ESF - Monitoring: Q&A Andy Fuller and Nirina Rabemiafara Alphametrics Ltd. UK (representing the ESF Support Centre) 16 June 2014

ESF – Monitoring - Q&A Countries invited to submit questions to be discussed in Partnership meeting. Presentation will focus on these. FAQ guide on monitoring in preparation and will be made available through SFC-2014 ESF Data support centre available for further questions: E-mail: support@esfsupport.eu Phone: +44 1480 702003

1. Participants to be counted/recorded : Should individuals benefitting from open services be counted as participants? Example 1: Events for the general public (e.g. information days, fairs with information booths) with open participation, where participants do not need to register, and may come and go as they choose. Example 2: Development and provision of e-services. : According to the EC Guidance document: “Only those persons who can be identified and asked for their personal data (i.e. gender, employment status, age, educational attainment, household situation) and for whom specific expenditure is earmarked shall be reported as one participant.”

1. Participants to be counted/recorded . Combination of two requirements: Completeness of personal data Earmarked expenditure Effectively implies personalised support – i.e. support that is designed to directly benefit selected identifiable individuals -> Persons participating in open-door events or benefitting from freely available e-services should not be counted as participants Outputs and results can be measured through the use of programme-specific indicators linked to objectives (number of events, number of hits on web-pages, registered users etc.).

1. Participants to be counted/recorded : What should be the approach on counting participants in operations related to the provision of public services that imply counting a large proportion of population (potentially for several operations)? Example: ESF funding is used to integrate guidance about entrepreneurship into the school curricula. This is provided to 100% of students as part of school services. Other operations are also aimed at all students. : The first thing is to assess whether or not the students are being supported directly. Extending or improving the school curriculum is in practice targeting the education system, not individuals. It can be considered as a form of capacity building. Individual students are not targeted and do not have expenditure ear-marked for them. They benefit only indirectly from the new guidance service and should not be considered as participants.

1. Participants to be counted/recorded : Who should be counted as participants for operations providing training for teachers/councillors to provide better services for students? Example 1: Training for teachers/councillors to provide career counselling for students in schools. : Participants need to be defined on the basis of the objective of the operation and how it is targeted. Common indicators should cover persons benefitting directly from the ESF support under the respective investment priority. Depending on the objective of the operation both students and teachers/counsellors might be counted as participants but this can only be ascertained on a case by case basis.

1. Participants to be counted/recorded In this example, the teachers/counsellors benefit from training to help them improve their service delivery and the specific skills needed to work with students. This is clearly direct support and they should always be counted as participants. The situation for students is dependent on objectives: Case 1: Operation provides training to career guidance counsellors in order to improve, expand (or create) career guidance services in schools. The service is then open to all students on demand. This is capacity building, individual students are not targeted. -> Counsellors counted, students are not Case 2: Operation aims to improve school to work transitions for students with a migrant background in a deprived area. Counsellors are trained to deal with the specific barriers faced by this group and there is a target to provide assistance to a particular number or proportion of the affected students in the area and expenditure is allocated accordingly. Students are selected individually on the basis of their disadvantaged situation and expenditure is earmarked accordingly. -> Both counsellors and students counted.

1. Participants to be counted/recorded : Who should be counted as participants in “multilateral” events related to work planning and management? Example: Meetings, exchange of experiences, seminars without a distinct training or counselling elements etc. : The purpose of such events is not to invest in human resources, but planning of work, multilateral dissemination of information and good practice etc. Events that aim to contribute to programme functioning rather than to develop human capacity do not benefit individuals directly, but the programme as a whole. Also, the expenditure (cost of the meeting) is not earmarked to support individuals, but to support the programme. Hence the people attending the event should not be considered as participants.

2. Collecting and reporting data on participants : Is it obligatory to collect and record personal identifiers for all participants? : Strictly speaking no. The minimum requirement for monitoring systems is that it should be possible to uniquely identify each individual in the micro-data , either by: Existing unique personal identifiers (e.g. social insurance number) Monitoring system generated personal identifier (only for ESF monitoring) The ID used must facilitate cross-reference at some point with personal information that allows the person to be contacted in case of they are selected in a representative sample.

2. Collecting and reporting data on participants : How often do we have to describe the ESF participants (age, gender, employment status etc.): annually, when entering the project, when leaving the project? : Personal data should be collected only once when entering the operation: gender, employment status, age, education level and household situation (homeless + rural area) [AIR] On exit: changes in the labour market and educational situation [AIR]. 6m after exit: changes in the labour market + educational situation (YEI) based on representative samples [AIR 2018 + final report; annual for YEI].

2. Collecting and reporting data on participants Number of participants aggregated on an annual basis to produce indicator values to be reported in AIR. Aggregation of indicator values based on start and end dates for each participation record: Output indicators for 2015 should count participation records with start date between 01-Jan-2015 and 31-Dec-2015 Similarly, result indicator for 2015 should count participation records with end-date between 01-Jan-2015 and 31-Dec-2015 Indicator values should cover all operations funded over the year (fully and partially implemented operations).

3. YEI reporting requirements : What are the requirements in terms of data collection for YEI programmes and what is the schedule for it? : All data for common indicators have to be collected and reported with the same frequency as for regular ESF programmes. YEI immediate and longer-term result indicators collected in addition + YEI immediate and longer-term result indicators to be reported annually up to AIR 2018 (due in 2019). + First report due already in April 2015.

4. Collection of personal sensitive data :If a participant is unwilling to provide personal and sensitive data, does this mean that s/he is not eligible for ESF support? Should their data still be collected? Example: Operations targeted at sensitive target groups: Such groups may be unwilling to divulge personal information (e.g. on their household status) and it might seem that the ESF co-financed services need to be refused. : Eligibility for support is not linked to monitoring. It is possible to support persons without counting them as participants.

4. Collection of personal sensitive data As long as the eligibility criteria are fulfilled and the managing authority can document the fulfilment the person can be supported. Incomplete participation records should not be reported in the monitoring data. Variables dealing with special categories of personal data (i.e. sensitive data) can be incomplete (indicators marked with ** in Annex I of the ESF Regulation). Documentary evidence that the managing authorities have attempted to collect the information should be maintained (section 3.4.1 of the EC Guidance document). The total number of supported participants should be reported in the framework of the AIRs (see section 3.1.1 of the EC Guidance and section 4.7.1 in Annex D).

5. Collection of “non-relevant” participant data : Should information that is not relevant for the operation/programme’s objectives be collected for all common indicators? Example 1: Labour market situation of participants in operations targeting civil servants/public services staff (by definition “employed”) Example 2: Labour market situation of operations targeting school pupils (not applicable) : Reporting on the full set of common indicators listed in Annex I of the ESF Regulation is required for all IPs. The only exception relates to Technical Assistance IPs. Information needed for representative sampling

5. Collection of “non-relevant” participant data Administrative burden should be avoided and data may be based on available administrative data (instead of asking participants). When it is clear and certain that all participants have certain characteristics then participation records in the monitoring database can be completed without further questioning. Any such treatment should be documented and justified. Fields recording irrelevant data should be completed with zero (see definitions in Annex C and the “reference population” for each of the result indicators in Annex B of the EC guidance). More relevant programme-specific indicators may be developed.

6. Entities to be counted/recorded : Should data be collected and recorded also for entities that benefit indirectly from ESF support? : No. In the same way as for participants, monitoring data should cover only entities that benefit directly from ESF support. Example: ESF supports the development of a new guidelines aimed at improving the functioning of third sector organisations. A government department gets ESF funding and subcontracts the development to a specialist organisation. After completion of the project the guidelines are implemented by a number of organisations. The government department is supported directly -> Counted. The subcontracted company is simply being paid to provide a service and is not supported -> Not counted. Organisations that implement the guidelines benefit indirectly – Not counted.

6. Collecting and reporting data on entities : Is it required to collect and report information such as address, tax identification number for all entities? : The only formal requirement is to store information on characteristics needed to complete the common output and any programme-specific indicators for all individual entities supported. BUT it should always be possible to demonstrate that reported numbers of supported entities correspond to identifiable organisations that have received support and (if necessary) follow- up entities. Therefore necessary to maintain some basic identifying information about each entity (e.g. organisation name/address or company number). Minimum: entity ID, start/end dates, data for indicators, operation ID

7. Monitoring systems : Can participant IDs and data for indicators be recorded and stored in separate IT systems/databases? : Yes. The structure of the monitoring system is not prescribed. It is necessary that the system can link participation records with IDs and personal contact details in order to: provide evidence that each of the aggregate figures reported (at IP level) as indicator values in AIRs relate to identifiable individuals who have the relevant characteristics and who actually received support from the relevant operations Allow for representative sampling (full data-set necessary) Provide contact for follow-up surveys (longer-term result indicators)

Use of existing register(s): questions to consider 7. Monitoring systems Use of existing register(s): questions to consider Will it cover all participants? If not, how/where will you store the micro-data for participants who are not covered? How will this be merged with the EA data when compiling indicators or developing representative samples? For which of the common indicators does the register include the required information? Are the relevant variables recorded in a way that is consistent with the definitions ? If not, how to deal with the gaps/differences? Will data be maintained in the register for long enough (ESF monitoring /evaluation/ audit)? Are adequate procedures/agreements in place to ensure that any requests for detailed information are fulfilled comprehensively and in a timely manner? Is the information up-to-date? 

8. Data transmission : What data and in what format should monitoring data be reported? At the individual participant or aggregated level? Should personal IDs also be transmitted? : All indicator values to be reported are aggregates for the period (year). No micro-data and no personal IDs should be reported  Level of aggregation: Investment Priority  Break down required by gender and category of region (not for YEI) Data for both completed and partially implemented operations In on-going operations, num. of participants for output and immediate result indicators may not match (still participating and no results yet)

8. Data transmission : Will it be possible to apply retrospective changes to previous periods with annual reporting? : Yes. SFC will allow for retroactively correct monitoring data in case of changes to participation records (e.g. participant returns to an operation so that previous result has to be cancelled) or errors in recording. More info SFC 2014