COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex-post Evaluation of the Internal Security Fund - Police (ISF-P) for the 2014-2020 programming period
Date: 2026-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, crisis management, critical infrastructure security, financial control, fund (EU), information security, organised crime, prevention of delinquency, project evaluation, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.3.2026  SWD(2026) 83 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Ex-post Evaluation of the Internal Security Fund - Police (ISF-P) for the 2014-2020 programming period {SWD(2026) 79 final}  
 
 
BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 

The Regulation1 establishing the Internal Security Fund – Police (henceforth the “ISF-P” 
or  the  “Instrument”)  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  was  adopted  on  16  April 
2014. The ISF-P was established as the successor of the General Programme on Security 
and Safeguarding Liberties covering the Specific  Programmes ‘Prevention of and Fight 
against Crime’2 (ISEC) and ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of 
Terrorism  and  other  Security  related  risks’3  (CIPS)  for  the  2007-2013  programming 
period.  

The ISF-P benefits from a larger budget, enabling more comprehensive support to Member 
States. With an initial total EU contribution of ca. EUR 1 004 million for the 2014-2020 
programming  period  compared  to  ca.  EUR  142.17  million  for  CIPS  and  EUR  607.36 
million for ISEC for the 2007-2013 programming period. 

While  ISEC  and  CIPS  were  exclusively  implemented  under  direct  management  via 
actions,  the  ISF-P  is  implemented  under  shared,  direct  and  indirect  management.  The 
programming occurs either at the Member State level through the national programmes or 
at the Commission level, via Annual Work Programmes (Union Actions and Emergency 
Assistance).  

During the 2014-2020 programming period, the Home Affairs Funds are governed by a 
separate  legal  act,  i.e.,  the  Horizontal  Regulation4,  with  the  rationale  to  ensure  a  better 
coordination and management between them.  

The ISF-P has the general objective to contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the 
Union. Within this general objective, the Instrument pursued two specific objectives: 

1.  Crime prevention, combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including 
terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement 
authorities and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol 
or other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third countries and international 
organisations 

2.  Enhancing the capacity of Member States and the Union for managing effectively 
security-related risks and crises and preparing for and protecting people and critical 
infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents. 

The purpose of this document is set out in Article 57(2)(b) of the Horizontal Regulation 
which requires the Commission to  carry out  an  ex-post evaluation  by 30 June 20255 to 
assess the effects of the ISF-P following the closure of the national programmes.  

1 Regulation (EU) No 513/2014, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 93, ELI:   http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/513/oj 
2 Council Decision No 2007/125/JHA. 
3 Council Decision 2007/124/EC. 
4 Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/514/oj 
5 The implementation period of the Home Affairs Funds 2014-2020 (including of the ISF-P) was extended 
in 2022 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 (See Regulation (EU) 2022/585 amending Regulations (EU) No 514/2014). 

1 

 
 
      
      
 
 
The temporal scope of this ex-post evaluation of the ISF-P covers the period 1 January 
2014  to  30  June  2024.  Initially,  funded  activities  were  meant  to  end  by  30  June  2023. 
However, following the Russian war of aggression towards Ukraine, an extension of the 
implementation of the funds by one year was agreed, so that Member States might make 
full use of still available funding to face the consequences of the war. Consequently, the 
deadline for the Commission to carry out an ex-post evaluation was also extended by one 
year, to 30 June 2025. 

The geographical scope includes all ISF-P participating Member States, i.e. all Member 
States except Denmark6 and the United Kingdom7. The material scope covers activities 
under the three existing management modes: shared management, direct management and 
indirect  management.  The  evaluation  relied  on  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods, 
including the consultation of Member States, Commission officials, implementing partners 
and beneficiaries.  

MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED  

Effectiveness 

The ISF-P contributed to ‘Specific Objective – fight against crime’ through investments in 
modernising  law  enforcement  tools,  intelligence  sharing,  and  cross-border  operational 
projects such as joint investigations and training. It also reinforced cooperation between 
national authorities, Europol, and international partners by supporting IT interoperability, 
data exchange, and liaison structures.  

At EU level, the indicator target values for most ‘Specific Objective – fight against crime’ 
indicators were achieved. National ex-post evaluation reports concluded that the funded 
actions have contributed to preventing cross-border, serious, and organised crime, as well 
as reinforcing coordination among law enforcement authorities.  

The ISF-P contributed to ‘Specific Objective – risk management’ through investments in 
crisis management centres, early warning systems, and protection of critical infrastructure, 
including advancements in cybersecurity and CBRN-E threat responses.  

At  EU  level,  the  combined  indicator  target  values  for  the  ‘Specific  Objective  –    risk 
management’ indicators were all overachieved. The findings all confirm that ISF-P actions 
were  effective  in  furthering  ‘Specific  Objective  -  risk  management’  and  highlight  the 
significant  progress  made  across  Member  States  in  enhancing  administrative  and 
operational  capacities  for  crisis  management,  critical  infrastructure  protection,  and  risk 
assessment.  

The  Instrument’s  implementation  faced  recurring  challenges,  such  as  delays  in  project 
implementation due to procurement issues and the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted certain 
project timelines. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine led some Member States 
to reallocate resources or adapt security strategies during the programming period.  

6 As per Recital (36) of the ISF-P Regulation, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the 
position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of 
this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. 
7 As per Recital (38) of the ISF-P Regulation, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the 
position of the United Kingdom in respect to the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU 
and to the TFEU, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound 
by it or subject to its application. 

2 

 
 
The one year implementation extension to all Home Affairs Funds 2014-2020, due to the 
Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, contributed to achieving the specific objectives 
of  the  ISF-P  by  granting  necessary  extensions  of  project  timelines.  This  flexibility  was 
welcomed by the Member States for allowing the completion of projects and helping to 
overcome certain delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Future instruments should 
retain  the  flexibility  to  respond  to  external  events  through  mechanisms  such  as 
implementation period extensions. 

Efficiency  

The ISF-P has proven to be efficient, with projects across various Member States generally 
meeting their objectives within reasonable budgets. Cost savings were achieved through 
digitalisation,  procurement,  and  efficient  allocation  of  financial  and  human  resources, 
particularly in areas such as training and IT system development.  

While  the  Instrument  achieved  its  intended  outcomes,  the  administrative  burden  varied 
across Member States, with some facing inefficiencies due to complex procedures and high 
personnel costs.  

The  ISF-P  has  generally  demonstrated  effective  management  and  control  mechanisms 
were efficient to safeguard the EU’s financial interests. The measures in place to prevent 
fraud and irregularities and the cooperation between national authorities and beneficiaries 
have largely contributed to the efficient use of resources.  

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

The ISF-P and the Horizontal Regulations introduced several changes aimed at simplifying 
the  ISF-P  management  and  reducing  administrative  burden,  i.e.  the  introduction  of 
multiannual programming, simplified cost options, national rules on expenditure eligibility 
and structured reporting mechanisms.  

Overall, these elements have been perceived as a positive development by several Member 
States. Nonetheless,  some Member States encountered challenges related  to  complexity 
and  difficulties  in  effectively  implementing  simplification  measures.  Efforts  should  be 
considered  to  further  simplify  and  reduce  administrative  burden.  While  simplified  cost 
options enhance efficiency in many Member States, their use could be further encouraged 
and promoted. 

Coherence and complementarity 

The  architecture  of  the  ISF-P  was  fit  for  purpose  as  it  enhances  internal  coherence  by 
fostering  complementarity  across  components.  The  combination  of  fund  components 
(national programmes, Union Actions and Emergency Assistance) and management modes 
(shared, direct and indirect) enables flexible fund management.  

Nonetheless,  there is  room  for reinforcing  the complementarity between  Union Actions 
and  national  programmes  and  to  increase  the  awareness  and  knowledge  of  the  other’s 
respective projects.  

In its external coherence, Member States implemented several coordination mechanisms 
at national level to ensure the coherence of activities with other programmes funded by EU 
Instruments with similar objectives to those of the ISF-P. Monitoring Committees played 
a key role as coordination mechanisms.  

3 

 
As far as coherence with external spending programmes, there may be a need to further 
strengthen  the  link  between  internal  and  external  priorities  in  the  EU’s  external  action 
dimension,  as  only  few  Member  States  specifically  report  coordination  between  ISF-P-
funded actions in or in relation to third countries. This is explained due to the very limited 
external component of the ISF-P.  

EU added value 

The ISF-P provides an EU added value by supporting projects that go beyond the financial 
and  operational  capacities  of  individual  Member  States.  It  significantly  contributes  to 
ensuring  a  high  level  of  security  in  the  Union  by  fostering  cooperation,  ensuring 
compliance with EU standards and alleviating national budget constraints. 

The ISF-P is found to generate EU added value across all fund components enabling the 
development  of  projects  and  the  acquisition  of  capabilities  and  knowledge  beyond  the 
individual capacity of Member States. Notably, transferability and transnationality bring 
the highest added value  of the  ISF-P and  are mostly  expressed through  Union Actions, 
which should be considered in future programming.  

The consequence of the absence or interruption of the ISF-P would affect Member States 
to  varying  degrees,  ranging  from  an  inability  to  meet  regulatory  requirements  to  the 
reduced  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  specific  individual  projects  due  to  changes  in 
priorities.  The  findings  indicate  that  certain  Member  States  are  overly  reliant  on  EU 
funding.  While  a  few  large  Member  States  consider  that  some  projects  could  still  be 
funded, though potentially at a slower pace and smaller scale, others report that without 
ISF-P  funding,  they  would  have  struggled  to  carry  out  actions  to  support  the 
implementation of EU policies in internal security due to having received less to no funding 
to this policy area owing to national budgetary constraints.  

Sustainability 

The  sustainability  of  ISF-P  funded  projects  is  underpinned  by  a  multifaceted  approach 
integrating financial planning, operational continuity, personnel training, and international 
cooperation.  

Member States have prioritised the development of skills and expertise to ensure that the 
benefits of ISF-funded projects persist over time. Training programmes have been integral 
in ensuring that personnel are equipped with the knowledge and capabilities to effectively 
use and maintain new systems and technologies in the long run. Union Actions projects 
that have demonstrated sustainability over time are often focused on networking and cross-
border cooperation. Despite the short-term duration of Emergency Assistance projects, the 
integration  and  further  development  of  tools  have  been  continued  after  the  projects 
formally ended.  

Relevance 

The ISF-P has largely addressed the needs identified at the time of the beginning of the 
programming period in order to achieve the overall objective of ensuring a high level of 
security  in  the  Union  through  the  fight  against  organised  crime  and  managing  risk  and 
crises. It has also demonstrated adaptability to evolving needs and challenges throughout 
the implementation period.  

4 

 
At  EU  level,  the  consultation  process  consisted  of  a  policy  dialogue  between  Member 
States and the Commission to ensure alignment of the national mapping of needs/trends 
with the ISF-P’s objectives and with those identified at EU and national levels.  

At national  level,  the ISF-P supported Member  States in  implementing targeted actions 
under shared management,  as national  programmes were structured to  address  country-
specific internal security needs and were developed through thorough needs assessments 
and stakeholder consultations, ensuring alignment with both EU-level policy priorities and 
national security requirements.  

Union  Actions  played  a  crucial  role  in  funding  transnational  projects  essential  in 
strengthening  cooperation  between  stakeholders,  thereby  enhancing  the  EU’s  collective 
resilience  to  internal  security  threats.  The  ability  of  Union  Actions  to  swiftly  adapt  to 
emerging internal security challenges further underlined their relevance within the ISF-P 
framework.  Emergency  Assistance-funded  projects  significantly  enhanced  internal 
security response capabilities, enabling Member States to mobilise resources quickly in 
crisis situations.  

5