Common ESF Indicators in the Current Programming Period

Background Study by the Evaluation Unit “ESF implementation in the period – Template for EC Reporting and 2008 Outline Report “ Purpose is to provide the Commission with a template tested by Member States, based on:  a typology of Policy areas  a typology of Interventions and  common indicators that can generate a standardised set of tables on ESF use and implementation (based on data extracted from SFC 2007) Template will be used by the Commission to report at EU level on ESF implementation

Methods used by the contractor Review of a sample of ESF programmes, interviews with selected DG EMPL staff, and consultation of MS Analysis of all the 117 OPs, analysis and translation into English of all the selected indicators (about 5,000 out of more around found) → Feedback from contract steering committee and technical meetings

Policy areas 6 policy areas: –1. adaptability, –2. access to employment, –3. social inclusion, –4. human capital, –5. partnerships, pacts and initiatives through networking*, –6. institutional capacity* * the last two being means to achieve goals in the first 4 areas Derived from ESF regulation, linked to specific EES guidelines and related objectives of social OMC

Example of reporting chart Overall disbursement per policy area, 2008 Source: extracted from SFC2007, Eureval.

Types of interventions 1. Dissemination of information and TIC10. Support for self-employment and start- up 2. Lifelong learning in firms11. Participation of migrants in employment 3. Human potential in research and innovation 12. Anticipation of economic changes 4. Women access to employment13. Labour market institutions 5. Other social infrastructure14. Reforming education and training systems 6. Social inclusion of disadvantaged people15. Participation in education & training throughout lifecycle 7. Adaptability of employees and enterprises16. Education infrastructure 8. Activation and prevention on labour market 17. Partnerships 9. Active ageing18. Institutional capacity

Additional information in template Management of OP: centralised (country/region)/decentralised (local) How publics are reached: directly, through enterprises, through systems and structures (LM, education and training, health, N/A or others) Activities: education and training, counselling and service, awareness raising, placement and subsidised jobs, studies and research Annex 23 participants

Common Indicators Several successive sets of CI progressively developed by trial and error considering the following criteria : –CI clusters a minimum of MS (2) –CI connected to a policy area and measures progress towards an expected result –identifies the target group (“as” in annex 23) –A given specific indicator may be related to more than one common indicator (e.g. as unemployed, disadvantaged and older) Agreed with the Commission in October, Consultation of MS launched on October 25 (deadline November 22)

Common Indicators Annex 23 focuses on « people » Additional CIs defined for system and structures and for enterprises See attached list Total of 39 indicators (*2 by gender) 31 related to people, 3 to S&S, 5 to enterprises 17 related to outputs, 22 to results 33 are numbers, 6 are % (often same as number)

Common Indicators Covered: Active and preventive measures on the labour market, Support for self- employment and start-ups, Life-long learning in firms, Participation in education and training throughout life, Social inclusion of disadvantaged people Partly: Provision of care services, Health and safety at work Not covered: Results of activities targeted at systems and structures, Technical assistance, Gender specific activities, Sub-categories of disadvantaged people (minorities, disabled, ex- offenders….)

Lessons CI for outputs derived from annex 23, extended to S&S and enterprises More detailed CIs for unemployed than for other categories in terms of results (disadvantaged, older, young, education level)

Lessons CI for results are possible within ESF, but wide and basic ( e.g. Unemployed and Inactive who exited unemployment and still hold a job after at least 3 months ) No obvious link with EES/social OMC, only with policy area No convention on terminology (e.g. « Young »/ »older », but also « qualification »…) No common rules on data collection intervals (e.g. 3,6, 9, 12 months after intervention)