% of beneficiary authorities 
86% 
of 
authorities 
95% of technical support providers  

national 

• 

coordinating 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

83% of beneficiary authorities 
73% 
of 
authorities  

national 

coordinating 

Targeted online survey  

Targeted online survey  

Targeted online survey  

 
To what extent did 
the TSI adapt over 
time to changing 
circumstances or to 
respond to 
unforeseen needs 
(e.g. through 
dedicated calls or the 
launching of flagship 
initiatives)?  

Section 4.1.4 

• 

• 

higher 

proportion 

Slightly 
of 
stakeholders  expressed  satisfaction  with 
TSI’s  capacity  to  address  the  country’s 
urgent  needs,  in  comparison  to  the 
ex post evaluation of SRSP. 
The TSI design allows some capacity to 
address 
the 
Member States through dedicated calls 

the  emerging  needs  of 

The TSI design is suitable to 
and/or 
urgent 
address 
unforeseen  needs  of 
the 
Member States  

project, type of stakeholder)  

Number  of  the  multi-country/multi-regional 
and  flagship  projects  analysed  in  the  case 
study  that  contribute  to  the  strengthening  of 
the  administrative  and  institutional  capacity 
of Member States  
Existence  of  changes  in  the  design  of  the 
TSI,  allowing  urgent  and/or  unforeseen 
needs  of  the  Member  States  to  be  better 
addressed (links to the sub-question 1.1)  
Existence of mechanisms to ensure feedback 
loop  between  DG  REFORM  and  Member 
States on the design of the TSI  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
design  of  the  TSI  is  suitable  to  address 
urgent  and/or  unforeseen  needs  of  their 
country  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 
project, type of stakeholder)  

beneficiary 

and 

of 

n/a  

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

84% of beneficiary authorities 
of 
69% 
authorities  

national 

coordinating 

Section 4.1.5 

Do the objectives of 
the TSI still 
correspond to wider 
EU policy goals and 
priorities?  

• 

• 

• 

The objectives of the TSI are in line with 
European strategic policy documents. 
TSI  contributes  to  climate  action  and 
environmental protection mainstreaming, 
supporting EU commitments to the Paris 
Agreement. 
TSI  addresses  broader  environmental 
and social challenges within the EU. 

2.  EFFECTIVENESS 

The objectives of the TSI are 
in 
line  with  European 
strategic policy documents  

links  between 

Existence  of 
the  TSI 
objectives  and  wider  EU  policy  goals  and 
priorities  

n/a  

research 

Case  studies: 
interviews 
(beneficiary  and  national 
coordinating 
authorities, 
the  Commission),  desk 
research  
Desk 
(Annual 
Work  Programmes  and 
Activity  Reports  of  DG 
REFORM),  interviews  (the 
Commission, 
beneficiary 
and  national  coordinating 
authorities)  

Targeted online survey  

Desk 
(TSI 
research 
Regulation,  DG  REFORM 
Annual  Work  programmes 
and 
Reports, 
strategic  documents  of  the 
EU), 
(the 
interviews 
Commission)  

Activity 

QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

To what extent is 
the TSI 
consolidating the 
achievements and 
lessons learned of 
the SRSP? 
What are the 
main lessons 
learned of the 

Section 4.2.4 

• 

• 

DG  REFORM  of  the  Commission  has 
effectively  applied  the  lessons  from  the 
SRSP during the design and execution of 
the TSI projects. 
However,  strengthening  the  monitoring 

Lessons  learned  of  the  mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  SRSP 
and  the  Impact  Assessment 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of 
the  European  Parliament  on 
the 
the  establishment  of 
Reform  Support  Programme 
have been applied to improve 

of 

lessons 

learned 

number 

The 
/ 
recommendations  that  have  been  applied 
(disaggregated  by  type  of  lessons  learned 
and policy area): 
• 

Enhanced role of national coordinating 
authorities in the formal monitoring of 
the  progress  achieved  in  each  project 
and with respect to the CSP; 
Introduction  of  a  mechanism 

that 

• 

n/a 

Desk  research  (mid-term 
and  ex  post  evaluation  of 
the  SRSP,  Annual  Work 
Programmes  and  Activity 
Reports  of  DG  REFORM, 
reports), 
TSI 
(the 
interviews 
Commission, 
national 
coordinating authorities) 

annual 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SRSP? Have they 
been applied 
during the design 
and execution of 
the TSI? 
(programme level) 

and  evaluation  of 
the  programme, 
particularly  its  contribution  to  fulfilling 
CSRs, could enhance its effectiveness by 
informed  by 
enabling 
performance results. 

improvements 

the design of the TSI  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

to 

long-term 

results  of 

the  possibility 

would  allow  monitoring  how  project 
results are used after their closure; 
Introduction of incentives  to cooperate 
the 
the 
for 
projects; 
Introduction  of 
rediscuss the project work plan; 
Incentives  for  Member  States  to  start 
and/or  accelerate  and/or  complete  the 
reforms, which preparation, design and 
implementation was supported; 
Enhanced  complementarity  with  the 
other instruments; 
Gained access to international expertise 
and  strengthened  peer-to-peer  advice 
during 
technical 
the  provision  of 
support; 
Close  and  continuous  involvement  of 
national 
the  pre-
authorities 
implementation phase; 
Enhanced 
communication activities; 
Improved 
exploitation of projects; 
Reduced 
programme; 
Further simplification and streamlining 
of the grant management; 
the 
Improved  ways 
challenge 
and 
of 
implementing EU legislation within the 
demand-driven programme; 
Enhanced  Commission’s 
in 
facilitating  multi-country  projects,  and 
sharing  of  technical  support  outputs 
across borders. 

cyclical  nature  of 

to 
applying 

dissemination 

consultation 

address 

role 

and 

and 

the 

in 

reasons  behind 

the 
The  number  of 
implementation  of 
implementation  /  not 
recommendations,  as 
lessons 
perceived 
the 
Commission  and  national  coordinating 
authorities (by the type of reason) 

/ 
representatives 

learned 
by 

of 

are 

What 
the 
observed changes in 
beneficiary 
the 
States? 
Member 

Section 4.2.2 

• 

The TSI contributed to changes in the EU 
Member  States  on  three  different  levels 

The  TSI  contributes  to  the 
the 
strengthening 
in 
individual 
Member States 

of 
capacities 

Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  contributed  to  individual  capacities  in 
their country  (in  %)  (by Member  State,  type 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 

Increased  knowledge  and  skills  of 
staff:  beneficiary  authorities  –  90%  / 

Targeted online survey 

How successful is the TSI in progressing towards its objectives?  

71 

 
 
 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  outcomes 
(results) 
(individual-level 
outcomes) 
(project level) 

they 

Are 
line 
with expectations?  

in 

• 

• 

• 

(the  individual,  organisation  and  policy 
level). 
In  terms  of  thematic  areas,  the  TSI 
contributed  to  a  high  extent  to  the 
efficient  and  transparent  functioning  of 
public  institutions  and  the  digitisation  of 
public  services. The  TSI  also  showed  an 
increasing  contribution  to  the  thematic 
field  of  green  transition  and  climate 
adaptation  compared  to  its  predecessor 
programme. 
The organisational and policy changes at 
the  national  level  are  resulting  from  the 
successful 
of  TSI 
implementation 
projects and the effective achievement of 
their outputs. 
The  TSI  provided  high-quality  technical 
support on the ground and achieved high 
satisfaction 
programme 
stakeholders.  

all 

of 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

of stakeholder): 
• 
• 

Increased knowledge and skills of staff 
Improved  contacts  and  relationships 
among different stakeholders 
Improved  individual  adaptability  to 
change 
Improved  organisational  processes, 
procedures and methodologies 
Improved  capacities  for  reform/policy 
formulation, 
and 
implementation  (including  monitoring 
and evaluation) 
Improved capacities for the assessment 
of  public 
and 
reorganisation proposals 
Improved capacities for project/change 
management 
Improved human resource management 

development 

delivery 

service 

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to  changes  in  sectoral  policy 
areas 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  outcomes 
(results) 
(policy-level 
outcomes) 
(project level) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI contributed to changes in sectoral policy 
areas  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 
stakeholder): 
• 

and 

guidelines 

application 

Improved  strategies  and  reform/policy 
documents 
New  legal  acts  adopted  or  existing 
legal acts modified 
Improved 
implementation of EU law 
New  or  modified  ‘soft’  instruments 
(e.g. 
and 
standards, 
recommendations) issued 
Better  provision  of  information  and 
communication 
general 
to 
population  or  specific  target  groups 
(e.g. consumers or producers) 
Better 
economic 
application 
instruments (taxes, charges, fees, fines, 
penalties,  liability  and  compensation 
incentives, 
schemes,  subsidies  and 
deposit-refund 
labelling 
schemes, 
schemes, tradable permit schemes, etc.) 
New  information/knowledge  has  been 
produced 
Enhanced  sharing  of  good  practices 
and  lessons  learned  between  different 
similar 
EU 

addressing 

countries 

the 

of 

72 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

national coordinating authorities – 82% 
Improved  contacts  and  relationships: 
28% / 82% 
Improved  individual  adaptability  to 
change: 65% / 68% 
Improved  organisational  processes, 
procedures  and  methodologies:  43%  / 
82% 
Improved  capacities  for  reform/policy 
and 
formulation, 
implementation: 70% / 82% 
Improved capacities for the assessment 
of  public 
and 
reorganisation proposals: 51% / 64% 
Improved capacities for project/change 
management: 57% / 66% 
Improved 
resource 
human 
management:  beneficiary  authorities 
30% / 43% 

service  delivery 

development 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

and 

application 

Improved  strategies  and  reform/policy 
documents – 70% 
New  legal  acts  adopted  or  existing 
legal acts modified – 35% 
Improved 
implementation of EU law – 31% 
New  or  modified  ‘soft’  instruments 
issued – 60% 
Better  provision  of  information  and 
communication – 40% 
Better 
instruments – 20% 
New  information/knowledge  has  been 
produced – 82% 
Enhanced  sharing  of  good  practices 
and  lessons  learned  between  different 
EU 
similar 
countries 
situations – 65% 

application 

addressing 

economic 

of 

Targeted online survey 

 
The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to  the  design,  development 
and 
of 
implementation 
reforms and policies 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  outcomes 
(results) 
(organisation 
(institution)-level outcomes) 
(project level) 

contributes 

to 
The  TSI 
changes and developments in 
Member States 
(programme level) 

situations 

• 

and 

climate 

transition 

including  cost  of 

Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  contributed  to  reforms  and  policies  in 
their country  (in  %)  (by Member  State,  type 
of stakeholder): 
• 
Green 
adaptation; 
Energy  supply, 
energy (electricity, gas, petrol); 
Digitalisation of public services; 
Public healthcare system and services; 
Education and school services; 
Functioning  of  public 
(including the judiciary); 
Support  for  businesses  (e.g.  green 
loans  for  small  and  medium-sized 
businesses  (SMEs),  access  to  capital 
markets) 
Taxation systems and policies; 
Employment,  including  access,  work 
opportunities, and conditions; 

institutions 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

•  Migration; 
• 
• 

to  help  with 

Family, housing, social protection; 
Education 
decisions in everyday life; 
The  efficiency  and  accountability  of 
public institutions; 
Defence readiness. 

financial 

• 
that 
Share  of  stakeholders  who  agree 
changes and developments in their country’s 
public institutions, public administration and 
public  policies  resulted  from  the  support  of 
TSI (in %) (by policy area) 
• 

in  any 

involved 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  that 
follow-up 
were 
activities  (in  %)  (by  type  of  follow-up 
activity, Member State and policy area) 
Share 
coordinating 
national 
authorities  agreeing  that  the  follow-up 
actions  were  taken  after  the  project 
end,  building  upon  the  project  outputs 
and  results  (in  %)  (by  Member  State 

of 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation78: 
• 

reforms: 

beneficiary 

Policies  supporting  climate  action: 
beneficiary authorities – 16% / national 
coordinating authorities – 59% 
Policies  supporting  health  and  long-
term care: 13% / 59% 
Policies  supporting  skills,  education 
and training: 26% / 87% 
Reforms of public administration: 37% 
/ 81% 
Judicial 
authorities 9% / 55% 
Product market reforms: 20% / 54% 
Labour market reforms: 8% / 54% 
Fiscal, tax and pension reforms: 12% / 
68% 
Policies 
innovation 
development: 29% / 50% 
Policies promoting sustainable sectoral 
development: 25% / 41% 
labour  market, 
Policies  supporting 
social  services  and  migration:  12%  / 
57% 

investment, 
sector 

supporting 

private 

and 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

Targeted online survey 

n/a 

OPC 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 

51%  of  beneficiary  authorities  were 
involved in any follow-up activities 
52% 
coordinating 
national 
authorities were aware of actions taken 
after the project end 

of 

• 

Targeted online survey  

To  what  extent  are 
these 
changes 
resulting  from  the 
TSI projects? 

The  outputs  produced  during 
the  TSI  project  were  further 
used  by  Member  States  to 
achieve the aims indicated in 
the 
technical 
support (project level) 

request 

for 

• 

78 The values of similar question in the survey of the ex post evaluation of the SRSP (‘To what extent has the SRSP contributed to the following reforms and policies in your country?’) 
will be used as a point of comparison. 

73 

 
 
and policy area) 

Level  of  capacity  of  beneficiary  authorities 
(on  a  scale  from  1  to  10)  to  implement  and 
absorb  the  recommendations  and  support 
provided,  as  perceived  by  DG  REFORM 
policy officers 

Number  of  the  TSI  projects  analysed  in  the 
case study programme that used their outputs 
to  address  the  problems  identified  in  the 
request for services79 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 8.1 

Desk  research  (satisfaction 
questionnaires) 

n/a 

Case studies: desk research 
(national-level document 
analysis), interviews 
(beneficiary and national 
coordinating authorities) 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  agree 
that the expected outcomes were achieved by 
the  time  of  the  implementation  of  the  study 
(in %) (by type of outcome): 
• 

the adoption of a strategy, a new law / 
act or modification of an existing one; 
the  adoption  of  (new)  procedures  and 
actions  to  enhance  the  implementation 
of reforms; 
improved internal working procedures, 
methodologies 
processes, 
organisation; 
organisational 
management, 
resource management. 

change, 
improved 

change 
human 

and 

• 

• 

• 

The  TSI  projects  produced 
the expected outcomes 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  outcomes 
(results) (project level) 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 

the adoption of a strategy, a new law / 
act  or  modification  of  an existing  one: 
49% 
the  adoption  of  (new)  procedures  and 
actions  to  enhance  the  implementation 
of reforms: 52% 
improved internal working procedures, 
methodologies 
processes, 
organisation: 61% 
change, 
organisational 
management, 
improved 
resource management: 21% 

change 
human 

and 

• 

• 

• 

- 

Targeted  online 
survey 

Share  of  technical  support  projects  that 
produced  the  expected  outcomes  in  12 
months after the project end (in %) 

Target: 80% (KPI of DG REFORM)80 
• 
• 
• 

2020: 70% 
2021: 83% 
2022: 80% 

Evidence  on  differences  in  terms  of  green 
transition  results  between  the  EU  Member 
that  are  participating  and  not 
States 
participating in the TSI 

n/a 

- 

Desk 
research 
(Annual  Reports  of 
DG REFORM) 

Case studies: desk research 
(requests for technical 
support, national reform 
documents and official 
statistics), interviews (the 
Commission, beneficiary 

79 Request for services, point 2.1.: ‘Briefly indicate the support measures envisaged (key outputs/deliverables) (e.g. diagnostic report, comparative analysis, recommendations, feasibility 
study, technical specifications for an IT tool, guidelines, etc.). Describe how these measures will help to address the problem identified.’ Case studies will allow tracing this mechanism. 
80 Key performance indicator 1 / Specific objective 1.1. of DG REFORM. Data used in the DG REFORM Annual Report 2022:  REFORM questionnaires to Member States after the 
projects’ completion. Building on the intervention logic, outcomes include: a) the adoption of a strategy, a new law / act or modification of an existing one; b) the adoption of (new) 
procedures  and  actions  to  enhance  the  implementation  of  reforms;  c)  improved  internal  working  procedures,  methodologies  and  processes  organisation;  d)  organisational  change, 
change management, improved human resource management. 

74 

 
 
 
The  objectives  set  in  the 
cooperation 
support 
plans are achieved annually 
(programme level) 

and 

The  key  stakeholders  are 
satisfied with the quality and 
results  of 
technical 
support  provided  under  the 
TSI 
(project level) 

the 

The  TSI  contributes  to  the 
strengthening  of  institutional 
and  administrative  capacities 
in Member States 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  objectives 
(project level) 

Share of the objectives set in the cooperation 
and support plans, which have been achieved 
due,  inter  alia,  to  the  technical  support 
received (in %) 
Beneficiary  authorities’  and  DG  REFORM 
policy  officers’  perception  on  the  quality  of 
the  technical  support  provided  (on  a  scale 
from 1 to 10) 
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
technical 
coordinating 
support  providers  who  are  satisfied  with 
participation  in  the  TSI  and  the  project(s) 
results  (in  %)  (by  Member  State,  type  of 
project and type of stakeholder) 

authorities 

and 

authorities 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
coordinating 
technical 
support providers  who observe  strengthened 
structures  as  a  result  of  the  implementation 
of  TSI  projects  (in  %)  (by  type  of  project, 
policy area and type of stakeholder)  

and 

and 

authorities 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
technical 
coordinating 
support providers  who observe  strengthened 
human 
the 
implementation  of  TSI  projects  (in  %)  (by 
type  of  project,  policy  area  and  type  of 
stakeholder)  

resources  as  a 

result  of 

and national coordinating 
authorities) 

Target: 70% (TSI Regulation) 

Desk research 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: Beneficiary 

authorities: 8.6 

DG REFORM: 8.9 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP  Ex post  evaluation81:  94%  of 
beneficiary  authorities  satisfied  with  their 
participation  in  the  SRSP  and  with  the 
results of technical support projects 

Desk research (satisfaction 

questionnaires) 

Targeted online survey 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities: 38% 
Technical support providers: 64% 
National coordinating authorities: 63% 

Targeted online survey 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities: 36% 
Technical support providers: 60% 
National coordinating authorities: 68% 

Targeted online survey 

Section 4.2.1 

To what extent are 
the TSI projects 
contributing so far 
to improve national 
authorities’ 
institutional and 
administrative 
capacities?  

• 

• 

• 

The TSI successfully pursued its specific 
objectives  by  providing  most  support  to 
the  definition  and  implementation  of 
processes  and  methodologies  and  the 
development  and 
implementation  of 
reform policies. 
The  TSI  played  a  significant  role  in 
supporting 
of 
national  RRPs  in  EU  Member  States, 
thus improving the quality of design and 
implementation 
and 
of 
administrative reforms. 
The implementation of the TSI improved 
all 
and 
institutional 
administrative  capacities: 

implementation 

institutional 

structural 

types 

the 

of 

81 The question was not applicable to national coordinating authorities and technical support providers in the ex post evaluation of the SRSP. 

75 

 
 
 
human 

resources, 

and 
structures, 
administrative  systems  and 
tools  (in 
particular  the  application  of  different 
in 
administrative  systems  and 
tools 
national 
sub-national 
administrations). 
The PACE flagship, established under the 
2023 round of the TSI, allowed creating a 
European  community  of  civil  servants 
through ‘project-based’ exchanges 

and 

• 

and 

authorities 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
coordinating 
technical 
support providers  who observe  strengthened 
systems  and 
the 
implementation  of  TSI  projects  (in  %)  (by 
type  of  project,  policy  area  and  type  of 
stakeholder)  

tools  as  a  result  of 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities: 50% 
Technical support providers: 72% 
National coordinating authorities: 91% 

Targeted online survey 

What are the factors driving or hindering the achievement of the expected outcomes and impacts of the TSI projects and why? 

Section 4.2.3 

• 

• 

• 

• 

important  challenges 

There was a good deal of ownership and 
commitment 
from  Member  States’ 
beneficiary  authorities  to  achieve  the 
outputs of technical support. 
There  are 
in 
accessing necessary information and data 
from  national  administrations  during  the 
provision of technical support. 
Good  cooperation between  the  European 
Commission,  beneficiary  authorities  and 
providers of technical support, as well as 
consultation  with  different  stakeholders 
during the reform process were the main 
factors  driving  the  achievement  of  the 
programme’s results. 
A  lack  of  adequate  administrative  and 
especially  financial  capacity  constrained 
the  absorption  of  technical  support  and 
the  implementation  of  the  associated 
reforms  in  EU  Member  States  (outside 
the direct control of DG REFORM).  

What are the main 
challenges in the 
implementation of 
TSI projects? 

What are the 
external factors 
driving or hindering 
the achievement of 
the expected 
outcomes and 
impacts of TSI 
projects, and why 
(in general and per 
policy area)?  

factors 

are 
Individual 
perceived 
negatively 
as 
affecting  the  implementation 
of the TSI-funded projects 
Links  to  the  intervention 
impacts 
logic  section  on 
and 
factors; 
external 
mechanisms of influence 

and 

authorities 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
coordinating 
technical 
support  providers  who  perceive  individual 
factors as negatively affecting the delivery of 
outputs  of 
(in  %) 
(disaggregated by external factors, indicated 
in the intervention logic): 
• 

the  TSI  projects 

with 

the  European 
Cooperation  between 
Commission,  beneficiary  authorities 
and providers of technical support 
Consultation 
different 
stakeholders during the reform process 
National/regional ownership of reforms 
and commitment for them 
Partnership  between  national,  regional 
and local authorities during the reform 
process 
Implementation  of  structural  and/or 
the 
administrative 
provision  of  technical  support  in  the 
country 
COVID-19 crisis 

reforms  during 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

n/a82 

Targeted online survey, 
interviews (the 
Commission, technical 
support providers, 
beneficiary authorities), 
focus group discussion 

factors 

are 
Individual 
perceived 
negatively 
as 
affecting  the  achievement  of 
the TSI projects’ outcomes 

factors 

Individual 
negatively/positively 
affecting  achievement  of  the  TSI  projects’ 
outcomes and impacts (by policy area) 

n/a 

Interviews (beneficiary and 
national coordinating 
authorities), case studies 

82 No point of comparison is available as the stakeholders were asked to evaluate these factors impact on outputs and outcomes during the ex post evaluation of the SRSP. 

76 

 
 
 
3.  SUSTAINABILITY 

SUB-QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

How sustainable are the effects of the reform support projects funded under the SRSP? How could the sustainability of effects be increased? 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  agree 
that  the  good  practices  and  lessons  learned 
from the specific technical support project(s) 
were used after the support was finished  (in 
%) (by Member State, policy area)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP  Ex post  evaluation:  88%  of 
beneficiary  authorities  used  the  good 
practices/lessons 
their 
support was finished  

learned  after 

Achievements, 
good 
practices  and  lessons  learned 
of  the  SRSP  are  used  after 
the  support  was 
finished 
(project level)  

Outputs of the SRSP projects 
contributed 
sustainable 
to 
effects  

How  likely  are  the 
effects  of  the  reform 
projects 
support 
funded  under 
the 
predecessor 
the 
programme, 
to 
SRSP,  expected 
last 
after 
implementation end?  

Section 4.3.1. 

•  Most  beneficiary  authorities  reported 
utilising the deliverables from the SRSP 
and  TSI  projects  to  a  high  or  moderate 
end  of  project 
extent 
to  be 
implementation.  This  appears 
facilitated 
the 
by 
especially 
dissemination and exploitation of project 
results to the main stakeholders. 

after 

the 

•  Member States benefited from SRSP and 
TSI  support  by  adopting  new  tools  and 
methods, 
to 
in  some  cases 
significant  institutional  changes  and  the 
implementation of long-term reforms 

leading 

Number  of  the  TSI  projects  analysed  in  the 
case  study  programme  where  specific  good 
practices  and 
the 
specific  technical  support  project(s)  were 
used after the support was finished  

learned  from 

lessons 

Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
that 
different  types  of  outputs  produced  during 
the  SRSP  projects  are  still  useful  in  their 
Member State (in %) (by Member State)  
Usefulness of the project (on a scale from 1 
to  10),  as  perceived  by  the  beneficiary 
authorities  

Number  of  the  TSI  projects  analysed  in  the 
case  study  programme  where  the  outputs  of 
the SRSP projects were used  

Targeted online survey  

Case  studies:  desk  research 
(national-level 
document 
analysis  and  official  statistics), 
(beneficiary  and 
interviews 
national 
coordinating 
authorities)  

n/a  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 8.87  

Desk 
research 
questionnaires)  

(satisfaction 

n/a  

n/a  

projects: 

interviews 

Case study on the follow-up of 
desk 
the  SRSP 
research 
(national-level 
document  analysis  and  official 
(the 
statistics), 
Commission,  beneficiary  and 
coordinating authorities)  
Case study on the follow-up of 
the SRSP projects (requests for 
support,  national 
technical 
reform  documents  and  official 
statistics)  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

National-level 
indicators 
related  to  the  impacts  of  the 
SRSP are improving  

National-level indicators related to impact of 
the SRSP125  

SRSP  projects  are  perceived 
as having long-term impact  

Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
that 
SRSP  projects  have  a  long-term  impact  on 
reforms, 
enhanced 

implementation 

of 

77 

 
 
 
What are the 
external factors 
affecting 
(positively or 
negatively) the 
sustainability of 
technical support?  

Section 4.3.3 

• 

• 

• 

Adequate  financial  resources  and  stable 
staffing within beneficiary authorities are 
crucial  for  sustaining  project  outcomes, 
with  staff  turnover  posing  a  significant 
risk to continuity. 
Changes  in  government  and  political 
agendas,  as  well  as  legal  obstacles,  can 
undermine  the  sustainability  of  projects, 
reforms 
particularly  when 
need 
adjustments  or 
implementation 
challenges. 
The  absence  of  a  centralised  long-term 
monitoring  system  limits  the  ability  to 
track  and  assess  the  sustainability  of 
project outcomes effectively. 

face 

Section 4.3.2 

What are the 
factors within the 
control of DG 
REFORM to 
increase the 
sustainability of 
projects’ results?  

• 

• 

• 

the 

about 

Effective  dissemination  and  exploitation 
of  project  outputs  are  essential  for 
maximising  sustainability.  However,  the 
evaluation  indicates  that  stakeholders’ 
awareness 
deliverables 
produced  by  the  TSI  projects  could  be 
further improved. 
Knowledge  exchange  across  the  EU, 
such as through projects using Technical 
Assistance  and  Information  Exchange 
(TAIEX)  as  a  delivery  method  and 
exchanges  implemented  under  PACE 
project,  strengthens  the  sustainability  of 
the  TSI  projects  by  building  informal 
fostering  ongoing 
communities  and 
collaboration between Member States. 
Ongoing  support  from  DG  REFORM 
during  and  after 
the  TSI  project 
implementation  is  crucial  for  sustaining 
reforms  but  maintaining  it  after  the  end 
of the project remains a challenge. 

factors 

Individual 
are 
perceived  as  positively  or 
the 
negatively 
sustainability  of 
technical 
support  

affecting 

improved  internal  working  procedures,  and 
improved  human  resource  management  (in 
%) (by Member State, type of stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
coordinating 
technical 
support  providers  who  perceive  individual 
factors  as  positively  or  negatively  affecting 
the sustainability of technical support (in %) 
(by type of stakeholder): 
• 

authorities 

and 

of 

and 

knowledge 

Access to international expertise under 
the TSI within the same policy area 
Exchange 
experience among EU Member States 
Continued  commitment  to  structural 
and administrative reforms 
Stability  of  staff  in  the  beneficiary 
organisation 
Adequate  financial  resources  of  the 
and  other 
authorities 
beneficiary 
institutions 
Dissemination  and  exploitation  of 
project  results  to  the  main  relevant 
stakeholders  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Number  of  existing  linkages  between  the 
the 
of  DG  REFORM 
mandate 
implementation  of 
its 
the  TSI 
possibilities  to  increase  the  sustainability  of 
projects’ results  

in 
and 

Mechanisms  are  in  place  to 
the  continuity  and 
ensure 
sustainability 
reforms 
initiated under SRSP  

of 

Number  of  measures  and  tools  used  by  DG 
REFORM 
and 
disseminate  the  project’s  results  after  their 
end  

to  monitor, 

evaluate 

78 

n/a  

n/a  

interviews 

Targeted  online  survey,  case 
studies: 
(the 
Commission,  with  beneficiary 
coordinating 
and 
authorities), 
research 
(national 
reform  documents 
and official statistics)  

national 

desk 

Desk  research  (TSI  Regulation, 
Annual  Work  Programmes  and 
Activity 
of  DG 
Reports 
REFORM, TSI annual reports), 
(the  Commission, 
interviews 
coordinating 
national 
authorities), 
group 
discussion  

focus 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  EFFICIENCY 

QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

How are 
implementation 
bottlenecks identified 
in previous 
evaluations of the 
predecessor 
programme SRSP, 
tackled and 
addressed by the 
TSI?  

Section 4.4.1 

To what extent was the TSI efficient in achieving its objectives? 

implementation  structure  and 
The  TSI’s 
procedures  were 
the 
largely  built  on 
experience  and  procedures  developed  under 
the SRSP. DG REFORM took steps to address 
the 
learned  and  suggestions  for 
previous 
identified 
improvements 
evaluations  of  the  predecessor  programme 
SRSP.  

lessons 

in 

in 

Implementation  bottlenecks 
identified 
the  previous 
evaluations of the SRSP were 
addressed 
the 
to 
implementation of the TSI  

improve 

identified 

The  number  (and  extent)  of  implementation 
bottlenecks 
the  previous 
evaluations  of  the  SRSP  that  have  been 
addressed  to improve  the  implementation of 
the TSI126  

in 

n/a  

Desk research (mid-term and ex 
post  evaluation  of  the  SRSP, 
Annual  Work  Programmes  and 
of  DG 
Activity 
Reports 
REFORM), 
(the 
Commission,  technical  support 
and 
providers, 
national 
coordinating 
authorities)  

beneficiary 

interviews 

Desk 
research 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

set 
in 
Financial 

target 
of 

Time-to-inform 
Article 194.2(a) 
Regulation: 6 months83 
SRSP Mid-term evaluation: 
• 

the 

Selection process (time-to-inform): 
5 months on average 
Preparation  for  implementation:  6 
months on average 
Implementation:  6-18  months  on 
average 

• 

• 

SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
Selection  process  (time-to-inform):  4 
months on average  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP  Ex post  evaluation:  86%  of 
national  coordinating  authorities  and 
91% of beneficiary authorities  

SRSP  Mid-term  evaluation:  77%  of 
beneficiary authorities 
SRSP  Ex post  evaluation:  66%  of 
national  coordinating  authorities  and 
87% of beneficiary authorities  

Targeted online survey  

How time-efficient is 
the TSI as regards 
the process duration 
from request 
submission by 
Member States to the 
completion of the 
technical support on 
the ground 
(including extensions 
and amendments)?  

• 

Section 4.4.2 
• 

the 

2021-2024 

DG  REFORM  achieved  very  good 
results in the timely selection of requests 
for  support.  The  average  time  from  the 
application  deadline  to  the  financing 
decision was approximately four months 
during 
period, 
substantially  below  the  applicable  time-
to-inform target of six months set out in 
the Financial Regulation. 
the 
total 
The 
application 
the 
deadline 
commencement  of  the  technical  support 
was approximately 11 months under TSI 
2021-2023 rounds. A shorter time period 
between  the  application  and  the  actual 
start  of  the  project  is  crucial  for  project 
success.  It  is  therefore  important  to 
devote  further efforts to  accelerating the 
start of projects. 

time  span  between 

and 

The  average  duration  of:  a)  the  evaluation 
and  selection  procedures  of  the  technical 
support 
for 
b) 
implementation  of  the  technical  support 
projects;  c)  implementation  of  technical 
support projects (in months)  

preparation 

projects; 

TSI 

The 
procedures were timely  

administrative 

of 

(by 

and 

national 
Share 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
that 
selection  process  was  implemented  in  a 
type  of 
(in  %) 
timely  manner 
stakeholder)  
national 
Share 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
that 
preparation  for  implementation  process  was 
implemented  in  a  timely  manner  (in  %)  (by 
type of stakeholder)  

and 

of 

83 This Article of the 2018 Financial Regulation refers to grants and was used as a benchmark in the previous evaluations of the SRSP for comparison purposes. 

79 

 
 
 
 
The  duration  of  the  project 
implementation 
was 
sufficient  to  implement  its 
activities  

TSI  is  flexible  for  changing 
conditions  of 
the  project 
implementation  

The governance of the TSI is 
perceived as efficient  

of 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
project was implemented in a timely manner 
(in %) (by type of stakeholder)  

and 

Share  of  beneficiary,  national  coordinating 
authorities  and  technical  support  providers 
the  project  duration  was 
agree 
appropriate (in %) (by type of stakeholder)  

that 

realistic 

Technical 
support  providers  and  DG 
REFORM  policy  officers’  perception  on 
how 
the 
implementation of technical support projects 
is  (on  the  scale  from  1  to  10)  (by  type  of 
stakeholder)  

timeline 

the 

for 

Number  and  share  of  projects  that  were 
amended/extended (by year)  

of 

(by 

(in  %) 

beneficiary 

The  number  of  reasons  behind  projects 
amendment  or  extension,  as  perceived  by 
the  Commission  and 
representatives  of 
national coordinating authorities  
Share 
national 
and 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
procedures  of  application  and  selection  of 
requests  for  funding  were  clear,  transparent 
and  user-friendly 
type  of 
stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
technical 
and 
coordinating 
support  providers  who  agree 
the 
that 
monitoring  of 
the  project(s)  was  clear, 
transparent and user-friendly (in %) (by type 
of stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
technical 
coordinating 
and 
support  providers  who  agree 
the 
that 
evaluation procedures and processes after the 
completion  of  the  project(s)  were  clear, 
transparent and user-friendly (in %) (by type 
of stakeholder)  

authorities 

authorities 

80 

SRSP  Mid-term  evaluation:  93%  of 
beneficiary authorities 
SRSP  Ex post  evaluation:  89%  of 
national  coordinating  authorities,  93% 
of beneficiary authorities  
SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

96% of beneficiary authorities 
90%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities 
82% of technical support providers  

• 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

7.9 (technical support providers) 
8.4 (DG REFORM)  

n/a  

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

95% of beneficiary authorities 
81%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities  

Targeted online survey  

Desk 
research 
questionnaires)  

(satisfaction 

Targeted  online  survey,  desk 
research  (TSI  Annual  report 
2021-2022)  

Interviews 
national 
authorities)  

(the  Commission, 
coordinating 

(with 

online 

survey, 
Targeted 
interviews 
the 
Commission,  beneficiary  and 
national 
coordinating 
authorities)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

97% of beneficiary authorities 
80%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities 
94% of technical support providers  

• 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

92% of beneficiary authorities 
74%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities 
89% of technical support providers  

• 

Section 4.4.3 
• 

To what extent is the 
governance of the 
TSI and 
administrative 
procedures efficient? 
How efficient is the 
cooperation with 
external providers 
and other 
Commission 
Services? In 
particular, how 
efficient is the 
governance of TSI 
multi-country 
projects?  

• 

• 

support 

providers 

stakeholders  were 
The  programme 
the  clarity, 
generally  positive  about 
transparency and user-friendliness of the 
TSI  administration  procedures  and  the 
proportionality  of 
the  administrative 
burden. An area for improvement relates 
to projects’ monitoring. 
The cooperation and interaction between 
technical 
and 
beneficiary  authorities  has  been  largely 
effective.  Both  beneficiary  authorities 
and  technical  support  providers  valued 
the  support  provided  by  DG  REFORM 
policy  officers.  Such  cooperation  was 
regarded  as  crucial  for  the  successful 
implementation of the TSI projects. 
The  residual  error  rate  estimated  for  the 
TSI  was  below  the  materiality threshold 
of  2%,  which  indicates  that  suitable 
control  arrangements  were  put  in  place 

 
and are effective 

Delivery  methods  were 
suitable 
the 
implementation of projects  

for 

The  administrative burden  of 
the  TSI 
is  perceived  as 
proportional  

with 
the  TSI 

Cooperation 
stakeholders  of 
projects was efficient 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  inputs  and 
administrative costs  

Existence  of  clearly  defined  and  enacted 
responsibilities  of 
roles  and 
the  key 
(DG  REFORM  and  other 
stakeholders 
technical  support 
Commission  services, 
providers, 
national 
coordinating  authorities)  involved  in  the 
project implementation  

beneficiary 

and 

of 

and 

related 

authorities 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities,  national 
technical 
coordinating 
and 
support  providers  who  agree 
the 
that 
delivery  methods  selected  for  the  projects 
were  efficient  and  met  their  implementation 
needs  (in  %)  (by  type  of  project,  type  of 
stakeholder)  
Share 
beneficiary 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
that 
the 
to 
administrative  burden 
submission of requests was proportionate (in 
%) (by type of project, type of stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary,  national  coordinating 
authorities  and  technical  support  providers 
who  agree  that  the  administrative  burden 
the 
related 
to 
project(s)/coordination 
was 
proportionate (in %) (by type of stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  agree 
that  the  providers  of  technical  support  have 
the required expertise and skills (in %)  
Technical  support  providers  have  sufficient 
skills  to  provide  the  agreed  support  (on  the 
scale  from  1  to  10),  as  perceived  by 
beneficiary  authorities  and  DG  REFORM 
policy officers  
Share of beneficiary authorities and technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  support 
provided by DG REFORM officers has been 
useful  (in  %)  (by  policy  area,  type  of 
stakeholder)  

implementation 

activities 

of 

Financial  management  and 
control  procedures  ensured 
legality  and  regularity  of  the 

Residual error rate  

81 

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

99% of beneficiary authorities 
63%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities 
91% of technical support providers  

• 

Case  studies:  desk  research 
plans, 
work 
(project 
cooperation 
support 
and 
agreements,  TSI  Regulation), 
interviews 
(the  Commission 
technical  support  providers, 
beneficiary 
national 
coordinating authorities)  

and 

Targeted  online  survey,  case 
with 
studies 
national 
beneficiary 
authorities, 
coordinating 
technical support providers)  

(interviews 
and 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

95% of beneficiary authorities 
95%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities  

Targeted online survey  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

96% of beneficiary authorities 
95%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities 
84% of technical support providers  

• 

Targeted online survey  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 88%  

Targeted online survey  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
Beneficiary authorities: 8.6 
DG REFORM: 9.0  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

89% of beneficiary authorities 
92% of technical support providers  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
<2% of relevant expenditure  

research 
Desk 
questionnaires)  

(satisfaction 

Targeted online survey  

Desk  research  (Annual  Activity 
Report of DG REFORM)  

 
To what extent is the 
total annual budget 
of the TSI 
proportionate 
compared to the 
amount of requests 
for support 
submitted by the 
Member States, in 
general and per 
policy area? To what 
extent the TSI 
programme was cost-
effective in reaching 
its objectives?  

How efficient is the 
budget execution 
from commitments 
to payments?  

a 

ensured 

sufficient 

Section 4.4.4 
The  2021-2023  TSI  implementation  rounds 
revealed  a  high  demand  for  TSI  support, 
level  of 
which 
competition  and  the  selection  of  high-quality 
proposals.  However,  the  number  of  the  TSI 
projects  was  limited  both  by  the  internal 
capacity  of  DG  REFORM  and  the  allocated 
TSI budget. The costs of controls were in line 
with the DG REFORM target and comparable 
with the other EU programmes. 

Section 4.4.5. 
DG REFORM has achieved good results in the 
execution 
commitment 
appropriations.  The  amount  of  payments  has 
grown  in  line  with  the  progress  of  project 
implementation. 

TSI-related 

of 

Section 4.4.6 
• 

the 

tendencies 

The average budget  per  selected  request 
for support under TSI 2021-2023 rounds 
of  general  calls  has  increased  further, 
reflecting 
already 
observed  under  the  SRSP.  The  higher 
average  budget  of 
technical  support 
projects  was  related  to  the  broader  and 
supported 
more 
under  the  programme  and  a  growing 
share of multi-country projects. 
The  stakeholders  generally  agreed  that 
the  financial  allocation  to  TSI  projects 
the  needs  of 
was  proportionate 
technical support. 
Although TSI projects do not require co-

significant 

reforms 

to 

How cost-effective 
are the projects 
funded under the 
TSI? Have any 
inefficiencies been 
identified?  

• 

• 

TSI expenditure  

To what extent was the TSI cost-effective in reaching its objectives? 

The  demand  for 
support is satisfied  

technical 

Ratio of  submitted and  selected  requests  for 
support (by Member State, policy area)  

• 
• 
• 
• 

2017 – 59% 
2018 – 33% 
2019 – 45% 
2020 – 37%  

Desk  research  (monitoring  and 
administrative data)  

The  budget  execution 
is 
efficient  from  commitments 
to payments 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  inputs  and 
administrative costs  

rate 

TSI-related 
Implementation 
of 
commitment  appropriations 
(commitment 
appropriations  implemented  and  execution 
rate)  

• 
• 
• 
• 

2017 – EUR 22.5 million (100%) 
2018 – EUR 29.35 million (100%) 
2019 – EUR 78.68 million (100%) 
2020 – EUR 83.97 million (100%)  

Implementation  rate  of  TSI-related  payment 
appropriations 
appropriations 
(payment 
implemented and execution rate)  

Share  of  payments  processed  within  the  set 
time limits  

2017 – EUR 2.63 million (67%) 
2018 – EUR 15.23 million (97%) 
2019 – EUR 34.62 million (99%) 
2020 – EUR 54.65 million (100%)  

• 
• 
• 
• 
2017 – 79% 
2020 – 96% 
2021 – 98%  

Desk 
research 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

Desk 
research 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

research 
Desk 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

The  TSI  projects  are  cost-
effective 
Links  to  the  intervention 
logic  section  on  inputs  and 
administrative costs  

Implementation  costs  of  the  TSI  at  the 
national administration level: 
• 

Person-days  spent  to  prepare  the  TSI 
request for technical support 
Person-days  spent  for  administrative 
tasks of project implementation  

• 

Implementation  costs  (cost  of  controls)  of 
the TSI at the DG REFORM level  

82 

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

Over time: 
• 

2018  –  6.7%  of  the  payments 
executed 
2019 – 4.8% 
2020 – 4.5% 

• 
• 
With  other  programme  management 
costs: 
the programme management costs of the 
Commission’s  Executive  Agencies  on 

Desk 
research 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

 
and 

execution 

financing  from 
the  Member  States, 
applicants  and  beneficiary  authorities 
allocate  their  human  resources  for  the 
preparation  of  requests  for  technical 
support 
of 
the 
administrative and technical tasks related 
to project implementation. Similarly, the 
coordinating  authorities  assign 
their 
personnel  to  coordinate  the  TSI  within 
the  Member  States.  These  total  annual 
costs  incurred  by  the  Member  States 
amounted  to  approximately  EUR 11.4 
million, representing around 9.4% of the 
TSI annual budget. 

The  annual  budget  of  the 
programme (per TSI cycle) is 
proportionate  to  the  requests 
for  support  submitted  by 
Member States  

No  obvious  inefficiencies  or 
wasted 
in 
programme management  

resources 

Budget ‘per head’ of the DG REFORM staff  

Average  budget  dedicated  for  a  selected 
request for support  

Share  of  beneficiary,  national  coordinating 
authorities  and  technical  support  providers 
who  agree  that  the  financial  contribution  of 
the TSI was proportionate to the needs/scope 
of technical support (by type of stakeholder)  

Adequacy  of  the  human  resources  available 
for the programme management to ensure its 
smooth implementation  
Adequacy  of  the  IT  and  other  resources 
available for the programme management to 
ensure its smooth implementation  

in  management 
Existence  of  overlaps 
functions, 
simplification, 
streamlining  of  processes,  clarification  of 
roles and responsibilities  

needs 

for 

average constituted 4.25% in 2020  

Over time: 
• 

Administrative  staff  -  EUR 2.8 
million in 2020 
• 
All staff - EUR 0.6 million in 2020 
With  other  Commission  DGs  and 
services: 
Budget ‘per head’ of administrative staff 
of  the  European  Education  and  Culture 
Executive  Agency  (EUR 2.1  million), 
the  Consumers,  Health,  Agriculture and 
Food  Executive  Agency 
(EUR 2.3 
million)  and  the  Research  Executive 
Agency (EUR 3.3 million)  
• 
2017 – EUR 142 000 
• 
2018 – EUR 209 000 
• 
2019 – EUR 302 000 
• 
2020 – EUR 372 000 
SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

Beneficiary authorities – 93% 
National coordinating authorities – 
89% 
Technical support providers – 80%  

• 

n/a  

Desk 
research 
system of DG REFORM)  

(monitoring 

Desk  research  (monitoring  and 
administrative data)  

Targeted online survey  

Desk  research  (Annual  work 
programmes and reports of DG 
(the 
REFORM), 
Commission)  

interviews 

Desk research (mid-term and ex 
post  evaluation  of  the  SRSP, 
Annual  Work  Programmes  and 
Activity 
of  DG 
Reports 
REFORM, TSI annual reports), 
interviews  (the  Commission), 
focus group discussion  

5.  COHERENCE 

QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

83 

 
 
To what extent are 
the projects funded 
under the TSI 
(internally) coherent 
and operating 
to 
together 
achieve 
TSI 
objectives  as  set 
out 
the 
in 
Regulation?  

• 

Section 4.5.1 
• 

and 

The  internal  coherence  of  the  TSI  is 
ensured  by  the  functioning  of  a  two-tier 
(check  of 
institutional  mechanism 
support  by 
technical 
requests 
for 
authorities 
coordinating 
the 
Commission 
services),  which  helps 
avoid double funding. 
Limited  evidence  on  the  existence  of 
collaborative  mechanisms  and  synergies 
between  the  TSI  projects  points  to  the 
need of further improvements in terms of 
internal  coherence  of  the  programme, 
which  would  help  turning  individual 
projects  into  a  network  of  reforms, 
contributing 
to  strategic  aims  of  a 
particular policy field.  

Section 4.5.2 
• 

The TSI is externally coherent with other 
interventions  with  similar  objectives  at 
level.  It  has  also  become 
the  EU 
increasingly 
the 
recognised  within 
Commission,  leading  to  its  integration 
into EU legislation as a support measure 
for  the  implementation  of  EU  laws  and 
policies. 

instruments 
(e.g.  TAIEX, 

•  With  the  increasing  availability  of  the 
and 
Commission 
programmes 
technical 
assistance  under  the  European  Social 
Fund  +) dedicated  for  similar  objectives 
as  the  ones  of  the  TSI,  additional 
guidance  is  relevant  for  Member  States 
and 
individual  authorities  to  choose 
and/or  combine  instruments  that  are  the 
most suitable for their reform needs. 
Compared 
the  TSI 
demonstrates  increased  complementarity 
with  similar  regional  or  national-level 
programmes. 

the  SRSP, 

to 

• 

To what extent is 
the TSI (externally) 
coherent with other 
interventions with 
similar objectives at 
regional, national 
and EU level, such 
as technical 
assistance through 
structural and 
investment funds, 
and enhancement of 
rule of law? Have 
synergies been 
created with other 
interventions?  

To what extent is the TSI externally and internally coherent? 

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating authorities who agree that there 
are synergies between different TSI projects 
implemented 
under 
implementation  in  the  Member  State  (in  %) 
(by Member State, type of stakeholder)  

currently 

or 

There  are  no  clear  overlaps 
between the TSI projects  

Existence  of  collaborative  mechanisms  and 
communication  channels  among  beneficiary 
authorities engaged in the TSI projects  

Existence  of  synergies/overlaps  between 
projects,  contributing  to  the  achievement  of 
the TSI objectives  

is  complementarity 
There 
between  the  TSI  and  other 
interventions  with 
similar 
objectives on the EU level 
Links  to  the  intervention 
on  EU 
logic 
EU 
priorities, 
programmes 
and 
instruments  

section 

other 

of 

and 

technical 

beneficiary 

complements 

Existence of  synergies/overlaps  between  the 
TSI  and  other  interventions  with  similar 
objectives  on  the  EU  level  (e.g.  ComPAct, 
RRF,  Digital  Europe,  Policy  Support 
Facility)  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI 
assistance 
provided  through  the  European  Structural 
and  Investment  Funds  (in  %)  (by  type  of 
project, policy area, type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  complements  interventions  enhancing 
institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities 
and 
stakeholders  and  efficient  public 
administration  supported  by  the  European 
Social  Fund  and  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (in  %)  (by  type  of 
project, policy area, type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  complements  modernisation  of  labour 
the 
market 

(supported  by 

institutions 

and 

and 

of 

of 

84 

online 
survey, 
Targeted 
(the  Commission, 
interviews 
beneficiary 
national 
coordinating authorities), focus 
group discussion  

and 

focus 

(beneficiary  and 
coordinating 
group 

Interviews 
national 
authorities), 
discussions  
Case  studies:  desk  research 
factsheets, 
(TSI 
national  reform  programmes), 
(beneficiary  and 
interviews 
coordinating 
national 
group 
authorities), 
discussions  

country 

focus 

research 

Desk 
establishing  and 
individual 
instruments/programmes)  

(documents 
regulating 

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

29% beneficiary authorities 
40% 
national 
authorities  

coordinating 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

28% beneficiary authorities 
40% 
national 
authorities  

coordinating 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

12% beneficiary authorities 
national 
35% 

coordinating 

 
 
of 

and 

complements 

for  employment 

European  Social  Fund)  and  investing  in 
infrastructure 
services 
(supported  by 
the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund)  (in  %)  (by  type  of 
project, policy area, type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
strengthening 
TSI 
sustainability  and  resilience  of  economies 
and  societies  as  well  as  the  preparation  for 
the  green  and  digital  transitions  (supported 
by the Recovery and Resilience Facility) (in 
%)  (by  type  of  project,  policy  area,  type  of 
stakeholder)  
Share of beneficiary authorities and national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI 
digital 
technology to businesses, citizens and public 
administrations (supported by Digital Europe 
Programme)  (in  %)  (by  type  of  project, 
policy area, type of stakeholder)  

complements 

bringing 

Existence  of  coordination  mechanisms 
among 
Commission  DGs/units 
responsible for relevant programmes  

the 

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  complement  actions  of  similar  national 
and regional programmes (in %) (by type of 
project,  policy  area,  Member  State,  type  of 
stakeholder)  

authorities  

n/a  

n/a  

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

54% beneficiary authorities 
50% 
national 
authorities  

coordinating 

Desk  research  (Annual  Work 
Programmes  and  Reports  of 
respective  DGs, 
regulations 
and other documents regulating 
of 
the 
implementation 
instruments), 
particular 
interviews (the Commission)  

Targeted online survey  

Existence of  synergies/overlaps  between  the 
TSI  and  other  interventions  with  similar 
objectives  on  regional  and  national  level 
(e.g.  by  addressing  the  same  issues,  target 
groups, aiming at the same objectives, etc.)  

n/a  

85 

and 

studies: 

interviews 
Case 
(beneficiary 
national 
coordinating  authorities),  desk 
(documents 
research 
establishing  and 
regulating 
individual 
instruments/programmes 
identified during interviews)  

There 
is  complementarity 
between  the  TSI  and  other 
interventions  with 
similar 
objectives  on  regional  and 
national level  

 
To what extent are TSI projects contributing to various circumstances of the request for technical support? 

Section 4.5.3 
• 

by 

the 

High  level  of  synergies  was  developed 
between the TSI and the  RRF. This was 
facilitated 
continuous 
communication between SG RECOVER, 
DG REFORM and DG ECFIN, given the 
synergies between the TSI, RRF and the 
European Semester. 
The  performance-oriented  nature  of  the 
RRF  increases  the  possibility  to  use 
deliverables  produced  during  the  TSI 
projects  linked to  the implementation  of 
the national RRPs. 

To what extent is 
the TSI consistent 
with the 
preparation, 
implementation and 
revision of recovery 
and resilience 
plans? Have 
synergies been 
created?  

• 

To what extent is 
the TSI consistent 
with and integrated 
in the European 
Semester (e.g. to 
which extent is it 
contributing to the 
design and 
implementation of 
the country-specific 
recommendations)?  

• 

Section 4.5.4 
• 

to 

linked 

is  strongly 

on 
design 

prioritised 
to 

The  TSI 
the 
European  Semester  as  the  requests  for 
support  are  expected  to  outline  their 
contribution to reforms in the context of 
the  economic  governance  process  and 
their 
based 
are 
contribution 
and 
the 
implementation of CSRs. 
The  TSI  projects  addressed  the  CSRs 
issued  in  the  context  of  the  European 
Semester to a high or a moderate extent. 
However, there is a need to improve the 
monitoring  of  the  TSI’s  contribution  to 
the European Semester process, allowing 
it  to  be  better  explained  which  projects 
and 
the 
implementation of CSRs. 

contribute 

how 

to 

to 

To what extent are 
TSI projects 
contributing to the 
achievement of EU 
priorities?  

Section 4.5.5 
• 

The TSI coherence with the EU priorities 
is  most  pronounced  in  the  fields  of 
economic development, as well as green 
and digital transitions, which also results 
from the complementarity with the RRF. 
the  publicly  available 
Findings  of 

• 

to 
TSI  projects  contribute 
successful 
preparation, 
implementation  and  revision 
of RRPs  

TSI  projects  contributed  to 
the 
of 
implementation 
REPowerEU  

The  TSI  projects  address  the 
European 
Semester 
recommendations 

Share  of  TSI  projects  that  contribute  to  the 
implementation of RRPs  

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share  of  the  TSI  projects  dedicated  for  the 
general  capacity-building  support  for  the 
preparation/ implementation of RRPs  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  projects  contributed  to  the  preparation, 
implementation and revision of RRPs (in %) 
(by project type, type of stakeholder)  
Number  and  share  of  the  TSI  projects 
supporting 
of 
REPowerEU  
Share  of  the  TSI  projects  linked  to  the 
implementation of CSRs  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  projects  address  the  European  Semester 
recommendations  (in  %)  (by  project  type, 
policy  area,  Member  State, 
type  of 
stakeholder)  

implementation 

and 

the 

of 

Target:  at  least  6  per  year  (KPI  of  DG 
REFORM127) 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

2020 – n/a 
2021 – 128 
2022 – 108  
2020 – 6 
2021 – 24 
2022 – 5  

Desk  research  (Annual  Reports 
of DG REFORM)  

n/a  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

Desk  research  (monitoring  and 
administrative data)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: 45% 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 58%  

Desk  research  (monitoring  and 
administrative data)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

74% beneficiary authorities 
90% 
national 
authorities  

coordinating 

Targeted online survey  

Share of CSRs  with  some or  full/substantial 
progress  in  their  implementation  (in  %)  (by 
year)  

2015128: 
• 
• 

Some progress: 44.2% of CSRs 
Full/substantial  progress:  4.2%  of 
CSRs 

2019: 
• 
• 

Some progress: 38.7% of CSRs 
Full/substantial  progress:  1.1%  of 
CSRs  

research 

Desk 
(European 
Parliament,  2020.  Country-
specific  recommendations:  An 
overview 129)  

There  are  mechanisms 
in 
place  to  link  TSI  projects 
with the EU priorities  

Number  of  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure 
annual, dedicated and flagship projects calls’ 
compliance with the EU priorities  

n/a  

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to the EU priorities Links to 

Share  of  the  TSI  projects  linked  to  the 
achievement of EU priorities (in %)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: 28% 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 30%  

86 

research 

(Request 

for 
Desk 
technical  support  form,  Annual 
Work Programmes and Activity 
Reports  of  DG  REFORM), 
interviews  
Desk  research  (administrative 
and monitoring information)  

 
 
 
  
information  (i.e.  projects’  descriptions, 
country 
factsheets  and  deliverables) 
analysis with the OSDG tool suggest that 
the  TSI  has  been  contributing to all UN 
SDGs,  with 
significant 
contribution  to  the  fields  of  economic 
growth, strengthening of institutions and 
enhancing the quality of education. 

the  most 

the 
logic 
intervention 
section  on  EU  priorities, 
other  EU  programmes  and 
instruments  

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to horizontal priorities  

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to the UN SDGs  

of 

and 

and 

and 

beneficiary 

beneficiary 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  projects  contribute  to  the  development 
of a strong and vibrant economic base (in %) 
(by project type, policy area, Member State, 
type of stakeholder)  
Share 
national 
of 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI projects contribute to building a climate-
neutral, green, fair and social Europe  (in %) 
(by project type, policy area, Member State, 
type of stakeholder)  
national 
of 
Share 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
TSI  projects  contribute  to  the  protection  of 
citizens  and  freedoms  (in  %)  (by  project 
type,  policy  area,  Member  State,  type  of 
stakeholder)  
Share  of  TSI  projects  contributing 
horizontal priorities (in %): 
Green transition 
Digital transition 
Equality  
Budget  contributions  to  horizontal  priorities 
(green, digital and gender elements)  
national 
Share 
beneficiary 
that 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree 
horizontal  priorities 
(green,  digital  and 
equality/gender  elements)  are  integrated  in 
their projects (in %) (by project type, policy 
area, Member State, type of stakeholder)  
Classification  of  TSI  country  factsheets  in 
terms  of  contribution  to  SDGs  (with  PPMI-
developed OSDG tool: https://osdg.ai/)  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  who  agree  that  the 
UN SDGs are integrated in their projects (in 
%)  (by  project  type,  policy  area,  Member 
State)  

and 

and 

of 

of 

to 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

45% of beneficiary authorities 
67%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

32% of beneficiary authorities 
77%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
• 
• 

21% of beneficiary authorities 
31%  of  national  coordinating 
authorities  

n/a  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

research 

Desk 
Reports)  

(TSI  Annual 

Desk 
research 
performance report)  

(TSI 

Targeted online survey  

Desk 
factsheets)  

research 

(country 

Targeted online survey  

87 

 
 
 
 
6.  EU ADDED VALUE 

QUESTION  

SUMMARY & SECTION  

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA  

INDICATOR  

POINT OF COMPARISON  

DATA SOURCES  

What is the additional value resulting from the TSI compared to what could have been achieved by Member States? 

What is the 
additional value 
resulting from the 
TSI compared to 
what could 
reasonably have 
been achieved by 
Member States 
acting at a local, 
regional and/or 
national level 
without EU 
support?  

• 

• 

Section 4.6.1 
• 

The  TSI  offers  tailored  solutions  and 
international  expertise  that  is  typically 
unavailable at local, regional, or national 
filling  gaps  and  addressing 
levels, 
specific needs that Member States would 
struggle to meet alone. 
The  TSI  is  favoured  by  beneficiary 
authorities  due  to  its  low  administrative 
burden and the absence of a requirement 
for  financial  contributions,  making  it  a 
preferred  and unique tool  for  supporting 
reforms. 
By leveraging international expertise, the 
TSI 
credibility  and 
the 
acceptance  of  reforms,  boosting  their 
legitimacy and visibility on both national 
and EU levels. 

enhances 

What was the 
additional added 
value in the case of 
TSI projects to 
prepare, amend, 
revise and 
implement the 
recovery and 
resilience plans?  

in 

Section 4.6.2 
The  TSI  provided  critical  support  to  Member 
and 
States 
implementing 
in 
project management and governance, areas not 
sufficiently 
support 
mechanisms 

preparing, 
their  RRPs,  particularly 

covered  by 

revising, 

other 

Technical  support  similar  to 
the  TSI  was not  available  on 
national,  regional  or  local 
level  

results  of 

The 
the  TSI 
projects  could  not  have  been 
achieved without TSI support  

are 

characteristics 
There 
distinguishing  the  TSI  from 
other 
on 
national,  regional  or  local 
level  

programmes 

TSI  projects  enhance 
the 
implementation  of  agreed 
reforms  

Similar  technical  support  on 
national,  regional  or  local 
level  was  not  available  to 
prepare,  amend,  revise  and 
implement  the  recovery  and 
resilience plans  

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  agree 
that  no  similar  technical  support  (e.g.  in 
terms  of  addressing  the  same  issues,  target 
groups,  aiming  at  the  same  objectives)  was 
available on national, regional or local level 
(in %) (by project type, policy area, Member 
State, type of stakeholder)  
Stakeholders  agree  that  their  Member  State 
was  not  able  to  implement  changes  without 
TSI support (in %) (by Member State)  
Share 
national 
coordinating authorities who agree that there 
are  characteristics  distinguishing  the  TSI 
from  other  programmes  (e.g.  international 
expertise,  collaboration  with  other  Member 
States,  tailored  support,  legitimisation)  (in 
%) (by Member State, type of stakeholder)  
Share of stakeholders who agree that the EU 
can  best  support  their  country  in  achieving 
raising  political 
important 
the 
awareness 
implementation of agreed reforms (in %) (by 
Member State, type of stakeholder)  
Share  of  beneficiary  authorities  who  agree 
that  no  similar 
technical  support  was 
available on national, regional or local level 
to prepare, amend, revise and implement the 
recovery  and  resilience  plans  (in  %)  (by 
Member  State,  type  of  stakeholder,  type  of 
project)  
TSI  projects had  an  added value  to prepare, 
amend,  revise  and  implement  the  recovery 
and 
the 
capacities of the national administrations, as 
perceived  by  beneficiary  and  national 
coordinating authorities  

reforms  by 
and 

resilience  plans  compared 

supporting 

to 

88 

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 80%  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

OPC  

n/a  

online 
survey, 
Targeted 
(beneficiary  and 
interviews 
national 
coordinating 
authorities),  desk  research  (on 
programmes 
particular 
identified 
the 
interviews)  

during 

n/a  

OPC  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

studies 

interviews 
Case 
(beneficiary 
national 
coordinating authorities), focus 
group discussion  

and 

 
To what extent are 
support measures / 
own initiatives 
proposed by DG 
REFORM under 
the TSI (e.g. 
flagship support 
projects), adding 
value to better 
exploit synergies 
across Member 
States?  

What is the added 
value of the TSI in 
supporting the twin 
digital and green 
transitions?  

To what extent is the 
TSI producing cross-
border or Union-
wide impacts in the 
areas of 
intervention? In 

Section 4.6.3 
• 

• 

TSI  projects  are  widely  recognised  as 
exceeding  what 
individual  Member 
States can achieve alone, particularly by 
fostering  synergies  and  enabling  more 
impactful reforms. 
Stand-alone  TSI  projects  are  perceived 
to  deliver  greater  EU  added  value  than 
what  beneficiary 
could 
achieve  independently,  with  their  value 
primarily 
to 
national  priorities  rather  than  broader 
EU-wide impacts. 

to  contributions 

authorities 

linked 

Section 4.6.4 
• 

• 

The TSI is widely recognised for its role 
in  supporting  the  twin  digital  and  green 
transitions. 
align  with  EU 
Flagship  projects 
priorities,  driving  regulatory  compliance 
and  sustainability  goals  across  Member 
States. 

of 

and 

supporting 

beneficiary 

reforms  by 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
projects  contribute  to  the  exploitation  of 
synergies  across  Member  States  (in  %)  (by 
type  of  project,  policy  area, 
type  of 
stakeholder)  
Share of stakeholders who agree that the EU 
can  best  support  their  country  in  achieving 
important 
the 
management of a crisis or a major challenge 
(e.g.  pandemics,  natural  disasters,  conflicts) 
or  the  recovery  after  it  (in  %)  (by  Member 
State)  
Existence  of  synergies  across  Member 
States, resulting from engagement in the TSI 
projects  (esp.  under  dedicated  calls  or 
flagship support projects)  
Share 
national 
beneficiary 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
projects  contribute  to  the  twin  digital  and 
green  transitions  (in  %)  (by  type  of  project, 
policy area, type of stakeholder)  
Share of stakeholders who agree that the EU 
can  best  support  their  country  in  achieving 
important  reforms  by  supporting  the  twin 
digital  and  green  transitions  (in  %)  (by 
Member State)  

and 

of 

TSI  projects  are  facilitating 
exploitation 
synergies 
across Member States  

of 

added 

is  perceived  as 
The  TSI 
having 
in 
value 
supporting  the  twin  digital 
and green transitions (links to 
on 
judgement 
coherence:  The  TSI  projects 
contribute 
horizontal 
to 
priorities) 

criteria 

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

OPC  

n/a  

studies: 

interviews 
Case 
(beneficiary 
national 
coordinating authorities), focus 
group discussion  

and 

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

OPC  

Member  States  engaged  in  the  TSI  projects 
reach  better  results  in  the  field  of  green 
budgeting 
non-engaged 
countries  

compared 

to 

Scores of the Green Budgeting Database 
survey in 2021-2023  

To what extent does the expected EU added value of the TSI materialise? 

and 

studies: 

interviews 
Case 
(beneficiary 
national 
coordinating  authorities),  desk 
research 
(Green  Budgeting 
Database  survey),  focus  group 
discussion  

Section 4.6.5 
• 

The  TSI  projects  produced  cross-border 
improving 
and  Union-wide 
cooperation  and  knowledge 
sharing 
across  Member  States.  Multi-country 
projects  are  seen  as  valuable  for  their 

impacts, 

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to  cross-border/Union-wide 
impacts  

of 

and 

beneficiary 

Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
projects help to address cross-border/Union-
wide impacts (in %) (by type of project, type 
of stakeholders)  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
72% 
authorities)130  

(national 

coordinating 

Targeted online survey  

89 

 
 
  
ability  to  tackle  broader,  cross-border 
challenges 
enhancing 
while 
collaboration  and  the  sharing  of  good 
participating 
practices 
countries. 

among 

the 

Section 4.6.5 
• 

The  majority  of  coordinating  and 
beneficiary  authorities  agreed  that  the 
TSI  projects  contribute  significantly  to 
the  implementation  of  EU  law  and  the 
promotion  of  European  values  with 
evidence  showing 
flagship 
projects are very effective in this regard. 

that 

the 

Section 4.6.5 
• 

The TSI effectively built a community of 
experts and sustained cooperation among 
Member  States  through  its  continuous 
engagement and multi-country projects. 

particular, what is 
the added value of 
multi-country or 
multi-region 
projects?  

To what extent is 
the TSI contributing 
to the 
implementation of 
EU law and policies, 
including 
promotion 
European 
values 
and 
principles,  such 
as  equity  and 
solidarity?  

the 
of 

To what extent is 
the TSI contributing 
to the exchange of 
lessons learned and 
good practices 
among national / 
regional 
administrations, 
and to building a 
Union-wide 
platform and 
network of 
expertise?  
To what extent are 
the flagship and 
multi-country 
projects promoting 
the creation of a 
community of 
experts and 
fostering a 
continuous 
cooperation among 

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to  the  implementation  of  EU 
law and policies  

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to  the  exchange  of  lessons, 
good  practices  and  creation 
of network of expertise  

of 

the 

The  TSI  projects  contribute 
to 
a 
creation 
community  of  experts  and 
continuous 
fostering 
a 
cooperation 
the 
Member States  

among 

in 

of 

of 

use 

and 

energy 

practical 

efficiency, 

experience 

beneficiary 

beneficiary 

Existence  of  cross-border  or  Union-wide 
impacts (e.g. contribution to green transition: 
improved 
of 
renewable  energy  sources,  implementation 
of climate adaptation measures) produced by 
the TSI projects  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support providers agree that the TSI projects 
contribute  to  the  implementation  of  EU  law 
and policies  (in %)  (by  type of  project,  type 
of stakeholders)  
Share of stakeholders who agree that the EU 
can  best  support  their  country  in  achieving 
important  reforms  by  helping  their  public 
administration  with  expertise,  knowledge 
and 
the 
implementation  of  reforms  in  a  specific 
sector (in %) (by Member State)  
Share 
national 
and 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
the  exchange  of 
to 
projects  contribute 
lessons,  good  practices  and  creation  of 
network  of  expertise  (in  %)  (by  type  of 
project, type of stakeholders)  
Share of stakeholders who agree that the EU 
can  best  support  their  country  in  achieving 
important  reforms  by  encouraging  learning 
from 
in 
implementing  similar  reforms  (in  %)  (by 
Member State)  
Share 
national 
coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers  who  agree  that  the  TSI 
contributes to the creation of a community of 
continuous 
fostering 
experts 
cooperation  among  the  Member  States  (in 
%) (by type of project, type of stakeholders)  
Existence  of  continuous  cooperation  among 
the  Member  States  that  were  involved  in 
flagship  and/or  multi-country/multi-region 

beneficiary 

experience 

countries’ 

other 

and 

and 

of 

a 

n/a  

SRSP Mid-term evaluation: n/a 
SRSP Ex post evaluation: 
68% 
authorities)131  

(national 

coordinating 

Case  studies:  interviews  (the 
Commission,  beneficiary  and 
coordinating 
national 
authorities), 
group 
discussion  

focus 

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

OPC  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

OPC  

n/a  

Targeted online survey  

n/a  

studies: 

interviews 
Case 
national 
(beneficiary 
coordinating authorities), focus 

and 

90 

 
 
 
the Member States?  

projects outside the scope or duration of their 
implementation  

group discussion  

91 

 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

TSI Cost Overview 

The implementation of the TSI incurred both direct financial charges to the EU budget and administrative expenses at the programme and project levels. 

Financial costs to the EU budget 

Based  on  the  TSI  programme  performance  statement,  the  TSI  led  to  EUR 355.7  million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  EUR 193.3  million  in 
payment appropriations from 2021 to 2023. With high demand for TSI funding, nearly all commitment appropriations were utilised during this period. 
Given  that  TSI  projects  typically  take  about  two  years  to  complete,  the  executed  payment  appropriations  rose  from  EUR 26.4  million  in  2021  to 
EUR 60.0 million in 2022 and further to EUR 106.9 million in 2023. 

Administrative costs of DG REFORM 

Between  2021  and  2023,  DG  REFORM  allocated  an  average  of  161  staff  members  to  provide  technical  support,  with  45  dedicated  to  administering 
programmes.  The  estimated  annual  staff  expenses,  including  overheads  such  as  infrastructure  and  operational  costs,  were  approximately  EUR 21.6 
million.  This  calculation  was  done  by  the  external  study,  based  on  the  average  costs  set  by  DG  BUDG  for  the  estimates  of  human  resources  and 
overheads in legislative financial statements for 2021 and on the assumption that 75% of staff are officials and 25% are contractual agents. It accounts 

In 2022, the budget per administrative staff member responsible for managing technical support was estimated at EUR 2.8 million in commitments and 
EUR 2.2 million in payments, closely matching those of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. For all involved DG REFORM staff, 
including  policy  officers  directing  the  projects,  the  budget  per  person  was  significantly  lower,  with  EUR 0.8  million  in  commitments  and  EUR 0.6 
million  in  payments.  This  difference  could  be  attributed  to  DG  REFORM’s  deeper  involvement  in  project  execution  than  that  of  the  Commission’s 
executive  agencies.  Both  beneficiaries  and  technical  support  providers  highly  valued  the  contributions  of  DG  REFORM  policy  officers,  considered 
essential for the efficient execution of TSI projects. Over the review period, the budget for technical support overseen by DG REFORM grew notably 
more compared to the increase in staff numbers. 

As indicated in the annual activity reports, the total cost of controls by DG REFORM was 4.2% of payments in 2021 and 2022, decreasing to 3.7% in 
2023, aligning with the management plan’s target to keep control costs under 5% of payments made annually. The control costs relative to total annual 
payments decreased over time compared to the previous evaluation period, despite an increase in the overall payments made. These control costs at DG 

92 

 
 
REFORM  were  consistent  with  other  EU  programmes.  For  example,  the  average  programme  management  costs  for  the  Commission’s  Executive 
Agencies were 2.93% in 2022. These costs varied, from 0.82% for the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency to 5.03% for 
the  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency,  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  programmes  managed  by  each  agency.  Similarly,  the 
Commission’s administrative costs can account for up to 5% of the Horizon Europe budget. 

Administrative costs to Member States 

TSI projects do not need funding from Member States, so they have no direct financial cost, except for voluntary contributions under Article 7 of the TSI 
Regulation. DG REFORM manages finances and contracts, but applicants and authorities use their staff to prepare support requests and handle project 
tasks. Coordinating authorities also assign staff to manage TSI projects within Member States. 

Based  on  the  targeted  survey,  calculations  of  the  external  supporting  study  indicate  that  beneficiary  authorities  spend  on  average  13.9  person-days  to 
prepare a TSI technical support request, costing on average EUR 3.5 thousand considering the average hourly labour costs in the EU. With the typical 
number  of  requests  from  2021-2023,  this  preparation  costs  Member  States  approximately  EUR 2.2  million  annually,  around  1.8%  of  the  TSI  annual 
budget. Beneficiary  Authorities also devote 100.5 person-days to  administrative tasks for each TSI project,  averaging  EUR 25.6 thousand in costs per 
project.  Overall,  Member  States  spend  an  estimated  EUR 7.3  million  annually  on  these  tasks,  about  6.1%  of  the  TSI  annual  budget.  Coordinating 
authorities  allocate  approximately  1.1  full-time  equivalents,  representing  EUR 69.4  thousand  per  Member  State  each  year,  totalling  EUR 1.9  million 
across all Member States (about 1.6% of the TSI annual budget). 

According to  the calculations  of the supporting  external  study based on the values reported in  the targeted survey, collectively,  Member States invest 
roughly 358 thousand working hours that represent approximatively EUR 11.4 million annually on TSI-related activities, making up about 9.4% of the 
TSI budget. As reported in the section of efficiency, stakeholders find the TSI programme user-friendly with minimal administrative burden. 

Benefits of the TSI 

Direct benefits for beneficiary authorities 

TSI  projects  enhance  national  and  sub-national  administrative  capacities,  leading  to  improved  practices  and  better  human  resource  management.  As 
shown  in  the  targeted  survey,  94%  of  beneficiary  authorities  acknowledged  receiving  outputs,  while  83%  reported  high  or  moderate  use  of  these 
deliverables. According to DG REFORM’s annual activity report 2023, over 80% of technical support projects (both TSI and SRSP) met expected the 
expected outcomes within a year of completion. A majority (98%) of surveyed authorities observed improved quality in reforms since the start of the TSI, 
with 90% rating results as excellent or good. 

93 

 
As evidenced in the targeted for national coordinating and beneficiary authorities, most respondents (98% or 84 out of 86) perceive an improvement in 
the quality of design and implementation of structural and administrative reforms in the beneficiary countries since the TSI began. Additionally, results 
from the targeted survey indicate that most coordinating authorities (90% or 28 out of 31) rated the overall implementation of the TSI in their country as 
excellent or good. 

Direct benefits for citizens 

Improvements  in  the  capacity  of  public  administrations  to  design  and  implement  reforms  have  an  impact  in  the  quality  and  sustainability  of  service 
delivered to citizens as well in the functioning of the market. As indicated in the introduction, some of the limitations of the mid-term evaluation is that 
the  longer-term  impacts  of  the  support  can  only  be  observable  in  the  Member  States  after  some  years,  and  under  the  condition  of  the  actual 
implementation  of  the  specific  reforms.  Nevertheless,  interviews  of  the  case  studies  highlighted  important  benefits  already  perceived  by  citizens  as 
follows: 

•  The Financial Sector & Access to Finance case study shows TSI’s direct impact on citizens by providing accessible and organised resources on 
finance, law, and AI–areas with limited online guidance. The free e-book and YouTube videos helped citizens understand new EU regulations on 
crypto-assets  and  ICT  risks,  cutting  through  the  technological  complexities.  This  heightened  awareness  of  risks,  especially  related  to  ICT  and 
crypto-assets, thus decreasing citizens’ vulnerability to cybersecurity threats and financial instability. 

•  The  case  study  on  digital  education  and  skills  illustrates  that  technical  support  facilitated  digital  education  reforms  in  several  Member  States. 
Croatia, for example, introduced new procedures for assessing digital maturity, enhancing strategic planning for digital education initiatives. This 
project influenced the national digital education strategy, offering citizens broader access to higher education and narrowing the digital divide. In 
Slovakia, TSI support led to a methodology for curricular and digital transformation reforms, providing schools with a structured framework for 
reform implementation, thereby having an impact on the quality of the education offered. 

•  According  to  the  case  study  on  SRSP  follow-up  projects,  TSI  support  aided  the  development  of  the  Cooperative  Compliance  Programme, 
enhancing tax compliance through increased collaboration, trust, and transparency between taxpayers and administrations. This benefits citizens, 
as a fair tax system boosts trust in public institutions and reduces tax evasion. The same study indicates that SRSP and TSI  support for health 
reforms  in  Austria  enhanced  citizens’  access  to  quality  healthcare  by  establishing  75  primary  healthcare  units  and  implementing  robust  data-
sharing frameworks. These measures improved the efficiency, resilience, and preventive care aspects of health services. 

Direct benefits for businesses 

Improving the capacity of public administrations to implement reforms can significantly impact business. For instance, enhanced clarity and consistency 
of the regulatory framework reduces uncertainty and facilitates business environment. Streamlined administrative process reduces bureaucracy and can 

94 

 
lower  operational  costs  for  businesses.  As  noted  in  the  Commission  report  delivering  on  reforms,  the  TSI  has  aided  Member  States  in  cultivating 
competitive economies. These efforts focus on simplifying administrative processes to facilitate business operations, lowering market barriers, evaluating 
and strengthening  financial markets –  especially  capital  markets – and reducing  regulatory and tax pressures on businesses. Additionally, they aim to 
stimulate  the  digital  economy  and  innovation  and  enhance  the  sustainability  of  ecosystems,  such  as  tourism84.  As  evidenced  in  the  TSI  2023  Annual 
Report that provides an overview on how the TSI has supported Member States on competitiveness along nine competitiveness drivers identified in the 
‘Single Market  at 30’ Communication and the 2024 annual single market and competitiveness report, the TSI has provided significant  contribution to 
competitiveness  supporting  European  business  in  driving  Member  States’  economies  creating  jobs,  cohesion  innovation  and  prosperity85.  More 
specifically,  through  the  case  studies,  the  external  study  supporting  the  mid-term  evaluation  has  provided  evidence  on  direct  benefits  perceived  by 
business as follows: 

•  According to the case study on sustainable growth & business environment, the TSI support to REPowerEU supported businesses by enhancing 
energy security and stabilising energy prices amid geopolitical tensions. By assisting governments in moving away from dependence on Russian 
oil  and  gas,  it  averted  potential  supply  disruptions  that  could  have  impacted  energy-intensive  sectors.  Moreover,  the  TSI  supported  efforts  to 
expand  the  use  of  renewable  energy,  biomethane,  and  hydrogen  production,  which  helped  to  manage  rising  energy  cost  and  protect  business 
competitiveness. 

•  As  evidenced  by  the  case  study  on  SRSP  follow-up  projects,  the  TSI’s  support  for  the  Cooperative  Compliance  Programme  in  Belgium  and 
Poland addressed the need to streamline tax administration and make it more business-friendly. The programme benefits businesses by lowering 
compliance costs, increasing tax certainty, simplifying administrative procedures, building trust and cooperation with tax authorities, and fostering 
long-term  growth  through  better  risk  management  and  transparency.  Additionally,  the  TSI  project  in  Poland  focusing  on  the  Capital  Market 
Development Strategy offered advantages to businesses by crafting a more favourable regulatory framework. This included drafting legal acts and 
conducting  market  analyses,  alongside  supporting  innovation  and  introducing  pro-Fintech  solutions.  These  efforts  contributed  to  improve 
businesses’ access to diverse and efficient funding sources. 

84 DG REFORM. 2024. Delivering on reforms. Delivering on Reforms - European Commission 
85 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL. TSI Annual Report 2023. EUR-Lex - 52024DC0445 - EN - EUR-Lex 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

EU Budget / Administration 

Quantitative   Comment 

Quantitative   Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment   Quantitative 

Comment 

No direct 
financial costs 
incurred 

COSTS 

No direct 
financial costs 
incurred 

Financial Costs 

One-off or 
recurrent 

96 

Although TSI 
projects do not 
require co-
financing from 
Member States, 
applicants and 
beneficiary 
authorities 
allocate their 
human resources 
for the 
preparation of 
requests for 
technical 
support and the 
execution of 
administrative 
and technical 
tasks related to 
project 
implementation. 
Similarly, the 
coordinating 
authorities 
assign their 
personnel to 
coordinate the 
TSI within the 
Member States. 

No direct 
financial costs 
(because no co-
financing is 
required; except 
for voluntary 
contributions of 
EUR 6.37 
million made in 
2022 under 
Articles 7 of TSI 
Regulation and 
Article 7.2 of 
the RRF 
Regulation). 

As calculated in 
the external 
supporting 
study, the 
annual costs 
incurred by 
Member States 
for these TSI-
related activities 
were 
approximately 
EUR 11.4 
million, 
representing 
about 9.4% of 
the TSI’s annual 

EUR 355.7 
million in 
implemented 
commitment 
appropriations 
and EUR 193.3 
million in 
implemented 
payment 
appropriations 
over 2021-2023. 

Given the high 
demand for TSI 
funds, almost all 
TSI-related 
commitment 
appropriations 
were executed 
in the 2021-
2023 period. 
Due to the 
nature of TSI 
projects (with 
implementation 
typically taking 
around two 
years), the 
amount of 
executed TSI-
related payment 
appropriations 
grew over 2021-
2023 period 
from EUR 26.4 
million in 2021 
to EUR 60.0 
million in 2022 
and EUR 106.9 
million in 2023. 

 
 
  
 
 
 
No 
administrative 
costs incurred 

No 
administrative 
costs incurred 

budget. 

As calculated by 
the supporting 
study, in total, 
the Member 
States’ 
administrations 
invest 
approximately 
358 thousand 
working hours 
annually in TSI-
related tasks.  

Administrative 
costs 

Recurrent 

97 

Costs of control 
were in line 
with the DG 
REFORM target 
set in the 
management 
plan, which is to 
keep the cost of 
controls below 
5% of payments 
made in a year. 
The costs of 
controls at DG 
REFORM were 
comparable with 
other EU 
instruments. 

On average, 161 
staff members 
were assigned to 
the 
implementation 
of technical 
support by DG 
REFORM 
between 2021 
and 2023. Of 
these, 45 were 
administrative 
staff responsible 
for programme 
administration. 
As calculated in 
the supporting 
study of this 
mid-term 
evaluation, the 
average annual 
staff costs, 
including 
overheads 
(infrastructure 
and operating 
expenditure), 
was estimated at 
around 
EUR 21.6 
million. 

Overall costs of 
controls 
represent 4.2% 
of payments 
executed in 

 
 
 
 
 
Enhanced capabilities of national 
and regional administrations, 
including more effective use of 
various administrative systems and 
tools and improved management 
of human resources, stem from 
direct modifications to the 
administrative practices of 
beneficiary and other national 
authorities. 

2021 and 2022 
and 3.7% in 
2023. 

Through the implementation of the 
TSI, the Commission has 
consolidated its experience 
providing tailor-made technical 
expertise to Member States. The 
partnership approach with Member 
States to address common 
challenges affecting the 
implementation of key reforms and 
EU policy priorities has been 
strengthened. 
The TSI has consolidated as an 
instrument that reinforces mutual 
learning and exchange of good 
practices, thus contributing to 
positive spillovers across the Union 
and uniform implementation of EU 
policies. 
With the TSI, the Commission 
counts with a technical support tool 
able to quickly mobilise EU-wide 
high-quality expertise responding to 
the needs of Member States 

Direct benefits   Recurrent 

The TSI directly benefits citizens 
by enhancing the quality and 
sustainability of public services 
through improved public 
administration reforms. Notable 
impacts evidenced in case studies 
include increasing citizens’ 
financial literacy and reducing 
vulnerability to ICT risks via 
accessible resources on finance, 
law, and new EU regulations. In 
digital education, TSI support has 
led to strategic reforms in 
countries like Croatia and 
Slovakia, broadening citizen 
access to digital education and 
improving educational quality. 
Furthermore, the TSI’s role in 
developing the Cooperative 
Compliance Programme fosters 
trust and transparency in tax 
systems, positively influencing 
citizens by boosting trust in public 
institutions and reducing tax 
evasion. Additionally, TSI support 
for health reforms in Austria 
improved healthcare access and 
efficiency by establishing new 
primary healthcare units and data-
sharing frameworks, enhancing 
health services’ resilience and 
preventive care capabilities. 

BENEFITS 

and 

efficient 

administrative 
Simplifying 
to  facilitate  business 
processes 
lowering  market 
operations, 
and 
evaluating 
barriers, 
strengthening  financial  markets  – 
especially  capital  markets  –  and 
reducing 
tax 
regulatory 
pressures  on  businesses.  Evidence 
from case studies includes benefits 
such as improved access to diverse 
funding 
and 
by 
strengthening 
financial  markets 
and  capital  market  development. 
like 
Tax 
the 
Compliance 
Cooperative 
Programme, 
reduce  compliance 
costs  and  enhance  tax  certainty, 
building  better 
relations  with 
authorities.  Similarly,  case  study 
on Sustainable Growth & Business 
Climate  Environment,  highlights 
how  TSI  support  on  REPowerEU 
supported 
by 
contributing to energy security and 
stabilising  energy  prices  amid 
geopolitical tensions. 

businesses 

initiatives, 

98 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 

The  Synopsis  report  summarises  the  results  of  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities 
carried  out  during  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  TSI  by  providing  a  qualitative  and 
quantitative  analytical  overview  of  the  main  results.  The  purpose  of  this  annex  is  to 
inform policymaking on the outcome of all consultation activities and to demonstrate the 
level  of  agreement  between  different  groups  of  stakeholders  engaged  in  consultation 
activities. 

1.  Outline of the consultation strategy 

Stakeholder consultations are one of the key channels through which the EU can better 
engage its citizens, civil society and interested groups to influence key policy decisions 
and  ensure  the  coherence  and  transparency  of  EU  actions86.  The  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines  foresee  that  the  Commission  should  carry  out  broad,  high-quality  and 
transparent  consultations  at  all  stages  of  the  policy  cycle,  including  evaluations. 
Stakeholder consultation for evaluating the TSI has been implemented in three phases, as 
presented in the figure below. This annex focuses on the implementation of consultation 
activities and their results. 

Figure 11- Key steps of the stakeholder consultation process 

Source: compiled by PPMI based on the Better Regulation Guidelines. 

The consultation activities included both the online public consultation and the targeted 
consultation whose results are presented in the following chapters of this annex: 

86 Renda, A. (2015). Too good to be true? A quick assessment of the European Commission’s new Better 
Regulation Package, CEPS Special Report, No 108. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Open  public  consultation  (OPC).  Duration:  18 March  –  10 June  2024,  51 
responses from 16 EU Member States and one country outside the EU. Results 
of the OPC are summarised in Section 2.1. 

•  Targeted consultation of specific stakeholders that employed three methods: 

targeted survey, interviews and focus group discussions. 
o  Online  survey:  19 April  –  19 May  2024,  289  responses  from  27  EU 
Member  States.  Results  of  targeted  surveys  are  summarised87  in  Section 
2.2. 

o  Interviews:  29 April  –  21 October  2024,  114 

interviews  with 
representatives  from  26  EU  Member  States  and  other  key  stakeholders. 
Results of the interview programme are summarised in Section 2.3. 

o  Focus  group  discussions:  3 June  –  11 July  2024,  three  focus  group 
discussions with 37 participants from 20 Member States were implemented. 
Results of the focus group discussions are summarised in Section 2.4. 

Special attention was paid for the selection of participants of consultation activities (see 
Table  5).  In  order  to  grasp  their  varying  experiences,  it  was  ensured  that  at  least  one 
representative  from  each  Member  State  is  involved  not  only  in  the  OPC  or  the  online 
survey, but also in the interview programme or focus group discussions. 

Table 5- Distribution of participants in consultation activities 

Member State 

Participation 
in the OPC 

Participation 
in targeted 
survey 

Participation 
in interview 
programme 

Participation 
in focus group 
discussion 

Bulgaria 
Greece 
Hungary 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Spain 
Sweden 
Cyprus 
Croatia 
Czechia 
Finland 
Romania 

87  The  detailed  analysis  of  all  answers  to  targeted  surveys  is  to  be  found  in  Annex  4  of  the  supporting 

study. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Estonia 
France 
Germany 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
The 
Netherlands 
Slovenia 

The  activities  of  the  online  public  and  targeted  consultation  adhered  to  the  principles 
(participation,  openness  and  accountability,  effectiveness  and  coherence)  and  standards 
(clear  content  of  the  consultation  process,  targeting  and  inclusiveness,  adequate 
publication,  time  limits  for  participation  and  acknowledgement  of  feedback)  of  Better 
Regulation Guidelines. 

2.  Overview of the main consultation results 

1.1. 

Summarised results of the open public consultation (OPC) 

Implementation of the OPC and data analysis 

The  OPC  is  a  web-based  consultation  that  was  launched  on  18 March  and  closed  on 
10 June  2024  on  the  dedicated  website  of  the  European  Commission  ‘Have  your 
say’.  The  consultation  was  running  in  all  EU  working  languages  for  12  weeks.  It 
consisted  of  two  main  structural  parts:  the  background  information  and  TSI-related 
questions  regarding  the  key  issues  of  visibility,  effectiveness,  relevance  and  EU  added 
value  of  the  programme.  The  OPC  aimed  to  gather  views  of  a  broad  spectrum  of 
stakeholders  (beyond  those  directly  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme) 
who are interested in the functioning of the TSI. 

The invitation to participate in the OPC was disseminated through social media platforms 
and  websites  of  both  DG  REFORM  and  the  contractor.  Furthermore,  the  contractor 
disseminated invitation emails to 168 organisations in EU Member States (trade unions, 
research performing organisations and civil society organisations related to the topics of 
the  TSI)  inviting  to  participate  and  spread  the  message  about  the  OPC.  Individual 
invitations  were  sent  to  36  researchers  whose  field  of  interest  includes  administrative 
reforms, public policy, EU governance and similar fields. Finally, national coordinating 
authorities  and  representatives  of  other  DGs  who  participated  in  the  interview 
programme  were  requested  to  contribute  to  disseminating  the  OPC  as  well.  Additional 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
communication  measures,  including  a  significant  number  of  individual  invitations  to 
those potentially interested in the OPC, were also taken by DG REFORM. 

Taken together, these measures resulted in 51 responses to the OPC from 16 Member 
the 
States  and  one  non-EU  country.  Moreover, 
implementation  of  the  TSI  reforms  in  two  Member  States  were  submitted  by  a  public 
authority  in  the  Netherlands  and  by  an  EU  citizen  from  Poland.  Summaries  of  these 
contributions are integrated into this report. 

two  position  papers  about 

Due to a limited number of responses and their quantitative nature, the data was manually 
checked  to  avoid  cases  of  campaigning.  Descriptive  statistics  were  used  as  the  main 
method  for  the  data  analysis.  To  reflect  both  general  and  stakeholder  group-specific 
trends in responses, the report is designed as following: first, the overview of all results 
to  a  particular  OPC  question  is  presented;  second,  the  answers  of  different  groups  of 
stakeholders are summarised in boxes dedicated to each OPC question. Given the limited 
number  of  responses  from  a  few  stakeholder  groups,  in  particular,  academic/research 
institutions  (one  response)  and  non-governmental  organisations  (three  responses)  (see 
section  Profile  of  respondents),  their  responses  (when  possible)  are  grouped  and 
presented together with those of the EU citizens. This shaped four groups of stakeholders 
for  the  data  analysis:  1)  public  authorities;  2)  companies/business  organisations;  3)  EU 
citizens; 4) others (non-specified; see the section ‘Profile of respondents’ below). 

Boxes  summarising  responses  to  each  question  include  the  most  frequently  selected 
responses  of  each  stakeholder  group  and  are  presented  in  the  following  order:  public 
authorities; EU citizens (including academic/research institutions and non-governmental 
organisations);  companies/business  organisations;  others.  However,  it  should  be  noted 
that the results of the OPC are not statistically representative and are only used to 
triangulate information collected during the evaluation process. 

Profile of respondents 

followed  by 

the  EU  citizens 

As depicted in the figure below, the majority of responses (57%, 29 responses out of 51) 
were provided by public authorities (20 authorities, 7 agencies, 1 local authority, and 1 
undefined).  This  was 
(16%,  8  out  of  51), 
companies/business  organisations 
(12%,  6  out  of  51),  non-governmental 
organisations  (6%,  3  out  of  51),  and  an  academic/research  institution  (2%,  1  out  of 
51).  A  total  of  8%  (4  out  of  51)  chose  the  ‘Other’  category.  The  vast  majority  of 
represented organisations were large (250 or more employees; 25 out of 51) or medium 
(50 to 249 employees; 11 out of 51). It is important to note that public authorities were 
also involved in other stakeholder consultation activities (e.g. targeted survey, interview 
programme,  focus  group  discussions)  designed  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  TSI, 
therefore,  there  may  be  an  overlap  of  participants  engaged  in  various  consultation 
activities. 

102 

 
 
 
Figure 12- Categories of respondents 

6% 2%

8%

12%

16%

Public authorities

EU citizens

Companies/businesses

57%

Other

NGO (Non-governmental
organisations)

Academic/Research institutions

Source: the results of OPC, N=51. 

Regarding  the  geographical  distribution  of  respondents  (see  Figure  13),  16  EU 
Member  States  were  represented  in  the  OPC,  with  the  largest  number  of  contributions 
received from Romania (25%, 13 out of 51), followed by Malta (12%, 6 out of 51). Four 
responses  (8%  each)  were  received  from  Czechia,  Croatia,  and  Italy,  three  (6%  each) 
from Lithuania, Poland, and Belgium, two (4% each) from Spain and Bulgaria, and one 
response (2% each) from Hungary, Ireland, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal. 
One EU citizen who completed the survey indicated Iran as their country of origin. 

Figure 13- Geographical distribution of respondents 

25%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

12%

8% 8% 8%

6% 6% 6%

4% 4%

2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Source:  the  results  of  OPC,  N=51.  Note:  this  figure  includes  respondents  to  the  OPC  questionnaire  on 
‘Have your say’ website (excluding a response sent by email). The answer of the respondent from Iran is 
distinguished by colour to differentiate it from the EU Member States. 

Almost all respondents (94%, 48 out of 51) indicated being familiar with the TSI (47%, 
24 out of 51, very familiar; 35%, 18 out of 51, fairly familiar; 12%, 6 out of 51, slightly 
familiar), while three respondents (6%) were not familiar with the programme at all. In 
total, 82% of respondents (42 out of 51) had been directly or indirectly involved in 
the  implementation  of the  TSI  in  17  EU  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Czechia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden). They were involved in the programme 
as a beneficiary authority (49%, 25 out of 51), coordinating authority (14%, 7 out of 51), 
technical  support  provider  (12%,  6  out  of  51)  or  in  other  roles  (not  specified  in 
responses)  (8%,  4  out  of  51)88.  Nearly  a  fifth  of  respondents  (18%,  9  out  of  51) 
reported not being involved in the TSI. 

Overview of the results 

Relevance and coherence of the TSI 

When indicating specific challenges at the EU and Member States levels that should 
be  addressed  by  the  TSI,  nearly  all  respondents  selected  limited  administrative  and 
institutional capacity to design and implement structural reforms (98%, 50 out of 51, to a 
high or moderate extent). A similar share of respondents (89%, 45 out of 51, to a high or 
moderate  extent)  indicated  that  the  TSI  should  address  difficulties  related  to 
implementing EU priorities89. A total of 82% of respondents (42 out of 51 agreeing to a 
high  or  moderate  extent)  expect  the  instrument  to  address  the  identified  challenges 
related  to  the  EU`s  economic  governance  processes.  Finally,  78%  (40  out  of  51)  of 
respondents  agreed  to  a  high  or  moderate  extent  that  the  TSI  should  address  the 
inadequate application and implementation of EU law. 

88 As mentioned above, public authorities who responded to the OPC may have also been involved in other 

consultation activities designed for the mid-term evaluation of the TSI. 

89  Protecting  citizens  and  freedoms;  developing  strong  and  vibrant  economic  base;  building  a  climate-
neutral, green, fair and social Europe; promoting European interests and values on the global stage. 

104 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14- Specific challenges at the EU and Member States levels that are expected 
to be addressed by the TSI 

EU countries' limited administrative and institutional
capacity to design and implement reforms

76%

22%

2%

Difficulties implementing EU priorities

65%

24%

4%

4%

4%

Challenges identified in the context of the economic
governance processes of the EU

53%

29%

4%

14%

Inadequate application or implementation of EU law

33%

45%

10%

4%

8%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

Source: the results of OPC, N=51. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

Box 6- Aspects to be addressed by the TSI (by stakeholder type) 

•  Nearly all public authorities agreed that the TSI reforms should tackle EU Member States’ limited 

administrative and institutional capacity to design and implement reforms (97%, 28 out of 29, to a high 
or moderate extent), followed by challenges identified in the context of the economic governance 
processes of the EU and difficulties implementing EU priorities (83% each, 24 out of 29, to a high or 
moderate extent). 

•  The EU citizens (including representatives of academia and non-governmental organisations) 

expressed the need for TSI to address challenges in implementing EU priorities and the limited 
administrative and institutional capacity of their countries to implement reforms (100% each, 12 out of 
12, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  Addressing the limited administrative and institutional capacity of the Member States was 

unanimously supported by the respondents representing business (100%, 6 out of 6, to a high or 
moderate extent). Other answer options were supported by an equal share of respondents from this 
group (83% each, 5 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  An equal share of respondents in other roles (100%, 4 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent) supported 

all answer options. 

In  terms  of  factors  that  prevent  the  government  and  public  institutions  from 
effectively  designing  and  implementing  reforms  in  their  country,  the  majority  of 
respondents  indicated  a  lack  of  staff  or  financial  resources  and  weak  coordination 
between public institutions to be the main constraints (84% for each, 43 out of 51, to a 
high or moderate extent). This was followed by a lack of a long-term vision and strategy 
to  design  relevant  and  sustainable  reforms  (80%,  41  out  of  51,  to  a  high  or  moderate 
extent),  lack  of  skills  or  inadequate  skills  (78%,  40  out  of  51,  to  a  high  or  moderate 
extent), and lack of continuity due to changes in political priorities (67%, 34 out of 51, to 
a  high  or  moderate  extent).  Finally,  more  than  half  of  respondents  reported  excessive 
bureaucracy and low administration understanding of society’s needs (65% for each, 33 
out of 51, to a high or moderate extent) to pose significant challenges. 

105 

 
 
 
 
Figure  15-  Factors  preventing  the  government  and  public  institutions  from 
effectively designing and implementing REFORMS 

Lack of staff or financial resources

Weak coordination between public institutions

Frequent political changes / lack of continuity due to
changes in political priorities

 Lack of a long-term vision and strategy to design
relevant and sustainable reforms

59%

55%

55%

25%

14%

2%

29%

12%

4%

12%

25%

6%

2%

47%

33%

14%

6%

Excessive bureaucracy

35%

29%

33%

2%

Lack of skills or inadequate skills

33%

45%

14%

6%

2%

Low adequacy / understanding by the administration 
of society’s needs

18%

47%

27%

8%

Other

10%

4%

6%

29%

51%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

Source: the results of OPC, N=51. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

Box  7-  Factors  preventing  Member  States  from  effectively  designing  and 
implementing reforms (by stakeholder type) 

•  The majority of public authorities indicated weak cooperation between the public institutions (83%, 24 
out of 29, to a high or moderate extent) to prevent the government and public administration from 
effectively implementing reforms, followed by a lack of a long-term vision/strategy for designing 
relevant and sustainable reforms, adequate skills, as well as staff and/or financial resources (79% each, 
23 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  Most EU citizens, academia, and non-governmental organisations indicated a lack of staff or financial 

resources and weak coordination between public institutions as significant challenges (92% each, 11 
out of 12, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  An equal share of business representatives reported excessive bureaucracy, frequent political changes, 

lack of a long-term vision and lack of skills to prevent public authorities from implementing reforms 
(100% each, 6 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  All respondents in other roles denoted a lack of staff or financial resources to be the biggest obstacle 

(100%, 4 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent). 

As  demonstrated  in  Figure  16  below,  most  respondents  indicated  the  high  or  moderate 
need  for  reforms  to  improve  green  transition  and  climate  adaptation  (94%,  48  out  of 
51),  public  healthcare  system  and  services  (83%,  42  out  of  51),  as  well  as  to  ensure 
functioning  (88%,  45  out  of  51)  and  efficiency/accountability  (84%,  43  out  of  51)  of 
public institutions. These views on the need for green and public health reforms largely 
resonated  with  the  opinions  presented  in  the  position  papers.  Somewhat  fewer 
respondents agreed on the reform needs in the field of defence (54%, 28 out of 51). In the 
responses  to  the  open  question,  the  need  for  TSI  reforms  in  the  public  health  sector, 

106 

 
 
 
including  insurance  schemes,  disease  prevention,  and  health  promotion  as  well  as 
strengthening  of  resilience  was  suggested.  In  addition,  a  further  need  to  support 
digitalisation and AI adoption in the public sector (especially in recruitment and training) 
was mentioned. Finally, one respondent expressed the need for improved coordination to 
support policy making and monitoring in different policy areas related to climate change 
across the different policy levels (national, federal, regional and local). 

107 

 
 
 
Figure  16-  The  extent  to  which  reforms  are  considered  necessary  to  improve 
individual policy areas in the Member State 

Public healthcare system and services

67%

16%

4%

2%

12%

Green transition and climate adaptation

The efficiency and accountability of public institutions

Functioning of public institutions (including the
judiciary)

Education and school services

61%

59%

55%

53%

33%

4%

2%

25%

10%

6%

33%

2%

2%

8%

27%

6%

14%

Digitalisation of public services

49%

35%

8%

6%

2%

Energy supply, including cost of energy (electricity,
gas, petrol)

47%

25%

8%

2%

18%

Employment, including access, work opportunities,
and conditions

41%

39%

12%

2%

6%

Family, housing, social protection

39%

41%

4%

4%

12%

Support for businesses (e.g. green loans for small and
medium-sized businesses (SMEs), access to capital
markets)

Education to help with financial decisions in everyday
life

35%

35%

41%

12%

2%

10%

35%

16%

14%

Migration

35%

33%

14%

4%

14%

Taxation systems and policies

35%

39%

6%

4%

16%

Defence readiness

29%

25%

20%

6%

20%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

Source: the results of OPC, N=51. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

Box 8- Reform needs and priorities (by stakeholder type) 

• 

In terms of reform priorities, the majority of public authorities expressed the need for reforms oriented 
towards green transition and climate adaptation (93%, 27 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent), 
digitalisation of public services (90%, 26 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent) as well as 

108 

 
 
 
 
employment, functioning of public institutions, and support for businesses (86%, 25 out of 29, to a 
high or moderate extent). 

•  A group of EU citizens, academia, and non-governmental organisations representatives similarly 

prioritised reforms on green transition (100%, 12 out of 12, to a high or moderate extent), as well as 
social protection (including family and housing) and public healthcare (92% each, 11 out of 12, to a 
high or moderate extent). 

•  All business representatives indicated green transition, digitalisation of public services, education and 
school services, social protection, migration, public healthcare, and efficiency and accountability of 
public institutions (100% each, 6 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent) as policy areas where reforms 
are needed. 

•  Respondents in other roles prioritised reforms on the functioning, efficiency and accountability of the 

public institutions (100% each, 4 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent). 

Efficiency and effectiveness of the TSI 

Regarding  changes  resulting  from  TSI  support,  better  delivery  and  quality  of  public 
services (46%, 22 out of 48, agreed to a high or moderate extent) and more transparent, 
effective and accountable public institutions (46%, 22 out of 48) were the most observed 
in  the  field  of  public  institutions  and  public  administration,  whereas  among  public 
policies,  the  majority  of  respondents  reported  the  emergence  of  better  strategies  and 
reform/policy documents (58%, 28 out of 48) to be the most observed development (see 
Figure 17). The largest part of respondents from Malta and Romania observed a rise in 
transparency,  effectiveness  and  accountability  of  public  institutions  in  their 
countries (11%, 4 out of 36, and 14%, 10 out of 72, respectively), while responses from 
other countries were more dispersed. 

Nearly  a  quarter  of  respondents  stated  that  they  noticed  limited  or  no  changes  in 
administrative  processes,  public  financial  and  revenue  management,  and  transparency 
and accountability of public institutions (23%, 11 out of 48, for each). A total of 31% (15 
out  of  48)  disagreed  that  the  TSI  resulted  in  a  significantly  better  provision  of 
information to the general public and/or specific groups. Overall, a considerable number 
of respondents (from 25% to 42%, 12-20 out of 48) were not able to provide the answer 
to this question. 

109 

 
 
 
Figure 17- Changes in public institutions, public administration and developments 
on public policies that resulted from TSI support 

s
e
i
c
i
l

o
p

c
i
l

b
u
p

n

i

s
e
g
n
a
h
C

i

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
a
/
s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

c
i
l

b
u
p

n

i

s
e
g
n
a
h
C

Better strategies and reform/policy documents

35%

23%

8%

8%

25%

Better application and implementation of EU law

17%

27%

19%

8%

29%

New legal acts adopted or existing legal acts modified

15%

29%

17%

10%

29%

Better provision of information and communication to
the general public or specific groups

8%

25%

25%

6%

35%

Better application of economic instruments
(regulations, subsidies, etc.)

8%

23%

19%

8%

42%

More transparent, effective and accountable public
institutions

21%

25%

10%

13%

31%

Better delivery and quality of public services

21%

25%

15%

6%

33%

Public services easier to access

17%

25%

13%

6%

40%

Modernised public financial management and revenue
authorities

15%

21%

15%

8%

42%

Easier-to-follow and quicker administrative processes
and dealings with the public

15%

25%

15%

8%

38%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

Source: the results of OPC, N=48. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

Box  9-  Changes  in  public  institutions  and  public  administration  as  a  result  of  the 
TSI (by stakeholder type) 

•  Among the changes in the field of public institutions and public administration, most representatives 
of public authorities observed positive developments resulting in more transparent, effective and 
accountable public institutions (48%, 14 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent), followed by better 
delivery and quality of public services (45%, 13 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent) and quicker 
administrative processes and dealings with the public (41%, 12 out of 29, to a high or moderate 
extent). 

•  Similarly, more than half of EU citizens noticed changes in better quality, delivery and accessibility of 

public services (63% for each, 5 out of 8, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  A representative of academia reported that as a result of reforms, public services are easier to access 

(100%, 1 out of 1, to a moderate extent). 

•  Respondents from non-governmental organisations either did not have an answer to this question or 

observed no changes. 

•  The highest rate of business representatives indicated positive changes in the accessibility of public 
services (67%, 4 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent) and delivery and quality of public services 
(50%, 3 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent), while respondents in other roles observed more 
transparent, effective and accountable public institutions (50%, 2 out of 4, to a high or moderate 
extent). 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 10- Changes in public policies as a result of the TSI (by stakeholder type) 

• 

In terms of changes in public policies, the majority of public authorities reported better strategies and 
reform/policy documents (69%, 20 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent), as well as better 
application of EU law and new legal acts adopted or existing legal acts modified (52% each, 15 out of 
29, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  EU citizens’ responses were more dispersed, with more than a third of respondents reporting new legal 
acts (38%, 3 out of 8, to a high or moderate extent) and a quarter indicating better application and 
implementation of EU law, economic instruments, better provision of information to the general 
public, and better strategies and reform/policy documents (25% each, 2 out of 8, to a high or moderate 
extent). 

•  Representatives of non-governmental organisations and academia did not know an answer to this 

question or observed no changes. 

•  Half of the business representatives indicated positive developments in the application/implementation 
of the EU law and strategies, reform/policy documents (50%, 3 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  Respondents in other roles reported the emergence of better strategies and reform/policy documents 

(75%, 3 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent). 

EU added value of the TSI 

Overall,  more  than  half  of  all  respondents  stated  that  it  would  be  hardly  possible  to 
achieve  similar  results  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  reforms  without  the 
support  of  the  TSI  (58%,  20  out  of  35,  agreed  to  a  limited  extent  or  not  at  all).  Just 
above a third of all respondents stated that their countries would be to a high or moderate 
extent  able  to  implement  the  reforms  in  the  absence  of  TSI  (34%  12  out  of  35)  (see 
Figure 18). 

Figure  18-  Extent  to  which  it  would  be  possible  to  achieve  similar  results  without 
TSI support 

Public authorities (N=22)

32%

41%

9%

9%

EU citizens (N=5)

20%

60%

20%

Companies/businesses (N=4)

Academic/Research institutions (N=1)

100%

100%

To a high extent To a moderate extent To a limited extent Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

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

Source: the results of OPC, N=35. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

111 

 
 
 
 
Box 11- Extent to which Member States would be able to implement reforms in the 
absence of the TSI (by stakeholder type) 

• 

In terms of changes in public policies, the majority of public authorities reported better strategies and 
reform/policy documents (69%, 20 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent), as well as better 
application of EU law and new legal acts adopted or existing legal acts modified (52% each, 15 out of 
29, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  EU citizens’ responses were more dispersed, with more than a third of respondents reporting new legal 
acts (38%, 3 out of 8, to a high or moderate extent) and a quarter indicating better application and 
implementation of EU law, economic instruments, better provision of information to the general 
public, and better strategies and reform/policy documents (25% each, 2 out of 8, to a high or moderate 
extent). 

•  Representatives of non-governmental organisations and academia did not know an answer to this 

question or observed no changes. 

•  Half of the business representatives indicated positive developments in the application/implementation 
of the EU law and strategies, reform/policy documents (50%, 3 out of 6, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  Respondents in other roles reported the emergence of better strategies and reform/policy documents 

(75%, 3 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent).A half of the respondents representing public 
authorities (50%, 11 out of 22) stated that their country would be able to implement reforms in the 
absence of TSI support only to a limited extent or not at all. A half of the respondents representing 
public authorities (50%, 11 out of 22) stated that their country would be able to implement reforms in 
the absence of TSI support only to a limited extent or not at all. 41% of public authorities (9 out of 22) 
stated that their country would be to a high or moderate extent capable of implementing these reforms 
without TSI. 

•  More than half of the group of EU citizens reported that their countries could implement the reforms 

without the support provided by the TSI only to a limited extent (60%, 3 out of 5). 

•  A representative of an academic/research institution indicated that their country would be to a 

moderate extent able to implement the reforms without TSI (100%, 1 out of 1). 

•  All business representatives who provided answer to this question reported that their countries could to 

a limited extent implement the reforms without the support provided (100%, 4 out of 4). 
•  No representatives of non-governmental organisations provided an answer to this question. 
•  The majority of respondents in other roles indicated limited or no capability to implement the reforms 

without TSI (67%, 2 out of 3). 

Almost  all  respondents  agreed  that  in  order  to  help  their  country  implement  far-
reaching reforms, the EU should provide the Member States with tools and possibilities 
to  learn  from  other  countries’  experiences  (98%,  50  out  of  51,  to  a  high  or  moderate 
extent).  Moreover,  the  majority  of  respondents  stressed  the  need  to  help  public 
administrations with non-material resources, such as expertise, knowledge, and practical 
experience in implementing particular reforms, as well as to raise political awareness and 
support the implementation of agreed reforms (94% for each, 48 out of 51, to a high or 
moderate extent). Generally, among respondents, there was slightly less support for the 
need for the EU’s technical  support in  the management of crises/major challenges (e.g. 
pandemics,  natural  disasters,  conflicts),  with  75%  of  all  respondents  (38  out  of  51) 
agreeing with this statement to a high or moderate extent (Figure 19). One position paper 
highlighted  issues  related  to  the  lack  of  expertise  of  technical  support  providers, 
signalling  the  need  to  ensure  more  quality  support  during  the  implementation  of  the 
projects. 

112 

 
 
 
Figure  19-  The  perceived  need  for  EU  support  for  Member  States  implementing 
far-reaching reforms 

By helping public administration with expertise on,
knowledge of, and practical experience in,
implementing reforms in a specific sector

By raising political awareness and supporting the
implementation of agreed reforms

By encouraging learning from other countries’ 
experience in implementing similar reforms

By supporting the twin digital and green transitions

By supporting the management of a crisis or a major
challenge (e.g. pandemics, natural disasters, conflicts)
or recovery after it

82%

12%

4%

2%

69%

25%

2%

4%

65%

63%

33%

2%

25%

4%

4%

4%

45%

29%

16%

6%

4%

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

To a high extent To a moderate extent To a limited extent Not at all

I do not know / cannot answer

Source: the results of OPC, N=51. Note: the responses are presented in decreasing order by the selection of 
response ‘to a high extent’. 

Box  12-  Ways  for  the  EU  to  help  Member  States  in  implementing  far-reaching 
reforms (by stakeholder type) 

•  All public authorities participating in the OPC indicated that the EU could usefully help the Member 

States in implementing far-reaching reforms by encouraging learning from other countries’ experience 
in implementing similar reforms (100%, 29 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent). This was followed 
by helping public administration with non-material resources (expertise, knowledge, practical 
experience, etc.) in implementing reforms in a specific sector (97%, 28 out of 29, to a high or 
moderate extent), as well as supporting the implementation of agreed reforms and the twin digital and 
green transitions (87% for each, 26 out of 29, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  A group of the EU citizens, representatives of academia, and non-governmental organisations 
expressed the need for more EU support in raising political awareness and supporting the 
implementation of agreed reforms (100%, 12 out of 12, to a high or moderate extent), followed by 
encouraging learning from other countries (92%, 11 out of 12, to a high or moderate extent) and 
supporting the twin digital and green transitions (83%, 10 out of 12, to a high or moderate extent). 

•  Responses from the representatives of companies/businesses were more dispersed, since all of them 

expressed a high or moderate need for sharing of good practices between the Member States, assisting 
public administrations with expertise, raising political awareness, supporting the management of crises 
as well as twin digital and green transitions (100%, 6 out of 6). 

•  All respondents in other roles reported the most need for EU support in encouraging learning from 
other countries’ experience, helping public administration with non-material resources needed for 
implementing reforms, and raising political awareness and supporting the implementation of agreed 
reforms (100% for each, 4 out of 4, to a high or moderate extent). 

1.2. 

Summarised results of the targeted survey 

Implementation of the targeted survey and data analysis 

The  targeted  survey  was  running  from  19 April  to  19 May  2024  on  the  EU  Survey 
tool. The main purpose of the survey was to collect opinions on the overall functioning 
of the TSI, the quality of technical support received, the policy goals and objectives met, 

113 

 
 
 
 
and the results and impacts achieved throughout the evaluation period (2021-2023). The 
survey  questionnaire  was  divided  into  two  parts:  (i)  an  introduction  and  (ii)  questions 
adjusted to the experience of beneficiary authorities, national coordinating authorities and 
technical  support  providers.  Questions  for  these  target  groups  were  split  into  several 
blocks  on  the  basis  of  key  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness,  sustainability, 
efficiency,  coherence,  and  EU  added  value  of  the  TSI.  The  survey  questions  were 
carefully crafted to ensure comparability across the different groups of respondents and 
complementarity with the other consultation methods. 

DG  REFORM  directly  shared  invitations  to  participate  in  the  targeted  survey  with  the 
representatives  of  beneficiary  authorities,  coordinating  authorities  as  well  as  technical 
support  providers,  involved  in  the  preparation,  design  and  implementation  of  TSI 
projects.  The  mailing  list  was  based  on  two  extractions  (at  project  and  sub-task  levels) 
from 15 April 2024 with Better Excel Plugin for JIRA, including contacts of beneficiary 
authorities (1 to 11 per sub-task) and technical support providers (1 to 5 per sub-task). A 
regularly updated list on national coordinating authorities were used to reach out to this 
group  of  stakeholders  (1  to  6  contacts  per  Member  State).  The  survey  was  extended 
twice,  and  additional  reminders  were  sent  for  the  invited  stakeholders.  This  resulted  in 
the overall response rate reaching 21.5% (see Table 6). 

Table 6. Participants of the targeted survey 

Number of 
Member 
States 
represented 
26 (except 
Luxembourg) 
25 (except 
Finland and 
Sweden) 
n/a 

Stakeholder 
group 

Beneficiary 
authorities 
National 
coordinating 
authorities 
Technical 
support 
providers 
TOTAL 

Number of 
invitations 
sent 

Number of 
responses 
received 

Response 
rate 

Responses 
per Member 
State 

917 

100 

380 

186 

35 

20.3% 

35% 

68 

17.9% 

1-21 

1-3 

n/a 

n/a 

27 

1 397 

289 

21.5% 

Note: while there is one institution performing the role of national coordinating authority in each Member 
State, invitations to the survey were shared with multiple staff members within that institution. As a result, 
the number of responses received exceeds the number of Member States and coordinating authorities. 

To  provide  robust  findings  on  the  targeted  survey  results,  the  data  was  cleaned  from 
empty and partial responses. The data analysis was based on two pillars: (i) a descriptive 
presentation of the targeted survey results and (ii) an estimation of statistical associations 
between  key  variables.  Since  most  of  the  targeted  survey  responses  were  ordinal  or 
nominal, Cramer’s V was used to measure the power of association, and Fisher’s exact 
test was employed to identify the statistical significance of the findings. 

When presenting quantitative data, N represents the number of selections of a particular 
targeted  survey  response.  The  N  for  each  question  may  vary  due  to  the  following 
reasons: 

114 

 
 
 
•  while  providing  descriptive  analysis  of  the  targeted  survey  results,  ‘Do  not 

know/cannot answer’ responses were omitted; 

•  certain questions were directed only at specific groups of respondents based on their 
earlier  answers  (e.g.  in  the  beneficiary  authorities’  targeted  survey,  Q25  ‘To  what 
extent has your institution used the deliverables of the SRSP-funded project(s) in its 
work?’  was  available  only  to  respondents  who  selected  a  positive  response  in  Q8 
‘Was your institution involved in the SRSP, predecessor of the TSI, as a beneficiary 
authority?’); 

•  answering some questions (not marked with asterisk *)90 was optional. 

The  breakout  of  responses  to  each  survey  question  is  presented  in  the  following  sub-
section of this annex. 

Respondents and scope of projects they represent 

A total of 289 completed responses of the targeted survey were analysed. A total of 64% 
(186)  of  participants  were  representatives  of  the  beneficiary  authorities,  24%  (68)  – 
technical  support  providers,  and  12%  (35)  submitted  responses  as  the  national 
coordinating authorities (20). 

Figure 20- Share of the targeted survey respondents 

12%

24%

Beneficiary authorities (N=186)

Technical support providers
(N=68)

National coordinating authorities
(N=35)

64%

Source:  the  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities,  coordinating  authorities  and  technical  support 
providers, May 2024. 

As presented in the figure below, the representatives of the beneficiary authorities from 
all EU Member States except Luxembourg participated in the targeted survey, while the 
responses of national coordinating authorities from Finland and Sweden were absent. The 
majority  of  technical  support  providers  that  participated  in  the  survey  represented 
organisations located in France (14), the Netherlands (6) and Slovakia (6). 

90 see Annex 6 of the supporting study for targeted survey questionnaires. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21. Participation of representatives of beneficiary, coordinating authorities 
and technical support providers in the targeted survey by the country of institution 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2
1

21

2
2

2
1

2
1

18 16 14

3
1

11

2
2

9

1
2

9

2

9

14

1

8

2
1

8

1
1
7

6
1
7

3
2
6

1
6

2
1
5

2
5

1
1
5

2
0
4

1
1
4

3
3
3

2
1
3

4
2
2

6
1
2

0
2

1
2
1

1
1
1

1
0

Beneficiary authorities (N=186)

National coordinating authorities (N=35)

Technical support providers (N=68)

Source:  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities,  coordinating  authorities  and  technical  support 
providers,  May  2024.  Note:  while  each  Member  State  has  one  national  coordinating  authority,  a  few 
representatives  of  one  institution  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  survey.  The  figure  does  not  involve 
category ‘other’ of technical support providers (N=5). 

Regarding the previous  experience of the TSI projects  implementation,  75% (48 out  of 
64) of technical support providers were involved in three and more projects, while more 
than  a  half  of  beneficiary  authorities  (61%,  107 out  of  174)  were  involved  only  in  one 
project. 

As presented in the table below, the highest share of the targeted survey participants was 
involved  in  the  TSI  2022  projects.  The  distribution  of  beneficiary  authorities  and 
technical  support  providers  in  the  TSI  projects  was  rather  equal  through  the  period  of 
evaluation  (2021-2023),  with  slightly  less  beneficiary  authorities  and  technical  support 
providers taking part in the 2023 round. 

Table 7. Participation in the TSI projects by year, 2021-2023 

TSI 2021 
TSI 2022 
TSI 2023 

Beneficiary authorities (N=221) 
46% (N=77) 
47% (N=78) 
40% (N=66) 

Technical support providers (N=125) 
67% (N=40) 
85% (N=51) 
57% (N=34) 

Source:  the  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities  and technical  support  providers,  May  2024.  Note: 
TSI 2021 includes additional technical support under Article 7 of the TSI Regulation and Article 7.2 of the 
RRF Regulation. The number of responses is higher than the  total number of respondents in each of the 
groups due to multiple-choice nature of the survey question. 

A relatively equal share of beneficiary authorities, who responded to this targeted survey 
question, received support in the fields of governance & public administration (51%, 89 
out of 176) as well as financial sector and access to finance (17%, 30 out of 176). A total 
of  16%  of  beneficiary  authorities  received  technical  support  in  the  fields  of  labour 
market,  education,  health  and  social  service  (29  out  of  176)  and  sustainable  growth  & 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
business  environment  (28  out  of  176).  The  smallest  share  of  beneficiary  authorities 
received  the  TSI  support  linked  to  revenue  administration  and  public  financial 
management (13%, 23 out of 176) and horizontal policies (5%, 8 out of 176). 

Figure 22- Sectoral areas of TSI support, 2021-2023 

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

59%

51%

41%

35%

16%

16%

25%

13%

24%

17%

14%

5%

Governance &
Public
Administration

Labour Market,
Education,
Health & Social
Service

Sustainable
Growth &
Business
Environment

Revenue
Administration
& Public
Financial
Management

Financial Sector
& Access to
Finance

Horizontal
policies

Beneficiary authorities (N=176)

Technical support providers (N=63)

Source:  the  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities  and technical  support  providers,  May  2024.  Note: 
the  number  of  responses  is  higher  than  the  total  number  of  respondents  in  each  of  the  groups  due  to 
multiple-choice nature of the survey question. 

Almost  a half of the respondents  received or provided technical  support through public 
procurement  (49%  of  beneficiary  authorities  (75  out  of  153),  49%  of  technical  support 
providers  (31  out  of  63)).  A  significantly  lower  share  of  beneficiaries  (14%,  21  out  of 
153)  and  technical  support  providers  (27%,  17  out  of  63)  relied  on  grants  as  the  key 
delivery  method.  Around  a  fifth  of  respondents  relied  on  contribution  agreements  with 
pillar-assessed  entities  (technical  support  provided  by  international  organisations  and 
other  private  or  public  bodies)  as  the  main  delivery  method  (16%,  24  out  of  153  of 
beneficiary  authorities;  22%,  14  out  of  63  of  technical  support  providers)  or  other 
administrative arrangements  (4% of beneficiary  authorities, 6 out  of 153 of beneficiary 
authorities;  2%,  1  out  of  63  of  technical  support  providers).  While  technical  support 
providers were not involved in the provision of expertise of the Commission or private 
experts as well as TAIEX, these delivery methods were relevant for a significant share of 
beneficiary authorities – 12% (18 out of 153) and 6% (9 out of 153), respectively. 

Relevance of the TSI 

The  most  commonly  reported  challenge  across  all  groups  was 
limited 
administrative/institutional  capacity,  selected  by  74%  (50  out  of  68)  technical  support 
providers, 70% (130 out of 186) beneficiary authorities, and 71% (25 out of 35) national 
coordinating  authorities.  Challenges  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  structural 
reforms were noted by 54% (37 out of 68) technical support providers, 35% (66 out of 
186)  beneficiary  authorities,  and  51%  (18  out  of  35)  national  coordinating  authorities. 
Challenges in the application and implementation of Union law were highlighted by 21% 
(14 out of 68) technical  support providers, 11% (20 out of 186) beneficiary authorities, 
and  34%  (12  out  of  35)  national  coordinating  authorities.  For  mitigating  the  economic 
and social consequences  of the COVID-19 crisis,  15% (10 out  of 68) technical  support 
providers, 10% (19 out of 186) beneficiary authorities, and 46% (16 out of 35) national 

117 

 
 
 
 
coordinating authorities identified this issue. Addressing the challenges of Russia’s war 
of  aggression  against  Ukraine  was  selected  by  7%  (5  out  of  68)  technical  support 
providers,  4%  (7  out  of  186)  beneficiary  authorities,  and  31%  (11  out  of  35)  national 
coordinating authorities (see figure below). 

Figure  23-  Challenges  faced  by  beneficiary  authorities  and  addressed  by  technical 
support 

Limited administrative/institutional capacity

Challenges in the design and implementation of 
structural reforms in line with the Union‘s economic 
and social goals

71%
70%

74%

51%

54%

35%

Other

9%
10%
11%

Challenges in the application and implementation of
Union law

21%

11%

34%

Mitigating the economic and social consequences of
the COVID-19 crisis

15%

10%

46%

Addressing the challenges of Russia's war of
aggression against Ukraine

7%

4%

31%

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

National coordinating authorities (N=35) Technical support providers (N=68)

Beneficiary authorities (N=186)

Source: the targeted  survey of beneficiary authorities, national  coordinating authorities  and technical  support providers,  May 2024. 
Question (beneficiary authorities): Which of the following challenges was your institution facing when requesting technical support 
under the TSI (2021-2023)? Question (national coordinating authorities): Which of the following challenges was your country facing 
when  requesting  technical  support  under  the  TSI?  Question  (technical  support  providers):  Which  of  the  following  challenges  you 
addressed when providing the technical support? 

When  discussing  the  suitability  of  the  TSI  to  provide  technical  support,  all  three 
groups  of  stakeholders  (strongly)  agreed  that  it  was  a  suitable  instrument  to  provide 
technical  support (see  figure below). This  position was  strongly  supported by technical 
support providers (81% strongly agreed, 54 out of 67; 18% agreed, 12 out of 67), slightly 
less - by beneficiary authorities (67% strongly  agreed, 119 out  of 178;  30% agreed, 54 
out  of  178)  and  national  coordinating  authorities  (59%  strongly  agreed,  20  out  of  34; 
35% agreed, 12 out of 34). Both technical support providers and beneficiary authorities 
strongly  that  the  TSI  projects  addressed  the  key  reform  needs  of  the  beneficiary 
institution,  a  total  of  72%  (48  out  of  67)  and  61%  (106  out  of  174)  respectively.  The 
largest share of national coordinating authorities disagreed (23%, 7 out of 31) or strongly 
disagreed  (3%,  1  out  of  31)  that  the  TSI  was  able  to  address  the  urgent  needs  of  the 
country.  This  point  was  the  most  negatively  evaluated  by  the  beneficiary  authorities  as 
well – a total 8% (13 out of 154) disagreed, while 3% (5 out of 154) strongly disagreed 
with this statement. 

118 

 
 
 
 
Figure 24- Suitability of the TSI to provide technical support projects 

e
h
T

l

s
e
b
a
r
e
v

i
l

e
d

y
b

d
e
c
u
d
o
r
p

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

)
s
(
r
e
d
v
o
r
p

i

l

u
f
e
s
u

e
r
e
w

e
h
t

r
o
f

t
n
e
m
e
v
e
h
c
a

i

e
h
T

f
o

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r
r
o
c

o
t

l

e
b
a

)
s
(
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

s
a
w
I
S
T

e
h
T

e
h
T

I
S
T

i

d
v
o
r
p

d
e

l

y
e
m

i
t

o
p
p
u
s

,
t
r

h
c
t
a
m

g
n

i

e
h
t

n
e
e
b

s
a
h

I
S
T

e
h
T

y
e
k

e
h
t

o
t

d

e
h
t

s
s
e
r
d
d
a

s
d
e
e
n

)
s
(
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

r
u
O

l

e
b
a
t
i
u
s

a

e
h
t

f
o

)
s
(
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

e
h
T

s
l
a
o
g
m
r
o
f
e
r

t
n
e
g
r
u

r
u
o

f
o

y
e
k

e
h
t

d
e
s
s
e
r
d
d
a

o
t

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n

i

)
s
(
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

s
e
m
o
c
t
u
o

s
a
w
n
g
i
s
e
d

e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
a

y
m

f
o

y
r
t
n
u
o
c

y
r
t
n
u
o
c

n
o
i
t

n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

e
h
t

f
o

s
d
e
e
n
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

r
u
o

f
o

s
d
e
e
n

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

i

e
d
v
o
r
p

Beneficiary authorities

49%

45%

4%

1%

National coordinating authorities

24%

72%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

54%

43%

3%

National coordinating authorities

21%

69%

10%

Technical support providers

55%

40%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

42%

National coordinating authorities

36%

56%

61%

2%

3%

Beneficiary authorities

28%

60%

8%

3%

National coordinating authorities

16%

58%

23%

3%

Beneficiary authorities

48%

43%

7%

2%

Beneficiary authorities

61%

37%

2%

National coordinating authorities

27%

70%

3%

Technical support providers

Beneficiary authorities

72%

67%

25%

3%

30%

3%

National coordinating authorities

59%

35%

6%

Technical support providers

81%

18%

1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

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

When  assessing  the  further  need  for  technical  support,  the  majority  of  respondents 
indicated that it is still relevant both for the particular institutions and the Member States. 
When choosing among  several  options (design  reforms,  develop  and implement reform 
policies,  ensure  human  resource  management,  and  else),  the  largest  percentage  in  all 
three groups indicated that technical support is still needed to implement processes and 
methodologies. 95% of coordinating authorities (21 out of 22) reported that the support 
to define and implement processes and methodologies is needed to a high (69%, 22 out 
of  32)  or  to  moderate  extent  (25%,  8  out  of  32).  This  view  was  supported  by  89%  of 
beneficiary authorities (146 out of 164), the majority of which indicated that this type of 
support  is  needed  to  high  extent  (52%,  86  out  of  164),  as  well  as  by  technical  support 
providers,  the  majority  of  whose  claimed  that  technical  support  is  still  needed  for 
beneficiary  authorities  to  define  and  implement  processes  and  methodologies  to  a  high 
(63%, 40 out of 63) or moderate (30%, 19 out of 63) extent. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency of the TSI 

Concerning  the  administration  of  technical  support,  the  absolute  majority  of 
beneficiaries  (89%,  139  out  of  157),  coordinating  authorities  (75%,  21  out  of  28),  and 
technical  support  providers  (88%,  59  out  of  67)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the 
procedures for approving technical support deliverables was efficient. However, 50% of 
national coordinating authorities (strongly) disagreed that the monitoring of the projects 
(including  relevant  IT  tools)  was  clear,  transparent  and  user-friendly  (12  out  of  24). 
Moreover, 13% of beneficiaries (22 out of 168) and 19% of technical support providers 
(13  out  of  67)  claimed  that  the  project  duration  was  inappropriate  for  carrying  out  the 
activities. These answers constitute the most positively and the most negatively assessed 
aspects of the project, among others. 

Regarding  the  efficiency  of  the  TSI  projects  implementation  on  the  ground,  the 
majority of beneficiary authorities (97%, 163 out of 168) and technical support providers 
(95%, 64 out of 67) (strongly) agreed that the support of DG REFORM policy officers 
was useful. Beneficiary authorities also (strongly) agreed that DG REFORM was able to 
provide support from the start of technical support to its end (97%, 162 out of 167) and 
projects have been delivered on time, according to the agreed timeline (93%, 133 out of 
144). In addition, technical support providers were assessed as having the expertise and 
skills necessary for the project (91%, 154 out of 168), while the cooperation with them 
was treated as  efficient  (94%, 155 out  of 166).  According to  the providers of technical 
support,  bureaucratic  resistance  to  change  during  the  implementation  of  the  project 
activities was one of their main inefficiencies (65%, 39 out of 60). 

When asked about the ability of beneficiaries to absorb the support provided, only 52% 
of  technical  support  providers  agreed  (to  a  high  or  moderate  extent)  that  financial 
resources  were  adequate  in  the  beneficiary  authority  for  the  implementation  of 
recommendations and 67% agreed that they were properly staffed (see Figure 25). 

Figure  25-  The  extent  to  which  technical  support  providers  agree  that  beneficiary 
authorities have the appropriate capacity to absorb the support provided 

Financial resources for the implementation of
recommendations were adequate in the beneficiary
authority or sectoral policy area (N=56)

Exchange of information and cooperation with other
institutions and stakeholders was effective during the
project implementation (N=66)

Staff of the beneficiary authority was skilled and
motivated for specific functions and tasks (N=67)

2%

46%

38%

14%

2%

17%

47%

35%

18%

43%

39%

Beneficiary authority was properly staffed  (N=66)

5%

24%

45%

26%

Distribution of roles and responsibilities was well
defined  (N=65)

17%

46%

37%

Not at all

To a limited extent

To a moderate extent

To a high extent

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

Source: targeted survey of technical support providers, May 2024. 

120 

 
 
 
 
Effectiveness and sustainability of the TSI 

The  most  common  outputs  expected  to  be  delivered  through  the  technical  support 
projects were recommendations (72% of beneficiary authorities, 134 out of 186 and 88% 
of technical support providers, 60 out of 68), workshops (70%, 130 out of 186, and 87%, 
59 out of 68, respectively), analyses and reports (69%, 129 out of 186, and 90%, 61 out 
of 68 respectively), action plans/roadmaps (62%, 115 out of 186, and 85%, 58 out of 68, 
respectively), and guidelines, handbooks (55%, 103 out of 186, and 72%, 49 out of 68, 
respectively). The least common outputs were terms of reference (12% of beneficiaries, 
23 out of 186, 19% of technical support providers, 13 out of 68) and legislative proposals 
(16% of beneficiaries, 29 out of 186, 28% of technical support providers, 19 out of 68). 
In terms of the actual delivery of outputs, 59% of beneficiary authorities (91 out of 155) 
and 64% of technical support providers (39 out of 61) indicated that some project outputs 
were delivered by the time of participation in the survey, with more than a third (35%, 55 
out of 155 and 36%, 22 out of 61 respectively) reporting that all outputs were delivered. 

121 

 
 
 
Figure 26- Changes observed as a result of the implementation of the TSI projects 

d
e
c
n
a
h
n
E

s
e
i
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

r
o
f

g
n
i
r
u
s
n
e

f
o

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p

e
h
t

s
m
r
o
f
e
r

n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r

i

n
h
t
i

w
d
e
d

e
h
t

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

r
e
t
s
e
m
e
S

r
o

e
l
c
y
c

e
h
t

r
o
f

r
o
f

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

s
e
i
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

s
e
i
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

s
e
i
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

e
c
i
v
r
e
s

l

n
o
i
t
a
u
m
r
o
f

l

a
n

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

c
i
l

b
u
p

f
o

t

y
c

o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

n
e
m
s
s
e
s
s
a

i
l

o
p
/
m
r
o
f
e
r

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

s
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

d
n
a

s
’
U
E

e
h
t

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

r
o
f

y
r
e
v

i
l

e
d

,

,
s
e
s
s
e
c
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

i

h
s
n
o
i
t
a
e
r

l

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
e

n
a
m
u
h

a
h
c
/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
n
a

e
m
p
o
e
v
e
d

l

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

g
n
o
m
a

s
p

d
e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

t
n
e
m
t
s
u
j
d
a

e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

e
g
n

t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
e
r

d
n
a

t
n

d
n
a

t
i
l
i

b
a
t
p
a
d
a

t
n
e
r
e
f
f
i
d

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k

m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m

n
o

i

t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

i

l

o
o
d
o
h
t
e
m

o
t

y

l

e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

s
l
l
i

k
s

d
n
a

s
e

t
n

t
n

s
l
a
s
o
p
o
r
p

n
o
i
t
a

s
e
g

i

e
g
n
a
h
c

s
r

f
f
a
t
s

f
o

National coordinating authorities

29%

63%

8%

Beneficiary authorities

22%

47%

20%

10%

National coordinating authorities

16%

47%

37%

Beneficiary authorities

5%

45%

29%

21%

National coordinating authorities

13%

61%

26%

Beneficiary authorities

26%

48%

18%

8%

National coordinating authorities

37%

53%

11%

Beneficiary authorities

22%

50%

14%

14%

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

33%

32%

58%

8%

56%

10%

2%

National coordinating authorities

57%

35%

9%

Beneficiary authorities

34%

54%

10%

1%

National coordinating authorities

22%

61%

17%

Beneficiary authorities

32%

45%

16%

7%

National coordinating authorities

73%

18%

9%

Beneficiary authorities

46%

46%

6%

1%

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

61%

59%

39%

36%

6%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Source: targeted survey of beneficiary authorities and coordinating authorities, May 2024. Note: The high 
number of blank responses is due to the fact that the survey question was only provided for respondents 
who selected ‘Most/all project(s) are closed/completed’ in question 4. Question: To what extent have the 
following changes been observed in the beneficiary institutions because of implementing the TSI projects? 

The results of the targeted survey highlight some changes observed in sectoral policy 
areas  because  of  implementing  the  projects.  According  to  respondents,  the  projects 
resulted  (to  moderate  or  a  high  extent)  in  the  production  of  new  information  or 
knowledge (94% of beneficiaries (61 out of 65) and 89% of coordinating authorities (25 
out of 28)), improved strategies and reform/policy documents (83% of beneficiaries (50 
out  of  60)  and  75%  of  coordinating  authorities  (21  out  of  28))  and  issuing  or 
modification  of  ‘soft’  instruments  (86%  of  beneficiaries  (57  out  of  66)  and  81%  of 
coordinating authorities  (22 out of 27)) or improved application  and implementation of 
EU law (54% of beneficiaries (30 out of 56) and 70% of coordinating authorities (19 out 
of 27)). Changes such as better application of economic instruments (taxes, charges, fees, 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
etc.) (39% of beneficiaries (22 out of 56) and 65% of coordinating authorities (15 out of 
23)) were somewhat less noticed. 

Figure 27- Changes observed as a result of the implementation of the TSI projects 
(by technical support request type) 

d
e
c
n
a
h
n
E

f
o

g
n
i
r
a
h
s

d
o
o
g

s
e
c
i
t
c
a
r
p

s
n
o
s
s
e

l

d
n
a

d
e
n
r
a
e

l

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

U
E

t
n
e
r
e
f
f
i
d

w
e
N

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

’
t
f
o
s
‘

f
o

n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
p

d
e
i
f
i
d
o
m

r
e
t
t
e
B

r
o
w
e
N

a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
c

.
g
.
e
(

d
n
a

s
t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n

i

l

a
r
e
n
e
g

s
e
n

i
l

i

e
d
u
g

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
a

s
t
c
a

e
h
t

o
t

n
o
i
t

,
s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
s

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

l

a
g
e

l

w
e
N

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

i

s
e
g
e
t
a
r
t
s

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

r
e
t
t
e
B

n
o
i
t
a
u
p
o
p

l

d
n
a

d
n
a

r
o

d
e
t
p
o
d
a

d
n
a

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
a

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k
/

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
a

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

r
o

d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

i

g
n
i
t
s
i
x
e

i
l

o
p
/
m
r
o
f
e
r

s
n
o
i
t
a
u
t
i
s

d
e
c
u
d
o
r
p

s
t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n

i

r
a

l
i

m
i
s

n
e
e
b

s
a
h

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
e

f
o

t
e
g
r
a
t

s
p
u
o
r
g

)
s
n
o
i
t
a

d
e
u
s
s
i

U
E

f
o

n
o
i
t

s
t
c
a

l

a
g
e

l

y
c

w
a

l

d
e
i
f
i
d
o
m

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

National coordinating authorities

57%

32%

7%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

47%

31%

13%

10%

National coordinating authorities

64%

25%

11%

Beneficiary authorities

52%

42%

6%

National coordinating authorities

26%

39%

22%

13%

Beneficiary authorities

16%

23%

18%

43%

National coordinating authorities

21%

42%

29%

8%

Beneficiary authorities

33%

41%

13%

13%

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

37%

36%

44%

19%

50%

9%

5%

National coordinating authorities

22%

48%

26%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

18%

36%

20%

27%

National coordinating authorities

16%

48%

28%

8%

Beneficiary authorities

20%

22%

24%

34%

National coordinating authorities

46%

29%

21%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

35%

48%

12%

5%

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

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Source: targeted survey of coordinating authorities and beneficiary authorities, May 2024. Note: The high 
number  of  blank  responses  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  question  was  only  provided  for  respondents  who 
selected  ‘Most/all project(s) are closed/completed’ in question 4.  Question: To what extent the following 
changes have been observed in your sectoral policy area because of implementing the project(s)?. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28. Follow-up actions after the end of the TSI projects 

67%

32%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

50%

50%

43%

28%

29%

20%

Follow-up actions are
currently being
planned/organised

Yes, a request for
technical support for
a follow-up project or
a new stage of the
larger project has
been submitted

Yes, a legal and/or 
policy decision of the 
country’s authorities

Yes, the 
incorporation of 
some technical 
support deliverables 
into the amendment, 
implementation or 
revision of the 
country’s Recovery 
and Resilience Plan

National coordinating authorities (N=24)

Beneficiary authorities (N=65)

13%

12%

No

Source:  the  targeted  survey  of  national  coordinating  authorities  and  beneficiary  authorities,  May  2024. 
Note:  The  high  number  of  blank  responses  is  determined  by  the  fact  that  the  survey  question  was  only 
provided for respondents who selected ‘Most/all project(s) are closed/completed’ in question 4. Question: 
Have there been any follow-up actions taken after the project end and building upon the project outputs? 

In terms of the sustainability and continuity between SRSP and TSI, 100% of national 
coordinating  authorities  agreed  to  a  high  or  moderate  extent  that  the  results  of  the 
previous  analysis  and  reports  were  used  (23  out  of  23)  as  well  as  new  knowledge  and 
skills were maintained (23 out of 23). This view was shared by 90% (57 out of 63) and 
89% (59 out  of 66) beneficiaries respectively.  However,  terms  of reference were rarely 
used during public procurement processes, with 42% coordinating (7 out of 17) and 36% 
beneficiary (14 out of 54) authorities reported using them to a limited extent of not at all. 
Around  a  half  of  beneficiaries,  who  were  previously  involved  in  the  SRSP  projects, 
requested  technical  support  from  TSI  to  increase  the  sustainability  of  SRSP  projects 
(53%, 10 out of 19). 

A total of 94% of beneficiaries (58 out of 62) and 90% of coordinating authorities (18 out 
of  20)  claimed  that  they  used  good  practices  and  lessons  learned  from  both  TSI  and 
SRSP projects  to  a high or to  moderate  extent,  while 7% of beneficiaries (4 out  of 62) 
and  10%  of  coordinating  authorities  (2  out  of  20)  indicated  not  using  the  good 
practice/lessons learned at all or using them only to a limited extent. 

124 

 
 
 
 
Figure 29- Factors affecting the sustainability of technical support 

e
t
a
u
q
e
d
A

d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

f
o

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

i

i
t
a
n
m
e
s
s
i
D

l

a
i
c
n
a
n
i
f

n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C

f
o

e
g
n
a
h
c
x
E

o
t

s
s
e
c
c
A

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
p
x
e

l

e
h
t

d
n
a

n
o

f
o

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

f
o

o
t

s
t
l
u
s
e
r

i

n
a
m
e
h
t

y
r
a
i
c
i
f
e
n
e
b

s
e
i
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

s
l
a
i
c
i
f
f
o

G
D
m
o
r
f

M
R
O
F
E
R

f
o

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
t
S

l

a
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s

o
t

e
c
n
e
i
r
e
p
x
e

e
h
t

r
e
d
n
u

t
n
e
m

t
i

m
m
o
c

d
n
a

e
s
i
t
r
e
p
x
e

d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
k

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

r
e
h
t
o

d
n
a

e
h
t

n

i

f
f
a
t
s

d
n
a

U
E

g
n
o
m
a

i

n
h
t
i

w
I
S
T

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

s

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s
m
r
o
f
e
r

e
v

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
h
t
o

d
n
a

e
c
i
v
r
e
s
/
s
G
D

y
r
a
i
c
i
f
e
n
e
b

i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
a

i

r
e
b
m
e
M

e
m
a
s

e
h
t

a
e
r
a

y
c
i
l

o
p

National coordinating authorities

45%

52%

Beneficiary authorities

Technical support providers

59%

62%

38%

35%

3%

4%

3%

National coordinating authorities

43%

47%

10%

Beneficiary authorities

Technical support providers

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

Technical support providers

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

Technical support providers

National coordinating authorities

55%

55%

48%

48%

51%

55%

64%

65%

63%

31%

14%

36%

48%

7%

1%

3%

35%

15%

1%

33%

7%

7%

1%

42%

3%

30%

6%

33%

2%

38%

Beneficiary authorities

51%

39%

10%

Technical support providers

National coordinating authorities

Beneficiary authorities

68%

67%

69%

Technical support providers

59%

National coordinating authorities

41%

Beneficiary authorities

Technical support providers

68%

65%

29%

2%
2%

30%

3%

24%

6%

1%

35%

56%

6%

3%

27%

5%

28%

8%

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

Had/will have a strong positive effect

Had/will have a moderate positive effect

Had/will have no effect

Had/will have a moderate negative effect

Had/will have a strong negative effect

Source: targeted survey of beneficiary authorities,  national coordinating authorities and technical support 
providers, May 2024. Question: Did/will the following factors affect the sustainability of technical support, 
either positively or negatively? 

Coherence of the TSI 

Survey respondents mostly perceived the TSI projects as partially complementary. While 
the majority of national  coordinating authorities (53%, 16 out of 30) indicated that TSI 
projects are complementary to a moderate extent, similar share of beneficiary authorities 
perceived the projects as highly complementary (46%, 29 out of 63). 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30. TSI complementarity to the support provided by other EU funds 

i

g
n
n
e
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

e
h
t

y
b

d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
s
(

s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

g
n
i
c
n
a
h
n
e

l

a
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
r
e
d
o
M

t
e
k
r
a
m

r
u
o
b
a

l

s
n
o
i
t
n
e
v
r
e
t
n
I

d
n
a

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
s

l

a
i
c
o
S

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

c
i
l

b
u
p

f
o

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

l

a
t
i
g
d

i

i

g
n
g
n
i
r
B

d
n
a

i

s
e
m
o
n
o
c
e

f
o

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
r

d
n
a

)
d
n
u
F

n

i

g
n
i
t
s
e
v
n

i

,
s
e
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

r
o
f

n
o
i
t
a
r
a
p
e
r
p

e
h
t

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
e

l

o
t

l

y
g
o
o
n
h
c
e
t

s
a

l
l

e
w
s
a

s
e
i
t
e
i
c
o
s

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

i

d
n
a

s
e
i
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

d
n
a

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

c
i
l

b
u
p

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
e

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
a

i

c
i
l

b
u
p

d
n
a

s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c

d
n
a

n
e
e
r
g

e
h
t

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

e
h
t

y
b

d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

e
c
n
a
t
s
i
s
s
a

s
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
a

i

s
n
o
i
t
i
s
n
a
r
t

l

a
t
i
g
d

i

e
h
t

y
b

d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
s
(

l

a
i
c
o
S

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

h
g
u
o
r
h
t

i

d
e
d
v
o
r
p

y
b

d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
s
(

e
h
t

y
b

d
e
t
r
o
p
p
u
s
(

l

i

a
n
o
g
e
R

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

e
h
t

d
n
a

d
n
u
F

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

e
h
t

e
p
o
r
u
E

l

a
t
i
g
D

i

d
n
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
R

t
n
e
m
p
o
e
v
e
D

l

l

i

a
n
o
g
e
R

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

d
n
a

l

a
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S

Beneficiary authorities

36%

29%

10%

25%

National coordinating authorities

32%

55%

5%

9%

Beneficiary authorities

38%

33%

9%

20%

National coordinating authorities

30%

52%

13%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

19%

26%

9%

46%

National coordinating authorities

20%

45%

25%

10%

Beneficiary authorities

35%

27%

8%

29%

National coordinating authorities

30%

45%

15%

10%

Beneficiary authorities

31%

24%

10%

35%

National coordinating authorities

30%

45%

20%

5%

)
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

)
y
t
i
l
i
c
a
F

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
R

)
d
n
u
F

d
n
u
F

l

t
n
e
m
p
o
e
v
e
D
s
d
n
u
F

t
n
e
m
t
s
e
v
n
I

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

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

Source:  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities  and  national  coordinating  authorities,  May  2024. 
Question: Does the TSI complement (by funding different aspects of similar activities, targeting different 
groups, etc.) the following support provided by other EU funds? 

Figure 31. TSI contribution to the preparation, revision and implementation of the 
national RRPs 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

I

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
R
e
h
t

f
o

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
R
d
n
a

e
h
t

d
n
a

n
a
P

l

f
o

t
n
e
m
e
v
e
h
c
a

i

e
h
t

f
o

n
o
i
s
i
v
e
R

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
r
a
p
e
r
P

s
e
n
o
t
s
e

l
i

m
s
t
i

d
n
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
R

d
n
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
R

e
h
t

s
t
e
g
r
a
t

d
n
a

n
a
P

l

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
R

n
a
P

l

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
R

Beneficiary authority (N=89)

10%

23%

29%

37%

National coordinating authority (N=26)

38%

19%

31%

12%

Beneficiary authority (N=78)

10%

23%

29%

37%

National coordinating authority (N=25)

8%

28%

28%

36%

Beneficiary authority  (N=80)

9%

29%

18%

45%

National coordinating authority (N=26)

19%

19%

23%

38%

To a high extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

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

Source:  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities  and  national  coordinating  authorities,  May  2024. 
Question:  To  what  extent  does/did  the  TSI  project(s)  contribute  to  the  preparation,  revision  and 
implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Plan in your country? 

There  were  no  clear  trends  when  assessing  the  complementarity  of  the  TSI  with  the 
similar  national  and  regional  programmes.  According  to  the  targeted  survey  results, 
the largest share of national coordinating authorities (61%, 17 out of 28) considered TSI 
to be to a moderate extent complemented by other regional/national programmes, while 
25% (7 out of 28) reported it to be complementary to a high extent. Considerably larger 
share of beneficiary authorities (41%, 53 out of 128) claimed TSI to be complementary 
with other programmes to a high extent, yet 34% of respondents disagreed with this view 
and instead indicated TSI to be complementary only to a limited extent (18%, 23 out of 
128) or not at all (16%, 20 out of 128). 

The most numerous groups of both national coordinating authorities (56%, 18 out of 32) 
and  beneficiary  authorities  (38%,  46  out  of  121)  perceived  the  TSI  projects  as 
complementing to the CSRs to a moderate extent. 

In  terms  of  contribution  to  horizontal  priorities,  beneficiary  authorities  agreed  that  the 
TSI has mostly contributed to EU digital transition (40% to a high extent, 59 out of 
149; 26% to a moderate extent, 38 out of 149). The contribution of the instrument to EU 
green  transition  (33%  to  a  high  extent,  45  out  of  136)  and  UN  SDGs  (27%  to  a  high 
extent, 35 out of 127) has also been pronounced. The contribution of the TSI is perceived 
as the most limited in the area of equality principles, with 51% of respondents (64 out of 
126) noting that the instrument has not contributed to this area at all. 

When assessing  the contribution of the TSI projects to the implementation of the EU 
priorities for 2019-2024, the majority of beneficiary and coordinating authorities agreed 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on  their  moderate  to  high  contribution  to  the  development  of  a  strong  and  vibrant 
economic  base  (59%,  106  out  of  181)  and  to  a  lesser  extent  –  to  building  a  climate-
neutral,  green,  fair,  and  social  Europe  (56%,  104  out  of  184).  The  smallest  share  of 
beneficiaries and coordinating authorities (29%, 51 out of 175) indicated that the projects 
moderately and highly contributed to the protection of citizens and freedoms. 

EU value added of the TSI 

The TSI projects had a significant EU added value. 

Figure 32. EU added value produced by the TSI (by type of request/project) 

43%

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

29%

29%

Standalone projects under general
request (N=15)

Flagship projects (N=10)

Multi-country projects under general
request (N=10)

National coordinating authorities (N=35)

Source: the targeted survey of national coordinating authorities, May 2024.  Question: Which TSI projects 
produce  most  the  additional  value  added  compared  to  what  could  reasonably  been  achieved  by  the 
beneficiary institutions without EU support? 

128 

 
 
 
 
Figure 33. Availability of technical support similar to the TSI 

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

r
a

l
i

m
S

i

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

r
a

l
i

m
S

i

s
a
w

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

s
a
w

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

t
a

l

e
b
a

l
i

a
v
a

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

r
a

l
i

m
S

i

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t

r
a

l
i

m
S

i

n

i

.
g
.
e
(

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

g
n
i
s
s
e
r
d
d
a

f
o

s
m
r
e
t

t
a

l

e
b
a

l
i

a
v
a

r
o

l

a
n
o
g
e
r

i

,
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

s
a
w

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

,
s
e
u
s
s
i

e
m
a
s

e
h
t

r
o

l

a
n
o
g
e
r

i

,
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

o
t

l

e
v
e

l

l

a
c
o

l

t
a

l

e
b
a

l
i

a
v
a

o
t

l

e
v
e

l

l

a
c
o

l

,
d
n
e
m
a

,
e
r
a
p
e
r
p

l

e
v
e

l

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

,
s
p
u
o
r
g

t
e
g
r
a
t

e
m
a
s

e
h
t

t
a

i

g
n
m
a

i

,
s
e
s
i
r
c

o
t

d
n
o
p
s
e
r

d
n
a

s
e
i
c
n
e
g
r
e
m
e

n
e
e
s
e
r
o
f
n
u

r
e
h
t
o

e
h
t

t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

i

r
o

k
n
a
B

d
l
r
o
W

t
a

l

e
b
a

l
i

a
v
a

d
n
a

e
s
i
v
e
r

y
b

i

d
e
d
v
o
r
p

.
g
.
e
(

s
a
w
)
s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

d
n
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
R

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n
I

r
o

l

a
n
o
g
e
r

i

,
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

National coordinating authorities

4%

29%

67%

Beneficiary authorities

3%

16%

44%

37%

National coordinating authorities

29%

67%

4%

Beneficiary authorities

3%

22%

41%

33%

National coordinating authorities

5%

32%

55%

9%

Beneficiary authorities

6%

20%

45%

29%

National coordinating authorities

22%

74%

4%

s
d
e
e
n

s
n
a
P

l

e
c
n
e

i
l
i
s
e
R

)
d
n
u
F

y
r
a
t
e
n
o
M

l

e
v
e

l

l

a
c
o

l

Beneficiary authorities

3%

12%

50%

34%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

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

Source:  the  targeted  survey  of  beneficiary  authorities  and  national  coordinating  authorities,  May  2024. 
Question:  39.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  following  statements  on  the  availability  of  similar 
technical support. 

Both  national  coordinating  authorities  and  beneficiary  authorities  strongly  endorse  the 
unique  value  of  TSI  projects.  Both  groups  of  stakeholders  identified  the  highest  EU 
added  value  of  the  TSI  in  contributing  to  the  exchange  of  lessons,  good  practices  and 
creation of network of expertise (62% of beneficiary authorities strongly agree, 108 out 
of  175;  60%  of  national  coordinating  authorities  strongly  agree,  18  out  of  30).  Among 
beneficiary  authorities,  two  other  aspects  of  TSI  projects  emerge  as  particularly  highly 
international  expertise, 
valued.  The  TSI’s  distinctiveness,  stemming 
collaboration  with  Member  States,  tailored  support,  and  legitimisation  of  practices, 
received a similarly positive response, as 54% (89 out  of 164) strongly  agree  and 44% 
(72 out of 164) agree. This element was also highly supported by national coordinating 
authorities, with 15 out of 30 (50%) strongly agreeing and 15 out of 30 (50%) agreeing 
with  this  statement.  Finally,  the  TSI’s  role  in  fostering  a  community  of  experts  and 
continuous cooperation among Member States was also widely endorsed, with 42% (69 

from 

its 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
out  of  164)  strongly  agreeing  and  54%  (88  out  of  164)  agreeing.  In  terms  of  national 
coordinating authorities,  the TSI’s contribution to  the twin  digital and green transitions 
was supported, with  55% of respondents  strongly  agreeing  (16 out  of 29) and 41% (12 
out of 29) agreeing to this as a specific characteristic of the TSI. 

1.3. 

Summarised results of the interview programme 

Implementation and participants of interviews 

Interviews  with  EU-  and  national-level  stakeholders  are  conducted  to  complement 
findings  from  desk  research,  the  OPC  and  the  targeted  survey  of  stakeholders.  The 
interview programme was initially divided into four parts: (i) exploratory interviews with 
the  European  Commission  officials,  (ii)  exploratory  and  follow-up  interviews  with  the 
national  coordinating  authorities,  (iii)  case  study  interviews,  and  (iv)  validation 
interviews.  However,  after  consultation  with  the  evaluation  team  of  DG  REFORM, 
instead  of  the  initially  planned  validation  interviews,  interviews  were  conducted  with 
external  stakeholders  of  the  TSI  (who  were  not  directly  involved  in  the  programme’s 
implementation)  to  ensure  that  a  variety  of  perspectives  were  considered  in  the 
evaluation. 

The  interview  questionnaires  were  tailored  to  each  group  of  stakeholders,  and  every 
individual  participant  of  exploratory  interviews.  Each  interview  was  recorded,  and 
interview notes and/or transcripts were prepared based on the recording, to be analysed 
with  MAXQDA  24  building  on  the  codes  derived  from  the  evaluation  grid.  A  total  of 
114 interviews were conducted (see the table below). 

Table 8- Implementation of the interview programme 

Interview 
Type 

beneficiary 
authorities 

coordinating 
authorities 

technical 
support 
providers 

Exploratory 
National level 
Case study 
B1 – Revenue 
Administration 
& Public 
Financial 
Management 
B2 – Public 
Administration 
and 
Governance 
B3 – 
Sustainable 
Growth & 
Business 
Environment 

n/a 
38 

3 

3 

7 

n/a 
12 

- 

1 

2 

n/a 
12 
6 

1 

1 

1 

130 

Representatives 
of the European 
Commission 
26 
n/a 
17 

3 

3 

- (2 overlaps with 
exploratory 
interviews) 

 
 
 
B4 – Labour 
Market, 
Education, 
Health & 
Social Services 
B5 – Financial 
Sector & 
Access to 
Finance 
01 – 
Horizontal 
Policies 
Follow-up of 
the SRSP  
With external 
stakeholders 
TOTAL 

7 

9 

4 

5 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 (2 overlaps with 
exploratory 
interviews) 

3 

4 

1 

1 

- 

1 

3 

114 

Note:  while  some  interviews  involved  a  few  participants,  the  count  refers  to  the  total  of  number  of 
interviews carried out. Exploratory interviews were carried out with the following DGs of the Commission: 
DG REFORM (units 01; A1; A2; A4; B1; B2; B3; B4; B5), SG RECOVER; DG REGIO; DG ECFIN; DG 
ENER; DG ENV; DG EMPL; DG NEAR; DG INTPA). 

The  interview  programme  was  designed  to  embrace  a  wide  variety  of  views,  including 
those coming from the beneficiary or national coordinating authorities as well as from the 
policy  officers  and  other  officials  of  the  Commission.  The  interviews  with  external 
stakeholders  engaged  representatives  of  academic  community  and  other  Commission 
services  that  are  not  directly  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  TSI.  Depending  on 
the  question  at  hand,  the  interview  programme  was  used  either  to  supplement  other 
sources of evidence or as the main information source in cases when other data sources 
were scarce. 

Coherence and relevance of the TSI 

The main motivation to request for technical support under the TSI for most of the 
interviewed coordinating and beneficiary authorities is primarily the need for high-level 
expertise  (which  would  be  impossible  to  achieve  on  national-level  efforts)  as  well  as 
institutional and administrative capacity building. Some beneficiaries chose TSI because 
they  have  previously  conducted  the  SRSP  project  and  saw  the  TSI  as  a  suitable 
instrument to continue the reform efforts. 

The initial results of the interview programme are ambiguous on whether the support 
provided by the TSI does not overlap with other EU programmes, but instead create 
synergies.  While  representatives  of  the  Commission  highlighted  synergies  between  the 
TSI and RRF, the potential overlaps with such programmes as the European Social Fund 
Plus were highlighted. However, on the project rather than the programme level, multiple 
national  coordinating  authorities  claimed  having  internal  mechanisms  to  prevent 
overlapping requests for services. For example, one coordinating authority reported using 
an  internal  database  of  projects  to  cross-check  on  potential  duplications.  According  to 

131 

 
 
 
representatives of the Commission, similar measures are applied on the EU level, when 
relevant  DGs  flag  potentially  overlapping  projects.  However,  there  seems  to  be  no 
centralised mechanism to avoid double funding. 

A  considerable  number  of  interviewees  (coordinating,  beneficiary  authorities,  and 
representatives  of  the  Commission)  highlighted  some  limitations  of  the  TSI  to  address 
the urgent needs of the Member States. Since the time period between the submission of 
the  request  to  the  actual  start  of  the  TSI  project  may  be  relatively  long,  the  instrument 
cannot provide emergency support in a short span of time. As a result, while positively 
evaluated  by  all  interviewed  stakeholders,  projects  under  dedicated  calls  were 
perceived  as not suitable for solving urgent operational  challenges  (e.g. support for 
migrants  in  the  context  of  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine)  by  a  few 
interviewees. 

Efficiency of the TSI 

Participants  of  the  interview  programme  highlighted  that  the  administrative  processes 
of  the  TSI  projects  were  similar  to  the  SRSP  projects,  with  the  biggest  challenge 
being the time constraints. Some drawbacks were mentioned, including a lengthy time 
period  between  the  submission  of  requests  for  technical  support  and  the  beginning  of 
project implementation. In terms of governance of the programme, cooperation between 
the  beneficiary  authorities  and  the  Commission  officials,  in  particular  DG 
REFORM policy officers, was seen as positive, with several issues related to the staff 
changes on both sides. Only some delays in project implementation were reported, with 
national coordinating authorities outlining that the quality of results is more relevant than 
keeping up with the timeline. Overall, beneficiary authorities interviewed for case studies 
were satisfied with the support provided, highlighting the usefulness of different types of 
outputs (recommendations, workshops, etc.). 

A  few  interviewees  from  the  Commission  highlighted  that  whereas  the  budget  of  the 
programme steadily increased, the human resources in DG REFORM did not keep 
pace  with  this  development.  As  a  result,  DG  REFORM  staff  is  responsible  for  the 
management  of  an  increasing  number  and  more  complex  projects.  Since  the  TSI 
programme is demand-driven, there are only limited possibilities to prepare for projects 
implementation  in  advance (e.g. prepare public procurement  specifications in  advance), 
therefore this period overlaps with the highest workload. Limited human resources were 
also mentioned as the reason for relying on a smaller scope of delivery methods. 

Finally,  there  was  no  common  agreement  between  beneficiary,  coordinating 
authorities,  technical  support  providers  and  representatives  of  the  Commission 
regarding the management of multi-country and flagship projects. On the one hand, 
they were reported to be more efficient as similar project design may be multiplied across 
the  participating  Member  States,  relying  on  the  same  management  structure  and  set  of 
deliverables. On the other hand, interviewees from DG REFORM outlined strong priority 
to preserve demand-based nature of the TSI, meaning that multi-country and/or flagship 
projects  are  still  tailored  to  the  needs  of  an  individual  country.  Therefore,  in  the  latter 
case,  policy  officers  are  forced  to  manage  each  of  the  reforms  individually,  thus 
increasing  managerial  burden  and  reducing  the  ‘economy  of  scale’  effect  of  multi-
country projects. In turn, two interviewees noticed that when a multi-country project is 

132 

 
 
 
designed  to  provide  tailored  technical  support  for  each  party  engaged,  the  overall 
interaction between the Member States is reduced. 

Effectiveness of the TSI 

Interviewees also provided some evidence on the key factors influencing the success of 
the TSI projects in terms of achieving the project objectives and implementing reforms in 
Member  States.  Among  the  internal  factors/mechanisms  of  change  the  following  were 
identified by a number of stakeholders interviewed across all categories: 

•  Strong  leadership,  ownership,  and  commitment  of  beneficiary  authorities  were 
mentioned  as  key  factors  of  successful  project  implementation,  allowing  timely 
decisions  to  be made, facilitating engagement of relevant  stakeholders and ensuring 
smoother  communication  between  the  parties  involved.  It  was  noted  that  in  cases 
without the effective involvement of political authorities, the projects were less likely 
to result in long-term changes. On the other hand, stakeholders across the four groups 
claimed that performance-oriented approach applied to RRF may not be suitable 
for  the  TSI.  As  suggested  by  two  representatives  of  the  Commission,  the  TSI  is  a 
complementary part of programmes supporting reforms on the EU level, therefore, to 
ensure  implementation  of  reforms  and  investments,  it  may  be  combined  with  other 
programmes; 

•  More consultation with beneficiary authorities when preparing the calls as well as 
during  the  tender  process.  Some  interviewees  from  the  beneficiary  and  national 
coordinating authorities highlighted the need for a closer involvement of beneficiary 
authorities  into  the  selection  of  technical  support  providers,  which  would  ensure  a 
better match between the contractor, the aims of the project and the expectations of 
beneficiaries.  A  considerable  number  of  respondents  expressed  a  need  for  more 
flexibility in the relations with technical support providers and tailor-made guidelines 
for the provision of technical support; 

•  The administrative capacity of the beneficiary and coordinating authorities is vital 
for  securing  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  TSI  projects.  With  a  lack  of  it, 
recommendations  produced  in  the  course  of  the  project  rarely  translate  into  actual 
reforms. 

•  Electoral cycle and political support for the foreseen reforms. If a technical support 
initiative  connects  the  suggested  improvements  to  a  larger,  longer-term  national 
strategy,  it  has  a  higher  chance  of  success.  The  involvement  of  civil  servants  is 
crucial in the implementation of reforms since the political cycle has the potential to 
either encourage or obstruct their implementation. 

As a potential recommendation for the future improvements, one coordinating authority 
reported the need for feedback after the submission of the application, specifically in 
those  cases  where  requests  for  services  are  not  funded  as  this  is  seen  as  an  area  for 
improvement. Importantly, the interviewees identified an analogous problem during the 
ex post evaluation of SRSP. 

Sustainability of the TSI 

The majority of the interviewees agreed that a sufficient level of project sustainability is 
maintained, backed by Member States continuous engagement in the TSI projects. Both 

133 

 
 
 
beneficiary  and  coordinating  authorities  suggested  that  sustainability  is  ensured  by 
implementing follow-up projects, building up on the results of the previous ones. 

One  of  the  main  challenges  reported  by  the  respondents  regarding  the  sustainability  of 
the  projects  is  the  absence  of  a  monitoring  mechanism  which  would  make  the 
assessment  of  project  impacts  possible.  Currently,  there  is  no  centralised  approach 
towards monitoring of project outcomes and impacts. While the Commission established 
the  feedback  mechanism  that  is  perceived  as  potentially  useful  by  beneficiary  and 
coordinating  authorities,  the  latter  claimed  being  unfamiliar  with  the  results  of 
satisfaction  and  outcome  questionnaires.  While,  building  on  the  initial  results  of  our 
interview  programme,  there  are  no  Member  States  that  would  have  developed  a 
monitoring system, a few coordinating authorities stressed that it is foreseen to be put in 
place in the near future. 

EU added value of the TSI 

The majority of participants  of the interview programme referred to  a few examples of 
the  EU  added  value.  Sharing  of  good  practices,  exchange  of  know-how  and  other 
activities allowing the synergies across the projects to be exploited were highlighted. 
Successful  exchange  of  knowledge  was  recorded  especially  in  multi-country  projects, 
which  were  said  to  bring  about  more  cross-border,  EU-wide  effects.  Key  factors  that 
encouraged  this  process  included  similarities  in  specific  country  challenges,  national 
priority reforms and addressing policy areas such as green and digital transition. The EU 
added  value  of  the  TSI  was  identified  as  very  high  by  coordinating  authorities  and 
beneficiaries,  dealing  with  multi-country  or  flagship  projects  that:  i)  help  to 
introduce  new  EU  legislation;  ii)  help  to  internalise  completely  new  practice  that 
Member States are not familiar with or has only limited experience. However, one of 
the coordinating authorities highlighted that where issues faced by Member States are not 
completely similar, multi-country projects will not be the most efficient way of dealing 
with these challenges. 

1.4. 

Summarised results of the focus group discussions 

Implementation and participants of focus group discussions 

A  total  of  three  focus  group  discussions  were  implemented  for  the  mid-term 
evaluation of the TSI. The first focus group was carried out on 3 June 2024, focusing on 
the  design  and  management  of  the  TSI.  Nine  representatives  from  four  countries 
(Estonia, Greece, Hungary, and Sweden) participated, including three representatives of 
technical  support  providers  and  six  representatives  of  beneficiary  authorities.  Another 
focus  group  discussion  on  the  same  topic  was  organised  on  11 July  2024,  with  the 
participation  of  14  beneficiary  authorities  from  12  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Finland,  Greece,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Spain). 
Finally,  one  more  focus  group  discussion  (on  the  implementation  and  design  of 
flagship and / or multi-country projects) took  place on 10 July  2024, attended by 14 
beneficiary  authorities  from  eight  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia,  Malta,  Latvia, 
Poland,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia),  in  addition  to  a  representative  of  DG  REFORM 
evaluation team. 

134 

 
 
 
The participants were selected on the following criteria: 1) the TSI projects they were/are 
involved in are not covered by the case study programme of the mid-term evaluation; 2) 
their Member State is comparatively less represented in the targeted survey. Ensuring a 
variety of delivery methods was also considered in the selection process. 

Focus groups on the design and implementation of the TSI followed a meeting agenda, 
with  questions  and  discussion  points  organised  around  four  topics:  1)  programme 
management;  2)  implementation  of  the  TSI;  3)  factors  influencing  success  and 
sustainability of the projects or coherence of the TSI with other EU instruments91; and 4) 
future improvements of the TSI. The discussion on the design and implementation of the 
flagship and / or multi-country projects focused on the following topics: 1) relevance of 
flagship requests for support; 2) relevance and effectiveness of multi-country projects; 3) 
suitability  of  the  selected  delivery  method(s);  4)  factors  that  influence  success  of  the 
projects; 5) future improvements of the TSI. 

The focus group discussions were recorded, and transcripts were prepared based on the 
recording. They were analysed with MAXQDA 24, building on the codes derived from 
the evaluation grid. 

Visibility 

The majority of participants of the focus group discussion reported that the TSI’s 
visibility  could  be  improved  in  their  country.  Beneficiary  authorities  from  some 
Member  States  (Malta,  Poland,  Spain,  Portugal,  Ireland,  Croatia,  Slovenia,  Croatia) 
reported that, in their view, the knowledge about the TSI is limitedly widespread across 
the  public  institutions.  Most  of  these  respondents  only  learned  about  the  programme 
shortly  before  they  applied.  For  instance,  a  participant  from  Malta  claimed  that  they 
found out about TSI support opportunity through a Brussels-based European Integration 
Network.  In  Ireland,  it  was  European  Insurance  and  Occupational  Pensions  Authority 
who approached the beneficiary authority and encouraged them to apply. In Croatia and 
Slovenia, the beneficiary authorities only received one email alerting them to apply to the 
TSI. In contrast, participants from three Member States (Cyprus, Greece, Romania) 
reported  that  the  TSI  was  well  known  in  their  countries.  Furthermore,  a  lack  of 
information in the national language, which could facilitate the use of the instrument, 
was emphasised. 

Effectiveness 

While  discussing  drivers  and  barriers  of  a  successful  project  implementation, 
participants  outlined  multiple  factors.  First,  the  need  for  skilled  technical  support 
providers,  who  have  the  expertise  to  do  the  job,  and  be  committed  to  supporting  the 
beneficiary authority, rather than simply following the deliverables in their contract with 
the  Commission,  was  mentioned.  Second,  attention  was  paid  to  the  timeline  and 
organisation of the project activities. The project needs to have a clear timeline, and all 
involved  parties  must  be  aware  about  their  responsibilities.  The  timeline  must  be 
appropriate  to  the  task,  not  too  long,  and  not  too  ambitious  to  allow  the  beneficiary 
authorities to cooperate effectively, and to ensure high-quality outputs. 

91 Different topics were covered during individual discussions. 

135 

 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  while  the  TSI  does  not  involve  any  cost  per  se,  it  does  require 
significant time resources. Many beneficiary authorities did not anticipate spending as 
much time on the TSI as they did  in the end, therefore, initial  communication on these 
costs is relevant to ensure the ownership and engagement of beneficiary authorities. One 
beneficiary  authority  brought  attention  to  the  lack  of  resources  from  the  beneficiary 
authorities’  side  to  fully  absorb  the  support.  Usually,  beneficiaries  apply  for  TSI 
support when they identify a gap in their capacity to conduct reforms in specific policy 
areas;  but  when  receiving  support,  the  scarcity  of  human  resources  may  be  in  place, 
resulting  in  limited  capacity  to  absorb  the  support  provided  to  a  full  extent.  Similar 
challenges  may  also  be  faced  when  achieving  the  outcomes  of  the  project:  the 
political attention may shift and thus, funding priorities may deviate to other policy areas. 
Therefore, a  few beneficiary authorities suggested that these projects  should  be aligned 
with  national  priorities  to  ensure  their  relevance  in  the  swiftly  changing 
environment  (Estonia,  Greece).  Projects  which  lacked  appropriate  adaptation  to 
specific  country  context  were  reported  to  fall  short  of  long-term  effects,  primarily 
because 
implementation  of 
recommendations. In turn, for the successful implementation of the project, commitment 
from beneficiary authorities was stressed as crucial. 

limited  political  support  and 

legal  basis  for 

the 

Moreover, in-house expertise matters. Already existing in-house capacity enables staff 
to oversee the projects effectively, to provide their own input, and to make use of project 
outcomes. Having in-house expertise may reduce the time staff spend getting up to speed. 

Generally, projects involving a larger number of stakeholders or dealing with a new 
or  complex  policy  area  were  reported  to  have  a  prolonged  timeline  of 
implementation,  largely  due  to  the  need  of  having  more  time  for  dialogue  between 
different  stakeholders  (regional  authorities,  governmental  agencies,  etc.).  In  general, 
beneficiaries were rather willing to accept delays in project implementation than to 
accept  poorer-quality  results.  As  for  multi-regional  projects  of  the  TSI,  the  risk  of 
limited  involvement  of  national-  and  EU-level  authorities  was  indicated  as 
threatening  due  to  insufficient  ownership,  which  may  turn  to  be  challenging  in  the 
implementation phase. In other words, in the  case of multi-regional projects, specific 
attention should be paid for engagement of all relevant stakeholders across multiple 
levels  of governance.  To overcome these problems  and ensure  continuous engagement 
from  all  parties  it  was  advised  to  compile  a  communication  plan  at  the  offset  of  the 
project. 

On a similar note, one beneficiary authority (Cyprus) noted that changes in government 
administration can mean that projects are deprioritised. To avoid this, and to ensure 
that EU funds are spent on projects whose outputs will actually be used, the Commission 
could hold Member States accountable for following up on the TSI projects. 

Efficiency of the TSI 

Overall,  all  participants  agreed  on  the  TSI  being  a  useful  and  efficient  tool  to 
address  their  needs.  They  expressed  a  high  level  of  satisfaction  with  the  low 
administrative  burden  of  the  programme.  This  was  especially  reduced  by  the  selection 
and  contracting  of  technical  support  providers  performed  by  DG  REFORM.  However, 
perceptions  of  beneficiary  authorities  in  this  regard  differed  as  some  of  them  expected 
having a higher impact on the selection, contracting and monitoring of technical support 

136 

 
 
 
providers (e.g. Croatia,  Poland, Malta). Familiarisation  with  the Commission’s contract 
with the respective technical support providers was mentioned as a potential solution. 

Most  participants  voiced  no  concerns  about  the  application  process.  However,  the 
Polish  beneficiary  authority  noted  two  factors  that  could  be  improved:  the  request  for 
support forms could be simpler (except the pre-filled flagship request forms), and the 
timeframe for application could be longer. In the Polish case, the relevant documents 
for  the  application  are  provided  in  June  with  a  national-level  deadline  in  September. 
Because  the  preparation  of  these  requests  requires  a  fair  amount  of  consultation,  both 
internally  and  with  DG  REFORM,  the  inclusion  of  the  summer  holiday  period  in  the 
application  period  introduces  delays  and  leads  to  a  last-minute  rush  to  finalise  the 
request. 

The  collaboration  between  the  Commission,  technical  support  providers  and 
beneficiary  authorities  was  reported  to  be  positive,  with  some  more  negative 
perception towards the technical support providers. Of the participants who voiced an 
opinion  about  the  quality  of  the  technical  support  they  received,  similar  numbers  were 
satisfied  and  not  satisfied  with  it.  Six  beneficiary  authorities  (Portugal,  Belgium, 
Ireland,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Spain)  reported  concerns  about  the  consultancy 
services they received. For instance, the Spanish beneficiary authority perceived the team 
of the technical support provider to be insufficient to cover the four Spanish regions. The 
Belgian  beneficiary  authority  reported  that  the  consultants  were  more  focused  on 
producing  the  project  deliverables  rather  than  supporting  the  needs  of  the  Belgian 
authorities.  The  Irish  beneficiary  authority  reported  that  their  concerns  were  not  fully 
recognised throughout the project duration. This  perception was caused by the fact that 
the  beneficiary  authority  was  not  involved  in  the  selection  of  the  technical  support 
providers and unable to direct their work. 

Some  beneficiary  authorities  have  also  reported  challenges  around  non-disclosure 
agreements  (NDAs)  with  technical  support  providers  (Austria,  Latvia,  Croatia,  and 
Poland). There is no formal procedure governing NDAs in the TSI. Many consultancies 
have  their  standard  NDAs,  however,  they  may  not  meet  the  legal  requirements  of  the 
beneficiary  authorities.  As  a  result,  amendments  of  the  NDAs  are  needed,  which  is 
perceived  as  a  length  process  (e.g.  Latvia,  Poland,  Croatia).  For  instance,  the  Polish 
beneficiary authority spent half a year negotiating the legal terms and conditions before 
their technical support providers could even start the job. Because of these concerns over 
data protection, a few beneficiary authorities reported a preference to work with technical 
support providers beyond consultancies (e.g. the Austrian beneficiary authorities reported 
that they feel more comfortable working with academics). Nonetheless, one beneficiary 
authority  that  did  work  with  a  consultancy  reported  that  once  the  issues  around  data 
protection were solved, they were happy with the technical support provider (Latvia). 

In contrast, four beneficiary authorities (Finland, Poland, Cyprus and Greece) were 
very  happy  with  their  technical  support  providers.  For  example,  the  Finnish 
beneficiary  authority  described  their  technical  support  providers  as  really  good;  the 
Polish  beneficiary  authority  praised  their  technical  support  providers  expertise  in 
behavioural  insights.  In  Cyprus,  the  beneficiary  authority  suggested  their  own  experts, 
whom they had worked with before, and were happy with. 

137 

 
 
 
On  the  other  hand,  representatives  of  beneficiary  authorities  noted  that  consultations 
with  the  Commission  before  the  implementation  stage  were  especially  useful  to 
ensure  the  proper  execution  of  the  project.  Moreover,  they  recommended  having  a 
consultation meeting with the Commission before the submission of the project as well, 
so that the expectations of both sides in terms of topical scope could be aligned. 

In  terms  of  the  delivery  method,  participants  elaborated  on  the  suitability  of 
different  methods  for  different  project  aims  and  tasks.  For  instance,  public 
procurement  was  reported  to  be  a  suitable  delivery  method  for  the  projects  which 
provided very specific, technical support in a particular subfield as local consultants are 
typically the most familiar with the context or have a very specific technical knowledge 
that is necessary for the project. In addition, the use of TAIEX was praised, especially in 
combination with public procurement (e.g. Finland, Poland, Belgium). Beneficiaries who 
worked  with  international  organisations  were  satisfied  with  the  level  of  expertise, 
especially  in  terms  of  contributing  to  more  strategic,  broader  questions  (Estonia, 
Sweden).  However, some of the beneficiaries noted that a step-by-step  action plan that 
would guide them in implementing the reforms further would be needed (Greece). 

Other comments 

A few beneficiary authorities noted that flagship requests for support allows the needs 
of the technical support to be focused and clarifies the priorities of the Commission. 
On the other hand, some beneficiary authorities (e.g. Poland, Austria) perceived flagship 
requests  of  support  as  potentially  limiting  the  flexibility  of  the  TSI  in  terms  of 
tailoring the projects to the needs of Member States. 

The approach towards multi-country projects was not univocal as well. Among the  key 
benefits of multi-country projects, efficiency to serve the needs of multiple countries at 
the  same  time  and  cost-effective  way  to  provide  technical  support  was  mentioned. 
Furthermore,  networking  between  beneficiary  authorities  from  multiple  Member  States 
was perceived as valuable in and of itself. However, some drawbacks were mentioned 
as  well.  First,  it  was  pointed  that  the  design  of  a  multi-country  project  may  not  be 
sufficiently tied to  the needs of one specific country, compared to  stand-alone projects. 
Second,  if  different  countries  have  slightly  different  needs,  it  will  be  more  difficult  for 
the technical support provider to meet the needs of each beneficiary authority. Third, the 
administrative  burden  for  the  beneficiary  authority  is  higher  than  it  is  in  the  case  of  a 
stand-alone  project.  This  is  because  multi-country  projects  will  involve  a  need  to 
coordinate  with  other  beneficiary  authorities,  as  well  as  with  the  technical  support 
provider and DG REFORM. 

Measures for the improvement in the future 

Focus  group  participants  shared  a  number  of  suggestions  for  measures  that  could 
improve the TSI in the future, including: 

•  Allowing  beneficiary  authorities  a  role  in  choosing  the  technical  support 

providers, and in shaping their work throughout the process; 

•  Providing  more  support  at  the  implementation  stage:  while  representatives  of 
beneficiary authorities are generally content with the level and procedure of expertise 

138 

 
 
 
• 

provided, they also highlight the need for more technical support during the current 
stage of implementation of the TSI recommendations; 
Involving  different-level  authorities  in  the  project  implementation:  some 
participants  of  the  focus  group  discussion  emphasised  that,  based  on  their 
experience,  involving  regional,  local,  and  national  authorities  (especially  in  multi-
regional  projects)  alongside  the  Commission  in  the  exchanges  with  the  technical 
support providers could be beneficial for the implementation of projects; 

•  Sharing  of  knowledge  and  expertise:  the  TSI  succeeds  in  creating  high-quality, 
high-demand outputs (recommendations, analyses, methodologies, etc.), which may 
be opened and communicated to other stakeholders. Participants of  all focus group 
the  experience  of  other  Member 
discussions  emphasised 
States/regions or re-using already created deliverables could allow countries to learn 
from already existing instead of creating new knowledge; 

that  accessing 

•  Technical support for green and digital transition: among different policy areas, 
green transition and digitalisation were mentioned as the most relevant for the future; 
•  Combining  of  the  TSI  with  other  EU  instruments:  the  TSI  may  be  a  great 
instrument  to  build  capacity  in  multiple  areas,  including  IT  and  digitalisation. 
However, in order to push digitalisation one also needs an IT infrastructure. Here, it 
would be helpful to combine the TSI’s support with an additional EU programme or 
instrument that would provide funds for this purpose. 

139