COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Ex-post Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for the 2014-2020 programming period
Date: 2026-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, crisis management, emergency aid, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migration control, non-EU national, project evaluation, return migration, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.3.2026  SWD(2026) 77 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Ex-post Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for the 2014-2020 programming period {SWD(2026) 78 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 8 

1.1. 

Policy context and development .................................................................................... 9 

1.2.  Methodology ................................................................................................................ 12 

1.3. 

Limitations ................................................................................................................... 13 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................... 13 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................ 13 

Intervention Logics ...................................................................................................... 14 

Point(s) of comparison ................................................................................................. 23 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 25 

3.1 Overall description of the implementation set-up ............................................................... 25 

3.2 Shared Management ............................................................................................................ 26 

3.3 Implementation at the national programme level ................................................................ 29 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 31 

4.1 

 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ......................................... 31 

4.1.1 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 31 

4.1.2  Efficiency ................................................................................................................ 42 

4.1.3 Simplification and reduction of administrative burden ................................................ 44 

4.1.4 Coherence and Complementarity ................................................................................. 46 

4.2 

 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ................................. 52 

4.2.1 EU added value ............................................................................................................ 52 

4.2.2 Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 54 

4.3 

 Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................. 56 

4.3.1 Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 56 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 58 

5.1 

5.2 

 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 58 

 Lessons learned ........................................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 64 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 65 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 65 

Limitations and mitigation measures ........................................................................................ 66 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................... 67 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 67 

 
 
 
 
Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 73 

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden ............................................................. 76 

Coherence .................................................................................................................................. 78 

Complementarity ....................................................................................................................... 79 

EU added value ......................................................................................................................... 81 

Sustainability ............................................................................................................................. 84 

Relevance .................................................................................................................................. 86 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 89 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 97 

Call for evidence ....................................................................................................................... 97 

Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 99 

Targeted surveys ..................................................................................................................... 105 

Public Consultation ................................................................................................................. 111 

First EU level focus group ...................................................................................................... 117 

Second EU level focus group .................................................................................................. 118 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AMIF  

BMVI 

CEAS 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund  

Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  –  Border 
Management and Visa Policy Instrument  

Common European Asylum System   

Common Indicators 

The set of indicators defined in Annex IV of the AMIF 
Regulation (EU) 516/2014 

COVID-19 

Coronavirus disease of 2019  

DG 

DG ECHO 

DG EMPL 

DG HOME  

DG REGIO  

DG RTD  

Direct Management 

EASO 

EBF 

EC  

EIF 

EMAS  

EMN  

ERF  

ESF+  

Directorate-General 

Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and 
Humanitarian Aid Operations  

Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs 
and Inclusion  

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs  

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy  

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation  

In  direct  management,  the  European  Commission  is 
directly  responsible  for  all  steps  in  a  programme's 
implementation. 

European Asylum Support Office 

External Border Fund 

European Commission  

European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third-Country 
Nationals 

Emergency Assistance  

European Migration Network  

European Refugee Fund  

European Social Fund Plus  

 
 
 
EU  
Eurostat  
EUAA  
FEAD 
FIR 
Frontex 
Indirect Management 

IOM  
ISF 
MS 
NGO 

OECD 

RF  

SA 

SCOs 

SFC 

Shared Management 

SME 

SO 

SOLID 

SWD  
TA  
TCN  

European Union  
European Statistical Office  
European Union Agency for Asylum  
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived  
Final implementation report  
European Border and Coast Guard Agency  
Funding  managed  by  partner  organisations  or  other 
authorities  inside  or  outside  the  EU,  e.g.  national 
authorities or international organisations. The majority 
of  the  EU  budget  allocated  to  humanitarian  aid  and 
international 
is 
implemented under indirect management. 
International Organisation for Migration  
Internal Security Fund  
Member States 
Non-governmental organisation  

development, 

instance, 

for 

Organisation 
Development  

for  Economic  Co-operation 

and 

European Return Fund  

Specific Action 

Simplified cost options  

Electronic  data 
management  

exchange 

system 

for 

shared 

In shared management, both the European Commission 
and  national  authorities  in  Member  States,  such  as 
ministries  and  public  institutions,  are  in  charge  of 
running a particular programme. 

Small and Medium Enterprise 

Specific Objective 

Collective  funds  that  were  used  to  fund  migration 
actions  in  the  2007-2013  period.  The  SOLID  Funds 
were  comprised  of  four  instruments:  the  European 
Refugee  Fund  (ERF),  the  External  Border  Fund 
(‘EBF’),  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of 
Third-Country  Nationals  (‘EIF’)  and  the  European 
Return Fund (‘RF’). 

Staff Working Document  
Technical Assistance  
Third-country national  

 
 
TEU 
TFEU  

UA  
UNHCR  

Treaty on the European Union 
Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union   

Union Actions  
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees  

 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables and Figures 

Table 1: Allocated and spent resources by 31/12/2024 (EUR; AMIF 2014-2020) .......... 19 

Table 2: Development in funding allocations for emergency actions .............................. 35 

Table 3: Allocation of EMAS financing per topic ............................................................ 35 

Table 4: Efficiency of use of human resources for EU Member States 2014-2020 (AMIF 
and ISF) ............................................................................................................................ 37 

Table  5:  Summary  of  differences  affecting  administrative  burden  between  SOLID  and 
AMIF................................................................................................................................. 39 

Table 6: Management modes and funding components in the AMIF according to legal base 
illustrating the complementary purpose of the different components .............................. 41 

Table 7: Evaluation matrix for Effectiveness ................................................................... 63 

Table 8: Evaluation matrix for Efficiency ........................................................................ 69 

Table 9: Evaluation matrix for simplification and reduction of administrative burden .. 72 

Table 10: Evaluation matrix for Coherence ..................................................................... 74 

Table 11: Evaluation matrix for Complementarity .......................................................... 75 

Table 12: Evaluation matrix for EU added value ............................................................ 77 

Table 13: Evaluation matrix for sustainability ................................................................ 80 

Table 14: Evaluation matrix for Relevance ...................................................................... 82 

Table 16: An overview of the interviews conducted during the study .............................. 96 

Figure 1: Development of Home Affairs Funds ................................................................. 3 

Figure 2: Intervention logic for SO1 .................................................................................. 8 

Figure 3: Intervention logic for SO2 ................................................................................ 10 

Figure 4: Intervention logic for SO3 ................................................................................ 12 

Figure 5: Intervention logic for SO4 ................................................................................ 14 

Figure  6:  Budget  allocation  for  the  policy  areas  of  asylum,  integration,  return  and 
international cooperation in the 2007-2013 funding period (in EUR) ............................ 16 

Figure 7: Distribution of spent resources by fund component (by 31/12/2024) .............. 18 

Figure 8: Overall allocated and spent resources by specific objective (EUR million, shared 
management, AMIF 2014-2020) ...................................................................................... 18 

Figure 9:Overall allocated resources by target group (EUR million, shared management, 
AMIF 2014-2020) ............................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 10: Absorption rate by target group under shared management by 31/12/2024 . 20 

Figure  11:  Allocated  resources  per  specific  objective  by  Member  State  national 
programmes (AMIF 2014-2020) ...................................................................................... 21 

Figure  12:  Allocated  and  spent  resources  by  Member  State,  shared  management  only 
(EUR million AMIF 2014-2020 ........................................................................................ 21 

 
 
 
Figure 13: Absorption rate by national programmes on the basis of amounts declared for 
clearance in the final accounts, shared management only (AMIF 2014-2020) ............... 22 

Figure 14: Implementation of Common Indicator Number of returnees who received pre 
or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund .................................... 29 

Figure 15: Evaluation of complementarity according to National Authorities (N=20) .. 40 

Figure 16: Member States coordination mechanisms ...................................................... 43 

Figure 17: Number of asylum applicants (EU27 total and EU27 average per capita) ... 49 

Figure 18: Overview of costs and benefits for the AMIF 2014-2020............................... 84 

Figure 19: National/Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries: distribution by typology
 .......................................................................................................................................... 99 

Figure  20:  National/Responsible  Authorities  and  beneficiaries:  distribution  by  fund 
components and programming period............................................................................ 100 

Figure 21: National/Responsible Authorities: distribution by country .......................... 101 

Figure 22: Survey respondents: distribution by typology .............................................. 105 

Figure 23: Survey respondents: distribution by size ...................................................... 106 

Figure 24: Survey respondents: geographical distribution ........................................... 106 

Figure 26: Survey respondents: role or relationship to the AMIF 2014-2020 .............. 106 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (hereinafter  ‘AMIF’  or  the  ‘Fund’)  was 
established by Regulation  No 516/2014 of the European Parliament  and  of the Council 
1(hereinafter, ‘AMIF Regulation’) for the 2014-2020 programming period , applies as of 1 
January 2014 to all Member States (including the United Kingdom which ceased to be a 
Member State on 31 January 2020 and with exception of Denmark2).  

The purpose of the ex-post evaluation is set out in Article 57(2),(b) of the Regulation (EU) 
No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 (hereinafter ‘the Horizontal 
Regulation’)4 requires the Commission to carry out an ex-post evaluation by 30 June 2024 
to  assess  the  effects  of  the  AMIF  Regulation  and  Horizontal  Regulation  following  the 
closure of the national programmes. 

The deadline of 30 June 2024 was extended by one year further to the amendment of the 
Horizontal  Regulation  by  Regulation  (EU)  2022/5855,  following  the  Russian  war  of 
aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, which extended the implementation of 
AMIF,  as  well  as  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund  –  Borders  and  Visa6  and  the  Internal 
Security Fund  –  Police7  (hereinafter, also  jointly  as  the  “Home Affairs  Funds”) by one 
year,  to  allow  the  Member  States  to  fully  use  any  unspent  amounts  from  their  national 
programmes,  and,  where  necessary,  to  swiftly  revise  the  implementation  of  their 
programmes to address the challenges arising from the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian 
Federation. The evaluation covers the entire implementation period of the AMIF, that is, 
from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2024. The material scope covers activities under the three 
existing  management  modes:  shared  management,  direct  management  and  indirect 

1 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing 
the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund,  amending  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  and  repealing 
Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council 
Decision 2007/435/EC, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 168-194, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/516/2022-
04-12 
2 The AMIF Regulation is based on legal bases under Title V of Part Three TFEU, concerning the area of 
freedom, security and justice. As a consequence, the application of the Regulation to Denmark, the United 
Kingdom and Ireland is subject to the provisions laid down in Protocol No 21 and Protocol No 22 annexed 
to the TEU and the TFEU. In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22, Denmark does not take 
part in the adoption by the Council of measures proposed pursuant to Title V of Part Three TFEU, and such 
measures are not binding upon or applicable in Denmark.  In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 
No 21, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part in the adoption by the Council of measures proposed 
pursuant to Title V of Part Three TFEU, and such measures are not binding on or applicable in the United 
Kingdom or Ireland. In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21, the United Kingdom and Ireland notified 
their wish to take part in the adoption and application of the AMIF Regulation. 
3 OJ  L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112-142, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/514/2022-04-12 
4 OJ  L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112-142, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/514/2022-04-12 
5 Regulation (EU) 2022/585. 
6 Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing 
as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa and 
repealing Decision No 574/2007/EC. OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, pp. 143–167. 
7 Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Abril 2014 establishing, 
as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing 
and  combating  crime,  and  crisis  management  and  repealing  Council  Decision  2007/125/JHA.  OJ  L  150, 
20.5.2014, pp. 93–111. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/513/oj. 

8 

 
 
 
management. The geographical scope includes all 27 AMIF participating Member States, 
i.e., all Member States during the period except Denmark.  

The evaluation primarily focuses on assessing the main evaluation criteria of effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  complementarity,  EU  added  value,  sustainability,  and 
simplification and reduction of administrative burden. The evaluation questions, as well as 
the result and output indicators to be used in this evaluation, were defined in a delegated 
regulation setting up a common monitoring and evaluation framework for all Home Affairs 
Funds during the 2014-2020 period8. 

The  Evaluation  is  based  on  twelve  evaluation  questions  organised  around  these  eight 
evaluation criteria, as follows:  

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Relevance

Coherence

• How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of SO1?
• How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of SO2?
• How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of SO3?
• How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of SO4?

• Were the general objectives of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?

• Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?

•Were the objectives set in the national programme Fund coherent with the ones set in other 

programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work?

•Was the coherence ensured also during the implementation of the Fund?

Complementarity

• Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding implemented 

actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies, in particular those 
pursued by the Member State?

EU Added Value

• Was any value added brought about by the EU support?

Sustainability

Simplification

• Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when the support 

from AMIF will be over?

•Were the Fund management procedures simplified and the administrative burden reduced for 

its beneficiaries?

1.1.  Policy context and development 

According to Article 4 (2), (j) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the 
‘TFEU’), the Union shares competence with the Member States in the area of freedom, 
security and justice as laid down in Title V TFEU. 

According to Article 67 (1) and (2) TFEU, the Union shall constitute an area of freedom, 
security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and 
traditions  of  the  Member  States  and  it  shall  frame  a  common  policy  on  asylum, 
immigration and external border control.  

8  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/207  of  3  October  2016  on  the  common  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  on  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management, OJ L 33, 8.2.2017, p. 1-13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/207/oj. 

9 

 
 
 
The right to asylum is enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
EU, which became legally binding with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 
December 2009 and which has the same legal value as the EU Treaties pursuant to Article 
6 (1) of the Treaty on the European Union. 

Pursuant  to  Article  79(5)  TFEU,  Member  States  maintain  the  prerogative  to  determine 
volumes  of  admission  of  third-country  nationals  coming  from  outside  the  EU  to  their 
territory in order to seeking work, whether employed or self-employed, as laid down in 
Article 79(5) TFEU.  

The figure below presents the main stages in the development of EU support to the Home 
Affairs policy areas from 1998 through 2027, with a focus on the funds related to asylum 
and migration.9 

9  Due  to  lack  of  space,  the  diagram  does  not  depict  the  Framework  Programme  on  Police  and  Judicial 
Cooperation  in  Criminal  Matters  which  took place  from 2002-2006  with  an  initial  allocation  of  EUR  65 
million.  

10 

 
 
 
Figure 1: Development of Home Affairs Funds 

ODYSSEUS Programme 

A framework for training, information, study 
and exchange activities to improve the 
effectiveness of cooperation between the 
administrations of the Member States in the 
areas of asylum policy, the crossing of external 
borders of the Member States and immigration 
policy 
1998-2002: ECU 12 million 

ARGO Programme 

For administrative cooperation in the fields of 
external borders, visas, asylum and 
immigration 

2002-2006: EUR 25 million 

Framework Programme on Securing Liberties 
(SSL) 

2007-2013 

Framework Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 

2007-2013 

Prevention and 
Fight against 
Crime (ISEC) 

EUR 600 million 

CIPS 
Prevention, Preparedness and 
Consequences Management of 
Terrorism and other Security 
related risks 
EUR 140 million 

European 
External 
Borders Fund 

EUR 1.82 
billion 

European 
Return Fund 

EUR 676 
million 

European 
Refugees 
Fund 

European Fund for 
the integration of 3rd 
Country Nationals 

EUR 614 
million 

EUR 825 million 

Internal Security Fund 
2014-2020 

Borders and Visa 

Police 

EUR 2.76 billion 

EUR 1.21 billion 

Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund 

2014-2020: EUR 3.13 billion 

Integrated Border Management Fund 

2021-2027 

Border Management 
and Visa Policy 
Instrument 

Customs Control 
Equipment 
Instrument 

EUR 6.24 billion 

EUR 1 billion 

Internal Security 
Fund 

2021-2027: EUR 
1.93 billion 

Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund 

2021-2027: EUR 9.88 billion 

11 

 
 
 
Migration and border management were addressed through the SOLID Funds from 2007-
2013. The SOLID Funds were comprised of four instruments: the European Refugee Fund 
(ERF)10, the External  Border  Fund (‘EBF’)11, the European Fund for the  Integration of 
Third-Country Nationals (‘EIF’)12 and the European Return Fund (‘RF’)13. For the 2014-
2020 programming period, the policy objectives of the SOLID funds were divided into the 
AMIF14 and Internal Security Fund Borders & Visa (ISF BV)15 and ISF Police (ISF P)16, 
with the AMIF being the successor of the ERF, EIF and RF.  

During the 2014-2020 programming period, a number of crises and challenges affecting 
migration flows, from the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 to the Russian war of aggression 
on  Ukraine  in  2022,  demanded  a  high  level  of  flexibility  and  adaptation  in  the 
implementation of the AMIF in response. Notably, the implementation period of the AMIF 
(and  ISF)  was  extended  by  1  year  (from  30  June  2023  to  30  June  2024)  to  allow  the 
Member  States  to  fully  use  any  unspent  amounts  from  those  programmes,  and,  where 
necessary,  to  swiftly  revise  the  implementation  of  their  programmes  to  address  the 
challenges arising from the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on 24 February 
2022.  The  way  in  which  the  instrument  has  been  able  to  adapt  to  this  evolution  and 
developments is part of the subjects studied in the evaluation. 

1.2.  Methodology 

The  preparatory  work  for  this  Evaluation  was  conducted  by  an  external  consortium 
composed by “Ernst and Young (EY)” and “Technopolis Group” on behalf of the European 
Commission. The study used qualitative and quantitative methods, including desk review 
of EU and national documents; EU-level interviews with stakeholders such as European 
Commission  officials,  implementing  partners,  and  beneficiaries;  focus  groups;  targeted 
surveys with beneficiaries and national authorities; and a public consultation. It included 
data  analysis  covering  country  case  and  thematic  case  studies.  The  data  collected  were 

L 

p. 

OJ 

OJ 

144, 

Flows, 

Flows, 

22–44, 

6.6.2007, 

of  Migration 

of  Migration 

10 Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2008  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC, OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 1–
21 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/573/oj. 
11 Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
External  Borders  Fund  for  the  period  2007  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management 
ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/574/oj. 
12 2007/435/EC: Council Decision of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country  nationals  for  the  period  2007  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management 
ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/435/oj. 
13 Decision No 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 
2013  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows,’  OJ  L  144, 
6.6.2007, p. 45–65, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/575/oj. 
14 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing 
the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund,  amending  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  and  repealing 
Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council 
Decision 2007/435/EC, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 168-194, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/516/2022-
04-12 
15 Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing 
as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa and 
repealing Decision No 574/2007/EC. OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, pp. 143–167. 
16  Regulation  (EU)  No 513/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  Abril  2014 
establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, 
preventing and combating crime, and crisis management and repealing Council Decision 2007/125/JHA. OJ 
L 150, 20.5.2014, pp. 93–111. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/513/oj. 

28.6.2007, 

18–36, 

168, 

p. 

L 

12 

 
 
triangulated to validate consistency across sources and provide well-founded insights and 
responses to the evaluation questions. A complete description of the methodology applied 
is included in Annex I. 

1.3.  Limitations 

The evaluation faced challenges related to data quality, availability, and consistency across 
Member States. Differences in the level of detail in Final Implementation Reports (FIRs) 
and national ex-post evaluations made cross-country comparisons difficult. The level of 
granularity was inadequate at times, from discussions at the first focus group remaining 
general  to  titles  or  descriptions  of  projects  being  too  narrow  for  precise  tagging  in  the 
taxonomy.  For  the  counterfactual  analysis,  the  limited  availability  of  data  for  Denmark 
required narrowing the time span of the counterfactual analysis to years for which data was 
available.  Additionally,  turnover  within  key  stakeholders  impacted  the  continuity  of 
information.  To  address  these  challenges,  the  study  applied  triangulation  methods  and 
cross-referenced multiple sources. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Article 3 of AMIF Regulation sets out the objectives of the Fund. Its general objective 
was  “to  contribute  to  the  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  and  to  the 
implementation,  strengthening  and  development  of  the  common  policy  on  asylum, 
subsidiary protection and temporary protection and the common immigration policy, while 
fully respecting the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union”17. 

Within this general objective, the Fund pursues four specific objectives (SO)18: 

•  SO1:  to  strengthen  and  develop  all  aspects  of  the  Common  European  Asylum 

System, including its external dimension; 

•  SO2:  to  support  legal  migration  to  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  their 
economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the 
integrity  of  the  immigration  systems  of  Member  States,  and  to  promote  the 
effective integration of third-country nationals; 

•  SO3: to enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which 
contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of 
return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit; 

•  SO4: to enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, 
in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including 
through practical cooperation. 

To  achieve  these  objectives,  the  AMIF  was  implemented  through  a  multi-layered 
management  approach.  The  majority  of  AMIF  resources  were  implemented  under 
shared management, under which national authorities are responsible for carrying out a 
national programme following EU guidelines. In additional to the actions defined in the 
initially  adopted  programmes,  the  national  programmes  also  include  later  funding  for 

17 Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 
18 Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

13 

 
 
resettlement, the transfer of applicants for19 and beneficiaries of international protection, 
and specific actions. Specific actions were a means of allocating further resources to the 
national programmes for projects which require cooperative effort amongst Member States 
and generate significant added value for the Union.  

AMIF  was  also  implemented  under  direct  management  where  interventions  are 
implemented by the Commission and indirect management where specific projects are 
carried out by international bodies acting on behalf of the Commission. Within direct and 
indirect management were: 

•  Union actions, which are transnational actions or actions of particular interest to 

the Union pursuant to Article 20 of AMIF Regulation; 

•  Emergency assistance (EMAS) to address urgent and specific needs in the event of 

• 

an emergency situation pursuant to Article 21 of AMIF Regulation; 
the European Migration Network (EMN), an EU network of migration and asylum 
experts  who  work  together  to  provide  objective,  comparable  policy-relevant 
information and knowledge on emerging issues relating to asylum and migration 
in Europe pursuant to Article 22 of AMIF Regulation; 

•  and technical assistance pursuant to Article 23 of AMIF Regulation. 

2.2   Intervention Logics 

To  address  the  objectives  above  and  illustrate  the  connection  between  needs  and  how 
AMIF  implementation  addresses  those  needs,  an  intervention  logic,  providing  a 
description of how and why desired changes is expected to happen as a result of the AMIF 
actions, has been developed for each specific objective.  

Specific Objective 1 – Common European Asylum System 

This  specific  objective  aimed  to  strengthen  and  develop  all  aspects  of  the  CEAS, 
including  its  external  dimension.  The  CEAS  is  based  on  three  pillars:  bringing  more 
harmonisation to standards of protection by further aligning the Member States’ asylum 
legislation;  effective  and  well-supported  practical  cooperation;  and  increased  solidarity 
and sense of responsibility among EU Member States as well as between EU and non-EU 
countries.20 Efforts focused on improving the capacity of Member States' asylum systems, 
including infrastructure and services, while enhancing cooperation with third countries to 
better manage migration. These measures aimed to ensure protection for those in need of 
international assistance and to provide technical support to Member States in collaboration 
with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The AMIF played a crucial role by 
supporting  the  reception  and  asylum  system  with  actions  targeting  TCNs,  including 
refugees, asylum seekers and resettled individuals. It further strengthened Member States’ 
ability  to  develop,  monitor,  and  evaluate  their  asylum  policies,  while  facilitating  the 

19 It should be noted that this applies only as per the consolidated version of the AMIF Regulation resulting 
from the amendment by Regulation (EU) 2018/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 
December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as 
regards the recommitment of the remaining amounts committed to support the implementation of Council 
Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 or the allocation of those amounts to other actions under the 
national programmes, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/2000/oj.  
20  European  Commission,  COM(2008)  360  Final  Policy  Plan  on  Asylum:  an  integrated  approach  to 
protection 
https://eur-
EU, 
the 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0360:FIN:EN:PDF.  

available 

across 

at: 

14 

 
 
resettlement and transfer of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, as well 
as other humanitarian admissions. 

The target groups addressed under this specific objective include all TCNs who are either 
in  need  of  international  protection,  in  migration,  and  those  in  need  of  resettlement  or 
humanitarian  admission.  Furthermore,  applicants  for  or  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection  or  asylum  are  also  targeted.  The  Fund  aims  to  provide  legal  and  sustainable 
support  that  responds  to  the  needs  of  each  target  group,  including  those  who  are 
particularly vulnerable, such as children.  

15 

 
 
Figure 2: Intervention logic for SO1 
Figure 2: Intervention logic for SO1 

16 

 
 
 
SO2 – Legal migration and integration 

The  second  specific  objective  focused  on  supporting  legal  migration  to  the  Member 
States  in  accordance  with  their  economic  and  social  needs,  such  as  labour  market 
needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems and to promote 
the effective integration of TCNs. The measures were aimed at supporting Member States 
in  the  development  and  implementation  of  policies  that  promoted  legal  migration, 
including  family  reunification  and  enforcement  of  labour  standards.  It  also  focused  on 
facilitating  regular  entry  and  residence  in  the  Union,  enhancing  cooperation  with  third 
countries, as well as promoting integration and social and economic inclusion of TCNs.  

The main target group under SO2 are TCNs who are lawfully residing in a Member State 
or are in the process of obtaining such residency. Family members of individuals in the 
target group can also be included in the measures if necessary. The objective also includes 
those who have access to integration or professional language courses, have a residency 
permit, or have a permit for skilled employment or vocational training. The target group 
should receive tailored support to ensure successful integration and social inclusion, while 
meeting the economic and social needs of Member States. TCNs receiving information on 
legal migration pathways or participating in mobility schemes are also included.  

17 

 
Figure 3: Intervention logic for SO2 
Figure 3: Intervention logic for SO2 

18 

 
 
 
SO3 – Return 

This specific objective aimed to contribute to enhancing fair and effective return strategies 
in  the  Member  States,  which  contribute  to  combating  illegal  immigration,  with  an 
emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin 
and transit. It supported an integrated and coordinated approach to return management at 
both  Union  and  Member  State  levels.  The  development  of  capacities  for  effective  and 
sustainable  returns  included  supporting  assisted  voluntary  return,  family  tracing  and 
reintegration, while respecting the best interests of minors. 

The  target  groups  under  SO3  comprises  those  awaiting  decisions  on  their  residence 
permits, TCNs who opt for voluntary return to their countries of origin, individuals who 
do  not  meet  the  requirements  for  legal  residence,  including  those  for  whom  the 
enforcement of deportation has been postponed in compliance with the relevant articles of 
Directive  2008/115/EC,  those  who  have  already  left  the  EU  Member  State  either 
voluntarily or through a removal based on an adminstrative or judicial decision, and TCNs 
in migration who are in their countries of origin or in transit countries with the purpose of 
countering irregular migration.  

19 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Intervention logic for SO3 
Figure 4: Intervention logic for SO3 

20 

 
 
 
SO4 – Solidarity 

This specific objective was set to enhance solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility 
between the Member States, in particular as regards those most affected by migration 
and  asylum  challenges,  including  through  practical  cooperation.  This  included 
supporting resettlement in the Union and transfers of applicants for international protection 
or  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  This 
objective aimed to foster a fair sharing of responsibility among Member States, particularly 
those most affected by migration and asylum challenges.  

The main target group of SO4 is the Member States as the actions aim to enhance Member 
States capacity to process applications for international protection and support applicants 
or  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  In  addition,  SO4  supports  Member  States 
resettlement  and  humanitarian  admission  efforts,  thereby  demonstrating  solidarity  with 
third countires impacted by a large number of persons in need of international protection. 

21 

 
 
Figure 5: Intervention logic for SO4 
Figure 5: intervention logic for SO4 

22 

 
 
2.3 Point(s) of comparison  

Comparison with SOLID funds 

The main benchmark of comparison for this ex-post evaluation are the SOLID funds. The 
ex-post evaluation21 of the SOLID22 funds and the AMIF impact assessment highlighted 
several shortcomings of the SOLID funds design and delivery.  

First, the SOLID funds were only deemed suitable for addressing future needs to a limited 
extent. For example, the ERF did not sufficiently support resettlement nor relocation. The 
financial  incentives  for  these  activities  were  limited  and  as  a  result  Member  States 
prioritized other needs.  To address  this,  AMIF established common Union resettlement 
priorities and Member States received a lump sum  up to EUR 10 000 for every person 
effectively resettled23 and EUR 6 000 for every applicant or beneficiary of international 
protection  transferred  from  another  Member  State24.  The  EIF  effectively  supported 
integration strategies at the national level, however, did not adequately address integration 
challenges at the regional and local levels. In response, the AMIF design placed greater 
emphasis on integration strategies at the regional and local level. Article 19(1), point (b) 
of AMIF Regulation lays down that in their national programmes Member States should 
in  particular  pursue  “setting  up  and  developing  integration  strategies,  encompassing 
implemented  at 
two-way  dynamic  process, 
different  aspects  of 
national/local/regional level where appropriate, taking into account the integration needs 
of  third-country  nationals  at  local/regional  level,  addressing  specific  needs  of  different 
categories  of  migrants  and  developing  effective  partnerships  between  relevant 
stakeholders”. 

to  be 

the 

Secondly, the SOLID funds were not designed for activities in third countries and therefore 
the  design  needed  to  be  adapted  to  address  the  external  dimension  of  migration.  In 
response, AMIF supported pre-departure measures in third countries, and cooperation with 
third countries to facilitate repatriation and readmission.  

21 EU Commission SWD on the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying 
the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 
2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management 
of  Migration  Flows'  {COM(2018)  456  final}  -  {SWD(2018)  333  final}  -  {SWD(2018)  334  final}  - 
{SWD(2018) 336 final} 
22 Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
European  Return  Fund  for  the  period  2008  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows 
Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2008  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC 
2007/435/EC: Council Decision of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of third-
country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and Management 
of Migration Flows 
23 Article 17 of AMIF Regulation. 
24 Article 18 of AMIF Regulation. 

23 

 
 
 
Third,  the  Impact  Assessment25  for  the  AMIF  identified  operational  limitations  in  the 
delivery  mechanism  of  the  SOLID  programme,  mainly  caused  by  the  administrative 
complexity  of  fund-specific  rules  and  frameworks.  In  response,  AMIF  revised  the 
framework for emergency assistance and combined the RF, ERF and EIF in one Fund with 
a  common  set  of  rules  to  simplify  administrative  procedures  and  encourage  synergies. 
AMIF sought to improve reporting by introducing common indicators for the measurement 
of the specific objectives, and a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to ensure 
consistent and uniform reporting across Member States. AMIF also introduced simplified 
cost  options  (SCOs)  as  a  means  of  reducing  administrative  burden  and  improving  the 
efficiency  of  the  Fund,  SCOs  are  further  addressed  in  Section  4.1.3  Simplification  and 
reduction of administrative burden. 

Funding for SOLID funds 

Overall, the ERF, EIF and RF had a total budget of around EUR 2 115 million, of which 
about 93-96%26 of the funds was managed under shared management. The remainder of 
which was implemented under direct management by the Commission.   

• 

In the area of asylum, the ERF provided for resources totalling EUR 614 million27 
for the period 2008-2013 for all EU Member States except Denmark.  

•  As concerns integration, the EIF addressed the integration of legally residing TCN 
and legal migration with a financial envelope of EUR 825 million28 for 2007-2013, 
also excluding Denmark. 

• 

In the area of return, the RF had financial envelope of EUR 676 million29 for 2008-
2013, covering all EU Member States except Denmark.  

In addition to the ERF, EIF and RF, the external dimension of migration and asylum was 
addressed  through  the  Thematic  Programme  “Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the 
Area of Migration and Asylum” with EUR 384 million for 2007-201330.  

Therefore,  in  total,  EUR  2 499  million  were  allocated  for  the  policy  areas  relevant  to 
AMIF during the 2007-2013 programming period.  

25 European Commission (2011).  Commission staff working paper – Impact assessment, SEC(2011) 1358 
final, 15 November 2011. 
26 Ibid. 
27 Article 12(1) of the ERF Regulation. 
28 Article 11(1) of the EIF Regulation.  
29 Article 13(1) of the RF Regulation.  
30 European Commission (2011).  Commission staff working paper – Impact assessment, SEC(2011) 1358 
final, 15 November 2011. 

24 

 
 
Figure  6:  Budget  allocation  for  the  policy  areas  of  asylum,  integration,  return  and 
international cooperation in the 2007-2013 funding period (in EUR) 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

825

614

676

384

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

 -

Asylum (ERF III)

Integration of legally
residing third-country
nationals, legal migration
(EIF)

Return (RF)

Cooperation with third
countries in the area of
migration and asylum

Source: Preparatory study based on 2011 Impact Assessment 

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

This  section  begins  with  the  state  of  play  of  the  AMIF  as  a  whole,  across  all  fund 
components, and then delves deeper into the state of play of the national programmes under 
shared  management,  which  received  the  majority  of  the  resources.  The  data  presented 
covers the EU contribution over the entire programming period 2014-2020 (i.e. the data 
covers to the end of December 2024). 

3.1 Overall description of the implementation set-up 

The  budgetary  appropriations  for  the  AMIF  Regulation  amounted  to  EUR  3  137 
million.31  This was further divided into: 

•  EUR 2 752 million for the national programmes of the Member States; 
•  EUR 385 million for Union Actions, EMAS, EMN and technical assistance of the 

Commission.  

In  the  end,  contributions  to  the  AMIF  for  the  period  2014-20  exceeded  the  original 
allocated budget and amounted to over EUR 7.7 billion. Of the total budget allocated to 
the AMIF, EUR 7.4 billion had been committed to concrete operations and declared 
eligible  expenditure  (resources  spent)32,  resulting  in  a  final  absorption  rate33  of  96.3%.  

31 Article 14(1) of the AMIF Regulation. 
32 For direct and indirect management components, namely EMAS, UA and EMN, committed resources are 
considered spent. 
33  This  corresponds  to  the  ratio  between  the  costs  declared  and  the  allocations.  It  measures  the  effective 
implementation of activities. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Allocated and spent resources by 31/12/2024 (EUR; AMIF 2014-2020) 

Resources 

Allocated 

Spent 

7 720 864 571 

7 435 819 502 

Share of the allocated resources  100% 

96.3% 

Source: Preparatory study based on System for Fund Management in the European Union 
(SFC)2014 (December 2024); EMN Work Programmes (2014-2020); EMAS and UA data 
from and outside of COMPASS.  

The largest share of resources spent went to the national programmes (including specific 
actions)  and  EMAS,  representing  respectively  58%  and  34%  of  the  budget  paid.  The 
remainder of resources paid went to Union Actions (7%) and the EMN (1%). 

Figure 7: Distribution of spent resources by fund component (by 31/12/2024) 

Union Actions
7%

EMN
1%

EMAS
34%

National 
Programmes
57%

Specific Actions
1%

3.2 Shared Management 

Within shared management, the resources were concentrated under the first three specific 
objectives.  All  resources  allocated  to  SO1  were  exhausted,  SO2  and  SO3  have  similar 
absorption rates of 90% and SO4 had both the least amount of resources allocated and the 
lowest absorption rate (37%).   

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  8:  Overall  allocated  and  spent  resources  by  specific  objective  (EUR  million, 
shared management, AMIF 2014-2020)34 

1.005  

 1.000

913  

920  

910  

1.022  

1.012  

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 500

 -

SO1-Asylum

SO2-Legal migration and
integration

SO3-Return

SO4-Solidarity

Spent

Allocated

3  

8  

Source: SFC2014 (December 2024) 

The distribution of resources can also be seen through the lens of the final beneficiaries 
(i.e. target groups)35. The following figure shows the allocation of the Fund by target group. 
The target group asylum seekers and refugees were the primary target group with 56% of 
the total budget allocated (including both via specific objectives and special cases)36. The 
distribution  of  the  allocation  across  target  groups  is  consistent  with  the  allocation  of 
resources across SO discussed above where most resources are concentrated on SO1, SO2 
and SO3 that deal with asylum seekers, their integration and returns in cases  of asylum 
denial.  The  very  few  resources  allocated  to  “children  and  persons  with  special  and 
procedural needs, including victims of THB”, this may suggest this target group was of a 

34 This graph excludes Special Cases and Technical Assistance absorption rates that are respectively 88% 
(out of 1.5 billion) and 104% (out of 0.16 billion). 
35 The assignment of target groups to AMIF-funded projects was carried out through a pragmatic, multi-step 
approach designed to ensure consistency and clarity across a large and diverse project portfolio. Recognising 
the practical limitations of manually reviewing the full corpus of over one hundred project documents which 
were not available to the Study Team at time of analysis, the initial categorisation was primarily guided by 
project  titles,  supported  by  agreed  principles  for  thematic  grouping.  Wherever  feasible,  the  team  cross-
referenced  titles  with  available  descriptions  and  procurement  details  to  refine  the  alignment  with  the 
established target group typology. Specific sub-categories — such as projects under the EMN, Horizontal 
Categories,  Operating  Support  and  External  Dimension  —  were  further  validated  through  targeted 
discussions within the team, drawing on expert judgement to resolve cases where projects did not fit neatly 
within  the  pre-defined  categories.  In  these  instances,  a  consistent  approach  was  applied:  for  example, 
procurement contracts under ‘Legal Pathways’ that did not correspond directly with the mapped target groups 
were  flagged  and,  where  appropriate,  reassigned  to  ‘Policy  Makers’  to  better  reflect  their  function. 
Throughout,  the  guiding  principle  was  to  balance  methodological  rigour  with  the  need  for  practical 
feasibility,  ensuring  that  all  target  group  labels  remained  meaningful  and  coherent  within  the  overall 
taxonomy. In cases of overlap or ambiguity — for example, where a project’s activities could plausibly serve 
multiple groups — the dominant or most directly impacted group was prioritised. This approach ensured a 
transparent, replicable process, anchored in the agreed typology, while allowing for the necessary nuance 
when working with complex or cross-cutting project objectives. 
36 Special cases include specific support not falling under any other SO. They include some Member State 
relocation and resettlement operations. 

27 

 
 
 
 
lower priority or could be the result of the methodology used for determining the target 
groups of projects. 

Figure  9:Overall  allocated  resources  by  target  group  (EUR  million,  shared 
management, AMIF 2014-2020) 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

 2.500

 2.000

 1.500

 1.000

 500

 -

2.460  

2.542  

1.022  

920  

1.010  

910  

Asylum seekers &
refugees

-

2  

Children and persons
with special and
procedural needs,
including victims of THB

TCNs with a right to stay TCNs without a right to

stay

Spent

Allocated

Source: Based on SFC2014 (December 2024) 

The resources spent by target group as presented in the below figure, consistently match 
spending  across  the  specific  objectives.  About  97%  of  the  budget  allocated  to  asylum 
seekers and refugees had been spent (respectively 110% and 90% for SO1 and SO2, and 
90% for SO3). Moreover, a similar absorption rate (90%) can be observed between legal 
migration and integration objective (SO2) and the primary target group of interest in that 
objective,  the  TCNs  with  a  right  to  stay.  The  same  applies  to  the  absorption  rate  of 
resources  allocated  to  returns  management  and  enforcement  objective  (SO3)  and  the 
corresponding target group (TCNs without the right to stay). The data show there was no 
claimed spending from national programmes related to “children and persons with special 
and procedural needs, including victims of THB”. 

Figure 10: Absorption rate by target group under shared management by 31/12/2024 

100%

3,2%

10,0%

9,9%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

96,8%

100,0%

90,0%

90,1%

Asylum seekers &
refugees

0,0%
Children and persons
with special and
procedural needs,
including victims of
THB

TCNs with a right to
stay

TCNs without a right
to stay

Absorption (spent)

Allocated (not spent)

28 

 
 
 
 
Source: Based on SFC2014 (December 2024) 

3.3 Implementation at the national programme level 

The largest shares of allocated resources went to Germany (EUR 625.42 million; 14% of 
allocated  resources),  the  United  Kingdom  (EUR  596.23  million;  13%  of  allocated 
resources)  and  France  (EUR  570.74  million;  12%  of  allocated  resources),  together 
accounting for more than one third (about 39%) of all resources allocated to the 27 Member 
States (including the UK).  

On average, the 27 Member States allocated about 34% of resources respectively to SO2 
(Legal migration and integration) and SO3 (Return), 31% to SO1 (Asylum) and about 1% 
to SO4 (Solidarity).   

Figure  11:  Allocated  resources  per  specific  objective  by  Member  State  national 
programmes (AMIF 2014-2020) 

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

d
e
t
a
c
o

l
l

a

f
o
%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1 Asylum

2 Legal migration and integration

3 Return

4 Solidarity

Source: based on SFC2014 (December 2024) 

The financial resources allocated and spent (across all SOs, including Technical Assistance 
and Special Cases support37) by Member State are displayed in the figure below. 

37 Special cases include specific support not falling under any other specific objectives. They include some 

Member State relocation and resettlement operations. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Allocated and spent resources by Member State, shared management only 
(EUR million AMIF 2014-2020 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

 -

620  

625  

571  

495  

448  

437  

596  

556  

399  

347  

345  

343  

328  

295  

301  

301  

120  

123  

169  

159  

55  

29  32  

49  

26  28  

18  

16  19   21  
18  14  19  22  

85  

73  

55  

54  

21  15  

21  14  

183  

140  

91  

95  

39  
39  34  

38  

20  
17  

93  

94  

15  

14  

Source: Based on SFC2014 (December 2024) 

Spent

Allocated

The following figure demonstrates the absorption rate per Member State. Belgium had the 
lowest absorption rate (77%), while several Member States achieved an absorption rate of 
100% or greater (BG, ES, LT, LV, MT, NL, SI). Absorption rates over 100% are possible 
in cases where Member States committed to operations above the initial funding ceilings, 
using additional national resources to cover the expenses. Overall, the average absorption 
rate is 94%.  

30 

 
 
 
Figure 13: Absorption rate by national programmes on the basis of amounts declared 
for clearance in the final accounts, shared management only (AMIF 2014-2020) 

100%

97%

100%

99%

102%

91%

93%

99%

104%

100%

100%

100%

97%

99%100%

98%

94%93%94%

92%

90%

87%

88%89%

87%

89%

85%

85%

80%

77%

60%

40%

20%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE EE ES FI

FR GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU
Avg.

Source: Based on SFC2014 (December 2024) 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS 

4.1   To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1 Effectiveness  

The assessment of effectiveness evaluates the extent to which the AMIF objectives have 
been achieved and provides a basis for judging the role of EU action in driving the observed 
changes. The analysis identifies the extent of success as well as the factors contributing to 
the  lack  of  success  or  delay.  Furthermore,  it  examines  the  drivers  and  barriers  to 
achievement and explores their connection to EU intervention. 

How did the Fund contribute to strengthening and developing all aspects of the CEAS, including 
its external dimension? 

During the 2014-2020 programming period, a substantial number of asylum applications 
were filed across the EU38, resulting in pressure on reception capacity and asylum systems. 
In response, Member States made significant effort in expanding reception capacity and 
overall  created  and/or  improved  in  line  with  Union  acquis  47 695  places  in  reception 
accommodation  with  support  of  the  Fund  (reaching  93%  of  the  set  target),  however 
progress varied across Member States. Of the Member States that set targets for new or 

38 From 2014-2022, the Member States bound by the AMIF Regulation received a total of 6,022,450 first 
time  asylum  applications.  Eurostat  (2025),  Asylum  applicants  by  type,  citizenship,  age  and  sex  -  annual 
aggregated 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_asyappctza/default/table?lang=en. 

available 

data, 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
renovated reception accommodation within their national programmes, 11 Member States 
(EE, ES, FR, HR, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI) reached or overachieved their target, 4 
Member States (BG, CY, CZ, IT) partially achieved their target, and 7 (EL, FI, IE, LU, 
NL,  SE,  UK)  did  not  demonstrate  any  progress.39    In  Sweden,  underachievement  is 
attributed to  not  receiving any applications for the calls on accommodation provision.40 
While in the UK, underachievement is attributed to the case-by-case housing model that 
did not include the establishment of dedicated reception centres and resulted in no projects 
being supported under the AMIF.41 In some Member States, the creation and renovation of 
reception  accommodation  was  also  supported  by  EMAS.  This  is  particularly  true  for 
Greece,  where  EMAS  heavily  supported  increasing  reception  accommodation  capacity 
with  both  temporary  and  longer-term  accommodation,  for  a  total  of  approximately 
80 00042 places created and/or renovated during the programming period.  

Overall,  Member  States  performed  less  well  in  their  aim  to  increase  total  reception 
accommodation  capacity.  Only  Spain  overachieved  their  target  and  13  Member  States 
(BG, CY, CZ, EE, HR, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI) partly achieved their target by 
21%  on  average  (average  target  was  to  increase  capacity  by  62.32%).43  The  remaining 
Member  States  neither  set  a  target  nor  implemented  such  projects  under  their  AMIF 
programme.  Reasons  for underachievement of the target  include project  cancellations44, 
failure  to  meet  grant  agreement  conditions  and  implementation  delays45,  and  strategic 
decisions prioritise service quality over reception accommodation expansion46.  

The  AMIF  significantly  contributed  to  supporting  the  number  of  TCNs  receiving 
assistance in the field of reception and asylum systems, with an EU total of about 5.2 
million  people  who  were  provided  assistance.  This  means  that  of  all  asylum  applicants 
during this period, 70% received assistance from AMIF resources.47 Twenty-three of the 
Member States overachieved their target to assist TCNs and the remaining four Member 
States (CZ, HU, NL, SE) partly achieved their target.48 The types of assistance provided 
was further broken down into information and assistance throughout the asylum process, 
legal assistance, and assistance to vulnerable persons. Of these, information and assistance 
in the asylum process was provided the most.49 This assistance helped TCNs understand 
their rights and the asylum process.    

When asked to what extent the AMIF contributed to providing individualised support to 
TCNs  in  the  targeted  survey  for  national  authorities,  40%  of  respondents  stated  it 
contributed to a high extent, 45% stated it contributed to some extent, and the remaining 
15%  chose  not  to  answer  the  question.  Similarly,  in  the  public  consultation,  of  the 

39 Member State final implementation reports. 
40 Sweden’s national ex-post evaluation of AMIF 2014-2020. 
41 UK’s national ex-post evaluation of AMIF 2014-2020. 
42 These approximate 80 000 places cover accommodation such as apartments and hotels. In addition to this, 
EMAS also supported the creation of temporary structures for reception accommodation in Greece at the 
height of the refugee crisis.  
43 Member State final implementation reports.  
44 Final Implementation Report – Cyprus, 2024. 
45 Final Implementation Report – Greece, 2024. 
46 Final Implementation Report – Finland, 2024. 
47 Member State final implementation reports. Eurostat (2025), Asylum applicants by type, citizenship, age 
and 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_asyappctza/default/table?lang=en. 
48 Member State final implementation reports. 
49 Almost 4 million people in total.  

aggregated 

available 

annual 

data, 

sex 

- 

32 

 
 
organisations  that  provided  support  to  TCNs,  the  majority  agreed  the  support  was 
effective.50  

With no figures available on the total reception accommodation capacity across the EU nor 
the total number of TCNs considered vulnerable, it is difficult to assess the extent to which 
these needs  were met overall.  Nonetheless,  it is  clear the AMIF  contributed to  positive 
developments in the realms of reception accommodation and support to TCNs.  

AMIF funding also contributed to 86 400 staff members being trained in area of asylum 
and reception. Overall, this amounts to about 20% of the total amount of staff trained in 
asylum and reception, suggesting other sources of funding, such as national funds, were 
primarily used for staff training.51  

During  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  Member  States  had  the  option  to  finance 
resettlement under SO1. AMIF supported the resettlement of 61 836 people, for an overall 
EU  implementation  rate  of  126%.  Overachievements  are  attributed  to  established 
resettlement  programmes  and  collaboration  by  political  agreements,  as  well  as  long-
standing 
trainings).52 
Underachievement  of  resettlement  in  several  Member  States  may  be  attributed  to  the 
reallocation  of  funds  to  address  urgent  needs  (e.g.  migration  crisis  in  2015  and  2016, 
Russian  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  as  of  2022),  and  administrative  delays  and 
contractual issues with beneficiaries53. 

commitments 

capacities 

increased 

through 

(e.g. 

and 

Regarding  direct  and  indirect  management,  both  EMAS  and  Union  Actions  played  a 
substantial role in developing and reinforcing the CEAS. With over half of the EMAS 
funding (EUR c.a. 1 323 312 714), the largest share of EMAS funding went to supporting 
reception  conditions.54  Under EMAS, a  range of projects  focused  on improving  asylum 
procedures, increasing reception capacity, improving reception conditions, and addressing 
the specific needs of vulnerable TNCs. For example, projects included the expansion of 
reception capacities in Sweden, the creation of integrated protection hubs in Greece, and 
institutional  capacity-building  initiatives in  Bulgaria.  Union Actions  also  contributed to 
the achievement of the SO by promoting transnational cooperation and targeted support 
across Member States. For example, the Migration Partnership Facility (MPF) enhanced 
operational  capacities of third countries in the areas of border management and asylum 
systems,  enhanced  migration  governance  and  supported  labour  mobility  schemes.  The 
FA.B! project55 strengthened family-based care systems for unaccompanied minors.  Union 
actions  also  contributed  significantly  to  the  external  dimension  of  CEAS,  particularly 
through  projects  and  long-term  cooperation  frameworks  (facilities)  with  international 
actors. 

50 Results of the public consultation where 32% of organisations responding provided support to vulnerable 
TCNs. 
51 Member State final implementation reports.  
52 Ex-post evaluation reports of AT, IT, NL, BE, ES, FI, and SE. 
53 Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) – Ex-post evaluation report (2025) – Romania.  
54 EMAS case study. 
55https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/projects-
details/31077795/958056/AMIF. 

33 

 
 
How  did  the  Fund  contribute  to  supporting  legal  migration  to  the  Member  States  in 
accordance  with  their  economic  and  social  needs,  such  as  labour  market  needs,  while 
safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promoting the 
effective integration of TCNs? 

The AMIF contributed to supporting legal migration and the integration of TCNs (SO2) 
through variety of projects including pre-departure measures, language courses, vocational 
training, and health and counselling assistance. 

Over the course of the programming period, over 10 million TCNs supported by the Fund.56 
Integration projects included, for example:  

• 

• 

In Austria, the “Culture School” project by MTOP (More Than One Perspective) 
enhanced  intercultural  competencies  through  training  and  workshops,  fostering 
understanding and reducing prejudices in the workplace. Additionally, numerous 
initiatives  funded  under  the  AMIF  focused  on  language  acquisition,  vocational 
training, and educational programmes; 

In  Bulgaria,  initiatives  included  early  skills  assessments,  orientation  and  skills 
development programmes, and cultural exchange events that fostered interaction 
between TCNs and the host society; 

•  Estonia  focused  on  increasing  the  capacity  of  schools  and  local  authorities  to 
provide  services  to  TCNs,  alongside  social  integration  and  awareness-raising 
projects; and 

• 

In  Sweden,  the  “VIDA”  project  aimed  to  enhance  social  inclusion  and  labour 
market access for TCNs by integrating association activities into individual action 
plans, fostering collaboration between relevant actors.  

The number of TCNs participating in integration measures under AMIF far exceeded the 
target.  Reasons  for  the  overachievement  include:  (1)  increased  needs  and  pressures 
resulting from the 2015-2016 migration crisis and the Russian war of aggression against 
Ukraine;  (2)  efforts  to  reduce  structural  disparities  between  urban  and  rural  areas  to 
promote  comprehensive  integration  measures57;  and  (3)  the  implementation  of  diverse 
projects targeting a wide variety of individuals and needs58. The analysis shows a wide 
range  of  integration  strategies  and  measures  were  developed  and  implemented  under 
AMIF;  however,  it  is  important  to  note  that  according  to  the  stakeholders  interviewed, 
many of the projects focused on integrating applicants for international protection.  

Over  300  projects  aimed  at  developing,  monitoring  and  evaluating  integration  policies 
were supported by the AMIF. Excluding Portugal, which far surpassed their target for the 
number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate integration 
policies, the EU achieved an average implementation rate of 96% for this indicator. The 
main  reasons  for  underachievement  are  the  disruption  of  planned  activities  due  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic and shifting priorities59 and resources as a response to the Russian 

56 Double counting is possible if a person participated in multiple programmes.  
57 AMIF Evaluation Report – Cyprus, 2024. 
58 Openfield (2024), Ex-post evaluation of the National Programme of Asylum, Migration and Integration 
Fund (AMIF) 2014-2020 – Poland. 
59 Final Implementation Report – Ireland, 2024. 

34 

 
 
 
war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine60.  The  main  reasons  for  overachievement  in  several 
Member States are the increased focus on enhancing institutional capacities for integration 
and a strong political and institutional commitment to integration, such as by establishing 
particular units to coordinate integration efforts. 

Despite these efforts to support TCNs early integration, the improvement of TCNs access 
to the labour market yielded mixed results. Overall, the EU27 average employment gap 
between TCNs and host-country nationals decreased from 2014 to 2022, implying TCNs 
better  access  to  the  labour  market.61  However,  interviewed  stakeholders  perceived  the 
labour market integration as not fully successful.  

Two examples of projects in the field of labour market integration are:  

•  The Employment Support Services for Migrants project in Malta aimed to enhance 
the integration of migrants into the local labour market by addressing employment 
barriers  through  tailored  support,  such  as  by  providing  guidance  services,  job 
brokerage, and specialised training courses in English and Maltese.  The project 
facilitated job placements for 3 347 TCNs and trained 260 individuals. 

•  The  Rafael  III  project  in  Slovakia  which  aimed  to  enhance  the  labour  market 
integration  and  self-sufficiency  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  by 
providing  targeted  support  such  as  job-search  assistance,  job  counselling,  and 
language training to facilitate employment opportunities. 

Regarding legal migration, Member States did not prioritise using the AMIF to support 
legal migration, and the support to legal migration results varied across the Member States. 
Throughout  the  2014-2020  AMIF  programming  period,  legal  migration  consistently 
outpaced irregular migration.62 The period also observed an increase in the share of TCNs 
having  received  long-term  residence  status,  from  33.59%  in  2014  to  43.49%  in  2022.63 
This  demonstrates the persistent  demand for legal  migration pathways and the growing 
utilisation of legal migration options. However, such trends cannot be solely attributed to 
the AMIF. 

Fifteen Member States64 allocated resources to legal migration measures in their national 
programme.  Furthermore,  the  amount  of  resources  allocated  to  legal  migration  was 
consistently  lower  than  the  amount  allocated  to  other  measures  under  SO2  (primarily 
integration).  In  total,  only  6%  of  the  SO2  allocation  was  dedicated  to  legal  migration 
measures. The absorption rate for legal migration measures is 76%, signaling that Member 
States who allocated resources to legal migration carried out the measures at a good rate. 

Pre-departure support is provided to TCNs prior to their entry in the EU to facilitate their 
integration in a Member State. Examples of pre-departure measures include, assessments 
of skills and qualifications, civic orientation courses and language courses. The results of 
pre-departure measures varied across Member States.  Bulgaria far exceeded their target 

60 Final Implementation Report – Czech Republic, 2024. 
61 Eurostat (2025). Employment rates by sex, age and citizenship (%). 
62  European  Commission 
available 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-
life/statistics-migration-europe_en#migration-to-and-from-the-eu.  
63 Member State final implementation reports. 
64 BG, CY, CZ, DE, FR, EL, HR, HU, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, and SI. 

on  migration 

to  Europe, 

Statistics 

(2024), 

at: 

35 

 
 
due  to  underestimated  targets  and  unexpected  increase  in  migration  flows.65  Besides 
Bulgaria, 3 Member States achieved or overachieved their target (CY, DE, PL), another 4 
partially  achieved  their  target  (FR,  HU,  IT,  PT),  and  7  others  set  targets  but  did  not 
implement any activities (CZ, EL, FI, HR, LU, NL, SE). Reasons for underachievement 
include a lack of interest in pre-departure measures among TCNs66 and choosing to fund 
pre-departure activities with national funds rather than AMIF for administrative reasons67.  

In the country case studies, Germany, France and Italy emphasised the positive outcomes 
legal migration measures in improving TCNs communication skills and employability, and 
supporting family reunification. The AMIF did not include an indicator measuring support 
to  family  reunification,  however  according  to  the  country  case  studies  where  these 
measures were supported, they were viewed as helpful and supportive.  

EMAS and Union Actions also contributed to advancing integration and legal migration. 
Under  EMAS,  initiatives  such  as  Greece’s  ESTIA  housing  programme  exemplify  how 
targeted support, including financial assistance and accommodation, can foster integration 
by  promoting  self-sufficiency  and  encouraging  local  economic  participation.  A 
categorization of Union Action projects based on broad types of support reveals that over 
half  of  the  Union  Action  projects  are  integration  measures.  Of  the  projects  supporting 
integration measures, the greatest number of projects supported capacity building and then 
support  to  vulnerable  people  and  women.  EMAS  also  contributed  significantly  to 
integration measures with almost 23% (c.a. EUR 562 609 994) of EMAS funding going 
towards such measures. Under Union Actions, MPF promoted labour mobility and created 
economic  opportunities  through  tailored  pilot  projects  that  encouraged  partnerships 
between  the  EU  and  its  external  partners.  Moreover,  projects  like  Mums  at  Work 
specifically  targeted  the  social  and  economic  integration  of  migrant  mothers,  offering 
employability training, job placements, and social support.  

How did the Fund contribute to enhancing fair and effective return strategies in the Member 
States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability 
of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit? 

AMIF  aims  to  support  effective  return  strategies  and  contributes  to  combating  illegal 
immigration  through  various  activities,  including  by  funding  returns,  reintegration 
assistance, and information campaigns.  

Conducting returns is inherently difficult as it depends on national policies, administrative 
capabilities, and the cooperation of third countries and their willingness to readmit their 
citizens.  Returns  occurred  in  all  Member  States  between  2014-2020.68  Of  the  returns 
conducted  with  AMIF  support,  the  majority  is  represented  by  voluntarily  returns. 
Stakeholders confirmed the focus on supporting voluntary returns in targeted interviews. 
In total, 215 754 individuals were voluntarily returned with AMIF support, with an EU 

65 Ecorys (2024), Ex-post evaluation of the implementation of actions towards achieving the objectives of the 
national programme under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for 2014-2020 period – Bulgaria. 
66 Final Implementation Report – Finland, 2024. 
67 Final Implementation Report – Czech Republic, 2024. 
68 Eurostat (2024), Third country nationals returned following an order to leave  - annual data (rounded), 
available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_eirtn/default/table?lang=en.  The  dataset 
excludes DK and only includes the UK data through 2019. 

36 

 
 
 
average  implementation  rate  of  69%.  Forced  returns  with  AMIF  support  had  a  similar 
implementation rate of 65%, for an EU total of 192 790 individuals forcibly returned.  

Reintegration assistance is another important aspect of SO3 as it contributes to effective 
returns.69  During  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  an  EU  total  of  149 871  TCNs 
received  reintegration  assistance  from  AMIF  support  (implementation  rate  of  75%). 
Therefore, about 37% of TCNs returned with AMIF support also received reintegration 
assistance. While all Member States provided reintegration assistance, the support varied 
across Member States as demonstrated in the figure below.  

Figure 14: Implementation of Common Indicator Number of returnees who received 
pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

64%

41%

5%

13%

11%

2%

5%

28%

31%

31%

45%

47%

137%

122%

106%

150%

230%

155%

107%

286%

350%

119%

206%

152%

106%

105%

154%

EU27 Avg.

75%

Cumulative Implementation 2014 - 2024

Left to target

Source: SFC2014 (December 2024). Cumulative implementation by the end of 2024 against the 
target  value.  EU  Avg.:  Average  of  implemented  values  against  the  average  of  target  values 
across all 27 Member States, including zeros. 
With  the  aim  to  improve  policies  related  to  return  and  combating  irregular  migration, 
Member States supported 65 projects to develop, monitor, and evaluate return policies.70 
However,  this  was  not  evenly  implemented  across  the  Member  States.  The  65  projects 
were implemented by 11 Member States (BE, BG, EE, EL, HR, IT, MT, PT, RO, SE, SI), 
while another seven Member States (ES, HU, IE, LU, NL, PL, SK) set targets but did not 
report any projects. 

69  European  Parliament  Research  Service  (2017),  Reintegration  of  returning  migrants,  available  at: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/608779/EPRS_BRI(2017)608779_EN.pdf.  
70 Final implementation reports.  

37 

 
 
 
Furthermore, to improve return policy and enhance transnational cooperation, the analysis 
of documentation (i.e. national ex-post evaluations, FIRs and AIRs) shows that 17 Member 
States  (AT,  BE,  BG,  CY,  DE,  EE,  ES,  FI,  IT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK,  UK) 
implemented  projects  or  supported  partnerships  in  the  area  of  return.  This  included 
strengthening  return  cooperation  by  establishing  direct  contacts  with  relevant  third 
countries. Transnational projects supported mutual learning and exchange of knowledge 
and skills. Efforts to improve return policies have had a positive impact, most beneficiaries 
that participated in the targeted survey agreed the AMIF contributed to the enhancement 
of reception and return policies.71 

When examining the AMIF’s effectiveness in supporting return and reintegration, 80% of 
the targeted survey respondents deemed it effective to a high or moderate extent.72  

EMAS and Union Actions also contributed to the achievements under SO3. In Bulgaria, 
an  EMAS  project  took  a  holistic  approach  to  returning  TCNs  thereby  enabling  more 
effective reintegration. The project  provided pre-departure assistance, humanitarian aid, 
legal and psychological services, and a safe space for minors. Under Union Actions, MPF 
is  a  unique  project  designed  to  enhance  cooperation  with  third  countries  on  migration 
management  through  technical  assistance,  knowledge  sharing  practices,  trainings  to 
improve the capacity of third country authorities, providing policy recommendations and 
more.  Receiving  an  EU  contribution  of  over  EUR  76  million  in  the  2014-2020 
programming period, it is one of the largest projects funded under Union Actions. MPF 
promoted  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  third  countries  to  reinforce  return  and 
readmission processes.  

How did the Fund contribute to enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the 
Member  States,  in  particular  towards  those  most  affected  by  migration  and  asylum  flows, 
including through practical cooperation? 

Activities  under  SO4  included  the  transfer  of  applicants  and/or  beneficiaries  of 
international  protection  from  one  Member  State  to  another  (also  known  as  relocation), 
resettlement  of  TCNs  falling  within  the  categories  defined  in  the  Union  Resettlement 
Programme,  and  cooperation  projects  aimed  at  enhancing  solidarity  and  responsibility 
sharing.  As  detailed  in  Section  3,  SO4  was  the  least  prioritized  SO  in  the  national 
programmes and received the lowest amount of allocated resources. In line with this, many 
Member  States  did  not  set  targets  for  the  indicators  under  SO4  in  their  national 
programmes.  

Over the entire programming period, nine Member States (BG, CY, HR, IE, IT, LT, PT, 
SE,  SI)  transferred  7 390  individuals  from  one  Member  State  to  another  (91% 
implementation rate) under their national programmes. Stakeholders found the framework 
to be effective, however many felt that more targeted outreach and training could enhance 
understanding of and participation in the relocation process.73  Even fewer Member States 
conducted cooperation projects to enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing under their 

71  34  out  of  291  (11%)  respondents  of  the  targeted  survey  for  beneficiaries  considered  the  AMIF’s 
contribution to be very high, while 98 (35%) considered it to be high. 53 respondents (18%) considered the 
AMIF’s contribution to be low while 36 (12%) considered it to be very low. The remaining 70 respondents 
(24%) preferred not to answer. 
72 16 out of 20 respondents of the targeted survey with National Authorities. 
73 Interviews with 10 stakeholders. 

38 

 
 
 
national programmes, a total of six projects were carried out by three Member States (CY, 
IT, and PT).  

In addition to resettlement planned in the national programmes under SO1, Member States 
received an additional lump sum payment for every person resettled in accordance with 
the  common  Union  resettlement  priorities  in  Annex  III  of  the  AMIF.74    To  participate, 
Member  States  would  voluntarily  pledge  how  many  persons  they  aimed  to  resettle 
according  to  the  Union  priorities  and  an  additional  allocation  would  be  added  to  their 
national  programme.  Twenty-three  Member  States75  resettled  persons  under  the  Union 
resettlement priorities, for a total of 912 264 000 persons resettled (85% implementation 
rate).  

EMAS also contributed to solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States, 
for  a  total  allocation  of  about  EUR  165  million  for  projects  supporting  relocation  and 
complementary measures. These projects supported the relocation of TCNs from Greece, 
Italy, Malta and Cyprus to other Member States. 

Challenges and remedy strategies 
Member States faced a number of challenges during implementation of their programmes. 
SO1 was particularly impacted by the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016, the large increase 
in  asylum  seekers  placed  pressure  on  national  asylum  and  reception  systems.  In  the 
targeted survey, more than half (12 of 20) of the responding national authorities  replied 
that the sudden influx, and later long-term inflow of migrants, as well as crises outside the 
EU  had  a  clear  negative  impact  on  the  implementation  of  the  AMIF.76  Similarly,  a 
triangulation of data demonstrated that 20 Member States faced significant challenges due 
to  the  Russian  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  and  the  corresponding  influx  of 
Ukrainians seeking protection in the EU.77 In response to the Russian war of aggression 
towards Ukraine, the implementation period of the 2014-2020 programming period was 
extended by one year, allowing Member States to amend their national programmes and 
make  use  of  unused  funds  to  meet  emerging  needs.  Lithuania  also  reported  on  the 
challenges resulting from the political crisis in Belarus and resulting influx of migrants.78 
Each  increase  in  migrants  seeking  international  protection  entering  the  EU  caused 
challenges such as a strain on resources and overcrowded reception centres. Member States 
responded to these challenges in a variety of ways:  

• 

In  response  to  the  2015  and  2016  migration  crisis,  Sweden  introduced  a 
temporary law in  June 2016 to  enhance its asylum  processing capacity  and 
implement stricter rules for family reunification. Sweden also allocated more 
resources to asylum processing.  

•  Lithuania implemented a strategy to expand and improve reception facilities, 
including the construction of a Foreigners Registration Centre and a dormitory 
specifically for vulnerable persons.  

74 Article 17 of the AMIF Regulation.  
75 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI and UK. 
76 Four out of the remaining eight respondents assessed the impact as neutral while the other four assessed 
the impact as positive. 
77 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK. The remaining 
Member States did not report on such challenges.  
78 Lithuanian annual implementation reports and final implementation report. 

39 

 
 
•  Austria  launched  a  call  for  projects  for  Ukrainian  displaced  persons  in  key 

areas such as language, education, and labour market integration.  

Another  challenge  was  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which  especially  affected  measures 
under SO2, SO3 and SO4. All 27 Member States reported that the COVID-19 pandemic 
negatively  impacted  the  implementation  of  their  projects  under  AMIF.  Restrictions 
disrupted migration processes and limited in-person gatherings.  Travel  restrictions, less 
regular air and rail connections, and sanitary requirements for travel complicated return 
measures79 and the transfer of applicants and/or beneficiaries of international protection 
from one Member State to another.  

Thirteen Member States80 reported on coping mechanisms in response to challenges posed 
by the pandemic, these included: 

•  Moving in-person activities such as consultations and training sessions to a virtual 
environment. For example, in a number of Member States consultations with TCNs 
were conducted by telephone and various services were provided remotely. These 
adaptive  measures  ensured  the  continuity  of  essential  support  and  integration 
efforts despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic; 

•  Adopting  digital  tools  and  online  services  to  facilitate  remote  access  to 
consultations,  and  support  services  for  TCNs.  This  included  enhanced  digital 
infrastructure and the development of online platforms for language training and 
cultural orientation; 

•  Using flexible funding approaches, such as a combination of AMIF and national 
funds  to  finance  specific  projects  aimed  at  supporting  TCNs,  particularly  in 
response to the needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic; and 

•  Allocating  additional  resources  and  making  policy  adjustments  to  streamline 
asylum  processes  and  improve  system  efficiency,  while  also  making  necessary 
adjustments to migration policies to cope with the increased burden. 

How did the Fund contribute to supporting the Member States in duly substantiated emergency 
situations requiring urgent action? 

As mentioned above, Member States encountered several challenges during the 2014-2020 
programming  period.  EMAS  was  critical  in  assisting  the  most  affected  Member  States, 
especially  those  most  impacted  by  the  migration  crisis  of  2015  and  2016.  The  AMIF 
Regulation indicated an initial EUR 385 million for EMAS, Union Actions and EMN.81 In 
response to the emergency situations that occurred, the Annual Work Programmes were 
amended several times to allocate further resources to EMAS.  

79 AIRs for IE, MT, PT and RO. 
80 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IE, LT, PL, RO, SE, SK 
81 Article 14(6)(b). 

40 

 
 
 
Table 2: Development in funding allocations for emergency actions 

Annual  Work 
Programme 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
Total 

Initial allocation 

Final allocation 

Increase in % 

€25 million 
€25 million83 
€133 million85 
€175 million87 
€126 million 
€25 million90 
€740 million 
€1.25 billion 

€25 million82 
€131.5 million84 
€415 million86 
€402.5 million88 
€126 million89 
€617 million 
€740 million91 
€2.5 billion 

0% 
426% 
145% 
130% 
0% 
2.368% 
0% 
100% 

Source: Based on available Annual Work Programmes. 

In total, 106 EMAS projects were supported for about EUR 2.5 billion. The largest share 
of this went to Greece (almost EUR 1.9 billion), Italy (about EUR 191 million) and Spain 
(almost  EUR  90  million).  The  other  Member  States  where  EMAS  projects  were 
implemented  were  Germany,  Finland,  France,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Slovenia.  

An analysis of the projects supported shows funding was allocated to seven main areas of 
support.  The  majority  of  projects  fell  under  “reception  conditions”  (54%),  followed  by 
“integration  measures”  (23%).92  The  large  amount  of  resources  dedicated  to  reception 
conditions falls was due to the urgent need to expand reception infrastructure during the 
migration crisis of 2015 and 2016.  Other types of projects included the development of a 
hotspot/relocation  scheme  in  Greece,  early  recovery  interventions  in  Italy,  providing 
healthcare  and  catering  services  in  accommodation  facilities  in  Greece,  and  promoting 
voluntary returns and providing reintegration assistance in Bulgaria. 

Table 3: Allocation of EMAS financing per topic 

Topic area 
Asylum procedures 
Integration measures 
Legal pathways 

% of EMAS funding received  
6.49% 
22.89% 
2.02% 

82 C(2014) 5652 final. 
83 C(2015) 653. 
84 C(2015) 8480 final. 
85 C(2015) 9534 final. 
86 C(2016) 1568 final. 
87 C(2017) 3045 final. 
88 C(2018) 8903 final. 
89 C(2018) 8902 final. 
90 C(2018) 8899 final. 
91 C(2020) 8958 final. 
92 The analysis of EMAS financing per topic was completed for the EMAS case study which was done in 
conjunction with the EMAS case study for the mid-term evaluation of the AMIF for the programming period 
2021-2027. Therefore, the data used in the case study covered 1 January 2014 through 30 June 2024.  

41 

 
 
 
 
Other/ residual  
Reception conditions 
Relocation and support 
to another MS 
Return 
reintegration 
Grand Total 

and 

2.11% 
53.84% 
6.72% 

1.00% 

100% 

Source: Based on direct and indirect management outside COMPASS 14-20 

The ability of EMAS projects to adapt to changing needs varied. Smaller projects had an 
easier time adjusting, while larger projects had more difficulty and faced delays adjusting 
due to bureaucratic procedures, complex financial reporting, and political considerations. 
Some  beneficiaries  reported  that  at  times,  needing  to  report  to  both  the  European 
Commission and national authorities created administrative burden and the documentation 
and paperwork required for requesting adjustments made it difficult to adapt in real time 
to new developments.  

Despite these challenges, the majority of beneficiaries responding to the targeted survey 
reported  the  EMAS  projects  they  implemented  achieved  the  intended  results  to  a  high 
extent.93 Beneficiaries also reported that without EMAS support, projects would have been 
significantly constrained in both scope and quality.94 

4.1.2  Efficiency  

To evaluate the efficiency of the Fund, the analysis focused on: the extent to which the 
results of the Fund were achieved as a reasonable cost and the extent to which the AMIF 
was  cost-effective  in  comparison  to  similar  funds  from  the  perspective  of  the 
administrative  requirements.  Evaluating  the  efficiency  of  the  Fund  was  a  challenge  as 
Member States were not required to report on the administrative costs of the Fund. The 
analysis relied on the data available and qualitative evidence gathered during consultations 
with stakeholders.   

As described in the analysis of effectiveness, a number of indicators (12 in total) achieved 
overperformance, particularly indicators under SO2 and SO4. This suggests these activities 
were cost-effective as Member States achieved more than the target with the same amount 
of financial resources.  

The AMIF supported a range of cost-effective interventions, in line with evidence-based 
practices identified in EU benchmarking studies.95 For example, integration measures such 

93 Of the replies to the targeted survey for beneficiaries, 74% (17 out of 23) of the beneficiaries stated that 
their  implemented  projects  had  achieved  the  intended  results  to  a  high  extent,  13%  (three  respondents) 
indicated that the results were only achieved to a low extent, and the other 13% (three respondents) preferred 
not to answer.  
94 Targeted survey or beneficiaries; one interview with EMAS beneficiary.  
95 Bertelsmann Stiftung (2008), Benchmarking Integration in the EU: Analysing the debate on integration 
indicators and moving it forward;  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
as  social  orientation,  language  learning,  employment  services  and  vocational  training 
reduce dependency on social services. Importantly, nine Member States (AT, CZ, EE, FI, 
FR,  IT,  MT,  PL,  SE)  include  cost-effectiveness  as  a  selection  criterion  in  calls  for 
proposals.  Seven  other  Member  States  (BG,  DE,  HU,  LT,  LU,  SI,  SK)  reported 
arrangements to ensure cost-effectiveness outside of the selection process.96  

Concerning  human  resources,  according  to  DG  HOME’s  Annual  Activity  Reports, 
Member States increased the efficiency of their human resources with the ratio of costs of 
control and payments requested by Member States97 decreasing from 5% in 2017 to 2.87% 
in 2020.98  

Table 4: Efficiency of use of human resources for EU Member States 2014-2020 (AMIF 
and ISF) 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Ratio  of 
costs/ 
payments  

No  data 
available 

No  data 
available 

No  data 
available 

Source: DG HOME’s Annual Activity Reports  

5% 

2.88% 

2.85% 

2.87% 

Compliance costs incurred by national authorities, in terms of the human resources spent 
in preparing calls for proposals/direct awards ranged from 6 to 30 man-days per call/award. 
While the compliance costs for reviewing applications received ranged from 9 to 30 man-
days per call.99 On the side of beneficiaries, over 50% of respondents to the targeted survey 
perceived regulatory requirements and procurement procedures as a challenge.  

Enforcement  costs  entail  the  time  spent  for  monitoring,  reporting  and  auditing  of  the 
projects.  Monitoring  requires  about  one  to  eight  man-days  per  year/Member  State. 
Reporting requires about 20-100 man-days per year/Member State. While the auditing of 

NIEM  (2019),  The  European  benchmark  for  refugee  integration:  a  comparative  analysis  of  the  national 
integration evaluation mechanism in 14 EU countries;  
World  Bank  &  International  Organization  for  Migration  (IOM)  (2017).  Migrating  to  Opportunity: 
Overcoming Barriers to Labor Mobility in Southeast Asia. World Bank. OECD (2021), Making Integration 
Work: Language Training for Adult Migrants. OECD Publishing.  
Han Entzinger and Renske Biezeveld (2008), Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration.  
RAND Corporation (2018). The Economic and Fiscal Effects of Granting Refugees Formal Labor Market 
Access. RAND Corporation. 
European  Commission  (2021),  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  a  New  Pact  on  Migration  and 
Asylum (COM/2021/120 final).  
ReliefWeb. (n.d.), Comparative reintegration outcomes between forced and voluntary return and through. 
ReliefWeb. Retrieved November 5, 2024.  
96 National ex-post evaluations. Seven EU Member States (BE, CY, ES, IE, NL, PT, UK) did not specify any 
arrangements. Four national ex-post evaluations have not been delivered at the time of drafting of this report 
(EL, HR, LV, RO).  
97  National  authorities  were  asked  to  calculate  their  costs  of  controls  based  on  the  following  types  of 
expenditure: i) Supervision to ensure compliance with the designation criteria (Body referred to in Article 
26 of the Horizontal Regulation);  ii) Audit Authority staff costs; iii) Audit Authority other costs (such as 
overheads,  training  courses,  travel);  iv)  Responsible  Authority  (and  Delegated  Authority)  staff  costs;  v) 
Responsible Authority (and Delegated Authority) other costs (such as overheads, training courses, travel). 
98 This data is an aggregate of data from both AMIF and ISF, data was not disaggregated by Member State 
or fund.  
99 Targeted survey; verified through interviews with national authorities.  

43 

 
 
 
 
projects  requires  around  two  man-days  per  control/Member  State.    In  response  to  the 
targeted survey, 55% of beneficiaries reported monitoring requirements posed a significant 
challenge.  

The  evidence  gathered  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  AMIF  in  comparison  to  similar 
funds  provided  mixed  results  and  no  definitive  answer.  The  majority  of  Responsible 
Authorities responding to the targeted survey stated the administrative burden of the AMIF 
was perceived as proportionate to its benefits and comparable to other EU funds, however 
it was not proportionate in comparison with similar national funds. Thirteen Member States 
(AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, MT, SE, SI, UK) reported administrative burden 
was high.100  With DE, FR, IE and UK stating administrative burden is most difficult and 
unproportionate  for  small  project  holders.  Administrative  burden  was  perceived  to  be 
caused by stricter regulatory monitoring and reporting requirements, control/audit systems 
to prevent   and irregularities, set-up of activities including procurement procedures,  IT 
issues, and project promoters’ limited capacities to follow up.  In contrast, five Member 
States (EE, HU, LT, NL, SK) reported the administrative burden to be proportionate, with 
Estonia reporting it was more proportionate than in the previous programming period.  

Regarding  management  and  control  systems,  Member  States  implemented  several 
measures to monitor and identify fraud and irregularities within their national programmes, 
primarily: 

•  A clear allocation of roles and responsibilities. All Member States have designated 
authorities  as  Responsible  Authorities  and  Audit  Authorities.  The  Responsible 
Authority  coordinate  programme  implementation,  monitors  compliance,  and 
evaluates  progress.  The  Audit  Authority  was  responsible  for  auditing  the 
programme and ensuring compliance with the financial regulations.  

•  The  Monitoring  Committees  could  be  used  to  prevent  fraud  and  irregularities 
through its role to check funding, ensure coherence and complementarity between 
funds, and avoid double funding.  

•  Monitoring through project  reports;  beneficiaries report on project  performance, 

including by assessing progress to target indicators and goals.  

•  Operational and financial on-site checks, visits and inspections were conducted in 
accordance with the Horizontal Regulation. These checks serve to monitor project 
execution and compliance.  

A  lack  of  systematic  reporting  on  efforts  to  prevent  and  identify  fraud  and  other 
irregularities at the Member State level led to insufficient information available to assess 
the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  measures  to  prevent,  detect  and  remedy  fraud  and 
irregularities.  

4.1.3 Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

Administrative  burden  refers  to  a  disproportionate  number  of  obligations  and  activities 
required to comply with regulations or funding rules, resulting in a significant amount of 
time, effort, and resources needed to fulfil compliance requirements. The AMIF introduced 

100 National ex-post evaluations and annual implementation reports. 

44 

 
 
 
 
several changes in comparison with the SOLID funds (2007-2013) aimed at simplifying 
the Fund’s management and reducing administrative burden.  

First,  AMIF  streamlined  the  fund  structure  with  one  fund  dedicated  to  migration 
management  and  also  established  a  single  set  of  rules  for  the  Home  Affairs  Funds  to 
improve  coordination  and  harmonize  procedures.  Secondly,  AMIF  introduced  multi-
annual programming and a single seven-year funding cycle which increased flexibility and 
adaptability by allowing funds to roll over across years, enabled projects with longer life 
cycles, and removed the need to draft annual programmes. In addition, AMIF introduced 
simplified cost options (SCOs) and national rules on expenditure eligibility. SCOs reduce 
administrative burden by simplifying the control and audit process. While the introduction 
of national rules on expenditure eligibility aimed to increase the flexibility of the national 
programmes to adapt to national contexts.  

Table  5:  Summary  of  differences  affecting  administrative  burden  between  SOLID  and 
AMIF 

Fund(s) structure 

Programming cycle 

Implementation measures 

funds 

addressing 

SOLID Funds 2007-2013 
Three 
migration management 
Two strategic cycles (2007-2010 
and 2011-2013) 
/ 

AMIF 2014-2020 
One fund 

A  singular  seven-year  cycle  and 
multi-annual programming 
National  rules  on  expenditure 
eligibility and SCOs 

Nine  national  ex-post  evaluations  provided  input  on  stakeholder’s  perceptions  of  the 
simplification measures introduced by AMIF101. In Ireland, stakeholders held a negative 
opinion of simplification measures with 88% of organisations disagreeing that the Fund’s 
procedures  reduced  administrative  burden.  Stakeholders  from  France  and  Spain  also 
widely reported high administrative burden under AMIF. Stakeholder opinions were more 
positive in other Member States. In Malta, over 45% agreed simplification measures led to 
improvements.  In  Italy,  53%  of  stakeholders  agreed  the  structural  changes  led  to 
simplification,  however  only  10%  agreed  that  these  processes  led  to  simplification  of 
project documentation processes.   

Overall, the simplification measures introduced were welcomed by stakeholders, however 
their  effectiveness  yielded  mixed  results  and  administrative  burden  remained  high, 
particularly for smaller beneficiaries.  

Multi-annual programming 

The shift to multi-annual programming and a singular seven-year cycle allowed for long-
term planning and removed the need for annual renewal applications and paperwork. Of 
the  beneficiaries  who  responded  to  the  targeted  survey,  53%  (14  respondents)  agreed 
multi-annual programming reduced administrative burden to a high or very high extent. 
Ten Member States addressed the shift to multi-annual programming in their national ex-
post evaluations and stated stakeholders generally viewed it as a positive development102. 
Lithuania,  Italy,  Malta  and  Ireland  highlighted  in  their  ex-post  evaluation  reports  that 
multi-annual programming led to more effective planning and the ability to adapt projects 

101 EE, ES, FR, IE, IT, MT, NL, SI, UK 
102 CZ, CY, ES, LT, IE, FI, IT, MT, SI, SK 

45 

 
 
 
 
to evolving needs, as well as simplified administrative procedures.  Italy and Malta also 
highlighted its impact on the facilitation of long-term interventions by allowing for longer 
term planning and thereby improving beneficiaries experience. In Slovenia, Slovakia and 
the Czech Republic, stakeholders acknowledged the benefits of multi-annual planning but 
felt it did not do enough to increase flexible implementation and adaptation to emerging 
needs.  

National rules on expenditure eligibility and simplified cost options (SCOs) 

The introduction of national eligibility rules created a more flexible framework that was 
adaptable to national specificities. The impact of national eligibility rules is inconclusive 
due  to  limited  evidence  available  and  mixed  results  reported  in  the  national  ex-post 
evaluations. Only four Member States discussed national eligibility rules in their national 
ex-post evaluation  reports  (ES, MT, PL, SI).103 Stakeholders in  Poland viewed national 
rules positively thanks to increased flexibility. However, in Slovenia, additional reporting 
requirements limited the flexibility.  In Spain and Malta, stakeholders noted the positive 
effects, however there remained concerned over eligibility gaps, for example the exclusion 
of stateless people.  

Under  the  framework  of  national  expenditure  eligibility  rules,  Member  States  had  the 
option to adopt SCOs. Of the beneficiaries who responded to the targeted survey, 65% (17 
respondents  out  of  26)  agreed  SCOs  contributed  to  simplification  and/or  reduction  of 
administrative burden to a “high” or “very high” extent. Examples of the use of SCOs were 
gathered through the targeted consultation activities, such as interviews with Responsible 
Authorities. Germany made use SCOs with standardised hourly rates and flat personnel 
costs, thereby streamlining administrative procedures and allowing more time to focus on 
project  implementation104.  Greece  developed  unit  costs  to  ease  payment  processing  and 
save time by removing the need to verify individual payments. The use of standard costs 
and  flat-rate  costs  aided  Lithuania  in  creating  more  accurate  budgets  and  reduced  the 
administrative burden for beneficiaries.  Italy made use of SCOs in a limited number of 
projects.  Where  used  in  Italy,  SCOs  administrative  burden  decreased,  and  stakeholders 
confirmed their effectiveness.  

Despite interest in SCOs and their benefits, the application of SCOs was challenging for 
some Member States and resulted in its limited application.  

4.1.4 Coherence and Complementarity 

The examination of coherence served to assess the extent to which the objectives set in the 
AMIF were consistent, mutually reinforcing and effectively integrated within the broader 
context  of  EU  funding.  It  evaluated  both  the  internal  coherence  –  the  consistency  and 
reinforcement  of  the  AMIF  within  the  Fund  itself  –  and  the  external  coherence  –  the 
relationship with other EU programmes.  

Internal coherence 

103 At the time the preparatory work of the evaluation was conducted 23 national ex-post evaluation reports 
had been received. EL, HR, LV and RO were missing. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
The  AMIF  is  made  up  of  several  funding  components  which  support  complementary 
objectives and deliver synergies. 

The AMIF has national programmes, which are delivered through shared management and 
support  long-term  structural  needs  at  the  national  level.  Support  for  these  programmes 
account for the majority of funding (57% of the budget spent or committed). Union Actions 
(UAs)  responded  to  emerging  needs  and  financed  transnational  actions  or  actions  of 
particular interest to the Union. EMAS addressed urgent and specific needs in emergency 
situations.  EMN  provided  information  and  knowledge  on  emerging  issues  relating  to 
asylum  and  migration  to  support  a  well-informed  approach  to  migration  and  asylum 
policies.  

The  table  below  outlines  the  complementary  purposes  of  the  AMIF  components  and 
management modes according to the Regulation. It  confirms  how they work to  address 
different  needs  (long-term  or  shorter-term/  more  urgent  or  emerging  needs),  and  at 
different levels (national or transnational level).  

Table 6: Management modes and funding components in the AMIF according to legal base 
illustrating the complementary purpose of the different components 

Purpose 

Shared 
management 

Direct 
management 

Indirect management 

Primarily  serve  internal  Union  policy  in 
accordance with the specific objectives of 
the AMIF (Art. 19) in the national context 

National 
programmes 

/ 

/ 

Transnational  projects  or  projects  of 
particular interest to the Union (Art. 20) 

Address urgent and specific needs in the 
event  of  emergency  situations  following 
Art 2.k (Art. 21) 

European Migration Network (Art. 22) 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Union actions 

Emergency assistance 

/ 

EMN 

Formal mechanisms are in place to ensure EMAS and Union Actions (delivered through 
Annual  Work  Programmes  developed  by  the  European  Commission)  complement  the 
support  delivered  through  the  national  programmes  (developed  by  Member  States  in 
consultation with the European Commission at the start of the programming period) at the 
EU and national level. 

At the EU level the internal procedures ensured that financial and policy units within DG 
HOME, as well as other Commission services where appropriate, feed into the decision-
making processes (i.e. drawing up the  Annual Work Programmes) meaning that possible 
complementarities  across 
through  different  components  and 
management  modes  should  be  ensured  from  the  outset.  For  the  delivery  of  EMAS 
specifically, before funding is agreed, there is an informal and formal process of review to 
avoid duplication or overlaps.105 

funding  provided 

105 Applicants need to demonstrate that the funding is not available through other means (for example support 
from  DG  ECHO),  and  the  review  process  and  assessment  of  applications  involves  relevant  units  in  DG 
HOME. 

47 

 
 
 
 
The interim evaluation of the AMIF106 concluded the funding components of AMIF were 
coherent  to  varying  degrees.  More  specifically,  national  programmes  and  EMAS  were 
viewed  as  highly  coherent.  Union  Actions  and  national  programmes  were  moderately 
coherent. While EMN had limited coherence with the other AMIF funding components.  

The result of the targeted survey confirms the notion of a broad sense of coherence between 
the AMIF funding components. In the targeted survey, 65% of the National Authorities 
that responded agreed or somewhat agreed that the components of AMIF were coherent 
and effectively worked together, the other 35% of respondents did not know or preferred 
not to answer the question.  

Figure 15: Evaluation of complementarity according to National Authorities (N=20) 

AMIF 2014-2020 and other EU funds (ESF, ERDF, EU's
external policy funds) were complementary,
coordinated, and effectively work together

The National Programmes, Emergency Assistance, and
Union Actions were complementary, coordinated, and
effectively worked together, creating synergies that
increased their impact during the period 2014-2020

6

5

5

4

3

10

7

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

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree I don't know/ prefer not to answer

Only six Member States (FI, FR, MT, SE, SI, UK) reported on internal coherence in their 
national  ex-post  evaluations  and  specified  ensuring 
through 
coordination  committees/groups,  engaging  stakeholders  through  dialogue/consultations, 
ensuring transparency, information sharing and coordination councils. These mechanisms 
are very similar to  the mechanisms used to  ensure external  coherence described further 
below. There is no recorded instance of double funding, therefore providing evidence that 
the internal coordination mechanisms in place are functioning.  

internal  coherence 

External coherence 

AMIF  interlinks  with  a  number  of  other  EU  funds,  and  mechanisms  exist  to  ensure 
duplications  are  avoided  and  that  synergies  are  created.  The  following  funds  have 
complementary objectives to the AMIF’s objectives: 

•  European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD): The EAFRD aimed 
to support rural development and improve the quality of life in rural areas across 
the  EU.  Its  primary  focus  was  to  enhance  the  competitiveness  of  agriculture, 
ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources, and promoting balanced 
territorial development. Complementarities and synergies may have been achieved 
due  to  addressing  different  aspects  of  rural  and  social  development,  as  EAFRD 
infrastructure  and  create  job 
measures  were  designed  to  improve  rural 

106  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration  Fund  2014-2017 Accompanying  the  document  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund.  

48 

 
 
 
opportunities, which could have indirectly supported the integration of migrants in 
rural areas. 

•  European Social Fund (ESF): The ESF was the EU’s main instrument for investing 
in people, i.e. measures regarding employment, social, education and skills policies 
as  well  as  structural  reforms  in  these  areas.  Both  the  ESF  and  AMIF  aimed  to 
promote social inclusion and integration, supporting vulnerable groups including 
migrants and refugees, with the ESF focusing broadly on employment, education, 
and  social  inclusion  for  all  EU  citizens,  while  the  AMIF  specifically  targeted 
asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants,  focusing on migration management and 
integration. 

•  Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD): The primary goal of FEAD 
was to support EU countries' actions to provide food and basic material assistance 
to the most deprived individuals, including the homeless and children in poverty. 
Both  FEAD  and  AMIF  aimed  to  support  vulnerable  groups  and  promote  social 
inclusion  as part of the EU's strategy to  address  disparities, but  FEAD provided 
immediate material assistance while AMIF focused on the longer-term integration 
measures for TCNs and asylum seekers. 

•  Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI): The main policy objective of the DCI 
was to eradicate poverty and promote sustainable development, democracy, human 
rights,  and the rule of law in  developing countries. While both  the DCI  and the 
AMIF aimed to address issues related to migration, DCI operated primarily in the 
external dimension with a broader development agenda, whereas AMIF was more 
focused  on  internal  EU  migration,  asylum  policies  and  a  limited  external 
dimension.  

•  EU Trust Funds107 (EUTF): The main policy objective of the EUTF was to provide 
a flexible and swift response to emergency situations and to address the root causes 
of instability, forced displacement, and irregular migration by promoting resilience, 
economic  and  equal  opportunities,  security,  and  development.  Compared  to  the 
AMIF, both funds aimed to address migration and asylum challenges, but EUTF 
focused more on external actions and addressing root causes in third countries.  

• 

Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa (ISF-BV): The ISF-BV aimed to ensure 
a  high  level  of  security  within  the  EU  while  facilitating  legitimate  travel  and 
safeguarding  the  external  borders.  Compared  to  AMIF,  ISF-BV  focused 
specifically on border management and visa policy.  

•  Cohesion  Fund  (CF):  The  primary  goal  of  the  CF  was  to  reduce  economic  and 
social  disparities  and  promote  sustainable  development  in  the  least  developed 

107 In 2014-2020, there were two relevant Trust Funds dealing with migration and displacement matters: the 
EU Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of migration and displaced persons in 
Africa (EU Trust Fund for Africa, Valletta Summit on migration, 11-12/11/2015 - Consilium,) as well as the 
EU  Regional  Trust  Fund  in Response  to  the  Syrian  Crisis  (also  known  as  the  Madad  Fund,  Constitutive 
Agreement  |  EU  Regional  Trust  Fund  in  Response  to  the  Syrian  crisis).  Another  worth-mentioning 
coordination  mechanism  is  the  EU  Facility  for  Refugees  in  Turkey  (COMMISSION  DECISION  of 
24.11.2015 on the coordination of the actions of the Union and of the Member States through a coordination 
mechanism – the Refugee Facility for Turkey). 

49 

 
 
regions  of  the  EU.  Compared  to  the  AMIF,  the  CF  focused  on  infrastructure 
projects, environmental sustainability, and transport networks.  

•  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF):  The ERDF aimed to strengthen 
economic and social cohesion in the EU by correcting imbalances between regions, 
focusing  on  innovation,  digital  agenda,  support  for  SMEs,  and  low-carbon 
economy.  The  AMIF  complemented  the  ERDF  by  addressing  the  integration  of 
migrants and refugees, which could have contributed to regional development and 
social cohesion targeted by ERDF. 

Member States were required to address coherence and complementarity in their national 
programmes. During the programming and early implementation stages, 26 Member 
States conducted an explicit assessment of coherence and complementarity through 
either an impact assessment or early coordination.108  

The ESF was viewed as particularly relevant for coherence and complementarity. Within 
the national programmes, 25 Member States assessed the coherence and complementarity 
of their national programme with the ESF. This reflects the importance of the connections 
between  AMIF  and  the  ESF  in  the  AMIF  regulation  which  states  in  Article  9(4)  that 
Member States shall include the authorities designated for the purpose of the management 
of the interventions of the ESF in the partnership as set out in Horizontal Regulation109. 
While viewed as generally coherent by stakeholders, the delimitation of the scope between 
the ESF and AMIF was not specifically defined. Often Member States were left to make 
implementing decisions on the differences in scope.110 In addition, although it was possible 
to  coordinate  integration  interventions  so  that  early  integration  supported  by  the  AMIF 
would be followed by medium integration initiatives supported by the ESF, no cases of 
continuity of integration initiatives with EU funds was found. Rather Member States relied 
on  national  funding  to  continue  integration  of  TCNs  in  employment.111    These  findings 
suggest that while the AMIF and the ESF were generally coherent, this could be further 
reinforced.  

The ISF and ERDF were also seen as highly relevant funds with eleven and eight Member 
States assessing their coherence and complementarity within their national programmes, 
respectively. Six Member States referred to the European Structural and Investment Funds 
as a whole. The DCI and EDF were mentioned by one Member State (MT).  

As  far  as  coherence  with  external  spending  programmes  is  concerned,  enhanced 
cooperation and coordination on programming both between the Commission services and 
with Member States are needed. Several challenges in the current funding architecture have 
been  identified,  including  notably:  the  insufficient  alignment  of  the  Union’s  external 
migration  and  security  funding  with  the  Union  policies  in  these  areas;  the  persistent 
challenge  to  use  all  existing  (policy,  funding,  investment  and  other)  tools,  both  at  the 
disposal of the EU and its Member States, in a Team Europe spirit, to use strategically and 

108  According  to  the  findings  of  the  2018  interim  evaluation  already  collected  and  the  national  ex-post 
evaluations of the Member States. 
109 Article 12 
110  Special  report  26/2024  (OJ C,  C/2024/7395, 5.12.2024), ELI:  http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7395/oj 
Integration  of  third-country  nationals  in  the  EU  –  Relevant  support  from  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration Fund but its impact could not yet be demonstrated. 
111 Ibid. 

50 

 
 
 
timely    leverage  in  relation  to  partner  countries  in  order  to  improve  cooperation  on 
migration and security; the limitations for funding migration- and security-related actions 
in third countries, given that most of spending in the external dimension must comply with 
the criteria for development assistance112 eligibility. 

Mechanisms for coordination 

All  Member  States  established  coordination  mechanisms  to  ensure  coherence  and 
complementarity between AMIF and other EU funds. The most common coordination 
mechanisms  used  by  Member  States  were  coordination  meetings  with  the  Responsible 
Authorities  of  other  funds,  Interministerial  monitoring  Committees,  coordination  and 
cooperation  groups,  shared  responsibilities  on  EU  funds,  and  cross-participation  in  the 
Monitoring Committees of other funds. The distribution of these coordination mechanisms 
across the Member States is displayed in the figure below.  

Figure 16: Member States coordination mechanisms 

Coordination 
meetings 
other funds 

with 

Interministerial 
Monitoring 
Committees 

Shared 
responsibilities 
on EU funds 

Implementation 
of 
groups 

coordination 

Cross-
participation 
Monitoring 
Committees 

in 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Total 

18 

13 

8 

9 

5 

112 Official development assistance eligibility criteria are set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development. 

51 

 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the targeted survey for National Authorities, 55% agreed that AMIF is complementary, 
coordinated,  and  effectively  worked  with  other  Funds.113  The  results  of  the  public 
consultation confirm this perception, with 11 out of 20 respondents agree the AMIF was 
complementary, coordinated, and worked effectively with other EU funds.  

Furthermore,  all  Member  States  established  mechanisms  to  prevent  potential 
overlaps.114 Prevention of overlaps was a task of the Monitoring Committee in 15 Member 
States.115  Member  States  also  relied  upon  consultations  and  discussions  with  other 
Responsible Authorities to prevent overlaps.116 In nine Member States, beneficiaries need 
to provide evidence that they were not benefitting from other EU funds that may overlap 
with  AMIF  when  applying  for  funding.117  Eight  Member  States  ensured  the  absence  of 
overlaps  through  financial  audits.118  To  a  lesser  degree,  Member  States  also  provided 
clarity on what direct and indirect costs are eligible under different EU funds, developed 
guidance  documents  outlining  AMIF  interventions  along  with  Regional  Development 
Plans  and  developed  IT  tools  to  automate  the  verification  process  and  prevent  double 
funding.  For  example,  in  Spain  calls  for  proposals  indicated  when  projects  could  be 
supported by either AMIF, the ESF or national funding. Beneficiaries could then apply for 
financing by one of the three options. It was also obligatory for beneficiaries to stamp the 
original documents with the identification of the project financed, the year of the call, the 
amount of the project and a reference to either AMIF or the ESF depending on its source 
of funding.119  

Based on the triangulation of available data, 23 Member States120 indicated AMIF to be 
fully coherent  and not  overlapping  with  the interventions of the other EU funds.  Three 
Member States (CZ, HR, HU) reported on a coherence broadly and one MS (PT) did not 
report  on  coherence  in  this  regard.  Nevertheless,  no  evidence  of  double  funding  was 
found.  

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

4.2.1 EU added value 

The EU added value of AMIF is examined under the scope of three main aspects: whether 
the  implementation  of  AMIF  resulted  in  a  higher  volume  of  services  offered  (volume 
effect),  whether  additional  targets  were  addressed  or  new  types  of  intervention  were 
offered (scope effect) and whether the capacities of Member States and public authorities 

113 Six out of 20 (30%) respondents of the targeted survey with National Authorities strongly agreed, five 
(25%) somewhat agreed and another five (25%) somewhat disagreed. The remaining four (20%) respondents 
preferred not to answer. 
114 Evidence came from national  ex-post evaluations, AIRs, FIRs, and the 2018 interim  evaluation of the 
AMIF.  
115 Indicated by AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, HR, IE, LU, LV, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
116 Indicated by CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK 
117 Indicated by AT, BE, DE, EE, IE, LT, LV, NL, UK 
118 Indicated by BE, BG, CY, IE, LT, LV, PT, UK 
119  Special  report  26/2024  (OJ C,  C/2024/7395, 5.12.2024), ELI:  http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7395/oj 
Integration  of  third-country  nationals  in  the  EU  –  Relevant  support  from  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration Fund but its impact could not yet be demonstrated. 
120 Indicated by (AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, 
SK, UK). 

52 

 
 
 
 
to  manage  the  provision  of  public  support  increased  (role  and  process  effect). 
Several  interviews121,  national  evaluations122  and  the  majority  (31  out  of  44)  of  the 
responses  to  the  public  consultation123  suggest  that  there  is  strong  evidence  of  volume 
effects,  as  AMIF  allowed  Member  States  to  offer  more  services  and  address  a  broader 
range of beneficiaries. According to the 2014-2020 mid-term evaluation, AMIF allowed 
Member States to implement actions that would not have been possible without its support, 
such  as  addressing  specific  vulnerabilities  of  TCNs,  providing  legal,  medical  and 
psychological  assistance  and  more.124  One  of  the  main  tools that  produced  this  volume 
effect was the EMAS.125 In Austria, Sweden and Germany, EMAS was used to rapidly 
deploy teams, provide legal aid, establish temporary shelters and address high volumes of 
migrants.  

AMIF has also demonstrated to have scope effects  by enabling the introduction of new 
interventions  to  address  emerging  needs  in  18  Member  States.126  The  new  initiatives 
included, for example, welcoming programmes, return counselling, psychological support, 
cultural and sports events. Furthermore, the needs of various vulnerable groups were better 
addressed  thanks  to  AMIF.127  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  survey  for  national 
authorities agreed that AMIF contributed to extending benefits to additional target groups 
beyond  those  addressed  at  the  national  level  from  a  moderate  to  a  very  high  extent.128 
Regarding  role  effects,  evidence  suggests  that  AMIF  contributed  strongly  to  fostering 
innovation  in  individual Member States, but  only  in  a limited manner to  the sharing of 
ideas and best practices across Member States, with the exception of the EMN.129 EMN 
promoted the transfer of ideas and  best  practices  through the provision  of  high-quality, 
objective,  and  evidence-based  information  that  supported  policymakers  across  Member 
States.130 Examples of the innovation supported by the Fund included new approached to 
mental  health  provision  to  vulnerable  people  in  Luxembourg  and  in  Sweden  a  project 
documented  individuals  experiences  with  asylum  and  return  to  contribute  to  enhancing 
conditions for dignified and sustainable returns.131 Regarding process effects, AMIF had a 
considerable effect on migration, asylum, reception and return policies at the national level. 

121 Targeted interviews with 18 Responsible Authorities. 
122 Based on 17 National Ex-post Evaluations (AT, BG, CY, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, PL, 
SI, SK, UK) 
123  Four  out  of  44  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  considered  AMIF’s  contribution  to  increasing 
resources for asylum, migration, and integration to be effective to a low extent, and two considered it not to 
contribute at all. The remaining seven respondents preferred not to answer. 
124 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901. 12 Ex-post National Evaluations (AT, BG, 
EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, SI, SK).  
125 Ibid. 
126 Based on 18 national ex-post evaluations (AT, BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LV, LU, MT, 
PL, SE, SK, and the UK). 
127 Based on 18 national ex-post evaluations (AT, BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, LV, LU, MT, 
PL, SE, SK, and the UK). 
128 Targeted survey with National Authorities: 13 out of 20 respondents to  Q16.3 “To what extent do you 
consider AMIF 2014 - 2020 contributed to: Extending of benefits generated by AMIF to additional target 
groups beyond those addressed at the national level”. 
129 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report,  available  at:  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901.  Targeted  interviews  with  11  Responsible 
Authorities. 
130 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report,  available  at:  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901.  Targeted  interviews  with  11  Responsible 
Authorities. 
131 National ex-post evaluations of Luxembourg and Sweden. 

53 

 
 
In fact, AMIF contributed to the improvement of the organisation and governance of these 
policies, especially through the establishment of cooperation of stakeholders.132   

Most Member States reported that actions would have been carried out to some extent even 

in the absence of the Fund’s support, however, the interventions would have been minimal, 

of a smaller scale, and/or of a lower quality, therefore highlighting AMIF’s value.133 Eight 
Member States reported certain actions, particularly in the fields of reception conditions, 
asylum, and integration,  would not  have  been  possible without funding from  AMIF, as 
there was no national source of funding available.134  

Interrupting AMIF support to Member States would lead to migration and asylum-related 
activities  being  greatly  undermined.  This  was  expressed  in  the  majority  of  ex-post 
evaluations conducted by Member States, as well as in stakeholder consultations.135 The 
effects would be felt specifically by beneficiaries of the programmes, especially those that 
are already vulnerable.136 An interruption of AMIF funding would also have an impact on 
the development  of  innovative projects,  which  would  not  have been  developed without 
AMIF contribution.137  

The evidence concerning the benefit brought to transnational cooperation, solidarity and 
burden  sharing  was  mixed.  In  the  targeted  survey  with  national  authorities,  30%  of 
respondents  stated  AMIF  only  contributed  to  ensuring  solidarity  and  burden  sharing 
between a very low to low extent, 40% said it contributed to moderate extent and  20% 
rated it as high to very high.138 Nonetheless, the EMN and the implementation of Union 
Action  projects  are  examples  of  projects  that  fostered  practical  cooperation  amongst 
Member States.139 

4.2.2 Sustainability 

To evaluate sustainability is to measure whether the effects of funded projects are probable 
to endure once the support of the Fund would end. This evaluation study has focused on 
evaluating  the  adequacy  of  arrangements  for  evaluating  the  sustainability  of  project 

132 Targeted interviews with eight Responsible Authorities. Based on 18 national ex-post evaluations (AT, 
BE, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, MT, PL, RO, SE, SK). 
133 Targeted interviews with 10 Responsible Authorities. National ex-post evaluations (ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, 
MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK).  
134 Based on 17 national ex-post evaluations (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
PL, SE, SI, SK). 
135 Based on 20 national ex-post evaluations (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK). Targeted interviews with 14 Responsible Authorities, five beneficiaries and one 
international organisation. Country case studies: DE, LT, PL, RO, EL, IT, FR. 
136 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901. National ex-post evaluations: FR, LU, LV, 
UK. Targeted interview with one Responsible Authority. 
137 Targeted interviews with: one beneficiary, one research centre. Thematic case study: Union Actions. 
138 Targeted survey with National Authorities. Out of the 20 respondents, four rated AMIF’s contribution to 
solidarity and burden sharing as very high or high, eight considered it moderate, five rated it as low, one as 
very low, and two preferred not to answer. 
139 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901. Targeted interviews with seven Responsible 
Authorities. Thematic case study: Union Actions. 

54 

 
 
 
proposals; on evidence of innovative projects being transferred, replicated or upscaled; and 
on the absence of dependency from EU funds. 

In the area of direct management, the establishment of Steering Committees (who ensured 
coordination,  monitoring  and  provided  strategic  guidance)  and  the  addition  of 
sustainability  as one of the  award  criteria of the  projects  in  2017  contributed to  greater 
sustainability,  but  the  results  were  still  mixed.140  Projects  on  capacity  building,  labour 
market  integration  and  long-term  reintegration  solutions  have  long-term  impacts. 
However, there is limited evidence of projects being transferred, replicated or scaled up 
using national resources, which would indicate more continuity of project benefits.  

At the same time, Member States introduced various mechanisms to ensure sustainability 
in their national programmes. Twelve Member States (DE, PL, LT, BG, FL, IT, LU, MT, 
FR,  HU,  NL,  SL)  included  sustainability  as  a  specific  selection  criteria  in  the  Call  for 
Proposal for projects, while others (AT, BG, DE, PL, IE, CY, LU, MT, HU, SL, CZ, SE) 
added sustainability as one of the elements of the monitoring process of their programmes. 
For example, Poland conducted sustainability checks during the implementation phase and 
after project completion. This is still not a universal approach, and some gaps remain in 
how sustainability is ensured.  

At  the  project  level,  other  elements  of  sustainability  can  be  found.  For  example,  four 
Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  HU,  SK)  focused  on  counselling  and  tailored  support  in  the 
context of dignified returns, to ensure long-term impacts, others (IT, PT, LT) integrated 
national funds with EU funds, creating multi-faceted solutions to migration challenges. 

When  analysing  Stakeholder  consultations, 
they  affirm  that  some  elements  of 
sustainability  can  be  found  in  AMIF  projects.  Beneficiaries  and  National  Authorities 
generally  believe  in  the  enduring  impact  of  AMIF  funded  projects.  In  response  to  the 
targeted survey, 80% of beneficiaries (i.e. 235 out of 291) stated they believe the benefits 
produced by AMIF funded projects will remain after the projects’ end. Similarly, 80% of 
the  representatives  of  national  authorities  completing  the  targeted  survey  stated  they 
consider  the  effects  of  the  AMIF  will  continue  after  the  programme  has  ended. 
Beneficiaries,  local  communities  and  local  volunteer  networks  played  a  crucial  role  in 
guaranteeing sustainability. An example of this have been International Organisations that 
have continued the projected activities with their own resources during financial gaps.141 

Finally, the information on nationally funded programmes who have similar objectives as 
AMIF is lacking.142 There is the example of Sweden, where AMIF funded activities have 
been incorporated into regular national operations.143 However, this does not appear to be 
the norm which could indicate that dependency on EU funds is still too high. 

140  Source:  AWP  2017,  Award  criteria:  In  accordance  with  Article  132  of  the  Financial  Regulation  and 
Article  203  of  the  Rules  of  Application,  proposals  will  be  evaluated  on  the  basis  of  relevance;  quality; 
European  added  value;  expected  results,  dissemination,  sustainability  and  long-term  impact;  and  cost-
effectiveness. 
141 This information is derived from interviews with the Responsible Authorities, who provided qualitative 
information  regarding  the  sustainability  of  AMIF-funded  projects.  Due  to  the  limited  information,  no 
systematic or quantitative evidence on sustainability was identified. 
142  Information  available  only  for  Italy:  the national  ex-post evaluation mentions  that  the Italian  national 
budget allocated approximately EUR 3.2 billion for "Immigration, reception and respect of rights" in 2023. 
143 Ramboll (2024), Ex-post evaluation of the National Programme of Asylum, Migration and Integration 
Fund (AMIF) 2014-2020 – Final report. 

55 

 
 
4.3  

Is the intervention still relevant? 

4.3.1 Relevance 

In this evaluation, relevance has been measured as the extent to which AMIF’s objectives 
correspond to actual needs of the Member States, and how AMIF actions adapt when these 
needs evolve.  

In the programming period 2014-2020, the needs of Member States related to migration 
and  asylum  operations  evolved  in  unprecedented  ways.  For  example,  the  number  of 
applications for international protection in EU Member States, while it was already steadily 
increasing in 2013 and 2014144, reached a record (at the time) number of 1 392 155 in 2015. 
This  sharp  and  unprecedented  increase  in  asylum  requests  (which  then  also  caused  an 
increase  of  residence  permit  requests145,  and  the  number  of  relocations),  increased 
significantly the amount of pressure Member States were under.  

Figure 17: Number of asylum applicants (EU27 total and EU27 average per capita) 

1.400

1.200

1.000

s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

800

600

400

200

0

0,350%

0,300%

0,250%

0,200%

0,150%

0,100%

0,050%

0,000%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU27 Total

EU27 Avg. per Capita

Source: Eurostat146. 
The gathered data has shown that in the majority of Member States147, the objectives of 
AMIF national programmes addressed the actual needs of the Member States, and were 
able  to  adapt  to  face  the  evolving  needs.148  This  has  been  confirmed  by  most  of  the 
Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries responding to the targeted surveys149, as well as 

by 

reason, 

permits 

(2024),  First  permits  by  reason, 

144 EASO (2013), Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union. EASO (2014) Annual 
Eurostat 
length  of  validity  and  citizenship,  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_resfirst__custom_13556995/default/table?lang=en 
145 Eurostat (2024), First permits by reason, length of validity and citizenship, available at: https://e Eurostat 
(2024),  First 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_resfirst__custom_13556995/default/table?lang=en. 
146 Eurostat (2025), Asylum applicants by type, citizenship, age and sex - annual aggregated data, available 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_asyappctza__custom_13556398/default/table?lang=en
. 
147 AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK 
148 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901.   
149 Targeted survey with National Authorities. Targeted survey with beneficiaries.  

citizenship, 

available 

validity 

length 

and 

of 

56 

 
 
 
 
by  the  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultations.  150    There  are  limited 
examples of needs that have not been or have partially been addressed due to the resources 
being invested in managing the increase of asylum requests, such as providing access to 
programmes to irregular migrants or continuing the support to migrants after they are no 
longer minors.151  

The  majority  of  Responsible  Authorities  responding  to  the  targeted  survey  reported 
completing  a  needs  assessment  before  drafting  AMIF  programmes  or  on  a  SWOT  or 
equivalent  analysis.152  This  greatly  contributed  to  the  alignment  between  the  needs 
identified by the Member States and the objectives of the programmes responding to those 
needs. However, only seven Member States (DE, BG, CZ, ES, IT, LT, RO) updated their 
needs assessment throughout the programming period.153 Three Member States (CY, IT, 
ES) have, on the other hand, affirmed that they were able to gauge the change of needs 
through other, non-formal methods such as stakeholder consultations.154 

National authorities largely agree that, in the same way, the objectives of the Annual Work 
Programme (Union Actions and EMAS) are aligned with the actual needs and are flexible 
enough  to  adapt  to  emerging  circumstances.155  Regarding  Union  Actions,  beneficiaries 
asserted that they addressed common needs of Member States, such as the systematisation 
and collection of data on returns and more. The EMAS Work Programme also addressed 
actual  needs.156  For  example,  through  ad-hoc  humanitarian  admission  programmes  for 
temporary  stays  after  a  humanitarian  crisis  in  a  third  country  and  the  enhancement  of 
solidarity, the EMAS Work Programme was able to address actual needs. 

Most Member States recognised the important role of monitoring committees in providing 
input  for  the  identification  of  relevant  needs.157  These  committees,  through  providing 
recommendations for AMIF project implementation158, managed to strengthen the focus of 
AMIF interventions on specific groups such as applicants for international protection and 
returnees, to address evolving needs.159 Some Member States have reported that there are 
still  some  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  of  monitoring 
committees, undermining their effectiveness at times.160  

150 34 out of 44 respondents to the public consultation consider strengthening and developing a CEAS as a 
very important AMIF objective in view of EU’s needs. 33 out of 44 respondents to the public consultation 
consider legal migration as a very important AMIF objective in view of EU’s needs. 32 out of 44 respondents 
to the public consultation consider enhancing solidarity as a very important AMIF objective in view of EU’s 
needs. 31 out of 44 respondents to the public consultation consider strengthening the capacity of  Member 
States to address urgent and specific needs in the event of an emergency situation as a very important AMIF 
objective in view of EU’s needs. 
151 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901.  Targeted interviews with five Responsible 
Authorities. Two national ex-post evaluations (BG, PL).  
152 Targeted survey national authorities. Interview with Lithuanian national authorities.  
153 Targeted survey with National Authorities.  
154 Targeted interviews with three Responsible Authorities. Three national ex-post evaluations (CY, IT, ES). 
155 European Commission (2018), Interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund – Final 
report,  available  at:  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/709901.  Thematic  case  studies:  Union  Actions, 
EMAS. Targeted interview with two Responsible Authorities. Targeted interview with one beneficiary. 
156 Targeted interviews with eleven Responsible Authorities. 
157 Targeted survey with National Authorities. 
158 Targeted survey with National Authorities. 
159 Targeted interviews with eight Responsible Authorities 
160 Targeted survey with National Authorities. 

57 

 
 
Overall, AMIF funded projects were flexible enough to adapt to changing needs, in all of 
its aspects (design, calls for proposals and procurement). Most Member States highlighted 
this in their ex-post evaluations.161 In several Member States (AT, CZ, DE, FR, IE, PT), 
AMIF  programmes  demonstrated  flexibility  through  the  creation  of  local  and  central 
programmes  for  humanitarian  admission  in  response  to  the  Syrian  migration  crisis.162 
Likewise,  after  the  increase  of  displaced  persons  from  Ukraine  due  to  Russia’s  War  of 
aggression, Member States were able to access fast-tracked funding to address the needs 
of refugees, significantly contributing to the strengthening of CEAS.163 

Finally,  another  example  of  the  flexibility  and  adaptability  of  AMIF  funded  national 
programmes, has been the fact that both substantial and non-substantial amendments were 
easily  introduced.164  Responsible  Authorities  affirmed  that,  concerning  non-substantial 
amendments,  the  programme  management  allows  for  timely  adjustments,  without 
bureaucratic delays, which was a crucial aspect during the 2015-2016 migration crisis.165 
At  the  same  time,  substantial  amendments  are  designed  to  require  more  formal  and 
burdensome changes, as they are those amendments that modify the more structural aspects 
of  the  programmes  (projects’  scopes,  reallocation  of  funds,  etc.).  Overall,  Responsible 
Authorities  have  indicated  that  the  rules  and  procedures  are  sufficient  to  respond  to 
emerging needs.166 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1   Conclusions 

Effectiveness 

The  evidence  demonstrates  AMIF  significantly  contributed  to  strengthening  the  CEAS, 
including in its external dimension. While the achievements varied across Member States, 
overall  AMIF  was  particularly  successful  in  supporting  the  creation  and  renovation  of 
reception  accommodation  and  providing  assistance  to  TCNs.  Under  SO1,  AMIF  also 
supported the resettlement of more than 61 000 TCNs and the training of over 86 000 staff 
in the area of asylum and reception. However, more staff was trained with funding sources 
other than the AMIF. Due to the migration crisis in 2015 and 2016, EMAS significantly 
contributed  to  strengthening  the  CEAS,  with  over  half  of  EMAS  funding  supporting 
reception  conditions.    For  example,  EMAS  projects  addressed  the  needs  of  vulnerable 
TCNs,  improved  and  expanded  reception  capacities,  and  supported  improving  asylum 
policies.  Union  Actions  also  contributed  to  the  objectives  of  SO1  through  a  variety  of 
projects  and  contributed  to  strengthening  the  external  dimension  of  the  CEAS  through 
long-term cooperation frameworks with international actors.  

161 20 national ex-post evaluations (AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, PL, EE, ES, IT, HU, LT, UK, IE, FI, FR, MT, 
NL, SE, SI, SK). 
162  European  Commission,  Annual  Work  Programme  for  2015  for  support  to  Union  Actions  under  the 
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. 
163 Thematic Case Study: Ukraine. 
164 Targeted interviews with nine Responsible Authorities. Three national ex-post evaluations (BG, DE, UK).  
165 Targeted interviews with two Responsible Authorities. 
166 Targeted interviews with eleven Responsible Authorities. 

58 

 
 
 
AMIF substantially contributed to the effective integration of TCNs and to some degree 
contributed to legal migration measures. Over 10 million TCNs participated in integration 
measures supported by the Fund, far exceeding the target set by Member States. Over half 
of Union Action projects contributed to the integration of TCNs, with the highest number 
of projects in capacity building and then support to vulnerable people and women. EMAS 
substantially contributed to integration measures, receiving almost a quarter of the EMAS 
funding.  Member  States  prioritized  using  their  allocation  under  SO2  for  integration 
measures  over  legal  migration  interventions.  Where  legal  migration  interventions  took 
place, stakeholders viewed them as successful.  

AMIF  successfully  contributed  to  fair  and  effective  return  strategies.  As  with  SO1  the 
achievements  under  SO3  varied  across  Member  States.  Over  the  programming  period, 
stakeholders focused on supporting voluntary returns over forced returns, and indeed more 
TCNs were voluntarily returned with AMIF support than forcibly returned. To contribute 
to  effective  returns  all  Member  States,  to  varying  degrees,  used  AMIF  to  finance 
reintegration  measures.  The  majority  of  Member  States  also  made  use  of  AMIF  to 
implemented  projects  or  supported  partnerships  in  the  area  of  return  to  improve  return 
policy  and  enhance  transnational  cooperation.  MPF  is  one  of  the  largest  Union  Action 
projects  and  directly  contributed  to  combatting  irregular  migration  and  enhancing 
cooperation  with  third  countries  to  reinforce  return  and  readmission  processes.  EMAS 
contributed to SO3 to a lesser extent, for example with a project that supported a holistic 
approach to returns through pre-departure assistance and psychological services.  

To a lesser extent the AMIF contributed to enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing 
through  relocation,  resettlement,  and  cooperation  projects.  Across  the  board,  Member 
States allocated significantly less resources to  SO4 than the other SOs.  Resettlement  in 
accordance with the common Union priorities was by far the most common intervention 
under SO4, with a total EU resettlement of 912 264 000 individuals. Modest achievements 
were  made  in  relocation,  with  an  EU  total  of  7 390  individuals  transferred  from  one 
Member State to another. Cooperation projects to enhance solidarity  and responsibility-
sharing  were  minimally  supported,  with  a  total  of  six  projects  implemented  by  three 
Member States.  

Across the specific objectives, serval key challenges appeared. First, the migration crisis 
of 2015 and 2016, and later a long-term inflow of migrants put a strain on some Member 
States reception and asylum systems. Later in the programming period, the Russian war of 
aggression against Ukraine caused a sudden flow of Ukrainians seeking protection in the 
EU. Member States adapted to these challenges in a variety of ways including, expanding 
and  improving  reception  facilities,  enhancing  asylum  processing  capabilities  and 
launching  calls  for  projects  specific  to  Ukrainian  displaced  individuals.  Another  large 
challenge  was  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  All  Member  States  reported  the  pandemic 
negatively  impacted  the  implementation  of  their  national  programmes.  Once  again, 
Member States adopted remedy strategies including moving service online adopting digital 
tools and launching projects to support TCNs needs arising from the pandemic.  

AMIF  successfully  contributed  to  supporting  Member  States  in  emergency  situations. 
Throughout  the  programming  period  the  EMAS  allocation  significantly  increase  in 
response to the various challenges mentioned above.  In total, 106 EMAS projects were 
implemented  for  about  EUR  2.5  billion.  The  largest  shared  of  EMAS  funding  went  to 
Greece,  Italy  and  Spain.  The  majority  of  EMAS  funding  went  to  supporting  reception 
conditions. The ability of EMAS to adapt to evolving needs varied, with some beneficiaries 

59 

 
stating the procedures in place for amending projects made it difficult to adapt to changing 
needs in real time.  

Efficiency 

AMIF supported  actions  that are viewed  as cost-effective in  EU benchmarking  studies, 
such  as  language  learning  and  vocational  training.  Member  States  also  increased  the 
efficiency of their human resources.  

The  evidence  gathered  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  AMIF  in  comparison  to  similar 
funds provided mixed results and no conclusive result. The administrative burden of the 
AMIF was generally viewed as proportionate to its benefits and similar to the of other EU 
funds. However, it was generally not viewed as proportionate in comparison to national 
funds. Furthermore, about half of the Member States reported a high administrative burden.  

Member  States  implemented  measures  to  monitor  and  identify  fraud  and  irregularities. 
Limited  reporting  on  such  measures  led  to  insufficient  information  to  assess  and  reach 
conclusions of the cost-effectiveness of measures to prevent, detect and remedy fraud and 
irregularities.  

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

AMIF  introduced  several  changes  aimed  at  simplifying  procedures  and  reducing 
administrative burden. First, AMIF created one fund dedicated to migration management 
and a single set of rules was adopted for the Home Affairs Funds to improve coordination 
and harmonise procedures. Secondly, AMIF introduced a single seven-year funding cycle 
and  multi-annual  programming.  This  allowed  Member  States  to  plan  long  term 
interventions,  better  adapt  to  evolving  needs,  and  simplified  procedures  by  removing 
annual  renewal  processes.  Finally,  AMIF  introduced  national  rules  on  expenditure 
eligibility to provide flexibility for national contexts and the option to use SCOs. Where 
SCOs  were  implemented,  they  were  viewed  positively  by  stakeholders,  however  some 
Member States found it challenging to implement SCOs and their overall their use was 
limited.  Generally,  the  simplification  measures  established  under  the  AMIF  were 
welcomed by stakeholders, however, there were mixed views on their effectiveness.  

Coherence and complementarity 

The various components of the AMIF (national programmes, Union Actions, EMAS, and 
EMN) are coherent and complimentary. At the level of the Commission procedures, were 
in place in the drafting of the Union Action and EMAS Annual Work Programmes ensuring 
coherence  from  the  outset.  As  reporting  on  internal  coherence  was  not  a  part  of  the 
AIR/FIR, reporting on internal coherence is limited. However, several Member States did 
describe the mechanisms they established to ensure coherence and complementarity at the 
national  level.  These mechanisms included engaging  stakeholders, coordination  groups, 
and information sharing.  

The AMIF was also viewed as sufficiently coherent with other EU programmes. All but 
one Member State conducted an assessment of coherence and complementarity during the 
programming or early implementation stages. Overall, the ESF was viewed as the most 
relevant  for  coherence  and  complementarity,  however  coherence  could  be  further 
reinforced by coordinating integration interventions and better demarcating the differences 

60 

 
between  their  scope  of  support.  The  ISF  and  ERDF  were  also  viewed  as  particularly 
coherent with AMIF.  

As  far  as  coherence  with  external  spending  programmes  is  concerned,  enhanced 
cooperation and coordination on programming both between the Commission services and 
with  Member  States  are  needed.  There  are  several  challenges  in  the  current  funding 
architecture that should be addressed , including notably: the insufficient alignment of the 
Union’s external migration and security funding with the Union policies in these areas; the 
persistent challenge to use all existing (policy, funding, investment and other) tools, both 
at the disposal of the EU and its Member States, in a Team Europe spirit, to use strategically 
and timely  leverage in relation to partner countries in order to improve cooperation on 
migration and security; the limitations for funding migration- and security-related actions 
in third countries, given that most of spending in the external dimension must comply with 
the criteria for development assistance167 eligibility. 

All  Member  States  established  mechanisms  to  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity 
between the AMIF and  other EU funds  and prevent  potential  overlaps.  Importantly, no 
evidence  of  double  funding  was  found  between  AMIF  fund  components,  nor  between 
AMIF and other EU programmes.  

EU added value 

AMIF contributed to the EU added value by allowing Member States to offer more services 
and  reach  a  broader  audience  than  would  have  been  possible  without  AMIF  support. 
EMAS was particularly important in expanding services and their reach during emergency 
situations. AMIF also allowed Member States to introduce new interventions to address 
evolving  needs,  extend  activities  and  benefits  to  additional  target  groups,  and  strongly 
contributed to innovation.  

Most Member States reported that actions would have been carried out to some extent even 

in the absence of the Fund’s support, however, the interventions would have been minimal, 

of a smaller scale, and/or of a lower quality, therefore highlighting AMIF’s value. 

On  AMIF’s  contribution  to  transnational  cooperation,  solidarity  and  burden  sharing, 
stakeholder’s perception was mixed. AMIF supported relocation and resettlement efforts 
both through EMAS and the national programmes, though Member States carried out these 
interventions  at  varying  rates.  While  there  was  limited  evidence  of  transnational 
cooperation in the national programmes, EMN and Union Actions supported transnational 
projects and foster cooperation between Member States.   

Sustainability 

While there were efforts to ensure sustainability, such as the inclusion of sustainability in 
the  award  criteria  of  calls  for  proposals,  there  is  limited  evidence  of  projects  being 
transferred, replicated or scaled up with national resources. More commonly, sustainability 
is ensured through the selection of activities that have long-term impacts, such as capacity 

167 Official development assistance eligibility criteria is set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development. 

61 

 
 
building  or  labour  market  integration.  In  addition,  some  Member  States  included 
sustainability  as  an  element  of  the  monitoring  process.  Stakeholders  described  the 
importance  of  beneficiaries,  local  communities  and  volunteer  networks  in  ensuring 
sustainability,  however  dependency  on  EU  funds  remained  high  and  further  efforts  to 
ensure sustainability could be made.  

Relevance 

In regard to the national programmes, the objectives of the AMIF were strongly aligned 
with  the  needs  in  Member  States  and  the  structure  of  the  AMIF  allowed  for  sufficient 
ability to adapt to evolving needs. A needs assessment was conducted in most Member 
States  before  drafting  the  AMIF  national  programmes,  however  fewer  Member  States 
updated their needs assessment during implementation of the programme. Rather, during 
implementation  more  Member  States  relied  upon  the  monitoring  committee  to  provide 
feedback on relevant needs. The Responsible Authorities also affirmed that the processes 
involved  in  amending  the  national  programmes  were  sufficient  to  respond  to  emerging 
needs.  

The Union Action and EMAS Annual Work Programmes were also found to be aligned 
with actual needs and flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.  

While  stakeholders  largely  agreed  on  the  relevance  of  the  AMIF,  several  stakeholders 
highlighted  areas  of  support  that  were  not  met  or  only  partially  met  (i.e.  assistance  to 
irregular migrants and continuing the support to migrants after they are no longer minors).  

5.2   Lessons learned 

Stakeholders  agreed  the  AMIF’s  design  allowed  for  sufficient  flexibility  to  adapt  to 
emerging needs. Furthermore, the adaption of the EMAS Work Programme throughout the 
programming  period  greatly  impacted  Member  States  ability  to  adapt  to  emergency 
situations.  Future  funds  should  retain  the  flexibility  to  respond  to  changing  needs  and 
external events.  

Reception  capacity  and  infrastructure  was  under  pressure  at  several  points  during  the 
programming  period  due  to  increases  in  the  number  of  asylum  seekers.    It  is  worth 
considering  how  to  develop  adaptable  reception  systems  that  can  be  scaled  up,  when 
necessary. This may include establishing contingency plans and flexible mechanisms.  

This evaluation was hindered by the limited amount of feedback from TCNs available.   It 
would be useful to launch a general reflection on how to gather more feedback from TCNs 
regarding  the  assistance  they  receive,  this  could  help  improve  the  quality  of  support 
provided and feed into needs assessments. 

Member  States  made  limited  use  of  the  AMIF  to  develop  or  support  alternatives  to 
detention.  There is potential to further advance alternatives to detention through capacity 
building, sharing of best practices, and support to pilot projects.  The EUAA has developed 
guidelines  on  alternatives  to  detention  which  can  be  a  starting  point  for  enhancing 
alternatives to detention.  

62 

 
 
The  implementation  of  both  voluntary  return  and  forced  return  varied  across  Member 
States.  For  voluntary  return,  Member  States  could  explore  methods  to  raise  awareness 
about voluntary return, such as through communication campaigns or return counselling, 
and  also  increase  the  attractiveness  and  effectiveness  of  voluntary  returns  by  providing 
more TCNs with reintegration assistance. In the area of forced returns, efforts to establish 
cooperation  with  third  countries  to  facilitate  forced  returns  should  continue.  Whereas 
Member States  may  consider enhancing  the  capacity of their return departments  and/or 
making further use of Frontex’s support in facilitating returns.  

Member  States  did  not  significantly  contribute  to  solidarity  projects  in  the  2014-2020 
period  (e.g.  relocation).    There  is  potential  to  further  encourage  Member  States 
participation in relocation, particularly in line with the developments foreseen by the Pact 
on Migration and Asylum.  

Efforts  introduced  by  the  AMIF  to  reduce  administrative  burden,  particularly  the 
introduction of multi-annual programming and the introduction of SCOs were generally 
viewed positively by stakeholders. Further efforts could be made to continue these positive 
developments, including expanding the use of SCOs both by the Commission and Member 
States.  Beneficiaries may also benefit from further guidance support, and feedback.  

Reporting  on  internal  coherence  was  limited  with  only  some  Member  States  explicitly 
reporting on their efforts to ensure internal coherence, this may be because reporting on 
internal coherence was not a requirement in the AIRs. To ensure internal coherence and 
increase transparency, it is worth considering adding reporting on the mechanisms in place 
to ensure internal coherence to regular reporting.  

To better assess efficiency in the future, it would be useful to consider how Member States 
could  collect  and  share  data  on  efficiency  (e.g.  unit  costs,  full  time  equivalents, 
irregularities) in a more standardised approach without adding a burden to beneficiaries 
and Responsible Authorities. 

To ensure the relevance of the AMIF national programmes in a constantly evolving policy 
area, the Member States could be encouraged to update their needs assessment during the 
implementation period. 

63 

 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

This evaluation has been carried out by DG HOME, as responsible for the implementation of 
AMIF in the Commission. The evaluation was launched in May 2023. 

The  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  Better  Regulation,  by 
applying the methods and requirements established in the Toolbox.  The evaluation was also 
based on the requirements set in the monitoring and evaluation framework for the 2014-2020 
Home  Affair  Funds,  as  defined  in  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  2017/207.  In  this 
regard,  the  five  standard  criteria  for  evaluation  defined  Better  Regulation  (Effectiveness, 
Efficiency,  Relevance,  Coherence,  and  EU  Added  Value)  were  complemented  by  three 
additional  ones:  sustainability,  complementarity  and  simplification  and  reduction  of 
administrative burden. 

The evaluation was also based on the orientations provided by DG HOME to the Member States 
regarding  the  ex-post  evaluation,  in  particular,  the  evaluation  questions  with  indicative 
judgment  criteria  presented  to  the  Managing  Authorities  during  a  webinar  on  20  July  2023. 
Both the programmes’ and the Commission’s ex-post evaluations are based on the same set of 
questions and indicative methodological elements. 

The  evaluation  has  been  steered  by  an  Interservice  Group,  with  the  participation  of  the 
operational and policy units in DG HOME, as well as the following DGs and services: SG, DG 
BUDG, DG INTPA, DG JUST, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG DEFIS, DG TRADE, JRC, SJ, DG 
ECHO, DG EMPL, and OLAF. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Interservice  Group  was  held  on  30  June  2023,  where  the  group 
discussed the actions for the preparatory study to be carried out with the assistance of external 
consultants. Additional meetings of the Interservice group took place to discuss the deliverables 
of the preparatory study on 8 March 2024, 3 May 2024, 9 September 2024 and 18 November 
2024.  The  draft  version  of  this  Staff  Working  Document  was  submitted  to  the  group  for 
consultation on 1 July 2025, and the final meeting with the Interservice Group took place on 11 
July 2025. 

The preparatory study was confided to a consortium made up of EY Germany and Technopolis 
Group following an open call for tender launched on 3 October 2023. The contract was signed 
on 7 March 2024.  

The evaluation is mostly based on the work done during the preparatory study, as explained in 
Annex II and III, in line with the requests in the Specifications drafted by the Commission.  

64 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

This  chapter  presents  the methodology  employed for the ex-post evaluation  of AMIF 2014-
2020 and the limitations encountered. 

Methodology  

The evaluation was supported by an external study that was divided into four phases: inception, 
data collection, analysis and finalisation.  

The  inception  phase  was  characterised  by  preparing  the  work  to  be  done.  This  included 
preliminary desk research, scoping interviews with officials from the Commission, stakeholder 
mapping, and the refinement of the methodological approach to be used. The inception phase 
concluded with the production of an inception report which was discussed during a meeting of 
the Steering Group, revised by the contractors to incorporate the Commission’s feedback, and 
later the final inception report was accepted. 

The data collection phase focused on gathering data by by synthesising and analysing the annual 
implementation reports and the final implementation reports, a review of the ex-post evaluations 
of the national programmes, reviewing a sample of target setting methodologies, mapping the 
allocations by type of intervention and target  group, launching  a targeted survey and public 
consultation,  and  conducting  semi-structured  interviews  and  a  focus  group.  This  phase 
concluded with  an interim report which was discussed with the Steering Group, revised and 
then accepted. During this phase, work on the thematic and country case studies began.  

During  the  analysis  phase  the  contractors  focused  on  analysing  the  data  collected  to  draw 
conclusions  to  the  evaluation  questions.  During  this  phase  the  contractors  held  an  EU  level 
focus group to validate the evaluation findings and develop lessons learned.  The contractors 
delivered a draft final report which was discussed in a meeting with the Steering Group.  

The draft staff working document was then shared with the Steering Group and discussed in a 
meeting.  

Regarding the data collection methods, the desk research relied upon reviewing approximately 
125  documents  including  evaluation  reports  at  the  EU  and  national  level,  AMIF  national 
programmes, the annual implementation reports and final implementation reports, notes to the 
Home  Affairs  Funds  Committee,  regulatory  and  policy  frameworks,  grey  literature  and 
academic publications.  

Furthermore, data on financial allocations, financial progress and implementation progress was 
extracted from SFC2014. The data was reviewed by management mode, specific objective and 
by Member State to develop the state of play.  

Regarding the consultation activities, 68 interviews were completed during the course of the 
study. The interviews included scoping interviews and semi-structured interviews to gather data 
for the analysis, including the country case studies and thematic case studies.  

Two EU level focus groups were held during the study. The first EU level  focus group was 
held in person on the 25 June 2024. The focus group consisted of Managing Authorities and 
project beneficiaries. The focus group focused on understanding the challenges encountered, 
good practices, and policy issues affecting the achievement of the AMIF specific objectives.  

65 

 
The second level focus group was held online on 27 March 2025 and consisted of Commission 
officials, Managing Authorities, and the EUAA and Frontex. The objective of the focus group 
was to validate the evaluation findings and further develop the lessons learned.  

In  addition  to  the  focus  groups,  four  targeted  surveys  were  launched  to  target  various 
stakeholders. Of the 419 surveys completed, 37 were from National/Managing Authorities and 
382 were from beneficiaries. The results of the survey fed into the main analysis.  

The  study  included  seven  country  case  studies  (DE,  FR,  IT,  EL,  PL,  RO,  and  LT)  to  dive 
deeper into the implementation of AMIF to identify challenges encountered, specific processes, 
and  best  practices.  The  study  also  included  four  thematic  case  studies  on  Union  Actions, 
EMAS, the impact of the Russian war of aggression towards Ukraine,  and Specific Actions. 
The thematic case studies allowed for deep-dives into certain aspects of the AMIF and specific 
topics by reviewing specific projects.  

Based on the work described above, the final report for the mid-term evaluation was drafted 
and approved. 

Limitations and mitigation measures 

The study encountered several limitations that were mitigated to the greatest extent possible.  

The mapping of allocations was a challenge as at times the data provided is  insufficient (i.e. 
titles or descriptions are to narrow for precise tagging).  

For the quantitative analysis, the intervention fields and output indicators are not directly linked, 
therefore analysis was done based on logical links between the two.  

To not overwhelm respondents and dissuade them from completing the surveys, the length of 
the public consultation and targeted survey questionnaires were reduced. As a result, the public 
consultation and targeted surveys did not cover all evaluation criteria and data was collected 
via other means to fill these gaps. To reach the largest audience possible, invitations for the 
surveys  were  sent  to  national  authorities  with  a  request  to  forward  the  survey  links  to 
stakeholders.  

The  analysis  of  efficiency  was  constrained  by  the  limited  data  on  costs  and  benefits.  This 
stemmed  from  the  absence  of  mandatory  reporting  on  administrative  costs  by  the  Member 
States.  Therefore,  the  evaluation  relied  heavily  upon  qualitative  input  from  the  surveys  and 
interviews. 

The high turnover of staff within key stakeholders and Responsible Authorities impacted the 
continuity of information in certain cases. To mitigate this, the collected data was cross-checked 
and triangulated. 

66 

 
 
Secondary 
source 
AIRs 
Final 
implementati
on reports 
SFC 2014 

Primary 
source 

Semi-
structured 
interviews 
Country 
case 
studies 

Targeted 
survey 
Public 
consultati
on 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  

Effectiveness 

Table 7: Evaluation matrix for Effectiveness 

EQ  

EQ14: How 
did 
the 
Fund 
contribute 
to 
strengtheni
ng 
and 
developing 
all  aspects 
of 
the 
CEAS, 
including 
its  external 
dimension? 

the 

EQ15: How 
did 
the 
Fund 
contribute 
to 
supporting 
legal 
migration 
to 
Member 
States 
in 
accordance 
with 
their 
economic 
and  social 
needs,  such 
as 
labour 
market 
needs, 
while 
safeguardin
the 
g 

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Output and result 
indicators  have 
their 
achieved 
targets, 
being 
correctly  defined 
and  in  line  with 
evolving needs  

Normative 
judgements  from 
the  stakeholders, 
including  where 
relevant 
counterfactual 
self-estimation 
and 
retrospectives 
pretest,  confirm 
that 
the  Fund 
contributed to the 
objectives 
identified  in  the 
sub questions 

asylum 

What 
progress  was 
made towards 
strengthening 
and 
developing 
the 
procedures, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress? 
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
strengthening 
and 
developing 
the  reception 
conditions, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress? 
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
the 
achievement 
a 
of 
successful 
implementati
on  of 
the 
legal 
framework of 
the 
qualification 
directive (and 
its 
subsequent 
modifications
),  and  how 
did  the  Fund 
contribute  to 

/ 

to 

of 

of 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Percentage of output 
and 
results 
indicators  that  have 
achieved 
their 
targets 
Percentage 
consulted 
stakeholders 
that 
consider  the  targets 
for result and output 
indicators have been 
in 
defined 
with 
accordance 
evolving needs 
Percentage 
consulted 
that 
stakeholders 
consider  the  Fund  
contributes 
the 
following: 
-  strengthening  and 
developing 
the 
asylum  procedures; 
- 
successful 
implementation  of 
the legal framework 
of  the  qualification 
directive;  
to 
capacity 
- 
develop,  monitor 
and  evaluate  their 
asylum  policies  and 
procedures 
establishment, 
- 
development 
and 
implementation  of 
national 
resettlement 
Programmes 
and 
strategies, and other 
humanitarian 
admission 
Programmes; 
-  supporting 
to 
migration 
Member  States 
accordance 

legal 
the 
in 
with 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
EQ  

integrity  of 
the 
immigratio
n 
systems 
of  Member 
States,  and 
to 
promoting 
the 
effective 
integration 
of TCNs? 

and 

EQ16: How 
the 
did 
Fund 
contribute 
to 
enhancing 
fair 
effective 
return 
strategies in 
the 
Member 
States 
which 
contribute 
to 
combating 
illegal 
immigratio
n,  with  an 
emphasis 
on 
sustainabili
ty  of  return 
and 
effective 
readmissio
in 
n 

the 

Sub-
questions 
achieving this 
progress? 
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
enhancing 
Member 
State capacity 
to 
develop, 
monitor  and 
evaluate  their 
asylum 
policies  and 
procedures, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress? 

What 
progress  was 
made towards 
the 
establishment
, 
development 
and 
implementati
on of national 
resettlement 
programmes 
and 
strategies, 
and 
other 
humanitarian 
admission 
programmes, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
supporting 
legal 
migration 
to 
the  Member 
States 
in 
accordance 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Judgment 
criteria  

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
their  economic  and 
social 
needs; 
supporting 
- 
cooperation  among 
the  Member  States, 
to 
with  a  view 
the 
safeguarding 
integrity 
the 
of 
immigration 
systems  of  Member 
States; 
-    building  capacity 
on  integration  and 
legal 
migration 
within  the  Member 
State; 
- 
effective 
implementation  of 
measures; 
return 
- 
enhancing 
practical 
cooperation 
between  Member 
States; 
- 
the 
cooperation 
with 
countries 
third 
compared  with  the 
past  
-  building  capacity 
on return. 

improving 

that 

Challenges 
affected 
implementation 
and  the  progress 
towards 
the 
objectives  of  the 
Fund  were  duly 
and 
identified 
with 
linked 
effective  remedy 
strategies 

the 

The extent to which 
faced 
challenges 
during 
the  Fund 
implementation 
(considering 
interventions 
thought  the  shared, 
direct  and  indirect 
management) had an 
important  or  very 
important impact on 
the  implementation 
of the Fund 

to  which 
strategies 
identified 
the 

Extent 
remedy 
were 
(considering 
interventions 
thought  the  shared, 
direct  and  indirect 

Targeted 
survey 
Semi-
structured 
interviews  
Country 
case 
studies 
Thematic 
case 
studies 
Public 
consultati
on 

Semi-
structured 
interviews  
Country 
case 
studies 

AIRs 
Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

AIRs 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ  

countries of 
origin  and 
transit? 

Sub-
questions 
with 
their 
economic and 
social  needs, 
such 
as 
labour market 
needs, 
and 
how  did  the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
promoting 
the effective  
integration  of 
third-country 
nationals, and 
how  did  the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
supporting 
cooperation 
among 
Member 
States, with a 
view 
to 
safeguarding 
integrity 
the 
of  
the 
immigration 
systems 
Member 
States, 
and 
how  did  the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
building 
capacity  on 
integration 
and 

legal 

the 

of 

Judgment 
criteria  

Fund 
The 
types 
supported 
interventions 
of 
that are known to 
be  effective  as 
per  the  available 
evidence 
(including,  e.g., 
relevant 
academic 
literature, 
interim 
evaluation  of  the 
Fund, etc.) 

the 

Fund 

The 
embedded 
available 
practices 
implementation 
where 
and possible 

in 

good 
its 

relevant 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
management), 
including  evidence 
on 
based 
stakeholders’ view 
results 
Share  of 
that 
indicators 
the 
achieved 
planned  milestones 
and targets 
Share  of  projects 
implemented  under 
direct  and  indirect 
management 
for 
which 
results  are 
the 
aligned  with 
planned  milestones 
and targets  

Reasons 
for 
/justifications 
delays relating to the 
implementation  of 
selected operations  

Share  of  consulted 
stakeholders 
that 
consider the type of 
interventions 
supported  by 
the 
Fund were effective  

The extent to which 
the 
national 
programmes,  UAs, 
Specific 
actions, 
EMAS 
embedded 
good practices 

is 

There 
appropriate 
evidence  of  a 
positive 
contribution 
of 
the  Fund  to  the 
trend 
any 
of 
impact 
indicators,  once 

Descriptive 
trend 
statistics, 
analyses 
and 
correlation  analyses 
for the 2014 – 2020 
period on  
•  Inputs  in  terms  of 
financial 
resources 
allocated  to  AMIF 

69 

Secondary 
source 

Primary 
source 
Thematic 
case study  

SFC2014 
Final 
implementati
on reports 

Thematic 
case 
studies 

SFC2014 

Semi-
structured 
interviews  
Country 
case 
studies 
Thematic 
case 
studies  
Targeted 
survey  

Semi-
structured 
interviews  
Targeted 
survey 
Country 
case 
studies 
Thematic 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

SFC2014 
Quantitative 
analysis   

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
EQ  

the 

Sub-
questions 
migration 
within 
Member 
States, 
and 
how  did  the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress? 

What 
progress  was 
made towards 
supporting 
the  measures 
accompanyin
g 
return 
procedures, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
effective 
implementati
on  of  return 
measures 
(voluntary 
and 
forced), 
and  how  did 
the Fund  
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
enhancing 
practical 
cooperation 
between 
Member 
States  and/or 
with 
authorities  of 
third 

Judgment 
criteria  
controlled 
confounding 
factors  

for 

There is evidence 
of 
unintended 
effects  and/  or 
spillovers effects 

actions 
All 
supported  under 
the  Fund  were 
implemented 
in 
full  compliance 
with  the  Charter 
of  Fundamental 
Rights of the EU  

There is evidence 
of 
improved 
cooperation  with 
third 
countries 
where relevant to 
the  objectives  of 
the Fund 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
activities  and  their 
absorption 
by 
Member States. 
•  Their  associated 
achievements: 
outputs 
(12 
variables  in  total); 
results (4 variables). 
impacts 
(8 
variables).168 
Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholders 
consider 
AMIF 
produced 
unintended  effects 
and/or 
spillovers 
effects 
The extent to which 
national 
the 
programmes 
actions 
supported 
that 
were 
implemented  in  full 
compliance with the 
Charter 
of 
Fundamental  Rights 
of the EU 
The extent to which 
Actions 
Union 
supported 
actions 
implemented 
were 
in  full  compliance 
with  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights 
of the EU 
The extent to which 
supported 
EMAS 
were 
actions 
implemented  in  full 
compliance with the 
Charter 
of 
Fundamental  Rights 
of the EU 
Geographical 
coverage 
of 
financing  supported 
by 
AMIF 
(broken  down  by 
of 
type 
type 
management, 

the 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Targeted 
survey  

Semi-
structured 
interviews 
Country 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

Thematic 
case 
studies 

Thematic 
case 
studies 

SFC2014 
Final 
implementati
on reports 

168 See section Error! Reference source not found. for further details. 

70 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
EQ  

Judgment 
criteria  

Sub-
questions 
countries  on 
return 
measures, 
and  how  did 
the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress?  
What 
progress  was 
made towards 
building 
capacity  on 
return, 
and 
how  did  the 
Fund 
contribute  to 
achieving this 
progress? 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

 Country 
case 
studies  

National 
programmes  
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

SFC2014 
AIRs 
Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Return 
statistics 

Eurostat 

Country 
case 
studies 

Literature 
review 

/ 

and 

of 
and 
of 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
of actions, countries 
involved) 
of 
Number 
- 
countries  (Member 
States 
third 
and 
countries)  covered 
actions 
by 
- Resources decided 
by  broad  areas  of 
fund 
support  and 
per 
component 
(Member 
country 
State 
third 
country) 
of 
Number 
cooperation projects 
with  other  Member 
States on integration 
and 
TCN 
of 
enhancing solidarity 
and 
responsibility 
sharing  
Number 
applicants 
beneficiaries 
international 
protection 
transferred from one 
Member  State 
to 
another with support 
of the Fund 
Number  of  Member 
States  with  return 
agreements 
with 
third countries 
Convergence of first 
instance/final 
instance  recognition 
rates  by  Member 
States  for  asylum 
applicants  from  a 
same third country.  
Number  of  new 
or 
partnerships 
agreements 
with 
countries, 
third 
a 
signed 
during 
/ 
reporting  period 
joint 
number  of 
and 
initiatives 
actions 
implemented 
between 

EU 

71 

 
 
 
  
  
EQ  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Member  States  and 
to 
third  countries 
irregular 
tackle 
migration 
and 
support  sustainable 
development  in  the 
countries of origin. 
The extent to which 
the 
consulted 
stakeholders 
consider  the  Union 
Actions 
improved 
the cooperation with 
third 
countries 
compared  with  the 
past  
The extent to which 
the 
consulted 
stakeholders 
consider 
Emergency 
Assistance 
the 
increased 
with 
cooperation 
third 
countries 
compared  with  the 
past  

the 

There is evidence 
mutual 
of 
learning 
and 
positive 
spillovers 
for 
in 
participants 
transnational  and 
/  or 
innovative 
actions  

The extent to which 
the  actions  included 
in  the  NPs,  EMAS, 
produced 
UAs 
spillovers effects 

EQ18: How 
the 
did 
Fund 
contribute 
to 
supporting 
the 
Member 
States 
duly 
substantiate
d 
emergency 

in 

What  type  of 
emergency 
actions  was 
implemented
?  
How  did  the 
emergency 
actions 
implemented 
the 
under 
Fund 
contribute  to 
addressing 

There is evidence 
of 
emergency 
support  provided 
addressed 
that 
urgent 
and 
specific needs 

Number  of  urgent 
needs  faced  during 
the 
Fund 
implementation 
Number  of  urgent 
for  which 
needs 
emergency  support 
has been provided  
Number  of 
group 
supported 
funding 
emergency actions 

target 
population 
with 
from 

72 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Thematic 
case 
studies 
Targeted 
survey 

Thematic 
case 
studies 

Targeted 
survey 
Country 
case 
studies 
Thematic 
case 
studies 

Semi-
structured 
interviews 

Thematic 
case 
studies 
Semi-
structured 
interviews 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 
Project 
reporting 
(union 
actions 
emergency 
actions) 
additional 
studies 
literature 
review 
additional 
studies 
literature 
review 

and 

and 

and 

SFC2014  
Annual Work 
Programmes 

 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
Judgment 
criteria  

EQ  

situations 
requiring 
urgent 
action? 

Sub-
questions 
the 
urgent 
needs  of  the 
Member 
State?  
What  were 
the 
main 
results  of  the 
emergency 
actions? 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Allocation  per  type 
of 
emergency 
action,  per  Member 
State and overall 
Percentage 
consulted 
stakeholders  who 
perceived 
the 
emergency  support 
provided  addressed 
urgent  and  specific 
needs 

of 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

SFC2014 

Semi-
structured 
interviews  
Targeted 
survey 
Public 
consultati
on  

Efficiency 

Table 8: Evaluation matrix for Efficiency 

Evaluatio
n 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

the 

EQ19: 
Were 
general 
objectives 
of 
the 
Fund 
achieved 
at 
reasonable 
cost? 

To 
what 
extent  were 
results 
the 
of  the  Fund 
achieved  at 
reasonable 
cost 
terms 
deployed 
financial 
and  human 
resources? 

in 
of 

The 
Fund 
supported types of 
interventions  that 
are  known  to  be 
cost-effective, 
based on available 
evidence, 
including relevant 
literature  or 
the 
ex-post evaluation 
of 
the  previous 
Programme  

Appropriate 
arrangements 
were 
used 
select 
effective 
operations  

to 
cost-

evidence 
The 
coming  from  the 
operations 
indicates  that  the 
cost per unit is in 
line 
below 
or 
existing 
benchmarks  and 
estimates  

The differences in 
the  cost  per  unit 

the 
cost-
of 

Stakeholder 
perception  on 
Level 
of 
effectiveness 
national 
programmes,  Union 
Actions,  Emergency 
Assistance 

Targeted 
survey 
Public 
consultatio
n  
Semi-
structured 
interviews 

to  which 

Extent 
appropriate 
arrangements  were 
used  to  select  cost-
effective operations  

Country 
case 
studies 
Thematic 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Financial  allocation 
per Member State per 
types 
actions 
of 
Absorption  rate  of 
funds 
(planned, 
decided,  spent),  per 
Member  States  and 
overall 

Technical  assistance 
cost  of  projects  as 
the 
compared 
funds 
amount  of 

to 

73 

Country 
case 
studies  

 Final 
implementati
on reports 
SFC2014 

Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluatio
n 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

SFC2014 

Country 
case 
studies 

AIRs 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 
SFC2014 

similar 
among 
operations  within 
the  Fund  can  be 
explained 
and 
justified  (e.g.  by 
differences  in  the 
or 
intensity 
quality  of 
the 
support  offered, 
innovativeness, 
purchase  power, 
emergency 
context etc.)  

for 
claimed 
financial year;  

the 

in 

Number of Full Time 
the 
Equivalent 
Responsible 
Authority, 
the 
Delegated  Authority 
Audit 
the 
and 
Authority  working 
the 
on 
implementation 
of 
AMIF  and  paid  by 
the 
technical 
assistance or national 
budgets as compared 
to: (i) the Number of 
projects implemented 
and (ii) the amount of 
the funds claimed for 
the financial year;  

and 
delegated 

The 
administrative 
is 
burden 
proportionate  for 
all  implementing 
actors 
(Responsible 
Authorities 
other 
authorities), 
compared  to  the 
previous 
programming 
period/ 
similar 
services offered to 
comparable target 
population 
without 
support  of 
Programme 

the 
the 

The 
administrative 
burden 
is 
proportionate  for 
all  beneficiaries, 
compared  to  the 
previous 
programming 
period/ 

similar 

for 
category  of 
(i.e. 

Identification 
each 
stakeholders 
Responsible 
Authorities, 
Intermediate  Bodies, 
Audit 
national 
Authorities, 
beneficiaries 
end-users) 
following:  
-  source  of  costs 
(activities  for  which 
they  are  responsible 
the 
on 
based 
Regulations); 
-  costs 
to  comply 
with the Regulation. 

and 
the 

Country 
case 
studies 
Targeted 
survey  

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders 
the 
consider 
the 
administrative 
burden 
proportionate, 
compared 
the 
to 
similar  programmes/ 
their 
role/level  of 
funding received 

is 

Country 
case 
studies 
Targeted 
survey  
Public 
consultatio
n  

Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

74 

 
Evaluatio
n 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

services offered to 
comparable target 
population 
without 
support  of 
Programme 

the 
the 

The 
administrative 
is 
burden 
proportionate  for 
all  end-users,  e.g. 
compared  to  the 
previous 
programming 
period/ 
similar 
services offered to 
comparable target 
population 
without 
support  of 
Programme 

the 
the 

Absence of ‘gold-
the 
plating’  at 
level 
national 
(e.g. 
from 
Responsible 
Authorities, 
Intermediate 
Bodies,  national 
Audit 
Authorities), 
i.e. 
requirements  are 
not 
interpreted 
more  restrictively 
than 
legal 
the 
basis  or  relevant 
documents 
providing 
methodological 
advice 
Member 
and 
justified 
exists  

the 
States 
a 
reason 

unless 

to 

Absence of ‘gold-
plating’ at the EU 
i.e. 
level, 
requirements  are 
not 
interpreted 
more  restrictively 

75 

 
Evaluatio
n 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

then  in  the  legal 
basis and unless a 
justified 
reason 
exists 

The  management 
control 
and 
system  of 
the 
Member  States, 
described  as  per 
the 
legal  basis, 
ensures quality of 
the 
implementation of 
national 
programmes  and 
prevention, 
the 
and 
detection 
correction 
of 
irregularities, 
fraud, 
including 
and  the  recovery 
amounts 
of 
unduly 
paid, 
together  with  any 
interest  on 
late 
payments 

What 
measures 
were  put  in 
place 
to 
prevent, 
detect, 
report and  

up 
follow 
on  cases  of 
fraud 
and 
other 
irregularitie
s,  and  how 
did 
they 
perform? 

Types  of  fraud  or 
other 
irregularities/ 
country  as  reported 
by Member States 

Targeted 
survey  
Country 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 

national 
evaluatio
ns  

Number 
of 
mechanisms  in  place 
at  Member  States 
level to report, detect 
and prevent fraud and 
irregularities  (where 
possible, analysed by 
country)  

Number of follow up 
cases  of  fraud  and 
other 
irregularities 
possible, 
(where 
analysed by country)  

Country 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

Country 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations  

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

Table 9: Evaluation matrix for simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

Judgment 
criteria  
cost 
Simplified 
options have been 
used were relevant 
and 
created 
simplification  for 
the 
different 
stakeholders 
concerned 

Evaluation 
question  
EQ26:  Were 
the 
Fund 
management 
procedures 
simplified, 
and 
the 
administrativ
burden 
e 
for 
reduced 
its 
beneficiaries
?) 

Sub-question 

the 

Did 
innovative 
procedures 
introduced  by 
Fund 
the 
(simplified 
cost  option, 
multiannual 
programming
, 
national 
eligibility 
rules,  more 
comprehensiv
e 
national 
programmes 

76 

/ 

category 

for 
of 
(i.e. 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Identification 
each 
stakeholders 
Responsible 
Authorities, 
Intermediate  Bodies, 
national 
Audit 
Authorities, 
beneficiaries) 
following:  
-  source  of  costs 
(activities  for  which 
they  are  responsible 
based 
the 
on 
Regulations); 

the 

Secondar
y source 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Primary 
source 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Country 
case 
studies 
Targeted 
survey 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question  

Sub-question 

for 

allowing 
flexibility) 
about 
bring 
simplification 
for 
the 
beneficiaries 
of the Fund? 

Judgment 
criteria  

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
- costs to comply with 
the Regulation. 

Primary 
source 

Secondar
y source 

The  extent  to  which 
simplification 
measures  were  used 
(e.g.,  simplified  cost 
options 
other 
or 
simplification 
measures  not  linked 
the 
to  costs) 
National programmes 

into 

The  extent  to  which 
consulted 
stakeholders consider 
the 
simplification 
measures  used  in  the 
of 
implementation 
National programmes 
were effective 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders consider 
multi-annual 
programming 
supported 
implementation 
adapted 
needs 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders consider 
eligibility 
national 
rules 
supported 
flexible 
implementation 
adapted 
needs 

flexible 

actual 

actual 

to 

to 

The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders consider 
flexible 
supported 
implementation 
adapted 
needs 

actual 

to 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s  
Targeted 
survey  
Country 
case 
studies 
Country 
case 
studies 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Country 
case 
studies 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Country 
case 
studies 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Country 
case 
studies 

Multi-annual 
programming  has 
been  used  and 
created 
simplification  for 
different 
the 
stakeholders 
concerned 
National 
rules 
eligibility 
have  been  used 
and 
created 
simplification  for 
different 
the 
stakeholders 
concerned 
Flexibility  of  a 
more 
comprehensive 
National 
programme 
has 
been  used  and 
created 
simplification  for 
the 
different 
stakeholder 
concerned 

77 

 
 
Evaluation 
question  

Sub-question 

Secondar
y source 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Judgment 
criteria  
Administrative 
burden  has  been 
proportionated for 
stakeholders 
the 
involved 
the 
in 
implementation of 
interventions 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders 
the 
the 
consider 
administrative burden 
is  proportionate 
to 
their  role/  level  of 
funding received 

National 

The 
programmes 
steering 
allowed 
resources  towards 
new and emerging 
needs  at  a 
low 
administrative 
cost 

The  extent  to  which 
the 
consulted 
stakeholders consider 
implemented 
the 
actions 
under 
National programmes 
are flexible enough at 
the 
of 
level 
administrative  costs, 
considering  new  and 
emerging needs 

Primary 
source 
Country 
case 
studies 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 
Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s  
Country 
case 
studies 

Coherence 

Table 10: Evaluation matrix for Coherence 

Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

EQ20:  Were 
the  objectives 
set 
the 
in 
national 
programme 
Fund coherent 
with  the  ones 
set 
in  other 
Programmes 
funded by EU 
resources  and 
applying 
to 
similar  areas 
of work? 

EQ21:  Was 
the  coherence 
ensured  also 
during 
the 
implementati

an 

Was 
assessment 
of 
other 
intervention
s 
with 
similar 
objectives 
carried  out 
and 
considered 
during 
the 
programmin
g stage? 

relevant169 
of 
States 
a 

A 
number 
Member 
performed 
coherence 
analysis  between 
national 
programme’s 
objectives and the 
current 
policy 
agendas at EU and 
national level. 

Number  of  Member 
States  that  assessed 
the  coherence  of  the 
national programmes 
with  other  National 
and EU funds 

Semi-
structure
d 
Interview
s 

National 
programme
s, 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

AIRs  

Were 
coordination 
mechanisms 
between  the 
Fund 
and 
other 
intervention

Structures, 
organizational 
arrangements  or 
coordination 
mechanisms  have 
been 
in  place 
ensuring 

Percentage 
of 
Member  States  that 
have 
place 
in 
coordination  and/or 
organizational 
mechanisms between 
National 
the 

Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

AIRs 

169 The relevancy will be considered with respect to two dimensions: total number of Member States out of the 

total; overall funds allocated to those Member States that conducted a coherence analysis.  

78 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

of 

on 
Fund? 

the 

with 

s 
similar 
objectives 
established 
for 
the 
implementin
g period? 

and,  where 

coordination, 
complementaritie
s 
relevant, 
synergies 
between the Fund 
and 
other 
European funds  

programmes 
and 
other  national  or 
European funds 

the 

through 
Fund 

Were 
actions 
implemente
d 
the 
coherent 
with 
non-
contradictor
y 
to  other 
intervention
s 
with 
similar 
objectives? 

and 

existing 

The 
organizational 
arrangements  or 
coordination 
mechanisms 
facilitate 
coordination, 
complementaritie
s 
relevant, 
synergies 
between the Fund 
and 
other 
European funds  

and,  where 

of 

and 

Percentage 
consulted 
stakeholders 
who 
considered  that  the 
existing 
organizational 
arrangements 
coordination 
mechanisms 
facilitates 
coordination, 
complementarities 
and,  where  relevant, 
synergies 
between 
the  Fund  and  other 
European funds 

Targeted 
survey 

Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Alleged  overlaps 
been 
have 
justified 
on 
objective  grounds 
(e.g.,  same  target 
group 
but 
different  type  of 
measure/ different 
need 
addressed/ 
different 
readiness  of  the 
type  of  funding 
support chosen) 

of 

Percentage 
consulted 
who 
stakeholders 
that 
considered 
overlaps 
existing 
have  been  justified 
on objective grounds 

Semi-
structure
d 
interview
s 

Country 
case 
studies  

Complementarity 

Table 11: Evaluation matrix for Complementarity 

Evaluation 
question  
EQ23:  Were 
the 
objectives 
set 

the 

in 

Sub-
questions 
Was 
an 
assessment  of 
other 
interventions 

Judgment 
criteria  
The 
complementarity 
between 
National 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Number of Member 
States that assessed 
the 
complementarity of 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

National 
programmes 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question  
National 
programme 
the 
and 
correspondin
g 
implemented 
actions 
complement
ary  to  those 
set 
the 
in 
framework 
of 
policies, 
particular 
those 
pursued  by 
the  Member 
State? 

other 
in 

Secondary 
source 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 
AIRs 
Final 
implementati
on reports 

AIRs 
Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Country 
case 
studies 

Targeted 
survey  
Semi-
structured 
interviews 
Public 
consultati
on 

Semi- 
structured 
interviews  
Targeted 
survey 
Country 
case 
studies  

National 
programmes 
Annual 
Work 
Programmes  
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Judgment 
criteria  
programmes and 
other  EU  funds 
was  done  in  the 
programming 
phase 

Primary 
source 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
the Fund with other 
National  and  EU 
funds 

Sub-
questions 
with 
complementar
y  objectives 
carried 
out 
and 
considered 
the 
during 
programming 
stage? 

the 
and 

Were 
coordination 
mechanisms 
between 
Fund 
other 
interventions 
with 
objectives 
established  to 
ensure 
their 
complementar
ity 
the 
for 
implementing 
period? 

similar 

to 

Were 
mechanisms 
aimed 
prevent 
overlapping 
of 
instruments 
put in place? 

financial 

in 
which 

Structures, 
organisational 
arrangements  or 
coordination 
mechanisms 
have  been 
place 
ensuring 
coordination, 
complementariti
es  and,  where 
relevant, 
synergies  across 
other  EU  funds, 
in 
particular 
cohesion  policy 
and 
EU’s 
external action  
Coordination 
mechanisms  and 
arrangements 
used 
are 
and 
regularly 
ensure 
the 
interventions  do 
not overlap  
Mechanisms 
have  been 
in 
place  preventing 
overlapping  of 
financial 
instruments 
 The 
mechanisms 
prevented 
overlapping  of 
financial 
instruments 
Alleged overlaps 
been 
have 
on 
justified 
objective 
grounds 
same 

(e.g., 
target 

existing 

Number of Member 
States  that  have  in 
place  coordination 
mechanisms 
between  the  Fund 
and  other  national 
or European funds  

Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholders 
consider 
the 
coordination 
as 
mechanism 
adequate 
to 
generate  synergies 
across  other  EU 
funds 
Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholders 
assessed 
the 
complementarity of 
the Fund with other 
national  and  EU 
funds 

The extent to which 
the 
National 
programmes, Union 
Actions, 
Emergency 
Assistance 
complementary 
other 
with 
interventions 
at 
national  level  and 
other EU policy  

are 

of 

Percentage 
consulted 
stakeholders  who 
that 
considered 
existing 
overlaps 
have  been  justified 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicator 
Descriptor 
on 
grounds 

objective 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  
group 
but 
different  type  of 
measure/ 
different 
addressed/ 
different 
readiness  of  the 
type  of  funding 
support chosen 

need 

EU added value 

Table 12: Evaluation matrix for EU added value 

Evaluatio
n question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

any 

EQ24: 
Was 
value 
added 
brought 
about  by 
EU 
the 
support? 

What are the 
types 
main 
of 
added 
value 
resulting 
from 
Fund 
support 
(volume, 
scope,  role, 
process)? 

the 

There  is  evidence 
of  scope  effects, 
i.e.,  of  additional 
target  population 
addressed 
or 
additional types of 
intervention 
offered  

There  is  evidence 
of  scale  effects, 
i.e.,  of  a  higher 
volume of services 
offered/end-users 
addressed  

There  is  evidence 
of role and process 
i.e.,  of 
effects, 
learning 
and 
increased  capacity 
to  manage 
the 
provision of public 
support  within  the 
administrations 
involved  

Primary 
source 

Secondar
y source 

Targeted 
survey 
Country 
case studies 
Thematic 
case studies 

Ex-post 
National 
evaluation
s  

targeted 
survey 
(for 
beneficiaries
)  
Public 
Consultation  

/ 

of 

level 

initial 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Types  of  additional 
population 
target 
the 
compared  with 
targeted 
initial 
groups, if possible, at 
the 
all 
National 
programmes,  Union 
Actions 
and 
Emergency 
Assistance 
Types  of  additional 
actions  per 
target 
group, compared with 
the 
targeted 
actions, if possible, at 
the 
all 
National 
programmes,  Union 
and 
Actions 
Emergency 
Assistance 
Share  of  stakeholders 
that  are  aware  of 
supporting 
actions 
ideas, 
transfer 
of 
of 
introduction 
and 
innovations 
reforms 
structural 
the 
such 
as 
of 
development 
or 
national 
transnational 
strategies  related  to 

level 

of 

81 

 
 
 
  
Evaluatio
n question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

the 

Would 
Member 
State 
have 
carried  out 
the  actions 
to 
required 
implement 
the 
policies 

EU 
in 

knowledge 
The 
generated  by  the 
Programme 
provided feedback 
the  policy 
into 
making 

/ 

(role 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
migration 
the 
management  or 
the 
rolling-out  of  new 
approaches  related  to 
the 
and 
asylum 
integration, and major 
structural 
investments. 
effects) 
Examples  of  best 
to 
practices  related 
supporting transfer of 
ideas,  introduction  of 
and 
innovations 
reforms 
structural 
the 
such 
as 
of 
development 
national 
or 
transnational 
strategies  related  to 
migration 
the 
management  or 
the 
rolling-out  of  new 
approaches  related  to 
the 
and 
asylum 
integration; and major 
structural investments 
Evidence  of  process 
effects:  the  extent  to 
which  improvements 
to  governance  and 
of 
organisation 
migration, 
asylum, 
reception  and  return 
policies  were  visible, 
establishing 
e.g. 
closer 
and 
links 
cooperation  between 
and 
beneficiaries 
other  stakeholders  at 
level; 
national 
the 
improving 
of 
management 
migration flows  
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders  consider 
the  results/  outputs/ 
impacts  could  not 
have  been  achieved 
EU 
without 
intervention 
(e.g. 
strengthen 
administrative 

Primary 
source 

Secondar
y source 

Country 
case studies  
Thematic 
case studies  

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

Country 
case studies  
Thematic 
case studies  
targeted 
survey 
(for 
beneficiaries
) 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s  

Public 
consultation 
Country 
case  studies 
Thematic 
case studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluation
s 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluatio
n question  

Sub-
questions 
the 
areas 
without 
financial 
support 
the Fund? 

Fund 

the 

of 

Primary 
source 

Secondar
y source 

Judgment 
criteria  

/ 

of 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
and 
structures 
systems 
local 
authorities in order to 
deal  with  a  high 
number of applicants; 
enhance  the  capacity 
and 
to  monitor 
return 
evaluate 
the 
policies 
States, 
Member 
solidarity 
enhance 
responsibility-
and 
sharing 
thought 
cooperation  projects 
fostered  and  carried 
out  between  Member 
States) 

in 

What  would 
be  the  most 
likely 
consequence
s 
an 
of 
interruption 
the 
of 
support 
provided  by 
the Fund? 

The interruption of 
support 
the 
provided  by 
the 
Fund would have a 
negative impact on 
aspects  such  as: 
asylum 
procedures, 
integration 
programmes, 
reception  capacity 
inter-state 
and 
cooperation  

Amount  of  national 
for 
funds  available 
policy 
to 
related 
migration and asylum, 
for same objective 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders  consider 
the interruption of the 
support  provided  by 
the  Fund  will  have 
consequences such as  

(i) 

(ii) 

longer 
processin
times 
g 
due 
to 
reduced 
funding 
for 
staffing 
and 
resources 
significan
t 
reduction 
the 
in 
quality 
and 
availabili
of 
ty 
reception 
facilities 
for 
asylum 
seekers 

83 

Country 
case  studies 
Thematic 
case studies 
Targeted 
survey 

 
 
 
 
Evaluatio
n question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondar
y source 

and 
refugees 

(iii)  more 

unilateral 
actions 
and 
less 
cohesive 
policy  at 
EU level 
higher 
direct and 
indirect 
costs  for 
Member 
States 

(iv) 

policy 

reduced  capacity  of 
to 
Member  States 
comply 
with 
international  and  EU 
legal standards for the 
treatment  of  migrants 
and asylum seekers 
to  which 
Extent 
policies 
national 
asylum, 
regarding 
and 
return 
changed 
migration 
during 
the 
programming  period 
as  a  consequence  to 
AMIF 
the 
interventions 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders  consider 
the main interventions 
of the Fund: increased 
cooperation  between 
the Member States  

Country 
case studies 
Semi-
structured 
interviews  

Research 
and 
Studies, 
grey  and 
academic 
literature 

Targeted 
survey 

To  which 
extent  have 
actions 
supported by 
Fund 
the 
resulted in a  
benefit at the 
Union level? 

The 
knowledge 
generated  by  the 
Fund:  
provided 
- 
feedback  into 
the 
policy 
making, 
creating 
common 
framework  at 
EU level 
Increased 
- 
cooperation 
between 
Member States  

the 

the 

a 

Sustainability 

Table 13: Evaluation matrix for sustainability 

Evaluatio
n 
question  
EQ25: 
Are 
positive 
effects  of 
the 
projects 

the 

Sub-questions 

What  were  the 
main  measures 
adopted  by  the 
Member  State 
to  ensure 
the 
sustainability of 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Adequate 
arrangements 
existed  and  were 
used to check the 
sustainability  of 

The  extent  to  which 
the call for proposals 
includes 
selection 
criteria that focus on 
the  sustainability  of 
(as 
projects 

Targeted 
survey  
Country 
case 
studies 

Final 
implementati
on reports 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluatio
n 
question  
supported 
the 
by 
Fund 
likely 
to 
last  when 
the 
support 
from 
AMIF 
will 
over? 

be 

Sub-questions 

the results of the 
projects 
implemented 
with  the  Fund 
support (both at 
programming 
and 
implementation 
stage)? 

Were 
mechanisms put 
to 
in 
place 
a 
ensure 
sustainability 
check 
programming 
and 
implementation 
stage? 

at 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

the 
proposals  

project 

in 

by 

level 

evidenced 
a 
selection of country-
specific case studies) 
The  extent  to  which 
sustainability 
has 
been  considered  in 
the 
monitoring 
mechanisms  for  the 
National 
programmes  
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders 
consider 
the 
design of the project 
the  sustainability  of 
the projects 
Measures in place at 
to 
Union 
ensure and check the 
of 
sustainability 
Actions, 
Union 
actions, 
specific 
interventions 
including  e.g.  based 
on  selection  criteria 
projects, 
for 
monitoring 
mechanisms, 
stakeholders’ 
assessment  
The  extent  to  which 
the  Fund  supported 
the 
or 
transfer 
of 
upscale 
innovative  projects, 
e.g. 
on 
based 
selection  criteria  for 
projects,  monitoring 
mechanisms, 
stakeholders’ 
assessment 

National 
programmes  
 Annual 
Work 
Programmes  
of 
Sample 
call 
for 
proposals 
(from country 
case studies) 

Semi-
structure
d 
intervie
ws 
Themati
c 
studies  

case 

case 

Targeted 
survey 
Themati
c 
studies 
Country 
case 
studies  

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Amount  of  national 
funds  available  for 
similar 
objectives 
(as  evidenced  by  a 
selection of country-
specific case studies) 

Country 
case 
studies 

Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

There is evidence 
of 
innovative 
projects 
transferred, 
replicated 
upscaled  

or 

is 

no 
There 
evidence 
of 
dependency,  i.e., 
systematic 
of 
lack 
of 
investment  based 
national 
on 
for 
resources 
relevant  services 
that  are  provided 
through 
entirely 

To  what  extent 
are 
the 
outcomes/benef
its of the actions 
sustained by the 
Fund  expected 
continue 
to 
thereafter? 

85 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Sub-questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

support  from  EU 
funds. 

Evaluatio
n 
question  

Relevance 

Table 14: Evaluation matrix for Relevance 

Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

Did 
the 
objectives 
set  by  the 
Member 
State in the 
National 
programm
e 
to 
identified 
needs? 

respond 
the 

The objectives set 
by Member States 
in 
the  National 
programmes 
address 
the 
relevant  needs  of 
the 
targeted 
population 

the 

Which 
measures 
did 
Member 
State put in 
to 
place 
address 
changing 
needs? 

able 

The  partnership  / 
monitoring 
has 
committee 
to 
been 
provide 
timely 
input  on  evolving 
needs and relevant 
developments  on 
the ground  

input 
were 
to  address 

The 
provided 
used 
changing needs 

EQ22:  Did 
the 
objectives 
of 
the 
intervention
s  funded  by 
the 
Fund 
correspond 
to the actual 
needs? 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
The  extent  to  which 
stakeholders consider 
the  objectives  under 
National 
the 
programme  has  been 
aligned  with 
the 
identified needs 
The extent to which at 
Member  States  level 
update 
need 
of 
assessments has been 
and 
performed 
following 
updated 
relevant 
contextual 
changes  
The  extent  to  which 
the 
consulted 
stakeholders consider 
the 
monitoring 
committee  has  been 
able to provide inputs 
on  evolving  needs 
and 
relevant 
developments  on  the 
ground  

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Semi-
structured 
interviews 
Country 
case studies 
Targeted 
survey 
Public 
Consultatio
n 

National 
programme
s 
Ex-post 
National 
evaluations 

Targeted 
survey  
Country 
case studies 

Ex-post 
National 
evaluations 

Ex-post 
National 
evaluations 
AIRs 

of 

by 

Types 
inputs 
the 
provided 
committee  and  share 
of  inputs  that  have 
been implemented 

the 

Share  of  Member 
States that keep track 
of 
of 
implementation of the 
inputs  provided  by 
the committee 

level 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 

Judgment 
criteria  

There has been an 
adequate  degree 
of flexibility in the 
design 
the 
projects,  call  for 
proposals, 
procurement  

of 

to 

substantial 
the 

Non 
changes 
National 
programme  were 
applied swiftly 

to 

Rules 
and 
procedures  have 
been  established 
that 
ensure 
to 
substantial 
adjustments 
National 
Programmes  can 
be implemented in 
a  timely  manner 
should  new  needs 
arise 
The objectives set 
in the AWP for the 
are 
UAs 
addressing 
all 
relevant 
transnational 
current 
related 
knowledge 
sharing, 
transnational 
cooperation 
communication, 
fostering  research 
innovation, 
and 
research 
The objectives set 
in  the  AWP  for 

needs 
with 

and 

(Union 

Did 
the 
objectives 
set  in  the 
Annual 
Work 
Programm
e 
actions) 
address the 
actual 
needs? 
Did 
the 
objectives 
set  in  the 
Annual 
Work 
Programm
e 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Targeted 
survey   
Country 
case studies 

Ex-post 
National 
evaluations 

Country 
case studies 

National 
programme
s 
Ex-post 
national 
evaluations 

Semi-
structure 
interviews 
Country 
case studies 

National 
programme
s 
Ex-post 
National 
evaluations 

/ 

Indicator 
Descriptor 
Types  of  measures 
taken 
ensure 
to 
flexibility 

Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholders 
the 
consider 
implemented 
measures 
were 
effective  in  ensuring 
the 
flexibility 
design of the projects, 
call 
for  proposals, 
procurement 
Number of changes to 
the 
National 
programmes  

in 

Share  of  consulted 
stakeholder 
that 
that  non 
consider 
substantial 
changes 
were applied swiftly 
Types  of  existing 
rules  and  procedures 
that 
that 
ensure 
changes 
substantial 
can be implemented  

Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholder 
substantial 
consider 
changes 
be 
can 
implemented  should 
new needs arises 

Thematic 
case studies  

Annual 
Work 
Programme
s;  
Literature 
review  

needs 

The  extent  to  which 
(as 
actual 
emerged 
from 
stakeholder 
consultation 
and 
literature  review)  are 
addressed 
the 
objectives  as  defined 
in  the  Annual  Work 
Programme for Union 
Actions and EMAS 

by 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicator 
Descriptor 

/ 

Primary 
source 

Secondary 
source 

Evaluation 
question  

Sub-
questions 
(Emergenc
y 
Assistance
) 
address 
the  actual 
needs? 

Judgment 
criteria  
are 
EMAS 
addressing 
all 
current urgent and 
specific  needs  of 
States 
Member 
deriving 
from 
emergency 
situations 

substantial 
the 
were 

Non 
changes 
AWPs 
applied swiftly 

to 

Rules 
and 
procedures  have 
been  established 
to 
that 
ensure 
substantial 
to 
adjustments 
can  be 
AWPs 
implemented  in  a 
timely 
manner 
should  new  needs 
arise 

Number of changes to 
AWPs 
Share  of  consulted 
stakeholder 
that 
that  non 
consider 
substantial 
changes 
were applied swiftly 
Types  of  existing 
rules  and  procedures 
that 
that 
ensure 
changes 
substantial 
can be implemented  

Share  of  consulted 
that 
stakeholder 
substantial 
consider 
changes 
be 
can 
implemented  should 
new needs arises 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Consistent  with  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox170  #56  and  #57,  Table  2  provides  a 
proportionate overview of the costs and benefits entailed by the Fund. This table has been 
completed based on the information gathered during the study supporting the ex-post evaluation 
of the AMIF 2014-2020. 

The quantitative data on AMIF funding, including national contributions stems from the 
transmission of data from  SFC2014 (as of 31 December 2024), EMN Work Programmes as 
well  as  data  on  Union  Actions  and  EMAS  from  outside  of  COMPASS  (as  of  31  December 
2024). 

Quantitative  estimates  for  direct  compliance  costs  and  enforcement  costs  for 
administrations and for beneficiaries of the AMIF are based on responses to the targeted survey, 
as well as on anecdotal evidence from semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. 

Costs and benefits can be divided into three categories: those that can be monetised, those that 
can  be  quantified,  and  those  that  are  purely  qualitative  and  cannot  be  measured.  Illustrative 
examples of these costs are provided below: 

•  Direct  Compliance  Costs:  The  European  Commission  had 

to  establish  a 
comprehensive  IT system to  manage and monitor the distribution and compliance of 
AMIF funds across all Member States. This included significant investment in software 
development, staff hiring, remuneration, and training, as well as ongoing maintenance 
to ensure the system's effectiveness and security. Additionally, Responsible Authorities 
had  to  align  their  local  systems  with  this  centralised  platform,  incurring  further 
adjustment costs. 

•  Enforcement  Costs:  The  European  Commission  conducts  regular  inspections  and 
audits of AMIF-funded projects across Member States to ensure compliance with EU 
regulations.  This 
reviewing  extensive 
documentation. The costs associated with these activities include personnel costs, and 
the  development  of  detailed  compliance  reports.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  must 
handle  any  legal  disputes  or  adjudication  processes  that  arise  from  non-compliance, 
adding to the enforcement costs. 

involves  conducting  site  visits  and 

•  Indirect  Costs:  Member  States  incur  indirect  costs  related  to  the  compliance  with 
AMIF  regulation,  such  as  the  need  to  maintain  detailed  financial  records  and 
documentation  for  audits.  These  costs  also  include  translating  AMIF  guidelines  and 
documentation  into  multiple  languages  to  ensure  all  stakeholders  understand  the 
requirements.  Additionally,  the  administrative  burden  of  managing  the  application 
process and the ongoing reporting requirements can lead to increased operational costs 
for organisations involved in AMIF-funded projects. 

•  Direct Benefits: AMIF funding has enabled the construction of new reception centres 
and shelters for asylum seekers across the EU, directly improving living conditions and 
providing essential services such as healthcare, legal assistance, and language training. 
These facilities have significantly enhanced the capacity of Member States to manage 

170  European  Commission  (2023),  ‘Better  regulation’ 

toolbox  –  July  2023  edition,  available  at: 

https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-
toolbox_en  

89 

 
 
asylum  applications  and  provide  immediate  support  to  migrants  and  refugees, 
contributing to a more humane and efficient asylum process. 

•  Indirect Benefits: AMIF-funded integration projects have led to greater social cohesion 
and  reduced  xenophobia  across  the  EU.  These  projects  include  public  awareness 
campaigns,  community-building  activities,  and  educational  initiatives  that  promote 
understanding and acceptance of migrants and refugees. As a result, local communities 
have  become  more  inclusive,  and  the  overall  perception  of  migrants  has  improved, 
leading to long-term positive impacts on social harmony and economic integration. 

Notably, the overview of benefits and costs of the Fund is constrained by the limited availability 
of both qualitative and quantitative data regarding costs and benefits which makes it challenging 
to infer comprehensive conclusions. This is due to the fact that Member States are not obligated 
to collect or report data on administrative costs as part of the Fund’s reporting requirements. 

Consequently, the analysis relies primarily on qualitative evidence, as even in the context of the 
targeted survey and country case studies the Member States have provided heterogeneous input. 
A  more  extensive  and  detailed  examination  would  likely  have  been  disproportionate  to  the 
scope of the supporting study for the Commission's evaluation. 

The  below  table  contains  information  based  on  the  best  data  available.  This  includes  using 
qualitative evidence to illustrate larger issues, evidence-based assumptions for estimates, proxy 
values and ranges, as well as anecdotal evidence. 

90 

 
Cost or benefit 

AMIF 
funding171 

One-off 

One-off 

Direct 
compliance 
costs172 

Figure 18: Overview of costs and benefits for the AMIF 2014-2020 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Administrations 

Businesses 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

Appr. 
billion EUR 

7.4 

Appr.  124  to 
165  million 
EUR 

AMIF  budget 
(incl.  Member 
States 
contributions) 
spent 
for 
operations 
under  shared, 
and 
direct 
indirect 
management. 
The  estimate 
is based on the 
AMIF  budget 
spent 
for 
Technical 
Assistance,  as 
an 
approximation 
direct 
for 

171 Spent resources, i.e. final EU payment made to cover eligible expenditure of actual ended/closed operations. Source: TOD from SFC2014 (December 2024); EMN Work Programmes 

(2014-2020); EMAS and UA data from and outside of COMPASS (December 2024). 

172 Adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost or benefit 

Recurrent  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 
compliance 
costs.173 
Evidence  on 
the 
direct 
compliance 
costs 
authorities 
very 
based 
responses 
the 
survey 
by 
provided 
11  National 
Authorities.174 

Preparation 
of 
direct 
awards  and 
calls:  appr.  6 
to  30  man-
per 
days 
call 
award/ 
per MS 
Screening  of 
applications: 
appr.  9  to  30 
man-days per 
call per MS 

for 
is 
limited, 
on 
to 
targeted 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

for 

Direct 
compliance 
costs 
beneficiaries: 
Regulatory 
requirements as 
as 
well 
procurement 
procedures 
were 
each 
perceived  as  a 
by 
challenge 
of 
>50% 

173 The spent resources for Technical Assistance of around 165 million EUR (Source: TOD from SFC2014, December 2024) are taken as a ceiling estimate for direct compliance costs of 
National Authorities. The lower bound estimate of 124 million EUR represents a best estimate which could not be verified. While EU contributions for Technical Assistance can be 
used for more than adjustment costs and administrative costs, there are likely to be additional direct costs borne by National Authorities for which no data is available. Funding for 
Technical Assistance, as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 514/2014, is allocated to actions necessary for the effective administration and use of AMIF funds, including project 
preparation, institutional capacity building, technical equipment, monitoring, evaluation, and the establishment of control systems, as well as actions to enhance communication and 
cooperation among stakeholders. 

174 Quantitative estimates were made based on the responses provided for the time spent on the preparation of funding and the screening of applications, which varied significantly across 

respondents. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost or benefit 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Administrations 

Businesses 

One-off  
Recurrent  

n/a  

Enforcement 
costs176 

Monitoring: 
appr.  1  to  8 
man-days per 
year per MS 
Reporting: 
appr.  20 
100 
days 
reporting 
year per MS 
Auditing:  
appr.  2  man-
days  for  one 
on-the-spot 

to 
man-
per 

for 
is 
limited, 
on 
to 
targeted 

Evidence  on 
the 
enforcement 
costs 
authorities 
very 
based 
responses 
the 
survey 
provided 
by 
12  National 
Authorities.178 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

surveyed 
beneficiaries.175 

for 

Enforcement 
costs 
beneficiaries: 
Monitoring 
requirements 
were  perceived 
as  a  challenge 
by 
of 
55% 
surveyed 
beneficiaries.179 

175 Survey questions: “To what extent were the following aspects perceived as a challenge by your institution / organisation / company in the implementation of the project(s) funded by 
the National Programme AMIF?: Procurement procedures” (Q30.1; N=110); “To what extent were the following aspects perceived as a challenge by your institution / organisation / 
company in the implementation of the project(s) funded by the National Programme AMIF?: Regulatory requirements” (Q30.1; N=111). 

176 Costs associated with activities linked to the implementation of an initiative such as monitoring, inspections, and adjudication/ litigation. 

178 Responses from other authorities suggest that more man-days were spent for auditing per on-the-spot control or per project, which is likely due to the varying sizes of projects. 

179 Survey question: “To what extent were the following aspects perceived as a challenge by your institution / organisation / company in the implementation of the project(s) funded by 

the National Programme AMIF?: Monitoring requirements” (Q30.3; N=111). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost or benefit 

One-off  

Indirect 
costs180 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Administrations 

Businesses 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

control 
MS177 

per 

to 

costs 

Indirect 
for 
beneficiaries: 
According 
information 
gathered 
from 
interviews  with 
National 
Authorities 
from 
two 
Member  States 
beneficiaries 
granted 
were 
to 
around  10 
for 
15% 
indirect 
costs 
(administrative 
expenses). 

Recurrent  
- 

n/a  

Direct 
benefits 

Direct 
support 

Direct support 
through AMIF 

Direct  support 
the 
through 

177 The responses of National Authorities regarding the time spent on auditing of projects varied considerably, ranging from 2 man-days to as high as 60 man-days per project. One 

authority mentioned that 3 man-days were spent per on-the-spot control, with a total of 90 such controls conducted. 

180 Compliance costs or other indirect costs such as transaction costs. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost or benefit 

- 

Indirect 
benefits 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Administrations 

Businesses 

to 

facilitates 
access 
essential 
services  for 
target 
groups. 

at 

Actions 
aimed 
enhancing 
the 
integration 
of  migrants 
ultimately 
benefits 
social 
cohesion  in 
Member 
States. 

Actions 
aimed at the 
integration 
of  migrants 
facilitate 
entry 
their 
into 
the 
labour  force 
EU 
of 
Member 
States. 

95 

via 

policy 
in 
field  of 

funding 
Union 
Actions, 
Emergency 
Assistance 
and  Technical 
Assistance. 
Support in the 
management 
of  migration 
and 
the 
achievement 
of 
objectives 
the 
asylum, 
migration  and 
integration.  It 
can  further  be 
that 
assumed 
there 
are 
efficiency 
gains 
in 
delivery 
funding 
asylum, 
migration  and 
integration  in 

the 
of 
for 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

AMIF  funding 
of  projects  in 
the 
field  of 
asylum, 
migration  and 
integration. 

from 
support 
the 
of 

Apart 
direct 
for 
measures 
beneficiaries, 
AMIF  funding 
enables 
organisations to 
engage  in  the 
field of asylum, 
migration  and 
integration, 
further 
contributing  to 
societal 
acceptance 
national 
EU policies. 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
Cost or benefit 

Citizens / Consumers 
Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment  Quantitative  Comment 

Administrations 

Businesses 

Other 
Quantitative  Comment 

Member 
States. 

96 

 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

The consultation strategy for this ex-post evaluation included a call for evidence, semi-
structured interviews, targeted surveys, a public consultation and a two focus groups. The 
objective  of  the  consultations  was  to  collect  relevant  information  and  insights  on  the 
effectiveness, efficiency, simplification and reduction of administrative burden, coherence, 
complementarity, EU added value, sustainability and relevance of the AMIF, as well as to 
collect inputs on lessons learned. To do so, a wide range of EU, international and national 
level stakeholders were consulted. 

Call for evidence 

Prior to the start of the evaluation, in line with the Better Regulation Provisions, a call for 
evidence  was  launched  in  the  Have  Your  Say  platform.  Five  contributions  were 
received (181): 

-  The Sdružení pro integraci a migraci, o. p. s. from the Czech Republic provided a 
series of points concerning the difficulties NGOs have in accessing AMIF funding: 

o  Due to national rules, NGOs can only participate in 2 out of 13 AMIF calls 

in the Czech Republic. 

o  Support for smaller projects and instituting a maximum co-financing rate of 

5% would increase NGOs participation. 

o  AMIF  funding  is  important  as  not  all  needs  can  be  covered  by  European 
Social Fund (ESF) or the other European Structural and Investment Funds 
(ESIF). 

-  The Red Cross EU office provided a series of points regarding: 

o  In a number of Member States, AMIF is a core funding instrument and this 
makes  projects  dependent  on  funding  cycles,  thereby  affecting  the 
sustainability of a project particularly in the period between funding cycles. 

o  Greater  flexibility  in  the  target  groups  that  benefit  from  the  Fund  would 

ease the Red Crosses ability to provide services. 

o  Efforts  should  be  made  to  improve  civil  societies  and  humanitarian 
organisations access to AMIF funds. In particular, by national governments 
either covering the co-financing rate or decreasing the amount beneficiary 
organisations are expected to cover. 

o  Work Programmes should ensure predictability of regular calls for Union 
Actions, for example calls concerning the exchange of best practices.  

(181) Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for 2014-2020 – ex post evaluation 

97 

 
 
 
o  The  need  to  allocate  greater  resources  to  EMAS  under  the  2021-2027 

programming period.  

o  Possibilities  to  ease  reporting  requirements  under  AMIF  should  be 

explored. 

o  Calls  for  applications  under  Union  Actions  should  consider  longer 

deadlines.  

o  It is considered a good practice for the main AMIF implementing partners 
to be included in the Member State monitoring committees and should be 
further encouraged.  

-  The International Rescue Committee provided comments relating to: 

o  Some 

issues  of  Efficiency  regarding 

living 
accommodation for unaccompanied children project, as the current system 
is  creating  a  funding  gap.  Also,  they  commented  that  the  amount  of 
resources needed to manage the process was more than what was funded by 
AMIF. 

the  semi-independent 

o  They  found  the  implementation  of  AMIF  somewhat  coherent.  The 
programme  responded  to  real  needs,  but  the  complementarity  with  other 
programmes was lacking. 

o  AMIF should be linked with other programmes focusing more on protection 

and integration. 

o  Costs should be adjusted for inflation periodically by National Authorities.  

o  Administrative burden was still perceived as an issue. From a programmatic 
perspective,  organizations  still  need  to  take  a  lot  of  actions  and  perform 
many administrative tasks. 

o  The National  Authority  managing  AMIF or the  relevant Ministry should 
facilitate  horizontal  exchange  and  learning  between  actors  implementing 
AMIF funded project. 

-  The Konsorcium nevládních organizací pracujících s migranty v ČR from Czechia 

provided the following comments: 

o  For the future period it is important to ensure complementarity to AMIIF. 
It  could  be  done  by  strengthening  complementarity  between  AMIF  and 
ESF. 

o  The  beneficiaries  and  the  National  Authorities  that  manage  AMIF 
programmes  are  developing  a  good  relationship,  and  this  should  be 
maintained in the future. 

o  There are issues of understaffing in national authorities.  

o  Flexibility  might  be  difficult  to  implement  during  the  projects.  They 
recommend increasing flexibility for projects. They also also recommend 

98 

 
continuing to allow the transfer of planned activities to an online format, as 
it was done during the COVID – 19 pandemic. 

o  They recommend continuing to consult with beneficiaries and other actors 
in the field of integration on the thematic setting of calls and the intended 
project parameters, and through them to adapt the calls to identified needs. 

o  For the existing integration measures, which have proved successful, they 
recommend increasing their capacity and regional accessibility specifically 
in terms of the capacity of language courses and legal advice. 

-  Oxfam Italia provided the following comments: 

o  They encourage AMIF to provide more support to Asylum seekers securing 
the legal documentation they need to stay in the host country. This could be 
done through supporting legal aid and accompaniment. 

o  AMIF proposals should valorise outreach activities more tailored to needs 

than focused on numbers. 

o  The cooperation with local authorities and public bodies responsible for the 
social  inclusion  and  labour  integration  of  migrants  and  asylum  seekers 
should continue to be an asset and the partnership among civil society and 
public  authorities  should  be  facilitated  and  encouraged  within  the  AMIF 
program. 

o  They  suggest  AMIF  to  introduce  sub-granting  funds  to  support  small 
organizations working on the field as well as migrant-led organizations that 
can  provide  a  peer-to-peer  support  for  the  social  inclusion  and  labour 
integration of migrants and asylum seekers. 

Interviews 

Overall, 44 interviews were conducted for the evaluation. The interviews conducted during 
the data collection phase fed into answering the evaluation questions, as well as into the 
development of the country and thematic case studies.  

The table below provides an overview of the number of interviews conducted by activity 
as well as the types of consulted stakeholders and the objectives of the different interviews 
conducted.   

Table 16: An overview of the interviews conducted during the study 

Interviews 
by 
activity   

Type  of  consulted 
stakeholders   

Objectives  

99 

 
 
 
Scoping 
interviews 
(7)    

•  DG  HOME  (6): 
fund 

AMIF 
coordinators 
(Unit E1, E2, E3); 
Union  Actions 
Specific 
(E4); 
Actions 
(E3); 
Irregular 
Migration, 
Returns 
Readmission 
sector  (Unit  C1), 
Legal  Pathways 
Integration 
and 
C2), 
(Unit 
Policy 
Asylum 
(Unit C3)  

and 

Semi-
structured 
interviews 
(14)  

Country 
case 
studies 
(11)  

•  Responsible 

Authority (1): IT 

•  National 

Responsible 
Authorities  (12): 
AT,  BG,  EE,  FI, 
HR,  IE,  LU,  LV, 
MT, SI, SK, UK 

• 

International 
Organisation (1)  

•  Research  Centre 

(1)  

•  National 

Responsible 
Authorities  (DE, 
EL, IT, LT, RO)  

•  Project 

representatives 
and 
beneficiaries (EL, 
IT, RO) 

•  Research  centres 

(IT) 

•  Target 
(RO) 

groups 

•  To  deepen 

the  understanding  of 

the 
functioning of the AMIF, and to finetune the 
methodological approach 

•  To 

gather 

strategic 

operational 
information about the AMIF implementation, 
including considerations related to its impacts 
and added value  

and 

•  To  identify  and  discuss  potential  specific 
factors and processes that were crucial for the 
success of the AMIF implementation  

•  To identify how AMIF was implemented both 
by  governmental  and  non-governmental 
stakeholders.  

•  To  investigate  the  extent  to  which  and  the 
reasons  why  the  funding  was  particularly 
effective, efficient etc. (or not).     

Thematic 
case 

Beneficiaries 
project 
representatives for:   

and 

•  To gather granular evidence on the portfolio of 
projects  under  the  specific  types  of  the 

100 

 
  
  
studies 
(12)  

•  Union  Actions 

(2)   

•  EMAS (3)   

•  Specific  Actions 

(3)   

•  Ukraine (4) 

innovative 

components  and  programmes  of  the  Fund, 
and 
identifying 
projects,  good  practices,  key  drivers  and 
barriers towards achieving specific objectives 
and results, and lessons learned  

approaches 

Overall, the interviews conducted during the study helped assess how effectively the AMIF 
framework  has  achieved  its  goals  of  enhancing  national  capacities  and  improving 
migration  management.  Consulted  stakeholders  provided  a  positive  evaluation  of  the 
Fund’s effectiveness and efficiency in meeting its objectives. They noted that AMIF was 
successful  in  addressing  evolving  needs,  while  aligning  with  both  internal  and  external 
initiatives. In addition, consulted stakeholders highlighted the significant EU added value 
that  AMIF  brought  in  addressing  issues  and  crises  that  national  funds  alone  could  not 
effectively tackle.   

However,  while  acknowledging  the  Fund’s  effectiveness,  the  stakeholders  interviewed 
expressed  concerns  about  some  challenges  hindering  and  delaying  AMIF’s 
implementation.  Among  these  challenges,  unexpected  crises  (i.e.  the  Russian  war  of 
aggression against Ukraine, the 2015-2016 migration crises, the  COVID-19  Pandemic), 
delays in the initial funding provision, and high dependence on EU funds hindering AMIF-
funded projects’ sustainability were highlighted. Lastly, while there was an administrative 
burden  associated  with  performing  changes  to  the  AMIF  projects  in  a  timely  manner, 
mainly due to lengthy approval processes, consulted stakeholders noted a high degree of 
flexibility within the AMIF framework.  The following sections cluster the findings of the 
interviews  according  to  the  different  evaluation  criteria  (e.g.  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, relevance, complementarity, sustainability, EU added value, simplification and 
reduction of administrative burden). 

Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  Fund  has  achieved  its  operational  and  specific  objectives.  For  instance,  24 
consulted stakeholders (17 RA, six beneficiaries, and one IO) emphasised the achievement 
of objectives and targets for projects funded by AMIF during the 2014-2020 programming 
period. In particular, 19 stakeholders (16 RA, 2 beneficiaries and one IO) highlighted the 
effectiveness  of  AMIF  in  enhancing  and  supporting  the  Common  European  Asylum 
System (CEAS), while 20 stakeholders (14 RA, six beneficiaries) stressed its effectiveness 
in  fostering  legal  migration  and  social  integration  of  migrants  (i.e.  through  language 
courses, assistance provision in finding housing, educational integration, integration in the 
labour market, cultural orientation and events, awareness campaigns, legal assistance). In 
addition,  11  RA  highlighted  AMIF’s  role  in  enhancing  sustainable  returns,  while  14 
stakeholders (11 RA and three beneficiaries) stressed the substantial role of AMIF enabling 

101 

 
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
of relocation and resettlement initiatives, contributing to strengthening solidarity among 
Member States.   

Despite the overall positive assessment of AMIF’s effectiveness, its implementation was 
not  without  challenges.  In  particular,  some  stakeholders  highlighted  the  unexpected 
pressure  caused  by  the  migration  crisis  of  2015-2016  (nine  RA,  one  beneficiary),  the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent need to isolate vulnerable groups (six RA), and 
influx of refugees coming from Ukraine following the Russian aggression (eight RA, two 
beneficiaries). In this regard, stakeholders highlighted AMIF’s effectiveness in supporting 
Member  States  in  appropriately  addressing  these  emergency  situations,  which  required 
urgent action. 

Efficiency 

Mixed views emerged with regards to AMIF’s efficiency. 26 consulted stakeholders (13 
RA, 13 beneficiaries) believed that the measures funded by AMIF were cost-effective and 
achieved  results  at  reasonable  costs.  Four  Responsible  Authorities  highlighted  specific 
measures to ensure cost-effectiveness including the use of unit costs and market values, 
AMIF’s adherence to public procurement laws and competitive pricing, detailed selection 
processes, direct and open calls for projects, and external evaluation of project proposals 
by accounting experts. One Responsible Authority even stressed that AMIF maintained a 
good  balance  between  costs  encountered  and  results  achieved  despite  the  increase  of 
personnel, and subsequently personnel’s costs, over the course of the project. Despite the 
overall positive assessment by the majority of consulted stakeholders, four Responsible 
Authorities  pointed  out  that  resources  were  not  sufficient,  particularly  with  regards  to 
human resources. 

Consulted stakeholders were asked about the main direct and indirect costs encountered in 
AMIF 2014-2020 programming period. In terms of direct costs, stakeholders (eight RA) 
mainly highlighted staff costs (i.e. staff hiring, staff training) as the greatest costs for most 
stakeholders,  service  costs  (e.g.  food,  medical,  logistics),  daily  allowance  (i.e.  covered 
allowance for target groups and officials), and IT systems. Indirect costs mainly included 
monitoring  (e.g.  compliance  costs  with  AMIF  Regulation),  reporting  (e.g.  financial 
reporting  and  auditing),  administrative  burden  costs  (e.g.  detailed  costs  verification 
processes,)  overhead  expenses  (e.g.  infrastructure  costs,  utilities,  document  storage, 
licenses). 

Coherence 

According to  12 Responsible Authorities, one beneficiary,  and one target  group, AMIF 
enabled the establishment of good synergies and coherence among objectives set in the 
national programmes and other EU-funded programmes within the same policy domain, 
while avoiding duplication with national projects and initiatives. Eight stakeholders (five 
RA, one target group, two beneficiaries) highlighted that the consultation of the steering 
committees, internal consultation with local and regional authorities, as well as the shared 
management  structure  of  AMIF  allowed  to  avoid  duplication  and  enabled  joint 
programming  (i.e.  joint  return  programs)  among  Member  States  and  collaboration  with 
different funding streams.  

102 

 
Conversely, only two Responsible Authorities and one research centre highlighted the lack 
of synergy between AMIF and other EU funds (i.e. ESF) and between AMIF and other 
national initiatives. 

Relevance 

According to 34 consulted stakeholders (17 RA, 15 beneficiaries, one target group and one 
IO), the AMIF’s objectives strongly aligned with the needs of the target groups. Among 
the most relevant needs addressed by AMIF, stakeholders identified housing and language 
skills,  healthcare,  vocational  training  and  employment  support,  and  support  for 
beneficiaries with specific vulnerabilities including beneficiaries in protection (BIPs), and 
unaccompanied  minors.  However,  stakeholders  highlighted  that  some  needs  remained 
unmet, such as receptiveness at the city level, especially in schools (one target group) and 
specific  vulnerabilities  such  as  disabilities  (one  beneficiary).  Moreover,  gaps  were 
identified in supporting unaccompanied minors leaving shelters upon turning 18, leading 
to increased difficulties in securing legal status and employment (one beneficiary). Finally, 
one research centre highlighted a gap with regards to the provision of support for irregular 
migrants. 

Swift adjustments to address evolving needs and promptly respond to 2015-2016 migration 
crises were seen as effective, with positive feedback from 12 Responsible Authorities, one 
target group, and five beneficiaries. Particularly, two Responsible Authorities highlighted 
AMIF’s  flexibility  in  reallocating  funds  between  specific  objectives  and  extending 
deadlines to adapt to changing migration needs.  

Complementarity 

According to 11 RA and three beneficiaries, the objectives set in the national programme 
and the corresponding implemented actions were complementary with other initiatives and 
funding sources at the national level. Six RA highlighted complementarity between AMIF 
and  other  EU  funds  (e.g.  ESF),  while  three  RA  and  one  beneficiary  highlighted 
complementarity between AMIF and national migration policies (e.g. national resettlement 
programme, national return programme). Eight RA emphasised that mechanisms were put 
in  place  to  ensure  this  complementarity,  while  one  RA  noted  that  an  assessment  of 
complementarity  with  other  initiatives  was  not  performed  and  that  there  were  no 
mechanisms developed to ensure complementarity. The mechanisms highlighted ranged 
from the use of robust invoice tracking and other dedicated project management tools (one 
RA) to cooperation and dialogue with National Authorities involved with other EU funds 
and  more  broadly  with  stakeholders  involved  in  the  field  of  migration  and  asylum  (six 
RA), to finally, the creation of an ad-hoc committee that promoted information sharing and 
synergy  among  different  initiatives  (one  RA).  However,  two  beneficiaries  and  one  RA 
pointed out that navigating multiple funds and combining, as well as managing different 
programmes can be quite challenging. For this reason, one RA highlighted that it did not 
pursue joint calls with other funds (e.g. ESF).  

Four RA emphasised that there was also complementarity between different AMIF fund 
components (e.g. EMAS, Union Actions), while one RA and one research centre noted 
some  overlaps  between  Specific  Actions  and  Union  Actions.  In  particular,  the  research 
centre explained that there were cases where the same organisations applied for funding 
under both streams, which caused inefficiencies. Notably, to ensure complementarity, one 
RA implemented several mechanisms (e.g. creation of detailed project Gantt charts and 
robust invoice tracking mechanisms), while another had regular talks with all stakeholders 

103 

 
involved. Finally, one RA indicated that placing the RA within the Ministry of Interior 
(MoI) ensured seamless coordination among different fund components. 

EU added value 

The majority of consulted stakeholders agreed that the EU support through AMIF brought 
about  significant  added  value  (16  RA,  11  beneficiaries,  one  target  group,  one  research 
centre). Notably, according to all consulted stakeholders except for one RA, without the 
EU support, it would have been difficult and in some cases impossible to achieve the same 
results and impacts. In particular, 13 RA, 11 beneficiaries, one IO, one research centre and 
one  target  group  emphasised  that  AMIF  funding  has  significantly  enhanced  available 
financial  resources,  alleviating  the  burden  on  national  budgets  and  enabling  the 
implementation  of  broader  and  more  complex  projects.  Furthermore,  stakeholders 
highlighted  that  AMIF  supported  capacity-building  efforts,  enhancing  the  skills  and 
knowledge  of  personnel  involved  in  managing  asylum  and  migration  (12  RA,  11 
beneficiaries, one IO, one research centre). In addition, two beneficiaries and one research 
centre  noted  that  AMIF  implementation  resulted  in  enhanced  cross-border  cooperation. 
Finally, according to two beneficiaries, implementing projects and initiatives through EU 
funding  enabled  them  to  better  focus  on  their  mission  and  endowed  them  with  more 
legitimacy as well as leverage to address more “sensitive” issues (e.g. racism, childcare) 
that would not have been addressed otherwise. 

Sustainability 

Overall,  the  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  agreed  that  the  positive  effects  of  the 
projects supported by the AMIF are likely to last even after the support from AMIF ends 
(12  RA,  eight  beneficiaries,  one  IO).  In  particular,  six  RA  highlighted  that  the 
infrastructure  improvements  and  development  of  IT  systems  achieved  through  AMIF 
remained even after the intervention ended and were sustained through national budgets. 
One RA and one beneficiary noted that the reception centres developed and strengthened 
through AMIF were then financed through national budgets or alternative funding sources, 
thus ensuring their sustainability. Moreover, two RA highlighted that the projects focused 
on  integration  of  TCNs  have  continued  to  thrive  even  after  the  AMIF  funding  ended. 
Notably,  consulted  stakeholders  highlighted  the  role  played  by  NGOs  and  local 
communities in ensuring the sustainability of AMIF interventions, particularly through the 
development long-term networks built during project implementation that lasted beyond 
AMIF  implementation  (two  RA,  two  beneficiaries,  one  research  centre).  Some  projects 
were even replicated (two RA) or were directly integrated into local public services (one 
beneficiary). Nonetheless, two beneficiaries, one RA and one research centre pointed out 
that the long-term sustainability of AMIF projects is highly dependent on continued EU 
funding, which limits their overall sustainability. 

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

The AMIF management procedures were indeed simplified, and there has been a notable 
reduction in the administrative burden, as confirmed by the majority of RA (11 RA), and 
three beneficiaries. In particular, the introduction of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs) (six 
RA),  the  digitalisation  of  reporting  and  case  management  (two  RA)  and  multi-annual 
planning  (two  RA),  resulted  in  the  overall  reduction  of  administrative  burden  and 
streamlining of financial management. Nevertheless, beneficiaries shared a less positive 
perspective, with five beneficiaries, along with five RA and one research centre, finding 
the administrative burden to be quite challenging, highlighting a mismatch between the 
administrative  burden  and  the  benefits  obtained.  The  challenges  resulting  from  the 

104 

 
excessive administrative requirements  were particularly  pressing for  NGOs and smaller 
organisations (two beneficiaries and one research centre).   

Targeted surveys 

Objectives and scope 

The purpose of the targeted surveys conducted between August and September 2024 was 
to  gather  feedback  from  National/  Managing  Authorities  (NAs/MAs)  involved  in  the 
planning, monitoring, and assessment of AMIF measures, as well as from organisations, 
institutions, or companies participating in their implementation (i.e., beneficiaries).  

It  concentrated  on  aspects  such  as  relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
influencing factors, sustainability of observed effects, and the EU added value provided by 
the implemented measure. As the mid-term evaluation of the AMIF 2021-2027 and the ex-
post  evaluation  of  the  AMIF  2014-2020  were  carried  out  in  concurrently,  the  targeted 
surveys covered both programming periods (2014-2020 and 2021-2027). Furthermore, the 
survey examined how eligible measures under all AMIF components (National/Member 
State programmes, Union Actions, and Emergency Assistance) are perceived in terms of 
promoting  horizontal  principles  like  gender  equality,  green  transition,  and  digital 
transition. Specific details related to Union Actions and Emergency Assistance were also 
included, in order to be analysed separately in thematic case studies.  The findings detailed 
in the dedicated section below were combined with conclusions from other sources as part 
of the overall evaluation exercise. 

Methodology 

The  targeted  surveys  included  a  mix  of  multiple-choice  and  open-ended  questions  for 
beneficiaries  and  National/Managing  Authorities.  Additionally,  the  surveys'  design 
enabled participants to concentrate on the specific programming period they were involved 
in and, if engaged in both periods, to compare them, emphasising potential improvements.  

As  defined  in  the  inception  phase,  the  survey  encompassed  the  entire  EU  and  utilised 
contact  information  from  Member  States  representatives  provided  by  the  European 
Commission. Managing Authorities played a pivotal role in promoting survey participation 
among other stakeholders, including Audit Authorities, Delegated Authorities, Monitoring 
Committees, and beneficiaries.  

The survey, available in English182, was sent to 418 unique stakeholders: 143 contacts from 
National/Managing Authorities managing AMIF and 275 beneficiaries, of UA, and EMAS. 
Managing  Authorities  were  requested  to  send  the  invitations  to  beneficiaries  of 
National/Member State Programmes. 

From  an  operational  perspective,  after  DG  HOME  validated  the  survey  questionnaires, 
they were distributed using the EU survey platform. Based on the contact list provided by 
the  European  Commission,  the  initial  invitations  were  sent  between  19  and  27  August 

182 Considering the request from beneficiaries, the survey for beneficiaries was also translated in French, 
Italian and German. Additionally, there were also particular cases where respondents provided answers 
in their language.  

105 

 
 
 
2024,  followed  by  two  reminders  in  the  first  week  of  September,  and  a  final  reminder 
informing about the extension by 20 September 2024.  

Respondents profile 

Out  of  a  total  of  474  respondents  who  accessed  the  surveys183  (48  National/Managing 
Authorities and 426 Beneficiaries), 419 completed questionnaires were considered for the 
analysis  of  the  results  (37  questionnaires  from  National/Managing  Authorities  and  382 
from AMIF beneficiaries184).  

As  indicated  in  the  19  below,  the  survey's  reach  was  broad,  encompassing  a  diverse 
typology of stakeholders, with the strongest response rates from civil society and public 
authorities, central and local. The varying response rates across categories may indicate 
differences in the size of these groups, their accessibility and eligibility, or their interest in 
the survey's subject matter. 

Figure 19: National/Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries: distribution by typology 

Source: Targeted survey with beneficiaries and National Authorities (August - September 
2024) 

The survey successfully achieved a  broad coverage across  all AMIF components for 
both programming periods, as illustrated in Figure 20 below. The most significant level of 
participation  was  observed  in  the  National  programme  for  the  2014-2020  period.  This 
predominance may be attributed to the incipient stage of the programmes for the current 
period  and  the  larger  financial  allocations  designated  for  National/Member  State 
programmes compared to other AMIF components. 

183 The survey was sent to 418 unique stakeholders: 143 contacts from National Authorities managing AMIF 
and 275 beneficiaries, Union Actions, and EMAS. Management Authorities were requested to send the 
invitations to beneficiaries of National/Member State Programmes. 

184 11 National Authorities did not complete the questionnaire,  with 27 beneficiaries were not sure about 
their involvement in AMIF funded projects (i.e. indicating "I don't know" in the filtering questions) and 
17 stating they were not AMIF beneficiaries. So, uncomplete or not relevant questionnaires were not 
considered in the analysis of the results. 

106 

 
 
 
 
The  survey  questions  were  generally  posed  in  a  broad  context,  and  whenever  feasible, 
respondents  were  asked  about  their  perceptions  across  different  fund  components  and 
programming  periods.  However,  considering  that  respondents  were  often  involved  in 
multiple  fund  components  and  programming  periods,  their  responses  may  reflect  their 
overall  experiences  rather  than  specific  aspects  of  any  single  component  or  period. 
Therefore, conclusions drawn across fund components and programming periods should 
be approached with caution, and it is advisable to consider overarching trends rather than 
focusing solely on individual numbers or percentages. 

Figure  20:  National/Responsible  Authorities  and  beneficiaries:  distribution  by  fund 
components and programming period 

Source:  Targeted  survey,  Beneficiaries  and  National  Authorities  (August  -  September 
2024) 

The survey's distribution by Member State shows varying levels of coverage, with some 
countries demonstrating a strong response rate while others have lower representation (see 
21 below). 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21: National/Responsible Authorities: distribution by country 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

155

101

25

4

6

10

4

2

1

26

14

11

7

6

2

6

3

1

14

9

5

4

3

Total

Beneficiaries

National Authorities

Source: Targeted survey, National Authorities (August - September 2024) 

Results 

This  section  presents  the  main  findings  per  evaluation  criterion,  where  relevant 
distinguishing  between  findings  emerging  from  the  consultation  of  NAs  and  findings 
emerging from the consultation of beneficiaries. 

Relevance 

Upon  analysing  the  survey  findings,  it  is  evident  that  there  are  some  differences  in 
perceptions  between  NAs/MAs  and  beneficiaries  regarding  the  implementation  and 
relevance of the AMIF. 

NAs/MAs noted that the AMIF strategy planning used a diverse and inclusive approach at 
the national level. They positively assessed the Fund's flexibility and relevance for 2014-
2020  and  2021-2027.  Many  NAs/MAs  reported  that  AMIF  programme  strategies  were 
adapted based on political changes and stakeholder input, with the Monitoring Committee 
playing a positive role through its recommendations. Despite this, authorities sometimes 
had  difficulties  implementing  these  suggestions.  Many  NAs/MAs  saw  an  improvement 
over  the  time  in  the  proportionality  and  adequacy  of  the  resource  allocated  to  address 
migration needs. The majority felt the budget limits posed by the AMIF Regulation were 
"slightly  too  low"  or  "adequate,"  hinting  at  support  for  more  ambitious  targets.  For 
international  protection  transfer  thresholds,  only  40%  found  it  adequate,  with  25%  of 
respondents seeing it as "slightly too high”. 

The  survey  indicates  that  there  is  general  consensus  among  beneficiaries  about  the 
appropriateness  of  the  support  their  organisations  provided  to  TCNs,  with  this  support 
meeting the needs of TCNs. Nonetheless, the agreement rate decreased from 88% to 63%, 
highlighting remaining challenges and obstacles in aiding TCNs.   

Moreover, beneficiaries expressed concerns about the flexibility of Calls for proposals and 
procurement procedures. While during the 2014-2020 period both Calls for proposals and 

108 

 
 
procurement procedures flexibility was rated positively by the majority of respondent, the 
positive perception diminished somewhat in the subsequent period.  

Survey findings indicate that, despite most beneficiaries giving high marks to the staff's 
expertise and the clarity of information available for TCNs when seeking support, several 
challenges  persist.  Only  45%  reported  no  language  barriers,  and  less  than  half  were 
satisfied with the length of the processes TCNs must navigate to access support.  

Consulted  NAs/MAs  consider  that  all  components  of  the  AMIF  were  complementary, 
coordinated, and effective, enhancing their impact during both the 2014-2020 and 2021-
2027  periods.  This  view  is  even  stronger  for  the  2021-2027  period.  MAs  particularly 
appreciated the synergies generated between AMIF and ESF for 2014-2020 and with ESF+ 
for 2021-2027. 

Effectiveness 

NAs/MAs  and  beneficiaries  generally  agreed  that  AMIF  has  achieved  its  goals, 
successfully  supporting  reception  conditions,  aiding  vulnerable  non-EU  nationals,  and 
helping  with  the  integration  and  return  of  TCNs.  NAs/MAs  also  acknowledge  AMIF's 
contribution  to  the  development  of  national  strategies  and  fostering  transnational 
cooperation.  

Additionally,  AMIF  has  been  effective  in  enhancing  the  capabilities  of  beneficiaries 
supporting  TCNs.  Organisation  representatives  benefiting  from  capacity-building 
programmes reported a range of positive outcomes. These included increased collaboration 
and networking with other professionals, agencies, and authorities, as well as strengthened 
organisational procedures and more efficient case-handling. Furthermore, the development 
of  new  programs  or  services  for  TCNs  and  improved  soft  and  technical  skills  to  better 
support and manage procedures related to TCNs were highlighted. Specifically, 63% of 
the beneficiaries stated they have extensively  applied the knowledge gained. Moreover, 
45%  noticed  some  changes,  while  38%  observed  major  improvements  in  how  their 
organization supports TCNs due to the support received under AMIF. 

Nevertheless,  there is  room for improvement;  MAs focus on pre-departure measures, 
family reunification, and TCN relocation, while beneficiaries emphasise reintegration and 
enhancements in the asylum process.   

Both categories of consulted stakeholders agree that other groups (not targeted by AMIF) 
have benefited from its implementation. Specifically, civil society organizations, service 
providers,  and  government  agencies.  Their  views  diverge  on  additional  groups:  NAs 
believe  irregular  migrants  and  temporary  protection  beneficiaries  have  gained,  whereas 
beneficiaries disagree. 

Efficiency 

The  survey  revealed  that  various  methods  are  used  by  NAs/MAs  to  select  the  most 
effective  projects.  From  2014  to  2020,  they  relied  on  qualitative  and  quantitative 

109 

 
justifications from beneficiaries. The efficacy of these methods is further corroborated by 
feedback from beneficiaries: 60% of participants in AMIF 2014-2020 projects assisting 
TCNs reported delivering efficient support at reasonable costs relative to the positive 
outcomes  achieved.  A  similar  percentage  regarded  ongoing  projects  as  cost-efficient, 
suggesting that the expenses incurred so far provide significant value for money. 

Assessing the efficiency of programme management is challenging, as limited feedback 
and significant variability in estimates make it difficult to provide a single average figure 
for  the  time  NAs/MAs  spend  on  procurement  procedures,  monitoring,  and  reporting. 
However,  the  major  finding  is  that  collected  estimates  do  not  change  between  the  two 
programming  periods,  indicating  no  improvement  in  the  effort  required  to  manage 
tasks is perceived.  

The Fund's efficiency is perceived to be partially reduced by the administrative burdens 
associated with regulatory obligations, which stakeholders (NAs/MAs) indicated to only 
partly justify the benefits. These obligations are viewed as more burdensome compared to 
national  programs,  while  EU  programs  have  similar  administrative  demands.  However, 
simplification  measures  have  largely  improved  program  efficiency,  with  most 
respondents  finding  them  helpful  except  for  project-level  reporting.  Additionally,  some 
Member  States  reported  not  adopting  the  "financing  not  linked  to  cost"  measures.  It  is 
important to note that this analysis is based on stakeholders’ perceptions, and they were 
not able to quantify the burdens185.  

Furthermore, the majority of consulted NAs/MAs (16) reported irregularities during audit 
missions,  including  non-compliance  with  procurement  procedures,  ineligible  expenses, 
and delayed reporting. Seven cited all three issues combined. 

Factors that influenced AMIF implementation 

Both  NAs/MAs  and  beneficiaries  agreed  on  the  positive  effects  of  AMIF  resource 
allocation and the capabilities of both groups.  

Additionally, NAs/MAs highlighted the positive impacts  of implementing the Common 
European Asylum System and the Union Acquis.  

However, opinions diverged on other factors: while NAs/MAs viewed the implementation 
of the Common European Asylum System and Union Acquis as beneficial, they considered 
external  crises  and  migrant  influxes,  including  COVID-19  and  the  war  in  Ukraine,  to 
negatively impact AMIF.  

Conversely,  most  beneficiaries  viewed  the  procedures  required  to  start  and  manage  an 
AMIF project as negative.  

185  The  respondents  were  asked  “to  provide  an  estimate  of  the  average  time  spent,  in  both  programming 
periods,  (number of man-days that a full-time employee spent) for the preparation of : a. Direct awards (i.e., 
info to applicants, preparing calls and guidelines,  contractualization); b. Competitive awards (i.e., info to 
applicants,  preparing  calls  and  guidelines,  contractualization);  c.  Evaluation  of  proposals/  projects  ( 
screening and selecting applications); d. Monitoring of programme implementation (meetings of monitoring 
committees  and  sub  committees);  e.  Reporting;  f.  Auditing  and  on-the-spot  controls  of  projects”.  18 
respondents  answered  at  this  question,  but  considering  the  high  variance  of  the  data  collected  and  the 
different level of details it was not possible to aggregate the answers.  

110 

 
 
All other factors were seen as having neither a distinctly positive nor negative effect by all 
stakeholders consulted.  

Notably, both NAs/MAs and beneficiaries concurred that the influencing factors for the 
2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods were essentially identical. 

Sustainability 

Beneficiaries and NAs alike believe that the impacts produced by projects funded under 
all AMIF components are likely to endure beyond the Fund’s active phase. Although the 
limited  number  of  respondents  specific  to  Union  Actions  or  EMAS  prevents  drawing 
substantial  conclusions  for  these  individual  components,  it’s  plausible  to  connect 
stakeholder perceptions with their engagement in shared management projects—such as 
those within the National programmes funded by AMIF over the period 2014 – 2020.  

EU added value 

Although  there  is  no  consensus  among  NAs  on  the  added  value  of  AMIF  2014-2020, 
beneficiaries have a clearer perspective. They believe that AMIF 2014-2020 has been quite 
successful  in  implementing  new  and  innovative  approaches  to  asylum  and  integration 
while also enhancing cooperation among national stakeholders.  

Public Consultation  

Objectives and scope 

The  Public  Consultations  conducted  between  30  August  2024  and  22  November  2024 
aimed  to  gather  feedback  from  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders.  The  key  groups  targeted 
included actors involved in fund management, such as Responsible Authorities, Delegated 
Authorities,  and  Audit  Authorities;  beneficiaries  across  all  management  modes;  EU 
citizens; non-EU citizens (including those who received support from AMIF 2014-2020); 
public  or  private  bodies  responsible  for  initiating  or  both  initiating  and  implementing 
operations (including, e.g., civil society organizations and international organizations that 
are  beneficiaries  of  AMIF  2014-2020);  national  public  authorities  responsible  for 
monitoring, coordination, and control of AMIF 2014-2020; individuals, be they staff, EU 
nationals,  or  non-EU  nationals,  who  benefited  from  AMIF  2014-2020  support;  and  the 
general public. The goal was to ensure comprehensive input from all relevant parties to 
inform the consultation process. 

The consultations focused on aspects such as relevance, complementarity, effectiveness, 
efficiency, and the EU added value, for the implemented measures under the programming 
period 2014-2020. The survey examined the extent to which the support met the needs of 
the target  population  and its accessibility. It  assessed stakeholders' views on the Fund's 
contributions  to  strengthening  asylum  procedures,  implementing  legal  frameworks,  and 
developing  national  resettlement  programs.  The  survey  also  evaluated  support  for  legal 
migration, cooperation among Member States, and capacity building for integration and 
return measures. Additionally, the consultations explored the efficiency of interventions, 
the proportionality of the administrative burden, and the unique impact of EU intervention. 
The complementarity  of  the Fund with  other programs  and the challenges faced during 
implementation  were  also  key  areas  of  focus.  Overall,  the  survey  aimed  to  gather 
comprehensive feedback on the Fund's contributions and identify areas for improvement. 

111 

 
Methodology 

The questionnaire was designed to collect relevant and comparable information primarily 
through  closed-ended  questions,  accompanied  by  guidance  on  the  expected  inputs. 
Filtering  questions  categorised  respondents  by  their  country  of  origin,  typology  (e.g., 
institutions, associations, citizens), and familiarity with AMIF, ensuring the collection of 
relevant  insights  for assessing AMIF's impact  and reach. Based on these  responses, the 
questionnaire was customised for third-country nationals who had benefited from AMIF, 
individuals with working knowledge of AMIF, participants and staff engaged in AMIF-
funded  activities,  and  the  general  public.  An  introductory  section  provided  information 
about AMIF, including its objectives, management modes, and beneficiaries, to clarify the 
objectives of the public consultation. 

Respondents profile 

The public consultation questionnaire received a total of 50 responses, reflecting a diverse 
range of backgrounds and affiliations. However, given the limited number of respondents, 
the answers should be interpreted with caution.  

Public authorities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were the most represented 
groups,  indicating  active  participation  in  public  consultations.  Contributions  from  EU 
citizens, academic and research institutions, and businesses were less frequent, indicating 
a potential gap in broader stakeholder engagement. 

The scope of work among public authority respondents varied, with representation at the 
national, local, and regional levels. This suggests that the consultation captured a range of 
perspectives,  though  the  distribution  indicates  a  stronger  focus  on  national-level 
experiences. 

Figure 22: Survey respondents: distribution by typology 

Source: Public consultation (August - November 2024) 

Organisational size among respondents also showed diversity, with a notable number from 
large  organizations,  as  well  as  representation  from  medium,  small,  and  micro-
organizations. This range ensures that the feedback includes experiences from entities of 
different sizes and capacities. 

112 

 
 
 
 
Figure 23: Survey respondents: distribution by size 

Source: Public consultation (August - November 2024) 

The geographical distribution indicates that the consultation included a variety of national 
contexts and experiences with AMIF, though some countries were more represented than 
others. 

Figure 24: Survey respondents: geographical distribution 

Source: Public Consultation (August - November 2024) 

In  terms  of  their  relationship  to  the  AMIF  2014-2020,  the  majority  of  respondents  had 
direct  involvement in  the implementation  of AMIF-funded projects,  providing  practical 
insights.  There  was  also  representation  from  those  involved  in  the  management  and 
oversight of AMIF, as well as individuals with professional knowledge of the Fund. This 
mix of roles ensures that the evaluation includes both hands-on and strategic perspectives. 

Figure 26: Survey respondents: role or relationship to the AMIF 2014-2020 

Source: Public Consultation (August - November 2024) 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
Results 

This section presents the main findings per evaluation criterion. 

Relevance 

Accessibility of the support 

The  accessibility  of  AMIF  support  is  generally  well-regarded,  but  improvements  are 
needed  to  enhance  its  relevance.  While  accessibility  and  clarity  of  information  and  the 
competence  of  staff  received  positive  feedback,  survey  responses  indicate  areas  for 
improvement in language availability and simplification of procedures. Technical issues 
with  application systems were not a major concern, as most respondents  did  not  report 
significant problems. 

Effectiveness 

Extent to which the Fund contributes to its objectives 

AMIF 2014-2020 made essential contributions to EU migration and asylum challenges, 
but  its  performance  varied  across  objectives.  Respondents  widely  recognised  the 
programme’s importance in supporting the Common European Asylum System, promoting 
the effective integration of third-country nationals, and supporting legal migration. Equally 
significant were efforts to enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing among Member 
States and to strengthen Member States capacity during emergencies, highlighting a shared 
recognition of the need for coordinated EU-wide strategies. 

Extent to which emergency support addressed urgent and specific needs 

AMIF’s  ability  to  adapt  to  emergency  situations  received  mixed  feedback  form 
respondents. While the Fund effectively supported urgent migration-related needs during 
crises,  such  as  surges  at  the  EU’s  external  borders  and  the  impacts  of  the  Russian 
aggression  against  Ukraine,  concerns  were  raised  about  delays  in  adjustments  and 
insufficient mechanisms to empower subnational authorities. Centralised fund allocation 
processes  also  limited  the  flexibility  needed  for  swift  responses.  Nonetheless,  AMIF’s 
targeted contributions  in  specific instances demonstrated its potential to  address  critical 
needs when effectively implemented.  

Effectiveness of the support 

The  survey  responses  suggest  that  AMIF  2014-2020  was  particularly  effective  in 
supporting  early  integration,  such  as  language  courses,  healthcare,  and  employment 
assistance, and in addressing the needs of vulnerable non-EU nationals, including minors. 
It  was  also  recognised  for  its  contribution  to  developing  strategies  and  fostering 
transnational  cooperation  related  to  reception,  integration,  and  countering  irregular 
migration.  

However, there were mixed views on AMIF’s effectiveness in supporting pre-departure 
measures and family reunification and in facilitating relocation and return programs. While 
some  respondents  acknowledged  meaningful  achievements,  others  noted  gaps,  such  as 
limited flexibility and challenges in adapting to specific needs. Concerns were also raised 

114 

 
about  delays  in  implementation,  particularly  in  areas  requiring  rapid  responses  or 
innovative approaches. 

Factors influencing the effectiveness of the support 

The survey responses highlight several key factors that influenced the implementation of 
AMIF  2014-2020,  with  varying  degrees  of  impact.  AMIF’s  strategic  and  financial 
framework  was  positively  regarded,  but  limitations  in  organizational  resources  and 
external  pressures,  such  as  public  opinion  and  global  crises,  underscored  areas  where 
additional support and flexibility could enhance the programme’s effectiveness. 

Efficiency 

The cost effectiveness of AMIF 2014-2020 received mixed assessments from respondents. 
While the majority of respondents acknowledged that the Fund achieved results efficiently, 
some  participants  noted  that  significant  administrative  workloads  diverted  critical 
resources  away  from  operational  activities,  leading  to  delays  and  diminishing  the 
effectiveness  of  funded  initiatives.  Additionally,  certain  respondents  implied  that  the 
reliance on state authorities for fund distribution created bottlenecks, further limiting the 
timely delivery of benefits. 

Complementarity 

AMIF  is  generally  perceived  as  complementary  and  coordinated  with  other  EU  and 
national  initiatives.  Positive  feedback  highlights  successful  coordination  with  local, 
regional, and national programs, particularly in areas such as reception conditions, asylum 
procedures, social inclusion, and labour market integration. However, some respondents 
noted  challenges  such  as  bureaucratic  hurdles  and  lack  of  coherent  information  on 
combining AMIF with other EU funds. 

EU added value 

Extent  to  which  results,  outputs,  impacts  could  not  have  been  achieved  without  EU 
intervention 

Respondents emphasised the importance of continued individualised assistance for non-
EU nationals in reception conditions and asylum procedures, as well as early integration 
support  through  measures  like  language  courses,  health  services,  and  employment 
assistance. Similarly, there was a broad consensus on the need for specialised support for 
vulnerable  groups,  including  minors,  across  all  phases  of  asylum  and  integration. 
Investment  in  resettlement  and  humanitarian  admission  also  stood  out  as  a  priority, 
alongside the development of strategies and cooperation to facilitate legal migration and 
effective integration.  

Evidence of scope, scale, role and process effects 

AMIF was seen as a driver of innovation, collaboration and financial enhancement, with 
its added value most clearly observed in the areas of knowledge transfer, expanded support, 
and capacity building. Respondents noted its contribution to the transfer of ideas and best 
practices  across  the  Member  States  and  the  development  of  innovative  approaches  to 
asylum, migration and integration processes. These areas were widely recognised as key 

115 

 
achievements, reflecting AMIF’s ability to drive cooperation and creative solutions across 
the EU. 

There was also acknowledgement of AMIF’s capacity to extend its benefits to additional 
groups  beyond  those  traditionally  addressed  at  the  national  level.  While  opinions  were 
more  varied  here,  the  Fund  was  still  seen  as  a  means  to  broaden  the  reach  of  support 
measures.  Similarly,  AMIF’s  role  in  increasing  allocated  resources  for  to  asylum, 
migration and integration was noted, underlining its contribution to enhancing financial 
capacity and scaling up efforts in these areas. 

Recommendations 

Suggested improvements for increased effectiveness and efficiency 

The  recommendations  primarily  focus  on  simplifying  administrative  processes  and 
enhancing flexibility to make AMIF more effective.  

Respondents  emphasised  the  need  to  streamline  the  application  process  by  reducing 
bureaucratic  hurdles,  shortening  applications,  and  introducing  faster  approval  periods. 
Some respondents suggested shifting towards simplified cost options, such as flat rates for 
material costs and payroll, to ease the burden of detailed accounting and reporting. 

Additionally,  better 
tools,  such  as  user-friendly  administrative  platforms,  were 
recommended for improved efficiency. There was also a call for AMIF to focus more on 
outcomes  and  achievements  rather  than  rigid  administrative  requirements,  with  lighter 
audits and simplified reporting procedures. 

Flexibility emerged as another key theme. Respondents advocated for a more dynamic and 
adaptable  funding  approach,  including  the  possibility  of  recurring  subsidies  instead  of 
project  calls  and greater freedom  to  adjust project  plans in  response to  new challenges, 
such as mass influxes of unforeseen crises. 

Recommendations also highlighted the need for long-term funding commitments to ensure 
sustainability and the retention of trained human resources. Direct access to funding for 
cities, grassroots organizations, and civil society was suggested by several respondents, as 
well  as  the  importance  of  targeting  local  needs  and  enabling  rapid-response  funds  for 
emergencies. 

In addition, respondents stressed the importance of better communication and support from 
funding providers. Clearer guidance during the application process, improved awareness 
of  funding  opportunities,  and  better  advice  on  demonstrating  EU  added  value  were 
mentioned as areas of improvement. 

Finally,  greater  coordination  between  national,  regional  and  international  funding 
mechanisms  was  recommended  to  ensure  alignment,  avoid  duplication,  and  maximize 
impact. 

116 

 
 
First EU level focus group 

The  first  EU-level  focus  group  was  held  on  25  June  in  Brussels,  gathering  participants 
from eight Managing Authorities (AT, BG, EE, DE, IT, NL, SK, SE) and 21 beneficiaries, 
with the aim of gathering preliminary evidence on AMIF implementation challenges and 
good practices related to the AMIF four specific objectives.  

After  a  brief  presentation  of  the  study,  two  breakout  sessions  were  organised  to  hold 
thorough discussions on: 1) challenges hampering the successful AMIF implementation, 
particularly  focusing  on  programming  and  selection,  implementation,  monitoring,  and 
communication; and 2) good practices and policy issues with respect to four SOs of the 
Fund (i.e. SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4).  

The first breakout session highlighted several key insights, offering a deeper understanding 
of both challenges and positive aspects associated with AMIF implementation.  

Firstly, with regard to the programming and selection of projects, both beneficiaries and 
Managing  Authorities  noted  that  applications  for  AMIF  projects  are  sometimes  too 
cumbersome and not clear enough. As for implementation, Managing Authorities stressed 
the  importance  of  focusing  on  the  use  of  simplified  cost  options  to  enhance 
implementation, while both Managing Authorities and beneficiaries highlighted that the 
use  of  unit  costs  has  streamlined  project  implementation  and  reporting.  Nonetheless, 
beneficiaries also highlighted that unit costs are hardly adjusted against inflation and that 
the related reporting requirements, though streamlined, are quite time-consuming.  

No major issues were highlighted concerning monitoring, except for limited involvement 
of relevant partners in the Monitoring Committees featured by Managing Authorities. As 
for  managing  controls,  beneficiaries  stressed  the  need  to  prioritise  the  achievement  of 
project results and objectives, rather than strict adherence to the initial project proposal.  

Lastly,  beneficiaries  and  Managing  Authorities  noted  that  there  is  limited  visibility  of 
AMIF  projects  and  their  impact,  despite  the  overall  increase  of  budget  allocated  to 
communication activities.  

Among the main outcomes of the second break-out session on AMIF SOs, beneficiaries 
noted that AMIF’s contribution  through SO2 is pivotal,  as it enables Member States to 
fund what they would not be able to fund otherwise. As for SO3, beneficiaries suggested 
that irregular migration should be covered by other Home Affairs Funds instead (e.g. ISF) 
and that AMIF should focus more on aspects  related to  integration. No issues emerged 
with  regard  to  SO4,  with  beneficiaries  noting  that  since  the  2014-2020  programming 
period there have been improvements in terms of the relevance of AMIF projects related 
to migrants sharing capacities and overall EU solidarity. 

Overall, throughout the focus group the EU added value of AMIF was highlighted by both 
Managing  Authorities  and  beneficiaries.  Beneficiaries  further  added  that  AMIF  plays  a 
pivotal role at the national level as no other national initiatives allocate enough funding on 
the  same  policy  priorities.  As  noted  by  participants,  AMIF  provides  legitimacy  to  the 
projects carried out at the grass-root level in the field of migration and asylum.  

117 

 
Second EU level focus group 

An EU-level focus group was held online through Microsoft Teams on 27 March 2025. 
The focus group gathered 21 participants from:  

•  Relevant DG HOME units (7): Unit E1 (2), Unit E2 (1), Unit E3 (1), Unit E4 (1), 

Unit C1 (1), Unit C2 (1). 

•  Other relevant DGs (2): DG EMPL (1), DG REGIO (1) 

•  Relevant EU Agencies (2): EUAA (1), Frontex (1). 

•  Managing Authorities (10):  from the Member States (DE, IT, EL, FR, LT, PL, 

RO) already consulted as part of the country case studies. 

The  focus  group  had  the  twofold  objective  of  i)  validating  the  evaluation  findings, 
particularly in view of potential factual mistakes, thus allowing the Team to fine-tune the 
evaluation results, and ii) discussing the design of recommendations, based on the inputs 
provided by the Team. 

The focus group was organised in two plenary sessions.  

The first plenary session was dedicated to the presentation of the study, followed by a 
Q&A  session.  During  this  Q&A,  participants  asked  for  some  clarifications  on  the 
evaluation  findings,  and highlighted new elements  to  be taken into consideration in  the 
evaluation of AMIF, such as the following: 

•  One RA provided positive feedback on the evaluation findings presented by the 
Team as well as on the challenges identified. The same RA noted that switching 
from the implementation of the SOLID funds to AMIF 2014-2020 required some 
internal  adjustments,  including  the  hiring  of  new  staff  to  be  able  to  address  all 
reporting requirements.  

•  DG HOME highlighted that the limited number of returns performed with the 
support  of  AMIF  may  be  attributed  to  Member  States  following  DG  HOME’s 
suggestion to primarily rely on Frontex assistance for organising returns, while 
using AMIF funds for other related activities. This approach ensures that there is 
no overlap between the assistance provided by Frontex and that provided by AMIF.  

•  DG  EMPL  emphasised  that  the  positive  finding  as  concerns  complementarity 
between AMIF and other funds contradicts observations made by the European 
Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  in  their  report  published  in  December  2024,  which 
points  to  the  fact  that  there  was  limited  coordination  between  AMIF  and  other 
funds.  

•  On  the  same  topic,  one  RA  noted  that  the  report  by  the  ECA  states  that 
improvements are seen with regard to ensuring complementarity and agreed 
with the Team’s finding that efforts were being made to avoid overlaps with 
other EU funds. The Team clarified that the highest level of complementarity was 
found  between  AMIF  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  whereas  room  for 
improvement remains with regard to other EU funds. The Team further added that 

118 

 
the report of the ECA will be taken into consideration to integrate and fine-tune the 
findings. 

The  second  plenary  consisted  of  two  interactive,  co-design  sessions  using  the  MIRO 
application in which participants were able to discuss challenges and provide inputs on 
related recommendations. 

In the first session, the Study Team presented an overview table displaying the challenges 
identified in the study clustered into three groups according to their degree of urgency (i.e. 
low, medium and high), and asked the participants to complement the table with additional 
challenges, modify the existing ones, or amend the associated degree of urgency. 

In the second session, recommendations to address the challenges were designed, starting 
from  inputs  and suggestions provided by the Team: participants were asked to  actively 
modify or add recommendations to address each of the challenges discussed in the earlier 
session and assess their degree of feasibility (i.e. specifying whether each recommendation 
is highly feasible, moderately feasible, or hardly feasible). The discussion unfolded starting 
from  the  challenges  deemed  most  urgent  in  the  previous  discussion,  followed  by 
moderately urgent  challenges, and  concluded with the least  urgent  ones.  Overall, while 
some recommendations identified by the Team were retained as originally proposed, others 
replaced  with  alternative  suggestions,  or  entirely  new 
were  discarded  and 
recommendations were introduced. 

119