Towards a Cohesion Policy more focused on outputs and results: The “joint action plan” DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion ESF Legislation and Policy, Financial Engineering

More focus on results?

Purpose of the presentation Present the “Joint Action Plan”, a potential approach on a management more focused on outputs and results Create a common understanding around this innovative approach

Why? Origin of the joint action plan Increase the focus of management on outputs and results … Without additional layer of management. Replace input oriented management by linking payments to outputs and results. Different scales possible: Operations: already partially existing, via use of standard scales of unit costs or lump sums but there was a will to be more ambitious… Programmes: discussed with ESF experts but considered as too difficult: OPs too long, scope too wide, too many external influences, … => Intermediary scale: option to implement part of programme(s) using a result based approach = JAP

What is a joint action plan? A specific type of operation Under the responsibility of one beneficiary Contributing to specific objectives of the OP Comprising a set of projects (for all types of granted projects) Whose management, control and audit is exclusively based on jointly agreed milestones, outputs and results Defined in the Commission decision

What is a JAP? Operation = Part of OP(s) Specific objective € Milestones Outputs results € Project € Authorities of the OP Outputs, results Commission Beneficiary € € Project Outputs, results Project Outputs, results Decision of the Commission

Key points for JAP (1) Intervention logic What are the (types of) projects to implement in order to reach the objective? What are the milestones, the quantified targets of outputs and results necessary to reach the objectives? What are the indicators necessary to monitor milestones, ouputs and results?

Key points for JAP (2) Financial management Costs to achieve milestones, outputs and results Based on methods used to calculate simplified cost options Also applicable to public contracts No ceiling for lump sums Consequence: payments to the beneficiary will be modulated according to the level of success Costs included in payment applications as any other operation.  No advances declared to the Commission

Key points for JAP (3) Audit Audit = exclusively verification that conditions (milestones, outputs, results) for payments defined in the JAP decision have been fulfilled. Reliable systems to collect and store the data, of common interpretation of indicators. Competences of the beneficiary For costs incurred by the beneficiary or bodies implementing the projects no double management rules. National accounting practices apply and are not subject to audit by the audit authority or the Commission.

Let’s take an example (1): types of projects Networking employers / training institutes / Employment services Integration in employment of young unemployed Employment & self employment aids Selection and definition of the progression pathways to employment Trainings: Basic skills Mentoring in employment (6 months) Vocational training, incl qualification Work placement Social and Vocational follow up

Let’s take an example (2): quantifications Networking employers / training institutes / Employment services (1 active network, /year) Integration in employment of 10.000 young unemployed Employment & self employment aids (60%, 9.000) Selection and definition of the progression pathways to employment (15.000 young people) Trainings: Basic skills (66%, 10.000) Mentoring in employment (6 months) (73%, 11.000) Vocational training, incl qualification (90%, 13.500) Work placement (20.000) Social and Vocational follow up (100%, 15.000/year) 3 years

Let’s take an example(3): indicators and pricing Indicator: number of pathways formalised (standard document) Definition of a standard scale of unit cost (statistical data PES) € 200 / pathway Max amount payable: € 200 x 15.000 = EUR 3.000.000 Possibility to define milestones: First payment of EUR 1.000.000 when 5.000 pathways Second payment of additional EUR 1.000.000 when additional 5.000 pathways Final payment on the basis of the exact number of pathways (with a minimum of 5.000) Selection and definition of the progression pathways to employment (15.000 young people) And the same approach is repeated for every type of projects

Let’s take an example (4): pricing Networking employers / training institutes / Employment services (1 active network; 0.2 m€/yr, 3 yrs) Integration in employment of 10.000 young unemployed (75%, 10.000; 0.55 k€/p; max 5.5 m€) Employment & self employment aids (60%, 9.000; 3 k€/p, max 27m€) Mentoring in employment Selection and definition of the progression pathways to employment (15.000 young people,200 €/people, max 3 m€) Trainings: Basic skills (66%, 10.000; 2 k€/p, max 20 m€) Vocational training, incl qualification (90%, 13.500; 3 k€/p, max 45.5 m€) Work placement (20.000; 0.5 k€/p, max 10 m€) Social and Vocational follow up (100%, 15.000/yr; 1 k€/p/yr, max 15 m€/yr, max 3 yrs)

End of the example Total amount of this JAP would be a maximum of EUR 126.6 million But final payment depends on real performance. ‘Expenditure’ declared when outputs and results are justified: same principle as other operations using simplified cost options. Unspent amounts go back to the OP as every other operation. Commission decision will cover the main elements of the JAP to ensure legal certainty

Content of the proposal of JAP (implementing act) Analysis of needs justifying the JAP Intervention logic, indicators Geographic coverage, target groups Implementation period Effects on equality between men and women, prevention of discrimination, sustainable development Implementing provisions: Competence of beneficiary Steering Monitoring and evaluation Financial arrangements, including indicative schedule of payments Financing plan by OP & priority axis Costs of achieving milestones, outputs and result targets

Steering Committee and amendment of JAP Why? Need for a close monitoring and early detection / correction of potential problems given the financial consequences. Element of flexibility of the plan necessary to correct initial errors or take acount of unforeseen events. Role: review progress, consider and approve proposal of amendments Who? Decided by MS, partnership principle, Commission may participate. Distinct from the Monitoring Committee.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS? laurent.sens@ec.europa.eu