YEI reporting: state of play TÓTH Gábor DG EMPL - Impact Assessment and Evaluation Unit ESF Evaluation Partnership meeting, Brussels, 12-13 March, 2015

Main issues discussed previously Distinction between eligibility and monitoring Completeness requirement Underreporting Representative sampling None is YEI specific, but all are relevant to the 1st structured data transmission

Main Q&A on YEI reporting – input by the support centre Separate presentation by the centre.

Summary of written feedback by MS to preparatory questions (1) Have you started the collection of output, immediate and long-term result indicators? Yes: 3 No implementation until 2014: 3 Depends on approval of eligibility: 1 Action plan on GExAC 7: 1 8 replies Yes: LV, SE, PL (collection at beneficiary level, but data entered only with the acceptance of payment claims) No implementation until 2014: LT, HR, CZ Depends on approval: RO. The eligibility criteria of actions for NEET should be approved following the adoption of the OP. This should not pose a problem for reporting! Question: have the micro data been collected or would they need to be collected retroactively? Action plan on GExAC 7: ES. This should not pose a problem for reporting!

Summary feedback by MS (2) What are the main difficulties encountered so far as regards YEI monitoring? No difficulties: 2 Difference bw national and EC definitions: 2 The existing national monitoring framework does not cater for some data Sensitive data: 2 Target setting, lack of baselines:1 No difficulties: CZ, RO (implementation has not started yet) Difference bw national and EC definitions: PL (guidance to IBs is the solution; term still to be clarified: offer upon leaving), SE (interpretation of disadvantaged participants) The existing national monitoring framework does not cater for some data: LT (apprenticeships were not monitored nationally) Sensitive data: HR, ES (the national act is stricter than EC Directive 95/46) Target setting: LV (lack of similar ESF indicators, lack of baselines)

Summary feedback by MS (3) Are there issues where additional support or guidance is necessary for the MIS of the YEI monitoring? Definitions of indicators:2 Longer-term result indicators: 2 Completeness requirement: 1 Timeliness of data from administrative register: 1 Several report that clarifications have been received or are expected by the ESF Data Support Centre. Definitions of indicators: LV, PL Longer-term result indicators: RO, LV Completeness requirement, timeliness of data from administrative register: SE would like an open discussion on these issues, they do not agree that only participants with a full set of data should be reported; they do not agree that the data for output indicators from an administrative register should reflect status at entry.

Summary feedback by MS (4) To what extent are you using administrative records and linking data bases? Large differences Number of used registers Type of indicators supplied from registers Stage of receiving access to registers

Summary feedback by MS (5) Shall you be able to report structured data by end April 2015? Yes: 1 Zero values: 5 Depends on approval of eligibility: 1 Indicators reported in Excel tables: 1 Yes: SE Zero values: LT, HR, CZ, PL, ES. Most of them mention that the report will focus on the qualitative, textual parts. Depends on approval of eligibility: RO Indicators reported in Excel tables: LV