COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION European Social Fund Plus mid-term evaluation
Date: 2025-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, European Social Fund, European social policy, Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, access to education, eligibility criteria, innovation, job access, poverty, social integration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.11.2025  SWD(2025) 391 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  European Social Fund Plus mid-term evaluation {SWD(2025) 392 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1. 

1.2. 

European Social Fund Plus.............................................................................................. 1 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ............................................................................... 2 

1.3.  Methodological framework and data limitations ............................................................. 4 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 5 

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

2.2. 

Points of comparison ..................................................................................................... 12 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 14 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Shared management strand state of play ....................................................................... 14 

EaSI strand state of play ................................................................................................ 21 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 25 

4.1. 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................................ 25 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ................................... 65 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................... 66 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 77 

5.1.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 77 

5.2. 

Lessons learned ............................................................................................................. 82 

ANNEX I.  PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................................. 85 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 89 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ......................................................................................... 98 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION 
AND BURDEN REDUCTION ........................................................................................... 128 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................. 133 
ANNEX VI. SUPPORTING INFORMATION ............................................................................ 145 
ANNEX VII. DESCRIPTION OF ESF+ STRANDS ................................................................... 177 
ANNEX VIII. ESF+ INTERVENTION LOGIC .......................................................................... 197 
ANNEX IX. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS............................... 199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ALMA 

Aim, Learn, Master, Achieve 

AMIF 

AWP 

BMVI 

CAP 

CARE 

CCSI 

CERV 

CF 

CIE 

CLLD 

CoE 

CoPs 

CP 

CPR 

CRII 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

Annual Work Programme 

Border Management and Visa Policy Instrument 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe 

Competence Centre for Social Innovation 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme 

Cohesion Fund 

Counterfactual impact evaluation 

Community-led local development 

Council of Europe 

Communities of practice 

Cohesion Policy 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative 

CRIE Plus 

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus 

CSO 

CSR 

DG 

Civil society organisation 

Country-specific recommendation 

Directorate-General 

DG EMPL 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and 
Inclusion 

 
 
 
 
DM 

DSC 

Direct management 

Data Support Centre 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EaSI (programme) 

EU programme for Employment and Social Innovation 

EaSI (strand) 

Employment and Social Innovation of the ESF+  

EC 

EGF 

ELA 

European Commission 

European Globalisation Fund 

European Labour Authority 

EMFAF 

European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 

EPSR 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESF+ 

ESFA 

ESI Funds 

eSINNIS 

ESCO 

EU 

EURES 

FEAD 

FG 

FINAP 

FNLC 

GDP 

European Pillar of Social Rights 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Social Fund Plus 

European Social Fund Agency 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

Social Innovation Information System 

European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and 
Occupations 

European Union 

European Employment Services 

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 

Focus group 

IT tool used by DG EMPL to program its financial activities 
under direct and indirect management modes. 

Financing not linked to costs 

Gross domestic product 

 
 
 
ILO 

ISCED 

ISF 

IM 

ISG 

JTF 

JRC 

KPI 

LFS 

LTC 

MA 

MFF 

MSs 

NCC 

NCP 

NEET 

NGO 

NRRP 

OECD 

OP 

PA 

PPI 

International Labour Organization 

International Standard Classification of Education 

Internal Security Fund 

Indirect management 

Interservice group 

Just Transition Fund 

Joint Research Centre 

Key performance indicator 

Labour force survey 

Long-term care 

Managing authority 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Member States 

National Competence Centre for Social Innovation 

National Contact Point 

Not in employment, education or training 

Non-governmental organisation 

National Recovery and Resilience Plan  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Operational Programme 

Partnership Agreement 

Primary performance indicator 

PROGRESS 

Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity 

REACT-EU 

Recovery assistance for cohesion and the territories of 
Europe 

 
 
 
RRF 

RSB 

SCOs 

SFC 

SIM  

SIP 

SM 

SO 

SWD 

TFEU 

TMS 

TWG 

UN 

WHO 

YEI 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Simplified cost options 

System for Fund Management in the European Union 

Social Innovation Match Database 

Secondary Input Performance Indicator 

Shared management 

Specific objective 

Staff Working Document 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Targeted Mobility Scheme 

Technical Working Group 

United Nations 

World Health Organisation 

Youth Employment Initiative 

EU-27 country glossary 

Acronym 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  European Social Fund Plus 

The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) is the European Union (EU)’s main instrument for 
investing  in  people  and supporting  the  implementation  of  the European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights (EPSR). With an EU budget allocation of some EUR 95 billion for the period 2021-
2027, the ESF+ continues providing an important contribution to the EU’s employment, 
social, education and skills policies, including structural reforms in these areas.  

The ESF+ brings together four funding instruments that were separate in the 2014-2020 
programming period: the European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European Aid to the 
most Deprived (FEAD), the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and most of the European 
Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)1. The type of support the FEAD 
had provided is integrated in the ESF+ specific objectives ‘social inclusion of the most 
deprived’  and ‘combatting  material  deprivation’. The aim of the YEI is  pursued by the 
thematic  concentration  on  youth  employment.  The  EaSI  strand  pursues  the  support  to 
evidence-based  policy-making  and  social  experimentation,  to  job  mobility  and  support 
activities  as  well  as  capacity  building  related  to  the  use  of  micro-credit  facilities  under 
InvestEU (bringing together the multitude of earlier EU financial instruments, including 
those previously  undertaken by the EaSI programme under  its  Microfinance and Social 
Entrepreneurship axis).  
As  specified  in  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  2021/10572  (ESF+  Regulation),  ESF+  is 
implemented under: 

•  Shared  management:  for  the  part  of  the  assistance  which  corresponds  to  the 
Specific  Objectives  set  out  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  ESF+  regulation.  The  ESF+ 
Regulation refers to this strand as the ESF+ strand under shared management3. Its 
budget  of  EUR  95.1  billion  (EUR  142  billion  with  national  co-financing)  is 
programmed and implemented in partnership between the European Commission, 
national  and  regional  authorities,  social  partners,  and  other  stakeholders.  The 
shared-management  strand  is  a  part  of  the  EU  cohesion  policy.  Similarly  to  the 
past,  the  ESF+  shared  management  strand  continues  to  be  regulated  by  the 
Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)4,5, the fund specific ESF+ regulation and a 

1Many  of  the  former  stand-alone  programme  EaSI  provisions  were  preserved,  however,  the  financial 
instruments for microfinance and social enterprises implemented under the former EaSI were deployed under 
the  InvestEU  Fund,  while  the  EURES  (European  Employment  Services)  network  coordination  office 
function was transferred to the European Labour Authority (ELA) established in 2019. Link to the Regulation 
(EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European 
Social Fund Plus (ESF+): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1057. 
2Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 available at:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1057&from=EN  
3This  strand  corresponds  broadly  to  the  objectives  previously  addressed  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period by ESF, YEI and FEAD. 
4Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 available at: Regulation - 2021/1060 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
5The CPR is not applicable to the EaSI strand. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
limited number of implementing acts. 

•  Direct and indirect management: for the part of the assistance which corresponds 
to the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1) and operational objectives Article 
25  of  the  ESF+  regulation.  The  ESF+  regulation  refers  to  the  direct/indirect 
management strand as the EaSI strand. Its budget is EUR 762 million6. Under direct 
management  mode,  the  European  Commission  launches  calls  for  proposals  to 
award grants to projects as well as calls for tenders to award service and/or supply 
contracts.  International  organisations  (mainly  OECD,  ILO,  CoE  and  WHO) 
implement a small part of the programme under indirect management. In addition, 
EUR 132 million7 are implemented under indirect management mode to support 
transnational cooperation to accelerate the transfer and facilitate the scaling up of 
innovative  solutions (the  ESF  Social  Innovation  Plus  Initiative).  The  entity 
entrusted by the Commission to implement this initiative is the European Social 
Fund  Agency  in  Lithuania  (hereafter  called  ‘ESFA’)8.  From  2025  ESFA  will 
handle both direct and indirect management calls, making it easier to shift validated 
experiments into large-scale solutions. 

1.2.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Article  45(1)  of  the  CPR  stipulates  that  the  “Commission  shall  carry  out  a  mid-term 
evaluation to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and Union added 
value of each Fund by the end of 2024.” A similar requirement to carry out the mid-term 
evaluation of the EaSI strand is established in Article 34(2) of the ESF+ Regulation. 

This evaluation covers both ESF+ strands and the period from the entry into force of the 
Regulations, i.e. from 24 June 2021 till the end of 2024. It aims to inform the work on the 
design of the future EU instrument investing in human capital as well as to identify lessons 
learnt which can be still used to improve the implementation of the ESF+ in 2021-2027 
programming period. The geographical scope includes all EU Member States, and for the 
EaSI strand, also participating third countries (Norway, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia, and 

6An amount of EUR 676 million (in 2018 prices), corresponding to the part of the financial envelope for the 
implementation of the EaSI strand, was envisaged in the ESF+ Regulation for the period 2021 to 2027 in 
line with Article 5.3 of the ESF+ Regulation. This amount corresponds to EUR 762 million in current prices. 
7An  amount  of  EUR  175  million  (in  2018  prices)  was  envisaged  for  the  transnational  cooperation  to 
accelerate the transfer and facilitate the scaling up of innovative solutions as referred to in Article 25(i) of 
the ESF+ Regulation, coming from the financial envelope for the implementation of the ESF+ strand under 
shared management. Following the annual budgetary procedures as well as the MFF mid-term review, the 
budgetary authority has updated in 2024 the amount mentioned above and allocated a total budget of EUR 
132 million from the shared management envelope in line with Article 5.2 of the ESF+ Regulation for the 
EaSI strand objective of ‘transnational cooperation to accelerate the transfer and facilitate the scaling up of 
innovative  solutions’.  The  exact  amounts  are  determined  annually  through  the  EaSI  strand  financing 
decisions and annual work programmes. 
8Following a call for expression of interest open uniquely to managing authorities and implementing bodies, 
the  Lithuanian  managing  authority  was  selected  to  implement  transnational  cooperation  to  accelerate  the 
transfer and facilitate the scaling-up of innovative solutions, branded as the ESF+ Social Innovation Plus 
Initiative. To this end, it established a ‘Social Innovations and Transnational Initiatives Division’, which is 
known 
(ESFA).  See  https://european-social-fund-
plus.ec.europa.eu/en/selection-entrusted-entity-indirect-management-initiative-esf-social-innovation. 

the  European  Social  Fund  Agency 

as 

2 

 
 
 
 
Moldova)9. The resources of ESF+ shared management strand are allocated, in line with 
Article 108 of the CPR, to three categories of regions (less developed, transition and more 
developed) which are defined based on the region’s GDP per capita (see also footnote 39). 
These  categories  determine  the  maximum  co-financing  rates  that  can  be  applied  to  the 
priorities  in  the  ESF+  programmes.  Outermost  regions  can  benefit  from  the  same 
maximum  co-financing  rate  as  the  less  developed  regions,  as  well  as  from  additional 
allocation10. Categories of regions do not apply to financing under EaSI strand which is not 
covered by CPR. 

Due to the Covid-19 crisis and its following initiatives, including changes to the Cohesion 
Policy regulations and the creation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility11 (RRF), the 
implementation of the ESF+ shared management strand started effectively only in 2023. 
Member  States  focused  on  concluding  the  2014-2020  programmes  which  included  an 
additional  EUR  50  billion  of  REACT-EU12  (Recovery  assistance  for  cohesion  and  the 
territories of Europe) resources that had to be spent in three years, within the same spending 
deadline of 2023. They also prioritised the RRF having a much shorter implementation 
timeline.  Moreover,  the  ESF+  Regulation  and  the  CPR  entered  into  force  only  in  June 
202113. However, the Regulatory requirements to carry out a mid-term evaluation by the 
end of 2024 were formulated rigidly. In consequence, as analysed in Section 3 on the state 
of play, the implementation of the ESF+ shared management strand was not sufficiently 
advanced to ensure a meaningful assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and value added 
of the funds operations, whose results were yet to emerge. Similarly, although for the EaSI 
strand the implementation started already in the third quarter of 2021, most of the projects 
granted were still ongoing by the end of 2024 so that their results could not yet be analysed.   

The ESF+ results and impacts will be fully assessed in the retrospective evaluations due in 
2031.  On  the  other  hand,  the  expected  impact  of  ESF+  shared  management  strand 
investments in skills and active labour market policies are analysed in Employment and 
Social Developments in Europe report14,15. Therefore, this mid-term evaluation focuses on 
the  progress  in  the  ESF+  implementation  at  the  end  of  2024,  and  on  the  criteria  of 
coherence  and  relevance.  Under  the  criteria  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  given  the 
above-mentioned  constraints,  it  assesses  the  effects  of  changes  introduced  in  the  2021-
2027  programming  period  to  improve  the  fund’s  implementation  and  performance.  A 
particular emphasis is put on the effects of the merger of four former funds (ESF, YEI, 
FEAD and EaSI) on the programming and implementation. Coherence between the ESF+ 

9State  of  play  in  September  2024  (see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-
2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_esf-socpl_en.pdf).  
10 Inforegio - Is my region covered? 
11 Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing 
the Recovery and Resilience Facility: Regulation - 2021/241 - EN - rrf - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
12Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 on  REACT-EU: Regulation - 2020/2221 - EN - EUR-Le x (europa.eu). 
13The Commission initial proposal was adopted in May 2018. 
14Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2024. 
Publications catalogue - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission (europa.eu). 
15The Rhomolo model simulations show that ESF+ funding for skills, in addition to the direct employment 
and social benefits expected in the areas and sectors targeted by the projects financed, could increase EU 
GDP by up to 0.039% at its peak in 2036 relative to baseline GDP. The ESF+ investments in ALMP (Active 
Labour Market Policies) are projected to raise economic activity in the long-term, increasing EU GDP by 
approximately 0.029% per year, even 20 years after the start of the programme. In both cases the benefits 
more than offset the initial investments. 

3 

 
 
 
 
and  other  funding  instruments  with  similar  goals  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  these 
instruments generate synergies and complementarities that enhance overall performance 
as  compared  to  performance  of  each  instrument  separately.  It  also  involves  assessing 
whether  there  are  any  conflicting  objectives,  overlaps,  or  substitution16.  Relevance  is 
assessed in terms of correspondence between the fund’s objectives and current and future 
needs, identified both at the European level (country-specific recommendations, European 
Pillar of Social Rights principles, new priorities) as well as national/regional/stakeholders’ 
level. Under the criterion on EU added value, which looks at the results that go beyond 
what could be expected by individual actions of Member States, given the impossibility to 
make an assessment because of insufficient implementation at the moment of conducting 
the evaluation, the report refers to the existing evidence of value added of ESF and EaSI 
in the previous programming period(s).   .  

1.3.  Methodological framework and data limitations 

This Staff Working Document draws on evidence from the supporting study carried out by 
the consortium formed by Ecorys, Ismeri and 3s17 which covers the period by end 2023. It 
included  desk  research  as  well  as  extensive  stakeholder  consultation  (two  surveys  with 
managing authorities and EaSI strand stakeholders, 360 interviews at the EU, national and 
regional levels, two focus groups respectively for the shared management and the EaSI 
strand). Furthermore, evidence from EaSI performance monitoring report18 and the results 
of EaSI Stakeholder Survey19 fed into the Staff Working Document. In addition, relevant 
studies  and  internal  analysis  by  DG  EMPL  were  used,  in  particular  updated  data  on 
expenditure, outputs and results in the shared management strand at the end of 2024. 

No  public  consultation  was  carried  out  due  to  the  technical  nature  of  the  evaluation 
questions, focusing mostly on the design of ESF+. During the targeted consultations, the 
questions were formulated in a non-technical language to reach out to ESF+ beneficiaries 
and organisations representing the participants/end recipients. During the consultations, a 
high  level  of  evaluation  fatigue  was  observed  among  the  stakeholders,  caused  by  the 
considerable  number  of  evaluation  exercises  running  in  parallel  at  the  EU  and  national 
level. Nevertheless, the study managed to gather the views from a substantial number of 
all relevant types of stakeholders and the results are considered robust (see Annex II). 

The Staff Working Document, and particularly the sections on effectiveness of the merger 
of  the  former  four  funds,  efficiency,  coherence  and  relevance  rely  to  a  large  extent  on 

16Even though there are slight differences between substitution and displacement effects, for the purpose of 
this SWD, these effects are treated as synonyms. The substitution effect refers to cases where the ESF is 
replaced in a particular intervention by another fund. This can occur when there are overlapping eligible 
activities. 
17Ecorys, Study supporting the mid-term evaluation of the ESF+ during the programming period 2021-2027, 
2025. 
18European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion, EaSI 
performance  in  2014  –  Executive  summary  of  EaSI  performance  monitoring  report  2014,  Publications 
Office, 2015, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/952588 
19The EaSI Stakeholder Survey is conducted biannually to collect the views of strand’s beneficiaries as well 
as unsuccessful applicants, potential applicants, participants in events and/or stakeholders interested in the 
activities implemented by the strand. The first survey was disseminated in 2024 by email to 13 575 selected 
stakeholders (435 respondents submitted their replies). Two (2) other similar surveys will be launched to 
cover the entire programming period.  

4 

 
 
 
 
stakeholders’  opinions.  To  corroborate  the  validity  of  the  findings,  the  report  uses 
stakeholders’  opinions  collected  through  various  data  collection  methods.  Opinions 
expressed  only  by  a  small  number  of  stakeholders  were  treated  with  caution  when 
formulating the conclusions. The findings of the evaluation are valid for the current state 
of play and might change when the implementation is more advanced, and more data is 
available. 

Data  from  the  monitoring  systems  are  used  to  present  the  progress  on  implementation. 
However,  at  this  stage  they  do  not  allow  to  present  robust  conclusions  on  the  fund’s 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  value  added.  As  Member  States’  reporting  on  output  and 
result indicators by the end of 2024 was not yet  fully comprehensive, such conclusions 
would be biased20. They would reflect rather the different level of advancement of Member 
State  in  implementing  their  programmes,  instead  of  contributing  to  assess  the  overall 
effectiveness, efficiency and value added of the shared management strand of ESF+.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Policy challenges 
The  impact  assessment  of  the  ESF+21  identified  the  following  policy  challenges  to  be 
responded by the fund: 

•  Constantly evolving technology, productivity and globalisation paradigms required 
constant  upskilling  and  reskilling  of  the  workforce  to  face  the  new  digital  and 
automation challenges and the changes in skills requirements due to the low-carbon 
and climate resilient transition. 

•  The  trends  related  to  demography,  migration,  technological  change,  work 
organisation and labour market were going to have a massive impact on education 
and training systems and skill needs. However, access to quality education, training 
and life-long learning opportunities across the EU was still unequal. 

•  Disparities  and  divergence  across  Member  States  were  significant  with 
unemployment  rates  and  indicators  pointing  to  substantial  slack  in  some  labour 
markets  while  tightening  was  evident  in  others.  Unemployment  and  long-term 
unemployment  remained  among  the  most  important  challenges,  and,  despite 
improvements, too many young people struggled to find a (quality) job. 

•  118  million  people  were  still  at  risk  of  poverty  in  2016  meaning  that  social 

inequalities remained an important concern. 

•  Long-term demographic trends (less working-age population, more senior workers 
and  changing  family  structures)  profoundly  affected  societies  and  the  world  of 
work by limiting the resources available for distribution across generations. 

20 For a comprehensive overview of monitoring issues, see ESF+ Synthesis Report 2024 (forthcoming). 
21Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0289. 

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal 

(2018) 

final: 

289 

5 

 
 
 
 
Objectives 

The general objectives of ESF+ (i.e.  achieving high employment, fair social protection, 
skilled workforce; active inclusion; and equal opportunities) were formulated with the aim 
to address those challenges. By pursuing these objectives, ESF+ is meant to contribute to 
delivering on the principles of European Pillar of Social Rights and to complement policies 
of Member States. The general objectives are translated into 13 specific objectives (Box 1 
below) covering the policy areas of employment and labour mobility, education and social 
inclusion (for graphical depiction of the Intervention Logic see Annex VIII).  

Box 1 – ESF+ Specific Objectives (Article 4(1) ESF+ Regulation) 

Employment 

Social inclusion 

labour  market 

institutions  and 

(a)  improving  access  to  employment  and  activation 
measures for all jobseekers, in particular young people, 
and  promotion  of  self-employment  and  the  social 
economy;  
(b)  modernising 
services;  
(c)  promoting  a  gender-balanced  labour  market 
participation,  equal  working  conditions,  and  a  better 
work-life balance including through access to affordable 
childcare, and care for dependent persons;  
(d)  promoting  the  adaptation  of  workers,  enterprises 
and  entrepreneurs  to  change,  active  and  healthy 
ageing  and  a  healthy  and  well-adapted  working 
environment that addresses health risks; 

Education 
(e)  improving  the  quality,  inclusiveness,  effectiveness 
and labour market relevance of education and training 
systems;  
(f) promoting equal access to and completion of quality 
and inclusive education and training, in particular for 
disadvantaged groups;  
(g)  promoting  lifelong  learning,  in  particular  flexible 
upskilling and reskilling opportunities for all;  

Source: DG EMPL 

and 

inclusion 

integration  of 

to  promote  equal 
(h)  fostering  active 
opportunities, 
active 
non-discrimination 
participation, and improving employability, in particular 
for disadvantaged groups;  
(i)  promoting  socio-economic  integration  of  third-
country nationals, including migrants;  
(j)  promoting 
the  socio-economic 
marginalised communities, such as Roma people;  
(k)  enhancing  equal  and  timely  access  to  quality, 
sustainable and affordable services, including housing 
healthcare; 
and 
care 
modernising  social  protection  systems, 
improving 
accessibility  including  for  persons  with  disabilities, 
effectiveness  and  resilience  of  healthcare  systems  and 
long-term care services;  
(l)  promoting  social  integration  of  people  at  risk  of 
poverty or social exclusion, including the most deprived 
persons and children;  

person-centred 

including 

Material deprivation 
(m)  addressing  material  deprivation  through  food 
and/or  basic  material  assistance  to  the  most  deprived 
persons 

The general and specific objectives are common to the ESF+ shared management and EaSI 
strands, while the two strands differ in terms of operational objectives, types of activities 
implemented and expected output/results.  

Management modes 

The main rationale for using different implementation modes in pursuing the objectives is 
the subsidiarity principle22. Under shared management, the Commission delegates strategic 
programming and implementation tasks to the EU Member States and regions: contrary to 
the EaSI strand, these actions implement policies in scale. The subsidiarity principle also 

22In the areas of social and employment policy, the EU has either shared competence with  Member States 
(Article 4 TFEU), competence to lay down arrangements within which they must coordinate  their action 
(Article 5 TFEU) or competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the 
Member States (Article 6 TFEU). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
limits EU action to what is necessary to achieve its objectives as laid down in the Treaties. 
Shared management aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the 
citizen and that EU-level action is justified in light of the possibilities and specificities at 
national, regional or local level. Shared management brings Europe closer to its citizens 
and connects local needs with European objectives. Moreover, it increases ownership of 
EU objectives, as Member States and the Commission share decision-making power and 
responsibility. According to the 2017 report of the High-Level Expert Group monitoring 
simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds, a more centralised management mode would 
have been detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness of investments23.  

The  EaSI  strand,  under  direct  management,  focuses  on  projects  with  an  innovative 
dimension  in  which  there  is  clear  EU  added  value,  and  on  actions  with  transnational 
dimension, meaning that EU action is more effective than action taken at national, regional 
or local level to reach critical mass and reduce administrative burden24. 

Intervention logic 

The ESF+ invests in human capital with a view to achieving its employment and social 
policy  goals.  The  theory  of  change  (see  the  detailed  intervention  logic  in  Annex  VIII) 
postulates  that  the  specific  human  capital  investments,  e.g.  via  active  labour  market 
policies,  lifelong  learning,  or  active  inclusion  policies,  will  increase  human  capital  and 
improve its composition. This will increase labour supply and productivity, which in turn 
will increase economic output and employment, reduce poverty and inequalities. As the 
intervention  logic’s  starting  point  is  the  investment  in  the  individual  participants,  the 
programmes’  results  are  measured  at  micro-economic  level.  For  example,  the  shared 
management  strand’s  common  result  indicators  collected  via  the  monitoring  system 
include the number of participants who gain a qualification, move into employment or are 
in employment six months after the intervention. Provided that a certain part of the positive 
outcomes would have not materialised without ESF+ support (more on that below), higher 
results indicate a higher accumulation of human capital, which, according to the theory, 
leads to the desired economic outcomes. 

Each  step  of  the  intervention  logic  corresponds  to  specific  parts  of  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework of ESF+ (see Table Y in Annex VIII). Under shared management, 
the  investments  are  monitored  by  financial  indicators  broken  down  by  thematic  policy 
fields (the specific objectives). The policies’ outreach is depicted by output indicators (e.g. 
number of long-term unemployed or number of low-skilled participants). Result indicators 
describe the change in the participant’s situation (e.g. how many moved to education or 
training or to employment).  

This is also the case for the EaSI strand, where the performance framework includes six 
primary indicators (KPIs/PPIs) to report on the progress towards the achievement of the 
specific and operational objectives defined in the Regulation for this strand (see Section 
4.1). This reporting is made in terms of outputs (for instance, number of calls for social 
experimentation or “activities”) or outcomes (e.g. number of job placements under targeted 

23Final conclusions and recommendations of the High-Level Group on Simplification for post 2020 p. 7-9. 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/newsroom/simplification_proposals.pdf.  
24Explanatory Memorandum to the Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) COM (2018) 382: EUR-Lex - 52018PC0382 - EN 
- EUR-Lex 

7 

 
 
 
 
mobility schemes). These “units of measurement” are defined in the ESF+ Regulation. The 
targets associated to each primary indicator define the objectives to be reached at the end 
of the programming period (2021-2027). Thus, the coverage of operational objectives shall 
be  taken  on  board  already  in  the  planning  stage  (programming  phase)  and  before  the 
approval  of  the  Annual  Work  Programme.  This  approach  was  adopted  to  ease  the 
monitoring, the subsequent mid-term and ex-post evaluations, and especially to help detect 
relevant  dysfunctionalities  on  the  execution  affecting  a  concrete  primary  indicator 
(KPI/PPI) that could compromise the reaching of the final targets. In that case, corrective 
measures could be swiftly applied already in the programming phase. Secondary indicators 
were included in the Performance Framework to complement these KPIs/PPIs and to show 
a  more  complete  picture  of  the  funds’  performance,  i.e.  those  related  with  the  budget 
execution  (input  indicators)  and  indicators  based  on  stakeholders’  opinions  (using  data 
from the EaSI strand stakeholders biannual survey). 

Under  shared  management,  the  net  contribution  of  the  policies’  positive  impact  is 
estimated  at  the  level  of  the  individual,  using  counterfactual  impact  evaluations  (CIEs) 
performed  at  national  level,  with  support  from  the  European  Commission.25  As  far  as 
labour  market  impacts  are  concerned,  the  results  of  CIEs  are  summarised  via  a  meta-
analysis (first edition in 202226, regularly updated2728 since) that allows to compute average 
impacts across the EU. To estimate the ESF+’s macroeconomic effect, the Commission 
relies on JRC’s Rhomolo model. Also, econometric studies are used to estimate the impact 
of the cohesion funds on the macro-economic variables, but due to size of the ESF+ and 
complementarities with other cohesion funds, such studies are not done separately for the 
ESF+.  

At this stage of implementation, firm evidence is available  about the planned financing 
(inputs) and the main fields of intervention. That is used to evaluate the fund’s relevance 
by using thematic concentration and links to the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) 
as a main criterion. For the analysis on effectiveness and efficiency, due to incomplete data 
availability at this point in time, the evaluation relies on other data sources by looking at 
the  fund’s  design  and  processes.  More  quantitative  analysis,  e.g.  findings  from 
counterfactual evaluations and their meta-analysis and cost-benefit analysis will be carried 
out in the ex-post evaluation of the ESF+. 

For the EaSI strand, given its  limited scale in  terms  of budget  and volume of activities 
(representing 1% of the ESF+ overall budget), the influence on the macro variables (e.g. 
GDP,  employment  rate,  population  at  risk  of  poverty  in  the  EU)  is  not  realistically 

25DG EMPL, together with the JRC and DG REGIO, support work with the national authorities to improve 
evaluation capacity and culture, including capacity to conduct counterfactual impact evaluations. However, 
access to data poses a significant challenge. There is a lot of data available in administrative registers, such 
as employment registers or tax registers, which can be useful for evaluating policies financed by the ESF+.  
26 European Commission: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Ismeri Europa, 
Pompili, M., Kluve, J., Jessen, J. et al., Meta-analysis of the ESF counterfactual impact evaluations – Final 
report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/580759 
27 Haepp, T. and Serrano Alarcon, M., Meta-analysis of the European Social Fund counterfactual impact 
evaluations:  Brief  update  with  alternative  measures,  European  Commission,  Ispra,  2024,  JRC137571, 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC137571 
28 HAEPP, T., JESSEN, J., POMPILI, M. and SEEBAUER, J., Meta-Analysis of ESF/YEI Counterfactual 
Impact  Evaluations  -  A  comprehensive  update  including  new  methodology,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/1873376, JRC141819  

8 

 
 
 
 
measurable.  An  indicator  on  the  share  of  upscaled  EaSI  strand  social  experimentation 
projects can be used as a proxy for the expected impact of the support to policy reforms. 
A method to gauge the uptake of EaSI analytical activities is the citation analysis. While 
ordinarily used to measure the impact of scientific articles, this method was already applied 
to EaSI analytical outputs in the first monitoring report to reveal their importance within a 
specific  collection  of  documents  (e.g.,  political  documents,  scientific  articles,  news 
articles)29.  

Other  expected  impacts  are  measured  by  quantitative  indicators  based  on  stakeholders 
perceptions (data collected through the EaSI strand biannual survey), for instance: “extent 
to which support services have helped in developing integrated European labour markets, 
increasing employment opportunities and facilitating mobility of workers”, “stakeholder 
perceptions of the impact of EaSI funded activities on policy designs”, “perceived extent 
of  EaSI’s  contributions  to  networking  and  capacity  building”,  etc.  These  indicators  are 
already part of the Performance Framework but were not used within the scope of the mid-
term evaluation due to the lack of data at this stage30. Additionally, the ex-post evaluation 
will benefit from the findings included in the EaSI strands’ monitoring reports covering 
2021–2027 (including results from the three bi-annual EaSI Stakeholders Surveys), from 
an ongoing internal assessment of social experimentation projects, including their potential 
for upscaling (any project finished at the time of the current evaluation) and from other 
ongoing reports related to the social innovation. 

Unintended effects 

The  intervention  logic  describes  how  the  ESF+  is  expected  to  work  and  what  are  the 
expected outcomes, results and impacts. However, the ESF+ funded policies might also 
have unintended effects which are not part of the intervention logic. The unintended effects 
could  be  positive,  such  as  increased  positive  attitudes  towards  the  EU,  increased  civic 
engagement, positive peer effects or spillovers to non-targeted groups or regions.  Also, 
collaboration  among  ESF+  stakeholders  during  ESF+  implementation  might  improve 
governance and policy coordination. ESF+ investments might also cause some unintended 
negative  effects.  Over-reliance  on  ESF+  funding  may  discourage  national  or  regional 
governments from allocating sufficient domestic resources to social policies. There may 
also be crowding-out effects in the life-long learning markets, as ESF+ investments could 
reduce  private  investment  in  upskilling  and  reskilling.  Existing  inequalities  might  be 
reinforced if the investments disproportionately benefit advantaged groups. 

Some of these unintended effects could be assessed during the programming period using 
a  combination  of  surveys  and  statistical  methods.  However,  certain  unintended  effects, 
such as the crowding-out of private investments in lifelong learning, may be difficult to 
evaluate. Since the ESF, together with its successor the ESF+, has been in place for several 
decades,  it  would  be  methodologically  challenging  to  estimate  the  amount  of  private 
funding  that  would  exist  in  their  absence.  DG  EMPL  will  consider  the  possibility  of 
identifying  such  effects,  e.g.  by  studying  regions  that  have  experienced  variations  in 
receiving support from  the shared management strand (for instance due to transitioning 
from one category of regions to another one). 

29See the EaSI strand monitoring report, forthcoming in second quarter of 2025 (https://op.europa.eu/en/). 
30This information is based on the EaSI Strand Stakeholders survey (the first survey covered 2021 - 2023).  

9 

 
 
 
 
Implementation challenges: design features 

In addition to the policy challenges described in the beginning of the section, the ESF+ 
impact  assessment  also  identified  challenges  related to  the  implementation of the  funds 
investing in human capital: 

• 

• 

limited interaction and alignment between funds for human capital investment, a 
diversity of rules and limited synergies; 

funding framework not fully aligned with EU policy priorities and/or social policy 
needs as well as rigidities in implementation;  

•  complex requirements and high costs in management and delivery. 

These challenges were addressed by changes in the funds’ design and provisions compared 
to  the  previous  programming  period.  In  the  previous  programming  period,  limited 
interaction took place between ESF and the EaSI programme, leading to limited scaling up 
of EaSI projects through ESF31. Bringing the two funding instruments under one single 
legal  basis,  was  therefore  expected  to  improve  the  coherence  and  synergies,  and  in 
particular  to  support  the  transfer  or  upscaling  under  shared  management  strand  of 
successful innovations experimented under direct/indirect management strand. Under the 
shared management strand, the ESF+ regulation established (in Article 14) the obligation 
for  Member  States  to  dedicate  at  least  one  priority  to  social  innovation  and  social 
experimentation.  This  obligation  has  two  (not  mutually  exclusive)  options:  promoting 
testing of innovative solutions or scaling up social innovations, particularly the ones tested 
under EU level  programmes. This  represents  a significant  change  from  the formulation 
used in the ESF Regulation32 for 2014-2020 (Article 9), where no specific obligation was 
set out for Member States. This is expected to incentivise the Member States to strengthen 
the links between the shared management strand and the EaSI strand. 

Furthermore, while the ESF Regulation for the 2014-2020 period envisaged a co-financing 
rate for social innovation actions between 60% to 95% depending on the region, the ESF+ 
Regulation  for the 2021-2027 period  established a maximum co-financing rate of 95%. 
These  incentives  are  complemented  with  social  innovation  and  social  experimentation 
activities under the EaSI strand (grants, capacity building and support to upscaling). While 
direct management under EaSI strand targets early-stage social innovation (testing of new 
solutions), the Social Innovation Plus Initiative (indirect management mode) focuses on 
promoting their transfer and upscaling.  

Figure 1 presents the ESF+ architecture to facilitate interactions and exchanges between 
strands in promoting social innovation.  

31The main reason was the lack of concrete links between ESF and EaSI. While there was a provision for 
scaling up to take place via the ESF (Article 9 of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006), in practice, the managing authorities had limited awareness of EaSI 
outputs.  This  issue,  identified  in  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  and  the  ESF+  impact  assessment,  was 
confirmed by the ex post evaluation of EaSI  programme (Staff Working Document). 
32 Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on 
the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006) 

10 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1 - ESF+ social innovation scheme 

       Source: DG EMPL 

The  merging  of  ESF,  YEI  and  FEAD  under  the  umbrella  of  ESF+  aimed  to  further 
streamline and simplify the EU funding landscape, to ensure better synergies, strengthen 
strategic orientation and reduce red tape. A number of indicators measuring the success of 
the merger are used in the evaluation (see Table 1 below).  

Table 1 - Indicators of the success of the former ESF, YEI, FEAD and EaSI merger 

Merger 

Expected effects 

Indicators used 

ESF shared 
management and 
EaSI 

Scaling up of EaSI social 
experimentation projects under 
shared management 

ESF and FEAD 

More complementarity between 
food/basic material support and 
other operations under ESF+ 
shared management strand 

Simplification 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ESF and YEI 

More flexibility in programming 

• 

Simplification 

number of mentions of EaSI strand 
under the shared management 
programmes  
number of EaSI projects scaled-up 
through shared management 
programmes  

number of Member States integrating 
specific objectives dedicated to most 
deprived (SO (l) and SO(m)) into 
broader programmes 
number of Member States supporting 
operations for most deprived both 
under SO (m) and SO(l)  
number of Member States envisaging 
specific mechanisms to support the end 
recipients of assistance under SO(m) 
under other specific objectives 

reduced number of programmes, 
priorities in the programmes and 
indicators used 

Source: DG EMPL 

To safeguard that sufficient efforts are continued to support the youth and most deprived, 

11 

 
 
 
 
the  ESF+  Regulation  sets  out  in  Article  7(3)-(6)  the  so-called  thematic  concentration 
requirements, prescribing the minimum share of Member States’ allocations dedicated to 
youth  employment,  social  inclusion,  aid  to  the  most  deprived  and  fight  against  child’s 
poverty (for details see Annex VII). 

To reinforce the alignment with EU policy priorities, the link with the European Semester 
and  country-specific  recommendations  (CSRs)  was  strengthened  by  Article  7(2)  of  the 
ESF+ Regulation, which calls on Member States to ‘allocate an appropriate amount of their 
resources  of  the  ESF+  strand  under  shared  management’  to  implement  relevant  CSRs 
relating  to  structural  challenges,  which  it  is  appropriate  to  address  through  multiannual 
investments  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  ESF+.  Furthermore,  in  preparation  for  the 
current  programming  period  2021-2027,  in  2019  each  Country  Report  prepared  in  the 
context of the European Semester included an assessment and an overview of priority areas 
for  investment  (Annex  D).  The  investment  priorities  outlined  in  the  2019  European 
Semester process formed the basis for ESF+ programming. 

In order to reduce the administrative costs over the 2021-2027 programming period, the 
use  of  tools  for  performance-based  management  was  further  encouraged.  Dedicated 
templates  for  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs)  and  financing  not  linked  to  cost  (FNLC) 
schemes were developed and  attached to  the programme model  which  was expected to 
result  in  easier  and  wider  use  of  these  tools.  The  use  of  SCOs  is  also  promoted  by 
simplifying  rules  and  calculation  methods,  providing  more  off-the-shelf  options,  and 
making them compulsory for operations of small amounts. 
In  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  the  enabling  conditions33  were  streamlined  and 
their number reduced which was expected to simplify the process of their assessment. At 
the  same  time  their  fulfilment  is  monitored  and  checked  throughout  the  whole 
programming period and not only at the start (for more details see Annex VII). 

2.2.  Points of comparison  

Throughout this Staff Working Document, the ESF+ is compared to the funds implemented 
in  the  previous  programming  period:  ESF,  YEI,  FEAD  and  EaSI.  The  effects  of  the 
changes in the design on programming  and implementation are compared in qualitative 
and quantitative terms across the evaluation criteria. The expected effects described in the 
ESF+ impact assessment are used as basis for the qualitative comparison. As the changes 
in  ESF+  design  were  expected  to  impact  the  allocations  for  social  inclusion,  youth 
employment,  most  deprived  and  social  innovation  under  shared  management,  the 
quantitative indicators in Table 2 are selected for the quantitative comparison. 

Table 2 - Points of comparison – effects on programming level 

Indicator 

Allocation for social inclusion 
Allocation for youth (YEI v. thematic concentration on young) 
Allocation for the most deprived (FEAD v. SO(l) and SO(m)) 
Allocation for social innovation (dedicated priority/shared management strand) 

Period 
2014-2020 
2014-2020 
2014-2020 
2014-2020 

33As  set  out  in  Article 15  of  the  Common  Provisions  regulation  (CPR),  when  preparing  a  programme  or 
introducing a new Specific Objective as part of a programme amendment, the Member State is required to 
assess whether the enabling conditions linked to the selected specific objective are fulfilled. Member States 
are also required to fulfil the horizontal enabling conditions, which are applicable to all specific objectives. 

12 

 
 
 
 
The progress in the implementation of the ESF+ shared management strand is compared 
with the achievements of the ESF and YEI at the end of 2016. Due to the late adoption of 
ESF+  and  Common  Provisions  Regulation  in  June  2021  and  priority  given  to 
implementing the still available 2014-20 funds,  REACT-EU and RRF,  none of the 169 
ESF+ programmes were adopted in 2021; 148 programmes were adopted only in 2022 (96 
adopted  only  in  the  last  quarter);  and  21  programmes  were  adopted  in  2023-2024. 
Implementation started only in 2023. Conversely, in the 2014-2020 programming period34, 
most of the programmes had been adopted in 2014 (68%, 127 out 187). For these reasons, 
it is considered appropriate to compare the implementation of ESF+ shared management 
strand from June 2021 to December 2024 with the first three years of implementation under 
the previous programming period (2014-2016).  

ESF+ performance at the EU level is measured by Key Performance Indicators monitored 
in MFF Performance Results Reports35. These indicators represent the main outputs and 
results to be achieved by the fund by 2029, therefore they are used as the quantitative points 
of comparison for the progress in implementation. The progress to their targets is reported 
by the Commission in the programme performance statements and used in the budgetary 
discharge by the European Parliament. DG EMPL’s preparations to the next programming 
period are also informed by the achievements of KPIs. At the same time, the achievement 
values of all common indicators as well as the progress to their and programme specific 
indicators’ targets are monitored at programme level. These are set out in the programmes 
in line with their intervention logic and agreed with the Commission during the programme 
negotiations.  For  the  first  time,  in  2021-27  the  managing  authorities  had  to  prepare 
methodologies  for  each  programme  in  line  with  the  CPR  and  submit  them  to  the 
Commission together with the programmes.  

To ensure the methodologies are sound (indicators are clearly defined and targets are based 
on verifiable estimation methods and reliable data), DG Employment trusted a contractor 
(the ESF+ Data Support Centre) to review the methodologies. The monitoring of progress 
to  targets  takes  place,  for  example,  in  the  programme  monitoring  committees. 
Geographical desks of DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, as members of the 
committees, 
targets 
(achievement ratios). In the annual performance meetings, the Commission services and 
the national authorities assess the programme’s targeting, its outreach to the target groups 
and the change in the target groups’ labour market situation through the common output 
and result indicators. 36 

implementation  considering  progress 

regularly  discuss 

to 

In Section 3, which describes the state of play of ESF+ during the evaluation period, the 
KPI’s achievement in 2024 is compared to the values achieved in 2016 (Table 4 Section 
3.1). Section 4, under effectiveness, compares their progress towards final targets with the 
progress achieved in 2016 towards observed values for 2022 (latest data point available)37 

34Taking as a reference point the start of the programming period, the Common Provisions Regulation 2014-
20  and  ESF  Regulation  were  published  in  December  2013  i.e.  6  months  earlier  than  in  the  2020-2027 
programming period. 
35Link: https://commission.europa.eu/document/5ce5a9df-7f2f-4b96-8761-7f67c2642f94_en 
36Similarly to the 2014-2020 period, the achievements will be published and regularly updated in Open Data 
Portal for the European Structural Investment Funds - European Commission | Cohesion Open Data. 
37Comparison with 2014-2020 targets is not possible as target-setting changed between 2014-2020 and 2021-
2027 for most core indicators of the Performance Results Reports. 

13 

 
 
 
 
(Table  7  Section  4.1).  The  set  of  Key  Performance  Indicators  is  complemented  with 
indicators on expenditure declared by beneficiaries to compare the absorption rate between 
the programming periods.  

For the EaSI strand, the six primary indicators - five Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
and one Primary Performance Indicator (PPI) from the strand’s Performance Measurement 
Framework  -  are used  as quantitative points  of comparison (Table  8 in  Section 4). The 
primary indicators cannot be directly compared with the indicators from the former EaSI 
programme  Performance  Measurement  System38  as  the  consolidation  of  various  EU 
funding instruments into ESF+ resulted in several changes in the EaSI strand objectives39, 
activities  and  monitoring  approach  (more  details  are  provided  in  Annex  VII).  For  this 
reason,  milestones  for  2024  of  the  primary  indicators  were  calculated  and  used  for  the 
quantitative comparison. These milestones were obtained by dividing the final target for 
2027  by  7  (numbers  of  years  of  the  programming  period)  and  then  by  multiplying  this 
result  by  4  (for  the  three  years  of  implementation,  i.e.  2021-2024).  In  this  way,  it  was 
ensured that all milestones for 2024 are based on the target for 2027, regardless of whether 
the EaSI strand targets for 2027 are based on the previous programme or not.  

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

3.1. 

Shared management strand state of play  

Shared management strand – programming 

The total budget of the ESF+ for the 2021-2027 programming period managed under the 
shared management strand is EUR 142 billion, with some EUR 95 billion of this coming 
from  the EU budget.  The ESF+ shared management strand is  implemented by Member 
States in  partnership with  the Commission.  For each programming  period, the Member 
States and the Commission define key priorities for ESF+ investments, which are set out 
in national and regional programmes. For the current period, a total of 169 programmes 
have been agreed, of which 115 are at regional level and 54 at national level (See Table A 
in Annex VI). More specifically, 62% (EUR 88 billion) of the total fund is allocated to 
national programmes while 38% (EUR 54 billion) is allocated to regional programmes. 
Italy has the highest number of programmes (27), with the majority operating at regional 
level.  Spain,  France,  Poland,  Greece,  and  Germany  follow  closely  with  more  than  10 
programmes each.   

The below analysis of allocation of resources provides a general picture of ESF+ shared 
management support and feeds into the assessment of the relevance criterion later in the 
report. 

38EaSI programme (2014-2020) was designed to contribute to the modernisation of employment and social 
policies (PROGRESS axis); to facilitate the access to labour markets and job mobility (EURES axis); and to 
increase access to micro-finance and social finance (Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis). The EaSI 
Regulation defined nine  specific objectives  contributing to the achievement of  five general objectives. A 
number of 42 indicators (one headline and two complementary for each objective) were used to measure the 
progress in the achievement of the EaSI programme objectives.  
39In terms of objectives, Article 25 of the ESF+ regulation establishes 10 operational objectives for the EaSI 
strand that align with the 13 specific objectives (Article 4) of the whole fund, as well as with the ESF+ three 
policy areas (employment and labour mobility, education, and social inclusion). 

14 

 
 
 
 
The allocation of resources remains quite evenly distributed across the three main 
policy  areas  (thematic  objectives  in  the  previous  programming  period)  (Table  3). 
Comparing  to  the  previous  period,  the  thematic  objectives  (TOs)  addressing  the  public 
administration capacity and the effects of the crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic are no 
longer  envisaged,  while  there  is  a  new  policy  area  dedicated  to  social  integration  and 
material deprivation (former FEAD). 

Table 3 – Allocation of ESF in 2014-2020 (including YEI and REACT-EU) and of ESF+ shared 
management in 2021-2027 (in EUR) 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

Thematic Objective 

Allocation 

Policy area 

Allocation 

Sustainable & Quality 
Employment 

49 516 876 985  

Enhancing effectiveness 
of labour markets & equal 
access 

43 999 809 933 

Educational & Vocational 
Training 

36 295 327 429  

Education & Training & 
Life-long learning 

43 360 573 895 

Social Inclusion 

35 898 173 300  

Social Inclusion & 
Poverty 

- 

Social integration & 
Material deprivation 

- 

Efficient Public 
Administration 

Fostering crisis repair and 
resilience 

19 662 567 244  

4 096 055 671  

- 

- 

39 804 103 671 

11 084 834 113 

- 

- 

Total 
(excluding technical 
assistance)  

145 469 000 629 

Total 
(excluding technical 
assistance) 

138 249 321 612 

Source:  SFC  financial  allocation  data,  retrieved  in  February  2024  and  Cohesion  Data  (financial 
implementation data 2014-2020), retrieved in August 2024.  

The total available budget of the shared management strand is allocated to support a series 
of specific objectives (SO) (Table B in Annex VI). The highest allocation (21.4%) is for 
SO(a),  which  seeks  to  improve  access  to  employment  and  activation  measures  for  all 
jobseekers, in  particular  young people, the long-term  unemployed, inactive people,  and 
disadvantaged  groups,  as  well  as  promote  self-employment  and  the  social  economy. 
Beyond that, the next highest allocations are to support SO(f), promoting equal access to 
inclusive  education  especially  for  disadvantaged  groups  (15.4%)  and  SO(h),  fostering 
active inclusion with a view to promote equal opportunities (15.2%). The lowest portion 
of resources are allocated to actions of social inclusion for both non-EU-country nationals, 
including  migrants  (SO(i);  0.8%)  and  marginalised  communities  such  as  Roma  people 
(SO(j); 0.7%).  

15 

 
 
 
To  demonstrate  the  different  approaches  to  the  programming  of  the  ESF+  shared 
management  strand,  Member  States  were  divided  on  the  basis  of  the  degree  of 
concentration of the resources:  

•  High  concentration:  Finland,  Denmark,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Sweden, 
Cyprus, Belgium, Lithuania, France and Croatia. This category includes countries 
that chose a limited number of SOs (from 4 to 6), as well as some with a higher 
number  of  SOs  (9  or  10)  that  decided  to  concentrate  over  60%  on  two  SOs 
(Belgium) and almost 80% on three SOs (France and Croatia); 

•  Moderate concentration: Estonia, Latvia, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Romania, 
and Ireland; the countries of this group allocated from 40% up to 58% (Spain) to 
two SOs. The exception is Hungary, where a notable share of resources (40%) has 
been  concentrated  on  supporting  the  quality  and  inclusion  of  the  education  and 
training system (SO(e)), and Ireland, where 32% of the resources were absorbed 
by  social  integration  (SO(l))  while  the  remaining  resources  addressed  a  limited 
number of other SOs; 

• 

In  countries  classified  as  low  concentration  such  as  Italy,  Slovakia,  Greece, 
Poland, Czechia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Portugal, the highest allocations are for 
one particular SO, at over 30%, or for two SOs, both at over 20%, but the remaining 
resources are spread across several other SOs. It is worth noting that in  Czechia 
and Poland, no SO exceeds the 20% threshold.  

Shared management strand – progress in implementation 

At the end of 2024, the eligible expenditure declared by beneficiaries amounted to 7.6% 
of the total allocation, equal to EUR 10.8 billion. Despite the late start, the expenditure was 
not only higher in percentage terms compared to 2014-2016 period for the ESF and YEI 
combined (5.9%) but also in absolute value (EUR 7.6 billion). In more than half of Member 
States (14), the expenditure rate remained below 10% of the country’s allocation. Within 
this  subset,  Spain  had  reported  no  expenditure  and  four  countries  –  namely  Austria, 
Belgium,  Croatia  and  Slovenia  –  reported  values  below  3%.  At  the  other  end  of  the 
spectrum, Czechia, Ireland and the Netherlands stand out with recorded expenditures of 
around 20% of their allocations (Table C in Annex VI).  

Among  countries  with  a  declared  expenditure  for  2021-2024,  only  Slovenia,  Lithuania, 
Finland, Germany, Greece, Latvia and Portugal had a slightly lower level of expenditure 
for  this  programming  period  compared  to  the  first  three  implementation  years  of  the 
previous programming period.  

16 

 
 
 
Figure 2 – Percentage of expenditure up to 2016 and 2024  

 Source:  SFC  financial  implementation  data,  retrieved  in  May  2025,  and  Synthesis  Report  of  ESF  2017 
Annual Implementation Reports (financial implementation data 2014-2020).  

In order to compare the performance of each Member State to the previous programming 
period, the scatterplot in Figure 3 plots the EU average expenditure up to 2016 (vertical 
axis, ESF and YEI) against the EU average expenditure up to December 2024 (horizontal 
axis). Member States can thus be divided into the following four groups:  

1.  Greece,  Germany,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands,  France,  Sweden  and  Cyprus  are 
above the EU average on expenditure in the current programming period, in line 
with the performance recorded in the 2014-2020 cycle (up to December 2016); 

2.  A  large  number  of  Member  States  (Spain,  Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  Romania, 
Malta, Italy, Estonia, Slovenia and Poland) are below the EU average both in 2016 
and in 2024; 

3.  In contrast, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, which had performed better than average 

in 2016, are currently below the EU average; 

4.  Finally, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Denmark, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and Ireland 
are the  Member States where the rate of expenditure has been below average in 
2016, while their current average rate is higher than the EU average.  

Thus,  it  appears  that  most  Member  States  that  were  relatively  late  (or  early)  in 
implementing  measures  during  the  2014–2020  period  were  also  late  (or,  respectively, 
early) also in the 2021–2027 period. An attempt was made to discover patterns that would 
explain  the  reasons  for  this  variation,  but  no  correlation  was  found  between  the 
implementation progress in until 2024 and other variables potentially linked with the low 
absorption rates, such as the amount of unspent funding from the previous period in 2022, 
perceived governance effectiveness40, quality of government41 or population size. Overall, 

40Home | Worldwide Governance Indicators 
41European Quality of Government Index | University of Gothenburg 

17 

0510152025ESATBESIHRLVMTITPLLTFIROEEBGLUCYDEHUFRELPTDKSKSECZNLIEEUavUp to 2024Up to 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
when correcting for the additional year of delay, the progress of expenditure is about the 
same, or slightly better in some cases.  

Figure 3 – Geographical representation of Member States' scores  

Source: SFC financial implementation data, retrieved in May 2025 and Synthesis Report of ESF 2017 Annual 
Implementation  Reports  (financial  implementation  data  2014-2020)..  The  45-degree  line  indicates  an 
unchanged rate of declared expenditures in 2016 and 2024. 

When comparing the various categories of regions42, transition regions had at the end of 
2024 the highest expenditure rate, averaging 8.6% of the budget. More developed regions 
followed,  with  an  average  expenditure  of  8.4%  of  the  budget,  whereas  less  developed 
regions  reported  a  lower  6.9%  of  average  expenditure.  Finally,  outermost  regions 
remarkably fall behind, having spent just above 3% of the total allocated budget.  

Looking at the level of specific objectives (Table D in Annex VI) the average expenditure 
rate was largely exceeded by two SOs (SO(f) inclusive education and SO(m) addressing 
material  deprivation  with  expenditure  rates  above  10%.  The  expenditure  rates  were 
strongly below the EU-level average for SO(b) modernising labour market institutions and 
SO(c) gender balanced labour market participation recording expenditure rates below 4% 
at the end of 2024.  

By  end  2024,  a  total  of  7.8  million  persons  were  reported  as  ESF+  participants  which 
corresponds to 96% of the participants reached between 2014 and 2016. At Member State 
level,  Italy  and  Spain  reported  the  highest  number  of  participants  (Table  E  Annex  VI). 
They both accounted for more than 20% each of the total, which is also can also be linked 

42The EU Cohesion Policy defines the following categories of regions: a) Less developed regions, which 
have a GDP per inhabitant that is less than 75% of the EU average; b) Transition regions, which have a GDP 
per inhabitant that is between 75% and 100% of the EU average; c) More developed regions, which have a 
GDP per inhabitant that is above 100% of the EU average. The outermost regions are constituted by island, 
archipelagos and one land territory (French Guiana). They are home to close to 5 million EU citizens and are 
integral part of EU. See https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en. 

18 

ESATBESIHRLVMTITPLLTFIROEEBGLUCYDEHUFRELPTDKSKSECZNLIEEU av024681012141618024681012141618202224Rate of declared expenditure on total amount: 2016Rate of declared expenditure on total amount: 2024 
 
 
 
 
to  the  size  of  their  financial  allocation.  Only  one  Member  State  did  not  report  yet  any 
participants under any of the specific objectives (Romania).  
The  highest  share  of  participants  (24.4%)  has  been  reported  under  SO(f)43  aiming  at 
enhancing the quality of education and training and making them inclusive. At a broader 
level,  the  interventions  for  education  and  training  (SO(e),  SO(f),  SO(g))  engaged  the 
largest number of participants accounting for 38.3% of the total (3.0 million individuals), 
followed by the social inclusion interventions (SO(h), SO(i), SO(j), SO(k)) with 31.8% of 
the total (2.5 million). Finally, 30.0% of the participants (2.3 million) were involved in 
employment-related activities supported by SO(a), SO(b), SO(c), and SO(d). 

Among the participants reported until the end of 2024, in terms of employment status, the 
majority were unemployed (38.6.2%), followed by inactive persons (37.7%) and by those 
who were employed (21.8%). With regards to age, younger people (under 29 years old) 
and children were the most represented groups as participants: together they accounted for 
48.0% of the total. 

Looking at participants’ education level, persons with a low education level (ISCED 0-2) 
were the most represented (51.7%), while persons with tertiary education accounted for 
16.5% of the participants. Persons with upper secondary education or post-secondary, non-
tertiary education accounted for 30.0% of the participants. 

As far as the disadvantaged groups are concerned, 13.4% of participants were from third 
countries  (1  million),    8.0%  were  persons  with  disabilities  (0.6  million)  and  2.7%, 
corresponding  to  209  357  individuals,  belonged  to  minorities  (including  marginalised 
communities such as the Roma). These indicators were significantly higher in a number of 
countries, specifically: persons with disabilities in  the Netherlands (45.2%) and Estonia 
(25.6%); third-country nationals in Austria (54.7%), Ireland (43.9%), Sweden (42.5%) and 
the  Netherlands  (34.5%);  individuals  belonging  to  minorities  in  Estonia  (39.0%)  and 
Bulgaria (37.9%). 

With the uptick in implementation in the course of 2024, first concrete results also started 
to materialise. Of the 7.8 million persons reached with ESF+ support until the end of 2024, 
2.4  million  registered  a  positive  short-term  result44,  corresponding  to  a  success  rate  of 
31.3%  (Table  F  Annex  VI).  The  most  frequent  results  observed  were  gaining  a 
qualification (1.1 million participants) and being in employment (0.9 million). The success 
rates vary by country and specific objective (Table F and Table G Annex VI), however 
given  the  delayed  start  of  implementation  and  still  incomplete  reporting,  especially  for 
longer-term indicators, this picture is prone to changes as the implementation progresses. 

In the previous programming period, which had reached slightly more participations at a 
comparable stage of implementation, slightly less short-term results had been reported at 
the end of 2016 (1.98 million), resulting also in a lower success rate of 24.4%. At the same 
time, the most frequent results were also gaining a qualification and being in employment 
(each 0.8 million).  

43The participation in a given specific objective depends also on the frequency by which this objective has 
been selected by the Member States within their programmes.  
44 Based on the four common short-term result indicators: EECR01 “Participants engaged in job searching 
upon leaving”; EECR02 “Participants in education or training upon leaving”; EECR03 “Participants gaining 
a qualification upon leaving” and EECR04 “Participants in employment upon leaving” 

19 

 
 
 
 
As Table 4 below shows, the values of Key Performance Indicators at the end of 2024 and 
at the end of 2016. Indicators on participant characteristics show that there has been a slight 
change in the composition, with more participations from inactive persons, persons with 
lower secondary education or less, and those that are 55 years of age and above. In terms 
of results, a shift towards more participants gaining a qualification and being in education 
or  training  and  less  participants  engaged  in  job  searching  upon  leaving  is  observed. 
Considering figures related to the ex-FEAD (SO(m)), at the end of 2024 monitoring data 
were largely incomplete with more than half of Member States that had allocated budgets 
to  this  specific  objective  not  reporting  or  only  partially  reporting.  Therefore,  the  low 
achievement values, especially for the number of end recipients receiving food support are 
not representative of the true implementation on the ground and are reported only for the 
sake of completeness.45   

Table 4 – Values of shared management strand KPIs compared to the previous programming period 

Key Performance Indicators 

2014-2020: 
implemented 
values up to 2016 

2021-2027 
implemented 
values up to 2024 

2024 value/2016 
value (%) 

Specific Objective 1: Policy area - Employment and labour mobility  

Participants in employment, including self-
employment, upon leaving 

810 397  

857 741 

105.8% 

Unemployed, including long-term 
unemployed, participants reached 

 4 177 458  

3 028 802 

72.5% 

Inactive participants reached 

 2 105 021  

2 947 850 

140.0% 

Number of participants 55 years of age and 
above reached 

 461 592  

764 362 

165.6% 

Specific Objective 2: Policy area - Education  

Participants with lower secondary 
education or less (ISCED 0-2) reached 

 3 400 402 

4 030 227 

118.5% 

Participants with tertiary education 
(ISCED 5-8) reached 

 1 255 188  

1 283 716 

102.3% 

Participants gaining a qualification upon 
leaving 

750 166  

1 072 376 

143.0% 

45 For a comprehensive overview of monitoring issues, see ESF+ Synthesis Report 2024 (forthcoming). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Key Performance Indicators 

2014-2020: 
implemented 
values up to 2016 

2021-2027 
implemented 
values up to 2024 

2024 value/2016 
value (%) 

Participants in education or training upon 
leaving 

275 478  

389 051 

141.2% 

Specific Objective 3: Policy area - Social inclusion, including contributing to poverty eradication and health  

Participants with disabilities reached 

 633 462 

623 466 

98.4% 

Participants considered as part of 
disadvantaged groups reached (Participants 
with a foreign background, minorities 
including Roma people, third-country 
nationals) 

 1 215 476  

1 394 981 

114.8% 

Participants engaged in job searching upon 
leaving 

148 426  

121 690 

82.0% 

Number of end-recipients receiving food 
support  

38 523 871 

2 459 012  

6.4% 

Number of end-recipients receiving 
material support 

1 516 050 

653 574  

43.1% 

Source: SFC data, retrieved in May 2025 and Synthesis Report of ESF 2017 Annual Implementation 
Reports (implementation data 2014-2020). 

Notes: (1) The category ‘participants with foreign background’ was defined more broadly in ESF 2014-2020 
and also included migrants and minorities. These are now separate indicators in ESF 2021-2027 and there 
might be an overlap between third country nationals and participants with foreign background as the latter 
is based on national definitions. Therefore, the sum displayed here takes the maximum value of  these two 
indicators per country and adds the sum of minorities to exclude double counting in the EU sum.  This is 
however a lower estimate as the overlap of indicator definitions varies by country.  

3.2.  EaSI strand state of play  

The total budget allocated to the EaSI strand in 2021-202746 is EUR 894 million in current 
prices. This amount comprises the EaSI strand budget (EUR 762 million), and the financial 
envelope (EUR 132 million) transferred to the EaSI strand from the shared management 
strand  envelope  for  the  implementation  of  transnational  cooperation  to  facilitate  the 
upscaling of innovative solutions (see Section 1.1).  

46As set in the ESF+ Regulation, this budget includes the EaSI strand financial envelope in line with Article 
5(3)  and  the  financial  envelop  transferred  from  the  ESF+  shared  management  budget  to  implement  the 
transnational cooperation to facilitate the scaling up of innovative solutions as referred to in Article 5(2). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
When  looking  at  the  two  financial  envelopes  relevant  for  the  EaSI  strand  (see  Table  5 
below),  it  appears  that  the  budget  planned  steadily  progresses  in  its  implementation  in 
relation to the first envelope (from 93% in 2021 to 99% in 2024). The second envelope 
shows an absorption rate of almost 100% throughout all three analysed years. 

Table 5 – State of play of the EaSI strand financial envelopes 

Budget 
line 

EaSI strand envelope (Article 5.3) 

Envelope for scaling up social innovations (Article 
5.2) 

Planned 
budget 

Implemented 

Absorption 
rate 

Planned 
budget 

Implemented 

Absorption 
rate 

2021 

99 982 373 
373 

92 614 738 

92.63% 

26 530 200 

26 530 200 

100.00% 

2022  

93 237 964 

88 231 545 

94.63% 

13 530 402 

13 528 002 

99.98% 

2023 

100 604 370 

98 102 431 

97.51% 

30 308 100 

30 308 100 

100.00% 

2024 

101 197 331 

100 525 443 

99.34% 

30 860 140 

30 860 140 

100.00% 

TOTAL 

395 022 038 

379 474 157 

96.06% 

101 228 842 

101 226 442 

100.00% 

Source: DG EMPL 

The EaSI strand is implemented under direct and indirect management modes. Under direct 
management,  grants  and  procurement  are  funded  by  the  Commission.  Under  indirect 
management  activities  are  implemented  in  partnership  with  EU  partners,  international 
organisations or other entrusted organisations.  
When it comes to grants, there are direct grants47 (awarded without a call for proposals on 
the  basis  of  Article  195  of  the  Financial  Regulation),  and  action  and  operating  grants 
awarded based on calls for proposals48. The EaSI Annual Work Programmes establish the 
main policy priorities to which the EaSI strand contributes in a given year49. A summary 
of the main priorities and calls for proposals launched under EaSI strand in 2021-2024 is 
presented in Table H Annex VI.  

The strand is also implemented directly through procurement contracts (call for tenders 
and  framework  contracts  or  administrative  arrangements).  The  policy  areas  addressed 
through  these  procurement  (service)  contracts  according  to  the  2021-2024  work 
programmes (which reflect the EaSI strand policy priorities) were: employment and skills; 

47For instance, events organised by the Presidency of the  Council of the EU, or direct grants to Member 
States to implement the Labour Force Survey (LFS), to the International Agency for Research on Cancer 
(IARC) Monographs or to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 
48For instance, direct grants to support the EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme (TMS) or the social innovation 
projects and operating grants to support EU-level NGOs networks including those active in the areas of social 
entrepreneurship and microfinance. 
49The selection of activities funded by the EaSI strand are decided following internal discussion among the 
DG EMPL Directorates and involves EaSI stakeholders via structured consultation processes (EaSI strand 
Technical Working Group members and EU-level civil society organisations). This process should ensure 
coverage of all EaSI  strand operational objectives during the programming phase (prior to approving the 
annual  work  programme),  which  facilitates  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  processes.  This  approach  also 
helps identify any implementation problem(s) compromising the realisation of the final targets with respect 
to one or more KPSs/PPI.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
social protection and inclusion; labour markets and labour mobility; safe and fair working 
conditions; and cross-cutting issues.  

Under indirect management, several implementation organisations were selected through 
calls for expression of interest to work under indirect management with DG EMPL 2021-
2027. Those entities include: the Lithuanian Implementation Agency for ESF+ (ESFA); 
the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD);  the  Joint 
Research Centre (JRC); the International Labour Organization (ILO); the World Health 
Organization (WHO); and the Council of Europe (CoE).  

The EaSI funding under the direct and indirect management modes of the ESF+ also covers 
other actions or expenditure such as different meetings, ad-hoc committees, and other 
events; scientific support for evaluation of chemicals at work; support for data collection 
and management, analysis, studies, and evaluations; and various publications.  
As shown in Table 6 below, the overall absorption rate (SIP 1)50 for the period 2021-2024 
indicates a high degree of execution (97%) with respect to the budget planned in the EaSI 
strand  Annual  Work  Programmes  (AWP).  The  overall  budget  consumption  rate  (SIP 
2)51 for the period 2021-2024 shows that payments are in progress (29%). Payments will 
increase  as  the  implementation  of  the  EaSI  strand  moves  forward,  honouring  legal 
obligations from the funds already committed. 

Table 6 – EaSI strand secondary input performance indicators (SIP) and values attained in 2021-
2024 

Indicator 

Formula 

Calculation (EUR) 

SIP 1 - Absorption rate 
(commitments) 

Planned  budget  (planned)/implemented 
(individual + global commitments) 

496.250.880,00 / 
480.700.597,87 

Share 
(%) 
96,87% 

SIP 2 - Budget consumption rate 
(payments) 

Budget already spent / total budget 

261.765.761,29 / 
893.814.025,00 

29,3% 

Source: DG EMPL 

Figure 4 provides a distribution of the EaSI budget in 2021-2024 across the operational 
objectives,  showing  that  about  32%  of  the  funds  were  directed  towards  supporting 
operational objectives c and i (support provided to social innovation testing and upscaling); 
about 23% to support the mobility of workers (operational objective d),  around 14% to 
support the production of analytical knowledge (objective a), and around 2.3% to support 
the  development  of  social  finance  ecosystems  (operational  objectives  e  and  g).  An 
important share of funding – around 27% – was committed to build stakeholders’ capacity 

50The input indicator SIP 1 - Absorption rate is obtained from the total executed budget (individual and global 
commitments)  divided  by  the  planned  budget  of  each  EaSI  Annual  Work  Programme  (and  their 
amendments). They include direct and indirect management of the two budget lines, corresponding to the 
two financial envelopes funding the EaSI strand: the 07.020400 EaSI financial envelope (the administrative 
budget line is excluded as it is not part of the AWP) and the 07.020100.05 ESF+ shared management financial 
envelope (implementation of the Social Innovation Plus Initiative by ESFA). 
51The input indicator SIP 2 – Budget consumption rate is obtained from the total payments (budget already 
spent) divided by the total EaSI budget according to the ESF+ Regulation. It includes payments belonging 
to the 3 budget lines of the EaSI strand: 07.020400 for the EaSI financial envelope, 07.020100.05 for the 
ESF+ shared management envelope (implementation of the Social Innovation Plus Initiative by ESFA) and 
the 07.010102 EaSI administrative budget line. 

23 

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
through support provided to EU-level NGOs (objective f), and through mutual learning 
and  peer  reviews  (objective  b).  As  regards  the  objective  h,  the  approved  annual  work 
programmes  for  2021-2025  do  not  include  any  activity  for  this  specific  operational 
objective of the ESF+ Regulation. Therefore, the discussions for the selection of activities 
for the annual work programmes 2026 and 2027 should include activities related to this 
operational objective. 

Figure 4 - Commitments per EaSI strand operational objective in 2021-2024 

(j) implementation of international social and labour standards

6.062.434,65

(i) support to social innovation scaling up

(h) guidelines for EPSR implementation

0,00

(g) social enterprises development

8.005.889,89

102.226.441,56

(f) networking and build up institutional capacity

84.631.477,53

(e) microfinance ecosystem development

1.381.071,00

(d) mobility of workers

(c) social experimentation

(b) information sharing, mutual learning, peer reviews and…

26.740.035,98

24.492.737,55

93.807.330,87

(a) analytical knowledge

54.165.703,59

Source: DG EMPL  

In terms  of  distribution of budget  commitments  per beneficiary country (see  Table  I  in 
Annex  VI),  Lithuania  benefitted  from  the  highest  amount  in  2021-2024,  followed  by 
Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. These figures are explained by the implementation 
of the Social Innovation Plus Initiative (by ESFA Lithuania), stakeholders’ participation 
in EURES calls for cross-border partnerships and targeted mobility schemes (Germany)52 
and in recurrent calls for EU-level NGO networks operating grants (Belgium). As regards 
Luxembourg, an important number of activities (IT services, studies, conferences, external 
meetings  and  travel,  consultancy,  evaluation  services,  communication  and  publications, 
translation/interpretation,  training,  supply  contracts,  services  linked  to  buildings,  action 
and operating grants) are implemented by organisations located in this country. 

52In  practice,  for  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  that  signed  the  Framework  Partnership  Agreements,  their 
chances for obtaining an operating grant mainly depended on them submitting an annual proposal; therefore, 
their  success  rate  is  close  to  100%.  Similarly,  the  EURES  calls  for  proposals  are  specific  and  targeted, 
resulting nearly in a 100% success rate of the applications submitted. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

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

Effectiveness 

Delivering on objectives of ESF+ shared management strand 

Implemented since 1958, ESF has proven to be an effective instrument supporting labour 
market policies and investing in people. The most recent available data from the previous 
programming period (2014-20) show that more than one third (35%) of participants in the 
ESF  operations  up  to  2022  achieved  a  positive  result  (finding  employment,  gaining  a 
qualification, starting a job search or education/training)53. However, as explained in the 
introduction, the assessment of the effectiveness of ESF+ under shared management 
was not yet possible at the moment of conducting this evaluation because the level of 
implementation  was  not  sufficiently  advanced  for  this  type  of  analysis  (described  in 
Section 3).  

The level of achievement of the 2029 EU targets for the output and results indicators 
selected as points of comparison (see Table 7 below) was between 8.1 and 14.8% at 
the end of 2024. This corresponds roughly to the level of financial implementation (7.6% 
absorption  rate).  At  the  same  time,  the  ESF+  implementation  (excluding  ex-FEAD 
activities) was about as advanced at the end of 2024 as in the previous programming period. 
In 2016, the progress in physical implementation was between 7.5 and 21.5% for the same 
indicators  (excluding  FEAD)  measured  against  their  actual  achievement  in  2022  (latest 
data point available). In the current programming period, the same indicators are between 
8.1 and 14.8% of their 2029 targets (Table 7). Still, the currently observed values for these 
indicators are considered at a lower bound due to delays in introducing the data into the 
system. In a survey about ESF+ monitoring and information systems, managing authorities 
declared that 27.8% put in place completely new systems and the majority (55.6%) were 
not fully operational in April 2024.54 An additional cause may be the managing authorities’ 
decisions  to  report  data  on  participants  only  after  completion  of  the  operations.  This 
delayed reporting is evidenced by discrepancies when comparing reported expenditure and 
outputs  reported  at  the  end  of  2024.  For  instance,  Romania  and  Greece  reported 
considerable expenditures, but still no or very limited participations. 

The cost per participant data available at the end of 2024 suggest a huge variation (ranging 
from  less  than  EUR  200  per  participant  to  more  than  EUR  8,000  in  Czechia,  Estonia, 
Greece  and  Latvia).  This  variation  is  much  larger  than  in  the  preceding  programming 
period (when costs per participants ranged between around EUR 700 and EUR 4,400 per 
participant). A part of this variation reflects composition effects, as the cost per participant 
differs depending on the type of operations financed by each Member State. However, due 
to delayed reporting and differing data collection practices, the data on cost per participant 

53ESF Synthesis report 2023 (Annual Implementation Reports 2022) and Study supporting the ESF 2014-
2020 ex-post evaluation, ongoing. 
54The survey has been carried out by the ESF+ Data Support Centre. Responses have been gathered about 
54 systems which cover 145 programmes. 

25 

 
 
 
 
cannot  be  reliably  compared  across  Member  States  or  with  the  previous  programming 
period at this stage. Such comparisons will only be possible in the ex-post evaluation.  

Inflation  was  especially  high  in  Hungary,  Slovakia,  Czechia,  Poland,  and  the  Baltic 
countries  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period.  For  instance,  in  Hungary,  the 
consumer price index increased by 42% between 2020 and 2022. High inflation was partly 
offset by a 9% currency depreciation during the same period, as allocations of the ESF+ in 
EUR corresponded to higher allocations in forints. However, the effect of the inflation was 
stronger, and the real value of allocations in the forints still declined significantly by 23%55. 
Even  though  costs  of  intervention  increased  in  the  beginning  of  period  due  to  high 
inflation, this did  not lead to  significant  programme modifications.  Some countries like 
Czechia and Latvia have made minor target modifications, partly in response to inflation. 
In particular, high inflation has had a greater impact on the implementation of SO(m) due 
to rising food prices. For example, in Latvia, the cost per food package increased by 61% 
between 2021 and 2023, while demand also continued to rise, placing additional pressure 
on the programme56.  

Table 7 – Achievement of shared management strand KPIs targets compared to the previous 
programming period 

2014-2020 

Key Performance 
Indicators 

Implemented 
value at the 
end of 2016 

Implemented 
value at the 
end of 2022 

2016 on 
target 
2022 
(%) 

Implemente
d value at 
the end of 
2024 

2021-2027 

Target value 
2029 

2024 on 
target 
2029 
(%) 

Specific Objective 1: Policy area - Employment and labour mobility 

Participants in 
employment, 
including self-
employment, upon 
leaving 
Unemployed, 
including long-term 
unemployed, 
participants reached 

Inactive participants 
reached 

Number of 
participants 55 years 

810 397  

6 348 579 

12.8% 

857 741 

7 400 000 

11.6% 

4 177 458  

19 407 013 

21.5% 

3 028 802 

21 500 000 

14.1% 

2 105 021  

24 261 644 

8.7% 

2 947 850 

24 200 000 

12.2% 

461 592  

6 141 546 

7.5% 

764 362 

6 400 000 

11.9% 

55 Following the formula that 1+r =(1+ɛ)/(1+π), where r is change in real value of the allocation in national 
currency, ɛ is exchange rate changes and π – inflation (change annual average of the Harmonised Index of 
Consumer Prices over 2020-2023). 
56  Eiropas  Savienības  kohēzijas  politikas  programmas  2021.-2027.gadam  vidusposma  novērtējums. 
https://tapportals.mk.gov.lv/attachments/legal_acts/document_versions/3384892c-703a-4d61-a2fa-
142d037c94b8/download  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
2014-2020 

Key Performance 
Indicators 

Implemented 
value at the 
end of 2016 

Implemented 
value at the 
end of 2022 

2016 on 
target 
2022 
(%) 

Implemente
d value at 
the end of 
2024 

2021-2027 

Target value 
2029 

2024 on 
target 
2029 
(%) 

of age and above 
reached 

Participants with 
lower secondary 
education or less 
(ISCED 0-2) 
reached 
Participants with 
tertiary education 
(ISCED 5-8) 
reached 

Participants gaining 
a qualification upon 
leaving 

Participants in 
education or training 
upon leaving 

Specific Objective 2: Policy area - Education  

3 400 402 

31 977 301 

10.6% 

4 030 227 

31 100 000 

13.0% 

1 255 188  

10 814 420 

11.6% 

1 283 716 

11 000 000 

11.7% 

750 166  

9 828 230 

7.6% 

1 072 376 

9 100 000 

11.8% 

275 478  

2 790 717 

9.9% 

389 051 

2 900 000 

13.4% 

Specific Objective 3: Policy area - Social inclusion, including contributing to poverty eradication and health 

Participants with 
disabilities reached 

Participants 
considered as part of 
disadvantaged 
groups reached 
(Participants with a 
foreign background, 
minorities including 
Roma people, third 
country nationals) 

Participants engaged 
in job searching 
upon leaving 

633 462 

3 976 122 

15.9% 

623 466 

4 200 000 

14.8% 

1 215 476  

8 654 145 

14.0% 

1 394 981 

10 900 000 

12.8% 

148 426  

1 442 883 

10.3% 

121 690 

1 500 000 

8.1% 

Source: Synthesis Report of ESF 2017and ESF 2022 Annual Implementation Reports (implementation data 
2014-2020),  SFC data, retrieved in May 2025, for 2021-2027 period.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Delivering on the EaSI strand objectives 

The EaSI strand Performance Framework includes six primary performance indicators (see 
Table 8 below) to report on the strand’s progress towards the achievement of its specific 
objectives and operational objectives (see EaSI strand Intervention Logic in Annex VIII). 
The Performance Framework establishes concrete targets for these indicators at the end of 
the current programming period. As explained in Section 2.2, for the mid-term evaluation 
purpose, the comparison is made between the actual implementation in 2021-2024 and the 
milestones estimated for 2024. 

Table 8 below shows that EaSI strand implementation is overall on track, with most 
Key Performance Indicators being in line with or above the expected delivery at the end 
of 2024.  
More  specifically,  KPI  1  ‘Number  of  analytical  activities’57  has  shown  overall  positive 
performance  from  2021  to  2024,  slightly  below  the  milestone  for  2024.  This  level  of 
implementation per year should permit to reach the target at the end of the programming 
period  (199  activities).  EaSI  strand  Stakeholder  Survey58  results  indicate  as  well  high 
satisfaction with the quality and relevance of EaSI-generated evidence, with 76% finding 
it is useful and 68% agreeing it is high quality and relevant to EU policy. 

KPI  2  ‘Number  of  information-sharing  and  mutual  learning  activities’59  was  below  the 
expected  delivery  to  date,  and  about  a  third  of  the  2027  target.  This  figure  is  partially 
explained by the low number of activities in 2021 (only 15, almost half of the indicative 
average of 27, due to Covid-19 pandemic effects on events). Even if in 2022 the number 
climbed to 28, it did not compensate the gap. In 2023, the number of activities lowered 
again  to  22,  while  in  2024  to  17,  justifying  a  closer  attention  to  this  indicator  in  the 
subsequent programming processes. However, the EaSI strand stakeholder survey results 
indicate a largely positive perception of these activities, with 92% of respondents agreeing 
that  EaSI  activities  facilitate  effective  information  exchange  and  76%  believing  they 
contributed to policy design.  

KPI  3  ‘Number  of  social  experimentation/innovation  activities’60  has  overachieved  its 
milestone for 2024. This level of execution per year should permit to reach the target at the 
end of the programming period (14 activities). Stakeholder survey results indicate a largely 
positive  perception  of  these  activities,  with  68%  of  respondents  agreeing  that  EaSI 
activities contributed to social innovation and experimentation.  

57KPI 1 refers to EaSI analytical outputs ranging from flagships such as the Eurobarometer surveys, to some 
publications  with  less  reach  receiving  very  few  citations.  Support  for  implementing  international  labour 
standards  was  provided  through  surveys  and  partnerships.  However,  no  outputs  were  produced  for  the 
operational objective on guidance on implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights in this period.  
58EaSI strand monitoring report, forthcoming in second quarter of 2025 (https://op.europa.eu/en/). 
59KPI 2 refers to EaSI strand supported initiatives across various sectors, including the Public Employment 
Services Network, social economy stakeholders, and mutual learning programmes in employment,  social 
protection and inclusion, and working conditions. 
60KPI 3 refers to EaSI strand initiatives in testing and evaluating innovative solutions in employment, social 
affairs and inclusion fields. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
KPI 4 ‘Number of capacity-building and networking activities’61 has also overachieved its 
milestone. This level of execution per year should permit to reach the target at the end of 
the  programming  period  (75  activities).  The  EaSI  stakeholder  survey  results  indicate  a 
largely positive perception of these activities, with 76% of respondents agreeing that EaSI 
strand activities contributed to capacity building and networking.  

Table 8 - EaSI strand actual implementation compared with milestones for end-2024 

Indicator 

Target 
(2021 - 
2027) 

Actual 
implementation 
(2021 - 2024) 

Milestone 2024 
(point of 
comparison) 

% of the point 
of comparison 

KPI 1 - Number of analytical 
activities 

KPI 2 - Number of information-
sharing and mutual learning 
activities 
KPI 3 - Number of social 
experimentation/innovation 
activities 
KPI 4 - Number of capacity-
building and networking 
activities 
KPI 5 - Job placements targeted 
mobility schemes 

PPI 662 - Activities supporting 
microfinance and social 
eeentrepreneurship 
Source: DG EMPL 
eentreentrepreneurship 

199 

191 

14 

75 

110 

81 

9 

50 

114 

109 

8 

43 

14 500 

4 708 

8 286 

12 

5 

7 

97% 

74% 

113% 

116% 

57% 

71% 

KPI  5  ‘Job  placements  under  targeted  mobility  schemes’63  has  shown  steady  progress 
despite initial challenges. Job placement is indeed at about 57% of the milestone for 2024 
and at about 32% of the 2027 target. Due to the late approval of the ESF+ Regulation in 
June 2021, even if the first call for the Targeted Mobility Schemes (TMS) was launched 
in July 2021, the projects started in July 2022. However, the number of job placements is 
likely to increase in the coming years as the implementation of the strand progresses, as 
confirmed by the upward trend (the number of jobs created in 2024 increased by 127% 
compared to 2023). Additionally, the stakeholder survey indicates a positive perception of 
the  related  activities,  with  87%  of  respondents  reporting  that  support  services  have 
increased  employment  opportunities.  Despite  this  slow  start,  the  upward  trend  in  job 
placements  and  positive  stakeholder  feedback  suggest  that  KPI  5  is  making  progress 
towards its goal of enhancing voluntary geographical mobility of workers and expanding 
employment opportunities across the European labour market.  

61KPI 4 refers to EaSI strand activities focusing on supporting networks, capacity building initiatives, and 
transnational cooperation projects. 
62PPI - Primary Performance Indicator – see explanation in Annex VII. 
63KPI  5  refers  to  activities  implemented  the  under  EURES  Targeted  Mobility  Scheme  and  Cross-Border 
Partnerships. KPI 5 is an outcome and not an output: by definition, the results come later.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
PPI  6  ‘Activities  supporting  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship’64  has  shown  a 
steady increase in activities over the first three years, from one in 2021 to five in 2023. The 
PPI  6  has  no  activities  in  2024,  as  efforts  are  focused  on  a  social  innovation  call  for 
proposals  that  align  with  the  objectives  of  PPI  6,  i.e.  developing  impact  performance 
intelligence  services  for  social  impact  investing  market  actors.  Since  the  performance 
framework does not allow an activity to be counted under two different KPIs/PPIs, this 
activity, planned for execution in 2025, will be included under KPI 3 Social Innovation. 
This specificity should be considered when interpreting the absence of 2024 activities and 
its impact on the final targets. 

Overall, the EaSI strand is making substantial progress towards its objectives, with most 
KPIs on track or ahead, and only KPI 2 and KPI 5 requiring enhanced focus to ensure full 
target achievement by the end of the programming period. Stakeholder perceptions remain 
positive across all areas, further supporting the strand’s relevance and impact. The EaSI 
strand has also increased the efforts to promote social innovation (by launching calls for 
proposals) as well as its transferability and scaling up across Europe (notably through the 
new Social Innovation Plus Initiative). Although it is too early to fully assess the potential 
for transferring or scaling up projects implemented during the current programming period, 
as most projects are still ongoing, some projects with potential for future scaling-up and 
transferability were identified (see Table W, Annex VII)65.  

Moreover, the EaSI strand has addressed horizontal principles as outlined in Articles 28 
and  6  of  the  ESF+  regulation  (see  examples  of  EaSI  funded  activities  which  integrate 
horizontal  principles  in  Table  V,  Annex  VII).  EaSI  strand  survey  results  indicate  that 
stakeholders recognise these efforts, with 76% of respondents agreeing that EaSI activities 
contribute to gender equality, 72% to equal opportunities and non-discrimination, and 68% 
to  accessibility  for  persons  with  disabilities.  These  figures  are  comparable  to  the 
stakeholders’ perception for the previous EaSI programme. Concrete examples of EaSI's 
contribution include funding projects that promote women's entrepreneurship and labour 
market participation, supporting initiatives for the inclusion of people with disabilities in 
the  workplace,  and  backing  programmes  that  combat  discrimination  against  vulnerable 
groups.  

Effects of the changes in the ESF+ design 

General synergies between the shared management and EaSI strands 

The  rationale  behind  the  merger  of  the  ESF  (shared  management  mode)  and  EaSI 
programme  (direct/indirect  management  mode)  under  one  single  legal  basis66  was  to 
improve the coherence and create synergies between interventions previously implemented 
separately. The evaluation findings suggest that the effects of the merger of the ESF and 

64PPI  6  refers  to  supporting  social  enterprises  and  social  investment,  with  activities  including  the 
development of financial instruments, capacity building, and knowledge sharing. 
65These examples were identified based on the desk research conducted for the first EaSI strand performance 
(https://european-social-fund-
monitoring 
plus.ec.europa.eu/en/social-innovation-match),  alongside 
interviews  with  European  Commission 
Operational Units managing the current calls for proposals on social innovation. 
66Regulation (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. 

Innovation  Match  database 

report,  using 

the  Social 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
EaSI programme have not yet emerged. While this may partly be due to the slow start 
of activities under direct, indirect and shared management (for the programming period 
2021-2027, stakeholders consulted at both EU and national level provided mixed views in 
relation to the potential for synergies of the new ESF+ architecture. Overall, many of the 
stakeholders interviewed67 either fail to see concrete changes in the articulation of the two 
strands or think it is still too early to see the results of the merger. They remark that, at this 
stage, the two strands still remain very distinct in terms of stakeholders involved at the 
different  levels  (i.e.  Commission,  EaSI  strand  National  Contact  Points,  managing 
authorities), timing, governance mode and procedures (i.e. centralised for the EaSI strand 
and decentralised for the shared management strand), and also in terms of the nature of the 
actions  supported.  These  views  are  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  surveys  targeting 
respectively the ESF+ managing authorities and the EaSI strand stakeholders68.  

Limited  synergies  between  strands  were  reported  by  both  categories  of  stakeholders 
surveyed,  notably  in  terms  of  governance,  policy  planning  and  design,  implementation 
mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation. These results suggest that there are several 
areas  in  which  the  two  strands  continue  to  operate  separately.  However,  about  46%  of 
managing authorities surveyed that expressed an opinion (19 of 41 responses)69 indicate 
that  the  merger  had  a  positive  effect  on  collaboration  between  them  and  stakeholders 
involved  in  social  innovation  under  the  EaSI  strand.  Similarly,  about  57%  of  the 
respondents to the EaSI strand survey (42 of 74 responses70) consider that the new ESF+ 
architecture is better suited than the previous one (ESF and EaSI as separate programmes) 
to help stakeholders from different strands to collaborate.  

However, the available evidence does not allow to clearly link these results to the merger 
of the two funds under ESF+ as the results above refer mostly to measures taken to improve 
the communication and collaboration between stakeholders (e.g. National Contact Points, 
Communities  of  Practice,  National  Competence  Centres,  the  two  strands’  Technical 
Working Groups joint meetings) that could have been introduced without merging ESF 
and EaSI. Some participants in the two focus groups highlighted the particular added value 
of these activities bringing stakeholders from the two strands together. They also suggested 
that the stakeholders networking should become the sole focus of the EaSI strand, leaving 

67About 100 stakeholders: ESF+ beneficiaries (FI, LT, PL, PT, SI, SK), ESF+ Coordinating bodies (BG, FR, 
IT), ESF+ Intermediate Bodies (DE, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, PT), ESF+ MA (FR, IT, NL, PL), 
Members  of  the  ESF+  Committee  Employer  Rep  (CZ,  EL,  RO,  SE),  Members  of  the  ESF+  Committee 
Government Rep (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, PL, PT, RO, SE), Members of the ESF+ 
Committee Workers' Rep (LV, SE), ministries' (Units) working on ESF+ (CZ, EL, FI, LT, LV, NL, PL, SI, 
SK), Organisations representing participants (EL, IT, PL), Other (IT), Research / Academic institutions (HU, 
PL, SI, SK);  CoP (Transnational, Transnational), EaSI Beneficiary (direct) (ES, ES, FR, IT, PL, SE), EaSI 
Beneficiary (indirect) (MT, RO), NCP (BG, CZ, FR, IT, MT, SI), EC Representatives, EU-level beneficiaries 
(EaSI). 
68Two  targeted  surveys  were  conducted  during  the  study  supporting  the  ESF+  mid-term  evaluation:  one 
targeting ESF+ managing authorities and one targeting EaSI strand stakeholders. A total of 165 responses 
were received in total, 91 responses to the survey of ESF+ managing authorities and 74 to the survey of EaSI 
strand stakeholders.  
6950 respondents indicated not to be able to answer this question.  
70 26 respondents indicated not to be able to answer this question. 

31 

 
 
 
 
the testing  and implementation  of social innovation  to  Member States under the shared 
management strand.  

Stakeholders71 also noted that the merger encouraged more communication between the 
Commission coordination units, reinforcing the link between the two strands.  However, 
while generally appreciated by the stakeholders, the mechanisms for knowledge sharing 
are still not used to their full potential. About 70% of EaSI stakeholders that answered the 
survey  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  NCPs  in  their  countries  (18  of  23  responses),  and 
about 43% reported to have reached out to them (10 out of 23 responses). ESF+ managing 
authorities that replied to the survey, on the contrary, reported a much lower awareness of 
NCPs,  with  overall  only  44%  being  aware  of  the  NCP  in  their  country  (40  out  of  91 
responses)  and  14%  having  reached  out  (13  out  91  responses).  The  role  of  NCPs  in 
fostering synergies between the two strands was praised by some stakeholders, recognising 
that NCPs can help connect project promoters with the European Commission, enhance 
access  to  information  and  opportunities,  facilitate  networking  and  learning,  raise 
awareness  of  EaSI  activities  at  the  national  level,  and  serve  as  a  reference  point  for 
application support and partner searches. 

The evaluation findings suggest that, so far, the creation of a common legal basis did not 
lead  automatically  to  more  synergies  between  the  previously  separate  funds. 
Nevertheless,  more  communication  was  observed  between  the  two  strands’ 
stakeholders. These strengthened links have led to enhanced exposure of relevant actors 
(particularly those involved in the shared management strand, e.g. managing authorities) 
to good practices and projects implemented under the EaSI strand.  

The way in which Member States organise and allocate roles and responsibilities among 
the different players is also considered to affect the fund’s capacity for synergies. Several 
interviewees and managing authorities survey respondents72 mentioned that the diversity 
of  actors  involved  in  the  EaSI  strand  and  shared  management  strand,  as  well  as  the 
tendency to work in silos inherited from the previous programming period, are elements 
which limit the creation of synergies. For instance, the EaSI National Contact Points and 
the managing authorities are separate entities in most Member States73, hindering to some 
extent the effective dissemination of knowledge and good practices as well as opportunities 
to upscale social innovations. While this separation is the result of different roles, status, 
scale, duration in office and set-up of the two types of actors, there is scope for further 
reinforcing  their  collaboration in  terms  of substance. For example,  a  good practice  was 
reported by the Swedish National Contact Point that, differently from most Member States, 

71EC representatives, ESF+ Intermediate Bodies (HR), Ministries (HU), Members of the ESF+ Committee 
Government Rep (SE), Members of ESF+ monitoring committees (national level) (BE), National Contact 
Points (SE). 
72A number of 27 interviewees: ESF+ beneficiaries (LT, PL), ESF+ Coordinating bodies (BG, RO), ESF+ 
Intermediate Bodies (FR, PL, PT), ESF+ MA (EL, FR), Members of the ESF+ Committee Government Rep 
(CZ, DE, IE, PL, SE), Members of the ESF+ Committee Workers' Rep (AT), ministries' (Units) working on 
ESF+  (EL),  NCP  (CZ,  FR,  IT,  SI),  EaSI  beneficiary  (direct)  (ES,  IT),  Other  (PL),  Research/Academic 
institutions (PL), EC Representative. 
73Only three countries have their EaSI strand National Contact Point within a Managing Authority, LT, PT 
and SE. 

32 

 
 
 
 
sits within the country’s ESF+ Managing Authority which was felt to have led to strong 
synergies between the ESF+ strands74.  

As  synergies  between  the  shared  management  strand  and  the  EaSI  strand  are  expected 
mainly in the social innovation field, the next section analyses this issue in detail. 

Synergies related to social innovation 

A tangible effect  of the  obligation  under Article  14 to  dedicate a priority axis  to  social 
innovation is the almost doubling of the allocation for social innovation under the shared 
management strand. In the current programming period, a total of EUR 1.78 billion have 
been allocated to priorities dedicated to social innovation and social experimentation for 
2021-2027 (about 1.2% of the total shared management budget)75. This amount represents 
a substantial increase compared to the EUR 980 million76 allocated to social innovation 
priority axes under the ESF 2014-202077. Compared to the previous programming period, 
where only six Member States allocated funding to a social innovation priority axis (BE, 
CZ, DE, ES, HU, PL)78, under the current programming period, all Member States have 
programmed a specific priority to support social innovation79.  

Most countries programmed only one priority for social innovation, while BE, DE, ES, FR 
and IT have programmed between 2 and 8 priorities (Table K, Annex VI). However, there 
are significant differences in the amount allocated to the social innovation priority among 
Member  States,  ranging  for  instance  from  EUR  245  million  in  Germany  (followed  by 
France, Poland, Hungary, Spain and Italy) to EUR 0.4 million in Denmark. Four specific 
objectives account for nearly 82% of the total ESF+ social innovation priority allocation: 
SO.8  -  Active  inclusion  and  employability;  SO.11  -  Equal  access  to  quality  social  and 
healthcare  services;  S.12  -  Social  integration  of  people  at  risk;  and  S.1  -  Access  to 
employment and activation measures for all. 

The type of measures included under the social innovation priority can vary considerably 
between Member States programmes in terms of approach, activities, and target groups. 
Some measures are described broadly, aiming to develop an ecosystem favourable to social 

74The  Swedish  NCP  is  integrated  within  the  national  Managing  Authority  for  ESF+,  the  Swedish  ESF 
Council.  The  Council,  created  in  2000,  is  tasked  with  managing  ESF+  for  the  2021–2027  programming 
period but, as of 2022, it has also been serving as the EaSI National Contact Point. This dual role positions 
the Swedish NCP as a pivotal element in the synergies between the two strands of ESF+ in Sweden. 
75Analysis of Social Innovation dedicated Priorities within ESF+ Programmes (2021–2027). 
76ESF  performance  and  thematic  reports  -  The  ESF  support  to  social  innovation.  Available  at: 
https://siplus.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Brodolini-THE-ESF-SUPPORT-TO-SOCIAL-
INNOVATION.pdf. 
77It  should  be  noted  that  both  values  represent  an  underestimation  of  the  amount  actually  allocated  by 
Member  States  to  social  innovation.  The  values  are  calculated  based  on  whether  the  Member  States 
specifically dedicated a priority axis (for the period 2014-2020) or a priority (for the period 2021-2027) to 
social  innovation.  However,  it  is  possible  that  social  innovation  is  also  covered  by  other  priority 
axes/priorities but not captured by the data.  
78ESF  performance  and  thematic  reports  -  The  ESF  support  to  social  innovation.  Available  at: 
https://siplus.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Brodolini-THE-ESF-SUPPORT-TO-SOCIAL-
INNOVATION.pdf. 
79For LV, MT and SI no data on policy area distribution are available. Using data from Cohesion Data, if the 
filter ‘policy area’ is used, those three countries report no allocation for Social Innovation. In order to align 
all  countries,  for  LV,  MT  and  SI,  data  have  been  taken  from  ESFA  report  available  here: 
https://www.esf.lt/data/public/uploads/2024/03/annex-3-analysis-of-social-innovation-priorities.pdf. 

33 

 
 
 
 
innovation or to create partnerships between public authorities, the private sector and civil 
society.  Several  measures  are  also  intended  to  support  the  activities  of  the  National 
Competence Centres. Some Member States (Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Ireland, 
Netherlands, Italy and Spain) also include social experimentation activities under the SI 
dedicated priority.  

The  focus  groups  participants80  highlighted  that  the  higher  co-financing  rate  for  social 
innovation  in  the  shared  management  strand  allows  for  higher  flexibility  and  more 
opportunities  for  testing  new  approaches  that  would  be  otherwise  not  possible.  The 
analysis of the ESF+ programmes reveals that while they refer to social innovation (in line 
with Article 14), there is no direct reference to the EaSI strand projects and to their potential 
for upscaling81. This could signal that Member States have not yet  envisaged upscaling 
good practices experimented under the EaSI strand. An exception is the French National 
ESF+ Programme ‘Employment for Inclusion – Youth – Skills’82 that explicitly envisages 
the upscaling of social innovation projects tested under the EaSI strand of the ESF+.  

Interviewed policymakers from CY, EE, EL, ES, IE and SE think that the dedicated priority 
to social innovation could be effective in increasing the appetite for social innovation at 
the national level. At the same time, the majority of the ESF+ managing authorities which 
responded  to  the  study’s  dedicated  survey,  did  not  report  scaled-up  projects  developed 
under the EaSI strand or plans to do so (Figure 5 below).    

Figure 5 – Number of managing authorities intending to up-scale EaSI social innovation projects83 

Source: Survey of ESF+ managing authorities (Ecorys consortium, 2025) 

80Two focus groups were conducted during the study supporting the mid-term evaluation: one  with EaSI 
strand stakeholders and another with shared management strand stakeholders. 
81Based on the results of the national desk research and the analysis of a sample of national programmes. 
82See https://fse.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-10/ProgrammeFSE_A4.pdf . 
83Line  1  of  the  Figure  5  presents  the  MAs  intentions  to  introduce  changes  in  the  programming  and 
implementation of the shared management strand to up-scale EaSI strand projects (N=91). Line 2 of Figure 
5  presents  the  MAs  intentions  (including  those  already  materialised)  to  transfer  or  up-scale  EaSI  strand 
projects under the shared management strand within Member States (N=91). 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Synergies  on  social  innovation  on  the  national  level  might  be  limited  by  the 
programming  cycle  of  ESF+  programmes  under  shared  management.84  While 
Member  States  have  to  decide  on  which  priorities  to  focus  on  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming period, the first EaSI strand projects funded are likely to terminate in 2024. 
Thus, shared management stakeholders must wait for first results of EaSI strand projects 
(funded under the current  programming  period) to  understand which practices could  be 
scaled  up  in  the  context  of  the  set  national  priorities.  Nevertheless,  12  Member  States 
earmarked resources to transfer or scale up the results of the projects awarded under the 
ALMA call for proposals as part of the Social Innovation Plus Initiative85 (see more details 
on the ALMA types of activities in Box 1, Annex VII). According to the Member States 
representatives and European Commission officials interviewed, the short implementation 
timeframe  of  ALMA  (6  to  18  months),  its  prominence  in  the  European  Commission’s 
priorities,  and  the  decision  to  program  it  in  the  national  programmes  under  shared 
management prior to their approval were among the key factors facilitating its integration 
under the shared management. 

Transferability and scalability of EaSI social innovations to the shared management strand 
was  the  main  goal  of  the  merger  of  ESF  and  EaSI  with  the  creation  of  the  different 
mechanisms  supporting  the  collaboration  among  stakeholders.  As  shown  in  Figure  6 
below, almost 60% of EaSI stakeholders that answered the survey (43 of 74 responses) 
agreed that the integration of EaSI under ESF+ helped to strengthen the transferability and 
scalability of EaSI results. 

Figure 6 - EaSI stakeholders’ view on the effect of the merger on the transferability of EaSI results 
to the shared management strand 

Source: EaSI strand stakeholders survey (ESF+ mid-term evaluation supporting study, Ecorys, 2025) 

Under  direct  and  indirect  management,  the  EaSI  strand  has  launched  several  calls  for 
proposals  focusing  on  social  innovation  (see  Table  X,  Annex  VII).  Under  indirect 
management, the Social Innovation Plus Initiative also facilitates knowledge sharing and 

84ESF+ beneficiaries (AT, EE, HR, IE), ESF+ Intermediate bodies (PL), ESF+ Coordinating bodies (RO), 
Members of the ESF+ Committee Workers' Rep (BG, ES, PL), Members of the ESF+ Committee Employer 
Rep  (SE),  Members  of  the  ESF+  Committee  Government  Rep  (CY,  EL),  EU-level  interview  (European 
Commission representative), ministries' (units) working on ESF+ (IE). 
85ALMA is the first call for proposals launched by ESFA under the EaSI strand indirect management (see 
https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/how-to-make-alma-work). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mutual learning within five Communities of Practices (CoPs)86, two networks87 and one 
online  database  (Social  Innovation  Match  SIM)  88.  The  core  members  of  the  CoPs  and 
networks are the ESF+ managing authorities, NGOs, social partners and other interested 
stakeholders (see Figure 3 in Annex VII representing the Social Innovation Plus Initiative 
intervention logic).  

Under the shared management strand, there are positive signals confirming the potential 
for synergies in the area of social innovation. Besides an increased amount dedicated to 
priorities focusing on social innovation compared to the previous period, there is an overall 
good level of awareness and use of the EaSI strand activities (notably the Social Innovation 
Plus Initiative89) by the managing authorities. According to the results of the managing 
authorities’ survey, all these activities help them exchange knowledge, build partnerships 
and  competences,  networking  as  well  as  stay  up  to  date  and  align  their  work  with  EU 
priorities.  

However,  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  the  contribution  of  the  ESF+  new  incentives  and 
mechanisms  to  the  transfer  and  scaling-up  of  innovative  solutions  under  shared 
management due to its short implementation period. A negative unintended effect of the 
merger of the former ESF and EaSI, which emerged from the stakeholders’ consultation, 
consists in an increase of the perceived complexity of the overall ESF+ social innovation 
scheme (see also the section on efficiency).  

The  study  supporting  the  ESF+  mid-term  evaluation  identified  several  challenges  that 
appear  to  be  beyond  the  ESF+  influence.  Key  issues  revealed  include  Member  States’ 
hesitance to invest in social innovation operations due to competing national or political 
priorities  and  constrained  national  budgets,  difficulties  in  adapting  social  innovation 
projects within the regulatory framework of shared management, low levels of awareness 
and dispersed responsibilities regarding social innovation in public administrations.  

Interviews  with  the  operational  units  responsible  for  implementing  calls  for  proposals 
under the current EaSI strand and ESFA, highlight additional challenges for transfer/scale-
up projects (see detailed information in Box 2, Annex VII). Among these factors, the lack 
of  convincing  impact  evaluation  methods  (e.g.  counterfactual  impact  evaluation  or 
equivalently robust evaluation methods) hinders a rigorous analysis and interpretation of 
the social experimentation results as regards their up-scaling potential. All these factors 

86The  five  Communities  of  Practice  are  (1)  Social  Innovation;  (2)  Social  Inclusion;  (3)  Employment, 
education and skills; (4) Material deprivation; and (5) Migrant integration. 
87The two networks are ALMA network (https://www.socialinnovationplus.eu/network/alma/) and EURoma 
network (https://www.euromanet.eu/). 
88Social  Innovation  Match  (SIM):  https://socialinnovationplus.eu/social-innovation-match-sim/.  Social 
Innovation  Match  (SIM)  is  an  online  tool  to  network  of  innovative  initiatives  and  organisations  across 
Europe.  It  provides  examples  as  a  source  of  inspiration  (currently  more  than  240  case  studies  at 
local/regional/national and EU-level funded from public, private  and EU sources). Project promoters can 
contribute by uploading their initiative or organisation profile directly to the database, before their validation 
by a SIM validator.   
89As shown by the map of social innovation ecosystems enhanced through the implementation of the Social 
Innovation Plus Initiative (https://socialinnovationplus.eu/transnational-calls/). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
could potentially contribute to difficulty in transferring and scaling up innovative solutions 
under shared management. 

Once social innovations projects have been implemented and fully tested under the EaSI 
strand, it will be possible to assess concretely whether the mechanisms in place are indeed 
conducive  to  more  synergies,  leading  to  an  effective  scale-up  and  transfer  of  social 
innovations  to  shared-management  strand.  At  the  same  time,  the  social  innovation 
mechanisms  under  ESF+  could  already  benefit  from  some  improvements.  Notably, 
managing authorities from the shared management strand highlighted the need to prioritize 
practical applications compared to theoretical examples and to prioritise in demand-driven 
topics compared to broader approaches.  

For  demonstrating  the  merger’s  impact  on  the  ability  to  scale  up  under  the  shared 
management strand of the innovative solutions developed under the EaSI strand, a ratio 
between the number of up-scaled projects/number of social experimentations (based on the 
current KPI3) will be used in the future evaluations. 

Social inclusion and support to the most deprived 

In the area of social inclusion, the evaluation analyses the effects of the merger of ESF and 
FEAD and the thematic concentration requirements. 

Evidence from the study supporting  the evaluation shows that  the mainstream shared 
management strand Specific Objectives (a-k) and the Specific Objectives to support 
the social integration of the most deprived (l) and to combat material deprivation (m) 
complement each other better overall than the former ESF and FEAD but that the 
potential  for  complementarity  has  not  been  fully  maximised  and  the  effects  at  the 
level of participants are not evident yet.  

The results of the survey with  the ESF+  managing  authorities (Figure  7)  show that  the 
answer given most often was “I don’t know”. A small majority of the respondents who 
expressed their opinion thought that the merger of ESF and FEAD had (moderate or strong) 
positive effects while almost half of them did not see any effects of the merger. This might 
suggest that it is too early for those effects to emerge (the question on implementation) but 
also that no particular changes were made by the concerned Member States at the level of 
programming following the merger.  

37 

 
 
 
Figure 7 - Effects of the merger of ESF and FEAD (N=91) 

What effect did the merger of ESF and FEAD have on the following: 

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

36

40

38

42

42

19

20

8

1

7

23

20

5

1

2

28

19

6

0

0

26

18

5

0

0

24

22

2

0

1

The programming
phase

The implementation
phase

The visibility of the EU
support in addressing
food and material
deprivation

Complementarity of
the objectives
promoting social
inclusion with those
aiming to alleviate
food and material
deprivation

Complementarity of
ESF+  mainstream
objectives (SOa-SOk)
and those to support
the social integration
of the most deprived,
compared to the
previously separated
programmes (ESF and
FEAD)

Strong positive effect

Moderate positive effect

No effect

Moderate negative effect

Strong negative effect

Do not know / not applicable

Source:  Survey  of  the  ESF+  managing  authorities  (ESF+  mid-term  evaluation  supporting  study;  Ecorys, 
2025) 

As Table 9 below shows, the majority of Member States (19) dedicated a priority to the 
most  deprived  (SO(l)  or  SO(m))  within  national/regional  programmes  implementing 
mainstream shared management SOs of the ESF+. France has dedicated both a specific 
national  programme  and  a  priority  of  another  national  programme  to  SO(m),  while 
Portugal has dedicated one priority to SO(m) within three different regional programmes. 

Table 9 – Approach to programming of support to the most deprived under SO(l) and SO(m) 

Approach to programming of support to most 
deprived 

Country 

National Programme dedicated to most deprived  

AT, BE, BG, ES, FR, LT, LV, PL, SI 

National Programme with a specific priority on the 
most deprived 

CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, 
IT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, SK 

Regional Programme with a specific priority on the 
most deprived 

PT 

Source: analysis of programming documents ESF+2021-2027 (ESF+ mid-term evaluation supporting study; 
Ecorys, 2025) 

Lack of programming  for the most deprived at  the regional level was one of the issues 
raised in the consultations. In response to the call for evidence for the evaluation, a Spanish 

38 

 
 
 
 
NGO representing Roma highlighted that there was a missed opportunity to increase the 
use  in  ‘regional  programmes  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  ESF+  to  address  the 
situation of groups/people in situations of greater exclusion and vulnerability, such as the 
Roma’90. This was similarly echoed by a regional authority in Sweden that stated that the 
participation of local and regional authorities has been limited to date in the ESF+, with 
this having a negative effect on the achievement of regional goals to reduce the number of 
people at risk of poverty or social exclusion91. 

Management  of  the  different  types  of  operations  by  one  managing  authority  was 
found  to  increase  the  potential  for  synergies  between  the  mainstream  shared 
management strand specific objectives (a-k) and those to help the social integration 
of the most deprived (l) and to combat material deprivation (m). In Malta, ministry 
representatives highlighted that the collaboration and synergy between ESF and FEAD-
type support have been strengthened as ‘FEAD is not treated as a standalone initiative but 
is  considered  complementary  to  the  broader  strategies  implemented  by  the  ministry, 
especially  in  areas  concerning  children  and  social  initiatives’.  In  Greece,  FEAD-type 
support has been programmed as a specific priority in the Human Resources and Social 
Cohesion programme. Ministry representatives responsible for the ESF+ in Greece held 
the view that, at least at programming stage, this integration has led to improved synergies 
between the two types of support, through allowing, for example, target groups of SO(m) 
to be better linked to actions related to the Youth Guarantee under other SOs. A greater 
potential  for  complementarity  was  also  reported  by  stakeholders  in  Italy,  with  the 
integration  of  SO(m)  within  the  new  ESF+  programme  expected  to  help  overcome 
problems  encountered in  the previous period related to  a lack of strategic planning and 
administrative difficulties with the transition of participants from one authority to another 
and to  allow a better focus of support and increased complementarity with  other active 
labour market measures. 

Little impact is seen in terms of increased complementarities between the mainstream 
shared  management  strand  specific  objectives  (a-k)  and  those  to  help  the  social 
integration of the most deprived (l) and to combat material deprivation (m) in the 
nine  Member  States  that  have  programmed  SO(m)  as  a  separate  national 
programme. In Belgium for example, the choice to programme SO(m) separately is seen 
by  national  stakeholders  interviewed  (members  of  the  ESF+  committee  as  well  as 
representatives  of  the  Wallonia  and  Flanders  ESF+  MAs)  as  one  that  replicates  the 
previous FEAD programme - the merger of the FEAD into ESF+ is thus seen as having a 
‘strictly budgetary’ influence. Similar views were also shared by ministry representatives 
from  Lithuania  and  Latvia  where  SO(m)  is  a  separate  standalone  programme92.  They 
reported that ‘synergies are not visible’ between SO(m) support and other ESF+ measures. 
Belgian stakeholders (ESF+ managing authority, former FEAD managing authority, and 

90Feedback from: Fundación Secretariado Gitano (FSG) (europa.eu) 
91Feedback from: City of Gothenburg (europa.eu)  
92In Lithuania, the Programme for addressing material deprivation (2021LT05SFPR001),  see: Programa | 
Materialinio  nepritekliaus  mažinimo  programa;  in  Latvia,  Eiropas  Sociālā  fonda  Plus  programmas 
materiālās nenodrošinātības mazināšanai 2021.–2027. gada plānošanas perioda vadības likums [Law on 
the  management  of  the  ESF+  Programme  for  Addressing  Material  Deprivation  2021-2027],  see: 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/332212-eiropas-sociala-fonda-plus-programmas-materialas-nenodrosinatibas-
mazinasanai-20212027-gada-planosanas-perioda-vadibas-likums.  

39 

 
 
 
 
members of the ESF+ Committees (trade union representatives and regional government)) 
also reported that the merger has in fact had a detrimental impact on support to the most 
deprived, as the programming is no longer focused and tailored to material deprivation, 
losing a tailored performance and auditing framework as well as the potential for mutual 
learning  on  implementation  issues  specifically  to  material  deprivation.  This  latter  point 
also  emerged  in  focus  group  discussions  with  managing  authorities  and  partner 
organisations  of  the  former  FEAD,  who  highlighted  the  noticeable  absence  since  the 
merger, of a forum for mutual learning specifically dedicated to food and basic material 
assistance and supporting the most deprived (as had been the case with the FEAD Network 
and FEAD Community in the 2014-2020 programming period)93. 

One of the arguments presented in the ESF+ impact assessment for the merging of FEAD 
into the ESF+ is that that FEAD did not allow the delivery of social inclusion measures 
(OP II) alongside food and basic material assistance (OP I): ‘Member States implementing 
only social inclusion activities under FEAD see a need to also deliver material aid in order 
to alleviate immediate needs of the end recipients. This is not however possible under the 
current OP differentiation’94. Analysis of the financial allocations to SO(l) and SO(m) (see 
Table L, Annex VI) shows that no Member State has programmed support under SO(m) 
as well as support to the most deprived specifically under SO(l)95. Member States have 
largely chosen to dedicate financial resources to the most deprived in the same way as the 
former FEAD. This is seen for example in the fact that three (of the four) Member States 
(DE,  DK,  SE)  that  implemented  OP  II  under  the  former  FEAD  have  not  programmed 
SO(m),  focusing  some  of  their  resources  under  SO(l)  to  the  most  deprived.  The 
Netherlands is the one country from the former FEAD OP II-implementing countries that 
changed its approach to supporting the most deprived, as it introduced measures focusing 
on food support under ESF+ SO(m).  

The financial resources specifically dedicated to supporting the most deprived under the 
ESF+ have increased in comparison to resources under the former FEAD. This can be seen 
when  comparing  the  total  financial  allocation  to  SO(m)  (exclusively  targeting  the  most 
deprived)  plus  the  resources  addressing  the  most  deprived  under  SO(l)96  to  the  total 
allocations to former FEAD programmes, including additional REACT-EU. As outlined 
in  Table L, Annex VI, through ESF+, EUR 5 billion are allocated to SO(m) and to the 
social integration of the most deprived specifically under SO(l). This is 11.26% higher than 
the  amount  allocated  to  FEAD  and  REACT-EU  (EUR  4.5  billion)  under  the  previous 

for 

the 

ESF+: 

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

93Ecorys, Study supporting the mid-term evaluation of the ESF+ during the programming period 2021-2027, 
2025. 
94Impact 
assessment 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0289 
95This is based on data from the Cohesion database whereby the filter ‘priority type description’ was used to 
identify allocations under SO(l) that have been specifically identified by Member States as ‘supporting the 
most deprived’. 
96Regarding SO (l) in the 2021-2027 programming period, only resources addressing the most deprived are 
considered. To capture the amount directly addressed to most deprived, we used “Priority Type Description” 
variable as a filter. As set by the Article 2(1)(6) of the ESF+ regulation: “Most deprived persons” means 
natural  persons,  whether  individuals,  families,  household  or  groups  of  persons,  including  children  in 
vulnerable situations and homeless people, whose need for assistance has been established according to the 
objective  criteria  which  are  set  by  the  national  competent  authorities  in  consultation  with  relevant 
stakeholders avoiding conflicts of interest, and which may include elements that allow for targeting of the 
most deprived persons in certain geographical areas”. 

40 

 
 
 
 
programming period. Considering FEAD exclusively (EUR 3.8 billion), resources in the 
current  programming  period  increased  by  31.3%.  Eighteen  countries  have  a  higher 
allocation  to  the  most  deprived  under  these  two  objectives  than  they  had  through  their 
former FEAD programmes97.  

Stakeholders in some of these countries (e.g. ministry representatives in CY and EL) held 
the view that this increase of resources to FEAD-type support under ESF+ had a positive 
impact of the merger of FEAD type support into the ESF+. However, stakeholders from 
some  of  the  nine  countries98  where  allocations  did  reduce  in  comparison  to  FEAD 
considered  that  this  reduction  was  in  part  brought  on  by  the  merger.  In  Latvia,  where 
resources for the most deprived reduced by 33.5%, a ministry representative held the view 
that this reduction was due to the merger of FEAD into ESF+ as they now have to compete 
with other areas of support, to justify the needs of the most deprived at national level. In 
Luxembourg,  where  resources  dedicated  to  the  most  deprived  under  SO(l)  and  (m) 
decreased by 73.8% compared to the former FEAD and REACT-EU, managing authority 
representatives also raised the challenge of ‘competing’ for different policy priorities.  

Overall, the differences in allocations are much lower in real terms (Table M, Annex VI). 
After adjusting the values to constant prices to account for inflation99 in the 19 countries 
which  increased  their  allocation  both  in  nominal  and  real  terms,  at  the  same  time  the 
allocation per capita was far higher than in the past (Table N, Annex VI), suggesting that 
these countries might have aimed at intensifying the support for the most deprived people.  

Thematic concentrations were identified as an important factor ensuring funding is 
allocated  for  support  to  vulnerable  groups.  A  trade  union  member  of  the  ESF+ 
monitoring committee in Spain, for example, stated that ‘without setting a minimum level 
of funding for the most disadvantaged groups, funding could be dispersed, for example, 
according to territorial priorities’. Similarly, in Bulgaria, employer representatives on the 
ESF+ monitoring committee mentioned the relevance of the increased focus on poverty 
and  social  exclusion  in  the  ESF+  intervention  logic.  The  thematic  concentration 
requirement  on  social  integration  and  support  to  the  most  deprived  was  highlighted  as 
particularly relevant.  

The thematic concentration on the most deprived is thus particularly important in 
ensuring  that  Member  States  continue  to  prioritise  funding  and  actions  for  this 
group, that may not so easily fall into typical  ESF active labour market  measures. The 
share  of  total  allocation  dedicated  to  material  deprivation  (5,3%)  is  higher  than  the 
minimum requirement of 3%. However, as many as eight MS (CZ, DE, DK, EE, HU, PT, 
SE, SK) decided to stick to the required minimum (see Table O, Annex VI). For social 
inclusion all Member States exceeded the minimum requirement to allocate 25% of their 
ESF shared management resources which resulted in overall share of allocation for this 
policy area at 31.5% (or EUR 29.9 billion, which is an increase comparing to 24.9 billion 

97BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, EL, HR, HU, IE, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE. 
98AT, BE, DK, ES, IT, LU, LV, SI, SK. 
99The values have been adjusted through the annual average of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices 
(base year 2015) provided by Eurostat, by considering the real prices in 2014 for FEAD, in 2020 for REACT-
EU 
ESF+ 
2021 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/prc_hicp_aind/default/table?lang=en&category=prc.prc_hi
cp). 

and 

for 

41 

 
 
 
 
in the 2014-20 programming period). In two Member States (SE and IE) the allocations 
for social inclusion surpassed 50% of their total ESF allocations.  

Few examples of the effect of the merger of the former FEAD with the ESF on the end 
recipients were identified to date. The majority of interviewees stated that implementation 
is not enough advanced to identify such synergies. However, almost half (25 out of 51 or 
49%) of the managing authorities who replied to the question on implementation in the 
survey  thought  that  the  effects  were  positive.  As  an  example,  a  ministry  representative 
from Malta highlighted that the transformation of FEAD into an operation funded through 
the  ESF+  programme  has  provided  the  ministry  with  increased  flexibility  in  terms  of 
design and has allowed for an expansion towards reaching a wider cohort of most deprived 
persons. The anticipated outcome is that the ultimate recipients of the operation will be 
seven times as many as those who benefited from the FEAD programme during the 2014-
2020 programming period.  

Creating  synergies  for  participants  between  the  mainstream  shared  management 
strand Specific Objectives (a-k) and those to support the most deprived (l-m) requires 
concerted  efforts.  Little  evidence  was  found  of  such  efforts  yet,  with  only  one  clear 
example from Estonia. In Estonia, a ministry representative highlighted that, along with 
food aid, other welfare services are offered to recipients, which is in practice supported by 
comparing  the  personal  codes  of  food  aid  recipients  with  the  personal  codes  of  ESF+ 
mainstream  shared  management  support  recipients.  Managing  authority  representatives 
from  Estonia  confirmed  that  this  has  resulted  in  40%  of  food  aid  recipients  receiving 
services from another ESF+ project. 

Support to employment of young people 

In the area of support to employment of young people the evaluation analyses the effects 
of the merger of ESF and YEI and the thematic concentration requirement. Support 
to  youth  employment  has  been  integrated  in  ESF+  under  SO(a)  ‘improving  access  to 
employment  and  activation  measures  for  all  jobseekers,  in  particular  young  people, 
especially through the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, for long-term unemployed 
and disadvantaged groups on the labour market, and for inactive people, as well as through 
the promotion of self-employment and the social economy’. The targeted funding (YEI 
provided support to young people living in regions where youth unemployment was higher 
than 25%) was replaced by the requirement set in Article 7 of ESF+ regulation, obliging 
Member States with a rate of young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or 
training (NEET) above the EU average for the years 2017-2019 to devote at least 12.5% 
of their ESF+ resources to youth.  

The thematic concentration  requirement for youth resulted in the same amount of 
financial resources, programmed for the areas where the problem of NEET was the 
most critical, under the ESF+ shared management strand as under YEI (almost EUR 
9  billion)100.  Regions  in  20  Member  States  were  eligible  for  YEI  funding  whereas  10 
Member States are obliged to fulfil the thematic concentration for young. With the 12 other 

100‘Cohesion 2021-2027: forging an ever stronger Union’ - Report on the outcome of 2021-2027 cohesion 
policy  programming  (SWD(2023)  134  final):  Inforegio  -  Report  on  the  outcome  of  2021-2027  cohesion 
policy programming 

42 

 
 
 
 
Member States investing in ‘youth employment and socio-economic integration of young 
people’ the total amount is almost EUR 11 billion. 

Consultations  at  EU  and  national  level  showed  generally  positive  feedback  on  the 
integration  of  the  former  YEI  under  the  ESF+.  According  to  20  of  the  interviewed 
national-level stakeholders representing national ministries, ESF+ monitoring committees, 
ESF+  managing  authorities,  ESF+  monitoring  committees  from  several  Member  States 
(e.g. BE, BG, ES, EL, HR, IE, LT, PL, RO), as well as 15 of the open responses to the MA 
survey,  clear  advantages  of  the  merger  included  more  streamlined  and  simplified 
management  processes,  greater  flexibility  in  transferring  funds  depending  on 
changing needs, and a more streamlined approach to implementation. These positive 
effects correlate with the reduced number of programmes and programmes’ priorities (as 
YEI  was  integrated  into  the  specific  objective  a)  on  access  to  employment)  as  well  as 
reduced number of indicators that need to be monitored and reported101 (see also analysis 
of efficiency). 

The  positive  impacts  of  the  merger  were  often  linked  to  strong  complementarities 
between ESF and the YEI in the previous programming period (2014-2020). These 
links  were  noted  both  in  terms  of  target  groups  (young  people  not  in  employment, 
education or training) and areas of action (employment support). In Spain, for  example, 
interviewed stakeholders from the ESF+ monitoring committee mentioned that, even in 
the  previous  programming  period,  both  ESF  and  the  YEI  were  managed  by  the  same 
managing authority, with the merger representing an opportunity for further simplification.  

Furthermore, interviewed stakeholders from the ESF+ managing authorities in Ireland and 
Greece  perceived  the  merger  as  an  opportunity  to  harmonise  approaches  to  youth 
employment  support,  both  within  individual  countries  and  across  Member  States.  The 
overall positive impact of the YEI-ESF merger was also highlighted in the MAs survey 
outcomes (Figure 8), as majority of those who responded noted that the merger had a strong 
or moderately positive effect on the programming (74%, or 47 out of the 63 who replied 
to this question) and implementation of the ESF+ (67%, or 39 out of the 58 who replied to 
this question), as well as on complementarity with the rollout of the Youth Guarantee (68% 
or 41 out of 60 who replied to this question).  

It is worth identifying as a potential unintended effect that, while a minority, five national-
level consultees from ESF+ MAs, as well as survey respondents, noted that the lack of a 
separate funding stream with no co-financing rules for Member States is likely to result in 
less  visibility  and  less  funding  made  available  for  the  implementation  of  the  Youth 
Guarantee, which may affect support in countries with high levels of youth unemployment 
(e.g. Spain). 

101Annex II of ESF Regulation included 12 YEI result indicators which had to be monitored and reported in 
addition to the indicators applicable to ESF operations. 

43 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 - Effects of the merger between ESF and the YEI 

What effect did the merger of ESF and YEI have on the programming and implementation phases of 
ESF+, and on its complementarity with the Youth Guarantee? (N=91) 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

31

28

16

13

21

18

17

33

31

27

17

14

3

0

1

1

2

0

The programming phase

The implementation phase Complementary between ESF+
Specific Objectives and those
related to the implementation of
the Youth Guarantee (Sok)

Strong positive effect

Moderate positive effect

No effect

Moderate negative effect

Strong negative effect

Do not know / not applicable

Source: Survey of ESF+ managing authorities (ESF+ mid-term evaluation supporting study, Ecorys, 2025) 

Enabling conditions 

Enabling conditions102 intend to ensure that the necessary conditions for the effective 
and efficient use of the Funds are in place. These conditions are, for instance, policy 
frameworks that support the ESF+ investments, ensuring that they are of high quality and 
in line with standards commonly agreed by Member States at EU level. There are thematic 
(applicable  to  a  specific  objective)  and  horizontal  (applicable  to  all  specific  objectives) 
enabling  conditions.  To  guarantee  that  the  policy  conditions  for  the  investments’ 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  are  in  place,  no  expenditure  is  reimbursed  from  the  Union 
budget until the Commission assesses that enabling condition relevant to the spending’s 
specific  objective  as  fulfilled.  In  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  the  enabling 
conditions were streamlined and their number reduced as compared to the previous period 
(called ‘ex-ante conditionalities’ in the 2014-2020 programming period). At the same time, 
their fulfilment is monitored and checked throughout the whole programming period and 
not only at the beginning.  

Survey and interview evidence from the supporting study suggests that the enabling 
conditions have been effective in achieving their objective: ensuring the prerequisites 
necessary for effective and efficient use of Unions funds. In some countries (e.g. EL, FI, 
HR, HU, LT, PL, RO), not all enabling conditions were fulfilled at the time of programme 
decisions  and  were  fulfilled  at  a  later  stage.  Consequently,  the  enabling  conditions 
contributed to real changes as these countries established the necessary general or sectorial 
frameworks.  Results from the survey of managing authorities indicate that a significant 
proportion of respondents (45, or 49% of respondents) agree with the statement that both 
(thematic and horizontal) enabling conditions led to national regulatory frameworks that 
are more conducive to effective investments in line with EU policies. Only 12 respondents 

102Article 15, CPR Regulation. See also Annex VII and footnote 33 of this document. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(13%)  disagreed  with  this  statement.  There  is  also  evidence  from  the  national-level 
documents  in  some  countries  that  enabling  conditions  have  likely  led  to  structural 
investments  further  to  the  implementation  of  the  measures  of  the  related  strategic 
documents (e.g. BG, DK, EE, ES, HU, MT, PT, RO, SE). This is also supported by the 
outcomes  of  the  survey  of  the  managing  authorities  where  32%  agreed  (and  20% 
disagreed) with the statement that ‘Enabling conditions (both horizontal and thematic) are 
leading to structural investments’. Interview evidence further shows that, in the majority 
of  Member  States,  enabling  conditions  were  regarded  as  an  important  factor  shaping 
national  regulatory and  policy frameworks, fostering an environment  conducive to  EU-
aligned investments (e.g. BE, BG, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO). The enabling 
conditions also guided the implementation arrangements and project selection (e.g. BE, 
BG, CY, DK, ES, IT, LT) and helped raising awareness. The vast majority of interviewees 
supported regular monitoring of the fulfilment of enabling conditions. In response to Call 
for Evidence, the European Disability Forum also expressed support for the inclusion of 
the enabling conditions within the CPR.  

Horizontal enabling conditions were effective in ensuring that minimum standards in 
programme implementation are in place. The majority of respondents (52% or 48 out 
of 91) from the survey of the managing authorities agree with the statement that horizontal 
enabling conditions help foster the effective and efficient use of ESF+, while only 19% 
(17  out  of  91)  disagree.  According  to  stakeholder  interviews,  these  conditions  are 
recognized as relevant in preventing irregularities in the implementation of the Fund. The 
horizontal enabling conditions have also acted as catalysts for reforms. For example, the 
horizontal  enabling  conditions  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights have encouraged some Member States to implement reforms in the 
area of judicial independence and discouraged policy action that ran counter to the EU’s 
acquis.  In some Member States (BG, PT, RO) enabling conditions triggered changes in 
public  procurement  legislation.  Many  stakeholders  (from  CZ,  ES,  EL,  PT,  MT)  also 
mentioned  the  focus  of  enabling  conditions  on  ensuring  compliance  with  the  UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the effect this has on ensuring 
that projects conform to international standards on accessibility and inclusion. However, 
in about half of the Member States, there is a view that horizontal enabling conditions have 
not  significantly  contributed  to  avoiding  the  irregularities,  as  relevant  measures  were 
already in place.  

Thematic enabling conditions were effective in having an impact on the formulation 
of  public  policies  that  are  conducive  to  Union  support.  The  survey  of  managing 
authorities  shows  that  the  same  percentage  of  respondents  as  for  horizontal  enabling 
conditions (52% or 48 out of 91) agree with the statement that thematic enabling conditions 
help foster the effective and efficient use of ESF+, with 19% (17 out of 91) disagreeing. In 
some Member States (e,g., DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, LT, LV, SE, SK) the thematic enabling 
conditions  did  not  lead  to  substantive  changes  because  the  relevant  policy  frameworks 
were  already  in  place  before  programming.  Interviewees  who  agreed  that  the  thematic 
conditions  were  effective  highlighted  that  these  conditions  have  prompted  changes  in 
national legislation and policies to bring them in line with EU priorities. For example, in 
Malta, enabling conditions have led to the development of new implementation approaches 
to better address policy objectives. This includes the design of an occupational forecasting 
tool  that  was  implemented  in  the  drafting  of  the  Employment  Policy  2021-2030  and 

45 

 
 
 
preparation of the Gender Equality and Mainstreaming Strategy and Action Plan for the 
period 2022-2027. Other examples include the development of new strategic framework 
for education in  Bulgaria, the development and quicker adoption of a strategic plan for 
social  inclusion  of  people  with  a  disability  in  Belgium  and  Ireland,  and  collaboration 
between ministries to develop a joint action plan for long term care in Greece. However, 
in  

Efficiency 

Shared management 

The ESF+ implementation under shared management is not sufficiently advanced to 
compare  the  costs  and  benefits  of  operations.  This  section  will  thus  analyse  the 
administrative costs of the management of the ESF+, and the cost reduction potential of 
the simplification measures introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period. Whenever 
possible, the impact assessment is used as point of comparison.  

Estimates suggest that growth of administrative costs at the beginning of the period 
outpaced  the  overall  growth  of  spending,  but  the  ratio  is  expected  to  decrease  as 
implementation  progresses.  A  survey103  asked  the  programme  authorities  to  estimate 
administrative costs for the entire period by fund and by task, starting from the preparation 
phase  in  2020  until  after  2029.  The  survey  also  inquired  about  the  evolution  of 
administrative costs over time. Responses were received from 39 ESF+ programmes and 
72 multi-fund programmes, of which 57 also included ESF+. The results for the remaining 
programmes were imputed104. By the end of 2024, the total estimated administrative costs 
for programme authorities constitute EUR 471 million105 for the ESF+ programmes. For 
the same period, the respective costs for multi-fund programmes reached EUR 1.75 billion, 
with the ESF+ share assessed at EUR 312 million106. Thus, the total administrative costs 
for programme authorities managing the ESF+ are estimated at EUR 782 million by the 
end of 2024. For the entire programming period, based on the same methodology, the total 
amount of administrative costs is estimated to be EUR 2.9 billion. 

As a proportion, the estimated administrative costs by the end of 2024 accounted for 27% 
of the total estimated costs for the entire programming period. As a comparison, the eligible 
expenditure declared by beneficiaries amounted to 7.6% of the allocations. This pattern of 
administrative costs outpacing spending in the beginning of the period is consistent with 

103 Ramboll,  Assessment of the administrative  costs and administrative  burden in the management of the 
common provisions regulation funds 2021-2027, forthcoming. In this study the respondents were asked to 
reply about the administrative costs for the entire period (until 2029) and about the distribution of these costs. 
Thus, the estimates of the averages partly refer to the costs already incurred and partly anticipated costs. 
104 Missing data was imputed using k-nearest neighbourhood method. For more details see Annex II and the 
study. 
105The cost estimates are based on internal DG REGIO estimates based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, 
‘Assessment  of  the  administrative  costs  and  administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common 
provisions regulation funds 2021-2027’ (see Annex II on methodology) 
106 Assuming that the share of the administrative costs for the ESF+ in the  multi-fund programmes equals 
the  share  of  ESF+  allocations  (18%)  in  the  multi-fund  programmes.  Total  allocations  (EU  and  national 
financing) amount to EUR 297 bn for the multi-fund programmes out of which ESF+ allocations is EUR 53 
bn. Total allocations for the ESF+ programmes are EUR 89 bn. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
the  previous  period,  when  by  2016,  administrative  costs  amounted  to  22%  of  the  total 
administrative costs of the period, while spending across all ESIF funds was only 5%107. 
This  is  because  many  types  of  administrative  costs  are  frontloaded.  Tasks108  such  as 
drafting  Partnership  Agreements,  preparing  programmes,  setting  up  management  and 
control  systems,  designating  authorities  and  ensuring  ex-ante  conditionalities  are  more 
concentrated at the beginning of the period when implementation is low.  Although certain 
types  of  costs  (such  as  financial  management,  controls,  audits,  monitoring,  selection  of 
operations) become more significant at a later stage, overall spending increases at a faster 
rate.  Estimates109  suggest  that,  in  relative  terms  (costs  per  million  euro  spent), 
administrative costs are expected to decrease as implementation progresses. 

Estimates  suggest  that  the  overall  administrative  costs  of  managing  the  ESF+  are 
expected to remain low for programme authorities. The survey data indicate that by the 
end of the period (2020  until  after 2029)110 the weighted  average of  administrative  cost 
over the total budget (sum of all administrative costs divided by the total funds’ budget) 
for programme authorities will be EUR 19,652 per million spent (unweighted programme 
average:  EUR  35,640).  The  corresponding  figure  for  multi-fund  programmes  is  EUR 
21,754  per  million  spent  (unweighted  programme  average:  EUR  29,982).  The  budget 
weighted average is significantly lower than the unweighted average, and this implies that 
programmes with smaller budgets have disproportionately higher administrative costs. The 
median  programme  costs  (at  EUR  18,625  for  ESF+  programmes  and  EUR  27,309  for 
multi-fund programmes) are lower than unweighted averages, suggesting that there are few 
outliers (programmes with significantly higher costs) which influence the average values.  

Thus,  the  administrative  costs  for  the  programme  authorities  fall  in  the  range  of  EUR 
18,625 to EUR 35,640 per million spent corresponding to 1.9-3.6% of total spending. The 
administrative costs for the programme authorities are below 4% of total spending, which 
is generally not regarded as excessive111. Based on the results of a survey of programme 
authorities of 483 programmes (all CPR funds, not only ESF), the highest category of costs 
for  the  whole  period  is  related  to  ‘operations’  (median  cost  of  EUR  6,594  per  million 
spent), which includes the selection of operations, information provided to beneficiaries, 
management  verifications,  and  on-the-spot  verifications.  General  management,  with  a 
median cost of EUR 3,131 per million spent, is the second-highest category. This covers 
expenses  related  to  setting  up  systems  for  data  collection  and  storage,  establishing 
electronic  information  exchange,  running  monitoring  committees,  communication  and 

107 The estimates are based on the raw data of the study: European Commission: Directorate-General for 
Regional and Urban Policy, Spatial Foresight and t33, New assessment of ESIF administrative costs and 
burden – Final report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/36663 
108 European Commission: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, Spatial Foresight and t33, 
New  assessment  of  ESIF  administrative  costs  and  burden  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office,  2018, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/36663 , see Annex III on the evolution of types of costs over time. 
109 Based on the raw  data  of the forthcoming study  Ramboll,  Assessment of  the administrative costs and 
administrative burden in the management of the common provisions regulation funds 2021-2027 
110Ramboll,  Assessment  of  the  administrative  costs  and  administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the 
common provisions regulation funds 2021-2027, forthcoming. Estimates of the breakdown of costs by fund 
and task area were available only for the entire period (and not by end 2024) 
111European  Commission:  Directorate-General for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  Spatial  Foresight  and  t33, 
New  assessment  of  ESIF  administrative  costs  and  burden  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office,  2018, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/36663  Abstract, page 8. 

47 

 
 
 
 
information  activities, ensuring respect  for fundamental  rights  and gender equality,  and 
preparing management declarations.  Other categories of tasks have median costs below 
3,000 EUR per million spent. These include financial management (median cost of EUR 
2,188  per  million  spent),  audit  (EUR  1,968),  and  monitoring,  reporting,  and  evaluation 
(EUR 1,957). 

Administrative  costs  are  incurred  not  only  by  the  programme  authorities,  but  also  by 
beneficiaries.  As  part  of  the  study,112  a  survey  was  conducted  with  197  CPR  funds 
beneficiaries and 4 final recipients of financial instruments from 72 different programmes. 
However,  due  to  survey  limitations  –  such  as  significant  differences  in  response  rates 
across  funds  and  Member  States  –  for  the  sake  of  this  evaluation  the  results  will  be 
presented only in qualitative terms. The administrative costs for beneficiaries are related 
to application process, project management, reporting and monitoring, and management 
and verifications. Among these categories, project management tends to be the most time- 
and labour- intensive task, also requiring the highest outsourcing costs. Overall, the ESF+ 
beneficiaries tend to have slightly higher administrative costs than beneficiaries of multi-
fund or ERDF programmes but lower administrative costs than beneficiaries of other CPR 
funds.  

Estimations suggest that administrative costs have reduced compared to the previous 
period, but the results should be treated with caution. The 2025 study113 compared the 
new  administrative  costs  for  programme  authorities  with  those  presented  in  the  2018 
study114. The budget weighted average costs per million spent in ESF+ programmes have 
decreased  from  EUR  27,600  to  EUR  19,652  per  million  spent  -  a  29%  reduction.115. 
Similarly,  the  project  application  costs  and  project  management  costs  for  beneficiaries 
have decreased. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution since the two 
periods are not directly comparable (see Annex II).  

Simplification  measures  introduced  in  the  2021-2027  programming  period  likely 
have contributed to the reduction of administrative costs. In the 2021-2027 period, 80 
simplification  measures116  in  Cohesion  Policy  were  adopted  to  increase  efficiency  and 
reduce  administrative  burden.  These  measures  include  the  simplification  of  the  legal 
framework, a  faster and  more streamlined  approach to  programming,  the  reduction and 
simplification  of  various  conditions,  and  simpler  processes  for  implementation, 
management,  control,  and  audit,  along  with  more  frequent  but  lighter  reporting. 
Programme  authorities  were  asked  to  assess  the  cost  reduction  potential  of  selected 

112Ramboll,  Assessment  of  the  administrative  costs  and  administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the 
common provisions regulation funds 2021-2027, forthcoming. 
113Ramboll,  Assessment  of  the  administrative  costs  and  administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the 
common provisions regulation funds 2021-2027, forthcoming. 
114European  Commission:  Directorate-General for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  Spatial  Foresight  and  t33, 
New  assessment  of  ESIF  administrative  costs  and  burden  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office,  2018, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/36663  
115Estimates for the multi-fund programmes were not available 
116European Commission: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, Simplification Handbook: 80 
simplification measures in cohesion policy 2021-2027, 2018.    
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/publications/factsheets/2018/simplification-
handbook-80-simplification-measures-in-cohesion-policy-2021-2027_en 

48 

 
 
 
 
measures. The programme authorities of the ESF+ and multi-fund programmes117 indicate 
that  ‘a  more  proportionate  approach  to  audits’  and  ‘reduction  of  the  number  of 
verifications’ have a significant cost reduction potential. Other measures – ‘simpler rules 
on management costs and fees’, ‘streamlined payment applications’ – have moderate cost 
reduction  potential.  The  ESF+  impact  assessment  also  identified  detailed  and  complex 
regulations  and  guidelines  as  factors  affecting  efficient  delivery.  As  regards  the 
Commission  guidance  documents,  the  number  of  these  documents  was  significantly 
reduced  in  2021-2027  programming  period,  but  this  did  not  always  lead  to  increased 
efficiency.  Some  stakeholders  noted  that  the  lack  of  Commission  guidelines  was  a 
hindering  factor  during  programming,  the  assessment  of  enabling  conditions,  and  the 
implementation of simplified cost options118119. 

The merger of the funds and fewer programming documents have likely produced 
efficiency gains. In shared management the number of programmes has decreased from 
188 in the 2014-2020 programming period to 169 in 2021-2027. Nineteen Member States 
integrated  ex-FEAD  types  of  operations  in  a  broader  programme.  Moreover,  by 
introducing streamlined programming and implementation rules, the ESF+ has reduced the 
administrative costs of beneficiaries who do not  have to  comply with  different funding 
rules. According to 20 of the interviewed national level stakeholders and 15 of the open 
responses to the managing authorities survey, clear advantages of the merger of ESF and 
YEI  included  more  streamlined  and  simplified  management  processes  and  more 
streamlined  approach  to  implementation.  Several  interviewees  (15)  acknowledged  the 
positive  effects  of  the  merger  with  FEAD,  emphasizing  reduced  administrative  burden, 
simplified management and easier processes for the reallocation of resources. However, a 
minority of interviewed stakeholders120 expressed concerns about increased administrative 
burden for ex-FEAD type activities which are still managed by different ministries under 
ESF+, requiring increased coordination, or having lost some of the former flexibility by 
integration in the ESF+.  

Measures  to  streamline  the  programming  process  are  assessed  positively,  but  the 
programming process  and programming documents are still regarded as complex. 
The  ESF+  impact  assessment  identified  complex  programming  arrangements  – 
excessively detailed Partnership Agreements and programmes – resulting in burdensome 
adoption and amendment processes and complex management of multi-fund programmes. 
Interviews and surveys provide mixed evidence regarding simplification in the programme 
preparation  phase.  Desk  research  and  stakeholder  interviews  point  towards  a  need  to 
simplify the approach to the development of programming documents, notably Partnership 
Agreements. Stakeholders highlighted several hindering factors in the programming phase 

117Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, ‘Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027’, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II. 
118Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025, p.157 and p.170. 
119Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.11, available at: 
Adopted opinions - European Commission (europa.eu). 
120Government  representatives  in  the  ESF+  monitoring  committee,  ESF+  Intermediate  Bodies,  national 
ministries (AT, BE, BG, EL, LV, LU). 

49 

 
 
 
 
such as tight timelines and lengthy negotiations with the Commission121, complex and too 
detailed programming  documents122, lack of guidance123  and late  adoption of the ESF+ 
Regulatory framework124,125. The Fit for Future Platform126 expressed the view that there 
are  too  many  fields  required  for  programming  documents.  As  regards  the  Partnership 
Agreements,  the  interviews  and  surveys127  of  the  stakeholders  suggest  they  are  overall 
useful  as  strategic  documents  to  support  the  identification  of  priority  areas  and  target 
groups from the planning stage. However, the added value of Partnership Agreements is 
primarily  perceived  amongst  stakeholders  in  larger  and/or  more  decentralised  Member 
States,  where  there  is  a  stronger  need  for  coordination  at  a  central  level  to  ensure 
coherence. For smaller countries, Partnership Agreements are often a high-level summary 
of programmes128. In the 2021-2027 programming period, there is no more an obligation 
to  conduct  the  ex-ante  evaluation,  and  the  surveyed  programme  authorities  (ESF+  and 
multi-fund  programmes)  assessed  that  this  measure  had  a  significant  simplification 
potential129.  The  survey  results  also  showed that  the  following  measures  have  moderate 
cost reduction potential: ‘one strategic document per Member State to guide negotiations’, 
‘shorter  and  better  structured  programmes’,  ‘streamlined  intervention  logic’  and 
‘simplified designation of authorities. No measure in programming stage was assessed as 
having minimal or negative cost reduction potential.  

Enabling conditions  are generally perceived  as  relevant and conducive to effective 
and efficient investment130, but the monitoring of these conditions is still considered 
burdensome. Monitoring the fulfilment of the enabling conditions entails administrative 
burden, which should be balanced against the expected positive impact of increasing the 
effectiveness  of  the  investments.  The  ESF+  impact  assessment  had  identified  that  the 
requirements linked to enabling conditions were complex, including numerous assessment 
criteria and duplication of their assessment in the Partnership Agreement and programmes. 
In  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  a  few  changes  regarding  enabling  conditions 
(previously  called  ex-ante  conditionalities)  were  introduced.    The  number  of  enabling 
conditions (both horizontal and thematic) was reduced from 36 to 20, and their assessment 

12115 interviewed stakeholders from national ministries, ESF+ monitoring committees members representing 
beneficiaries, employers, the government, representatives from ESF+ managing authorities and Intermediate 
Bodies from a third of Member States (i.e. AT, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, SK). 
12215 interviewed stakeholders from a range of Member States (e.g. BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, IE, LU, 
RO,  SK)  and  stakeholder  groups  (national  ministries,  ESF+  monitoring  committees;  ESF+  Intermediate 
Bodies). 
12315  interviewees  from  ESF+  managing  authorities,  government  representatives  in  ESF+  monitoring 
committees, ESF+ Intermediary Bodies, and national ministries (e.g. DE, ES, HR, LV, PL, RO). 
124Over  20  interviewed  stakeholders  across  stakeholder  groups  (ESF+  monitoring  committees;  ESF+ 
managing  authorities;  government  representatives  in  ESF+  monitoring  committees;  national  ministries; 
ESF+  Coordinating  Bodies; ESF+  beneficiaries;  ESF+  Intermediary  Bodies  and  the majority  of  Member 
States (e.g. AT, BG, DE, EL, ES, IE, LT, LV, MT, FR, PL, RO, SE, SI). 
125Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future Platform, p.9 available at Adopted 
opinions - European Commission (europa.eu). 
126Idem, p.9. 
127Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025, pp.151-152. 
128Idem, p.152. 
129Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II. 
130 See the sub-chapter on effectiveness.   

50 

 
 
 
 
criteria  were  simplified.  In  addition,  monitoring  of  the  enabling  conditions  takes  place 
continuously  at  the  monitoring  committees  and  annual  review  meetings  where  it  is  a 
compulsory  point  of  discussion,  and  not  just  at  the  beginning  of  the  period.  However, 
according to the survey of ESF+ and multi-fund programme authorities131 the reduction of 
the number of enabling conditions and clearer assessment criteria did not have a clear cost 
reduction potential. There are also some calls for improvement132 such as clearer and more 
specific guidance from the Commission on how the fulfilment of these conditions should 
be  demonstrated  and  monitored  over  specific  time  periods.  A  small  minority  of 
stakeholders  expressed  the  view  that  the  need  of  common  enabling  conditions  across 
Member States can create unnecessary work if strategies already align with the enabling 
conditions. The ‘Fit for Future’ platform133 expressed the view that the presence of some 
conditions at programme level is problematic because they are related to the Member State, 
not  always  to  what  the  region  can  do,  which  risks  slowing  down  development  and 
implementation  of  programmes.  Also,  some  regional  hubs  reported  that  the  documents 
fulfilling the enabling conditions represent a significant administrative burden. 

Simplified cost options (SCOs)134 and financing not linked to costs (FNLC)135 are the 
main measures to reduce administrative burden. SCOs provide a way of reimbursing 
expenditure  not  based  on  actual  costs  but  according  to  predetermined  amounts  or 
percentages  that  are  an  estimation  of  the  actual  costs.  FNLCs  involve  reimbursements 
linked to meeting specific conditions or achieving pre-defined results rather than actual 
costs. As identified by the ESF+ impact  assessment, SCOs and FNLCs are expected to 
reduce administrative burden because programme authorities and beneficiaries do not need 
to  collect,  verify  and  store  financial  documents.  In  addition,  these  payment  modalities 
simplify the audit trail. SCOs are also less error-prone than payments based on actual costs. 
According to the European Court of Auditors136, audits of the transactions involving SCOs 
found  that  between  2017  and  2022,  only  every  24th  transaction  involving  SCOs  was 
affected by error, compared to every fifth transaction based on reimbursement of actual 
costs. Additionally, the European Anti-Fraud137 office has noted that the increased use of 
SCOs in 2014-2020 programming period may have been a significant factor contributing 
to the drop in non-fraudulent irregularities. In the previous periods, the uptake of SCOs 
and FNLCs (‘joint action plans’) remained low. 

The  use  of  simplification  measures,  especially  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs),  has 
increased significantly, contributing to a reduced administrative burden. In the 2014-

131Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, ‘Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027’, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II. 
132 Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025. 
133Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.20. 
134https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/simplified-cost-
options#:~:text=Simplified%20Cost%20Options%20(SCOs)%20are,on%20process%2C%20outputs%20or 
%20results 
135https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/financing-not-linked-costs 
136European  Court  of  Auditors,  Review  03/2024:  An  overview  of  the  assurance  framework  and  the  key 
spending 
factors 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/RV-2024-03, page 53. 
137European  Anti-Fraud  Office, 33rd  Annual  Report  on  the  Protection of  the  European  Union’s  financial 
interests and the Fight against fraud, page 38 
https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/pif-report-2021_en_0.pdf. 

contributing 

2014-2020 

cohesion 

errors 

to 

in 

51 

 
 
 
 
20 programming period 6.5% of the ESF budget138 was covered by simplification measures 
at upper level (between programme authorities and the European Commission). This share 
has  increased  to  24.9%  of  the  ESF+  budget  in  the  current  programming  period.  The 
corresponding increase for lower level (between programme authorities and beneficiaries) 
was from 31.5% to 49.8%. In absolute terms, the ESF increased its coverage from EUR 
9.1 billion to EUR 22.8 billion at upper level and from 44.2 billion in 2014–2020 to EUR 
70.7 billion in 2021–2027 at lower level. The largest share of increases of simplification 
measures  come from  SCOs.   According to  DG EMPL estimates,  it is  expected that  the 
share of the ESF+ budget implemented using SCOs and FNLCs will increase to 50% by 
2026.  

As of January 2025, there are 235 SCO schemes. According to DG EMPL estimates, at the 
moment of drafting, around 90% of beneficiaries implement projects using SCOs and/or 
FNLCs. In the survey139 of managing authorities about 90% of respondents indicated that 
they  use  SCOs,  while  8%  reported  plans  to  adopt  them.  Consultations  confirm  the 
widespread use of SCOs, and in some countries (SE, BG, FI), they constitute the majority 
of financing modalities. According to the analysis of Partnership Agreements, the majority 
of Member States intend to increase the use of SCOs. According to the study on the uptake 
of simplification measures140, 44% of the ESF+ budget is covered by SCOs at lower level. 
By the end of the 2021-2027 period, ten Member States (CY, CZ, DK, ES, FI, LV, NL, 
PT, SE, SI) are expected to cover more than 50% of their ESF+ budget using lower level 
SCOs. 

Applying the 2018 ex-ante simulations141 and incorporating the current figures, an increase 
in the share of SCOs from 33% in the 2014-2020 period to 40% in 2024 resulted in an 
estimated cost reduction for programme authorities between EUR 96 million and EUR 141 
million in 2024 prices.142 If the target of achieving an SCO share of 50% by 2026 is met, 
the estimated cost reduction will be between EUR 232 and 342 million at 2024 prices.  

Large majority of stakeholders acknowledge that SCOs reduce the administrative burden. 
Over 90% of managing authorities surveyed recognize the primary advantage of SCOs as 
reducing  the  administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries.  Facilitating  the  compilation  of 
expenditures  for  beneficiaries  is  seen  as  an  advantage  by  87%  of  respondents,  and 
simplification  of  the  management  process  is  recognized  as  an  advantage  by  85%. 
Facilitation of payments to beneficiaries is acknowledged by 81% of respondents and the 
reduction of administrative burden for managing authorities is noted by 80%. Interviewed 

138 Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming 
periods, 2025. Inforegio - Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 
2021-2027 programming periods 
139Source  for  survey  and  interview  results  in  this  chapter,  unless  indicated  otherwise:  Ecorys,  Study 
supporting the mid-term evaluation of the ESF+ during the programming period 2021-2027, 2025 
140 Study on the uptake of Simplified Cost Options (SCO) and Financing Not Linked to Costs (FNLC) for 
the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods, 
2025. Inforegio - Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-
2027 programming periods 
141  New assessment of ESIF administrative costs and burden, 2025. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4f4b7bcc-e18f-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en  
142With a view to gaining better estimates also for the ex-post evaluation, the study may have to be updated 
at a later stage. 

52 

 
 
 
 
stakeholders also highlighted the transparency and low error rates associated with SCOs, 
as well as simplified paperwork and fewer checks during the reimbursement stage. Three 
Romanian  evaluations143144145  have  identified  the  potential  of  SCOs  to  reduce 
administrative  costs.  So  far  only  one  evaluation  has  assessed  the  concrete  results  of 
applying  SCOs  in  practice.  This  evaluation  concluded  that  various  streamlining  efforts 
introduced in Lower Saxony, Germany,146 during the 2021-2027 programming period have 
made the accounting and reporting process easier and more transparent than in the 2014-
2020 programming period. The study147 on administrative burden also  confirms that the 
increased use of all types148 of SCOs has significant cost reduction potential. The share of 
respondents  who believe that SCOs have the potential  to  reduce administrative costs is 
significantly higher than the share of those who believe they might increase costs. Similar 
conclusions are reached by the study149 on the uptake of simplification measures. Majority 
of surveyed programme authorities indicate that SCOs are relevant in terms of reducing 
administrative burden (90% agreeing), simplifying compliance (88%), reducing error rate 
(88%) and easier application for beneficiaries (83%). The survey results also showed that 
the  benefits  of  SCOs  go  beyond  less  administrative  burden  and  include  more  focus  on 
results  (77%)  and  focus  on  other  activities  (72%),  and  these  shares  have  increased  as 
compared  to  the  survey  results  of  the  previous  programming  period.  Not  only  the 
programme authorities but also beneficiaries report on benefits of using the SCOs. Large 
majority  (89%)  of  beneficiaries  who  were  aware  of  SCOs  reported  that  SCOs  brought 
benefits  to  project  management  such  as  reduction  of  administrative  burden  (56%)  and 
greater focus on quality or results (37%).  

FNLCs are used less and there is mixed evidence regarding perceived benefits of their 
use. According to the study150 on the uptake of simplification schemes, as of spring 2024, 
only 6% of the ESF+ budget (EUR 8.5 billion) is covered by the FNLCs. The same study 

143Andreea Savin et.al., Raport de evaluare ad-hoc 2, împreună cu seturile de date și metadate/ Evaluare ad-
hoc pentru sprijinirea stabilirii opțiunilor de costuri simplificate pentru Programul Operațional Sănătate 
2021-2027, 2023. ROE84.pdf 
144Liliana Lucaciu et.al., Raport de Evaluare Ad-hoc 2, împreună cu seturile de  date și metadate, pentru 
sprijinirea stabilirii opțiunilor de costuri simplificate pentru Programul Operațional Incluziune și Demnitate 
Socială. 2022. ROE85.pdf 
145Andreea Savin et. al, Raport de evaluare ad-hoc 3, împreună cu seturile de date și metadate/ Evaluare ad-
hoc pentru sprijinirea stabilirii opțiunilor de costuri simplificate pentru Programul Operațional Educație și 
Ocupare 2021-2027-faza 2, 2022.  ROE83.pdf 
146Wolfgang  Jaedicke,  Umsetzung  des  Querschnittsziels  „Gute  Arbeit“  im  niedersächsischen  Multifonds- 
programm, 2024. DEE374.pdf 
147Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027’, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II and Annex IV for details.  
148This refers to the following SCO modalities: SCOs as an integral part of programme (SCOs can set in 
accordance with CPR Art 94.2); SCOs set by Delegated Acts prepared by the Commission (CPR Article 
94.4);  use  of  SCOs  for  reimbursement  to beneficiaries  and  obligatory  se  of  SCOs  for  smaller  operations 
(CPR Art 53) and technical assistance reimbursed in proportion to progress in implementation, using a flat-
rate (CPR Art.36-37). 
149 Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming 
periods, 2025. Inforegio - Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 
2021-2027 programming periods 
150 Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming 
periods, 2025. Inforegio - Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 
2021-2027 programming periods 

53 

 
 
 
 
also assesses that by the end of the current programming period, at least fourteen Member 
States are expected to use FNLC. Among them, eight Member States (CY, EE, FR, HU, 
LV, PL, PT, RO) already have approved schemes. The survey conducted in the framework 
of the supporting study151 indicates that only 9% of managing authorities surveyed indicate 
current use of FNLCs, and over half (53%) state that they neither use nor plan to use them 
in the future. 21% of respondents reported plans to use FNLCs in the future. The interview 
evidence also indicates that FNLCs are used only sporadically. As regards the advantages 
of using FNLCs, only 38% of the managing authorities surveyed indicated reduction of 
administrative burden for beneficiaries. Simplification of the management process as an 
advantage is mentioned by 33%, facilitating compilation for expenditure for beneficiaries 
by  30%,  and  reduction  of  administrative  burden  is  mentioned  by  29%  of  managing 
authorities surveyed. The survey evidence from the study on administrative costs152 also 
does not identify significant expected cost savings from the increased use of FNLCs. A 
study on the uptake of simplification measures has a significantly more positive assessment 
of the benefits of the FNLC. The programme authorities surveyed agree that FNLCs reduce 
administrative  burden  (93%),  simplify  compliance  (93%),  lower  error  rates  (85%), 
simplify application for beneficiaries (85%) and increase focus on results (84%) and other 
activities (84%). 

Challenges  persist  in  implementing  simplification  modalities,  particularly  FNLCs. 
ESF+ stakeholders interviewed mention high initial investment required to set up an SCOs 
and  FNLCs  schemes  as  the  main  disadvantage.  The  main  concerns  leading  managing 
authorities  to  avoid  implementing  FNLCs  include  their  potential  financial  impact  on 
beneficiaries if programmes do not perform as expected, anticipated issues with verifying 
results, concerns about future audits, and difficulties in demonstrating that intended goals 
have  been  achieved.  Other  challenges  mentioned  regarding  FNLCs  include  the  risk  of 
"cherry-picking"  (selecting  target  groups  that  are  perceived  to  successfully  achieve 
outcomes within the budget) and the perceived limited flexibility of FNLCs. An additional 
obstacle  for  both  SCOs  and  FNLCs  is  national  rules  that  counteract  the  benefits  of 
simplification,  such  as  the  requirement  to  maintain  records  of  all  expenditures.  Similar 
concerns  were  reflected  by  the  study153  on  the  uptake  of  simplification  measures.  The 
surveyed  programme  authorities  mention  the  lack  of  information/experience  on  how  to 
design and implement FNLCs schemes (75% rating this as medium/high importance) as 
the main reason to not use FNLCs. Other reasons mentioned are legal uncertainty (71%), 
burdensome (70%), riskiness (65%), risk of systemic impact (64%) and lack of obvious 
benefits  (52%).  The  programme  authorities  also  reported  on  main  challenges  when 
designing the FNLC schemes. Over 80% of respondents indicated that FNLC schemes are 
complicated and challenging to put in practice. The respondents reported also a lack of 
guidance (84%), lack of knowledge (77%) and resources (77%) and difficulties to identify 
suitable  operations  (75%).  Lower  share  of  programme  authorities  identified  challenges 

151 Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025. 
152Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027’, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II. 
153 Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming 
periods, 2025. Inforegio - Study on the uptake of SCO and FNLC for the CPR Funds in the 2014-2020 and 
2021-2027 programming periods 

54 

 
 
 
 
related  to  SCOs.  The  main  challenge  indicated  was  lack  of  alternative  data  sources  to 
address the limitation of historical data when designing the SCOs schemes (48% agreeing). 

There are a number of materials on SCOs and FNLCs available such as guidance note on 
SCOs154,  two  delegated  regulations155,156  on  SCOs  and  FNLCs  and  other  materials157 
available to support the take-up of the SCOs and FNLCs. For FNLCs adopted under Art. 95 
CPR, as detailed in  Appendix  2158  of Annex  V CPR, legal  certainty is  provided with  a 
clear,  adequate  and  complete  audit  trail  being  approved  ex  ante  by  the  Commission. 
However,  stakeholders  still  noted  the  limited  guidance159,160  and  a  general  lack  of 
knowledge and competence among applicants regarding SCOs. The Fit for Future platform 
also highlighted several challenges linked to SCOs and FNLCs, such as their complex and 
time-consuming  development  and  use.  Specifically,  according  to  the  platform,  the 
mandatory requirement to develop SCOs for projects below EUR 200 000 often requires a 
higher administrative burden than real cost reporting.161  

The  simplification  of  the  monitoring  system  has  contributed  to  reducing 
administrative burden. The ESF+ impact assessment identified burdensome monitoring 
processes  due  to  complex  data-collection  requirements  and  the  limited  use  of 
administrative registers for collecting participants' data as key issues. As confirmed by the 
analysis  of  legal  texts,  there  was  an  overall  reduction  in  the  number  of  indicators  used 
compared  to  the  previous  programming  period.  Common  output  indicators  were 
streamlined to focus on the most relevant target groups of the ESF+. Indicators with limited 
relevance or complex definitions, such as 'other disadvantaged,' were removed. Data on 
people  belonging  to  disadvantaged  groups  may  now  be  collected  using  informed 
estimates162,  providing  less  intrusive  and  simplified  methods  of  data  collection.  The 
integration  of  the  YEI  into  ESF+  is  also  associated  with  a  significant  reduction  in  the 
number  of  indicators  required  to  monitor  youth  support  measures.  Overall,  output  and 
result indicators’ number per EUR 100 million (intensity) decreased from the previous to 
the current period from 4.4 to 2.7 and from 3.7 to 2.0 respectively. Moreover, in the 2021-
2027 period, the performance reserve was abolished, which is expected to further reduce 
the number of programme-specific indicators and simplify data collection and reporting. 
While  stakeholder  perspectives  on  the  relevance  of  indicators  varied,  consultation 
evidence163,164 points to support for streamlining and simplification efforts, with a general 
consensus  that  the  indicator  system  has  been  simplified.  However,  a  small  number  of 
stakeholders165 felt that data collection requirements remain too burdensome, noting that a 
census  approach  is  expensive,  difficult,  and  cumbersome  for  both  participants  and 

154 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1736171609509&uri=CELEX:52024XC07467 
155https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1676 
156https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2175 
157https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/simplified-cost-options 
158Appendix 2 of Annex V of the CPR (EU) 2021/1060 of 24/06/2021 
159Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.11. 
160Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025, p.205. 
161Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.24.  
162See NOTE ON INFORMED ESTIMATES MARCH 2024 | SFC Support Portal 
163Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.16. 
164Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025. p.280. 
165Idem, p.283. 

55 

 
 
 
 
managing  authorities.  A  minority  of  stakeholders,  particularly  ESF+  beneficiary 
organizations, also mentioned challenges with target setting.  

The use of administrative registers for collecting participants' data continues to be a 
challenge.  According  to  a  study  “Smart  ways  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the  ESF”166, 
administrative data was used in all nine Member States167 covered by the study, but with 
very limited use in  Germany and France.  According to the survey168 on monitoring and 
information  systems  in  the  Member  States,  only  65%  of  programmes  surveyed  use 
administrative registers for monitoring purposes. Most of these Member States use only 
one  or  two  registers  (usually  unemployment  or  social  security),  and  a  direct  survey  of 
participants is still used to collect the majority of information on indicators. According to 
the  survey,  half  of  the  respondents  (48%)  reported  encountering  some  or  significant 
difficulties  to  conclude  data  sharing  agreements  with  the  institutions  managing 
administrative  data  due  to  complex  processes.  These  were  followed  by  interoperability 
challenges between data sources as well as legal barriers related to personal data protection 
(in  both  cases  47%  or  respondents  reported  facing  some/significant  difficulties).  In 
addition, Commission’s internal analysis suggests that uncertainties related to legal basis 
are one of the main challenges in accessing the administrative registers. Data collections 
from  participants  imposes  administrative  burden  on  authorities,  beneficiaries  and 
participants.  Improving  access  to  administrative  data  would  contribute  not  only  to 
improving  the  evidence  base  through  higher  quality  data,  but  also  to  reducing 
administrative burden of the monitoring and evaluation of the future cohesion policy.  

Mixed  evidence  regarding  the  administrative  burden  due  to  lighter  reporting 
requirements.  Use  of  digital  tools  remains  challenging  at  times.  In  the  2021-2027 
programming period, the annual implementation and progress reports were replaced with 
annual,  more  qualitative  policy  dialogues  and  lighter  but  more  frequent  electronic  data 
transmission.  This  shift  aimed  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden.  However,  the 
programme  authorities  surveyed  (ESF+  and  multi-fund  programmes)169,  do  not  indicate 
that ‘real time reporting instead of annual reports’ has a potential to reduce administrative 
burden.  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  ‘Fit  for  Future’  platform,  the  majority  of 
stakeholders consulted believe the simplification measures introduced (including, regular 
data transmission instead of annual implementation and progress reports) have generally 
had a positive impact. Stakeholder feedback also shows that e-cohesion tools are widely 
used and are largely considered to have made processes easier. However, stakeholders also 
noted  that  while  the  more  frequent  transmission  of  electronic  data  provides  up-to-date 
information, it also introduces some administrative burden, as the data often needs to be 
consolidated and imported manually, which involves significant effort and poses a risk of 
errors. Other challenges include lengthy data entry, compatibility with national regulations, 

166European Commission: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Hassan, E., 
Lundberg, P., Omersa, E., Robson, C. et al., Smart ways to monitor and evaluate the ESF – How to gain 
access to administrative data while complying with data protection rules – Final report, Publications Office 
of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/580113.  
167AT, ES, DE, FR, IE, IT, PL, RO, SE. 
168 The survey has been carried out by the ESF+ Data Support Centre. Responses have been gathered about 
54 systems which cover 145 programmes. 
169Estimates are based on the raw data of the study: Ramboll, ‘Assessment of the administrative costs and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027’, 
forthcoming. For methodology, see Annex II. 

56 

 
 
 
 
interoperability with national systems, and the significant effort required to develop and 
adapt information systems.  

EaSI strand 

In terms of simplification, the EaSI strand funding opportunities and results are promoted 
since 2021 via the Funding and Tenders Portal, which is now the single entry point (the 
Single  Electronic  Data  Interchange  Area)  for  stakeholders,  including  applicants  and 
beneficiaries170. Additionally, the National Contact Points (NCPs) promote the EaSI strand 
opportunities  and  results  in  the  participating  countries’  languages  which  facilitate  the 
understanding of documents and reduces the number of requests for translations. However, 
evidence indicates some confusion at stakeholders’ level between the roles of the NCPs 
and  of  the  National  Competence  Centres  for  Social  Innovation  (NCCs)171.  Further 
confusion  is  created  by  the  fact  that  while  the  Funding  and  Tenders  Portal  publishes 
information on direct management calls, the ESF+ website provides an overview of the 
instrument, and the website run by the European Social Fund Agency (ESFA) provides 
information  on  the  Social  Innovation  Plus  Initiative172,  including  the  EaSI  strand  calls 
under indirect management focusing on the transfer of social innovation.  

Evidence also indicates that EaSI strand follows separate administrative processes in terms 
of  application,  selection  and  reporting  under  direct  and  indirect  management  (Social 
Innovation Plus Initiative), which can be potentially confusing at applicants’ level. While 
under direct management, applicants use European Commission’s corporate new system 
(eGrants), under indirect management, applicants submit their application through ESFA’s 
online portal (eSINNIS, i.e. Social Innovation Information System). 

Within indirect management, the representatives of beneficiaries under the ALMA call for 
proposals  reported  that  the  application  process  (on  the  eSINNIS  platform173)  was 
straightforward. Despite minor technical challenges, most representatives consulted were 
satisfied with the application process and benefited from the responsiveness of ESFA as 
well  as  info  sessions  and  in-person  meetings.  However,  three  focus  group  participants 
found the application form repetitive, requiring the same information multiple times, but 
in a slightly different format.  

170The projects are promoted at the Projects & Results section, while the eGrants system – accessible via the 
same  Portal  –  became  the  single  gateway  for  all  exchanges  (submission,  evaluation,  implementation  and 
reporting)  between  applicants  and  the  Commission.  Additional  information  and  statistics  on  proposals, 
success rates, funded projects and participants is available on the Portal as well. Furthermore, the Portal also 
hosts a ‘What’s New’ section with news about the EaSI strand. Here, the Commission informs about EaSI 
strand events, including those organised in Member States and participating countries and publishes articles 
informing about the strand. 
171At national level, the National Contact Points (NCPs) – managed under the direct management mode of 
the EaSI strand - provide information in their country about all strand’s activities (e.g. funding opportunities, 
application  requirements,  projects  funded  and  results).  The  six  National  Competence  Centres  for  Social 
Innovation (NCCs) - covering 25 countries and mobilising 148 organisations - aim to cultivate networks, 
build capacities and synergies, spotlight efficiencies and develop the tools and methods essential to growing 
social innovation across the EU. The NCCs are managed under the indirect management mode of the EaSI 
strand 
information:  https://european-social-fund-
Initiative).  For  more 
plus.ec.europa.eu/en/competence-centres-social-innovation).  
172https://socialinnovationplus.eu/. 
173https://socialinnovationplus.eu/app/uploads/2024/08/eSInnis-Application-Form-Guide.pdf. 

Innovation  Plus 

(Social 

57 

 
 
 
 
In terms of programmes’ performance measurement, the  ex-post  evaluation of the EaSI 
programme (2014-2020) indicated the need to focus on quantitative indicators in order to 
compare their baseline values with their end-values. Based on the experience with the EaSI 
programme  performance  measurement  system  –  with  a  total  of  42  headline  and 
complementary  indicators  –  a  simplified  system  with  a  limited  number  of  quantitative 
indicators (six primary indicators) was established to measure the EaSI strand performance 
in  2021-2027.  A  structured  stakeholders’  consultation174  is  also  organised  before  the 
adoption  of  the  EaSI  strand  Annual  Work  Programmes,  which  allows  to  use  more 
efficiently their inputs in the programming process.  

Financial  reporting  requirements  have  also  reduced  with  the  simplified  cost  options. 
However, it has to be noted that there is still limited experience with units’ costs reporting 
under the EaSI strand which were only  used for  the action grants  supporting  the NCPs 
establishment and the operating grants for the EU-level NGO networks (for the latter only 
for travel/accommodation expenses). The introduction of the eGrants system was broadly 
regarded  by  stakeholders  as  a  positive  step in  terms  of  reducing  administrative  burden, 
with about half of respondents to the EaSI survey agreeing that it successfully streamlined 
the grant management process (50%, 16 out of 32)175. Additionally, interview data revealed 
that  indeed,  through  eGrants,  compared  to  the  previous  programming  period,  the 
timeframe  for  contract  signing  was  reduced  from  several  weeks  to  just  24  -  48  hours, 
helping projects to start faster. Despite the benefits, stakeholders across all consultation 
activities  highlighted  the  significant  time  required  to  become  familiar  with  the  eGrants 
system and pointed out several areas for improvement, particularly the need to enhance its 
user-friendliness. Interview data also emphasized the necessity to reduce duplications in 
the application, monitoring, and reporting processes for projects. This includes financial 
reporting, where reporting unit costs was reported to impose a significant burden on project 
promoters.  

According  to  some  stakeholders,  improving  these  aspects  could  help  attract  smaller 
applicants to EaSI. Indeed, whereas evidence indicates that the administrative burden in 
the application phase and the reporting requirements were considerably reduced with the 
use  of  the  eGrants,  the  related  processes  remain  –  as  already  identified  by  the  EaSI 
programme ex post evaluation – too burdensome, notably for small organisations and for 
the  operating  grants  beneficiaries  (EU-level  NGO  networks).  For  instance,  the  support 
offered  to  these  networks  under  the  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  for  operating 
grants176,  allows  them  to  secure  their  long-term  sustainability  and  to  become  critical 
sources  of  expertise  both  for  national  policymakers  and  EU  institutions.  However,  the 
networks should reapply each year to recurrent calls for proposals which translated in a 

174This yearly strategic dialogue exercise has two parts: on one hand the EU level civil society organisations 
are consulted through an online dialogue meeting; and on the other hand, the  EU level social partners are 
consulted in an email exchange. 
175Ecorys,  Study  supporting  ESF+  mid-term  evaluation,  2025,  “Synopsis  report”  (Annex 2  to  the  ‘Study 
supporting the ESF+ mid-term evaluation). 
176The Framework Partnership Agreements under the EaSI strand are long-term cooperation instruments that 
serve  as  umbrella  for  recurrent  grants  to  EU-level  NGO  networks  active  in  the  employment  and  social 
inclusion fields. The specific operating grant agreements are then awarded on an annual basis following an 
invitation to submit a proposal addressed to the framework partners. This type of procedure for selecting 
operating grants is defined in the Financial Regulation, and therefore cannot be modified. 

58 

 
 
 
 
state of uncertainty and generated administrative burden both on applicants’ side and the 
Commission services’ side. 

Coherence 

Analysis  of  the  legal  texts  shows  that  ESF+  is  coherent  and  complementary  in  its 
objectives  with  other  instruments  in  the  area  of  human  capital,  as  well  as  those 
supporting the digital and green transition. These instruments include the RRF, ERDF, 
JTF,  EGF,  InvestEU,  Erasmus+,  Horizon  Europe,  Digital  Europe,  EU4Health,  AMIF, 
Digital Europe, the Cohesion Fund, EMFAF, EAFRD and CAP. The ESF+ Regulation, as 
well as the regulations of other EU funding instruments, provide a strong legal basis to 
promote coherence and avoid overlaps. Articles 7(1) and 31(3) include provisions to foster 
synergies between ESF+ and other relevant EU funding instruments. The ESF+ regulation 
refers  in  its  recitals177  to  the  coherence  of  the  ESF+  with  EU  instruments  such  as 
Erasmus+178, Horizon Europe, AMIF, EU4Health, InvestEU, ERDF, Cohesion Fund and 
EMFAF. Similarly, regulations governing the other funds such as ERDF, Cohesion Fund, 
AMIF, Horizon Europe179  have reciprocal provisions about ensuring coherence with ESF+. 
Additionally,  the  Common  Provisions  regulation  (EU)  2021/1060  sets  out  common 
provisions  and  financial  rules  which  can  facilitate  coherence  among  ERDF,  ESF+, 
Cohesion Fund, JTF and EMFAF. It also provides for common financial rules with AMIF, 
ISF (Internal Security Fund) and BMVI (Border Management and Visa Policy Instrument).  

include 

National-level  programming  documents 
specific  provisions  and 
administrative mechanisms to foster complementarity with other funds. In line with 
the mandatory template, complementarities and synergies are defined in the  Partnership 
Agreements and then further detailed in the programmes in shared management. The need 
for  strong  coordination  with  the  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  (NRRPs)  is 
recognised in almost all cases. To facilitate coordination, the Member States have put in 
place different coordination mechanisms. These can take the form of umbrella committees, 
working  groups  (e.g.  BE  Flanders,  DE),  coordination  platforms  (e.g.  SK),  dedicated 
reporting  mechanisms  aiming  at  informing  all  actors  involved  on  the  potential 
complementarities  and  demarcations  needed  (EL),  or  even  concentration  of  all 
programmes under the responsibility of the same entity (BE German-speaking region). 

While the instruments’ legal bases and programming documents include provisions 
to foster complementarity between ESF+ and other funds, there are some challenges 
in  ensuring  synergies  in  implementation.  According  to  the  stakeholders’  views180, 
obstacles  to  implementing  synergies  include  differences  in  timings  of  application 
procedures, nature and rules of calls for proposals, geographical focus (transnational vs. 
national/regional),  governance 
lack  of 
awareness/support  from  ESF+  managing  authorities  about  seeking  synergies  with  other 
funds. 

(EU  vs.  national/regional)  and 

level 

177Recitals 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22. 
178There  is  however  only  limited  mention  of  coherence  with  the  ESF+  in  the  Erasmus+  Regulation, 
specifically in relation to the ‘Seal of Excellence’. 
179ERDF and Cohesion Fund regulation (recitals 8, 36, 39, 46175), AMIF (recital 15 and Article 2177) and 
Horizon Europe regulation (Annex IV). 
180Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid term evaluation, 2025, p.107. 

59 

 
 
 
 
funds,  with 

the  strongest 
The  degree  of  complementarity  varies  across 
complementarities seen between the ESF+ and ERDF. ESF+ and ERDF funds have a 
long  tradition  of  complementarity  over  many  decades.  They  have  the  same  rules  of 
management,  programming  and  auditing  which  foster  synergies.  ESF+  and  ERDF 
programme planning is usually coordinated, especially in the multi-fund programmes. The 
monitoring committees oversee the coordination and complementarities of CPR funds. The 
complementarities between ESF+ and ERDF investments are particularly emphasised in 
national  and  regional  programming  documents,  with  ERDF  supporting  investments  in 
‘hard’  infrastructure,  while  ESF+  supports  the  ‘soft’  accompanying  measures  such  as 
education, training, social inclusion and employment integration. The results of the survey 
of ESF+ managing authorities suggest that the ESF+ demonstrates the highest degree of 
complementarity with the ERDF compared to any other fund in the survey with 74% (67 
out  of  91)  indicating  this.  The  same  survey  also  shows  that,  compared  to  the  previous 
period, the complementarity increased most for the ERDF181 as compared to other funds. 
Consultations with stakeholders confirm that overall, there is a good coherence between 
the ESF+ and the ERDF and there are many examples of complementary investments. For 
example, in Bulgaria in case of Roma, ERDF supports construction of social houses and 
ESF+ provides assistance to find job and skills improvement. However, the consultations 
also highlight some challenges in ensuring synergies. These include  mainly insufficient 
coordination in timing and between departments managing both funds, and the need for 
beneficiaries to submit separate applications. 

There is a high degree of complementarity between the objectives of the ESF+ and 
both RRF and JTF, but some overlapping priorities could lead to substitution effects 
and  create  challenges  in  implementation.  According  to  the  survey  of  the  managing 
authorities, 65% (59 out of 91) of the respondents believe that the ESF+ is complementary 
with the RRF to a large or moderate extent (the second highest of all instruments covered 
in the survey). The corresponding figure for the JTF was also relatively high, at 47.25% 
(43  out  of  91).  High  level  of  complementarity  was  also  noted  in  the  national  level 
interviews. The most common areas of complementarity with the RRF given in the survey 
include  active  labour  market  policy  measures,  skills  development,  social  cohesion  and 
lifelong learning. ESF+ and JTF show the highest degree of complementarity in upskilling 
and  reskilling.  As  an  example  of  complementarity  between  the  ESF+  and  the  RRF,  in 
Poland  funding  from  both  the  RRF  and  ESF+  are  intended  to  support  the  creation  and 
running of  childcare facilities. The RRF will support the construction of  new facilities, 
while  ESF+  will  cover  the  running  cost  of  some  of  those  entities  for  first  two  years. 
However, the survey of the managing authorities also confirmed the potential of the RRF 
to substitute ESF+ with 36% (33 out of 91) of the respondents considering that the RRF 
displaced operations that would typically be financed under ESF. Potential substitution and 
overlaps were also highlighted in stakeholder interviews182.  Interviewees also mentioned 
the  efforts  needed  to  ensure  clear  differentiation  between  the  funds  and  appropriate 
sequencing and challenges of working under different rules.  

181 Majority for all funds responded that the complementarities was about the same as in previous period 
(52%) or they replied ‘do not know’ (36%). The share of those who believe that complementarities have 
increased are 25% for ERDF, 24% for AMIF, 19% for JTF, 10% for Cohesion Fund and 5% for Horizon 
Europe.  
182Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 2025, pp.124-125. 

60 

 
 
 
 
It is to be noted that, while ESF+ investments require compliance with enabling conditions, 
there is no such conditionality for the RRF which can create incoherence between the two 
funding instruments.  

As identified by the RRF mid-term evaluation183, not all Member States adopted ex ante 
strategies to create synergies between the two funds. The RRF was prioritized, and in some 
cases more mature projects, originally expected to be implemented under the 2021-2027 
Cohesion  Policy  programmes,  were  implemented  under  RRF.  The  Fit  for  Future 
platform184  also  highlights  the  challenge  of  managing  a  large  number  of  funding 
instruments, which invest in similar or even identical areas but operate under different rules 
and,  in  some  countries,  at  different  levels  of  government.  The  platform  argues  that  the 
introduction of the RRF midway through the programming period contributed to delays in 
both the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes and the negotiation of the 2021-
2027  Cohesion  Policy  programmes.  While  stakeholders  have  indicated  a  risk  of 
substitution between ESF+ and RRF/JTF, there is no evidence that it has created significant 
negative effects, apart from some implementation challenges. Additional investments from 
the RRF/JTF in addressing labour market and social challenges have freed ESF+ resources 
to tackle other issues or increase the intensity of support. Additionally, some operations 
initially funded by the RRF may transition to ESF+ once RRF allocations are exhausted. 
For example, in the Attica region in Greece, an RRF-funded innovative action for persons 
with disabilities is expected to be scaled up under the ESF+185. To date, no evidence of 
risks of double funding in implementation has been found186.  

Overall good complementarity is demonstrated between the ESF+ and AMIF with 
clear  demarcation  and  good  examples  of  complementarities,  but  there  is  scope  to 
improve coordination between the funds. Both funds support the integration of migrants 
with ESF+ supporting the longer-term integration of migrants and AMIF covering short-
term  needs.  The  survey  of  managing  authorities  shows  that  almost  50%  (44  of  91 
responses) considered that the AMIF was complementary to ESF+ to a large or moderate 
extent (the third highest of all instruments covered in the survey). Complementarity and 
coherence between these funds were confirmed also by the national stakeholder interviews 
(BE, EE, FI, LT, MT, NL PL, SK). The EU level networks of organisations187 supporting 
the rights of the refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, welcomed the transfer of long-
term integration of third-country nationals from the AMIF to the ESF+, but they also noted 
an  observed  a  lack  of  cooperation  between  authorities  at  national  level  and  called  for 

183 Mid-Term Evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility: Strengthening the EU through ambitious 
reforms and investments COM(2024) 82 final, p.178. Mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility (RRF) - European Commission (europa.eu). 
184Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for future platform, pp.6-7. Adopted opinions 
- European Commission 
185Ecorys, Study supporting ESF+ mid-term evaluation, Ecorys, 2025, p.120 
186 In its replies to the ECA’s Special report 22/2024: Double funding from the EU budget, the Commission 
noted  that  ”the  ECA  did  not detect  any  case of double  funding  in  the  context of  this performance  audit. 
Moreover, in its annual report for the financial year 2023, the ECA has not identified any case of double 
funding under the RRF, while in its 2022 annual report, the ECA identified only one case of double funding 
– a finding the Commission does not agree with as the measure at stake is fully funded without any RRF 
contribution (a so-called “zero cost measure”).” 
187European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented 
Migrants. 

61 

 
 
 
 
further support from the European Commission to ensure no migrant falls into a gap of 
support between the two funds. 

There is relatively good complementarity between the ESF+ and the EAFRD. Both 
funds support social inclusion and poverty reduction with the EAFRD focusing on rural 
areas. The survey of the managing authorities shows that 41% of respondents (37 out of 
91 replies) considered both funds to be complementary to a large or moderate extent. One 
example is the VirtuALL operation that engages older persons in rural Portugal with digital 
technologies and social activities. Initially supported by ESF+, this project was expanded 
with  co-funding  from  EAFRD.  However,  the  ‘Fit  for  Future’188  platform  points  out  the 
complexity and fragmentation of different funding instruments and rates mainly negatively 
that the EAFRD is implemented out of the CPR framework.   

ESF+  has  coherent  objectives  but  limited  complementarities  in  practice  with  the 
Cohesion Fund, EMFAF, EGF, the CAP 2023-2027 and EU4Health. The survey of the 
managing  authorities  (91  replies)  indicates  a  relatively  low  degree  of  complementarity 
between ESF+ shared-management and Cohesion Fund (only 29% considering that there 
is  a  complementarity  to  a  large  and  moderate  extent),  EMFAF  (16%),  EGF  (16%), 
InvestEU  (13%),  CAP  2023-2027  (14%),  EU4Health  (14%).  The  largest  share  of 
respondents indicates that either there is no complementarity between these funds, or chose 
the answer ‘do not know/not applicable’.  

The low degree of complementarity between ESF+ and the Cohesion Fund, EMFAF and 
CAP  2023-2027  can  be  explained  with  the  different  objectives  of  these  funding 
instruments. The Cohesion Fund supports CPR policy objectives 2 (greener Europe) and 3 
(more  connected  Europe),  while  ESF+  supports  the  policy  objective  4  (more  social 
Europe). EMFAF’s objective is to support sustainable fisheries, aquaculture, blue economy 
and international ocean  governance  which has little common with  the objectives of the 
ESF+ and thus little potential for complementarities. Similarly, the ten policy objectives 
of CAP 2023-2027 have minimal overlap with the objectives of the ESF+. 

Both ESF+ and EGF support workers that were displaced during restructuring with ESF+ 
acting  as  a  preventive  fund  and  EGF  as  a  reactive  emergency  fund.  There  are  limited 
synergies  between  the  ESF+  and  EGF  despite  common  objectives,  and  this  can  be 
explained by a relatively small scope of the EGF as compared to the ESF+. The EGF has 
an annual budget of 35 million EUR, and during the period of 2021-2022 supported only 
nine Member States in 14 instances189. ESF+ shares with the EU4Health190 focus on health 
under the following specific objectives: (d) healthy working environments; and (k) access 
and accessibility to healthcare systems and long-term care services. EU4Health objectives 
are also coherent with the EaSI strand operational objective (f) which includes a focus on 
networking between health insurance institutions.  

The interim evaluation191 of InvestEU concluded that the policy alignment between 
InvestEU  and  ESF+  is  very  high  and  that  both  funding  instruments  are 

188Opinion on the Evaluation of European Social Fund Plus, Fit for Future platform, p.6. 
189https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/funding/european-globalisation-
adjustment-fund-displaced-workers-egf_en. 
190See 
union_en. 
191 InvestEU interim evaluation (SWD(2024) 229 final), p.41.  InvestEU, interim evaluation. 

https://health.ec.europa.eu/funding/eu4health-programme-2021-2027-vision-healthier-european-

62 

 
 
 
 
complementary.  While  ESF+  shared-management  strand  and  InvestEU  have  similar 
ultimate  goals,  they  are  delivered  very  independently  with  involvement  from  different 
types  of  entities,  whereas  a  blended  finance  approach  would  be  beneficial  to  support 
relevant activities. The ESF+ managing authorities had the option to transfer part of their 
programme  to  InvestEU  (which  was  a  major  simplification,  compared  to  the  previous 
programming  period),  which  would  enable  them  to  use  ready-made  products  under 
InvestEU. However, in practice, there has been no take-up so far. The interim evaluation 
of InvestEU shows that activities implemented by InvestEU partners and ESF+ managing 
authorities at national level are parallel but not joined-up. This finding was corroborated 
by  one  national-level  ESF+  intermediate  body  (PT)  who  thinks  that  the  InvestEU 
programme could be better aligned with ESF+, including its EaSI strand.  

As regards the EaSI strand, several activities to support the InvestEU action were 
funded  under  its  operational  objectives  related  to  microfinance  and  social 
enterprises192, indicating good complementarity between the two instruments. In the 
microfinance  field,  EaSI  strand  funded  ‘Advisory  services  and  technical  assistance  for 
microfinance providers’193 (2021). EaSI strand also supported four initiatives in 2021-2024 
in  the  field  of  social  entrepreneurship:  ‘Advisory  services  and  technical  assistance  for 
social enterprise finance providers’ (2021)194; ‘Transaction costs to support social finance 
intermediaries’  (2022)195;  ‘Flash  Eurobarometer  on  attitudes  of  young  people  towards 
social entrepreneurship’ (2022); ‘Actions to boost the development of finance markets for 
social enterprises’ (2024).196 

There is good coherence in terms of objectives with Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe, 
but the complementarities in the implementation of actions at the national level are 
relatively  limited  for  the  ESF+  shared  management  strand,  while  there  are  good 
complementarities and no evidence of overlaps for the ESF+ EaSI strand. ESF+ and 
Erasmus+ are active in similar fields, notably as regards the support to skills, upskilling 
and  digital  competences.  Horizon  Europe  supports  research  and  innovation  and  thus  is 
complementary with the ESF+ as a whole, which is the main EU instrument for investing 

192The  financial  instruments  for  microfinance  and  social  enterprises  implemented  under  the  former  EaSI 
programme were deployed under the InvestEU Fund. The current ESF+/EaSI strand kept only non-financial 
instruments (calls for proposals) to support the development of microfinance and social entrepreneurship 
markets in the EU. The following operational objectives of the EaSI strand are aligned with the InvestEU 
objectives: (e) provision of microfinance to microenterprises and (f), which includes a focus on microfinance 
institutions and institutions providing finance to social enterprises and the social economy. 
193The aim of these capacity building activities was to help microcredit providers in the EU to improve the 
quality of their operations, to scale up, and to become self-sustainable. The goal was to boost the capacity of 
microcredit  providers  and  to  facilitate  their  access  to  the  existing  EaSI  financial  instruments  and  to  the 
financial instruments under InvestEU. 
194These services are aimed at helping social enterprise finance providers in the EU to improve the quality 
of their operations, to scale up, and to become self-sustainable. The aim is to boost the capacity of social 
enterprise finance providers and facilitate their access to the financial instruments under InvestEU.     
195This call for proposals focuses on supporting financial intermediaries that undertake long term risk capital 
investments in ticket sizes of less than EUR 500 000 in social enterprises. The idea is lowering transaction 
costs  (i.e.,  travel  cost,  lawyers'  fees,  costs  for  carrying  out  the  due  diligence  and  business  development 
support) for these small investment tickets with the aim of helping to overcome a market failure in the social 
investment market. 
196These activities consist of contributing to the development of feasible, suitable, and reliable schemes or 
funds providing finance to social enterprises as well as support structures providing business development 
services and networking facilities to improve social enterprises' investment readiness. 

63 

 
 
 
 
in  human  capital  and  skills.  Nevertheless,  the  shared  management  strand  managing 
authorities  (MAs)  surveyed  indicate  a  moderate  level  of  complementarity  with  36% 
respondents considering that Erasmus+ is complementary to ESF+ to a large or moderate 
extent,  and  only  25%  for  Horizon  Europe.  Despite  its  similarities  in  some  objectives 
between the EaSI strand and Horizon Europe, their focus is sufficiently different to ensure 
there is no unnecessary duplication, EaSI strand is focused on social experimentation and 
projects’  implementation  while  Horizon  Europe  focuses  on  innovation  and  knowledge 
generation.  Notable  example  of  complementarities  between  the  ESF+/EaSI  strand  and 
Erasmus+ are the joint financing of the EUROPASS system197 and the European Solidarity 
Corps198 (notably with the labour mobility activities funded under the EaSI strand). 

Other  Union  programmes  fund  social  innovation  complementary  schemes  such  as  the 
Single Market Programme from a business/entrepreneurship perspective or Interreg with 
a  more  territorial  approach.  The  EaSI  strand  operational  objectives  also  have 
complementarities with other programmes such as Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 
programme (CERV)199, particularly the strand of CERV focused on citizens’ engagement 
and participation.  

There  is  also  a  good  coherence  between  ESF+  and  other  EU  funds  active  in 
supporting  the  digital  and  green  transition  in  terms  of  objectives,  legal  texts  and 
programming documents. The ESF+ Regulation establishes the need to support the twin 
transitions, and this is coherent with the objectives of the other funds supporting digital 
and green transitions such as JTF, RRF, Digital Europe200, ERDF, Cohesion Fund, Horizon 
Europe,  Erasmus+  and  InvestEU.  ESF+  is  recognised  as  the  key  funding  instrument  to 
support  the  development  of  green  and  digital  skills,  while  other  funds  support 
complementary investments  in  e.g. infrastructure, research and innovation, advanced or 
highly specialised digital skills.  

The importance of digital and green transitions is recognized by all Member States in their 
programming  documents  as  well  as  in  the  EaSI  strand  programming.  Analysis  of  the 
programming  data  shows  that  almost  all  (23)  Member  States  have  allocated  specific 
funding  to  the  digital  transition,  and  24  Member  States  allocated  funding  for  green 
transition  under  shared  management.  The  digital  and  green  transitions  goals  are  also 
increasingly  mainstreamed  in  the  EaSI  strand  actions;  for  instance,  a  call  for  proposals 
aiming to test social innovation approaches to foster green and digital transition in schools, 
training centres, at work and in local communities was launched in 2022. In practice, even 
where there are no specific funding allocations, mainstreaming of the focus on the digital 
and  green  transition  within  the  ESF+  is  carried  out  across  all  Member  States  through 
upskilling  and  reskilling  activities  to  address  the  transitions,  inclusion  of  the  ‘Do  No 
Significant  Harm’  requirement,  inclusion  of  a  specific  selection  criterion  for  ESF+ 
operations/project, and by specific ESF+/ERDF programmes focusing on the transitions 
and  transversal  integration  of  the  twin  transitions  into  other  labour  market  policies  co-
funded  by  ESF+.  Yet,  while  the  majority  of  stakeholders  believe  that  there  is  a  good 
complementarity between ESF+ and other EU funding instruments active in the green and 

197See https://europass.europa.eu/fr. 
198See https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity_en. 
199See https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/cerv. 
200The Digital Europe programme objectives are coherent with  two ESF+ Specific Objectives mentioning 
digital skills – (e) and (g).  

64 

 
 
 
 
digital transition, a minority of stakeholders believe that the focus on the twin transitions 
is  not  sufficient  or  that  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  assess  the  degree  of  synergies  between 
funding201.  

There are several good examples of how synergies between funds are fostered, as well as 
operations  which  support  the  green  and  digital  transition  through  combining  funds.  As 
described  above,  there  remains  nonetheless  some  potential  for  addressing  overlaps,  in 
particular between the ESF+, the RRF and JTF. Synergies between these funds could be 
improved  through  better  defining  key  concepts  (e.g.  green  jobs,  green  skills),  further 
awareness-raising for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries on how to address the 
green  and  digital  transitions,  and  more  advanced  planning  across  funds  to  avoid 
fragmentation of efforts. 

Internal coherence was analysed under the criterion of effectiveness, and concluded 
that ESF+ is internally coherent, i.e. both strands pursue consistent sets of objectives. 
However,  the  synergies  which  were  sought  with  the  merger  of  ESF  and  EaSI,  i.e.  the 
additional effects stemming from the fact of working together in terms of transferring and 
scaling-up of innovative projects, have not materialised yet. 

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

EU added value 

Due to the delay in the implementation explained in Section 1.2, at the end of 2024, the 
results  of  the  ESF+  operations  only  just  started  to  emerge.  At  the  end  of  2024,  ESF+ 
support reached 7.8 million persons  

Despite the pickup in implementation and reporting observed in 2024, the available data 
remain too  limited  at  the moment  of conducting the  evaluation  to  assess the EU added 
value.  Nonetheless,  previous  evaluations  and  ongoing  studies  –  such  as  the  ex  post 
evaluation  of  the  ESF  2007-2013202,  the  study  supporting  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
2014-2020  ESF  shared  management  programmes203  and  the  EaSI  programme  ex  post 
evaluation204 – have found evidence about the former ESF and EaSI programmes’ added 
value  in  terms  of  volume,  scope,  role  and  process  effects  (see  Annex  IX).  Evidence 
collected for the current mid-term evaluation indicates persistency as concerns the types 
and extent of EU added value. In view of the stability in the fund’s scope and the processes 
ensuring  the  programmes  improved  intervention  logic,  it  is  expected  that  very  similar 
effects  in  terms  of  EU  added  value  are  materialising  under  ESF+  in  the  2021-2027 
programming period. This will be verified in the retrospective evaluation of both strands 
scheduled for 2030. 

201Ecorys,  Study  supporting  the mid-term  evaluation  of  the  ESF+  during  the  programming  period  2021-
2027, 2025, page 128. 
202See ESF 2007-2013 ex-post evaluation - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu). 
203Ongoing. 
204EaSI programme ex post evaluation Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2024) 146 final. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Relevance 

The ESF+ was prepared in a policy context which was significantly different from the one 
in which its implementation started, mostly due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact 
of Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine. While the policy challenges identified in the 
ESF+ Impact Assessment (see Section 2.1) remain valid, some of them were exacerbated 
and new challenges emerged. Population aging and diminishing labour force aggravate the 
already existing labour and skills shortages undermining competitiveness and putting at 
the  same  time  pressure  on  health  and  long-term  care  systems.  Accelerating  green  and 
digital transitions increase the demand for skills, which were already needed. Increasing 
costs of living and lack of affordable housing intensifies the risk of poverty. 

The evaluation indicates that ESF+ continues to be a strategic instrument to address 
the  EU  policy  priorities  and  national  needs.  The  ESF+  general  objective  to  support 
Member States and regions to achieve high employment levels (Article 3.1 of the ESF+ 
regulation) remains highly relevant to the EU’s priorities in the area of employment and 
the European  Pillar of  Social  Rights  Action Plan headline target of at least  78% of the 
population aged 20-64 being in employment by 2030. The ESF+ specific objectives (a) to 
(d) focus on various aspects of labour market integration, including on improving access 
to  employment  and  activation  measures;  modernising  labour  market  institutions; 
promoting  gender-balanced  labour  market  participation;  and  adaptation  of  workers  and 
enterprises to change. The thematic concentration on youth unemployment (Article 7 of 
the ESF+ regulation) is further evidence of this relevance. It clearly responds to the needs 
faced  by  the  specific  group  of  youth,  in  the  context  of  large  variations  across  Member 
States in youth unemployment and NEET rates, and the fact that young people are typically 
impacted  by  a  longer  labour  market  integration,  several  job-to-job  transitions,  and  the 
emergence  of  precarious  forms  of  work.  The  EaSI  strand  also  aims  to  address  the 
employment  and  labour  market  needs  by  contributing  to  the  voluntary  geographical 
mobility  of  workers  and  increasing  employment  opportunities;  the  development  of  the 
market ecosystem around the provision of microfinance to microenterprises in start-up and 
development phases; the development of social enterprises and the emergence of a social 
investment  market;  and the implementation  of international  social  and labour standards 
(respectively points d, e, g and j of the Article 25 of the ESF+ regulation). 

The ESF+ objective to support Member States and regions to achieve a skilled and resilient 
workforce ready for the future world of work (Article 3(1)) is highly relevant to the EU’s 
priorities in the area of education and training, and the European Pillar of Social Rights 
Action Plan headline target of at least 60% of all adults in training every year by 2030. 
This  is  further  reflected  in  the  specific  objectives  (e)  to  (g),  which  focus  inter  alia  on 
improving education and training systems, promoting equal access to quality and inclusive 
education  and  lifelong  learning.  The  thematic  concentration  requirement  on  the 
implementation of the Child Guarantee (Article 7(3)) is also highly relevant to this context 
as two of the five service areas covered by the Guarantee are early childhood education 
and  care  and  free  education205.  This  is  also  highly relevant  for  women’s  labour  market 
participation. 

205See https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1428&langId=en.  

66 

 
 
 
 
The  ESF+  objective  to  support  Member  States  and  regions  to  achieve  inclusive  and 
cohesive societies aiming to eradicate poverty is highly relevant to the EU’s priorities in 
the  area  of  social  inclusion  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  headline  target  of 
reducing the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 15 million 
compared to 2019. This is further reflected in the Specific Objectives (h) to (m) which aim 
inter alia to foster active inclusion, promote socio-economic integration of third-country 
nationals, enhance access to services and promote social integration of the most deprived 
people and address material deprivation. The thematic concentrations on implementation 
of  the  Child  Guarantee,  social  inclusion  and  support  to  the  most  deprived  are  further 
evidence of the high degree of relevance of the ESF+ intervention logic to policy needs, as 
they reflect the severity of the challenges in terms of eradicating poverty, as well as the 
needs of specific vulnerable groups. 

Figure 9 – ESF+ SOs relevance to the overall/changing policy context, related priorities, and general 
objectives of the fund 

To what extent do the ESF+ Specific Objectives (continue to) respond 
strategically to the overall/changing policy context, related priorities, and 
general objectives of the fund? (N=91)

100

80

60

40

20

0

12
2
18

58

22
7
22

39

15
7

26

41

21

11
19

39

20
5
24

41

16
2
20

52

11
5
16

57

10
1
24

54

22

12

32

23

18

8
21

40

16
7

25

41

32

10
20

27

SO(a)

SO(b)

SO(c)

SO(d)

SO(e)

SO(f)

SO(g) SO(h) &

SO(j)

SO(k)

SO(l)

SO(m)

SO(i)

To a great extent

To a moderate extent

To a small extent

Not at all

Do not know / not applicable

Source: Survey of ESF+ managing authorities (Study supporting the ESF+ mid-term evaluation; Ecorys, 
2025) 

This  overall  framework  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  survey  of  ESF  managing 
authorities who most often replied that the ESF+ Specific Objectives (continue to) respond 
strategically  to  the  overall/changing  policy  context,  related  priorities,  and  general 
objectives of the fund to a great extent for all but one specific objective (SO(j)) (see Figure 
9 above).  

Stakeholder views gathered from the interviews, focus groups and survey data confirm the 
very  high  degree  of  relevance  of  the  ESF+  intervention  logic  to  the  national  priorities. 
Stakeholders interviewed from the majority of Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, 
ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LU, MT, PT, RO, SE, SK) and across different stakeholder types 
(managing authorities, ministries and beneficiaries) strongly held the view that the ESF+ 
is overall very relevant to national priorities. This is confirmed by survey evidence where 
the majority of respondents to the survey of MAs indicated that ESF+ Specific Objectives 
continue  to  respond  strategically  to  stakeholders  needs  to  a  great  extent  (53  of  91 
responses, 58%) or a moderate extent (33 of 91 responses, 36%).  

67 

 
 
 
 
Nevertheless, some emerging challenges or priorities were identified by stakeholders 
as  insufficiently  covered.  The  most  commonly  reported  area  was  housing  and 
homelessness. This was identified in several Member States (CZ, ES, IE, FR, LU, MT, 
PL, PT) and by a range of stakeholders interviewed and participating in the focus groups 
(ESF+ intermediate bodies, ministry representatives, academics and ESF+ beneficiaries) 
as an increasingly relevant area of intervention in the national context which is not fully 
captured  by  ESF+.  In  a  few  other  Member  States  (HR,  LU,  LT,  RO),  migration  was 
considered an area where ESF+ may not be fully adequate in addressing the challenges, 
although this  was  in  most  cases understood to  be the  case due to  the highly  politicised 
nature of the topic at the national level. Allocation data shows indeed that only 0.8% of 
resources across Member States were allocated to the Specific Objective on promoting the 
socio-economic integration of migrants (SO(i)). In addition, gender equality was reported 
in some Member States (AT, CY, IE) as an angle not addressed sufficiently by the ESF+ 
intervention logic.  

The  flexibility  afforded  to  Member  States  to  programme  and  reprogramme  ESF+ 
under shared management in line with the changing policy context and priorities is a 
key factor ensuring the strand’s continuous relevance. The same is true for the broad 
scope of ESF+ intervention which allows to address a wide range of (emerging) problems 
based on the specific national needs206. The majority of respondents to the survey agreed 
or strongly agreed (61 of 91 responses, 67%) that programmes were responsive to policy 
changes. Flexibility and the breadth of the ESF+ intervention logic were also the factors 
most  commonly  reported  in  the  interviews  (e.g.  BE,  BG,  CZ,  ES,  HR,  LT,  LU)  as 
supporting  relevance  to  stakeholders  needs.  Twenty  interviewees  and  focus  group 
participants  (including  organisations  representing  participants,  ESF+  monitoring 
committee members and ESF beneficiaries) highlighted that flexibility in determining how 
the ESF+ is used needs to be assured also at regional and local level.  

A ‘bottom-up approach’ to determining needs is key in ensuring that ESF+ measures 
respond to challenges on the ground. Involving regional and local actors in the process 
of designing ESF+ operations is necessary in this regard, as highlighted by focus group 
participants,  who  also  raised  the  importance  of  allocating  set  budgets  to  local  steering 
groups and communities to initiate projects in line with needs.  

The involvement of a range of stakeholders in the monitoring of ESF+ operations, 
through monitoring committees, was also seen as a factor facilitating the continued 
relevance of the ESF+ to a changing policy context. This was cited by several European 
and national-level non-governmental organisations207 active in the ESF+ in their response 
to  the  call  for  evidence208  for  this  evaluation  and  identified  in  the  desk  research. 
Respondents  to  the  open  text  question  often  mentioned  ‘partnerships’  or  ‘stakeholder 
consultation’ as a reason for the high degree of responsiveness of the ESF+ to stakeholder 
needs.  

206Reported by managing authorities, intermediate bodies, trade union representatives and beneficiaries in 
BE, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HR, LT, MT, SE and at European level. 
207Federal Working Group of Non-Statutory Welfare (Germany), Eurodiaconia (EU), Red Cross EU (EU), 
Fundación Secretariado Gitano (Spain). 
208See 
Fund-Plus-ESF+-mid-term-evaluation_en. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13746-European-Social-

68 

 
 
 
 
The concept of ensuring that the ESF+ benefits from bottom-up inputs into programming 
and  implementation  is  reflected  in  the  legislation  and  did  not  change  comparing  to  the 
previous  programming  period.  The  ESF+  regulation  explicitly  places  importance  on 
partnership from the perspective of engaging social partners and civil society organisations 
(CSOs) in the delivery of employment, education and social inclusion policies supported 
by  the  ESF+  strand  under  shared  management.  The  importance  of  allocating  capacity-
building support to facilitate such engagement, and partnership working/networking more 
broadly is also recognised. Article 8 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) likewise 
enshrines the partnership principle and the significance of the bottom-up approach into 
programming via Partnership Agreements, as well as recognising the important role of sub-
national  authorities  and  non-state  actors  in  the  context  of  multi-level  governance. 
Nevertheless, challenges in implementation of the partnership principle in practice remain. 
As highlighted in the Fit for Future platform Opinion on the ESF+ mid-term evaluation, 
the involvement of stakeholders is not always systematic and relevant stakeholders often 
lack resources and capacities to contribute to consultations on highly technical issues. It is 
also difficult and time-consuming to reconcile all interests, especially when partners are 
not willing to compromise and have unbalanced powers209. 

in 

the 

relevant 

in  particular 

the  European  Semester,  and 

The  ESF+  intervention  logic  is  also  developed  in  the  framework  of  other  EU  strategic 
governance  processes.  In  this  context,  the  European  Semester  was  mentioned  by 
national  stakeholders  (e.g.  BG,  ES,  LU,  PL)  as  key  in  ensuring  the  high  degree  of 
relevance of the ESF+ intervention logic to national priorities. Compared to the ESF, 
the ESF+ Regulation has reinforced the fund’s strategic orientation towards the challenges 
identified 
the  Country-Specific 
Recommendations  (CSRs).  Whereas  the  ESF  supported  ‘policies  and  actions  taking 
account  of 
relevant  country-specific 
Integrated  Guidelines  and 
recommendations’210,  the  ESF+  obliges  Member  States  ‘prioritising  interventions  that 
address  the  challenges  identified  in  the  European  Semester,  including  in  their  national 
reform  programmes  as  well  as  in  the  relevant  country-specific  recommendations’.  To 
ensure  the  adopted  programmes’  strategic  match  with  the  European  Semester,  the 
Commission  services  included  an  assessment  and  an  overview  of  priority  areas  for 
investment (Annex D) in the 2019 Country Reports. The investment priorities, aligned with 
the  challenges  identified  in  the  country  reports  and  with  the  country-specific 
recommendations, formed the basis for ESF+ programming. Moreover, in the mid-term of 
the programming period, Member States have to review the programmes by taking into 
account, among other elements, ‘the new challenges identified in relevant country-specific 
recommendations adopted in 2024’ (In the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) Article 
18 (1)(a)). To align the programmes to the 2024 European Semester cycle and to orient the 
Member States in their analysis, the Commission included in each country report boxes 
with the key priorities to consider in the programmes’ mid-term review. 

The outcome of the programming exercise is that the programmes are broadly aligned in 
all Member States with the investment areas identified in the 2019 CSRs, albeit with 
some  specific  objectives/key  challenges  being  prioritised  over  others.  Moreover,  the 

209Opinion  on  the  Evaluation  of  European  Social  Fund  Plus,  Fit  for  Future  Platform,  pp.17-18.  Adopted 
opinions - European Commission 
210Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on 
the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006, Recital 3. 

69 

 
 
 
 
stakeholders  also  confirmed  the  fund’s  focus  on  the  policy  challenges  identified  in  the 
European Semester. The comparison between CSRs received and ESF+ allocations under 
relevant Specific Objectives (Table P, Annex VI) shows that all EU Member States that 
received a CSR in 2019 corresponding to the policies advocated in SO(a), (d), (f), (g), (h), 
(j), (k), (l) and (m) allocated ESF+ budget to these specific objectives in their programmes. 
SO(b), (c), (e) and (i) show slightly lower, but still high level of alignment (78%, 83%, 
88% and 80%, respectively211). There are only 6 Member States (i.e. EE, FR, IE, NL, PT, 
SE)  in  which  certain  relevant  CSRs  were  not  addressed  by  the  ESF+  programmes. 
Demonstrating the effect of regulatory requirement to prioritize the policy areas identified 
in the European Semester, Figure 10 shows that 23 Member States allocated more than the 
EU average to more than 50% of the SOs corresponding to their CSRs. In terms of actual 
spending,  by  end  2023  Member  States  selected  operations  ‘addressing  challenges 
identified in the European Semester’ in the value of EUR 9 billion (38% of the total eligible 
cost). 

Figure 10 – ESF+ shared management allocation levels across Member States 

4 (EL, HU, MT, 
PT)

5 (AT, HR, FI, 
LU, SI

18 (BE, BG, CY, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, IE, 
IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, RO, 
SE, SK)

National allocation higher than EU average in all CSRs

National allocation higher than EU average in 50% or more of CSRs

National allocation higher than EU average in less than 50%  of CSRs

Source: Study supporting the ESF+ mid-term evaluation; Ecorys, 2025 

The  stakeholders’  perceptions  are  in  line  with  the  picture  based  on  the  programmes’ 
budgetary choices. More than 40 interviewees across most Member States (e.g. BG, CZ, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, HR, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI) and all stakeholder groups 

211It should be noted that alignment levels may also be influenced by the number of CSRs received that are 
relevant under a given SO. For instance, most EU Member States received CSRs under SO(a), with all of 
them allocating ESF+ resources to address them, whereas only four of the EU27 received recommendations 
relevant to SO(m) in 2019. Similarly, 18 out of the 27 EU Member States received CSRs relevant to SO(e), 
with  16  out  of  the  18  allocating  ESF+  resources  to  address  the  recommendations  received  (i.e.  88% 
alignment),  while  only  five  countries  received  recommendations  relevant  to  SO(i),  with  four  of  them 
earmarking resources (i.e. 80% alignment). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
confirmed the strong level of alignment between the challenges highlighted as part of the 
European  Semester  and  investments  under  ESF+.  According  to  these  stakeholders, 
Partnership  Agreements  and  programmes  show  strong  alignment  with  both  National 
Reform  Programmes  and  the  European  Semester.  Between  5  to  10  interviewed 
representatives  from  ESF+  managing  authorities,  government  representatives  and  other 
bodies  in  ESF+  monitoring  committees  (e.g.  BG,  LV,  ES)  attributed  this  result  to  the 
stronger focus on the CSRs embedded in the ESF+ regulation, which promoted stronger 
linkages  and  coordination.  For  example,  an  interviewed  ESF+  Managing  Authority  in 
Czechia noted that a CSR on preventing school segregation for Roma children influenced 
the programming of the ESF+. Similarly, a government representative participating in the 
ESF+  monitoring  committee  recalled  that  programming  documents  include  a  focus  on 
tackling unemployment through skills development, upskilling and reskilling as a result of 
the challenges highlighted in the 2019 CSRs. Alignment between the 2019 CSRs and ESF+ 
programming documents was also highlighted at the focus group, where, for example, a 
representative from the Ministry of Labour in Croatia highlighted the strong coordination 
between  the  key  priorities  identified  in  the  country’s  single  ESF+  programme  and  the 
CSRs.  

However,  a  minority,  four  interviewees  from  ESF+  monitoring  committees,  ESF+ 
intermediate  bodies,  ESF+  beneficiaries  and  national  ministries  (e.g.  ES,  IE,  LU) 
highlighted that alignment between the European Semesters and ESF+ allocations does not 
necessarily  mean  adequacy  of  investment  levels.  These  are  often  influenced  by  e.g. 
availability  of  funding  in  national  programmes  or  investments  under  other  EU  funding 
programmes. For example, organisations representing ESF+ beneficiaries in Luxembourg 
noted that child poverty is currently on the rise, and financial resources made available 
under the ESF+ are not sufficient to tackle the issue.  

ESF+  is  also  the  main  financial  instrument  used  by  the  EU  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  (EPSR).  As  the  EU’s  main 
strategy for social policies, they set the framework for the formulation of the CSRs and the 
challenges identified in the European Semester. 

All the EPSR principles except one are addressed to a lesser or stronger degree by 
the ESF+ Specific Objectives (Table Q, Annex VI). The only principle not addressed is 
(6) Wages because supporting wages does not fall under ESF+ scope. EPSR principles 
which are most clearly aligned with ESF+ Specific Objectives include (1) Education, 
training  and  life-long  learning,  (2)  Gender  equality,  (3)  Equal  opportunities,  (4) 
Active support to employment, (9) Work-life balance and (10) Healthy, safe and well-
adapted work environment and data protection. EPSR principles which are less directly 
addressed  by  ESF+  Specific  Objectives  include  (7)  Information  about  employment 
conditions  and protection in  case of dismissals, (8) Social dialogue and involvement of 
workers, (13) Unemployment benefits, and (15) Old age income and pensions. Some EPSR 
principles are addressed by ESF+ in close collaboration with other funds, in particular the 
ERDF, such as (19) Housing and assistance for the homeless and (20) Access to essential 
services.  

Table  Q  in  Annex  VI  also  provides  a  very  broad  indication  of  the  overall  financial 
investment  of  ESF+  shared  management  strand  in  each  EPSR  principle,  based  on  the 

71 

 
 
 
allocation to each (partially or fully) corresponding specific objective212. Using this very 
broad  indication,  the  largest  ESF+  allocations  correspond  to  EPSR  principles:  (3) 
Equal opportunities (EUR 71 139.1 million), (4) Active support to employment (EUR 
49 669.7 million), (1) Education, training and lifelong learning (EUR 44 396.3 million) 
and (11) Childcare and support to children (EUR 31 077.6 million). The lowest ESF+ 
allocations correspond to EPSR principles: (8) Social dialogue and involvement of workers 
(EUR 1 724 million), (8) Work-life balance (EUR 3 600.7 million) and (2) Gender equality 
(EUR 3 600.7 million).  

The results of the survey of ESF+ managing authorities clearly showed that the managing 
authorities  consider  that  there  is  good  alignment  between  ESF+  and  the  EPSR 
principles. Nearly 90% (81 of 91 responses) considered that ESF+ supported their country 
in delivering on the EPSR principles. The good alignment between the EPSR and ESF+ 
was  also  confirmed  in  interviews  at  both  EU  and  national  level  and  the  focus  groups 
conducted for the study, across both strands of the ESF+ and among different stakeholders 
(ESF+  coordinating  bodies,  beneficiaries,  social  partners,  etc.).  It  should,  however,  be 
noted that several (5) did not answer this question since they were not familiar with the 
EPSR.  

In  EU-level  interviews,  three  representatives  from  the  European  Commission  (shared 
management strand) stated that they considered that the ESF+ was fully aligned with the 
EPSR, and that its specific objectives had been designed to reflect the EPSR principles. 

A strong majority (over three-quarters) of interviewed national stakeholders representing 
different types of organisations (ESF managing authorities, ESF+ monitoring committee 
members including social partners, ESF+ beneficiaries) who answered this question agreed 
that the ESF+ plays a significant role in supporting the implementation of the EPSR. A 
Croatian research institution emphasised the importance of ESF+ funding to support EPSR 
principles: ‘ESF+ supports important aspects of EPSR. Without ESF+, investments would 
be lower.’ An ESF+ intermediate body in Poland stated that ‘ESF+ is the only fund that 
can support the objectives of the EPSR. Unfortunately, there are no funds of this type at 
national or regional level, so ESF+ is the only instrument of this type.’ 

The evaluation shows that the actions and priorities set out in the EaSI strand Annual 
Work Programmes (AWPs)213 are in line with the EPSR principles. Indeed, each 2021-
2024 work programme states explicitly that ‘the overall political priority is to implement 
the  EPSR  in  line  with  its  Action  Plan’  and  each  planned  activity  indicates  the  specific 
EPSR principles which they are intended to support214. Although mentioned in the context 
of  wider  projects  (e.g.  those  related  to  posting  of  workers)  or  covered  to  some  extent 
through the support to EU-level NGOs networks, the EPSR principles least addressed by 

212This analysis of ESF+ allocations can only be considered broadly indicative since several of the specific 
objectives  (SOs)  correspond  only  partially  to  specific  EPSR  principles,  while  the  allocations  provided 
represent the full allocation to each SO. 
213https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=0&advSearchKey=ESFannualworkprogramme&mode
=advancedSubmit&catId=22&doc_submit=&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0&ifra
me=true  
214Table R in Annex VI sets out the correspondence between the overall priorities of the EaSI strand (as set 
out in the annual work programmes 2021-2023) and the EPSR principles and provides some indicative (non-
exhaustive) examples of corresponding activities funded by the EaSI strand. 

72 

 
 
 
 
EaSI  strand  to  date  are  the  ‘gender  equality’  (2),  ‘wages’  (6),  ‘social  dialogue  and 
involvement of workers’ (8) and ‘work-life balance’ (9). 

The  AWPs  also  include  activities  addressing  emerging  issues  at  the  top  of  the  EU 
agenda such as the aftermath of Covid-19 and the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine215. 
Additionally, they focus on supporting the transition of young people into work, in line 
with  the  European  Year  of  Youth  in  2022,  and  the  European  Year  of  Skills  in  2023. 
According to the largest share of these stakeholders (46%, 32 of 69 responses), the EaSI 
strand adequately addressed key policy challenges and priorities at the EU level to a great 
extent. Nearly an equal share of these stakeholders (45%, 31 of 69 responses) considered 
that  they  were  addressed  to  a  moderate  extent.  No  stakeholders  reported  that  the  EaSI 
strand  fails  to  address  key  challenges  and  priorities  at  the  EU  level  and  only  five 
respondents had no opinion. 

The  EU  policy  priorities  related  to  the  green  and  digital  transitions  have  been 
addressed to a lesser degree. Although several activities216 were supported, including a 
specific call for proposals launched in 2022 under the EaSI strand on ‘Social innovations 
for a fair green and digital transition’ (EUR 10 million)217 and the EaSI AWP for 2021 
mentions that support for social inclusion and microfinance is mitigating the effects of the 
twin transitions218, the evaluation shows that overall there is still limited explicit mention 
to this specific priority in the strand’s AWPs. Though several activities219, including calls 
for  proposals  on  these  topics  were  launched  in  2021-2024220,  consulted  EU-level  and 

215For  instance,  the  call  for  proposals  ‘Innovative  Approaches  to  Mitigate  the  Societal  Consequences  of 
Russia’s War of Aggression Against Ukraine within EU Member States’ (indicative budget EUR 22 million; 
indicative date for projects’ award end-October 2024).  
216Among the activities to contribute to the green transition financed by the EaSI strand are reports related to 
‘Sources and mitigation of carbon inequality and environmental footprint inequality’ and on ‘Measuring the 
green economy and the associate skills’. DG EMPL also launched under the EaSI strand a new cooperation 
agreement with the ILO covering analyses on just transition and capacity-building activities. Through its 
agreement with the ILO, DG EMPL also helped fund the ‘Just Transition Pavilion’ at the annual UN climate 
Conference  of  the  Parties  COP-28  in  Dubai.  Moreover,  an  EMPL-JRC  project  was  set  up  to  assess  the 
synergies between the green and digital transitions, considering dimensions such as gender, demographic 
change,  urbanisation,  and  income  distribution.  This  project  builds  on  the  existing  COLLEEM 
(COLLaborative Economy and EMployment)/Future Jobs project, which developed analytical and survey 
tools to assess the share of platform workers in the economy. The aim of the project is to extend and refine 
the tools and analysis in the light of the Digital Agenda/Decade and the Declaration of digital rights and 
principles,  to  strengthen  evidence  and  policy  analysis  on  the  employment  and  social  dimension  of 
digitalisation, AI and algorithmic management.  
217See  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/esf-
2022-soc-innov. 
218In  this  respect,  a  call  for  proposals  to  promote  ‘Actions  to  develop  impact  performance  intelligence 
services for the social impact investing market actors’ (EUR 5.7 million) was launched in 2024. 
219One  example is the  contribution agreement with WHO  on building more  accessible, better quality and 
resilient long-term care systems through tools and policy advice for the implementation of the Long-Term 
Care (LTC) Recommendation. 
220Several  calls  for  proposals  addressing  these  issues  were  launched  in  2021-2024,  for  instance  ‘Social 
innovation practices to combat homelessness’ ; ‘Social Innovations for the Upskilling of Vulnerable Youth, 
Especially  Young  People  not  in  Employment,  Education, or  Training’,  ‘Innovative  Approaches  Tackling 
Long-Term  Unemployment’;  the  ALMA  call  (Aim-Learn-Master-Achieve)  which  is  an  active  inclusion 
initiative to empower the most vulnerable young people aged 18 to 29.  Moreover, for 2025, two calls are 
planned:  one  to  ‘Promote  innovative  approaches  to  implement  the  Disability  Employment  Package’  and 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
national-level  NGOs  suggest  that  youth  poverty,  homelessness,  housing,  and  socio-
economic  determinants  of  health  are  other  issues  that  could  have  not  been  sufficiently 
addressed under the EaSI strand. These stakeholders also pointed to the need to emphasise 
interventions in rural, mountainous, island or otherwise remote regions.  

The evidence collected suggests that EaSI strand action is also relevant to stakeholder 
needs,  notably  support  to  vulnerable  people.  Consulted  EU-level  civil  society 
organisations  (CSOs)221  acknowledged  that  their  voice  is  being  heard  by  the  European 
Commission through structured consultations as well as through other ad-hoc exchanges 
via email or meetings. It is also worth noting that the EaSI AWPs feature on the agenda of 
the ESF+ Committee, contributing to their alignment with Member States’ needs  at the 
national level. Nevertheless, stakeholders participating in the two focus groups222 think that 
the calls for proposals are often too prescriptive, leaving little space for organisations to 
tailor their projects to answer local needs.  

The  evaluation  also  shows  that  the  budget  of  the  EaSI  strand  is  more  flexible  to 
respond  to  policy  priorities  and  stakeholders’  needs  than  in  the  previous 
programming  period223.  Consulted  European  Commission  officials  confirmed  that  in 
terms  of  resources  allocation,  compared  with  the  previous  programming  period,  ESF+ 
allows additional flexibility in using resources within the funds and better fine-tuning them 
during the programming period. Moreover, the resources allocation within the EaSI strand 
focuses increasingly now on balancing competing needs and priorities, while the previous 
boundaries between axes have been completely removed.  

Available  evidence  also  suggests  that  the  EaSI  strand  demonstrates  some  degree  of 
budgetary  flexibility  to  respond  to  stakeholder  needs  in  terms  of  reallocating  funds 
between the work packages of their projects. For instance, an EU-level CSO active in the 
field of social inclusion reported using this option to re-allocate funding to another work 
package where more resources were needed.  

A limited number (6) of consulted project promoters also noted some rigidities regarding 
the budget and its use. For example, one EU-level CSO reported challenges in using EaSI 
strand  funding  to  reimburse  participants  from  non-EU  countries  in  EaSI  strand  events, 
whereas another advocated for more flexibility to cover unexpected costs, for example for 
the indexation of salaries. Equally, a Ministry from Greece suggested that some flexibility 
in the payment of instalments could facilitate the implementation of projects as currently 
there can be imbalances between when payments are made and when funds are needed. 

another to support ‘Child poverty and the implementation of the European Child Guarantee’. Additionally, 
recurrent calls are launched to support the EURES Targeted Mobility Schemes (TMS) and EU-level NGOs 
networks active in the area of social inclusion, including those supporting microfinance and social enterprise 
finance. 
221The ESF+ Regulation foresees the involvement of EU-level civil society organisations (CSOs) and social 
partners in the preparation of the EaSI AWPs in line with the Article 39(8). 
222Two focus groups were conducted during the study supporting the ESF+ mid-term evaluation: one with 
the EaSI strand stakeholders and another with the shared management managing authorities. 
223The EaSI programme  Regulation defined an indicative budget allocation for each of its three axes and 
indicative  breakdowns  of  allocations  between  the  thematic  areas  within  each  axis.  Although  the  EaSI 
Regulation  included  a  flexibility  clause  to  adjust funding  among  its  three  axes,  the programme’s  ex  post 
evaluation  shown  that  it  was  in  practice  ineffective  due  to  the  administrative  burden  generated  by  any 
budgetary redeployment.  

74 

 
 
 
 
ESF+  continues  to  be  relevant,  also  considering  future  trends  and  priorities. 
Currently, ESF+ resources are quite evenly distributed across the three main policy areas—
employment, social inclusion, and education. These priorities align with the key areas of 
action identified in the Strategic Foresight Report 2023224. The report emphasizes the need 
for  inclusive  labour  markets  that  support  participation  among  all  segments  of  the 
population, notably women, persons with disabilities, the elderly, young people, and other 
underrepresented groups who are neither in employment, education, nor training. These 
needs correspond to ESF+ specific objectives SO(a), SO(c), and SO(h).  

Additionally,  the  Foresight  Report  highlights  the  importance  of  effective  migrant 
integration, which aligns with SO(i). It also argues that workplaces and working conditions 
need to be adapted to new types of jobs, generational expectations, and workers' needs, 
corresponding to SO(b) and SO(d). In the area of social inclusion, there will be a continued 
need to develop inclusive, high-quality social services that enhance people's capabilities, 
adapt  social  protection  systems  (SO(k)),  and  reduce  inequalities  and  social  exclusion 
(SO(h), SO(j), SO(l), and SO(m)). Lastly, Action Eight of the Foresight Report focuses on 
ensuring that everyone can successfully contribute to the sustainability transition. In this 
respect, quality and inclusive education and training are key, as reflected in ESF+ SO(e), 
SO(f), and SO(g). 

ESF+ remains broadly relevant in the context of the EU’s emerging needs related to 
competitiveness and growth policies, as identified in the Draghi report225, although 
further analysis and subsequent adjustments may be necessary.  ESF+ has allocated 
roughly one-third of its funding to social inclusion, aligning with the premise of the Draghi 
report  that  the  European  approach  must  ensure  that  productivity  growth  and  social 
inclusion go hand in hand. ESF+ investments are also aligned with the report’s emphasis 
on education and skills and its call for a strategy to address skills gaps.  

A  significant  share  of  ESF+  funding  is  dedicated  to  lifelong  learning  and  education, 
including  skills  anticipation  and  the  labour  market  relevance  of  education  and  training 
systems (SO(b), SO(e), SO(f), SO(g)), as well as investments in digital skills). However, 
the  Draghi  report  also  suggests  shortcomings  in  delivering  skills  policies,  such  as 
insufficient  industry  involvement  in  developing  job-specific  skills,  a  lack  of  systematic 
evaluation  of  effectiveness,  underuse  of  skills  intelligence,  and  insufficient  targeted 
interventions  to  address  skills  shortages—particularly  in  technical  and  STEM  (Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields and in specific sectors. These elements 
are broadly covered in the ESF+ programmes, but given the low implementation of ESF+, 
it  is  not  yet  possible  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  ESF+  investments  address  these 
shortcomings, as a more detailed analysis would be required at a later stage.  

Enabling conditions have strengthened the relevance of the ESF+. In some Member 
States, the necessary preconditions for effective policy implementation were not fulfilled 
at  the  time  of  programming.  In  these  cases,  the  enabling  conditions  contributed  to  the 
establishment of the necessary policy and regulatory frameworks. Additionally, based on 

224Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  2023  Strategic 
Foresight Report Strategic Foresight Report Sustainability and people's wellbeing at the heart of Europe's 
Open Strategic Autonomy. COM(2023) 376 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0376 
225https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en#paragraph_47059 

75 

 
 
 
 
the  evidence  from  the  desk  research  and  interviews  with  EU  and  national  level 
stakeholders,  enabling  conditions  and  the  monitoring  of  their  constant  fulfilment  are 
generally regarded as relevant across all Member States.  

76 

 
 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

As discussed in the previous sections, the first general conclusion which emerges from this 
evaluation  is  that  the  regulatory  deadline  to  deliver  the  evaluation  was  formulated 
rigidly  and  did  not  allow  taking  into  account  the  delay  in  implementation  of  ESF+,  in 
particular  the  shared  management  strand.  In  consequence,  a  conclusive  analysis  of  the 
fund’s  intermediate  results  was  not  possible.  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency  of  the  changes  introduced  in  the  design  of  ESF+  remained  only  partially 
conclusive due to early stage of implementation. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw some 
conclusions  and lessons  learnt to  be taken into account  in  the  ongoing  implementation. 
They should be read with the methodological constraints described in Section 1.3 in mind. 

Effectiveness 

•  The  evaluation provided  mixed  evidence  of the effects of the merger  of former 
ESF,  YEI,  FEAD  and  EaSI.  The  effects  identified  depended  heavily  on  how 
similar the former funds were in terms of implementation and management mode. 
Common objectives were not sufficient to ensure synergies and complementarities 
on the ground. 

o  The advantages of  a merger of funds  were most  commonly identified in the 
stakeholders’  opinions  about  the  merger  of  former  ESF  and  YEI.  Such 
advantages included more streamlined and simplified management processes, 
greater  flexibility  in  transferring  funds  depending  on  changing  needs,  and  a 
more streamlined approach to implementation. The positive opinions about the 
impact of the merger were linked to strong complementarities between ESF and 
the  YEI  in  the  previous  programming  period  (2014-2020)  both  in  terms  of 
target  groups  (young  people  not  in  employment,  education  or  training)  and 
areas of action (employment support). 

o  The positive effects of the merger of ESF and FEAD were reported in particular 
in the Member States that included ESF and FEAD-types of activities in one 
programme. However, complementarities between the operations dedicated to 
the  most  deprived  and  the  “mainstream”  ESF+  operations  require  strategic 
programming  and  additional  efforts  from  the  managing  authorities’  side  to 
produce results at the level of end-recipients. 

o  The evidence collected suggests that a common legal basis for ESF and EaSI 
did  not  automatically  lead  to  more  synergies  between  the  ESF+  shared 
management strand and the EaSI strand. Different modes of implementation, 
procedures, timelines of programming, level of governance, stakeholders and 
type of activities constitute multiple challenges. Additional efforts, both at the 
EU and national levels, as well as more time are necessary for the synergies to 
occur.  

o  The Social Innovation Plus Initiative as well as other mechanisms, incentives, 
platforms  and  actors  involved  in  both  strands  are  considered  as  having  the 
potential to ensure better synergies/communication between them, but it is too 

77 

 
 
 
early  to  assess  whether  this  will  lead  to  scaling-up  under  the  shared 
management strand of social innovation projects tested under the EaSI strand. 
At  the  same  time,  the  complexity  of  the  ESF+  design  as  regards  its  social 
innovation scheme and the ensuing risk of fragmentation of its components may 
create confusion among stakeholders and require a large investment of time and 
resources to navigate. 

•  Thanks  to  the  requirement  to  dedicate  a  priority  to  social  innovation  and  the 
increased EU co-financing rate, the amount dedicated to social innovation under 
the shared management almost doubled compared to the previous programming 
period. However, while the programmes refer to social innovation (in line with Article 
14 of the ESF+ Regulation), there is no direct reference to the EaSI strand projects and 
to their potential for upscaling. This could signal that Member States are not interested 
in or have not yet envisaged upscaling projects experimented under the EaSI strand. 

•  Thematic  concentrations  played  an  important  role  in  ensuring  that  Member 
States  continue  to  support  areas  which  previously  had  dedicated  funding.  The 
allocation focused on support to NEET remained at the same level in ESF+ as under 
YEI and the allocation for most deprived under ESF+ increased compared to FEAD.  

•  Enabling conditions have been generally successful in ensuring that the necessary 

preconditions for effective implementation of the ESF+ are in place. 

Efficiency 

•  Estimates  suggest  that  the  administrative  costs  for  programme  authorities  are 
comparatively low, but they are frontloaded at the beginning of the period and are 
expected to decrease in relative terms as implementation progresses.  

•  The  simplification  measures  introduced  in  ESF+  are  generally  perceived  as 
leading  to  streamlining  of  the  processes  and  reduction  of  the  administrative 
burden.  

o  A  more  proportionate  approach  to  audits  and  a  reduction  in  the  number  of 
verifications  have  likely  resulted  in  significant  efficiency  gains.  Moderate 
efficiency  gains  have  also  likely  been  achieved  through  simpler  rules  on 
management costs and fees and streamlined payment applications. 

o  The merger of funds has likely produced efficiency gains due to streamlined 
programming  and  implementation  rules.  Also,  the  number  of  programmes 
under shared management decreased as well as the number of indicators used 
in both strands for the monitoring and reporting. 

o  Measures to streamline the programming process are assessed positively, but 
the  programming  process  and  programming  documents  are  still  regarded  as 
complex. 

o  Enabling conditions are generally assessed as useful by stakeholders and have 
prompted  the  Member  States  to  put  in  place  the  necessary  regulatory  and 
legislative  framework  for  effective  use  of  Union  funding,  but  there  is  no 
evidence that the simplifications introduced in the current period have led to 

78 

 
 
 
cost reductions. Monitoring and reporting of fulfilment of enabling conditions 
is still considered burdensome.  

o  For  the  EaSI  strand,  the  application  and  reporting  processes  have  been 
simplified  by  the  use  of  new  corporate  tools  (Tender&Calls  Portal  and 
eGrants).  However,  challenges  remain  in  terms  of  user-friendliness  of  the 
eGrants  system  for  applicants.  Also,  the  application  and  reporting  processes 
remain burdensome, in particular for small organisations and for the operating 
grants beneficiaries (the EU-level NGO networks) with limited resources. This 
issue  is  further  compounded  by  the  steep  learning  curve  associated  with 
adopting the new system. 

o  The  information  about  EaSI  strand  activities  is  fragmented  across  several 
websites (Tender&Calls Portal, DG EMPL and ESFA), which can potentially 
be confusing for the general public. Some confusion at stakeholders’ level was 
identified  between  the  roles  of  the  National  Contact  Points  (NCPs)  that 
disseminate  information  on  the  EaSI  strand  in  general  and  of  the  National 
Competence  Centres  for  Social  Innovation  (NCCs)  that  focus  on  social 
innovation aspects within the ESF+ shared management strand.  

•  The use of simplified cost options (SCOs) has significantly increased contributing 
to a reduced administrative burden. The uptake of financing not linked to costs 
(FNLCs) is increasing, but still low. 

o  The stakeholders perceive the main advantage of the SCOs to be the reduction 
of  administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  and  managing  authorities, 
simplification of management process and facilitation of payments. 

o  One  of  the  key  challenges  to  the  uptake  and  effective  implementation  of 
simplification  modalities  is  the  high  initial  investment  in  the  design  and 
agreement  over  the  simplification  tools,  which  entails  (time/staff)  costs  for 
administrations and beneficiaries that are not offset (initially) by the ensuing 
reduction in administrative burden (derived from their implementation). 

o  National rules that may counteract the benefits of simplification are significant 

impeding factors for both SCOs and FNLCs in some countries. 

o  The main factors hindering setting up FNLCs schemes include concerns about 
future audits, potential financial impact on beneficiaries if programmes do not 
perform  as  expected,  incentives  to  select  participants  that  are  more  likely  to 
achieve  the  expected  output  or  result,  and  difficulties  in  demonstrating  that 
intended goals have been achieved; 

o  There  is  insufficient  awareness  among  stakeholders  about  the  available 

guidance and future audit requirements. 

o  While there is still limited experience with unit costs reporting under the EaSI 
strand  (the  action  grants  supporting  the  NCPs  establishment  and  the 
travel/accommodation expenses under operating grants for the EU-level NGO 
networks), the evaluation shows that this modality imposes increased burden 
on these project implementers both in application/reporting phases.  

79 

 
 
 
•  The  use  of  digital  tools  is  not  sufficiently  streamlined,  notably  in  the  domain  of 

reporting of monitoring data. 

•  Administrative  register  data  is  not  sufficiently  used  for  monitoring  purposes  due  to 
uncertainties regarding the legal basis for re-using personal data, complex processes 
and interoperability challenges. 

Coherence 

•  The  ESF+  Regulation,  as  well  as  the  regulations  relating  to  the  other  EU  funding 
instruments, provide a strong legal basis to promote coherence and avoid overlap 
for its both strands. ESF+ programming is coherent in its objectives with other EU 
funding instruments active in human capital investment. National-level programming, 
including  Partnership  Agreements  and  ESF+  programmes,  also  includes  specific 
provisions and mechanisms to foster complementarity with other funds. 

•  Under shared management instruments, complementarities are clearest between 
the ERDF and ESF+. Many large EU-funded interventions include complementary 
funding from the ERDF and ESF+ for clearly distinct dimensions (e.g. infrastructure 
investments for ERDF, human capital investments for ESF+). 

•  There is good coherence and complementarity between the objectives of the ESF+ 
and both RRF and JTF,  but some overlapping priorities could lead to substitution 
effects and create challenges in implementation.  The existence of enabling conditions 
for the ESF+, which are absent in the RRF, may result in a lack of coherence between 
the two instruments. 

•  There  is  also  overall  good  complementarity  between  ESF+  and  AMIF,  both  in 
objectives and in implementation, similarly showing a clear demarcation of the types 
of activities supported by each fund and good examples of synergies. 

•  There  is  good  coherence  in  terms  of  objectives  with  Erasmus+  and  Horizon 
Europe,  but  the  complementarities  in  the  implementation  of  actions  at  the  national 
level are relatively limited for the ESF+ shared management strand, while there are 
good complementarities and no evidence of overlaps for the EaSI strand. 

•  Although the objectives are coherent, the limited commonalities between them have 
resulted, in practice, in a limited degree of complementarities between ESF+ shared 
management  strand  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  CAP  2023-2027,  EU4Health  and 
EMFAF. 

•  Due 

to  relatively  small  size  of 

the  EGF, 

the  potential  for 

large  scale 

complementarities between ESF+ and EGF is limited.  

•  For  the  EaSI  strand,  complementarity  with  InvestEU  is  good,  notably  because  of 
capacity building activities provided through grants related to the use of microcredit 
facilities under InvestEU. 

•  Challenges  still  exist  in  terms  of  ensuring  synergies  in  implementation  between 
ESF+  and  other  EU  funding  instruments  active  in  human  capital  investment. 
Obstacles  to  implementing  synergies  include  differences  in  timings  of  application 
procedures, nature and rules of calls for proposals, geographical focus (transnational 

80 

 
 
 
vs.  national/regional),  governance  level  (EU  vs.  national/regional)  and  lack  of 
awareness/support from ESF+ managing authorities about seeking synergies with other 
funds. 

EU Added Value 

•  The implementation of the ESF+ operations was not sufficiently advanced to analyse 

the EU value added of the ESF+ funding.  

•  Based  on  the  evaluations  of  the  previous  programming  periods,  which  point  into  a 
certain  stability  of  both  ESF+  strands’  value  added,  it  is  expected  that  similar 
volume, scope, role and process effects are being produced by the operations currently 
implemented.  

•  This  will  be  verified  in  the  retrospective  evaluation  of  both  strands  scheduled  for 

2030. 

Relevance 

•  The ESF+ intervention logic strategically responds to a large extent to the overall 
policy  context  and  related  priorities  in  the  EU.  The  main  challenges  in  the 
employment, skills and social policy area are fully addressed by the general objectives 
of the fund. 

•  The ability to (re)allocate funding based on changing/emerging needs, breadth in 
terms of policy objectives and involvement of relevant stakeholders are key factors in 
ensuring ESF+ continued relevance. 

•  The  link  between  cohesion  funds  and  the  European  Semester  in  the  ESF+ 
regulation has been strengthened. The new rules require that Member States allocate 
‘an appropriate amount’ to address the challenges identified in the Semester. Moreover, 
the  CSRs  also  orient  the  mid-term  review.  There  is  strong  alignment  with  priority 
issues identified in the European Semester process, particularly at programming stage. 

o  However, as CSRs are relatively broad, evidence of a direct correlation between 

the European Semester and ESF+ is difficult to identify. 

o  Furthermore,  the  alignment  between  the  European  Semester  and  ESF+ 

allocations cannot guarantee the adequacy of investment levels. 

•  Main  key  priority  areas  across  the  EaSI  strand  (education  and  training;  labour 
market  and  labour  mobility;  social  protection  and  active  inclusion;  and  working 
conditions)  are  adequately  covered  in  the  strand’s  Annual  Work  Programmes  and 
subsequent grants and tenders. 

•  ESF+  is  the  main  EU  financial  instrument  to  support  the  implementation  of  the 
European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  (EPSR)  that  provides  a  comprehensive  political 
framework  for  defining  its  goals.  All  the  principles  of  EPSR  which  fall  in  the 
thematic scope of ESF+ are addressed by the fund. The challenges which Member 
States face in relation to the implementation of the EPSR principles have also guided 
the national and regional priorities for ESF+ funding. 

•  ESF+ continues to be broadly relevant also considering future trends and priorities. 

81 

 
 
 
•  Stakeholders reported that some emerging challenges such as housing, homelessness, 
migration, green and digital transitions and gender equality may not be sufficiently 
covered by the ESF+. 

•  The  evaluation  of  the  EaSI  strand  has  demonstrated  that,  while  support  has  been 
provided to  policy development  in  critical  areas  — such as job  creation, promoting 
gender  equality,  supporting  older  workers,  combating  youth  poverty,  reducing 
the  socio-economic 
homelessness, 
determinants of health, and advancing the inclusion of persons with disabilities - there 
remains an ongoing demand for even greater support in these fields. The evaluation 
also  pointed  out  that  such  demand  is  particularly  significant  in  rural,  mountainous, 
island, and other remote regions. 

improving  housing  availability, 

tackling 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

As a general lesson learnt, a certain degree of flexibility in setting the deadlines in the 
legislation for presenting a mid-term evaluation would allow to factor in exceptional 
circumstances  and  conduct  the  evaluation  when  the  implementation  is  sufficiently 
advanced to provide a meaningful analysis of all criteria required by the legislation and the 
Better Regulation Guidelines.  

In  relation  to  the  detailed  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  following  lessons  learnt  were 
formulated: 

Effectiveness 

•  Merging of funds requires a careful consideration of the existing similarities at the 
implementation level and of the mechanisms needed for the effects of the merger 
to materialise. 

•  Further support to ESF+ managing authorities in the identification of relevant and 
effective social innovation projects with rigorously assessed impacts indicating a 
high  potential  for  scalability  and  transferability  would  be  beneficial  for  the 
effectiveness of the ESF and EaSI merger. 

•  Outreach to EU and national-level social innovation stakeholders is important to 
ensure that a larger and more varied pool of organisations is aware of the existence 
of social innovation funding opportunities at both EU and national levels. 

o  This  could  be achieved  by further mobilising  and empowering platforms 

already available, such as NCPs, NCCs, and CoPs.  

o  When  promoting  social 

innovation 

interventions  among  managing 
authorities (e.g. in the framework of the Social Innovation Plus Initiative), 
it could be important to use evidence of concrete impacts for example from 
the  former  EaSI  programme  and  current  EaSI  strand  projects  or  other 
programmes of social innovation (national, European or extra EU). 

•  Testing and evaluating innovative solutions before scaling them up is instrumental 
in  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  policies.  To  improve  the  impact  of  social 

82 

 
 
 
 
experimentation, it is important to promote the use of rigorous methods (such as 
counterfactual impact evaluation) to gather the evidence base on the projects’ up-
scaling potential. 

•  Ensuring that authorities managing the “mainstream” shared management actions 
and  the  support  to  the  most  deprived  cooperate  closely  is  key  to  increasing 
complementarity  between  these  two  types  of  support.  This  could  involve 
systematic cooperation with NGOs and local and regional actors in the design and 
implementation  of  measures  for  the  most  deprived.  Managing  authorities  could 
establish clear processes and mechanisms to ensure that participants under SO(m) 
measures are guided to measures under the mainstream shared management SOs.  

•  When the implementation of the interventions is more advanced, it is also important 
to assess unintended effects. This requires designing evaluation methodologies in 
a timely manner and possibly launching special surveys. 

•  Enabling conditions help to ensure that the necessary preconditions for effective 

and efficient implementation of the Union funds are in place. 

Efficiency 

•  There is still room for more simplification under the shared-management strand. 

o  There  is  scope  to  improve  proportionality  and  make  the  monitoring  and 

reporting of fulfilment of enabling conditions less burdensome.  

o  The programming process and documents could be further simplified. 

o  There  is  scope  to  streamline  the  use  of  digital  tools,  including  ensuring 

interoperability with the national systems. 

o  Extending the use of the SCOs and FNLC may be challenging in Member 
States  where  national  rules  and  regulations  cancel  out  the  benefits  of 
simplification. 

o  There is scope to explore how to reduce the initial costs of setting up an 
SCO and FNLCs scheme and raise the awareness among stakeholders about 
the available guidance and future audit requirements. 

•  To facilitate future evaluations of the impacts of the ESF+, reduce reporting costs, 
and improve the quality of monitoring data, enhancing access to administrative data 
is crucial. In this regard, it is important to ensure a clear legal basis for accessing 
such data. 

• 

It  is  important  to  provide  additional  support  and/or  guidance  (written  guidance, 
online training) to EaSI beneficiaries/project promoters about how to define and 
report unit costs for simplified cost options. 

•  More  attention  could  be  paid  to  facilitate  access  to  the  EaSI  strand  funding  for 
smaller organisations (with less expertise in application procedures, more limited 
human resources, and lesser access to cofinancing) by exploring means of alerting 
potential applicants (for instance via the National Contact Points and other existing 
platforms/structures).  

83 

 
 
 
•  The  visibility  of  EaSI  strand  calls  could  be  improved  across  the  EU 
Funding&Tenders Portal, the ESF+ website and the ESFA website, including as 
regards  the  timelines  for  application  and  selection  procedures.  Providing  one 
interface for publishing the EaSI strand calls and standard requirements to the users 
would imply – from a technical point of view - to align ESFA calls the with the 
Commission criteria/requirements based on the eGrants format and the DG EMPL 
template. 

Coherence 

•  Although there is good coherence between the objectives of ESF+ and other EU 
funds  active  in  human  capital  investment,  it  is  important  to  foster  and  facilitate 
concrete complementarities in implementation. 

•  The following factors are found to be conducive to increasing complementarities 
between ESF+ and other funds investing in human capital: early strategic planning; 
common  objectives  and  provisions  for  synergies  in  the  regulations  and  national 
planning  documents;  alignment  of  rules  and  timing  across  different  funding 
instruments; increased awareness among ESF+ managing authorities about seeking 
complementarities  with  other  funds;  establishment  of  coordination  mechanisms; 
and dedicated reporting on complementarities and demarcations between funds. 

•  At EU level, there could be more in-depth and more regular overview and analysis 
of the complementarities across different relevant funds, to maximise the potential 
and to target synergies in specific fields (e.g., on the development of digital skills 
via ESF+, Digital Europe, ERDF, RRF, Horizon Europe). 

•  Clearer demarcation between funds or merging of similar funds is crucial to address 
potential  substitution  effects  and  implementation  challenges  between  ESF+  and 
other funding instruments that invest in similar priorities and activities. 

•  To improve synergies between the ESF+ and the RRF and JTF in the area of green 
transitions,  it  is  important  to  better  define  key  concepts  (e.g.  green  jobs,  green 
skills), further raise awareness for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries on 
how to address the green and digital transitions, and  advance planning across funds 
to avoid fragmentation of efforts. 

Relevance 

• 

• 

It  is  important  to  ensure  that  processes  for  reprogramming/reallocating  funds 
continue to be straightforward and rapid and that relevant actors, including social 
partners and organisations representing target groups, are consulted meaningfully 
and  systematically  when  designing, 
implementing  and  monitoring  ESF+ 
operations. 

It is also important to continue synergies between the European Semester and the 
ESF+  while  allowing  Member  States  a  certain  degree  of  flexibility  to  prioritise 
investments, also taking into account national-level resources and budgets. 

84 

 
 
 
ANNEX I.  PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

This evaluation was carried out by DG EMPL as an initiative published in Decide with the 
reference number PLAN/2023/406. A public consultation was not launched as the general 
public does not have the specific knowledge on the ESF+ programming process, which 
was  in  the  focus  of  this  evaluation.  Moreover,  in  parallel  the  2014-2020  ESF  ex-post 
evaluation was carried out and included a public consultation. Running simultaneously two 
public consultations on the same instrument would have added to the stakeholders’ fatigue. 
An interservice group (ISG) was set up in March 2023, which included the following DGs: 
EMPL, AGRI, EAC, HOME, JUST, MARE, REGIO, RTD, SANTE and SG. 

The timeframe for the evaluation was as follows: 

24 March 2023 

12 May 2023 

6 September 2023 

1st meeting of the ISG to discuss the technical specifications 
for the supporting study 
Request for services for the external study to underpin the 
evaluation launched 
Signature of the contract for the study with the consortium 
Ecorys – Ismeri – 3s   
2nd meeting of the ISG: kick-off meeting for the study 
3rd meeting of the ISG: draft inception report of the study 

13 September 2023 
9 November 2023 
16 Jan -13 Feb 2024  Call for evidence feedback period 
14 March 2024 
16 July 2024 
5 September 2024 
4 November 2024 
2 December 2024 
11 December 2024 
6 June 2025 
23 June 2025 

4th meeting of the ISG: draft interim report of the study 
5th meeting of the ISG: draft final report of the study 
Revised final report of the study 
6th meeting of the ISG: draft staff working document  
Approval of the external study 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board meeting 
Interservice consultation launched 
Interservice consultation answers received 

The  evaluation  was  based  on  a  study  carried  out  by  an  external  team  of experts,  under 
contract (VC/2023/0287) through DG EMPL Multiple Framework Contract VT/2020/027 
for  the  provision  of  services  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines. The interservice group assessed the quality of the final report of the external 
contractor as good. The conclusions and findings of the evaluation are considered to be 
robust, mindful of the limitations and mitigating measures described in Annex II. 

The evaluation was selected for the scrutiny of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). The 
evaluation staff working document was discussed at the meeting on 11 December 2024. 
The  RSB  issued  a  positive  opinion  with  reservations  on  13  December  2024.  The  table 
below shows how this report took into account the RSB comments before launching the 
inter-service consultation. 

RSB comments 

Summary: 

How  and  where  comments  have  been 
addressed 

The SWD has been significantly amended 
in  order  to  take  on  board  the  RSB 

85 

 
 
 
in 

comments  included  in  the  13  December 
the  quality  checklist 
opinion  and 
received  from  the  RSB  on  5  December. 
See below the main changes to address the 
points to improve. 

The  intervention  logic’s  description  was 
complemented with additional elements to 
showcase the feedback loops and types of 
the  monitoring  system  and 
evidence 
evaluations  will  deliver  to  ascertain  the 
intended effects. 

The  description  of  the  intervention  logic 
was supplemented with more information 
about  ongoing  works  to  increase  the 
the  quality  of 
amount  and 
impact 
evidence 
evaluations and their synthesis. 

from  counterfactual 

improve 

The Board notes the additional 
information provided and commitments to 
make changes to the report.  

However, the report still contains 
shortcomings. The Board gives a positive 
opinion with reservations because it 
expects the lead Service to rectify the 
following aspects:  

(1) The intervention logic is not 
sufficiently clear in terms of the 
underlying theory of change to explain the 
Fund’s contribution to the expected 
impacts and causal link between expected 
results and expected impacts.  

(2) The relevance of the Fund in view of 
evolving policy needs and 
competitiveness pressures is not 
sufficiently analysed. The report does not 
provide sufficient reflection on potential 
unintended consequences and related data 
needs.  

(3) The lessons learned do not sufficiently 
address  the weaknesses  in  the monitoring 
and  reporting  framework  and  data  needs 
for the final impact evaluation. 

What to improve:  
(1)  The  report  should  critically  assess 
whether  the  intervention  logic  provides 
sufficient  information  on  the  underlying 
theory of change and how the intervention 
logic  can  serve  to  evaluate  the  Fund’s 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  and  EU-added 
value.  It  should  establish  an  intervention 
logic based on a clear theory of change to 
inform better about the expected causality, 
in particular between expected results and 
the 
impacts.  Based 
expected 
comprehensive 
the 
intervention 
report  should  reflect  on  what  additional 
together  with 
KPIs  may  be  needed 
corresponding  methods  and  data  needs, 
including 
of 
administrative  data.  The  report  should 
reflect on how the results of counterfactual 
impact  evaluations  at  micro  level  will  be 
aggregated to inform the final evaluation.  

on 
logic, 

potential 

use 

the 

86 

 
 
Additional  analysis  on  future  relevance 
based  on  Foresight  analysis  and  Draghi 
report included in chapter 4.3.  

increased 

(2)  The  report  should  explain  better  the 
relevance  of  the  instrument  to  deal  with 
evolving  needs.  It  should  use  recent 
foresight  analyses  to  establish  what  the 
forthcoming  policy  needs  are  in  view  of 
competitiveness 
continued 
pressures, digitisation and automation, and 
ageing  populations.  Based  on  analysis  of 
programming,  it  should  reflect  on  the 
results  of  relevance  analysis  to  assess  the 
prioritisation 
allocation 
including  distributing  funds  across  the 
three policy areas. 

resource 

of 

(3) The report should explain more clearly 
its methodological approach underpinning 
the current analysis of costs and benefits. It 
should  clarify  to  what  extent  the  figures 
presented are based on actual data or based 
on  data  extrapolated  from  the  2018  study 
on  simplified  cost  options.  The  report 
should be clearer about the metric and who 
the  savings  are  for.  It  should  also  better 
explain  how  those  savings  were  brought 
about by the ESF+.  

(4)  The  report  should  reflect  on  the 
methods and data needs for the evaluation 
of unintended effects. It should also make 
a  greater  effort  to  identify  and,  where 
relevant, analyse unintended consequences 
of the ESF+ such as possible displacement 
of  private  funding,  distortion  of  life-long 
training markets. 

analysis 

The part on efficiency in Section 4.1 was 
updated.  Additional 
on 
administrative  costs  based  on  the  Interim 
report  of 
the  study  “Assessment  of 
administrative  costs  and  administrative 
burden in the management of the common 
provisions  regulation  funds  2021-2027” 
were added which was not yet available at 
the time of writing the first version of the 
report. 

The  report  also  clarifies  that  the  saving 
estimates are obtained by incorporating the 
2024  figures  in  the  2018  simulations 
model.  The  report  also  clarifies  that  the 
savings are for programme authorities.  

Section  2.1.  includes  considerations  on 
possible  unintended  effects  and  possible 
methods and data needs to analyse them at 
a  later  stage  when  the  implementation  is 
more advanced.  

take 

(5)  The  conclusions  should  better  reflect 
the  limitations  of  the  available  evidence 
base  (relying  heavily  on  a  limited  set  of 
stakeholders’  opinions)  and 
into 
account the strengthened intervention logic 
and relevance analysis.  The report should 
be  more  specific  about 
lessons 
regarding  methods  and  data  needs, 
including strengthening impact evaluation 
of  innovative  solutions  (developed  in  the 
EaSI  strand  as  well  as  elsewhere)  as  a 

the 

lessons 
on 

learned  section 
strengthening 

includes 
The 
lessons 
impact 
evaluations  and  improving  the  use  of 
administrative  data  and  data  needs  on 
effects. 
unintended 
Additional 
methodological 
on 
considerations 
limitations were added. 

87 

 
the 

use 

specific 

prerequisite  for  scaling  up.  It  should  be 
of 
about 
more 
administrative  data  to  improve  quality  of 
monitoring  and  evaluation,  and  to  reduce 
reporting  costs.  The  lessons  should  also 
the  data  needs  regarding 
reflect  on 
unintended consequences. 

88 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Overall approach to the evaluation  

This evaluation is based on an external supporting study, study on administrative costs and 
analysis of the raw data of this study and other documents referenced in the SWD. The 
analysis of the supporting study was updated by DG EMPL based on transmission of data 
by end 2024 on expenditure, outputs and results. The extraction took place in May 2025. 
The different cut-off dates are summarized in the table below. 

Table 1 

Financial allocations data 

Financial data 

Q1 2023 

Q4 2024 

Monitoring data on achievements (outputs and results) 

Q4 2024 

Survey 

Interviews 

Uptake on FNLCs and SCOs 

Administrative cost data 

Supporting study 

Q2 2024 

Q1-Q2 2024 

Q1-Q2 2024 

Q1-Q2 2024 

DG EMPL relied on the work of external evaluators to (i) collect and analyse the relevant 
evidence  (including  consultation  work);  (ii)  provide  initial  answers  to  all  evaluation 
questions;  and  (iii)  present  evidence-based  conclusions  and  lessons  learnt.  The  study 
followed  an  approach  based  on  mixed-method  data  collection  approaches,  combining 
qualitative and quantitative research methods. The overall methodological approach was 
guided  by  an  Intervention  Logic  presented  in  Annex  VII  and  an  evaluation  framework 
presented in Annex III. 

Inception phase 

Following the kick-off meeting with the Commission, the study team conducted scoping 
research, including desk research and interviews with the Secretariat General, as well as 
DG  EMPL  Units  G.1  and  A.3,  which  are  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  the  ESF+ 
shared and the EaSI strands, respectively. Based on this research, the study team refined 
the evaluation matrix, the intervention logic, the methodological approach as well as the 
research tools. 

Task 1 Desk Research 

The EU-level desk research included strategic documents such as the Common Provisions 
Regulation,  the ESF and ESF+ regulations, the EaSI 2014-2020 Regulation, the impact 
assessment  for  the  ESF+  regulation,  the  mid-term  and  ex  post  evaluations  of  EaSI,  the 

89 

 
 
 
 
ESF+ Synthesis report, the European Court of Auditors’ report on the rule of law in the 
EU and others. In total, the EU-level research included 49 sources. As part of the EU-level 
research, the study team also relied on data from SFC2014, SFC2021226, FINAP227 and 
eGrants228  systems,  as  well  as  on  internal  data  provided  by  the  European  Social  Fund 
Agency (ESFA) and data publicly available on the European Commission’s website related 
to the Social Innovation Match (SIM) database. 

The national-level desk research was conducted for each Member State using documents 
in  the  respective  Member  State's  local  language(s).  This  was  facilitated  by  a  team  of 
national  experts  in  each  Member  State.  This  research  included  209  sources  including, 
amongst  others,  Member  States’  Partnership  Agreements,  programmes,  European 
Semester  documents,  and  National  Reform  Programmes.  After  the  National  experts 
completed the research, the study team collated the individual reporting templates into a 
single Excel file for a consolidated appraisal. This analysis was combined with the analysis 
of EU-level documents, as well as quantitative data from SFC2014, SFC2021, FINAP, and 
other data sources. 

Based on this structured approach to the desk research analysis, the study team provided 
preliminary answers to the evaluation questions of the study but also identified areas for 
further investigation and contradictory evidence. On the basis of the results of the desk 
research, the research team  adjusted the tools for Task 2 (targeted surveys) and Task 3 
(targeted interviews) and conducted additional desk research. 

Task 2 Targeted surveys 

Two online surveys covering the shared management and the EaSI strands of ESF+ were 
administered. The main objective of the surveys was to collect information on the changes 
of the programming and implementation of ESF+, compared to the previous programming 
period. 

The dissemination of the survey to  the ESF+  managing  authorities was made using the 
invitation  management  system  of  EUSurvey.  A  traceable  link  was  sent  to  all  ESF+ 
managing authorities in EU 27, using a distribution list shared by DG EMPL’s G.5 Unit. 
This method enabled targeted follow-ups, avoiding repeated requests to participants who 
already responded. To increase the response rates, the European Commission, in liaison 
with the study team, mobilised its Geographical Units (Geodesks) which sent a reminder 
to their relevant ESF+  managing authorities. The survey was also translated in EL, ES, 
DE, FR, IT, PL and PT to encourage the participation of regional managing authorities in 
these countries. 
The shared management survey was launched on 3 and 4 April 2024229 and remained open 
until 24 May 2024, following a seven-working-day extension. The unit of measurement of 
the survey was an individual programme. In remote cases where there were more responses 
for one programme, the earlier response has been considered. A total of 91 responses were 

226SFC(2021) is the electronic data exchange system for all official exchanges of information between the 
Member State and the Commission concerning the CPR Funds management as set in Article 69(9) of the 
Regulation (EU) 2021/1060. 
227FINAP is the online tool used by DG EMPL to program its financial activities under direct and indirect 
management modes. 
228The eGrants system is the European Commission's corporate IT tool designed to manage the full life cycle 
of projects, including calls for proposals, evaluations, and grant agreements. 
229In particular, the survey for EL, FR, DE, PL, and RO was launched on 4 April 2024 as additional time was 
needed to implement the translated versions of the survey in the respective languages and verify the contact 
details of the relevant stakeholders. 

90 

 
 
 
received from all EU Member States, apart from Slovakia230. Figure 1 in Annex V shows 
the distribution of responses across managing authorities in EU 27.  

For the EaSI strand, the survey was disseminated through several channels. The European 
Commission provided the study team with the contact details of TWG members, NCPs, 
EU-level networks, and project promoters. ESFA shared the survey link with the CoPs, the 
ALMA network, and the project promoters of the ALMA call for proposals (see Box 1, 
Annex  VII).  The  study  team  retrieved  the  contact  details  of  the  NCCs  using  publicly 
available information on the European Commission’s website231. 

The EaSI strand survey was launched on 15 April 2024 and it remained open until 31 May 
2024, following a 12-working-day extension. To enhance participation rate, the study team 
monitored  the  response  rate  across  different  stakeholder  groups,  and  sent  targeted 
reminders.  DG  EMPL  A.3,  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  the  EaSI  strand,  also 
supported the study team, through sharing the survey link with stakeholders on the EaSI 
strand. The survey received a total of 74 responses from all EU countries apart from DE, 
FI, PL and SK and two responses from third countries participating in ESF+, one from 
Montenegro and one from Serbia. Figure 2 in Annex V shows the distribution of responses 
across  managing  authorities  in  EU  27.  Figure  3  in  Annex  V  shows  the  distribution  of 
responses across different stakeholder groups that were consulted. 

Task 3 Targeted interviews  

Following the requirements of the technical specifications of the study, the research team 
has conducted a total of 360 interviews involving over 500 individuals. 

The first wave of interviews took place between 22 January 2024 and 8 March 2024. The 
main objective of this wave was to complement the results of the desk research and help 
the study team provide preliminary answers to all evaluation questions based on the five 
evaluation criteria. This wave prioritised interviews with key stakeholders on the policy-
making front  (ESF+ Committee Members, Ministries, Intermediate Bodies) involved in 
ESF+ design, management and coordination. These stakeholder groups were best placed 
to address the main enquiries around ESF+’s internal design, simplification, relevance, and 
interactions with other EU funds. Therefore, contacting them early in the study was crucial, 
to secure key inputs to answer the evaluation questions. As part of this first wave, a total 
of 134 interviews were conducted. 

The second wave of interviews took place between 15 March 2024 and 15 June 2024. This 
wave  complemented  the  evidence  collected  through  the  first  wave  of  interviews  and 
addressed its gaps. To this end, it incorporated the lessons learned from the first round of 
interviews in the form of revised interview guides, which simplified the language of the 
questions  and refined the points of inquiry. As part of this second wave,  a total  of 226 
interviews were conducted.  

Considering  the  technical  nature  of  the  subject-matter,  interviews  followed  a  semi-
structured  approach,  giving  the  flexibility  to  the  interviewees  to  change  the  order  and 
phrasing  of  the  questions  as  well  as  omit  or  ask  additional  questions  to  follow-up  on 
interviewees’ views.  

230The reply from Slovakia was received after the deadline and was not taken into account. 
231https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/competence-centres-social-innovation 

91 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 - Achieved number of interviews 

EU level 

National level 

Shared 

EaSI 

Shared 

EaSI 

Achieved 
(% of target) 

12 
(100%) 

29 
(90%) 

265 
(95%) 

54 
(85%) 

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

Task 4 Case studies 

Three case studies have been conducted as part of the research. They covered the following 
topics:  

•  Addressing  social  integration  and  material  deprivation.  The  main  lines  of 
enquiry were whether the level of support in the selected countries, under SO 4.12 
(l) and 4.13 (m) was similar, or comparable, to the level under FEAD; what type of 
support was  provided and how this compares to  the period 2014-20;  changes in 
programming  and  implementation;  possible  advantages  and/or  disadvantages  of 
integrating  FEAD  into  ESF+;  whether  there  was  stronger  coherence  and 
complementarity with other types of support under ESF+; which target groups were 
addressed within ESF+ and how they compare to FEAD; 

•  Social innovation and experimentation. The objective of this case study was to 
assess the capacity of the new arrangement of the ESF+ to promote partnerships 
between public authorities and a wide range of stakeholders (social partners, civil 
society,  etc.),  aiming  at  identifying,  conceiving,  transferring,  experimenting, 
evaluating and upscaling innovative approaches to meet social needs at the Member 
State level in different policy fields; 

•  Communication of EaSI strand activities. The objective of this case study was 
to  evaluate  EaSI  communication  at  all  levels.  This  includes  the  EU  level 
(communication  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  European  Social  Fund 
Agency), national level (National Contact Points and National Competence Centres 
for Social Innovation), and local level (project promoters under the EaSI strand). 

Task 5 Focus groups 

As  part  of  the  study,  two  focus  groups  (FGs)  took  place,  one  for  the  direct/indirect 
management, on 9 July 2024, and one for the shared management, on 10 July 2024. The 
purpose of the FGs was to: 

•  Consolidate and validate the analysis undertaken in the study; 

•  Supplement findings with additional examples, measures, or good practices; 

•  Exchange ideas on lessons learned from ESF+ implementation to date, which could 
feed into the remainder of the current programming period, or ESF+ post-2027. 

The  FG  for  the  EaSI  strand  gathered  41  participants232,  while  the  FG  for  the  shared 
management strand gathered 49 participants233. Microsoft Teams was used to run the FGs. 
Each  FG  was  organised  into  two  main  sessions:  the  first  session  presented  the  study 
findings by evaluation question (as relevant for each stakeholder group); and the second 

232This number includes the European Commission and the study team’s members. 
233This number includes the European Commission and the study team’s members. 

92 

 
 
 
 
session  focused  on  shared  conclusions,  learning  points  and  policy  implications  for  the 
future. Within the first session, discussions were held in breakout groups, whereas in the 
second session, discussions were held in plenary.  

The breakout groups for the shared management strand included a mix of stakeholders on 
the policy side (Ministries, managing authorities, intermediate bodies, social partners) and 
on the implementation side (NGOs, beneficiaries). The decision not to have these groups 
separately was based on the small number of participating NGOs and beneficiaries. 

Conversely, in the indirect management strand, policy-side stakeholders (EaSI Technical 
Working  Group  members,  National  Contact  Points,  National  Competence  Centres  for 
Social Innovation) were grouped separately from implementation-side stakeholders (EU-
level networks and project promoters under the EaSI strand). 

Task 6 Conclusions 

Throughout  the  conclusion  tasks,  the  findings  were  tested  through  a  process  of 
triangulation, to establish the extent to which the different strands of evidence support or 
refute  each  other.  Analysis  was  clustered  around  management  strands,  specific 
programmes, Member States, as well as by stakeholder group, and common themes. The 
evidence gathered to answer the evaluation questions was then reviewed, to form balanced 
judgments  in  relation  to  the  relevance,  coherence,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  and 
European  added  value  of  the  programming  and  implementation  of  ESF+  to  date.  As 
relevant, the findings and assessments were presented in relation to different programme 
strands and the programme as a whole.  

The  evidence  was  also  used  to  revisit  and  test  the  intervention  logic  for  the  study.  In 
particular, the study team used the evidence to confirm the logic chain of the programme 
and  used  this  to  formulate  the  key  lessons,  including  challenges  and  potential 
improvements, which could be useful for improving ESF+ implementation in the second 
part  of  the  current  programming  period  and  to  inform  the  future  shape  of  ESF+.  The 
development of lessons learnt from the study were based on the triangulated findings of 
the study, including promising practices identified, but also drew strongly on the results of 
the focus groups  (Task  4), which examined in  more detail specific issues and potential 
recommendations with the relevant stakeholder groups.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The main limitations encountered in the research included the following: 

•  Low  level  of  ESF+  implementation  and  limited  evidence  on  impacts:  As 
foreseen in the technical specifications of the study, and discussed with the ISG 
during  the  inception  phase,  this  was  a  key  limitation  for  the  study.  Since 
implementation  on  the  ground  of  ESF+,  in  particular  the  shared  management 
strand, started later than foreseen, evidence on its effects was limited at the time of 
writing. Similarly, although calls for proposals under the EaSI strand have taken 
place since 2021, there was still limited evidence on impacts of funded activities 
for this strand. The study team has drawn on as much available quantitative and 
qualitative  evidence  on  implementation  and  impacts  as  possible,  however  it  is 
important to note this key  limitation. As foreseen in the questions set out  in the 
technical specifications for the study, the study thus principally explored whether 
and how the design  of the fund and the changes in  its design  from  the previous 
programming  period  were  supporting  synergies  within  the  fund  and  with  other 
funding programmes and policies, the increased relevance of the fund to needs on 
the ground and increased efficiencies and effectiveness in initial implementation; 

93 

 
•  Stakeholder  fatigue:  due  to  the  large  number  of  evaluations  that  were  being 
conducted on ESF at both national and EU level, as well as those conducted on 
FEAD,  YEI  and  EaSI  (which  came  under  the  ESF+  umbrella),  the  study  team 
encountered a degree of stakeholder fatigue for the consultation activities of the 
study, in particular the targeted surveys (Task 2), interviews (Task 3) and focus 
groups (Task 5). Thanks to deploying a range of strategies (e.g. using the expert 
knowledge and contact networks of the contractor’s national experts, accreditation 
letter from the European Commission, repeated contacts to persuade stakeholders 
of  the  importance  of  the  study,  etc.),  the  study  team  was  able  to  overcome  this 
challenge to a large extent, but involved the deployment of significant resources to 
reach the right consultees within the study timeframe; 

•  The technical nature of the evaluation questions: National experts encountered 
difficulties in adapting interview questions in particular to ESF+ beneficiaries or 
organisations representing participants. This challenge arose because the nature of 
the evaluation questions was often too technical for these stakeholders (as noted 
above, focusing principally on the design, relevance and coherence of ESF+ rather 
than implementation to date). To mitigate this challenge, the research team assisted 
National experts in explaining technical questions in more understandable terms, 
and adapting the focus of the interviews to the specific knowledge and experience 
of interviewees; 

•  The  wide  scope  of  ESF+:  the  new  architecture  of  ESF+  is  very  broad, 
encompassing two strands, and bringing together funds previously covered by other 
specific funds (i.e. FEAD, YEI, EaSI). It covers a very wide spectrum of thematic 
areas and stakeholders (at EU, national and local levels), as well as management 
mechanisms  (shared,  direct  and  indirect  management).  This  posed  a  significant 
challenge  for  covering  all  relevant  fields,  stakeholders  and  management 
mechanisms  in  outreach  to  stakeholders,  research  tools,  conducting  research, 
analysis  and  reporting.  In conjunction  with  the  ISG, the study team has  worked 
closely  to  develop  tools  and  agree  reporting  structures,  including  grouping  of 
evaluation questions, which cover all these dimensions in the most coherent and 
comprehensive manner; 

•  The tight timeframe of the study: given the wide scope of ESF+, the complexity 
of the evaluation questions and the challenges with stakeholder fatigue, the study 
timescale of a maximum of 12 months was very tight to cover all the research tasks 
and  reach  all  relevant  stakeholders.  The  study  team  nonetheless  deployed  the 
necessary resources to ensure that the research was completed on time and to the 
highest possible quality. 

Analysis of administrative costs 

The  analysis  of  costs  builds  on  the  study  ‘Assessment  of  the  administrative  costs  and 
administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common  provisions  regulation  funds 
2021-2027’  (forthcoming  in  2025)  and  on  the  2018  study  ‘New  assessment  of  ESIF 
administrative costs and burden’234.   

Administrative costs for programme authorities 

234New assessment of ESIF administrative costs and burden - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu). 

94 

 
 
 
Regarding administrative costs for programme authorities, the study ‘Assessment of the 
administrative  costs  and  administrative  burden  in  the  management  of  the  common 
provisions regulation funds 2021-2027’ collected data from two targeted surveys, one sent 
to programme authorities and another to coordination bodies. Both included quantitative 
and  qualitative  elements  related  to  administrative  tasks,  practices,  costs,  and  potential 
savings. To ensure representativeness, the surveys collected information from all Member 
States,  funds,  type  of  region  and  programme  size.  Follow-up  interviews  were  used  to 
validate the results.  

Following this study’s categorisation, the assessment of costs presented by task area (i.e. 
broader categories) in Annex IV. These entail the following activities: 

•  Preparation:  elaboration  of  Partnership  Agreements,  preparation  of  programmes 
and  programme  amendments,  setting  up  of  management  and  control  system, 
identification  of  programme  authorities,  ensuring  and  monitoring  enabling 
conditions. 

•  General  management:  information,  training  and  communication,  establishing, 
running  and  guiding  work  of  monitoring  committee,  ensuring  a  system  for 
collecting, recording and storing data, setting up and using a system for electronic 
exchange  of  information  with  beneficiaries,  ensuring  respect  for  fundamental 
rights, equality between men and women and non-discrimination, drawing up the 
management declaration. 

•  Financial  management:  ensuring  adequate  separation  of  functions  and  systems, 
corrections  of  irregularities,  effective  and  proportionate  anti-fraud  measures, 
drawing  up  and  submitting  payment  application  to  commission,  certification  of 
expenditure entered in the accounts, accounting function, management of financial 
instruments. 

•  Operations: selection of operations and information to beneficiaries, management 
verifications for each application for reimbursement by beneficiaries, on-the-spot 
verifications, integrated territorial investment, community-led local development. 

•  Reporting,  Monitoring,  Evaluation:  annual  performance  review,  preparation  and 

transmission of financial data to the EC, programme evaluations. 

•  Audit:  preparation,  submission  and  updating  of  audit  strategy,  system  audits, 
ensuring adequate audit trail, audit of operations, audit of accounts, preparation and 
submission of annual audit opinion and control report. 

Whenever possible, estimates for ESF+ and multi-fund programmes were used.  The ESF+ 
portion  of  the  multi-fund  programmes  could  not  be  estimated  separately,  and  it  was 
assumed  to  be  18%  of  the  administrative  costs  of  the  multi-fund  programmes 
corresponding to the ESF+ share of the allocations in multi-fund programmes.  Estimates 
of the administrative costs for programme authorities of the different funds are based on 
the following sample sizes: all CPR funds (N= 275), ESF+ (39), Multi-fund (N=72, out of 
which 57 programmes also included ESF+). Note that sample size refers to the number of 
programmes and not individual responses. 

For the remaining programmes with no data, the missing values were imputed using the k-
nearest neighbour method (see the study for more details on the imputation method).  The 
total sample size (programmes where data was collected and imputed) is the following: 
CPR funds (N=483), ESF+ (N=82), Multi-fund (N=110). The total cost calculations and 
total costs by task and by fund, based on the raw data, were made by DG REGIO. 

95 

 
Total monetised costs were estimated until December 2024, i.e. the cut-off point for data 
collection of this mid-term evaluation. The forthcoming 2025 study collected data on the 
share of costs that are incurred each year. It is possible to estimate how much has been 
incurred until the end of 2024 using this information. These calculations, based on the raw 
data, were made by DG REGIO. Such yearly breakdowns could not be estimated at the 
task group level. Task group cost figures are therefore presented as estimates until the end 
of the period.  

Cost savings for programme authorities 

The aggregate monetised estimate of burden reduction for programme authorities builds 
on a comparison  of the results with  the previous 2018 study “New assessment of ESIF 
administrative  costs  and  burden”  relating  to  the  2014-20  period.  However,  some  key 
limitations make the comparison challenging and therefore the overall results should be 
treated with caution.  The main limitations to the comparability are the following: 

•  The  list  of  tasks  has  been  refined  compared  to  the  previous  study  and  therefore 

cannot be fully compared. 

•  The amount of data for costs on the task level is substantially lower compared to 

other types of data.  

•  The  data  was  collected  during  a  period  where  many  programmes  had  their 
operations  not  yet  fully  running,  due  to  the  implementation  delay  of  many 
programmes. 

•  During  interviews,  programme  authorities  repeatedly  reported  difficulties  in 
comparing  the  tasks  to  the  previous  funding  period,  as  the  structure  of  tasks 
developed  for  this  study  was  difficult  for  programme  authorities  to  apply  to  the 
reality of managing the programmes.  

Because of the above, this evaluation only presents one aggregate monetised figure for the 
ESF+ programmes and the percentage change of the total average costs for the ESF+. The 
total monetized figure for cost savings for the ESF+ programmes was estimated by using 
a combination of raw data (total costs for programme authorities during the entire period 
for the ESF+ programmes: EUR 1,752 m) and estimated cost reduction in total average 
costs  in  percentages  (-29%).  Data  for  multi-fund  programmes  were  not  available.  The 
comparison at the fund level seems to be more plausible than the comparison between tasks 
(i.e. at a more granular level), which is therefore not monetised for the purposes of this 
evaluation. 

Regarding  simplification  for  programme  authorities,  measures  were  assessed  for  their 
potential to reduce costs. The scoring is determined based on the percentage of respondents 
who believe the measure result in cost savings. The levels of scoring are as follows:  

•  1: less than 5% of respondents believe the measure reduces costs;  

•  2: more than 5% of respondents anticipate cost savings;  

•  3: more than 30% expect cost reductions; and 

•  4: more than 50% of respondents predict significant cost savings.  

Measures  are  also  assessed  for  their  likelihood  of  causing  cost  increases.  The  scoring 
reflects  how  many  respondents  expect  higher  costs  due  to  the  implementation  of  these 
measures: 

•  1: Less than 5% expect significant or moderate cost increases; 

96 

 
•  2: More than 5% expect such increases; 

•  3: More than 30% expect significant or moderate cost increases; and 

•  4: More than 50% expect cost increases. 

Finally, a score is given about the Net cost reduction potential (Cost reduction minus cost 
increase). This score indicates the overall cost-effectiveness of each measure, calculated 
by subtracting the cost increase potential from the cost reduction potential: 

•  0: NO COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL – If the net score is less than 1, meaning 
there is little to no overall cost reduction potential; 

•  1: MODERATE – A net score of 1  

•  2: SIGNIFICANT – A net score of 2 or above 

The table in Annex IV only presents the measures that have received an overall net 
score  above  0.  The  scores  are  based  on  respondents  for  ESF+  and  multi-fund 
programmes. 

Administrative costs for beneficiaries 

Administrative costs are also incurred by beneficiaries. These costs relate to all activities 
undertaken  by  beneficiaries  and  final  recipients  through  their  application  and  project 
lifecycle related to their use of the  ESF+. Estimates for the burden on beneficiaries are 
based on 197 beneficiary responses and 4 final recipients of financial instruments from 72 
different programmes that have participated in the survey. Of these, respondents for the 
evaluated funds are as follows: ESF+ (N=22) and Multifund (N=97), but the number of 
respondents differs by task (see Annex IV on the number of respondents per question). The 
response  rates  show  uneven  distribution  across  funds  and  Member  States.  This  low 
response rate may introduce bias, as the perspectives captured may not fully reflect the 
broader reality of administrative burden. To mitigate this bias to the extent possible, the 
administrative cost (note: the underlying study uses the term ‘burden’ for beneficiaries) 
results  are  presented  for  all  CPR  funds  relating  to  all  201  responses  and  presented  in 
qualitative terms. 

Cost savings for beneficiaries 

Similarly, the comparison of administrative burden on beneficiaries is limited by several 
issues of comparability. As for the programme authorities, it is built on the comparison 
with  the 2018 study, which highlights several  challenges to  direct  comparability due to 
changes in scope, task definition, measurement and data collection. Given comparability 
issues  and  the  relatively  smaller  sample  size,  the  SWD  does  not  include  monetised 
estimates,  and  administrative  burden  is  assessed  only  qualitatively.  The  comparison  of 
administrative cost for beneficiaries with the previous programming period was done only 
qualitatively. 

Cost savings due to SCOs 

To estimate the monetary value of the burden reduction due to increased use of SCOs for 
the  ESF+,  three  sources  of  were  used:  the  2018  study  ‘New  assessment  of  ESIF 
administrative  costs  and  burden’;  actual  data  on  the  use  SCOs  by  2024;  inflation  data 
(Harmonized  Index  of  consumer  prices:  Eurostat).  The  2018  study  was  an  ex-ante 
assessment on the burden reduction potential depending on the use of SCOs. The burden 
reduction by end 2024 was calculated by applying the 2018 ex-ante simulation model and 
incorporating the current figures on the use of SCOs assessed in 2024 prices.

97 

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

N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? (Effectiveness, efficiency, coherence) 

1  All  

How is the articulation 
between direct, indirect 
and shared management 
delivering on funds’ 
objectives? 

Outputs and results over the 
implementation period are in line with 
expectations and targets 

Fund performances against specific 
indicators selected as Point of 
comparisons 

Based on the current level of 
implementation, the fund is projected 
to meet its targets  

Examples where the articulation of 
the strands has contributed to meeting 
objectives 

The articulation of direct, indirect and 
shared management strands is having 
a positive impact on the achievement 
of objectives of the funds compared to 
the previous programming period 

Extent of integration in actual 
implementation of the ESF+ 

Perceived contribution of this 
articulation to achieving funds’ 
objectives (by fund) by MAs and 
main ESF+ stakeholders 

Integration of timing and expected 
results of the different strands 

SFC2021 data (Task 1) 

FINAP database (Task 1) 

eGrants database (Task 1) 

ESF+ monitoring data (planned resources by strand, 
priority, and Specific Objective) including data on 
results (Task 1) 

Analysis of ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

Analysis of EaSI AWPs and Monitoring data for the 
period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

Interviews with all EU and national stakeholders 
(task 3)  

Surveys of EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

98 

 
 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

2 

SM 

How useful are 
Partnership Agreements 
and programmes in the 
2021-2027 programming 
period? 

In what ways, at which 
levels and why?  

Partnership Agreements (PAs) have 
played a key role in providing a 
strategic orientation for the definition 
of the objectives, allocations of 
funding and actions for ESF+ 
programmes at national and regional 
level 

Partnership Agreements (PAs) 
continue to play a key role in guiding 
programming or implementation of 
the ESF+ at national and regional 
level 

Programming components included in 
the PAs are better placed in the 
agreements than in the programmes or 
other strategic documents 

3 

SM 

How could the process 
leading to programme 
adoption be streamlined?  

In what ways and why? 

Identification of process elements 
leading to bottlenecks or streamlining 

Existence of demand for 
simplification and main needs and 
suggestions for simplifications  

Evidence of correspondence/influence 
of PAs on objectives, funding 
allocations and actions in ESF+ OPs 
(analysis of texts) 

Adopted OPs and Partnership Agreements (Task 1) 

Member State evaluations and studies, including of 
other EU funds (Task 1) 

Evidence of effectiveness of PAs to 
ensure coherence of the ESF+ 
programming and implementation 

Assessments of usefulness of the 
different components of the strategic 
orientation by the MAs and other 
actors (pluriannual programming, 
resources allocated to specific social 
aims, involvement of stakeholders, 
possibility of reprogramming, EU 
constraints on financial allocation, 
constraints on the timing of the 
expenditure, monitoring, evaluation, 
etc.) 

Evidence on the duration of processes 
in the preparation of the PA and 
programmes, including the main 
examples of prolonged processes (and 
why) and of efficient processes (and 
why) 

Analytical evidence from 
stakeholders' consultation on key 
elements of PAs and programmes 
which (a) helped to streamline and (b) 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

National legal acts regulating the ESF+ 
implementation (Task 1) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 2) 

Survey of ESF+ managing authorities (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

National legal acts regulating ESF+ (Task 1) 

Surveys with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

99 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

4 

SM 

What (internal and 
external) circumstances 
hindered/ facilitated the 
preparation of 
programmes?  

In what ways and why? 

Existence, extent and nature of key 
internal and external circumstances 
(a) hindering and (b) facilitating 
programme preparation 

5 

SM 

Did the merger of former 
ESF, YEI and FEAD 
facilitate or hinder 
programming and 
implementation to date?  

Extent and nature of 
advantages/benefits on (a) 
programming and (b) implementation 
introduced by merging these funds to 
date 

hindered processes leading to the 
adoption of programmes 

Stakeholders consulted reported 
examples of how programme 
adoption could be streamlined  

Evidence from desk research on how 
programme adoption could be 
streamlined 

Analytical evidence from 
stakeholders' consultation on key 
internal factors which (a) hindered 
and (b) facilitated the preparation of 
programmes 

Analytical evidence on key external 
factors which (a) hindered and (b) 
facilitated the preparation of 
programmes 

Views of key stakeholders and 
evidence from desk research on 
circumstances (a) hindering and (b) 
facilitating programme preparation 

Evidence of new simplifications (e.g. 
smaller number of programmes, more 
similar implementation procedures, 
better possibility of coordinating the 
funds, etc.) and their effective 
implementation 

100 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

SFC2014 and SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Impact assessment accompanying 
the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and the Council on the European Social 
Fund Plus (ESF+) (Task 1) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

In what ways and why? 

Extent of disadvantages/costs on (a) 
programming and (b) implementation 
introduced by merging these funds to 
date 

Extent outputs and results over the 
implementation period are 
comparable with the corresponding 
outputs and results at the same point 
in time under the previous 
programming period 

Evidence of additional complexities 
or hindrances to programming and 
implementation of ESF+ to date 
linked to the merging of these funds 
(e.g. administrative delays, 
complexity of procedures, etc.) 

Changes occurred (if any) in the 
national institutional/ administrative 
arrangements to manage merged 
funds 

6 

SM 

What can be learned from 
other EU funds? 

Extent to which Partnership 
Agreements and programmes required 
more time than under the previous 
programming period to be adopted 

Extent and nature of lessons which 
have been learned from other EU 
funds to date 

Identification of other lessons which 
can be learned from other EU funds 

Relevant lessons from the 
programming and implementation of 
other EU funds (e.g. ERDF, CF, JTF) 
identified in evaluations of these 
funds 

Extent to which key ESF+ 
stakeholders reports to have adopted 
good practices from the programming 
and implementation of other EU funds  

Examples of good practices 
transferred to ESF+  

101 

Ex-post evaluation of the 2014-2020 FEAD 
conducted by Ecorys (Task 1) 

Ex-post evaluation of EaSI (Task 1) 

National legal acts regulating ESF+ (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Review of mid-term and/or ex-post evaluations of 
other EU Funds (Task 1) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

7 

SM 

8 

SM 

Did the enabling 
conditions result in 
national regulatory and 
policy frameworks that 
are more conducive to 
effective investments in 
line with EU policies in 
the shared management 
strand?  

If so, how and why? What 
examples exist? 

Are horizontal enabling 
conditions conducive to 
preventing irregularities 
in the implementation of 
the Fund?  

In what ways? 

What examples exist? 

Extent of improvements in the 
national regulatory and policy 
framework (more detailed strategies, 
clearer instruments to use, easier 
investments, etc.)  

National policy and regulatory 
systems embodying enabling 
conditions or using them to produce 
improvements in planning, managing 
and assessing labour and social 
policies 

Cases where the strategic policy 
framework was significantly changed 
to satisfy ECs conditions and 
accelerate and better target 
investments 

Structured data and transmissions available to date 
(Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

SFC2021 data on updated expenditure (Task 1) 

ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Audit (including ECA) reports 
(Task 1) 

Surveys with ESF+ Managing/Audit Authorities 
(Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Degree to which horizontal enabling 
conditions have prevented (or are 
likely to prevent) irregularities in the 
implementation of the Fund to date 

Changes implemented in management 
and control mechanisms to ensure 
compliance with the horizontal 
enabling conditions 

Number of reported irregularities VS 
total number of projects implemented 
(Error rate) 

Decrease in the number of 
irregularities per operation (or spent 
EUR mn) in comparison to the past 
(where available) 

Extent to which key stakeholders 
agree that horizontal enabling 
conditions contributed to prevent 
irregularities 

102 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

9 

SM 

Are thematic enabling 
conditions conducive to 
foster the effectiveness of 
investments? 

In what ways? 

What examples exist? 

Degree to which thematic enabling 
conditions have fostered the 
development of national policy 
frameworks and context more 
conducive to the successful 
achievement of the relevant SOs 

Evidence on how fulfilling the 
thematic enabling conditions ensured 
the existence of a national context and 
policy frameworks more conducive to 
the successful achievement of the 
relevant SOs 

ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Audit reports (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: A Union of Equality: EU Roma 
strategic framework for equality, inclusion and 
participation235,  Investing in education 2023236 and 
others (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

SFC 2021 data on updated expenditure (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Evidence of (positive or negative) 
effects of the thematic enabling 
conditions on implementation 
(definition of the operations, 
identification of the target population, 
etc.) 

Extent to which key stakeholders 
agree that thematic enabling 
conditions have fostered the 
development of national policy 
frameworks and context more 
conducive (or are likely to foster) to 
the successful achievement of the 
relevant SOs the effectiveness of 

Increase or acceleration of national 
and ESF+ structural investments 

10  SM 

Are enabling conditions 
leading to structural 
investments? 

Degree to which enabling conditions 
have led (or are likely to lead) to 
structural investments 

In what ways? 

What examples exist? 

Increased volume and/or speed of 
structural investments in ESF+ 
programmes in comparison to the past 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

235See https://commission.europa.eu/publications/new-eu-roma-strategic-framework-equality-inclusion-and-participation-full-package_en. 
236See https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-05/investing%20in%20education%202023-NC0423415ENN.pdf. 

103 

 
 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

11 

I/DM 

12 

I/DM 

The integration of the EaSI strand 
activities in the ESF+ brought actual 
and potential improvements in terms 
of better planned and more 
customised interventions  

How effective and 
efficient was the 
integration of the EaSI 
strand activities in the 
ESF+ in terms of 
programming and 
processes?  

In what ways and why? 

Is there any new pattern 
emerging from this 
integration (notably in 
terms of programming, 
funding or participation)? 

What are the changes and 
to what can they be 
attributed? 

Observed changes and new trends 
compared to the past implementation 
of EaSI e.g. new methods of 
programming, funding, targeting, 
participation of different 
beneficiaries, new partnerships, 
different types of calls for 
proposal/funded operations 

Examples where enabling conditions 
can be linked to increased structural 
investments 

Views of key stakeholders on the 
degree to which enabling conditions 
are leading to structural investments 

Improvements (e.g., innovation, 
targeting, scope, etc.) in the 
effectiveness of programming and 
processes of EaSI strand activities in 
ESF+ in comparison to the previous 
programming period  

Enabling factors and obstacles which 
affect(ed) the transfer of EaSI 
experience in ESF+ programming, 
funding or participation 

New patterns in programming 

New patterns in funding mechanisms  

New ways of working with key 
stakeholders 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

EaSI Portfolio of projects (type, objectives, resources, 
etc.) (Task 1)  

EaSI evaluations (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (EaSI Managers and 
Technical Working Group Members) (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4)  

Increased or reduced participation 

Case studies (Task 5) 

New target groups and beneficiaries, 
new partnerships 

Increased or reduced numbers of calls 
for proposals 

104 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Reasons for new patterns 

13 

I/DM 

14 

I/DM 

What are to date the 
strand’s progress/ 
achievements with respect 
to identifying and 
involving relevant 
stakeholders in the 
strand’s governance and 
implementation? 

What kind of specific 
insight and new dynamic 
has been gained? 

How is transnational 
cooperation under indirect 
management contributing 
to the scaling-up of 
innovative ideas and 
enhanced cooperation 
between managing 
authorities of different 
Member States?  

Degree of involvement of the 
stakeholders (number, type, 
representativity of key groups, 
capacity of dialogue, influence in the 
decision-making processes) 

Stakeholders (type, number, 
nationality, etc.) involved in the 
programming and the implementation 
of the direct and indirect management 
strand 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Extent of existence (or absence) of 
examples of scaling up innovative 
ideas deriving from indirect 
management transnational 
cooperation  

Extent (or absence) of evidence of 
enhanced cooperation between 
managing authorities fostered by 
indirect management transnational 
cooperation 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level esp. with EaSI Managers and Technical 
Working Group Members (Task 3) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Surveys of EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with all stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

Online focus groups (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Stakeholders consulted reported that 
overall governance and 
implementation involved all relevant 
stakeholders without evident 
gaps/exclusions   

Examples of innovative ideas which 
have been scaled up thanks to indirect 
management transnational 
cooperation 

Mechanisms (networks, events, 
websites, etc.) to support scaling up of 
innovative ideas via indirect 
management transnational 
cooperation 

Examples and identification of types 
of enhanced cooperation between 
MAs fostered through transnational 
cooperation (e.g. direct collaboration 

105 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

between MAs, national coordination 
body facilitating, use of TA, methods 
for transnational engagements in 
public procurement or involvement of 
partners) 

Evidence of strategic, operational 
advantages of having a single 
strategic framework and pluriannual 
programmes 

Evidence of main 
disadvantages/costs/inefficiencies in 
programming and implementing PA 
and programmes in relation to 
national plans 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4)  

15  SM 

Which aspects generate 
the most added value 
towards ensuring a strong 
strategic orientation and 
which aspects could be 
simplified or abandoned?  

Main advantages/benefits and 
disadvantages/costs/inefficiencies of 
different aspects of the PA and 
programmes in relation to strategic 
orientation and implementation 
mechanisms 

16  SM 

In what ways and why? 

What are the trade-offs 
between partnership, 
territoriality and 
subsidiarity (relevance 
and beneficiary 
engagement - bottom-up 
approach) on the one 
hand, and a more 
centralised architecture 
(more rapid response 
through higher-level 
political engagement – 
top-down approach) on 
the other? 

Degree of existence and nature of the 
trade-offs between the bottom-up and 
top-down approaches 

Identification and analysis of 
examples of trade-offs between the 
bottom-up and top-down approaches 

Eurostat (government expenditure by function data) 
(Task 1) 

Audit reports (Task 1) 

Literature review on centralisation vs decentralisation 
debate on EU Member-States (Task 1) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m)  

Testing of some possible trade-offs:  

Timing of the decision-making 
processes in centralized and less 
centralized contexts 

Time between first submission and 
adoption of programmes in 
centralised and less centralised 
contexts (e.g. if data is available, 
possible comparison with centralised 
programming based funds, e.g. RRF) 

106 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

More accurate place-based 
approaches vs. top-down generic 
approaches 

Complexity of the ESF+ model 
(multiannual programming, 
beneficiary engagement, subsidiarity, 
partnership, territoriality, etc.) vs. 
positive effects on quality and 
management of the national plans 

Proportion of resources managed by 
the different financial modalities 
across different Member States (if 
known) 

Changes in these proportions in 
comparison to the past 

Perceived advantages which have 
influenced the choice of using 
different financial options 

SFC2021 data on expenditure (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Adopted OPs and Partnership 
Agreements for programmes that included SCOs 
(Task 1) 

Secondary sources: National documents related to 
implementation (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Reports by the Community of 
Practice on SCOs237 (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Level of usage of the different 
financial modalities 

Importance attributed to the different 
financial modalities by implementing 
organisations/MAs and beneficiaries 

17  SM 

To what extent are the 
different modalities - 
Financing Not Linked to 
Costs (FNLCs) – 
Simplified Cost Options 
(SCOs) – grants 
(payments linked to costs) 
- used?  

What are the reasons for 
having chosen specific 
modalities? 

Are FNLCs more 
conducive to structural 
investment than other 
implementation 
modalities? 

237See https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/transnational-cooperation-platform/community-practice-results-based-management. 

107 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

18  SM 

To what extent do they 
improve operational 
processes and 
implementation: what are 
the advantages and 
disadvantages of each?  

Extent to which different financial 
modalities improve operational 
processes 

Advantages and disadvantages of 
each financial modality on operational 
processes e.g.: 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m)  

Extent to which different financial 
modalities improve implementation 

Duration of the management 
processes (controls, payment, etc.) 

Degree of balance between 
advantages and disadvantages in 
different contexts 

19  SM 

What are the context 
factors that facilitate or 
impede the uptake and 

Degree of existence and nature of the 
context factors which facilitate the 
uptake and operational efficiency of 

Administrative costs of the 
management processes 

Administrative burdens of the 
management processes  

Integration with national procedures 

Advantages and disadvantages of 
each financial modality on 
implementation e.g.: 

Encouraging smaller organisations to 
lead ESF operations 

Facilitating payment of beneficiaries 

Facilitating compilation of 
expenditure (for beneficiaries and 
managing authorities) 

Evidence and nature of context factors 
which facilitate the uptake and 
operational efficiency of each of these 
modalities (e.g. flexibility of national 

108 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

operational efficiency of 
each of these modalities? 

each of these modalities in different 
contexts 

Why? 

Degree of existence and nature of the 
context factors which impede the 
uptake and operational efficiency of 
each of these modalities in different 
contexts 

20 

I/DM 

How efficient was the 
integration of the EaSI 
strand activities in the 
ESF+ in terms of 
programming and 
processes?  

In what ways and why? 

The integration of the EaSI strand 
activities in the ESF+ brought actual 
and potential improvements in terms 
of timing and administrative costs 

rules, administrative capacity 
(complexity, skills, personnel, etc.), 
positive reception from beneficiaries, 
clear guidelines) 

Evidence and nature of context factors 
which impede the uptake and 
operational efficiency of each of these 
modalities (e.g. gold-plating, rigidity 
of national rules and controls, 
administrative capacity (complexity, 
skills, personnel, etc.), resistance 
among beneficiaries, absence of 
guidelines) 

Improvements in the efficiency of 
programming and processes of EaSI 
strand activities in ESF+ in 
comparison to the previous 
programming period (e.g. economies 
of scale, joint procedures, streamlined 
management and coordination, etc.) 

Speed and ease of the integration of 
EaSI activities in ESF+ 

Enabling factors and obstacles which 
affect(ed) the transfer of EaSI 
experience in ESF+ programming, 
funding or participation 

109 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

EaSI Portfolio of projects (type, objectives, resources, 
etc.) (Task 1)  

EaSI evaluations (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (EaSI Managers and 
Technical Working Group Members) (Task 2) 

 
 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

21 

I/DM 

Is there any new pattern 
emerging (notably in 
terms of programming, 
funding or participation)? 

What are the changes and 
to what can they be 
attributed? 

Observed changes and new trends 
compared to the past implementation 
of EaSI e.g. new methods of 
programming, funding, targeting, 
participation of different 
beneficiaries, new partnerships, 
different types of calls for 
proposal/funded operations 

Degree of existence of significant 
progress/achievements with respect to 
simplification of administrative 
processes and the monitoring system  

Extent of improvement in the 
performance of the monitoring system 
(timeliness, completeness, usefulness) 

22 

I/DM 

What are to date the 
strand’s 
progress/achievements (in 
terms of governance and 
implementation) with 
respect to simplification 
of administrative 
processes (application 
requirements, selection 
procedures, 
implementation and 
reporting obligation) and 
of the monitoring system?  

New patterns in programming 

New patterns in funding mechanisms  

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

New ways of working with key 
stakeholders 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4)  

Increased or reduced participation 

New target groups and beneficiaries, 
new partnerships 

Increased or reduced numbers of calls 
for proposals 

Reasons for new patterns 

Degree to which simplifications have 
been introduced in line with planned 
timings 

Simplifications introduced in the 
implementation of administrative 
processes of the strand (selection 
procedures, financial management, 
monitoring, etc.) and evidence of 
impact of changes 

Simplifications introduced in the 
monitoring system of the strand 
(selection procedures, financial 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

EaSI portfolio of projects (Task 1) 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Study on pathways to enhance the 
use of programme-specific indicators in the ESF and 
ESF+238 

Secondary sources: reports of the European Courts of 
Auditors (Task 1) 

238See https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8466&furtherPubs=yes. 

110 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Where has the least 
progress been achieved 
and why? 

23 

I/DM 

Are there unintended 
effects?  

Existence and nature of the 
unintended effects 

If so, which, for whom 
and why? 

management, monitoring, etc.) and 
evidence of impact of changes 

Evidence and examples of unintended 
effects (e.g. due to simplification, 
trade-offs, increased burden, etc.) 

Identification of main unintended 
effects, who they affect, and the 
reasons 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level esp. EaSI Managers and Technical Working 
Group Members (Task 3) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

24 

I/DM 

Are there (other?) areas 
where simplification 
could be pursued further? 

Ongoing existence of bottlenecks and 
burdensome activities which could be 
removed/simplified 

Evidence and examples of 
inefficiencies and bottlenecks in 
implementation 

25  All 

Are there more synergies 
between the shared 
management and the EaSI 
strands than in the 
previous period and 
where/how do they 
materialise?  

The new fund configuration enabled 
the creation of more synergies 
between EaSI priorities and the 
priorities of the shared management 
strand than under the previous 
programming period 

Views of stakeholders and current 
debate on possible additional 
simplifications, their pros and cons 
and available evidence 

Extent to which shared management 
strand programmes allocate financing 
to priorities complementary with the 
EaSI strand 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Cohesion open data platform (Task 1) 

The dialogue between decision-
making processes of EaSI and the 
shared management strand is 
improved and more coordinated 

Functioning of the EaSI technical 
working group in comparison to the 
past and improvements introduced in 
the decision-making processes  

EaSI Annual work programmes (AWPs) (Task 1) 

ESF+ programmes (Task 1) 

111 

 
 
 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Types of integration between EaSI 
and shared management strand (EaSI 
as experimental fields for the shared 
management strand: policy planning 
and design, policy instruments to be 
used, involvement of the stakeholders, 
public and private partnerships, 
governance of policy models, 
implementation mechanisms, 
monitoring and evaluation) 

Evidence of improvement in the 
dialogue between decision-making 
processes of EaSI and the shared 
management strand 

26  All 

In particular, are the 
respective ESF+ strands 
more conducive to 
upscaling and transfer of 
social innovations?  

Extent of increased attention paid to 
innovation and experimentation in 
ESF+ programming and initial 
implementation 

Resources and plans dedicated to 
innovation and upscaling innovation 
in the ESF+ programmes in 
comparison to the past 

Extent to which ESF+ managing 
authorities are aware of the outputs of 
the EaSI programme 

Extent to which EaSI beneficiaries 
feel the new fund configuration 

239See https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/system/files/2022-02/KE0921329ENN.en_.pdf.  

112 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Minutes of the EaSI working group (Task 1) 

Previous EaSI evaluations (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: the ESF and community-led local 
development: lessons for the future239 (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Impact assessment accompanying 
a proposal for a regulation of the European 
Parliament and the Council on the European Social 
Fund Plus (ESF+) (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

Data from SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Analysis of ESF+ Partnership Agreements and 
programmes (Task 1) 

Analysis of Member State evaluations and studies 
(Task 1) 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

27  All 

What are the facilitating 
and impeding factors to 
improve synergies 
identified to date? 

Degree of success and difficulties 
encountered in promoting synergies 
between the two strands in different 
contexts 

unlocked a greater potential for 
scaling up of their activities 

Examples of success and difficulties 
in improving synergies with the 
examination of key factors such as: 

Innovation capacity in the 
administration (skills, priorities, 
measures dedicated, etc.)  

Strategic and implementation factors 
which facilitate synergies (e.g. better 
communication and information 
sharing, increased coherence and 
coordination at programming phase, 
etc.) 

EaSI monitoring reports (Task 1) 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Surveys of EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with all stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

Case study on social experimentation / scaling up 
(Task 5) 

28  All 

Is there learning among 
different funds’ 
stakeholders that facilitate 
social innovation? 

The new fund configuration facilitate 
learning between learners (events, 
websites, etc.) exist 

Establishment/use of mechanisms to 
promote cross-fertilisation of ideas 
across different funds 

Implementation of the partnership principle and 
multi-level governance in 2014-2020 ESI Funds240 
(Task 1) 

Key stakeholders are more widely 
participating in exchanges and 
dissemination 

Involvement of MAs or key ESF+ 
stakeholders in EaSI projects (types of 
stakeholders, methods of engagement, 
real commitment) 

240 See https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/how/studies_integration/impl_partner_report_en.pdf. 

113 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

29  All 

How coherent is the 
ESF+’s programming 
with other EU funding 
instruments active in 
human capital investment 
(e.g. RRF, ERDF, JTF, 
EGF, Invest EU, Erasmus 
+, Horizon Europe, 
EU4Health, AMIF, 
EMFAF) and CAP 2023-
2027 funds)?  

ESF+ programming is coherent and 
synergic with objectives and actions 
in the legal texts with other EU 
funding instruments 

Extent of financial contribution to 
common objectives 

Extent of existence of potential and 
actual trade-off between human 
capital investments of the different 
EU instruments 

All 

How far is the synergy 
ensured (e.g. feedback 
and cross-fertilization 
mechanisms)? 

Mechanisms exists, are used and are 
effective to ensure feedback, cross-
fertilization and, overall, synergies 

Involvement of stakeholders in 
dissemination of results and decision-
making mechanisms  

Evidence of common or 
complementary objectives and actions 
in different funding instruments 

Allocation of the different EU funding 
instruments to the human capital 
investment by country, objective, type 
of intervention 

Attention paid to minimise potential 
trade-offs (e.g. funding of investments 
for technology saving employment, 
risks for increasing inequalities, 
capacity to adapt employees made 
redundant by decarbonisation or 
digitalisation, etc.) 

Identification of the key policy stages 
(programming, implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation) where 
synergies are pursued and related 
coordination methods 

Actors involved and methods used to 
provide feedback and produce cross-
fertilization between funds 

114 

SFC2021 and Cohesion Open Data Platform data 
(planned resources by ESF+ and other Funds by 
‘Human Capital Investments’ priority, Specific 
Objective, and country) (Task 1) 

Analysis of ESF+ Synthesis report (Task 1) 

Analysis of Member State evaluations and studies 
(Task 1) 

Analysis of legal texts underpinning EU funding 
instruments in human capital investment (Task 1) 

National documents related to implementation of 
ESF+ (Task 1) 

Interviews with EU-level stakeholders coordinating 
the Funds (Task 3)  

Survey of ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Online focus groups (Task 4) 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

30  All 

How coherent is the 
ESF+ with other EU 
funding instruments 
active in supporting the 
digital and green 
transition? 

ESF+ objectives and actions are 
complementary and synergic with 
other EU funding instruments active 
in supporting the digital and green 
transition (e.g. RRF, JTF, Invest EU, 
Horizon Europe, EU4Health) 

Level and types of financial 
integration (complementarity, 
additionality, etc.) with other EU 
funding instruments active in 
supporting the digital and green 
transition 

Level and types of strategic 
integration with other EU funding 
instruments active in supporting the 
digital and green transition 

31  All 

How far is the synergy 
ensured? 

Level and type of operational 
integration 

Extent of existence (or absence) of 
mechanisms, tools or strategies to 
support synergies with other EU 
funding instruments active in 
supporting the digital and green 
transition 

Allocation of funds in the different 
instruments and ESF+ on digital and 
green transition 

Evidence of common or 
complementary objectives and actions 
in different funding instruments active 
in supporting the digital and green 
transition 

Types of operations funded by the 
different policy instruments and 
possible integration between 
investments and social policies (e.g. 
skills updating in public and private 
sectors, specific services for mobility 
and support digital and green sectors, 
etc.) 

SFC2021 and Cohesion Open Data Platform data 
(planned resources by ESF+ and other EU Funds by 
digital and green transition priority, SO, and country) 
(Task 1) 

Member States evaluations and studies (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

Review of programming statements of ESF+ and 
other Funds supporting the digital and green 
transition (e.g. RRF, JTF, Invest EU, Horizon 
Europe, EU4Health, ERDF, EAFRD, Erasmus+) 
(Task 1) 

Surveys wit EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with EU-level stakeholders and Member-
States’ ministries coordinating the Funds (Task 3)  

Online focus groups - all (Task 4) 

Forms of co-programming and 
operational integration during the 
implementation (coordination, joint 
call for tenders, etc.) 

Examples of mechanisms, tools or 
strategies to support synergies with 
other EU funding instruments active 

Review of potential forms of co-programming and 
operational integration during implementation (Task 
1) 

Surveys of ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with EU-level stakeholders and Member-
States’ ministries coordinating the Funds (Task 3)  

Online focus groups (Task 4) 

115 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

in supporting the digital and green 
transition 

Case studies (Task 5) 

32  All 

How are the twin 
transitions related topics 
mainstreamed across the 
ESF+ activities? 

Mechanisms exist (e.g. specific 
clauses, specialised units, etc.) to 
ensure that twin transitions related 
topics are mainstreamed across the 
ESF+ activities 

Extent to which stakeholders agree 
that synergies with other EU funding 
instruments active in supporting the 
digital and green transition are 
ensured 

Existence of clauses for promoting 
twin transitions in designing the 
interventions and selection criteria 

Existence in the national and regional 
administration of specialised units or 
other mechanisms or tools dedicated 
to coordinate, support and monitor 
interventions in the transition sectors 

33  SM 

Is the allocation of funds 
to the shared management 
strand programmes 
ensuring 
alignment/concentration 
of the funding to 
challenges identified in 
the European semester? 

Are any challenges being 
less addressed than 
others? Why? 

Level of alignment and concentration 
on challenges identified in the 
European semester  

Level of alignment with key EU 
policies 

Extent of focus on different identified 
challenges 

Comparison between resource 
allocation and recent challenges 
identified in the Country Reports, 
country-specific recommendations 
and key EU policies 

Analysis of challenges and 
recommendations less addressed  

116 

Secondary sources: Analysis of selection criteria and 
other implementation documents (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: adopted programmes (Task 1) 

Survey with EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with all stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

Adopted programmes and PAs (Task 1) 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Database of the CSRs (DG ECFIN or EP) (Task 1) 

Country-specific recommendations and country 
reports (European Semester (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

The integration of the objectives 
corresponding to the former ESF and 
FEAD within the same financing 
instrument increased the 
complementarity between relevant 
specific objectives in comparison to 
the previous period in strategic, 
financial, and operational terms 

34  SM 

Do the mainstream shared 
management strand 
specific objectives and 
those to help the social 
integration of the most 
deprived and to combat 
material deprivation 
better complement each 
other than former ESF 
and FEAD? 

What impact is this 
having on programming 
and implementation? 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Adopted programmes and Partnership Agreements 
(Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

SFC2021 planned and updated expenditure data 
(Task 1) 

ESF+ impact assessment (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Evaluations of ESF and FEAD 
(2014-2020) (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Allocation to SO(l) and (m) in 
national programmes and comparison 
with allocation under the previous 
programming period 

Evidence of complementarity between 
the relevant objectives in the ESF+ in 
the texts and in implementation (e.g. 
common or complementary types of 
operations/projects, strategic design, 
operational simplification, and major 
coordination between responsible 
bodies) 

Comparison with degree of 
complementarity between ESF & 
FEAD in the previous programming 
period 

Evidence of integration of the two 
types of objectives (social integration 
and material deprivation) in the 
pathways to social inclusion and 
labour designed by the MAs / national 
authorities 

117 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

35 

I/DM 

To what extent has the 
EaSI strand demonstrated 
internal coherence, and 
developed 
complementarities with 
the shared management 
strand, in responding to 
its operational/Specific 
Objectives (including 
mainstreaming of the 
horizontal principles) and 
to related policy 
priorities? 

The EaSI strand components (inputs, 
activities, outputs, etc) are overall 
coherent with the strand 
operational/specific objectives 

The EaSI strand components (inputs, 
activities, outputs, etc) are overall 
coherent with with related policy 
priorities 

The EaSI strand is overall coherent 
and complementary with the shared 
management strand in terms of 
operational/specific objectives 

The EaSI strand is overall coherent 
and complementary with the shared 
management strand in terms of related 
policy priorities 

Degree of effective coordination 
between different management 
strands in developing ESF+ strategy 
and innovation (e.g. common timing, 
involving actors with a ‘bridge’ 
function, etc.) 

36 

I/DM 

How well is programming 
of direct and indirect 
management articulated 
with programming of 
shared management?  

How could it be 
improved? 

Analysis of internal coherence of the 
EaSI strand in line with 
operational/specific objectives 
(including mainstreaming of 
horizontal priorities) and related 
policy priorities 

Analysis and identification of 
complementarities between the EaSI 
and shared management strands in 
line with operational/specific 
objectives (including mainstreaming 
of horizontal priorities) and related 
policy priorities (e.g. allocation of 
funding, experimentation and 
innovation, integration and 
coordination of interventions, 
stakeholders, target groups, etc.) 

Processes and their functioning to 
ensure the coordination of 
programming between the 
direct/indirect and shared 
management strands (e.g. preparation 
of the annual plan, joint timetable and 
processes for programming, internal 
coordination between Units and 
services, working group, involvement 
of national partners, etc.) 

FINAP data (Task 1) 

eGrants data (Task 1)  

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

EaSI Annual Work Programmes (Task 1) 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level (esp. EaSI managers and Technical Working 
Group Members) (Task 3) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Annual Work Programme (Task 1) 

Minutes of the EaSI working group (Task 1) 

EaSI portfolio (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: The ESF and community-led 
local development: Lessons for the future (Task 1) 

Survey with EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level, including indirect management stakeholders i.e. 
the Lithuanian European Social Fund Agency 

118 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Evidence from tracking and 
monitoring tools on possible 
synergies  

(EFSA), ESF Social Innovation + Initiative external 
experts & European Competence Centres for Social 
Innovation (Task 3) 

Views from stakeholders on the 
degree to which articulation is 
working and how it could be 
improved 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Extent of changes introduced in 
shared management programme 
implementation as a result of 
programming and implementation in 
indirect management 

Changes introduced in shared 
management programme 
implementation as a result of 
programming and implementation in 
indirect management, and their nature 

EaSI portfolio of projects (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at EU and national 
level (Task 3) 

37 

I/DM 

How is programming and 
implementation in 
indirect management 
impacting programme 
implementation (and 
scalability) under shared 
management? 

Extent to which programming and 
implementation of indirect 
management is supporting scalability 
of implementation in the shared 
management strand 

38 

I/DM 

Is the allocation of funds 
to the direct/indirect 
management strand 
programming ensuring 
alignment/concentration 
alongside the high-level 
policy challenges and 
priorities? 

Level of alignment and concentration 
on challenges and priorities identified 
in the European Semester  

Degree of focus on different identified 
challenges and priorities  

Number of projects and results of 
from the indirect management strand 
scaled up under the shared 
management strand to date 

Identification of conditions of success 
/failure to scale up innovation and 
results of indirect management 
operations 

Comparison between resource 
allocation to EaSI and transnational 
cooperation and the high-level policy 
challenges and priorities  

Challenges and priorities less 
addressed 

119 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Annual Work Programme (Task 1) 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at national level 
(Task 3) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Are any 
challenges/priorities 
being less addressed than 
others? Why? 

How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

EU Added value 

39  All 

To what extent and how 
does the ESF+ support 
the implementation of the 
European Pillar of Social 
Rights?  

Does the ESF+ make 
particular contributions to 
specific principles of the 
EPSR? 

ESF+ is supporting the 
implementation of the objectives of 
the European Pillar of Social Rights 
by mobilising funds to thematic areas 
aligned to the objectives of the EPSR, 
orienting national policies and 
funding priorities, etc. 

Resource allocation by policy areas in 
comparison to the objectives of the 
European Pillar and the progress of 
each MS in their respect and 
comparisons with national 
investments (LMP database, COFOG 
data, and other relevant databases) 

Evidence of revision of national 
policies facilitated by the ESF+ in line 
with EPSR objectives 

40  All 

Is programme design, 
including the performance 
framework, geared 
towards policy results? 

ESF+ is designed in terms of fund 
structure, governance arrangements, 
enabling conditions, programming 
processes (e.g. PAs, Ops, etc), 
selected outputs and results indicators, 
to achieve policy results 

Degree to which ESF+ programme 
design aims to achieve policy results 

Clear and realistic definition of targets 
in terms of policy results 

Evidence of alignment with key EU 
policies e.g. EPSR  

Definition of targets and mechanisms 
to verify and adjust interventions in 
relation to policy results 

120 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

SFC2021 (planned allocation and expenditure) (Task 
1) 

Adopted programmes (Task 1) 

Cohesion database (Task 1) 

European social scoreboard statistics (Task 1) 

ESF synthesis report (Task 1) 

Survey with EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

ESF+ regulation and programmes (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

Secondary sources: Meta-analysis of the ESF 
counterfactual impact evaluations  

Survey with EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

(e.g. clear and realistic definition of 
policy targets) 

A well targeted and efficient 
communication plan is in place 

Targeted actions are in place to 
promote the visibility of ESF+ to 
funded projects, stakeholders and 
citizens  

Communication on the results on the 
SOs and the two strands of ESF+ is 
consolidated and streamlined 

41  All 

To what extent is the 
ESF+ more suited to 
increase the visibility and 
awareness of funded 
projects among 
stakeholders and citizens? 

To what extent were the 
quality, outputs, results 
and impacts of 
communication activities 
improved?241 

Which factors may 
explain this?  

The communication plan is approved, 
and its instruments and 
objectives/targets are coherent with 
the strategy of the programme  

Existence of taking on board 
evaluations or other reflections on 
lessons learned from the 2014-2020 
communication activities 

Quality systems in managing and 
communicating ESF+ interventions 

Evidence (or absence of evidence) of 
streamlining of communications  

Stakeholders consulted agree that the 
communication on ESF+ led to 
greater visibility/reach/’brand’ 
recognition of the fund compared with 
the previous programming period  

Interview with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

Case studies (Task 5) 

Adopted programmes (Task 1) 

National documents related to implementation (Task 
1) 

Member State evaluations and studies (Task 1) 

Relevant ESF+ communication strategies (Task 1) 

Available data on reach of communication (e.g. ESF+ 
website views, etc.) 

Secondary sources: analysis of resources and 
objectives of a sample of communication plans (Task 
1) 

Surveys of EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with all stakeholders at EU and national 
levels (Task 3) 

Online focus groups (Task 4) 

Case study on EaSI communication strategy (Task 5) 

241The formulation of this question was changed upon request from the ISG.  

121 

 
 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Relevance 

42  All 

To what extent does the 
ESF+ intervention logic 
(continue to) respond 
strategically to the 
overall/changing policy 
context, related priorities, 
and general objectives of 
the fund and in particular 
to the related 
(stakeholders’) needs? 

Are there particular 
emerging challenges or 
priorities which are not 
sufficiently covered? 

ESF+ intervention logic was overall 
aligned to the overall/changing policy 
context, related priorities, and general 
objectives of the fund and in 
particular to the related 
(stakeholders’) needs 

ESF+ intervention logic is still 
aligned to the overall/changing policy 
context, related priorities, and general 
objectives of the fund and in 
particular to the related 
(stakeholders’) needs  

There are no emerging challenges or 
new priorities that are not covered by 
ESF+ Intervention logic  

Analysis of the trends in the social 
scoreboard indicators to identify main 
changes at EU and national level 

Views from consultations on the 
degree to which stakeholder needs are 
being met 

Critical review of the ESF+ 
intervention logic in comparison to 
the evolution of the contextual 
conditions  

Analysis of the degree to which ESF+ 
is contributing to the objectives of the 
NRRPs, especially in the larger 
beneficiary MSs  

43  All 

Are the 
(common/specific) 
indicators relevant? 

Common/specific indicators are suited 
to cover and ensure meaningful 
monitoring of key specific objectives 

Are any less relevant than 
others? 

Common/specific indicators remain 
relevant in light of actual and 
emerging needs 

Analysis of the common/specific 
indicators in relation to resource 
allocation, most important funded 
interventions, socio-economic trends 
and policy priorities  

Analysis of the explicative capacity of 
the indicators in relation to the ESF+ 
intervention logic  

Eurostat data related to ESF+ Interventions (SOs) at 
EU and national/regional level (Task 1) 

SFC2021 data (expenditure and initial results) (Task 
1) 

NRRPs financial monitoring (Task 1) 

Database of the CSRs (DG ECFIN or EP) (Task 1) 

ESF+ Intervention Logic 

Survey with EaSI stakeholders and ESF+ managing 
authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ managing authorities and EaSI 
stakeholders at EU level (Task 3) 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

ESF+ regulation, Annexes and intervention logic 
(Task 1) 

SFC2021 (common and specific indicator values, 
available by programme and type of action) (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available (Task 1) 

Survey with EaSI stakeholders (for Annex IV 
indicators) and ESF+ managing authorities (for 
Annex I-III indicators) (Task 2) 

122 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

Views from consultations of key 
stakeholders on the degree to which 
indicators are relevant 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders (for Annex IV 
indicators) and ESF+ managing authorities (for 
Annex I-III indicators) (Task 3) 

44  SM 

How responsive are the 
programmes to policy 
changes?  

ESF+ is able to accommodate and 
adapt to policy changes 

Constraints/hurdles to reprogramming 
are justified and reasonable 

Analysis of rules, partnership 
dialogue and decisional processes 
used in the MA, Monitoring 
Committees and in the PA to adjust 
programmes 

45  SM 

What is the role of the 
European Semester in 
programming and 
implementation? 

The European Semester is taken into 
account in and influence 
programming decisions 

The European Semester is taken into 
account in and influence the 
implementation of ESF+ 

There are mechanisms and processes 
to foster ESF+ programming and 
implementation alignment with the 

Identification of issues currently 
being considered by MSs for possible 
changes in the mid-term review  

Views from consultations of key 
stakeholders on the degree to which 
programmes are responsive to policy 
changes 

Analysis of ESF+ contributions to 
National Reform Programmes  

Identification (where relevant) of 
mechanisms and processes which 
have been introduced to foster 
alignment with the European 
Semester at EU and national level 

Analysis of the degree to which the 
challenges in the EC’s Country 
Reports and the country-specific 
recommendations are reflected in 

123 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

Adopted programmes (Task 1) 

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Database of the CSRs (DG ECFIN or EP) (Task 1) 

Country-specific recommendations and country 
report (European Semester) (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: Relevant studies (e.g., study on 
the implementation of the partnership principle and 
multi-level governance in 2014-2020 ESI Funds, 
currently carried out by DG Regio) (Task 1) 

Secondary sources: 2014-2020 ex-post evaluations of 
Funds (WP10 of DG Regio) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at EU and national level (Task 3) 

Online focus groups (all) (Task 4) 

Case studies (all) (Task 5) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

European Semester at EU and 
national level 

ESF+ programming and 
implementation 

46  SM 

47  SM 

How useful is the 
alignment with the 
semester and are the 
provisions in the ESF+ 
regulation and in the CPR 
(mid-term review) 
sufficient to ensure this 
alignment?  

ESF+ is able to reinforce and 
accelerate the national structural 
reforms  

Provisions in the ESF+ regulation and 
the CPR are enough to ensure 
alignment with the European 
Semester 

ESF+ capacity to address the key 
needs on the ground has been fostered 
by (a) thematic concentration, (b) 
categories of regions and (c) the 
mandatory use of dedicated priorities 
for social innovation and social 
experimentation 

Have the thematic 
concentration, categories 
of regions and the 
mandatory use of 
dedicated priorities for 
social innovation and 
social experimentation 
been instrumental in 
addressing the needs on 
the ground? 

Identification of planned or actual 
modifications of the programmes 
related to the Semester 

Views from consultations of key 
stakeholders on the role of the 
European Semester in programming 
and implementation 

Identification of examples and 
typology of benefits of alignment with 
the European Semester (alignment 
with structural challenges) 

Analysis of the effectiveness and 
enforcement capability of the 
provisions in the ESF+ regulations 
and the CPR to align programmes 
with the Semester 

Analysis of allocation of resources in 
comparison to main regional/national 
needs (by priority and Specific 
Objective) 

Use of the Article14 of the ESF+ in 
the MSs (types of innovation and 
experimentation, verification of the 
innovation, etc.) 

124 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

In what ways? 

48  SM 

Are all enabling 
conditions and the 
monitoring of their 
constant fulfilment and 
application relevant?  

Actual improvements derived from 
the enabling conditions 

Actual improvements derived from 
the monitoring of enabling conditions 
to ensure the constancy of their 
fulfilment and application 

Views from consultations of key 
stakeholders on the role of a) thematic 
concentration, (b) categories of 
regions and (c) the mandatory use of 
dedicated priorities for social 
innovation and social experimentation 
in meeting key needs on the ground 

How application and monitoring of 
the enabling conditions are working 
(responsible bodies, information 
system, enforcement capacity, etc.)  

Number of cases in which enabling 
conditions were not fulfilled initially 
or ceased to be fulfilled during the 
implementation 

Actual commitment of national 
authorities in using enabling 
conditions to improve national 
policies 

Actual delay in fulfilling the 
conditions 

Concrete examples of consequences 
in case enabling conditions were not 
fulfilled  

125 

Adopted programmes and Partnership Agreements 
(Task 1) 

Audit reports (Task 1) 

National legal acts regulating the implementation of 
ESF+ (Task 1) 

Structured data transmissions available to date (Task 
1) 

Secondary sources: National strategic plans 
associated with the enabling conditions (Task 1)  

SFC2021 (Task 1) 

Survey with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management 
stakeholders at national level (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

49  SM 

Are the programmes and 
the programming 
architecture suitable to 
pursue cohesion policy 
objectives while also 
responding to emerging 
crises and stakeholders’ 
needs, or should there 
rather be a dedicated 
response instrument? 

Extent of flexibility of 
programmes/programming 
architecture to both pursue Cohesion 
Policy objectives and respond to 
emerging needs and crises 

Identification of potential trade-offs 
between structural and long-term 
investments and crisis responses 

Degree of effectiveness of dedicated 
response instruments under the 
previous programming period (e.g. 
CRII, CRII+, REACT-EU, CARE, 
etc.) 

Identification of the capacity of the 
ESF+ programme structure to include 
new and unexpected objectives  

Evaluations of dedicated response instruments under 
the previous programming period (e.g. CRII, CRII+, 
REACT-EU, CARE, etc.) (Task 1) 

Surveys with ESF+ managing authorities (Task 2) 

Interviews with ESF+ shared management strand 
stakeholders at all levels (Task 3) 

Online focus group for SO(a) to SO(l) and online 
focus group for SO(m) (Task 4) 

Analysis of the outcomes of 
evaluations on the effectiveness and 
efficiency of dedicated response 
instruments under the previous 
programming period (e.g. CRII, 
CRII+, REACT-EU, CARE, etc.) 

Identification of costs (new learning 
process, design of new 
implementation procedures, etc.), 
benefits (new measures do not affect 
absorption rate, better accountability, 
etc.)  and potential trade-offs (e.g. on 
alignment with CSR) of adopting a 
new financial instrument for 
emergencies. Differences according to 
contexts and according to the type of 
crisis shock (asymmetric/ 
homogenous; supply/demand; etc.) 

50 

I/DM 

To what extent has the 
shape and scope of the 
direct and indirect 
management strand 
ascertained relevance, 
budgetary flexibility and 
administrative 
simplification in the 
procedures/processes 

Compared to the previous 
programming period, the direct and 
indirect management strand 
operational architecture is better able 
to address relevance, flexibility and 
simplification in terms of timing of 
decisions, addressing emerging needs 
and simplifying managerial processes 

Estimated (or recorded) ‘response 
time’ to new needs and flexibility of 
the annual Work Programmes 

Comparison of the allocation of 
resources of the direct and indirect 
management strands to policy 
priorities and identified needs 

Annual Work Programmes (Task 1) 

Monitoring data for the period 2021-2023 (Task 1) 

First stakeholders’ survey covering the 2021-2023 
period (Task 1) 

Survey of EaSI stakeholders (Task 2) 

126 

 
N 

Strand 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators/descriptors 

Data source 

(related to application, 
selection, reporting) to 
respond to policy 
priorities and stakeholders 
needs? 

Interviews with EaSI stakeholders at national level 
(Task 3) 

Online focus group for EaSI (Task 4) 

Simplifications introduced in the 
direct and indirect management 
strands 

Flexibility of the decision-making 
mechanisms and processes (e.g. 
application, selection, reporting) of 
the direct and indirect management 
strands to respond to policy priorities 
and identified needs 

127 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION 

Table 1.  Overview of costs identified in the evaluation 

Programme authorities 

Preparation 

Recurring 

General management 

Recurring 

Financial management 

Recurring 

128 

Administrative cost for the ESF+. 
For more details, see description in Annex II. 

Cost in million 

Additional information 

ESF+ programmes: 138 
Multi-fund programmes: 153  
Total ESF+: 291 

ESF+ programmes: 296 
Multi-fund programmes: 212 
Total ESF+: 507 

ESF+ programmes: 242 
Multi-fund programmes: 226 
Total ESF+: 468 

  Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 
allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 
allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 

 
                        
 
ESF+ programmes: 894 
Multi-fund programmes: 966 
Total ESF+: 1,860  

ESF+ programmes: 144 
Multi-fund programmes: 117 
Total ESF+: 261 

ESF+ programmes: 153 
Multi-fund programmes: 54 
Total ESF+: 208 

ESF+ programmes: 471 
Multi-fund programmes: 312 
Total ESF+: 782 

allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 
allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 
allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

Total administrative costs for 
programme authorities for the 
whole period (until 2029).  ESF+ 
cost share in multi-fund 
programmes is calculated assuming 
that it equals the share of ESF+ 
allocations (27%) in the multi-fund 
programmes. 

These are total administrative costs 
for programme authorities incurred 
by end 2024. Data for multi-fund 
programmes include only the ESF+ 
share of the administrative costs 
(assuming that it is equal to the 
share of the ESF+ allocations of the 
multi-fund programmes) 

Operations 

Recurring 

Reporting, monitoring and evaluation 

Recurring 

Audit 

Recurring 

Total administrative cost for programme authorities 

129 

 
 
Application 

One-off 

Project management 

Recurring 

Reporting and monitoring 

Recurring 

The process of applying 
for funding can be 
broken down into three 
main sub-tasks:  1) 
gathering information, 
2) preparing and 
submitting the 
application documents, 
3) replies to requests for 
more information and/or 
documentation after 
submission  

This task mainly 
consists of 1) preparing 
and submitting payment 
requests 2) information 
and communication 
requirements 3) keeping 
of records 

This task mainly 
consists of 1) preparing 
and submitting 
monitoring data 2) 
collection and 
submission of 
information regarding 
project evaluation. 

Beneficiaries242 

The administrative burden of the application process varies considerably across the CPR funds and Member 
States, with differences in time, staffing and outsourcing costs. ESF+, multi-fund and ERDF programmes 
have generally lower costs than other CPR funds programes.  

Gathering information and preparing and submitting the application documents are rated as the most time-
consuming activities (N=199). 

Differences across funds and MS similar to the application process described above. ESF+ programmes tend 
to have slightly higher costs than ERDF and multi-fund programmes, but lower than other CPR funds 
programmes  
According to beneficiaries, preparing and submitting payment requests is the most demanding task (N=190).  

Differences across funds and MSs both in workload and outsourcing costs. 

Preparing and submitting monitoring data is perceived as the most time-consuming activity (N=185). 

242The conclusions in this section are based on the responses of the beneficiaries of all CPR funds, not only ESF+. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Management and verification 

Recurring 

This task mainly 
consists of 1) collection 
and submission for 
audits and inspections 
2) participation in 
management 
verifications 3) follow-
up on post-control/audit 
recommendations. 

Collection and submission for audits and inspections is perceived as the most time consuming (N=174). 
Differences across funds and MS. ESF+ programmes tend to have slightly higher costs than ERDF and multi-
fund programmes, but lower than other CPR funds programmes. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
243

Table 2. Simplification and burden reduction 

Assessment of simplification 
Based on stakeholder feedback, net effect as a difference between cost saving and cost increase 
potential. See Annex II description on categorisation. 

Estimated cost savings for programme authorities for the ESF+ programmes 
(until end 2029) 

No obligation to conduct an ex ante evaluation 

Simplified designation of authorities 

Simpler rules on management costs and fees 

Reducing the number of verifications 

A more proportionate approach to audits (EPAs) 

Use of unit costs, lump sums, flat rate or a combination of those as set in 
accordance with Art 94.4 CPR (Delegated Acts prepared by COM) 

Use of unit costs, lump sums, flat rate or a combination of those as set in 
accordance with Art 94.2 CPR (SCOs set by MS as an integral part of 
programme) 

Technical assistance may be reimbursed in proportion to progress in 
implementation, using a flat-rate 

Reimbursement to beneficiaries in accordance to Art 53.2 CPR (obligatory use 
of SCOs for smaller operations, i.e. operations where the total cost does not 
exceed EUR 200,000) 

Increase in the share use of simplified cost options under ESF+ shared 
management from 33% in the 2014-2020 period to 40% in 2024 

EUR 716 m 

Significant (4) 

Significant (3) 

Moderate (1) 

Significant (3) 

Significant (2) 

Significant (4) 

Significant (4) 

Significant (4) 

Significant (4) 

Saving between EUR 96 million and EUR  141 million 

243 These are estimates for the ESF+ programmes only and do not include estimates for the ESF+ share of the multi-fund programmes, as estimates for multi-fund programmes were not 

available. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1.  

Consultation activities 

Stakeholder consultation activities aimed at gathering the views of stakeholders involved 
in the design, programming and implementation of ESF+ for the 2021-2027 programming 
period. The study included the following consultation activities: 

•  Two targeted online surveys (one for each strand); 

•  Targeted interviews for each strand, at the European and national levels; 

•  Call for evidence; 

•  Two focus groups (one for each strand); 

•  Three case studies, each including targeted interviews with relevant stakeholders, 
on the following topics: (i) Social innovation and experimentation; (ii) Promotion 
of social integration and addressing material deprivation of the most deprived; (iii) 
EaSI communication strategy.  

It is worth noting that the distinctions between ESF+ strands in the table are not clear-cut, 
as stakeholders within the shared management or EaSI strands often commented on ESF+ 
as a whole, not only the strand that they were involved in. 

Table  below  presents  an  overview  of  the  different  stakeholder  groups  consulted  across 
these stakeholder consultation activities.  

Table 1 – Overview of stakeholder groups across consultation activities 

Stakeholder category 

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
I

d
n
a
r
t
S

d
e
t
e
g
r
a
T

s
y
e
v
r
u
s

s
p
u
o
r
G

s
u
c
o
F

s
e
i
d
u
t
s

e
s
a
C

European Union officials 

Both 

European  Social  Fund  Agency 
(ESFA)244 

EaSI 

ESF+ Committee members 

Both 

EaSI  Technical  Working  Group 
members 

EaSI 

National ministries  

Shared 

244This includes ESFA’s Advisory Board members. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ESF+  Coordinating  bodies  (national 
level) 

Shared 

Managing 
intermediate bodies 

authorities245 

and 

Shared 

Intermediate bodies 

Shared 

Youth Guarantee coordinators 

Shared 

Child Guarantee coordinators 

Shared 

EU-level networks246 

ESF+ beneficiaries   

Project promoters  

EaSI 

Shared 

EaSI 

Organisations 
participants 

representing 

Both 

Academic / research organisations 

Shared 

Others247   

Shared 

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

1.1  

Targeted surveys 

Two online surveys covering the shared management strand and the EaSI strand of ESF+ 
were  launched.  The  main  objective  of  the  two  surveys  was  to  collect  quantitative  and 
qualitative information on the changes in the programming and implementation of ESF+, 
compared to the previous programming period.    

•  The shared management strand survey was launched on 3 and 4 April 2024 and 
remained open until 24 May 2024, following a seven-working-day extension. The 
survey was administered to all managing authorities in EU 27; 

•  The EaSI strand survey was launched on 15 April 2024 and remained open until 31 
May 2024, following a 12-working-day extension. The survey was administered to 

245This includes both national and regional Manging Authorities. 
246This includes the EU-level networks in the field of social inclusion and poverty reduction, as well as in 
microfinance and social enterprise finance that are benefitting from the EaSI strand’s Framework Partnership 
Agreements. 
247This includes social partners and ESF+ monitoring committees’ members (national level). 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the EaSI Technical Working Group (TWG) members, the National Contact Points 
for the EaSI strand (NCPs), the National Competence Centres for Social Innovation 
(NCCs), the EU-level networks (see Table 1), project promoters, and transnational 
cooperation actors. 

Figure  1  presents  the  distribution  of  managing  authorities’  responses  to  the  shared 
management  survey,  which  collected  91  responses  covering  26  Member  States  and 
approximately 55% of the 169 ESF+ programmes.  

Figure 2 presents the distribution of responses to the EaSI strand survey, which collected 
74  responses  covering  24  Member  States,  plus  Montenegro,  Serbia  and  the  United 
Kingdom. Figure 3 presents the distribution of responses to this survey across different 
stakeholder groups. 

Figure  1  –  Distribution  responses  across  Member  States  for  the  shared 
management strand (managing authorities) (N=91) 

20

15

10

5

0

1

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

16

15

4

3

7

6

5

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

1

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

2

2

i

n
a
p
S

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

1

n
e
d
e
w
S

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

Figure 2 – Distribution of responses across Member States for the EaSI strand / 
(in)direct management survey (N=74)248 

10
8
6
4
2
0

1

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

9

9

3

1

2

1

5

5

2

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

2

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

1

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

4

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

3

2

3

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

o
r
g
e
n
e
t
n
o
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
b
r
e
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

248No answers were received by stakeholders in Denmark, Poland and Slovakia. Please note that the figure 
also lists the number of stakeholders from participating third countries (e.g. Montenegro) as well as from 
third countries that could participate  in the  EaSI strand under the previous programming period (e.g. the 
United Kingdom). 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 – Distribution of responses across categories of respondents for the EaSI 
strand/(in)direct management survey (N=74) 

Social partners

2

Regional Managing Authority

4

Organisation implementing projects

NGOs / non-profit organisations

National Managing Authority

Ministry

Intermediate Body

3

Other

8

11

11

11

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

The questionnaire of the two surveys, along with the processes around the implementation, 
dissemination, analysis and reporting, are available in Annex 1 of the Final report of the 
supporting study. 

1.2  

Targeted interviews 

Targeted interviews were conducted with the stakeholder groups listed in Table 1 in two 
successive waves, enabling the data collected through the first wave to inform the research 
questions  of  the  second  wave,  in  order  to  complement  the  study  findings  and  address 
potential evidence gaps.  

The first wave of interviews took place between 22 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 while 
the second wave took place between 15 March 2024 and 15 June 2024. The main aim of 
these interviews was to substantiate the study analysis with specific examples of potential 
changes  between  the  two  programming  periods,  and  to  describe  the  effects  of  these 
changes, including the unintended ones. 

As Table below shows, a total of 360 interviews were conducted as part of the study. These 
interviews involved over 500 individuals. As shown in the table below, 41 interviews were 
conducted at EU-level and 319 at the national level. 

Table 2 – Total number of targeted interviews 

EU level 

Shared 

12 

EaSI 

29 

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

National level 

Shared 

265 

EaSI 

54 

Table 3 presents the number of interviews conducted by country at national level for the 
shared  management  strand,  while  Table  4  provides  the  breakdown  by  category  of 
stakeholders  consulted for the EaSI strand.  Annex 1 of the  Final report  also  details  the 
approach  to  the  first  and  second  wave  of  interviews,  the  sampling  approach,  and  the 

136 

 
 
 
 
processes of implementation, analysis and reporting. Additionally, it includes the interview 
questionnaires and a list of the consulted organisations. 

Table 3 – Distribution of interviews per Member State for the shared management 
strand (national level) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

9 

12 

9 

6 

9 

11 

8 

7 

11 

14 

8 

11 

9 

9 

9 

12 

10 

8 

9 

9 

9 

13 

13 

14 

7 

9 

10 

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

Table 4 – Distribution of interviews across EaSI stakeholders, (in)direct 
management strand 

Stakeholder category 

Number of interviews conducted 

National Contact Points (NCPs) 

Project promoters (indirect) 

Project  promoters,  including  EU-level  networks 
(direct) 

15249 

7250 

21251 

Competence  Centres 
(CCSI) 

for  Social 

Innovation 

5 

Communities of Practices 

Other 

Total 

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

1.3  

Call for evidence 

5 

1 

54 

The European Commission launched a call for evidence for the ESF+ mid-term evaluation. 
The call for evidence was open from 16 January 2024 to 13 February 2024 and received a 
total of 59 contributions.  

The majority of contributions came from EU citizens (27%, 16 out of 59), followed by 
NGOs (24%, 15 out of 59), companies/businesses (19%, 11 out of 59), public authorities 
(15%,  9  out  of  59).  A  smaller  share  of  responses  came  from  respondents  classified  as 

249The following National Contact Points were interviewed: BG, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, ME. 
250These  are  project  promoters  of  the  ALMA  call  for  proposals  under  indirect  management  from  the 
following  Member  States:  EL,  LT,  MT,  PL,  RO,  SK.  A  representative  of  the  ALMA  network  was  also 
interviewed. 
251Project coordinators from the following countries were interviewed: BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT, SE, RS, 
NO. 

137 

 
 
 
 
‘other’ (8%, 5 out of 59), business associations (3%) and academic/research institutions 
(1%).  
In total, participants from 12 EU Member States took part in the call for evidence252. The 
majority  came  from  Germany  (44%,  25  out  of  59),  Belgium  (24%,  14  out  of  59)  and 
Sweden (8%, 5 out of 59). The remaining countries each accounted for between 2% (1 out 
of 59) and 5% (8 out of 59) of the total participants. 

1.4  

Case studies 

Three case studies  were  developed as part of the study to get  in-depth  insights into the 
topics  of  social  innovation  and  experimentation,  promotion  of  social  integration  and 
addressing  material  deprivation  of  the  most  deprived,  and  the  EaSI  communication 
strategy. Table  below presents the number of consultations that took place as part of the 
case studies and lists the stakeholder groups and the countries involved.  

Table 5 – Consulted stakeholders in case studies 

Case study 

Member States 

Managing 
authorities 

Beneficiaries 

Social 
experimentation 

innovation 

and 

BE, EL, IE, IT, PL, SK 

Promotion of social integration   BG, DE, EL, FI, IE, IT, 

LV, RO 

EaSI communication strategy  BE,  DE,  ES,  FR,  HU, 

IT, PO, SE  

Source: Ecorys consortium, 2025 

For the EaSI communication strategy case study, additional interviews with DG EMPL 
and ESFA were also conducted. 

Annex 1 of the Final report presents more information around the sampled countries, the 
processes of implementation, analysis and reporting, as well as the case studies’ interview 
questionnaires.  

1.5  

Focus Groups 

As part of the study, two focus groups (FGs) took place, one for the indirect management 
(EaSI) strand, on 9 July 2024, and one for the shared management strand, on 10 July 2024. 
The purpose of the FGs was to consolidate and validate the study analysis, and supplement 
it  with  additional  examples,  measures,  and  good  practices  that  could  feed  into  the 
remainder of the 2021-2027 period, or into ESF+ post-2027.  

•  The  FG  for  the  EaSI  strand  gathered  41  participants253  including  EaSI  Technical 
Working Group members, EU-level networks and project promoters under the EaSI 
strand, and members of the communities of practice; 

252 BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, PL, PT, RO, SE. 
253This number includes the European Commission and the study team’s members. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The FG for the shared management strand gathered 49 participants254 including ESF+ 
Coordinating  Bodies,  ESF+  managing  authorities,  Ministries,  social  partners  and 
organisations implementing operations. 

1.6  

Methodology for data processing 

All stakeholder consultations followed specific data processing and analysis protocols that 
are described in detail in Annex 1 of the Final report.  

Targeted  surveys  were  administered  to  participants  via  the  EUSurvey  platform.  The 
analysis of the close-ended responses to the survey was conducted in Microsoft Excel. It 
was  based  on  descriptive  statistics  presented  in  tables,  graphs  and  charts,  making  the 
information  easier  to  digest,  including  for  non-expert  readers.  In  turn,  the  open-ended 
responses to the survey were organised (grouped) by theme. Due to the small sample size, 
the dataset was not conducive to subgroup analysis, and therefore such analysis was not 
performed as part of the study. 

Targeted interviews were transcribed in MS Excel sheets, that were organised by group 
of evaluation questions. This facilitated the subsequent analysis that informed the Interim 
and the Final reports. 

Contributions to the call for evidence were compiled in a Word document and categorised 
according to the group of evaluation questions for which they were relevant. 

Case study interviews were collected and analysed either by group of Member State or by 
group of stakeholder, depending on the case study, and were used to produce the standalone 
case study reports. 

Focus groups outcomes were collected in summary reports drafted by the study team that 
were used to finetune the findings and lessons learnt of the Final report. 

1.6  

Limitations of stakeholder consultation activities 

Overall,  the  technical  nature  of  the  evaluation  questions,  combined  with  the  multiple 
concurrent consultation activities during the study in the context of other EU and national 
evaluations,  made  it  challenging  to  engage  with  relevant  stakeholders  and  obtain 
meaningful  information.  To  address  this  issue,  the  study  team  dedicated  significant 
resources to continuously assist national experts in adapting the interview questionnaires 
to  specific  stakeholders  and  ensure  appropriate  follow-up  to  secure  the  most  relevant 
interviews. 

2.  

Findings across ESF+ as a whole  

Effectiveness 

Synergies between the shared management and EaSI strands 

Stakeholder consultations pointed to mixed views as to whether the merger of the shared 
management and the EaSI strands under ESF+ led to more synergies between them in this 
programming  period,  compared  to  the  previous  one.  Only  16%  (15  out  of  91)  of  the 
surveyed managing authorities reported that the merger had positive effects on synergies, 
while 28% (26 out of 91) reported no changes at all. Indeed, despite several mechanisms 
put in place to foster synergies, including the ESF+ Social Innovation+ initiative, only 3% 
(3 out of 91) of the managing authorities reported having plans to introduce changes in 

254This number includes the European Commission and the study team’s members. 

139 

 
 
 
 
their programming based on the indirect management’s programming, implementation or 
communication activities. Member States’ hesitancy to earmark ESF+ resources for social 
innovation  amid  competing  national  political  priorities  and  constrained  budgets, 
fragmentation of social innovation responsibilities between different ministries and at EU 
level, low level of awareness of social innovation projects, and difficulties in adapting EaSI 
projects in the regulatory framework of ESF+ were key barriers to synergies identified in 
interviews with all stakeholder groups across several EU countries255.  

Focus on policy results 

Overall, compared to the previous programming period, stakeholder consultation activities 
pointed to a stronger emphasis of ESF+ on policy results. About one out of three surveyed 
managing  authorities  reported  that  ESF+  aims  to  fund  operations  which  prioritise 
delivering results to a larger, or much larger extent, compared to the previous programming 
period (41%, 37 out of 91). Similar views were held by stakeholders who took part in the 
EaSI strand survey (42%, 26 out of 62). 

Key recommendations for improvements on gearing the ESF+ to deliver policy results that 
emerged  from  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities  included:  developing  tools  and 
methodologies to better measure policy impacts; increased partnership and dialogue with 
the European Commission during programming; support to design specific indicators to 
measure the degree to which specific policy needs are being met; greater involvement of 
social  partners  and  civil  society,  including  earmarked  funding  and  capacity-building  to 
allow their voice to be heard; and standardising guidelines across Member States on calls 
for proposals (e.g. duration for which the calls are open) to foster more coherent policy 
alignment. 

Findings for ESF+ shared management strand  

Programming phase 

The  majority  of  surveyed  managing  authorities  suggested  that  Partnership  Agreements 
were useful either to a moderate or to a large extent in terms of helping them define their 
objectives (64%, 58 out of 91) and allocate the funding where it is needed the most (61.5%, 
or  56  out  of  91  respondents).  According  to  interviewed  stakeholders,  the  size  and 
governance model of the Member States can affect their degree of usefulness.  

Merging  YEI  into  ESF+  was  reported  as  a  positive  step.  The  majority  of  surveyed 
managing authorities reported that this merging had a strong or a moderately positive effect 
on the programming (74%, or 47 out of 63) and implementation of the ESF+ (67%, or 39 
out of 58), as well as on complementarity with the roll-out of the Youth Guarantee (68%, 
or 41 out of 60).  

The  consultation  results  were  somewhat  more  mixed  for  the  integration  of  FEAD  into 
ESF+.  Half  of  the  surveyed  managing  authorities  considered  that  the  change  brought 
moderate  or  positive  effects  in  terms  of  programming  (49%,  27  out  of  55)  and 
implementation  (49%,  25  out  of  51),  while  the  other  half  reported  no  or  only  negative 
effects (51%, 28 out of 55 and 51%, 26 out of 51, respectively). However, these findings 
are to be seen as preliminary, with stakeholder consultations suggesting that it is generally 
too early to draw clear conclusions on the effects of the merger. 

Looking  into  the  future,  strong  coordination  at  the  programming  level  through  the 
systematic  involvement  of  social  partners,  as  well  as  adopting  elements  of  the  results-

255BE, EE, EL, ES, ES, FR, IE, LV 

140 

 
 
oriented approach of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, emerged as key factors during 
the interviews that could facilitate the programming process. 

Horizontal and thematic enabling conditions   

The  majority  of  stakeholders  surveyed  reported  that  horizontal  and  thematic  enabling 
conditions  contributed  to  the  effective  and  efficient  use  of  ESF+.  The  interviews  also 
revealed  that  stakeholders  recognise  the  importance  of  the  constant  fulfilment  of  the 
enabling conditions  and provided examples showing their potential to  lead  to  structural 
investments.  

Efficiency 

Findings for ESF+ shared management strand  

Simplification measures  

Consulted stakeholders across various consultation activities (surveys, interviews, focus 
groups,  call  for  evidence)  praised  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs)  for  reducing 
administrative  burden256  but  cited  the  set-up  time  and  lack  of  benefits  for  project 
beneficiaries as their main drawbacks. Indeed, several EU-networks and project promoters 
pointed out during the interview programme and the focus groups, that despite the SCOs, 
they  still  had  to  keep  analytical  records  for  auditing  purposes,  leading  to  “double-
reporting”.  

Consulted stakeholders also revealed an appetite for the use of financing not linked to costs 
(FNLCs)  in  the  future,  although  they  noted  that  their  use  does  not  come  without  its 
challenges.  For  example,  several  interviewees  reported  that  FNLCs  are  based  on  the 
expectation that beneficiaries can bear the majority of costs until they reach the so-called 
milestones, as  well as on the expectation that implementation on the ground will go as 
planned. 

Centralised vs. decentralised structures 

Overall, consultations pointed to a widely recognised trade-off between effectiveness and 
efficiency in programme design and implementation (supported by central structures) and 
ensuring  relevance  in  meeting  the  needs  of  specific  ESF+  target  groups  (supported  by 
decentralised structures). Indeed, the largest share of surveyed managing authorities agreed 
that a centralised approach is more beneficial for saving time in decision-making (39%, 35 
out  of  91)  and  concentrating  investments  (29%,  26  out  of  91).  Conversely,  a  large 
proportion  of these authorities disagreed or strongly  disagreed that such  an approach is 
more beneficial for meeting subnational needs (71%, 65 out of 91) or involving relevant 
stakeholders (72%, 66 out of 91).  

Findings for ESF+ EaSI strand 

Simplification of administrative processes and of the monitoring system 

The introduction of eGrants system was broadly regarded by stakeholders consulted as a 
positive step in terms of reducing administrative burden, with about half of respondents to 
the EaSI survey agreeing that it successfully streamlined the grant management process 
(50%, 16 out of 32). Interview data revealed that indeed, through eGrants, compared to the 
previous  programming  period,  the  timeframe  for  contract  signing  was  reduced  from 
several  weeks  to  just  24-48  hours,  helping  projects  to  start  faster.  Despite  the  benefits, 

256Over 90% of the surveyed  managing  authorities (85 out of 91) reported this as the  main advantage of 
SCOs. 

141 

 
 
stakeholders across all consultation activities highlighted the significant time required to 
become  familiar  with  the  system  and  pointed  out  several  areas  for  improvement, 
particularly the need to enhance eGrants user-friendliness. Interview data also emphasized 
the necessity to reduce duplications in the application, monitoring, and reporting processes 
for projects. This includes financial reporting, where reporting unit costs was reported to 
impose  a  significant  burden  on  project  promoters.  According  to  some  stakeholders, 
improving these aspects could help attract smaller applicants to EaSI. 

Coherence 

Stakeholder  consultations  revealed  strong  complementarities  between  ESF+  and  other 
funding instruments active in human capital investment, principally with ERDF, EAFRD 
and  AMIF257.  Although  such  complementarities  were  broadly  reported  to  be  similar  to 
those in the previous programming period, they appear to have improved for ERDF and 
AMIF258.  However,  some  stakeholders  in  interviews,  focus  groups,  and  the  call  for 
evidence  pointed  to  overlaps  and  limited  complementarities,  particularly  evident  with 
Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ funds, due to differences in management mode, timing and 
scale of the projects. 

Consulted stakeholders were generally more positive around the coherence of ESF+ with 
funding instruments in the digital and green transition (e.g. RRF, JTF). 51 interviewees 
from various stakeholder groups in several EU countries259 found ESF+ to be coherent with 
these  instruments  and  provided  several  examples  of  complementarities  in  practice. 
However, some stakeholders, e.g. in IE and SE, highlighted the need to avoid overlaps  and 
displacement between ESF+ and these instruments. Focus group and call for evidence data 
emphasised the importance of the programming phase in this regard. 

European Value Added 

ESF+ and the European Pillar of Social Rights 

The  majority  of  surveyed  managing  authorities  reported  that  ESF+  supports  the 
implementation  of the European Pillar of Social  Rights (EPSR) in  their Member States 
(90%,  81  out  of  91).  The  good  alignment  between  the  ESF+  and  EPSR  was  further 
confirmed  in  interviews  with  ESF+  Coordinating  bodies,  managing  authorities,  social 
partners,  and  beneficiaries,  amongst  others.  At  the  same  time,  however,  a  minority  of 
interviewees at both the EU and national levels expressed some concerns about the EPSR 
principles being too high-level for ESF+ to have a concrete impact. Key recommendations 
that  emerged  during  the  consultation  activities  for  improving  alignment  with  EPSR 
included:  giving  national  ministries,  and  even  local  stakeholders  a  bigger  role  in 
transforming  the  EPSR  into  national  and  local  actions;  raising  awareness  and  more 
communication on the EPSR principles and its role in defining ESF+ investments; defining 
tools, indicators and / or methods to assess the contribution of ESF+ to EPSR. 

257 Specifically, 74% (67 out of 91), 41% (37 out of 91), and  48% (44 out of 91) of surveyed managing 
authorities reported their ESF+ program activities to be complementary with ERDF, EAFRD, and AMIF. 
258For ERDF, 23 out of 91 and for AMIF, 22 out of 91 surveyed managing authorities reported these synergies 
to be stronger, or much stronger compared to the previous programming period. 
259AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, SK  

142 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevance 

ESF+ Alignment with European Semester 
Stakeholder  consultation  activities260  corroborated  desk  research,  suggesting  strong 
alignment  between  the  challenges  highlighted  as  part  of  the  European  Semester  and 
investments under ESF+. Reported challenges to continued alignment included political 
will  and  diverging  timelines  for  adopting  CSRs  and  updating  ESF+  programming 
documents.  Regarding  EaSI,  mixed  feedback  on  funding  adequacy  suggests  that  rising 
demand and inflation may require larger EaSI budgets in the future. 

ESF+ continued relevance 

Stakeholders interviewed from most Member States and across different stakeholder types 
strongly held the view that the ESF+ is overall very relevant to national priorities. This 
was also confirmed by the survey of ESF+ managing authorities, where most respondents 
considered  that  each  specific  objective  of  the  ESF+  responds  strategically  to  the 
overall/changing policy context, related priorities, and general objectives of the fund to a 
large extent.  

The breadth of the ESF+ intervention logic in terms of its policy priorities, the flexibility 
accorded to Member States to define the use of the ESF+ under shared management, and 
the role of the European Semester in ensuring EU funding responds to identified policy 
priorities  were  the  main  factors  cited  as  supporting  this  relevance  throughout  all 
stakeholder consultation activities. Other factors that were cited as important in ensuring 
continuous relevance included the ability to reprogram based on changing needs, as well 
as the involvement of a range of stakeholders in the monitoring of ESF+ operations through 
monitoring  committees.  Thematic  concentrations,  particularly  on  poverty  and  social 
exclusion, were also considered highly relevant and important in ensuring that Member 
States continue to focus on the most deprived in European societies through the ESF+. 

Some areas were mentioned by a small number of stakeholders as emerging challenges or 
priorities  which  are  not  sufficiently  covered.  Housing  and  homelessness  emerged  quite 
strongly as an area in need of increased  attention in Member States. Migration, climate 
change and the green transition, and gender equality were also highlighted by a smaller 
number  of  stakeholders,  though  overall,  these  were  broadly  considered  to  be  addressed 
through the cross-cutting nature of ESF+ objectives overall. 

Monitoring indicators 

Stakeholder  consultation  activities  showed  a  divergence  of  opinions  regarding  the 
relevance of both  common and programme-specific indicators for assessing the outputs 
and results of the ESF+  initiatives. Stakeholders commonly recognised the relevance of 
the set of common indicators in providing comparable and coherent data on a core set of 
variables, and their role in allowing aggregations of outputs and results at EU level and 
comparisons across and within Member States. Many stakeholders nevertheless expressed 
concerns at the limitations of common results indicators in capturing the specific outcomes 
and  impacts  of  ESF+  operations,  especially  considering  that  such  operations  typically 
require  time  to  manifest  results.  The  interviews  have  also  highlighted  a  concern  that 
focusing  on  common  indicators  diverts  attention  and  resources  from  understanding  the 
specific  impacts  of  programmes  and  gaining  valuable  insights  from  their  delivery. 

260More than 40 interviewed stakeholders across most Member States (e.g. BG, CZ, DK EE; ES, FI, IE; HR; 
LU; MT; NL, PL, PT; RO; SE, SI). 

143 

 
 
According to some stakeholders who participated in the study’s focus groups, such impacts 
are better captured through evaluations using state-of-the-art methods. 

Findings for ESF+ shared management strand  

Programmes’ responsiveness 

The majority of managing authorities who expressed an opinion either agreed or strongly 
agreed  with  the  fact  that  the  new  ESF+  and  CPR  regulations  facilitate  amendments  to 
programmes in order to help them respond to policy changes (48%, 44 out of 91) and that 
the programmes are responsive to such changes (66%, 61 out of 91). At the same time, 
insights  from  national-level  interviews  indicated  mixed  results,  with  both  positive 
developments and ongoing challenges, on whether the thematic concentration, categories 
of regions and the mandatory use of dedicated priorities for social innovation and social 
experimentation are instrumental in addressing needs on the ground.  

Capacity to respond to emerging needs 

On balance, a slight majority of interviewees across all stakeholder types felt that the ESF+ 
could function as an important crisis response tool, while maintaining its core Cohesion 
policy  objectives,  rather  than  crises  being  better  addressed  via  a  dedicated  instrument. 
Typically, this was related to a positive experience of the usefulness of CRII flexibilities, 
as well as the existing delivery infrastructure that the ESF+ offers. 

Amongst the slight minority arguing for a dedicated response tool, using the ESF+ as an 
immediate crisis response solution was felt to divert attention from its core and ultimate 
cohesion objectives. It was also noted that the ESF+ is not designed for rapid response, but 
rather for strategically planned, longer-term implementation. Finally, a small minority of 
stakeholders felt that ESF+ does not have the level of flexibility needed for rapid crisis 
response. 

Findings for ESF+ EaSI strand 

EaSI strand internal coherence and relevance to policy priorities  

Overall, stakeholder consultations revealed that the EaSI strand showed stronger internal 
coherence and greater relevance to policy priorities compared to the previous programming 
period.  Consulted  European  Commission  officials  indicated  that  merging  the  three 
previous  axes  of  the  EaSI  programme  (PROGRESS,  EURES,  Microfinance  and  Social 
Entrepreneurship) under the EaSI strand, reduces management rigidities and provides the 
Commission  with  more  flexibility  to  adapt  the  programme  in  view  of  changing  policy 
priorities. 

Stakeholder participation 

Overall, there is a good level of stakeholder participation in the EaSI strand. Interviewed 
EU-level  NGOs  and  social  partners,  involved  in  the  consultation  process  for  the  EaSI 
Annual  Work  Programmes  as  per  the  ESF+  Article  39(8),  expressed  positive  feedback 
about  their  interaction  with  the  European  Commission  and  their  ability  to  voice  their 
opinions.  Moving  forward,  some  of  these  stakeholders  suggested  that  having  a  shared 
calendar for the ESF+ Committee and its Technical Working Groups was a means to help 
stakeholders better plan for the relevant meetings. Some stakeholders in the focus groups 
also emphasised the need to brainstorm together with the European Commission to define 
EaSI’s Annual Work Programmes. 

144 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 

Table A – Number of programmes and allocation of funds, by type of resources 

MS  

Regional 
Programmes  

AT  
BE  
BG  
CY  
CZ  
DE  
DK  
EE  
EL  
ES  
FI  
FR  
HR  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LT  
LU  
LV  
MT  
NL  
PL  

4  

16  

13  
19  
1  
17  

21  

16  

National 
programmes  
2  
1  
3  
1  
2  
1  
1  
1  
4  
4  
1  
2  
1  
5  
1  
6  
2  
1  
2  
1  
1  
2  

Total no. of programmes  

EU resources  

National resources  

2  
5  
3  
1  
2  
17  
1  
1  
17  
23  
2  
19  
1  
5  
1  
27  
2  
1  
2  
1  
1  
18  

409 668 103.00  
1 327 624 388.01  
2 625 192 711.00  
222 205 180.00  
2 430 902 368.00  
6 562 556 905.10  
119 616 872.00  
534 157 337.00  
5 560 449 773.00  
11 295 696 991.02  
604 674 882.95  
6 674 708 658.15  
1 933 570 912.00  
5 298 665 303.00  
508 380 024.02  
14 808 620 616.00  
1 136 397 404.98  
15 541 177.00  
720 968 137.00  
124 421 656.00  
413 757 775.99  
12 912 994 435.00  

145 

554 132 213.00  
1 567 436 901.10  
517 739 143.98  
132 551 993.00  
726 695 498.03  
6 822 371 307.31  
143 245 350.02  
224 607 533.06  
1 485 609 929.01  
5 245 596 232.10  
407 164 948.99  
4 333 696 914.94  
334 395 253.02  
1 022 532 603.07  
572 629 972.08  
13 831 320 754.26  
262 090 838.06  
20 811 923.99  
125 103 007.04  
80 447 771.02  
574 021 800.04  
2 684 389 659.30  

Total allocated  

963 800 316.00  
2 895 061 289.11  
3 142 931 854.98  
354 757 173.00  
3 157 597 866.03  
13 384 928 212.41  
262 862 222.02  
758 764 870.06  
7 046 059 702.01  
16 541 293 223.12  
1 011 839 831.94  
11 008 405 573.09  
2 267 966 165.02  
6 321 197 906.07  
1 081 009 996.10  
28 639 941 370.26  
1 398 488 243.04  
36 353 100.99  
846 071 144.04  
204 869 427.02  
987 779 576.03  
15 597 384 094.30  

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
8  

PT  
RO  
SE  
SI  
SK  
TOTAL  
Source: SFC monitoring data, retrieved in February 2024.  

1  
4  
1  
2  
1  
54  

115  

9  
4  
1  
2  
1  
169  

7 776 520 960.00  
7 332 965 756.00  
706 698 560.00  
665 364 994.96  
2 356 298 319.00  
95 078 620 200.18  

1 596 374 224.19  
2 000 335 322.05  
918 877 490.01  
311 102 280.00  
478 953 100.96  
46 974 233 963.63  

9 372 895 184.19  
9 333 301 078.05  
1 625 576 050.01  
976 467 274.96  
2 835 251 419.96  
142 052 854 163.81  

Table B – Share of ESF+ shared management allocations per Specific Objectives (allocations higher than 20% marked green and over 30% 
red) 

MS  

AT  
BE  
BG  
CY  
CZ  
DE  
DK  
EE  
EL  
ES  
FI  
FR  
HR  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LT  
LU  
LV  
MT  
NL  

SO(a)  
-  
18.1%  
26.2%  
18.0%  
15.8%  
5.0%  
-  
10.4%  
32.4%  
35.6%  
32.8%  
22.6%  
30.1%  
15.3%  
17.7%  
24.9%  
23.8%  
38.4%  
18.8%  
18.4%  
34.8%  

SO(b)  
-  
1.9%  
2.5%  
9.9%  
1.2%  
-  
-  
-  
0.8%  
0.3%  
-  
-  
2.8%  
-  
-  
2.6%  
-  
-  
-  
-  
-  

SO(c)  
7.7%  
-  
0.8%  
3.0%  
6.2%  
3.2%  
-  
-  
2.1%  
0.9%  
-  
0.4%  
-  
0.6%  
-  
4.6%  
-  
-  
-  
2.6%  
0.6%  

SO(d)  
2.3%  
3.5%  
3.3%  
-  
7.8%  
23.0%  
-  
7.5%  
5.8%  
4.8%  
-  
0.3%  
-  
5.0%  
-  
5.6%  
-  
-  
-  
-  
-  

SO(e)  
-  
-  
19.9%  
22.4%  
15.7%  
3.7%  
24.5%  
25.9%  
9.7%  
7.9%  
-  
2.6%  
5.2%  
40.6%  
-  
2.7%  
7.6%  
10.3%  
21.8%  
-  
-  

SO(f)  
35.2%  
9.6%  
6.7%  
-  
18.5%  
19.8%  
9.0%  
5.8%  
10.2%  
13.1%  
-  
7.0%  
25.2%  
5.5%  
11.4%  
20.9%  
11.5%  
6.1%  
6.8%  
35.8%  
-  

SO(h)  
31.3%  
32.0%  
4.5%  
3.3%  
18.1%  
26.3%  
25.2%  
22.6%  
4.3%  
22.4%  
31.0%  
28.8%  
7.7%  
13.0%  
19.1%  
8.2%  
6.5%  
28.5%  
4.1%  
14.0%  
35.4%  

SO(i)  
-  
-  
-  
-  
-  
1.8%  
-  
-  
1.9%  
1.1%  
-  
-  
0.4%  
-  
-  
0.5%  
-  
-  
-  
0.8%  
-  

SO(j)  
-  
-  
4.9%  
-  
5.5%  
-  
-  
-  
0.7%  
0.9%  
-  
-  
0.9%  
1.7%  
-  
0.1%  
-  
-  
-  
-  
-  

SO(k)  
-  
1.1%  
15.6%  
37.8%  
7.2%  
0.2%  
-  
9.4%  
19.3%  
2.7%  
-  
1.0%  
22.9%  
4.1%  
-  
19.1%  
38.3%  
-  
20.3%  
15.4%  
0.1%  

SO(l)  
-  
1.0%  
-  
-  
-  
7.1%  
1.5%  
-  
2.8%  
5.6%  
-  
5.6%  
-  
6.4%  
32.3%  
3.4%  
-  
-  
16.5%  
-  
-  

SO(m)  
1.9%  
2.0%  
6.6%  
5.6%  
2.7%  
-  
-  
2.4%  
5.9%  
3.8%  
3.3%  
6.2%  
3.3%  
2.8%  
3.3%  
3.0%  
6.3%  
4.1%  
4.3%  
2.6%  
1.8%  

Total  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  

SO(g)  
21.5%  
30.8%  
8.9%  
-  
1.2%  
9.9%  
39.7%  
16.1%  
4.1%  
0.9%  
32.8%  
25.6%  
1.6%  
5.0%  
16.2%  
4.3%  
6.0%  
12.5%  
7.5%  
10.4%  
27.3%  

146 

 
  
  
  
  
 
14.1%  
15.0%  
21.8%  
15.2%  
20.6%  
27.9%  

0.5%  
-  
4.3%  
7.1%  
3.9%  
1.8%  

6.9%  
0,5%  
1.4%  
-  
-  
2.8%  

9.0%  
8,5%  
1.0%  
-  
5.0%  
5.7%  

6.0%  

7.1%  
-  
23.2%  
6.4%  

16.8%  
30.6%  
10.2%  
-  
-  
10.5%  

10.2%  
10.9%  
6.9%  
28.1%  
11.0%  
3.8%  

10.7%  
13.7%  
0.6%  
42.7%  
5.5%  
7.3%  

2.1%  
-  
0.4%  
5.4%  
-  
0.7%  

-  
-  
0.8%  
-  
-  
7.5%  

15.7%  
18.0%  
32.2%  
-  
17.5%  
10.6%  

4.2%  
-  
1.9%  
1.4%  
10.0%  
12.1%  

3.8%  
2.8%  
11.5%  
-  
3.3%  
2.8%  

100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  
100.0%  

LU  

CY  

AT  

DE  

HU  

MT  

DK  

SE  

SE  

SK  

LT  

IE  

RO  

PL  
PT  
RO  
SE  
SI  
SK  
MS with 
highest share 
of ESF+ 
allocated to 
the SO  

MS with no 
allocation   AT, DK  

AT, BE, CY, 
DE, DK, EE, 
FI, FR, IE, 
LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, 
PT, SE, SI  
Total  
0.7%  
7.0%  
Source: SFC monitoring data, retrieved in February 2024. The highest shares per country are marked in green (above 20%) and red (above 30%).   

AT, BE, BG, 
CY, CZ, DK, 
EE, FI, FR, 
HU, IE, LT, 
LU, LV, NL, 
PT, SI  

AT, DE, DK, 
EE, FI, FR, 
HU, IE, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PT  

CY, DK, FI, 
HR, IE, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
NL, SE  

BE, DK, EE, 
FI, HR, HU, 
IE, LT, LU, 
LV, SE, SI  

AT, BE, FI, 
IE, MT, NL, 
PT, SE  

CY, FI, NL, 
SE, SI  

21.4%  

15.4%  

15.2%  

0.8%  

2.6%  

6.5%  

9.0%  

1.3%  

CY  

-  

AT, DK, FI, 
IE, LU, SE  

AT, BG, CY, 
CZ, EE, FI, 
HR, LU, SE  

DE, DK, SE  

12.1%  

4.2%  

3.8%  

100.0%  

/  

/  

Table C – Expenditure at the end of 2024 on total allocation 

MS  

AT  
BE  
BG  
CY  
CZ  
DE  
DK  
EE  
EL  
ES  
FI  

Eligible expenditure  
7 769 713 
58 431 265 
275 537 904 
38 160 076 
574 285 051 
1 551 108 064 
33 091 365 
57 348 866 
854 815 993 
-  
64 380 608 

Total amount  
963 800 316  
2 895 061 289  
3 142 931 855  
354 757 173  
3 157 597 866  
13 384 928 211  
262 862 221  
758 764 870  
7 046 059 701  
16 541 293 223  
1 011 839 831  

% of expenditure  
0.8% 
2% 
8.8% 
10.8% 
18.2% 
11.6% 
12.6% 
7.6% 
12.1% 
0% 
6.4% 

147 

 
  
 
FR  
HR  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LT  
LU  
LV  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SE  
SI  
SK  
Total  
Source: SFC data, retrieved June 2024 for allocations, end-2024 data retrieved in May 2025 for expenditure. 

11 008 405 573  
2 267 966 165  
6 321 197 906  
1 081 009 996  
28 639 941 370  
1 398 488 243  
36 353 101  
846 071 143  
204 869 427  
987 779 575  
15 597 384 094  
9 372 895 183  
9 333 301 078  
1 625 576 050  
976 467 274  
2 835 251 420  
142 052 854 164  

1 313 598 221 
64 832 012 
740 234 139 
249 218 277 
1 361 526 782 
85 552 505 
3 811 845 
30 550 775 
7 586 290 
191 250 945 
824 136 975 
1 159 716 472 
598 876 524 
246 413 154 
20 112 875 
387 242 111 
10 799 588 804 

11.9% 
2.9% 
11.7% 
23.1% 
4.8% 
6.1% 
10.5% 
3.6% 
3.7% 
19.4% 
5.3% 
12.4% 
6.4% 
15.2% 
2.1% 
13.7% 
7.6% 

Table D – Financial implementation of the ESF+ shared management at the end of 2024, by Specific Objective 

Specific Objective  

SO(a)  
SO(b)  
SO(c)  
SO(d)  
SO(e)  
SO(f)  
SO(g)  
SO(h)  

Total spend  

1 906 838 651 

62 442 836 

100 649 605 

421 492 293 

886 418 522 

2 201 625 832 

583 871 399 

1 682 111 690 

Total amount  
29 581 400 136  
1 736 186 427  
3 628 910 248  
9 053 313 123  
9 461 850 691  
21 466 269 026  
12 432 454 178  
20 945 831 979  

% of expenditure  
6.4% 

3.6% 

2.8% 

4.7% 

9.4% 

10.3% 

4.7% 

8.0% 

148 

 
 
SO(i)  
SO(j)  
SO(k)  
SO(l)  
SO(m)  
Technical Assistance  
Total  

87 082 406 

43 495 643 

1 374 396 757 

354 519 261 

720 793 895 

373 850 015 

10 799 588 805 

1 171 163 841  
947 111 891  
16 739 995 960  
5 772 356 416  
5 312 477 696  
3 803 532 552  
142 052 854 164  

7.4% 

4.6% 

8.2% 

6.1% 

13.6% 

9.8% 

7.6% 

Source: SFC data, retrieved June 2024 for allocations, end-2024 data retrieved in May 2025 for expenditure. 

Table E – Participants across shared management strand Specific Objectives (SOs) and Member States (MS) 

MS 

SO(a) 

SO(b) 

SO(c) 

SO(d) 

SO(e) 

SO(f) 

SO(g) 

SO(h) 

SO(i) 

SO(j) 

SO(k) 

Total 1 (a-k) 

SO(l) 

Total 2 (a-l) 

SO(l)* 

AT 

0 

BE 

77 614 

0 

0 

625 

0 

0 

0 

BG 

22 286 

1 716 

2 122 

1 682 

CY 

5 773 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 356 

6 326 

8 760 

39 480 

98 453 

78 319 

46 673 

363 

1 294 

0 

0 

0 

0 

27 581 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19 067 

0 

19 067 

1 750 

295 616 

2 697 

298 313 

6 710 

60 667 

143 513 

0 

0 

5 773 

468 

3 999 

64 230 

0 

0 

0 

143 513 

5 773 

64 230 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CZ 

18 386 

22 

1 764 

2 940 

2 263 

6 807 

DE 

20 212 

DK 

0 

EE 

EL 

2 898 

2 667 

ES 

463 849 

FI 

11 842 

FR 

185 198 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

33 989 

54 135 

49 170 

242 213 

130 395 

140 035 

27 789 

0 

0 

0 

0 

93 

6 680 

2 688 

5 190 

1 350 

0 

0 

1 121 

1 685 

1 922 

44 252 

2 888 

1 342 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

697 938 

20 579 

718 517 

62 260 

15 908 

431 

16 339 

431 

1 332 

7 129 

0 

53 071 

0 

0 

7 129 

53 071 

0 

0 

28 552 

273 470 

125 743 

190 671 

4 746 

421 119 

81 822 

22 576 

20 855 

1 633 403 

57 395 

1 690 798 

136 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 322 

8 655 

174 

117 

126 

70 797 

94 967 

697 557 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

35 819 

0 

35 819 

1 048 936 

29 136 

1 078 072 

0 

0 

149 

 
MS 

SO(a) 

SO(b) 

SO(c) 

SO(d) 

SO(e) 

SO(f) 

SO(g) 

SO(h) 

SO(i) 

SO(j) 

SO(k) 

Total 1 (a-k) 

SO(l) 

Total 2 (a-l) 

SO(l)* 

HR 

0 

HU 

19 780 

IE 

IT 

543 

365 452 

LT 

19 469 

LU 

LV 

645 

0 

MT 

1 484 

NL 

128 371 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 880 

39 490 

136 293 

4 485 

0 

0 

0 

65 

0 

0 

0 

77 552 

54 060 

0 

0 

0 

85 912 

84 881 

10 912 

1 050 473 

68 985 

90 555 

3 360 

0 

28 944 

33 824 

0 

0 

33 824 

201 229 

201 229 

132 155 

8 793 

140 948 

147 780 

1 908 310 

13 004 

1 921 314 

5 998 

0 

793 

4 107 

3 777 

41 884 

63 876 

9 020 

0 

0 

63 876 

9 020 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 730 

491 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

603 

3 683 

0 

0 

52 663 

0 

1 119 

1 119 

5 770 

181 034 

0 

0 

5 770 

181 034 

PL 

134 610 

173 

1 663 

24 435 

9 446 

108 917 

28 921 

10 086 

6 412 

22 903 

347 566 

15 438 

363 004 

6 890 

PT 

27 863 

RO 

0 

SE 

62 973 

SI 

4 549 

0 

0 

0 

0 

SK 

116 814 

45 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

125 575 

108 696 

15 654 

183 593 

461 389 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

461 389 

0 

0 

0 

37 975 

15 869 

120 

116 937 

299 

117 236 

6 935 

13 838 

1 301 

19 688 

0 

19 688 

6 181 

980 

390 

0 

2 095 

16 596 

7 134 

150 235 

723 

150 958 

1 116 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 

1 693 278 

1 956 

154 801 

489 354 

388 086 

1 900 896 

701 982 

1 633 273 

119 503 

47 466 

520 841 

7 651 436 

149 614 

7 801 050 

82 650 

Source: SFC data, retrieved in May 2025. 

* Participants under SO(l) operations targeting the most deprived  

150 

 
Table F – Overview of short-term and longer-term results by country 

Participants engaged in job 
searching upon leaving 

Participants in education or 
training upon leaving 

Participants gaining a 
qualification upon leaving 

Participants in employment 
upon leaving 

Success rate (positive results 
as % of participants) 

Participants in employment six 
months after leaving 

Participants with an improved 
labour market situation six 
months after leaving 

Short-term indicators 

Longer-term indicators* 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

543 

3 446 

16 353 

0 

0 

8 058 

271 

59 

310 

32 508 

141 

32 103 

30 

3 

2 244 

3 466 

219 

14 

0 

34 

207 

73 

819 

26 593 

11 

734 

1 055 

37 584 

3 384 

403 

674 

105 817 

690 

89 259 

0 

29 

4 577 

230 

25 

491 

0 

163 

0 

404 

21 134 

113 485 

3 591 

11 702 

1 770 

0 

6 421 

274 818 

414 

169 

2 922 

355 298 

470 

102 856 

284 

19 001 

9 689 

149 150 

6 028 

2 208 

0 

748 

680 

53 921 

60 247 

1 643 

13 946 

401 

3 922 

0 

38 807 

682 

298 

5 599 

426 109 

1 227 

207 514 

1 

207 

8 836 

16 279 

8 518 

140 

0 

247 

6 330 

91 495 

12 548 

151 

34.6 

18.7 

12.9 

80.7 

11.6 

50.0 

29.1 

13.0 

17.9 

54.4 

7.1 

40.0 

0.9 

9.6 

18.0 

8.8 

23.2 

31.6 

0.0 

20.7 

4.0 

40.2 

45.0 

0 

2 205 

0 

2 730 

0 

6 397 

0 

249 

373 

81 319 

0 

99 848 

0 

2 

2 538 

24 359 

11 647 

63 

0 

171 

1 228 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 010 

0 

2 

525 

9 581 

0 

21 020 

0 

300 

1 010 

3 719 

0 

1 989 

0 

0 

1 512 

0 

0 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Total 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

143 

330 

1 

2 486 

134 

4 

8 594 

350 

1 045 

121 690 

389 051 

1 072 376 

12 588 

387 

17 

857 741 

20.3 

6.1 

0.7 

31.3 

10 116 

28 

11 

243 284 

0 

0 

1 

45 669 

Source: SFC data, retrieved in May 2025. Note: *Common longer-term result indicators are to be reported, as a minimum requirement, twice in the programming period: by 31 January 2026 and in the final  

performance report. The currently available data are therefore not representative.  

Table G – Overview of short-term and longer-term results by specific objective 

Participants engaged in job 
searching upon leaving 

Participants in education or 
training upon leaving 

Participants gaining a 
qualification upon leaving 

Participants in employment 
upon leaving 

Success rate (positive results 
as % of participants) 

Participants in employment six 
months after leaving 

Participants with an improved 
labour market situation six 
months after leaving 

Short-term indicators 

Longer-term indicators* 

ESO4.1 

ESO4.2 

ESO4.3 

ESO4.4 

ESO4.5 

ESO4.6 

ESO4.7 

ESO4.8 

ESO4.9 

ESO4.10 

ESO4.11 

ESO4.12 

Total 

31 761 

0 

1 184 

280 

951 

20 930 

5 227 

46 759 

5 994 

1 703 

6 901 

0 

121 690 

41 273 

0 

4 477 

32 279 

7 034 

72 984 

34 224 

80 699 

6 830 

2 033 

107 218 

0 

389 051 

116 491 

37 

4 363 

91 557 

113 244 

360 551 

177 774 

162 674 

14 276 

3 125 

28 284 

0 

1 072 376 

365 522 

0 

6 377 

134 111 

9 600 

28 431 

27 255 

264 094 

15 206 

1 934 

5 211 

0 

857 741 

32.8 

1.9 

10.6 

52.8 

33.7 

25.4 

34.8 

33.9 

35.4 

18.5 

28.3 

0.0 

31.3 

73 118 

0 

1 561 

24 397 

3 004 

12 703 

23 074 

96 139 

6 973 

773 

1 542 

0 

6 083 

0 

545 

3 819 

3 289 

1 587 

20 388 

8 890 

527 

201 

340 

0 

243 284 

45 669 

Source: SFC data, retrieved in May 2025. Note: *Common longer-term result indicators are to be reported, as a minimum requirement, twice in the programming period: by 31 January 2026 and in the final  

performance report. The currently available data are therefore not representative.  

152 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

Annual Work 
Programme 

2021 

2022 

2023 

Table H – Main priorities and calls launched under EaSI strand in 2021 - 2024 

Priorities 

Calls 

Implement the European Pillar of Social Rights 
Strengthen employment and skills 
Improve social protection and inclusion 
Improve labour markets and labour mobility 
Foster safe and fair working conditions 

Implement the European Pillar of Social Rights  
Support and foster an inclusive recovery from COVID-19 
pandemic impacts 
Promote fair transitions (green, digital) 

- 
-  Address labour shortages and skills mismatches 
- 

Improve social protection systems and access to services 

-  National Contact Points for the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) strand of 

ESF+ 
Framework Partnership agreement under ESF-OG-2021 Social Enterprise 
Framework partnership agreement under ESF-OG-2021 - social inclusion 
Specific Grant Agreement under FPA-ESF-OG-2021 - Social Inclusion 
Specific Grant Agreement under FPA ESF-OG-2021 Social Enterprise 

- 
- 
- 
- 
-  EURES EEA non EU countries cooperation 
-  EURES Social Partner Cooperation 
-  EURES Cross Border Partnerships 
- 
-  EURES TARGETED MOBILITY SCHEME (TMS) 
-  Activities to tackle undeclared work 

Posting of Workers 

-  ESF-2022-SOC-FIN  National  Contact  Points  for  the  Employment  and  Social 

Innovation (EaSI) strand of ESF+ 

Social innovations for a fair green and digital transition (ESF-2022-SOC-INNOV)  

-  Transaction costs to support social finance intermediaries (ESF-2022-SOC-FIN)  
- 
-  EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme (ESF-2022-EURES-TMS)  
-  European  Mobility  and  Social  Inclusion  for  Integrating  Disadvantaged  Young 
People  Not  in  Employment,  Education,  or  Training  (NEETs)  (ESF-SI-2022-
ALMA-01; ESFA/ Social Innovation Plus Initiative) 

- 
Implement European Pillar of Social Rights  
- 
Support just green and digital transitions 
-  Address labour shortages and skills needs 
- 
Improve social protection and inclusion 
- 
Promote fair labour mobility 

-  EURES Cross-border partnerships 
-  Activities to tackle undeclared work (Topic 2) 
-  EURES EEA non-EU countries cooperation 
-  EURES Social partners cooperation 
- 

Posting of workers: enhancing administrative cooperation and access to information 
(Topic 1) 

153 

 
 
 
2024 

- 
- 

- 

Implement European Pillar of Social Rights  
Strengthen employment and ensure fair labour mobility 
as well as safe and fair working conditions. 

Foster education and skills 

-  Help improve social protection and inclusion 

Implementation of a European Tracking Service for pensions 
Support to the European Platform on Combatting Homelessness 
Social innovation practices to combat homelessness 

- 
- 
- 
-  Actions to boost the development of finance markets for social enterprises 
-  National  Competence  Centres  for  Social 

Innovation:  Building-  up  and 
Consolidating the Capacity  (ESF-SI-2023-NCC-01;  ESFA/Social Innovation Plus 
Initiative) 
Social  Innovations  for  the  Upskilling  of  Vulnerable  Youth,  Especially  Young 
People  not  in  Employment,  Education,  or  Training  (NEETs)  (ESF-SI-2023-
SKILLS-01; ESFA/Social Innovation Plus Initiative) 

- 

-  EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme (TMS) 
- 

Social  innovation  call  for  proposals:  actions  to  develop  impact  performance 
intelligence services for the social impact investing market actors 
Innovative Approaches to Mitigate the Societal Consequences of Russia’s War of 
(ESF-SI-2024-UA-01; 
Aggression  against  Ukraine  within  EU  Countries 
ESFA/Social Innovation Plus Initiative) 
Innovative Approaches Tackling Long-Term Unemployment ( ESF-SI-2024-LTU-
01; ESFA/Social Innovation Plus Initiative) 

- 

- 

Source: EU Funding & Tenders Portal and Social Innovation Plus Initiative & Transnational calls 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table I – Top beneficiary countries contracted amount under EaSI direct and indirect management in 2021 - 2024 

Beneficiary country 

Beneficiary’s contracted amount EUR million 

Lithuania 
Belgium 
Germany 
Luxembourg 
Spain 
Hungary 
France 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Ireland 
Austria 
Czech Republic 

101,65 
63,79 
37,91 
18,05 
11,22 
10,20 
9,62 
3,94 
0,50 
0,42 
0,36 
0,07 

Source: Financial Transparency System, direct and indirect management (downloaded on 14/07/2025) 

Table I indicates the distribution of budget commitments per beneficiary Member State. The estimated amount per country sums up the total amounts received by all the recipients residing 
in the particular country for which information is publicly disclosed. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table J – Calls for proposals launched under Social Innovation Plus Initiative 

Source: DG EMPL 

156 

 
 
Table K – EU amount allocated in 2021 – 2027 to social innovation and number of programmes/priorities, by country 

N. progr. 

N. 
priorities 

EU amount Social 
innovation 

EU amount Shared 
management 

% EU amount on 
Total Shared 
Management 

Total amount Social 
Innovation 

Total amount 
Shared 
Management 

% Tot amount on Total 
Shared Management 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

2 

1 

13 870 990 

409 668 103 

91 543 541 

1 327 624 388 

9 714 696 

2 625 192 711 

10 000 000 

222 205 180 

36 463 536 

2 430 902 368 

245 378 515 

6 562 556 905 

359 024 

119 616 872 

5 200 000 

534 157 337 

23 750 000 

5 560 449 773 

144 677 253 

11 295 696 991 

30 120 795 

604 674 883 

200 651 662 

6 674 708 658 

19 528 912 

1 933 570 912 

3.4 

6.9 

0.4 

4.5 

1.5 

3.7 

0.3 

1.0 

0.4 

1.3 

5.0 

3.0 

1.0 

157 

14 601 043 

963 800 316 

169 193 335 

2 895 061 289 

10 225 996 

3 142 931 855 

10 526 316 

354 757 173 

38 382 671 

3 157 597 866 

288 366 396 

13 384 928 212 

377 921 

262 862 222 

7 428 572 

758 764 870 

25 000 000 

7 046 059 702 

152 291 849 

16 541 293 223 

31 706 101 

1 011 839 832 

211 940 552 

11 008 405 573 

20 556 751 

2 267 966 165 

1.5 

5.8 

0.3 

3.0 

1.2 

2.1 

0.2 

1.0 

0.4 

0.9 

3.1 

1.9 

0.9 

 
  
N. progr. 

N. 
priorities 

EU amount Social 
innovation 

EU amount Shared 
management 

% EU amount on 
Total Shared 
Management 

Total amount Social 
Innovation 

Total amount 
Shared 
Management 

% Tot amount on Total 
Shared Management 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

178 977 279 

5 298 665 303 

25 419 000 

508 380 024 

106 731 462 

14 808 620 616 

53 335 038 

1 136 397 405 

699 353 

15 541 177 

22 100 000 

720 968 137 

2 400 000 

124 421 656 

16 435 346 

413 757 776 

194 325 581 

12 912 994 435 

5 000 000 

7 776 520 960 

15 000 000 

7 332 965 756 

35 334 928 

706 698 560 

9 260 000 

665 364 995 

68 153 000 

2 356 298 319 

3.4 

5.0 

0.7 

4.7 

4.5 

3.1 

1.9 

4.0 

1.5 

0.1 

0.2 

5.0 

1.4 

2.9 

158 

188 397 136 

6 321 197 906 

26 756 843 

1 081 009 996 

135 243 645 

28 639 941 370 

56 142 146 

1 398 488 243 

999 076 

36 353 101 

26 000 000 

846 071 144 

4 000 000 

204 869 427 

17 300 383 

987 779 576 

204 553 244 

15 597 384 094 

5 882 353 

9 372 895 184 

17 483 369 

9 333 301 078 

37 194 662 

1 625 576 050 

12 123 824 

976 467 274 

71 740 002 

2 835 251 420 

3.0 

2.5 

0.5 

4.0 

2.7 

3.1 

1.9 

1.7 

1.3 

0.1 

0.2 

2.3 

1.2 

2.5 

 
  
N. progr. 

N. 
priorities 

EU amount Social 
innovation 

EU amount Shared 
management 

% EU amount on 
Total Shared 
Management 

Total amount Social 
Innovation 

Total amount 
Shared 
Management 

% Tot amount on Total 
Shared Management 

Total 

41 

41 

1 530 669 911 

95 078 620 200 

1.6 

1 784 414 186 

142 052 854 163 

1.2 

Source: Cohesion data.  

Table L – Budget allocation for FEAD, REACT-EU and material deprivation and social inclusion (ESF+) 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 
2014-2020 and 2021-
2027 

Δ FEAD 
- ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU 
- ESF+ 

18 032 733 

73 821 504 

104 815 264 

3 944 660 

23 329 849 

78 893 211 

3 944 660 

8 002 026 

563 410 224 

22 540 916 

499 281 315 

6 000 000 

46 087 224 

38 564 594 

- 

3 889 688 

- 

- 

4 500 000 

177 000 000 

- 

104 027 508 

24 032 733 

119 908 728 

143 379 858 

3 944 660 

27 219 537 

78 893 211 

3 944 660 

12 502 026 

740 410 224 

22 540 916 

603 308 823 

198 640 000 

3 441 384 

159 

16 796 392 

53 110 536 

16 796 392 

-6.86% 

-30.11% 

53 110 536 

-28.06% 

-55.71% 

180 000 000 

180 000 000 

71.73% 

25.54% 

17 000 000 

72 927 000 

16 236 632 

565 083 719 

30 233 745 

612 640 979 

17 000 000 

330.96% 

330.96% 

72 927 000 

212.59% 

167.92% 

198 640 000 

151.78% 

151.78% 

3 441 384 

-12.76% 

-12.76% 

16 236 632 

102.91% 

29.87% 

565 083 719 

0.30% 

-23.68% 

30 233 745 

34.13% 

34.13% 

612 640 979 

22.70% 

1.55% 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 
2014-2020 and 2021-
2027 

Δ FEAD 
- ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU 
- ESF+ 

280 972 531 

36 628 990 

93 882 921 

22 766 327 

- 

10 000 000 00 

- 

- 

280 972 531 

46 628 990 

93 882 921 

22 766 327 

670 592 285 

199 380 000 

869 972 285 

77 202 641 

3 944 660 

41 024 469 

3 944 660 

3 944 660 

473 359 260 

176 946 201 

441 013 044 

7 889 321 

20 512 235 

55 112 543 

1 031 459 

- 

850 000 

7 931 641 

- 

- 

- 

- 

56 000 000 

- 

8 900 000 

22 928 653 

- 

77 202 641 

4 794 660 

48 956 110 

3 944 660 

3 944 660 

473 359 260 

176 946 201 

497 013 044 

7 889 321 

29 412 235 

78 041 196 

1 031 459 

21 200 958 

- 

160 

360 000 000 

67 392 000 

153 012 972 

32 149 801 

746 999 998 

79 547 814 

1 260 389 

32 538 000 

4 500 000 

16 435 346 

506 375 000 

230 688 335 

887 540 126 

29 400 000 

68 153 000 

- 

360 000 000 

28.13% 

28.13% 

67 392 000 

83.99% 

44.53% 

153 012 972 

62.98% 

62.98% 

32 149 801 

41.22% 

41.22% 

746 999 998 

11.39% 

-14.14% 

79 547 814 

3.04% 

3.04% 

1 260 389 

-68.05% 

-73.71% 

32 538 000 

-20.69% 

-33.54% 

4 500 000 

14.08% 

14.08% 

16 435 346 

316.65% 

316.65% 

506 375 000 

6.97% 

6.97% 

230 688 335 

30.37% 

30.37% 

887 540 126 

101.25% 

78.57% 

21 200 958 

168.73% 

168.73% 

29 400 000 

43.33% 

-0.04% 

68 153 000 

23.66% 

-12.67% 

- 

-100.00% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 
2014-2020 and 2021-
2027 

Δ FEAD 
- ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU 
- ESF+ 

3 810 784 569 

686 059 308 

4 496 843 877 

223 282 342261 

4 780 021 784 

5 003 304 126 

31.29% 

11.26% 

MS 

EU 

Source: Cohesion data. 

Table M – Budget allocation for ex-FEAD, REACT-EU and material deprivation and social inclusion (ESF+) in real values (base year 2015) 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

(Price Index 2014) 

(Price Index 2020) 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

(Price Index 2021) 

(Price Index 2021) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 2014-
2020 and 2021-2027 

Δ FEAD - 
ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU - 
ESF+ 

18 178 158 

74 282 053 

103 695 354 

3 883 686 

23 376 602 

79 449 356 

5 531 483 

42 582 670 

36 289 258 

0 

3 491 641 

0 

23 709 642 

116 864 723 

139 984 612 

3 883 686 

26 868 243 

79 449 356 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 069 435 

47 543 224 

15 069 435 

47 543 224 

-17.1% 

-36.0% 

-36.4% 

-59.3% 

164 684 355 

164 684 355 

58.8% 

17.6% 

16 679 749 

63 359 687 

16 679 749 

329.5% 

329.5% 

63 359 687 

171.0% 

135.8% 

181 904 762 

0 

181 904 762 

129.0% 

129.0% 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

Regarding the SO (l) in the 2021-2027 programming period, only resources addressing the most deprived are considered. To catch the amount directly addressed to most deprived,  we 
used ’Priority Type Description’ variable as filter. As set by the Article 2(1)(6) of the ESF+ regulation: ‘Most deprived persons’ means natural persons, whether individuals, families, 
household or groups of persons, including children in vulnerable situations and homeless people, whose need for assistance has been established according to the objective criteria which 
are set by the national competent authorities in consultation with relevant stakeholders avoiding conflicts of interest, and which may include elements that allow for targeting of the most 
deprived persons in certain geographical areas. 

161 

 
 
 
MS 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

(Price Index 2014) 

(Price Index 2020) 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

(Price Index 2021) 

(Price Index 2021) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 2014-
2020 and 2021-2027 

Δ FEAD - 
ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU - 
ESF+ 

3 952 565 

8 007 631 

559 882 961 

22 504 908 

499 731 073 

277 887 974 

36 534 002 

93 939 285 

22 766 327 

0 

4 098 361 

170 339 717 

0 

98 604 273 

0 

9 703 086 

0 

0 

3 952 565 

12 105 992 

730 222 678 

22 504 908 

598 335 346 

277 887 974 

46 237 087 

93 939 285 

22 766 327 

671 263 549 

193 572 816 

864 836 364 

76 681 209 

3 947 028 

41 110 802 

3 990 955 

3 952 961 

470 068 779 

177 835 378 

439 212 274 

7 944 936 

20 355 498 

0 

802 417 

7 302 192 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 600 886 

0 

8 490 746 

76 681 209 

4 749 445 

48 412 994 

3 990 955 

3 952 961 

470 068 779 

177 835 378 

489 813 159 

7 944 936 

28 846 244 

3 280 633 

0 

3 280 633 

-17.0% 

-17.0% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14 153 271 

527 918 273 

28 490 148 

568 945 931 

353 808 354 

63 685 504 

128 539 123 

31 032 626 

711 428 570 

68 723 813 

1 149 885 

29 015 516 

4 200 896 

14 943 941 

443 022 747 

220 648 814 

770 367 265 

14 153 271 

527 918 273 

28 490 148 

568 945 931 

353 808 354 

63 685 504 

128 539 123 

31 032 626 

711 428 570 

68 723 813 

1 149 885 

76.7% 

-5.7% 

26.6% 

13.9% 

27.3% 

74.3% 

36.8% 

36.3% 

6.0% 

-10.4% 

-70.9% 

16.9% 

-27.7% 

26.6% 

-4.9% 

27.3% 

37.7% 

36.8% 

36.3% 

-17.7% 

-10.4% 

-75.8% 

29 015 516 

-29.4% 

-40.1% 

4 200 896 

5.3% 

5.3% 

14 943 941 

278.0% 

278.0% 

443 022 747 

220 648 814 

770 367 265 

-5.8% 

24.1% 

75.4% 

-5.8% 

24.1% 

57.3% 

19 188 124 

0 

19 188 124 

141.5% 

141.5% 

0 

27 484 341 

27 484 341 

35.0% 

-4.7% 

162 

 
2014-2020 

2021-2027 

FEAD 

REACT-EU 

(Price Index 2014) 

(Price Index 2020) 

FEAD + REACT-EU 

SO(l) (ESF+) 

SO(m) (ESF+) 

(Price Index 2021) 

(Price Index 2021) 

SO(l) + SO(m) 

Difference between 2014-
2020 and 2021-2027 

Δ FEAD - 
ESF+ 

Δ FEAD + 
REACT EU - 
ESF+ 

54 920 322 

1 031 459 

21 138 244 

0 

76 058 566 

1 031 459 

0 

n.a. 

61 107 325 

61 107 325 

11.3% 

-19.7% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3 800 387 084 

652 547 788 

4 451 903 413 

204 373 519 

4 376 002 794 

4 580 376 313 

20.5% 

n.a. 

2.9% 

MS 

SK 

UK 

EU 

Source: Cohesion data and Eurostat for the Price Index and the population in severe material and social deprivation. 

Table N – Grouping of countries by net increase/decrease in ESF+ shared management allocation for Most Deprived compared to FEAD and 
changes in the population living in severe material and social deprivation 

Group of countries 
per net 
increase/decrease of 
allocation  

Net increase both in 
nominal and real 
terms 

Member 
State 

CY 

NL 

CZ 

SE 

DE 

EE 

RO 

HR 

BG 

Net increase 

Net increase pro capita 

Nominal values 

Real values 

Nominal values 

Real values 

331.0% 

316.6% 

212.6% 

168.7% 

151.8% 

102.9% 

101.3% 

84.0% 

71.7% 

1080.5% 

1076.5% 

412.4% 

571.2% 

19.9% 

125.8% 

112.5% 

193.8% 

322.7% 

255.9% 

364.9% 

482.0% 

7.7% 

105.3% 

85.1% 

156.1% 

300.5% 

229.1% 

329.5% 

278.0% 

171.0% 

141.5% 

129.0% 

76.7% 

75.4% 

74.3% 

58.8% 

163 

Diff. Most 
Deprived 
population 
Δ 2022-2015  
Percentage 

-63% 

-19% 

-53% 

124% 

12% 

-5% 

-32% 

-56% 

-52% 

 
 
 
 
HU 

SI 

IE 

FI 

PT 

EL 

SK 

FR 

MT 

IT 

PL 

LT 

ES 

AT 

LV 

DK 

BE 

LU 

Net increase in 
nominal but not in 
real terms 

Net decrease but due 
to reduction of the 
Most Deprived 
population 
Net decrease for 
other reasons (not 
explained by 
reduction of Most 
Deprived) 

63.0% 

43.3% 

41.2% 

34.1% 

30.4% 

28.1% 

23.7% 

22.7% 

14.1% 

11.4% 

7.0% 

3.0% 

0.3% 

-6.9% 

-20.7% 

-12.8% 

-28.1% 

-68.0% 

36.8% 

35.0% 

36.3% 

26.6% 

24.1% 

27.3% 

11.3% 

13.9% 

5.3% 

6.0% 

-5.8% 

-10.4% 

-5.7% 

-17.1% 

-29.4% 

-17.0% 

-36.0% 

-70.9% 

339.1% 

381.1% 

111.6% 

-30.4% 

168.7% 

68.4% 

64.5% 

6.1% 

61.1% 

208.5% 

200.8% 

161.0% 

-5.6% 

12.3% 

65.8% 

-15.9% 

-13.6% 

-65.2% 

268.6% 

353.2% 

104.2% 

-34.3% 

155.7% 

67.3% 

48.0% 

-1.6% 

48.7% 

193.5% 

165.0% 

127.0% 

-11.3% 

-0.1% 

47.5% 

-20.0% 

-23.1% 

-68.2% 

-63% 

-70% 

-33% 

93% 

-51% 

-24% 

-25% 

16% 

-29% 

-64% 

-64% 

-61% 

6% 

-17% 

-52% 

4% 

-17% 

-8% 

Source: SFC monitoring data, retrieved in February 2024 and Eurostat data, retrieved in February 2024. 

164 

 
 
 
Table O – Overview of thematic concentration allocation for social inclusion, the most deprived and youth employment262 

Thematic 
concentration 

Social Inclusion 

Most deprived 
(SO(i)+SO(m)) 

Youth Employment 

Threshold 

25% 

3% 

12.5% MS above the EU average of NEET 
between 2017 and 2019 

Total EU amount (total ESF+ 
budget by country) 

Absolute 
value 

% of EU 
amount 

Absolute 
value 

% of EU 
amount 

Absolute value 

% of EU amount 

Absolute value 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

132 133 884 

438 483 769 

632 108 841 

87 205 180 

719 740 981 

2 410 295 327 

32 119 529 

169 836 964 

1 502 158 159 

3 687 410 098 

192 739 208 

2 290 889 360 

616 228 912 

1 278 224 248 

256 581 140 

32.3% 

33.0% 

24.1% 

39.2% 

29.6% 

36.7% 

26.9% 

31.8% 

27.0% 

32.6% 

31.9% 

34.3% 

31.9% 

24.1% 

50.5% 

16 796 392 

53 110 536 

180 000 000 

17 000 000 

72 927 000 

198 640 000 

3 441 384 

16 236 632 

360 000 000 

565 083 719 

30 233 745 

612 640 979 

67 392 000 

153 012 972 

32 149 801 

4.1% 

4.0% 

6.9% 

7.7% 

3.0% 

3.0% 

2.9% 

3.0% 

6.5% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

9.2% 

3.5% 

2.9% 

6.3% 

157 218 979 

315 024 089 

28 000 000 

750 432 550 

2 018 680 296 

1 207 433 674 

324 844 000 

0.0% 

11.8% 

12.0% 

12.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.5% 

17.9% 

0.0% 

18.1% 

16.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

409 668 103 

1 327 624 388 

2 625 192 711 

222 205 180 

2 430 902 368 

6 562 556 905 

119 616 872 

534 157 337 

5 560 449 773 

11 295 696 991 

604 674 883 

6 674 708 658 

1 933 570 912 

5 298 665 303 

508 380 024 

262Some countries may appear slightly below the thematic concentration thresholds in the table. However, since the differences are small, these small discrepancies may be due to rounding 
errors. 

165 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 784 688 730 

18.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

12.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

12.1% 

9.3% 

112 000 000 

879 956 000 

283 969 292 

8 862 247 610 

14 808 620 616 

1 136 397 405 

15 541 177 

720 968 137 

124 421 656 

413 757 776 

12 912 994 435 

7 776 520 960 

7 332 965 756 

706 698 560 

665 364 995 

2 356 298 319 

95 078 620 200 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

4 169 449 326 

511 967 471 

3 885 295 

293 031 231 

34 860 000 

146 363 654 

4 038 890 160 

2 377 904 814 

2 472 984 450 

369 030 196 

213 076 240 

864 002 510 

28.2% 

45.1% 

25.0% 

40.6% 

28.0% 

35.4% 

31.3% 

30.6% 

33.7% 

52.2% 

32.0% 

36.7% 

746 999 998 

79 547 814 

1 260 389 

32 538 000 

4 500 000 

16 435 346 

506 375 000 

230 688 335 

5.0% 

7.0% 

8.1% 

4.5% 

3.6% 

4.0% 

3.9% 

3.0% 

887 540 126 

12.1% 

21 200 958 

29 400 000 

68 153 000 

Total 

29 941 600 947 

31.5% 

5 003 304 126 

Source: Cohesion data. 

3.0% 

4.4% 

2.9% 

5.3% 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table P – 2019 CSRs, Specific Objectives under ESF+ programming, and earmarked resources 

SO (a) 

SO (b) 

SO (c) 

SO (d) 

SO (e) 

SO (f) 

SO (g) 

SO (h) 

SO (i) 

SO (j) 

SO (k) 

SO (l) 

SO (m) 

EU 
average 
(% of 
total) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

21.4% 

1.3% 

2.6% 

6.5% 

6.8% 

15.5% 

9.0% 

15.2% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

12.1% 

4.2% 

3.8% 

7.74% 

35.24% 

18.12% 

1.87% 

26.25% 

2.51% 

17.99% 

9.86% 

11.92% 

22.38% 

15.72% 

3.73% 

6.21% 

3.19% 

32.01% 

8.89% 

4.53% 

37.85% 

5.59% 

5.48% 

9.88% 

1.78% 

7.10% 

24.53% 

8.99% 

39.71% 

10.36% 

7.46% 

25.89% 

22.57% 

9.44% 

2.38% 

32.36% 

0.83% 

2.14% 

9.71% 

10.20% 

4.10% 

4.28% 

1.89% 

19.28% 

2.76% 

35.59% 

0.28% 

4.79% 

7.89% 

13.06% 

22.45% 

32.82% 

22.55% 

30.06% 

14.69% 

17.73% 

0.54% 

24.89% 

2.61% 

4.55% 

23.77% 

2.59% 

5.23% 

39.08% 

2.74% 

7.61% 

32.82% 

31.03% 

25.62% 

28.81% 

7.66% 

22.92% 

1.67% 

2.69% 

8.22% 

6.46% 

32.26% 

19.05% 

38.27% 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SO (a) 

SO (b) 

SO (c) 

SO (d) 

SO (e) 

SO (f) 

SO (g) 

SO (h) 

SO (i) 

SO (j) 

SO (k) 

SO (l) 

SO (m) 

38.43% 

18.78% 

18.45% 

34.88% 

12.47% 

28.55% 

21.81% 

4.06% 

2.60% 

35.77% 

0.78% 

27.25% 

35.44% 

14.11% 

0.53% 

6.88% 

16.78% 

10.17% 

10.68% 

15.04% 

21.84% 

0.48% 

7.06% 

10.17% 

13.73% 

0.57% 

28.09% 

42.71% 

5.43% 

20.28% 

15.38% 

15.73% 

17.96% 

11.48% 

3.91% 

23.18% 

11.02% 

17.54% 

9.96% 

27.93% 

2.84% 

10.55% 

7.49% 

10.64% 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Legend 

MSs that have allocated ESF+ budget to the SO and corresponding CSR 
above the EU average 

MSs that have allocated ESF+ budget to the SO and corresponding CSR 
below the EU average 

MSs that have allocated no ESF+ to the SO and corresponding CSR 

Source: Cohesion data and Country reports.  

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table Q – Alignment and indicative financial investment of ESF+ Specific Objectives (SOs) to EPSR principles 

EPSR principle 

ESF+ SOs addressing principle in full or partially263 

(b) modernising labour market institutions and services to assess and anticipate skills needs and 
ensure timely and tailor-made assistance and support for labour market matching, transitions 
and mobility 

1. Education, training and life-long 
learning 

(e) - improving the quality, inclusiveness, effectiveness and labour market relevance of 
education and training systems  

ESF+ financial 
allocations to SOs 

(EUR  million)264 

Indicative total ESF+ 
allocation to EPSR 
principle 

(EUR  million)265 

1 724 

9 339.2 

44 396.3 

(f) – promoting equal access to and completion of quality and inclusive education and training 

21 152.9 

(g) - promoting lifelong learning, in particular flexible upskilling and reskilling opportunities 
for all 

12 180.2 

2. Gender equality 

(c) - promoting a gender-balanced labour market participation, equal working conditions, and a 
better work-life balance including through access to affordable childcare, and care for 
dependent persons 

3 600.7 

3 600.7 

3. Equal opportunities 

(f) – promoting equal access to and completion of quality and inclusive education and training  

21 152.9 

(h) - fostering active inclusion with a view to promoting equal opportunities, non-
discrimination and active participation, and improving employability, in particular for 
disadvantaged groups 

(i) - promoting socio-economic integration of third-country nationals, including migrants 

(j) - promoting the socio-economic integration of marginalised communities, such as Roma 
people 

20 502.4 

1 066.1 

940.8 

71 139.1 

263Please note, that: (i) for greater clarity and space considerations the full text of the specific objectives has been shortened in some cases for space considerations or focuses only on the 
part of the specific objective which is relevant; (ii) the alignments between EPSR principles and ESF+ SOs are mostly partial and thus only indicative. 
264Values from the ESF+ Synthesis Report 2022 (version 7.0, 240206). 
265This ESF+ allocation can only be considered broadly indicative since several of the Specific Objectives (SOs) correspond only partially to specific EPSR principles, while the allocations 
provided represent the full allocation to each SO. 

169 

 
 
EPSR principle 

ESF+ SOs addressing principle in full or partially263 

ESF+ financial 
allocations to SOs 

(EUR  million)264 

Indicative total ESF+ 
allocation to EPSR 
principle 

(EUR  million)265 

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare; improving accessibility including for persons with disabilities; effectiveness and 
resilience of healthcare systems; and long-term care services 

(l) promoting social integration of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, including the 
most deprived persons and children 

(m) addressing material deprivation through food and/or basic material assistance to the most 
deprived persons, including children; and providing accompanying measures supporting their 
social inclusion 

(a) - improving access to employment and activation measures for all jobseekers  

(h) - fostering active inclusion with a view to promoting equal opportunities, non-
discrimination and active participation; and improving employability, in particular for 
disadvantaged groups 

16 601.1 

5 644.3 

5 231.5 

29 167.3 

20 502.4 

49 669.7 

4. Active support to employment 

5. Secure and adaptable 
employment 

(d) - promoting the adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; active and 
healthy ageing; and a healthy and well-adapted working environment that addresses health risks 

8 894.1 

8 894.1 

1.  Wages 

Not directly addressed 

n/a 

n/a 

7. Information about employment 
conditions and protection in case of 
dismissals 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

170 

 
EPSR principle 

ESF+ SOs addressing principle in full or partially263 

ESF+ financial 
allocations to SOs 

(EUR  million)264 

Indicative total ESF+ 
allocation to EPSR 
principle 

(EUR  million)265 

8. Social dialogue and involvement 
of workers 

(b) modernising labour market institutions and services to assess and anticipate skills needs; 
and ensure timely and tailor-made assistance and support for labour market matching, 
transitions and mobility 

1 724 

1 724 

9, Work-life balance 

(c) - promoting a gender-balanced labour market participation; equal working conditions; and a 
better work-life balance including through access to affordable childcare; and care for 
dependent persons 

3 600.7 

3 600.7 

10, Healthy, safe and well-adapted 
work environment and data 
protection 

(d) - promoting the adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; active and 
healthy ageing; and a healthy and well-adapted working environment that addresses health risks 

8 894.1 

8 894.1 

11. Childcare and support to 
children 

(c) - promoting a gender-balanced labour market participation; equal working conditions; a 
better work-life balance including through access to affordable childcare; and care for 
dependent persons 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection, 
with a particular focus on children and disadvantaged groups 

(l) promoting social integration of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, including the 
most deprived persons and children 

(m) addressing material deprivation through food and/or basic material assistance to the most 
deprived persons, including children; and providing accompanying measures supporting their 
social inclusion 

12. Social protection 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection, 
with a particular focus on children and disadvantaged groups 

13. Unemployment benefits 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection 

14. Minimum income 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection 

3 600.7 

16 601.1 

5 644.3 

5 231.5 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

31 077.6 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

171 

 
EPSR principle 

ESF+ SOs addressing principle in full or partially263 

ESF+ financial 
allocations to SOs 

(EUR  million)264 

Indicative total ESF+ 
allocation to EPSR 
principle 

(EUR  million)265 

15. Old age income and pensions 

(k) - modernising social protection systems, including promoting access to social protection 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16. Healthcare 

17. Inclusion of people with 
disabilities 

18. Long-term care 

(d) - promoting the adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; active and 
healthy ageing: and a healthy and well-adapted working environment that addresses health risks 

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare; improving accessibility including for persons with disabilities; effectiveness and 
resilience of healthcare systems; and long-term care services 

(h) - fostering active inclusion with a view to promoting equal opportunities; non-
discrimination and active participation; and improving employability, in particular for 
disadvantaged groups  

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare; improving accessibility including for persons with disabilities; effectiveness and 
resilience of healthcare systems; and long-term care services 

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare; improving accessibility including for persons with disabilities; effectiveness and 
resilience of healthcare systems and long-term care services 

19. Housing and assistance for the 
homeless 

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare 

20. Access to essential services 

(k) - enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, 
including services that promote the access to housing and person-centred care including 
healthcare  

8 894.1 

16 601.1 

20 502.4 

16 601.1 

25 495.2 

37 103.5 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

16 601.1 

172 

 
 
 
Table R – Alignment of EaSI strand annual work programme overall priorities to EPSR principles and examples of corresponding EaSI 
strand-funded activities 

EaSI strand overall annual priorities 
(2021-2023) 

Corresponding EPSR principle(s) 

Examples of corresponding EaSI-funded activities announced in AWP 
(year) 

(1) Education, training and lifelong learning 

1.  Strengthen employment and skills 

(4) Active support to employment 

2.  Help improve social protection and 

inclusion  

(2) Gender equality 

(3) Equal opportunities 

Procurement: ‘The actions will cover notably […] skills (such as European 
Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO)266 or Europass) 
and  their  development,  including  mutual  recognition  and  transparency  of 
competences, occupations and qualifications expert networks’ (2021-23) 

Procurement: ‘The actions will cover notably the areas of youth employment, 
long-term  unemployment,  undeclared  work,  platform  work,  job  creation, 
entrepreneurship, microfinance and social enterprise finance, social economy, 
future of work […]’ (2021-23) 

Co-delegation  to  ESTAT:  Direct  grants  to  Member  States:  Labour  Force 
Survey (LFS) (2021-23) 

Annual  operating  grants  to  support  EU-level  Social  NGO  Networks  (2021, 
2022, 2023) 

Annual  operating  grants  to  support  EU-level  Social  NGO  Networks  (2021, 
2022, 2023) 

266ESCO is a European Commission project available in an online portal and can be consulted free of charges. ESCO (European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations) is 
the European multilingual classification of Skills, Competences and Occupations. ESCO works as a dictionary, describing, identifying, and classifying professional occupations and skills 
relevant for the EU labour market and education and training. Those concepts and the relationships between them can be understood by electronic systems, which allows for different 
online platforms to use ESCO for services like matching jobseekers to jobs based on their skills, suggesting training to people who want to reskill or upskill. ESCO provides 3,039 
occupations and 13,939 skills linked to these occupations, translated into 28 languages (all official EU languages plus Icelandic, Norwegian, Ukrainian, and Arabic).  

173 

 
 
EaSI strand overall annual priorities 
(2021-2023) 

Corresponding EPSR principle(s) 

Examples of corresponding EaSI-funded activities announced in AWP 
(year) 

(9) Work-life balance 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Tax  Burdens,  Benefit  Adequacy  and 
Work Incentive (2022) 

(11) Childcare and support to children 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Tax  Burdens,  Benefit  Adequacy  and 
Work Incentive (2022) 

‘The analytical outputs will include a database on net childcare costs’ 

(12) Social protection 

European System of integrated Social Protection Statistics (ESSPROS) (2021) 

(13) Unemployment benefits 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Tax  Burdens,  Benefit  Adequacy  and 
Work Incentive (2022) 

‘The  analytical  outputs  will  include  […]  a  database  on  activity-related 
eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits’ 

(14) Minimum income 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Tax  Burdens,  Benefit  Adequacy  and 
Work Incentive (2022) 

(15) Old age income and pensions 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Monitoring  the  adequacy  of  pensions 
(2022) 

(16) Healthcare 

Direct  grant  to  the  International  Agency  for  Research  on  Cancer  (IARC) 
Monographs Programme (2023) 

(17) Inclusion of people with disabilities 

Annual operating grants to support EU-level Social NGO Networks (2021-23) 

174 

 
EaSI strand overall annual priorities 
(2021-2023) 

Corresponding EPSR principle(s) 

Examples of corresponding EaSI-funded activities announced in AWP 
(year) 

(18) Long-term care 

Direct grant to OECD: Monitoring the adequacy of social protection in long 
term care (LTC) (2022) 

Contribution agreement with WHO: Building more accessible, better quality 
and resilient long-term care systems through tools and policy advice for the 
implementation of the Long-Term Care Recommendation (2023) 

(19) Housing and assistance for the homeless 

Contribution agreement with OECD: support OECD survey on housing (2022) 

(20) Access to essential services 

Support networks active in the area of social enterprise finance / microfinance 
support (2022) 

Posting  of  workers:  enhancing  administrative  cooperation  and  access  to 
information (2021-23) 

3. 

Improve labour markets and ensure 
fair labour mobility  

(4) Active support to employment 

Posting  of  workers:  enhancing  administrative  cooperation  and  access  to 
information (2021-23) 

(5) Secure and adaptable employment 

Activities to tackle undeclared work (2021, 2023) 

4.  Foster  safe  and 

fair  working 

conditions  

(6) Wages 

Posting  of  workers:  enhancing  administrative  cooperation  and  access  to 
information (2021-23) 

Contribution  agreement  with  OECD:  Tax  Burdens,  Benefit  Adequacy  and 
Work Incentive (2022) 

175 

 
EaSI strand overall annual priorities 
(2021-2023) 

Corresponding EPSR principle(s) 

Examples of corresponding EaSI-funded activities announced in AWP 
(year) 

(7) Social dialogue and involvement of workers 

Contribution agreement with OECD: Global Deal to promote their capacity 
building for social dialogue and collective bargaining in third countries (2022) 

(10) Healthy, safe and well-adapted work environment and 
data protection 

Contribution  agreement  with  ILO:  Strengthen  the  occupational  safety  and 
health (OSH) and notably the labour inspections in the Mediterranean Region 
(2022) 

Contribution  agreement  with  WHO:  International  Programme  on  Chemical 
Safety (2021-23) 

176 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII. DESCRIPTION OF ESF+ STRANDS 

1.  Shared management 

The specific objectives set in Article 4 of the ESF+ regulation are the main building blocks of the 169 shared management programmes. The programmes 
select specific objectives, in line with the programme’s strategy, in which they set out the output and result indicator targets, as well as the types of actions 
and target groups and the corresponding finances. In addition to the specific objectives, the fund also supports specific targeted actions to promote the 
horizontal principles of gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination. 

Which specific objectives each operational programme selects and how specifically it pursues those objectives is defined in the programming exercise in 
cooperation between the Member State and the European Commission. The programming has to ensure that: 

• 

the ESF+ resources are relevant to needs and coherent with other funds, i.e. 

o 

targeted in response to the country-specific challenges identified in the European Semester267 and 

o  sufficiently  concentrated  thematically  on  social  inclusion  (at  least  25%  of  national  allocation),  most  deprived  (at  least  3%  of  national 

allocation), youth employment (at least 12,5% of national allocation)268 and children (at least 5% of national allocation)269 

o 

the programmes’ stakeholders are involved to ensure the actions’ relevance, and 

• 

the financial support is used effectively and efficiently, i.e. the programme sets out a sound intervention logic, including: 

o  result indicators and targets contributing to the achievement of the selected specific objectives, 

o 

types of actions producing the expected (direct) results, including those linked with quantitative targets, as well as 

o  output indicators and targets, indicating the actions direct achievements in terms of supported target groups or entities. 

267Article 7(1) and 7(2) ESF+ regulation. 
268Concerns Member States whose average rate of young people aged 15-29 not in employment, education or training in 2017-2019 was above the EU average. 
269Concerns Member States whose average rate of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion for 2017-2019 was above the EU average. 

177 

 
 
 
 
The financial, output and result indicators are in line with the Financial and the Common Provision Regulations’ (CPR) definitions: the ESF+’s intervention 
logic relies on direct outputs (participants with specific labour market or social characteristics) and results grasping change in the participant’s situation 
(e.g. ‘in employment’). The ESF+ common output and result indicators, to be monitored in all operations of the fund, are set out in the ESF+ Regulation’s 
annexes. Their definitions and the conventions for their collection and validation were based on existing statistical approaches, agreed with the national 
authorities and set out in the ESF+ Common Indicator Toolbox.  

The data for the financial, output and result indicators are collected by national monitoring and information systems and the indicators’ achievement values 
are reported to the Commission. These are presented in the Cohesion Open Data Platform in detailed data sets. Moreover, a sub-set of the most important 
common indicators forms the strand’s key performance indicators: the Commission’s corporate monitoring tool about the ESF+. 

178 

 
 
 
Table S – Overview on the key performance indicators’ methodology for the ESF+ shared management strand 

Key Performance 
Indicator 

Definition 

Measurement unit 

Target 

Method for setting the target 

Specific Objective 1: Policy area - Employment and labour mobility  

Participants in 
employment, 
including self-
employment, upon 
leaving 

Unemployed  or  inactive  persons  who  have  received 
ESF+ support, and who are in employment, including 
self-employment, immediately upon leaving the ESF+ 
operation. 
•  "Unemployed"  is  defined  as  in  the  indicator 
"Unemployed, including long-term unemployed". 
• "Inactive" is defined as in the indicator "Inactive". 
•  "In  employment,  including  self-employment"  is 
defined as in the indicator "Employed, including self-
employed". 

Unemployed, 
including long-term 
unemployed, 
participants reached 

Unemployed  are  persons  usually  without  work, 
available for work and actively seeking work. Persons 
considered  as  registered  unemployed  according  to 
national  definitions  are  always  included  here  even  if 
they do not fulfil all three of these criteria. 
•  "Unemployed"  is  defined  as  in  the  indicator 
long-term  unemployed" 
"Unemployed, 
above, of which the indicator "long-term unemployed" 
is  a 
spell  of 
unemployment  lasting  at  least  a  year  (12  months  or 
more). 

sub-group  with  a  continuous 

including 

Number of persons 

7.400.000 

For  the  estimation  of  result  indicator  targets,  DG  EMPL  has  used  historical 
success rates reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
The  ESF  result  indicators  refer  to  the  outputs  directly.  E.g.  ‘participants  in 
employment’ is expressed as a direct function of ‘unemployed’ and ‘inactive’ in 
percentages.  

Number of persons 

21.500.000 

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical  unit  costs  reported  by  Member  States  in  2014-2020  programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration over 
time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the output 
indicators is 0.  

Inactive  participants 
reached 

"Inactive" are persons currently not part of the labour 
force  (in  the  sense  that  they  are  not  employed  or 
unemployed according to the definitions provided). 

Number of persons 

24.200.000 

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 

179 

 
Key Performance 
Indicator 

Definition 

Measurement unit 

Target 

Method for setting the target 

Number of 
participants 55 years 
of age and above 
reached 

The number of participants aged 55 years old or older 
upon starting an ESF+ operation. 

Number of persons 

6.400.000 

Specific Objective 2: Policy area - Education  

over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.  

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 
over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.  

Participants with 
lower secondary 
education or less 
(ISCED 0-2) reached 

Participants with 
tertiary education 
(ISCED 5-8) reached 

according 

Participants  for  whom  the  highest  educational  level 
completed at the time of starting an ESF+ intervention 
International  Standard 
the 
and 
Classification 
2011 
(ISCED) 
Education 
classification of educational attainment, is ISCED 2 or 
less 

of 

to 

Participants  for  whom  the  highest  educational  level 
completed  according  to  the  International  Standard 
Classification 
2011 
Education 
classification of educational attainment, is ISCED 3 or 
ISCED 4. 

(ISCED) 

of 

Number of persons 

31.100.000 

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 
over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.  

Number of persons 

11.000.000 

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 
over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.  

Participants gaining 
a qualification upon 
leaving 

Persons  who  have  received  ESF+  support  and  who 
gained a qualification upon leaving the ESF+ operation. 
•  Qualification  means  a  formal  outcome  of  an 
assessment  and  validation  process  which  is  obtained 
when  a  competent  body  determines  that  an  individual 
has achieved learning outcomes to given standards 

Number of persons 

9.100.000 

For  the  estimation  of  result  indicator  targets,  DG  EMPL  has  used  historical 
success rates reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
The  ESF  result  indicators  refer  to  the  outputs  directly.  Participants  gaining  a 
qualification is expressed as a direct function of all participants in percentages.  

180 

 
Key Performance 
Indicator 

Definition 

Measurement unit 

Target 

Method for setting the target 

Participants in 
education or training 
upon leaving 

Persons who have received ESF+ support and who are 
newly engaged in education (lifelong learning, formal 
education)  or  training  activities  (off-the-job/in-the-job 
training,  vocational  training,  etc.)  immediately  upon 
leaving the ESF+ operation. 

Number of persons 

2.900.000 

For  the  estimation  of  result  indicator  targets,  DG  EMPL  has  used  historical 
success rates reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
The  ESF  result  indicators  refer  to  the  outputs  directly.  E.g.  ‘participants  in 
education or training’ is expressed as a direct function of all participants (not in 
education or training at the start of ESF participation) in percentages.  

Specific Objective 3: Policy area - Social inclusion, including contributing to poverty eradication and health  

Participants with 
disabilities reached 

"Participants  with  disabilities"  are  persons  who  are 
registered disabled according to national definitions. 

Number of persons 

4.200.000 

Participants 
considered as part of 
disadvantaged 
groups reached 
(Participants with a 
foreign background, 
minorities including 
Roma people, third-
country nationals) 

Persons  who  have  a  foreign  background  or  who  are 
from  a  minority  (including  marginalised  communities 
such  as  Roma  people)  as  according  to  national 
definitions. 

Number of persons 

10.900.000 

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 
over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.  

For the estimation of all EU-level output indicator targets, DG EMPL has used 
historical unit costs reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming 
period, adjusted for inflation as well as the changes in thematic concentration 
over time. In line with Article 15 of the ESF+ Regulation, the baseline of the 
output indicators is 0.. In the 2014-2020 programming period, the three target 
groups covered by this indicator belong to a single composite indicator. On the 
contrary, in 2021-2027 these three groups are separate indicators (third country 
nationals  –  minorities  –  and  participants  with  a  foreign  background).  For 
reporting  a  single  achievement  value  of  these  three  indicators,  the  three 
achievement  values  are  added  up,  including  overlaps,  i.e.  cases  in  which  one 
participant has been reported by the MS both as a third country national and with 
a foreign background. As a result, the achievement value represents a theoretical 
maximum. 

Participants engaged 
in job searching 
upon leaving 

Persons  who  were  inactive  when  entering  the  ESF+ 
operation and who are newly engaged in job searching 
activities upon leaving.  

Number of persons 

1.500.000 

For  the  estimation  of  result  indicator  targets,  DG  EMPL  has  used  historical 
success rates reported by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
The ESF result indicators refer to the outputs directly. E.g. ‘participants engaged 

181 

 
Key Performance 
Indicator 

Definition 

Measurement unit 

Target 

Method for setting the target 

•  "Inactive"  is  defined  as  in  the  indicator  "Inactive" 
above. 
•  "Engaged  in  job  searching"  is  to  be  understood  as 
persons  usually  without  work,  available  for  work  and 
actively  seeking  work,  as  defined  in  the  indicator 
"Unemployed". 

Number of end-
recipients receiving 
food support  

This is the total number of persons having received food 
support  during  the  reporting  year,  irrespective  of  the 
number of times the support was given. In the case the 
support is given to a household, all the members of that 
household are to be counted. 

Number of persons 

Number of end-
recipients receiving 
material support and 
vouchers/cards  

Number of persons having received material support 
and vouchers/cards at least once in the reporting year, 
irrespective of the number of times the support was 
given. In case the support is given to a household, all 
the members of that household are to be counted. 

Number of persons 

in job searching upon leaving’ is expressed as a direct function of all participants 
were inactive when entering the ESF+ operation in percentages. 

135.800.000 

The estimation  of the number of end-recipients receiving food/material support 
and vouchers/cards is based on the allocation of ESF+ budget programmed by 
SO, combined with the average unit cost of ex FEAD OP I (based on 2014-2020 
cost and participant data, and adjusted for inflation). 
The  regulation  is  not  requiring  MS  to  set  baselines,  milestones  or  targets  for 
result  indicators,  but  only  reference  values  for  a  limited  number  of  result 
indicators. These should be adjusted based on data from similar interventions. 

The indicators also allow monitoring the programmes’ and the fund’s implementation according to the following metrics for instance. 

the achieved outputs in terms of supported participants from different target groups of our policies (e.g. the number of long-term unemployed, low-

• 
skilled, young people, participants with disabilities, third country nationals); 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the relationship between outputs and financing via unit costs; 

the achieved results (e.g. qualifications, employment); 

the relationship between results and outputs (success rate) and results and financing (unit cost of success); and 

the results’ contribution to the objectives. 

182 

 
 
 
In  addition  to  the  programmes’  own  intervention  logic,  their  effectiveness  also  depends  on  the  external  regulatory,  institutional  and  policy  context. 
Therefore,  the  programmes  must  fulfil  enabling  conditions  to  maximise  the  co-financed  actions’  impact.  Horizontal  enabling  conditions,  which  are 
applicable to all specific objectives, encompass public procurement regulations, state aid, the execution of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities (UN CPRD), and the enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (as set out in Annex III of the 
CPR).  Member  States  are  required  to  establish  robust  monitoring  mechanisms  for  rule  implementation  and  provide  effective  remedies  in  case  of  any 
observed violations. The formulation of these horizontal enabling conditions is designed to foster the prevention of irregularities in the implementation of 
the Fund. Thematic enabling conditions set out sector-specific conditions for relevant investment areas eligible for support under the specific objectives 
and aim at creating a policy environment conducive to effective investments. 

For each of the enabling conditions, the CPR sets out associated ‘fulfilment criteria’. An enabling condition is fulfilled where all the related criteria are 
met. The Member State is expected to identify in each programme or in the programme amendment fulfilled and non-fulfilled enabling conditions and 
provide a justification where it considers that an enabling condition has been fulfilled. As long as an enabling conditions are not fulfilled the Commission 
cannot make payments related to the condition. In the 2021-27 programming period the enabling conditions were streamlined and their number reduced 
which  was  expected  to  simplify  the  process  of  their  assessment.  At  the  same  time  their  fulfilment  is  monitored  and  checked  throughout  the  whole 
programming period and not only at the start. 

Moreover, the fund provides capacity building to social partners that take part in the co-financed policies’ implementation, as well as technical assistance 
to the managing authorities to implement, monitor and evaluate the programmes. These also contribute to their efficient implementation. CPR Article 16 
sets out the requirement for each Member State to set up a performance framework, the expected content and clearly establishes that there must be a close 
link with the ESF+ specific objectives. Article 16(2) states that milestones and targets shall be established in relation to each specific objective within a 
programme, with the exception of technical assistance and of the specific objective (m) addressing material deprivation. Article 16(3) underlines that these 
milestones and targets will allow the Commission and the Member State to measure progress towards the achievement of the specific objectives.  

The performance frameworks, including all output and result indicators, were based on methodologies as required by the CPR. They were submitted to the 
European Commission by the national ESF+ managing authorities together with the programmes. The draft performance frameworks, as well as the output 
and  result  indicators,  were  assessed  and  improved  during  the  negotiations,  with  methodological  support  from  the  ESF+  Data  Support  Centre  (DSC). 
Between March 2022 and October 2023, the DSC assessed 82 draft programmes (81 ESF+ programmes and a partial review of ESF+ aspects of a JTF270 
programme in Croatia) and related draft methodological documents submitted by the managing authorities to improve the proposed underlying intervention 
logic and the target-setting methodology. 

270Just Transition Fund. 

183 

 
 
To monitor whether the programmes are on track towards their objectives, financial, output and result indicators are regularly monitored and reported to 
the  Commission.  The  programmes’  monitoring  committees,  including  the  managing  authorities  and  stakeholders  participating  in  programming,  are  in 
charge of regularly reviewing the programme’s performance. In particular, all programmes are reviewed mid-term (in 2025). The factors to take into account 
in the review include emerging challenges as identified by the European Semester, the programme’s performance and evaluation findings. In addition to 
the programmes, the fund is also evaluated, both mid-term and ex post. 

2.  Direct/Indirect Management Strand (EaSI strand) 

The Employment and Social Innovation strand (EaSI strand) of the ESF+ builds on the former EaSI programme 2014-2020. It maintains the focus on 
evidence-based policymaking and social experimentation, facilitating job mobility, and activities supporting the microfinance and social entrepreneurship 
ecosystems and is key to support the European Pillar of Social Rights. Article 4 of the ESF+ regulation establishes 13 specific objectives for the whole 
fund (direct, indirect management under the EaSI strand and shared management under the ESF+ strand) within three policy areas (employment and labour 
mobility, education and social inclusion). Article 25 of the ESF+ Regulation establishes 10 operational objectives exclusively for the EaSI strand of the 
ESF+ (direct and indirect management).  

The total budget of the EaSI strand comes from two different financial envelopes (Article 5 of the ESF+ Regulation):  

•  An amount of EUR 676 (in 2018 prices), corresponding to the part of the financial envelope for the implementation of the EaSI strand, was foreseen 
in the ESF+ Regulation for the period 2021 to 2027 in line with Article 5.3 of the ESF+ Regulation. This amount corresponds to EUR 762 million 
in current prices. 

•  EUR 175 000 000, in 2018 prices, to be allocated for transnational cooperation to accelerate the transfer and facilitate the scaling up of innovative 
solutions as referred to in Article 25(i) of the ESF+ regulation, coming from the financial envelope for the implementation of the ESF+ strand under 
shared management. Following the annual budgetary procedures as well as the MFF mid-term review, the budgetary authority has updated in 2024 
the amount mentioned above and allocated a total budget of EUR 132 million from the shared management envelope in line with article 5.2 of the 
ESF+ Regulation for the EaSI strand objective of ‘transnational cooperation to accelerate the transfer and facilitate the scaling up of innovative 
solutions. The exact amounts are determined annually through the EaSI strand financing decisions and annual work programmes. 

184 

 
 
 
Figure 1 – EaSI intervention logic 

185 

 
The indicators for measuring performance of the EaSI strand under ESF+ are grouped into two categories: 

o  Primary indicators (KPIs/PPI), which are aimed to convey the key direction of the expected change under a given operational objective; 

o  Secondary indicators (SIP), which measure the performance in relation to the financial implementation of the budget defined in Article 5 of the 

ESF+ Regulation.  

For  the  EaSI  strand,  the  ESF+  regulation  establishes  five  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  to  report  on  the  progress  of  the  strand  towards  the 
achievement of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1) and the operational objectives set out in Article 25 (see Table T below).  

Table T – Primary indicators, data source and corresponding operational objectives 

KPI/ 
PPI 

Indicators (number of activities / number of job 
placements) 

Data source 

Operational 
objective 
(Article 25) 

Number of analytical activities 
Number of information sharing and mutual learning activities 

KPI 1 
KPI 2 
KPI 3   Number of social experimentation/innovation activities  
KPI 4   Number of capacity building and networking activities 
KPI 5   Number of job placements under targeted mobility schemes 

FINAP 
FINAP 
FINAP 
FINAP 
EURES report 

(a); (j); (h) 
(b) 
(c); (i) 
(f) 
(d) 

PPI 6 

Number  of  activities  supporting  microenterprises,  social 
enterprises, and social investment  

FINAP 

(e); (g) 

Source: DG EMPL 

The five KPIs cover 8 (out of 10) operational objectives of the EaSI strand. To ensure that the performance reporting system effectively reports on all the 
operational objectives established by the regulation, one new Primary Performance Indicator (PPI) linked to the two remaining operational objectives was 
added (PPI6 - Number of activities supporting microenterprises, social enterprises, and social investment). KPI 1-4 and PPI 6 are output indicators, and the 
data source is FINAP271. KPI 5 is an outcome indicator, its data source being the EURES monitoring report.  

For KPI 1-4 and KPI 6, the units of measurement are outputs (or “activities”). A single unit of this corresponds to an open call (with  one or multiple 
beneficiaries / projects funded) or a procurement procedure (with one or multiple contracts). For KPI 5, the unit of measurement is an outcome (number of 
job placements under targeted mobility schemes).  

271FINAP is an online tool used by DG EMPL to program its financial activities under direct and indirect management modes. It contains all the information on the activities planned for 
the relevant year and cover all financial activities supporting the implementation of the DG's core objectives. The information encoded in FINAP is used for the DG's Financing Decisions. 

186 

 
 
Comparing  to  the  former  EaSI  programme,  the  first  specific  objectives  under  PROGRESS  axis  of  the  EaSI  programme  (analytical  knowledge  and 
comparative  information)  was  expanded  into  three  operational  objectives  under  the  EaSI  strand  (a,  j,  and  h)  covering,  in  addition  to  the  comparative 
analytical knowledge (a), the implementation of international and social labour standards in harnessing globalisation and EU policies external dimension 
(j), and offering guidance for the development of social infrastructure for implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights (h). Moreover, a new objective 
consisting in offering support to transnational cooperation for scaling up tested social policy innovations (i) was included among the EaSI strand operational 
objectives. This particular operational objective was not directly covered in the previous programming period (EaSI programme). When it comes to EURES 
axis, its previous related specific objectives are now represented by only one operational objective on the geographical mobility of workers and employment 
opportunities  (d).  This  operational  objective  is  now  monitored  by  one  outcome  KPI  with  the  monitoring  data  sourced  from  EURES  (unlike  the  other 
operational objectives, which will be monitored by five output KPIs with the monitoring data coming from FINAP). Meanwhile, all the capacity building 
related specific objectives under PROGRESS and Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axes are now represented by only one operational objective under 
the EaSI strand support networking and build up institutional capacity (f). Additionally, some of the activities under the EaSI programme are no longer 
funded under the EaSI strand: the EURES portal was transferred to the European Labour Authority (ELA), and the EaSI financial instruments are currently 
funded by InvestEU. 

The performance monitoring system will also report on the financial resources allocated and committed for the implementation of the budget defined in 
Article 5 of the ESF+ (secondary indicators). Two input indicators ensure the measurement of the performance in relation to the financial implementation 
of the budget (see Table U below)  

Table U – Secondary indicators 

Indicators 

Absorption rate 

Calculation 
Implemented (individual + global commitments) / Planned budget (planned) 
•  Amount (EUR) 
•  Share (%)  

Budget consumption rate 

Budget already spent / total budget. 
•  Amount (EUR) 
•  Share (%) 

Source: DG EMPL 

Specific mechanisms exist to ensure cooperation between EaSI and shared management strands. Shared management strand and EaSI strand Technical 
Working Groups are stipulated in the ESF+ Regulation to ‘ensure coordination and cooperation between Member State authorities and the Commission 
on the implementation of ESF+, including on consultation on the work programme of the EaSI strand, monitoring and implementation of each ESF+ strand, 

187 

 
 
 
exchanging  experience  and  good  practice  within  and  across  the  ESF+  strands  and  fostering  potential  synergies  with  other  Union  programmes’.  To 
complement the Technical Working Groups, EaSI strand National Contact Points (NCPs) were established under Article 26 of the ESF+ regulation. They 
provide information on the EaSI strand opportunities, results and good practices to stakeholders and potential applicants, including to national ministries 
and managing authorities.  

Moreover,  the  ESF+  architecture  sets  out  specific  roles  and  platforms  to  facilitate  interactions  and  exchanges  between  strands  in  promoting  social 
innovation. This new incentive is complemented with social innovation/social experimentation activities implemented by the Commission through direct 
management  (grants  and  capacity  building  related  activities)  and  through  indirect  management  under  the  Social  Innovation  Plus  Initiative 
(implemented by ESFA). With an allocation of EUR 132 million (amount updated in 2024), this initiative aims to accelerate the transfer and facilitate the 
scaling-up of innovative solutions through activities fostering mutual learning, enhancing capacities, facilitating networking, and providing methodological 
support to social innovation stakeholders.  

The contractor carries out a number of activities to this end (see the Social Innovation Plus Initiative intervention logic in Figure 3 below): 

•  The European Competence Centre for Social Innovation is tasked with gathering, evaluating, validating, and sharing appropriate instruments 
and methodologies for social innovation. The Centre also launches calls for proposals with the aim to disseminate proven social innovations in EU 
Member States and EaSI participating countries; 

•  National Competence Centres for Social Innovation (NCCs) aim to support capacity building, knowledge transfer, creating synergies with other 
ESF+ strands and EU funding programmes, and networking at national and EU level. One key target group of the NCCs is composed of ESF+ 
managing authorities in charge of the dedicated priorities on social innovation. The early stages of NCCs are expected to be supported by the indirect 
management strand of the ESF+ through ESFA, but the long-term goal is for them to be financed through other funding streams, for example, 
national ESF+ programmes of shared management. To date, six projects involving 148 organisations from different countries have been selected to 
establish NCCs in 23 EU Member States and the UK/Scotland; 

•  Built on nine thematic networks operating under the ESF programme, five Communities of Practice (CoPs) bring together national and regional 
managing authorities, ministries, intermediate bodies, implementing organisations, such as NGOs, and other partner organisations with the aim of 
promoting transnational cooperation, including mutual learning and capacity-building activities. There are five communities of practice, each with 
its own Annual Work Programme, and a coordinator appointed by ESFA. As the figure below shows, each community covers a different thematic 
area: employment, education and skills, social inclusion, social innovation, migrant integration, and material support; 

188 

 
 
Figure 2 – ESF+ Communities of Practice 

Employment, 
education 
and skills 
284 
members 

Social  
inclusion 

Social 
innovation 

Migrant 
integration 

Material 
support 

308 
members 

314 
members 

112 
members 

134 
members 

Source: Ecorys consortium, based on information from ESFA 

•  Social Innovation Match (SIM)272 is a database developed to help social innovation stakeholders to promote and find good practices as well as 
identify organisations working on social innovation. Currently, this database includes more than 240 projects and activities, and 500 organisations 
across 27 countries. 

272https://www.socialinnovationplus.eu/social-innovation-match-sim/ 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 – Intervention logic of Social Innovation Plus Initiative 

Source: Progress Report of ESF Social Innovation+ Initiative, 2023. 

190 

 
 
 
Table V – Examples of EaSI funded projects which integrate horizontal principles 

Project/call 

Description of the project 

Integration of horizontal principles 

to 

Intersectional 
Approach 
Combating 
Homelessness  for 
Women 
– 
INTERACT 
(ESF-2023-
HOMELESS)  

EaSI  Operating 
Grant  SGA  – 
for 
Cities 
Inclusive 
Recovery 
(ESF-2021-OG-
NETW-SGA) 

a 

Social 
For 
Economy 
that 
reduces  Gender 
Inequalities 
in 
Europe 
(ESF-2022-SOC-
INNOV) 

The  ESF+  supports  a  cross-country 
involving  organizations  from 
project 
Greece, 
Italy,  Germany,  Portugal, 
Iceland, and Romania, which promotes a 
holistic  and  intersectional  approach  to 
combating homelessness 

The  project's  objectives  include  empowering 
marginalized  women  to  overcome  homelessness 
by  providing  access 
treatment 
pathways, integrating gender-specific approaches 
in  trauma-informed  care,  and  influencing  policy 
changes  towards  gender-sensitive  and  inclusive 
strategies. 

tailored 

to 

to 

the 

in 
through 

Eurocities  is  committed  to  reinforcing 
social  Europe  and  strengthen  cities 
future 
support 
capacity 
implementation of new EU social policy 
initiatives  under  the  action  plan  of  the 
European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights.  This 
project  engages  cities 
the  EPSR 
a  work 
implementation 
programme for capacity building, mutual 
learning  and data  gathering  that leads  to 
concrete  policy  change  at  local  level. 
Through this work, cities can deliver EU 
social policy objectives at local level and 
help  mitigate 
socio-economic 
the 
consequences  of  the  pandemic  crisis  on 
the most vulnerable people, driving a fair 
and  inclusive  recovery  and  making  a 
tangible difference for the lives of over 36 
million Europeans. The project's focuses 
on social inclusion and poverty reduction 
and contributes to building inclusive and 
cohesive  societies  aiming  to  eradicate 
poverty. 

The projects set out to develop new data 
on and investigate the impact of the Social 
Economy  (SE)  on  gender  equality  to 
identify  areas  of  improvement  and  to 
make SE’s stakeholders more aware and 
knowledgeable about the topic; 
It  led  to  the  development  of  hands-on 
pedagogical  contents  to  help  European 
social  enterprises  push  for  more gender-
equal  practices  and  develop  fairer  and 
more women-inclusive business models; 
Finally,  the  project  contributed  to  the 
emergence  of  30  women-inclusive 
businesses in France, Italy and Portugal to 
generate a wider ripple effect on women's 
economic  empowerment  and  shed  light 
on  business  champions  leading  the  way 
towards a more inclusive European social 
economy. 

191 

The  production  of  City  social  trend  papers  on 
gender  equality  demonstrates  a  commitment  to 
into  urban 
integrating  gender  perspectives 
policymaking. 

a 

to 

approach 

The project strongly aligns with the principle  of 
gender  equality  and  gender  mainstreaming  by 
investigating  the  impact  of  the  SE  on  gender 
equality  and  developing  new  data  on  this  topic. 
This 
better 
contributes 
understanding of gender dynamics within the SE 
sector  and  promotes  gender  mainstreaming  in 
economic policies. 
The  project's  objective 
the 
participation of women in employment is evident 
in  its  goal  to  contribute  to  the  emergence  of 
women-inclusive businesses in selected Western 
European countries.  
This initiative directly addresses the principle of 
increasing women's participation in employment 
and combating gender discrimination in the labor 
focusing  on  women-inclusive 
market.  By 
business  models,  the  project  also  supports  the 
conciliation between working and personal life. 

increase 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EuroHealthNet 
SGA 23 
(ESF-2022-OG-
NETW-NGO-
SGA) 

is 

the 

European 
EuroHealthNet 
Partnership 
for  health,  equity,  and 
wellbeing. It is made up of 64 national and 
regional  organisations, 
(sub)national 
health authorities, public health institutes 
and  health  promotion  agencies,  civil 
society actors and researchers working on 
prevention, 
public 
promoting 
reducing 
inequalities. 

disease 

health, 

health, 

and 

Eurocarers  2022-
25 
(ESF-2021-OG-
NETW-NGO-
FPA) 

to  document 

the 
This  project  aims 
situation of carers in Europe today as well 
as  the  solutions  that  exist  or  can  be 
developed to support and empower them. 

Gender equality and mainstreaming are addressed 
through  the  project's  promotion  of  work-life 
balance  and  gender  equality.  By  advocating  for 
relevant legislation and incorporating health into 
Child  Guarantee  action  plans,  EuroHealthNet 
supports  the  principle  of  increasing  women's 
participation  in  employment  and  combating  the 
feminization of poverty. 

The project addresses the challenges carers face in 
balancing  work  and  care  responsibilities,  which 
disproportionately  affect  women.  This  focus 
aligns with the principles of increasing women's 
employment  participation  and  promoting  work-
life balance. 
The project's goals of improving carers' access to 
employment  and  education,  while  supporting 
their  ability  to  balance  paid  work  with  care 
responsibilities,  contribute  to  the  principles  of 
high  employment,  fair  social  protection,  and 
developing a skilled workforce.  

Source: EaSI strand monitoring report 2021-2023 based on Funding and Tender Portal. 

Table W – Potential projects for scaling up/transferring (2021-2027) 

Project and duration 

Short description of the project  

Scaling up / transfer potential 

Green and Social Hub 
(GSHub) (Call ESF-2022-
SOC-INNOV) 

Duration: September 2023 – 
August 2025 

The project has a potential to be 
replicated due to its community-based 
approach. It builds awareness among 
local, underserved populations about 
energy communities, enabling them to 
collaborate towards green transition. Its 
approach also involves close 
collaboration with public 
administration, ensuring long-term 
sustainability and potential replicability 
in other locations.  

The project will promote national and 
transnational analytical, capacity 
building and networking activities to 
raise awareness and share experiences 
and practices to support 
disadvantaged groups in accessing 
and contributing to the green 
transition. The intervention will equip 
beneficiaries with knowledge, skills 
and support to exercise their 
citizenship rights and become active 
and aware in the green transition. It 
will promote community models to 
develop social, economic and 
environmental sustainability at local 
level, by providing information and 
training, actively involving local 
stakeholders and ensuring the active 
involvement of the most deprived 
targets in this action.  

New circular and social 
responsible business 
models within habitat 
sectors to revitalise rural 
areas (NewEcoSmart) (Call 
ESF-2022-SOC-INNOV) 

Duration: August 2023 – July 
2025 

The project aims at designing an 
inclusive social innovation approach 
to re-/up-skill adults above 45 years 
old from rural areas for adjusting to 
the green and digital transition in their 
existing jobs or to find new ones 
within the Habitat-related sectors, 
while also promoting social 
entrepreneurial skills and mindset that 
enable the adoption of new processes 
of production and/ or consumption 

The project is well-suited for scaling up 
due to its thematic focus on upskilling 
adults over 45 in rural areas, a group 
often left behind in green and digital 
transitions. By offering tailored training 
programmes in green, digital, and 
entrepreneurial skills, it helps this 
underserved demographic adapt to 
evolving economic demands, ensuring 
they remain employable. This approach 
is perceived as innovative and 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
aligned with circular and socially 
responsible business models. 

replicable, as it fills a critical gap in 
retraining efforts, which often overlook 
older rural workers. 

European African 
Diaspora for an inclusive 
circular economy 
(EurAdice) (Call ESF-2022-
SOC-INNOV) 

Duration:  October 2023 – 
September 2025 

The project aims to support African 
migrants, refugees, and youth from 
the African diaspora in Europe by 
developing their skills in the circular 
economy to enhance professional 
reintegration and employability. It 
also focuses on improving their digital 
skills, preparing them for circular 
economy jobs, and training them 
alongside European youth and SME 
staff to foster entrepreneurial 
opportunities in Africa. 

the 

project’s 

sustainability 

towards  Africa. 

internationalisation  of 

The 
is 
guaranteed  by  the  continuity  of  the 
trainings,  the  network  set  up  by  a 
circular  economy  exchange  platform 
and 
the 
activities of European circular economy 
Its 
companies 
and 
community-based 
platform  for  exchange  contribute  to 
long-term sustainability. The platform's 
continuity after the project's lifespan is a 
key strength. By aligning skills training 
with  industry  needs,  EurAdice  has  the 
potential  to  create  lasting  impacts  on 
employment 
cross-continental 
business  collaborations,  making  it  a 
scalable model. 

approach 

and 

Social sErviceS helpdesK 
on EU Funds 
(SESK/HELPDESK) (Call  
ESF-2021-SOCHD) 

Duration: May 2022 – April 
2024 

SESK aims to facilitate and ease 
social services' access to EU funds. It 
also paves the way for the set-up of an 
established Social Services Helpdesk 
in the future. The Helpdesk provides 
support to social services by 
answering questions about EU 
funding opportunities and which 
developed several outputs to build 
social services capacity on how to get 
access to EU funds, and to help 
managing authorities finance quality 
social services interventions.   

There  is  a  potential  for  the  Helpdesk 
project to be continued and scaled up in 
the  future,  so  as  to  keep on  supporting 
social  services  with  queries  about 
accessing EU funds, further disseminate 
the 
and  explore 
the  best  use  of 
Helpdesk's  deliverables,  keep 
on 
strengthening the dialogue between the 
European  Commission,  managing 
authorities  and  social  services,  and  to 
address  some  of  the  main  challenges 
which  were 
the 
project.  

identified  during 

Source: EaSI strand monitoring report 2021-2023 based on the Funding and Tender Portal, Social Innovation Match 
database and interviews with the Commission. 

Box 1 – The ALMA project 

which 

stands 

ALMA, 
initiative 
(https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1549&langId=en)  aiming at supporting young people that are not in any kind 
of employment, education or training. The goal is to help the most disadvantaged young people (aged 18-29) integrate 
into society by gaining access to work or training.  

Learn,  Master, 

Achieve", 

"Aim, 

EU 

for 

an 

is 

This  initiative  offers  participants:  (1)  an  intensive tailored  training in  their home  country (preparatory  phase); 
a supervised work-related experience with accompanying mentoring services for a period of 2 to 6 months in another EU 
country (mobility phase); and (2) continued support upon return to guide participants in using the newly acquired skills 
to gain employment or further education in their home country (follow-up phase). 

ALMA is seen as potential good example of scaling up a social experimentation project as it builds on a social inclusion 
initiative  implemented  by  Germany  since  2008  (IdA, Integration  durch  Austausch),  that  became  a  real  policy 
implemented by the EC.  

The  project  was  taken  over  in  2012  by  an  ESF-supported  transnational  network  of  15  EU  countries  (TLN  Mobility 
Network), and as from 2022 through a transnational call for proposals under ESF+.  

In 2021-2027, ALMA is being implemented in the context of the ESF+ programmes at national or regional level under 
the Social Innovation Plus Initiative (ESF+/EaSI strand).  

The ALMA network was established on the 28 September 2022 as the successor of the TLN Mobility Network ( 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
to:  (1) 
(https://www.esf.de/portal/EN/Funding-period-2014-2020/TLN-Mobility/content.html)  with  the  objective 
support 
calls 
ALMA 
(https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1549&langId=en)  under  their  national  and  regional  ESF+  Programmes 
2021-2027; and (2) encourage more Member States and regions to participate in ALMA network. 

(hereinafter 

launching 

Member 

regions 

‘MS’) 

States 

and 

A call for  proposals  was  launched  in  2022  (budget  EUR  11.4  million  resulting  in  29  projects)  to  help  EU  countries 
integrate ALMA types of actions in their ESF+ programmes, by piloting or scaling up an ALMA types of activity. 

Source: 
(https://socialinnovationplus.eu/app/uploads/2024/06/ALMA-network-work-programme-2024.pdf ). 

Innovation 

ALMA 

Handbook273 

Social 

Plus 

and 

Initiative 

website 

Box 2 - Challenges for transferring and scaling-up projects 

Convincing stakeholders and ensuring participation: The most frequently cited challenge during the interviews, 
mentioned by four stakeholders, is the difficulty in gaining the trust and involvement of stakeholders, in particular 
policy makers and public authorities, from the beginning of a project. As one interviewee pointed out, it is essential 
to demonstrate that the project is worthwhile for transferring/scaling up, and this requires well-developed, clearly 
evaluated cases to convince others of its value. This challenge is heightened when there is a need to work across 
different  levels  of  government,  particularly  in  areas  where  much  needs  to  be  done  at  the  local  level.  If  public 
authorities are not involved at the outset, it will be difficult to get them on board later. Involving policymakers at the 
design stage is seen as crucial, as trying to involve them at the end, for example at a final conference, is less effective. 
In this context, good networks and dissemination campaigns are seen as key to increasing visibility, as projects that 
remain  under  the  radar  are  unlikely  to  be  scaled  up.  It  is  important  to  note  that  stakeholder  involvement  was  a 
challenge  also  encountered  during  the  previous  programming  period,  when  political  changes  led  to  discontinued 
support for projects, making it harder to scale, as showed in the evaluation of Social Innovation calls under the EaSI 
programme 2014-2020. 

Funding and resource constraints: Three stakeholders raised concerns about funding and resource constraints for 
scaling  up,  particularly  for  smaller  organisations.  One  respondent  explained  that  EU  funding  often  requires  co-
financing, which can be a significant barrier for non-profit organisations and civil society groups who may struggle 
to meet these financial requirements. This problem is exacerbated by the perceived rigid rules of EU funding, where 
certain activities may be deemed ineligible, preventing organisations from accessing funding for certain purposes. 
For example, one interviewee noted that SMEs cannot use EU grants to invest in for-profit activities, which can limit 
their participation. In addition, resource constraints, such as time and human resources, can limit the ability of project 
promoters  to  engage  with  policy  makers  or  to  promote  their  activities  effectively.  This  echoes  findings  from  the 
evaluation of the 2014-2020 period, where a lack of immediate financial resources after the pilot phase was a major 
barrier to scaling up.  

Methodological  rigour  and  evaluation:  Three  stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  a  strong  methodological 
framework  to  ensure  the  success  and  scalability  of  projects.  One  interviewee  highlighted  the  need  to  use 
counterfactual  evaluation  methods  to  measure  the  true  impact of social  innovation  projects.  This  lack  of  rigorous 
empirical evaluation can make it difficult to demonstrate a project's impact and to convince policymakers of a project's 
scalability, especially when scaling is the goal. A second interviewee echoed this concern, noting that without clear, 
scientifically validated results, it is difficult for policymakers to commit to wider implementation. One stakeholder 
mentioned  the  importance  of  involving  a  strong  evaluation  partner  from  the  outset  to  ensure  proper  evaluation 
throughout the lifecycle of the project. It is worth mentioning that this challenge was also observed in the 2014-2020 
period, where the absence of robust evaluation results hindered the ability of projects to demonstrate effectiveness.  

Contextual and systemic barriers: Two stakeholders discussed the complexity of scaling up projects in different 
regions or national contexts. One of them highlighted that scaling requires an understanding of what core elements of 
a project can be transferred, while recognising that each region or system is different and may require adaptation. 
They  pointed  out  that  political  agendas,  local  priorities  and  different  social  issues  can  hinder  the  successful 
scaling/transfer  of  projects,  even  if  a  model  works  well  in  one  context.  Another  interviewee  added  that  without 
alignment  between  project  objectives  and  the  agendas  of  local  or  national  authorities,  there  is  often  a  mismatch 
between the supply of solutions and the demand for them, leading to failure to scale. During the 2014-2020 calls, 
these systemic barriers were similarly observed, particularly when projects were designed to address very specific 
regional challenges, making transfer to other national contexts more difficult.  

Variability in understanding what constitutes social innovation: The lack of a common understanding of social 
innovation presents a significant barrier to the scaling and transfer of successful projects, as noted by one interviewee. 
Applicants frequently express uncertainty regarding what qualifies as social innovation, with definitions and examples 
differing between countries. This inconsistency complicates efforts to scale projects across borders, as an initiative 
recognised  as  social  innovation  in  one  country  may  not  be  acknowledged  as  such  elsewhere.  Additionally,  the 
appropriate level at which scaling should occur is often unclear. A project that fails in one country might succeed in 

273See https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/publications/alma-handbook.  

194 

 
 
 
 
another, prompting important questions about the conditions under which scaling should be pursued. This variability 
highlights the importance of fostering mutual learning and sharing experiences between countries to better define 
successful models and establish criteria for scaling.  

Duplication of effort in scaling up: One stakeholder raised concerns about the potential duplication of effort when 
scaling up projects. They noted that while small-scale projects allow for experimentation, problems can arise when 
trying to standardise and scale these initiatives. They suggested that end users may find it difficult to choose between 
different similar initiatives, leading to confusion about which projects to engage with or prioritise.  

Source: EaSI strand report 2021 - 2023 (further publication in 2025 on https://op.europa.eu/en/). 

Table X – Overview of the calls for proposals focused on social innovation 
launched under the EaSI strand in 2021-2023 

Call title/publication year 

Indicative budget 
(million) 

Projects 

DG EMPL (direct management mode) 

Social  innovations  for  a  fair  green  and  digital  transition 
(2022)  

Social innovation practices to combat homelessness  

(2023) 

10  

15  

17  

4  

Actions to develop impact performance intelligence services 
for the social impact investing market actors  

4.5  

8     

ESFA (indirect management mode) 

ALMA (Aim-Learn-Master-Achieve) 

(2022) 

National  Competence  Centres  for  Social  Innovation: 
Building-up and Consolidating the Capacity 

(2023) 

Social Innovations for the Upskilling of Vulnerable Youth, 
Especially Young People not in Employment, Education, or 
Training (NEETs) 

(2023) 

11.6 

8 

29  

5  

9.6 

22     

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Call title/publication year 

Indicative budget 
(million) 

Projects 

Innovative  Approaches 
the  Societal 
Consequences  of  Russia’s  War  of  Aggression  Against 
Ukraine within EU Member States 

to  Mitigate 

22 

42 pre-selected     

(2024) 

Innovative 
Unemployment 

(2024) 

Approaches 

Tackling 

Long-Term 

23 

9 pre-selected     

Promoting 
Disability Employment Package 

innovative  approaches 

to 

implement 

the 

10 

(2025) 

deadline 10 October 2025 

Child poverty and the implementation of the European Child 
Guarantee  

Forthcoming  

Social experimentation (topic to be defined) 

Forthcoming  

Source : DG EMPL 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII. ESF+ INTERVENTION LOGIC 

197 

 ationale   eeds                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E E    O  E    E         ESF+  eg lation                                  high employment levels  fair social protection and a skilled and resilientworkforce                                          incl sive and cohesive societies         eradicating poverty anddelivering on the principles set o t in the E ropean  illar of Social  ights       e  al opport nities  e  al access to the la o r market  fair and   alityworking conditions  social protection and incl sionF         ESO   ES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ESO   ES F ES                                                                                          O     E  O E   ES                                                                                                                                                                                            O      O  E                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   E     O   F   E O                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           O  E  F         S    E  S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E  E  E        S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               E  E  E  O     SE ternal factors                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ESE  E  E   ES   S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           O E    O    O  E    ES                                                                                       E   S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E  S              ESF+ eg lation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        SS   E      E E  S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      S   O  FO     ESS      E     E       O                                                                                                                                                    S   E      E E  S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   S   O  FO     ESS      E     E       O                                                                              S E  F   O  E    ES         ESF+  eg lation E          EEFFE    E ESSOF   O      E S     O O    E       ESS O       E   O  E           o  access for all           self employment and social economy             skills needs anticipation                                  marketmatching  transitions and mo ility               gender  alanced la o r market  e  al working conditions  and etter work life  alance             adaptation to change  healthy ageing   a healthy work environment        ES      E      O               FE O   E                                                                                       ed cation and training                                                        ality and incl sive ed cation andtraining                                                     lifelong learning and fle i le  pskilling and reskilling opport nities                                 FOS E    SO         S O             O E          active incl sion with a view to promote e  al opport nities  non discrimination and active participation and improve employa ility             socio economic integration of third co ntry nationals                                                                                     e  al access to   ality and afforda le services                                                                                                                                                                                        social integration                                                             material deprivation     S   E      E E  S     O  E  O    O  E    ES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S   E      E E  S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             S   O  FO     ESS      E     E       O                                                                                                                                                          S   E      E E  S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    S   O  FO     ESS      E     E       O                                                                         E  S              ESF+ eg lation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           E   S         E     ESF+  E      O                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
 
 
Table Y: Links between the intervention logic and the monitoring and evaluation framework 

Data source 

Transmission of data from 
MSs (5 times a year, SFC) 

Metrics or types of evaluation 
Thematic concentration 

• 
•  Absorption rate 

Elements of intervention logic 

Finances – funding (by specific 
objective) 

Role in theory of change 

Input – what amount of money is necessary in 
which thematic areas to achieve the objectives? 

Activities, types of operations 

Participants 

Change in the participants’ 
(labour market, social etc.) 
situation 

Specific objective - impact 

What are the most effective policies, types of 
operations to achieve our objectives? 
Output – which target groups should be reached to 
achieve the policy objective with maximum 
effect? 

Result – what should change in the participants’ 
situation to achieve the objective? 

Have the results contributed to policy change? To 
what extent and at which cost? 

General objective - impact 

Has the aimed policy change contributed to the 
general objective? To what extent? 

Data 
•  Allocations by specific 

objective 
•  Cost of selected 
operations 
• 
Expenditure 
• 
Payments to MSs 
Categories of intervention 

•  Common output 
indicators 
Programme specific 
output indicators 

• 

•  Common result 
indicators 
Programme specific 
result indicators 

• 

Transmission of data from 
MSs (5 times a year, SFC) 
Transmission of data from 
MSs (2 times a year, SFC) 

Transmission of data from 
MSs (2 times a year, SFC) 

Progress to target (achievement ratio) 

•  Aggregate output (including KPIs) 
•  Relative share of target groups 
• 
•  Unit cost 
•  Aggregate result (including KPIs) 
• 
• 
•  Unit cost of success 
Impact evaluation (theory-based 
evaluations, CIE, cost-benefit analysis) 

Progress to target (achievement ratio) 
Success rate 

Impact evaluation (theory-based 
evaluations, modelling, econometric 
studies)  

•  Data on participants and 

Survey and administrative data 

non-participants 
Survey data 
Economic indicators 

• 
• 

Statistics 

198 

 
 
 
ANNEX IX. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS 

Summary  of  findings  of  the  ESF  ex-post  evaluations  for  2007-2013  and  2014-2020 
related to the EU added value 

Volume effects: ESF under shared management has systematically allowed Member States 
to increase the number of participants in labour market, social inclusion and education and 
training  measures.  In  the  2014-2020  programming  period  64.6274  million  people  were 
supported  through  the  ESF  operations.  On  average,  with  the  ESF  expenditure  Member 
States annually covered 1.0% of their employed persons, 13.3% of the unemployed and 
3.5% of inactive persons275. The volume effects were particularly important in Member 
States where the ESF investments are high compared to national funding. Moreover, the 
subsequent ESF ex-post evaluations found that the volume effects are especially visible in 
crisis  situations  (i.e.  aftermath  of  the  2007-2008  financial  crisis,  Covid-19  pandemic, 
introduction of austerity measures) when the national resources to finance labour market, 
social inclusion and education and training measures become more limited. 

Scope effects: ESF has continuously focused on the vulnerable target groups extending the 
outreach of labour market, social inclusion and education and training measures to the most 
disadvantaged  individuals  who  might  not  be  given  enough  attention  in  the  national 
policies. In the 2014-2020 programming  period almost  half of participants  were people 
with low education levels (47% increased from 45% in 2007-2013). Persons with a migrant 
and minority background, including the Roma constituted 15% of participants (increase 
from  9%  in  2007-2013)  and  people  with  disabilities  7%  (increased  from  5%  in  2007-
2013)276. ESF  broadens the existing actions to a diverse range of groups (e.g. persons with 
disabilities, the homeless, the elderly, those with a migrant or minority background, or with 
caring  responsibilities),  and  supports  new  measures  and  policy  developments  (e.g. 
increasing local funding for social inclusion services, the re-orientation of national policies 
in relation to NEETs) ensuring that they are tailor-made to the specific needs of the groups 
targeted.  

Role  effects:  Operations  implemented  under  ESF  shared  management  have  included 
innovative actions, supported transfer of ideas and contributed to structural changes in the 
Member States, also in the context of the link with the European Semester. However, the 
evidence is not consistent in all policy areas. For the last two programming period the role 
effects have been the most visible in the field of education and training. ESF interventions 
have  had  also  important  role  effects  in  relation  to  the  ESF  horizontal  principles.  For 
example, ESF interventions played a role in the de-institutionalisation of long-term care 
and the contribution to policy shifts in terms of promoting work-life balance measures and 
childcare services as a way to support labour market participation277. 

Process effects: Implementation of ESF has typically led to improved delivery processes, 
increased  capacities  of  the  public  administrations  and  project  beneficiaries  as  well  as 
development of partnerships, networks and other forms of cooperation between relevant 

274 At the end of 2022. 
275 Study supporting the ESF 2014-2020 ex-post evaluation, ongoing. 
276 Idem. 
277 Idem. 

199 

 
 
 
stakeholders.  There  were  almost  half  a  million  structures  (number  of  networks, 
partnerships and other entities) enabled by the ESF in 2014-2020278. 

Summary  of  findings  of  the  EaSI  2014-2020  ex-post  evaluation  related  to  the  EU 
added value 

There is a clear and continuous need for all types of actions assessed, in the light of their 
continuation in the current programming period (EaSI strand of ESF+, InvestEU and ELA) 
and of their contribution to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and 
its  Action  Plan:  analytical  activities  to  support  policy  making  and  evidence,  capacity 
building to enhance stakeholders’ participation/impact on policies, instruments to facilitate 
the geographical and occupational mobility, and instruments to improve access to finance, 
in particular of vulnerable groups.  
It is unlikely that national schemes would be able to support social policy experimentation 
across  different  participating  countries  and  EU-level  NGO  networks  the  way  EaSI  did. 
EaSI  was  also  the  most  suitable  vehicle  for  EU-wide  deliverables  such  as  comparative 
databases, studies and mutual learning activities that are not always top priorities at other 
governance  levels.  Furthermore,  there  were  no  other  EU  resources  available  which  are 
specifically designed for cross-border partnerships and for an EU-level vacancies portal. 
Without EaSI support for microfinance and social entrepreneurship, these sectors would 
probably also slow down leading to less social business creation across the EU and fewer 
related employment opportunities279.  

EaSI  programme  actions  stimulated  the  cooperation  among  different  institutions  and 
stakeholders from public, private, and civil society sectors, which otherwise would have 
scarce incentives to work together. This facilitated the mutual learning and ultimately a 
better alignment with the target groups’ needs. 

278 Idem. 
279This was done under the EaSI programme through financial instruments (transffered to Invest EU in 2021-
2027), but also through non-financial initiatives to develop ecosystems for microfinance and social finance 
and to build of microcredit providers’ capacity (types of activities implemented under the current EaSI strand 
of the ESF+). 

200