1. Lessons learned from the evaluation of the ESF 2007-2013
Monitoring Committee
Valmiera, 10 May 2017
Muriel GUIN
Head of Unit: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

2. Evaluation questions Art. 49.3 of Council Regulation 1083/2006
Extent to which the resources were used
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Socio-economic impact
Criteria added by DG EMPL:
Community Added Value
Gender sensitivity
Sustainability
Lessons Learned

3. 24 Clusters of interventions
ESF Evaluation
24 Clusters of interventions
Thematic studies
Synthesis study
Preparatory study
Human capital
52,5 BEUR EU-28
276 MEUR in Latvia
Synthesis including:
Update 2014 data +
28 country reports
Smaller studies (institutional capacity, partnership)
Commission
Staff
Working
Document
Access to employment
39,7 BEUR EU-28
315,5 MEUR in Latvia
Open Public Consultation
Social inclusion
16,5 BEUR EU-28
51,6 MEUR in Latvia

4. LV ESF spending

5. Limitations
Priority Axes in the OP not matching priorities of the ESF Regulation
Data problems despite improvements related to Annex XXIII:
Data on participations, not participants
Sometimes indirect participants reported
Disadvantaged groups underreported, incomplete reporting on socio- economic characteristics
Data reported only at priority level
Lack of common definitions and common results indicators
Evaluations from MS providing little evidence on impacts

6. Key achievements
EU-28
Latvia

7. Key messages and findings (EU-28)
Challenging times for implementation. Mitigated negative effects of the economic and financial crisis.
Instrumental in supporting EU strategic objectives, national policies and related CSRs.
Implementation has progressed adequately. ESF has reached most relevant target groups of participants (low skilled, inactive, youth).
ESF interventions generally effective in all policy fields, though comparatively more in individual than in system results (longer time to bear fruit).
Average cost per participant is below EUR 900 (EUR 802 in Latvia).
Public consultation points to management and control systems, reporting, and audit as the more burdensome areas.
Weak evidence on sustainability of results.

8. Country report: Latvia
Effectiveness: good. Measures for unemployed people, PhD, vocational students & people at risk of social exclusion were the most effective ones.
Efficiency: assessment was problematic due to lack of data.
Sustainable results in introduction of a quality evaluation scheme.
Community added value:
Volume effects: more people enabled to participate in the active labour market;
Scope effects: decreasing social exclusion of youth and integration of disabled youth into education;
Role effects: innovative approach in interventions (quality evaluation scheme; VET curriculum);
Process effects: capacity building of the public employment services; improvement of VET programmes and development of VET teachers’ competences;
Many lessons learned where transmitted into the new programming period.

9. Lessons learned (EU-28) Policy choices: Programming: Target groups:
Continue aligning ESF with EU/national priorities
Flexibility to adjust to emerging needs
Programming:
Robust definition of objectives, targets and results
Apply more evidence-based programing
Target groups:
Ensure coverage of disadvantaged groups
Continue focus on young and old and balanced representation by gender
Programme Implementation:
Promote customisation to the needs of specific target groups
Improve capacity building
Further simplify procedures and continue reducing administrative burden
Monitoring systems:
Higher standardisation of programme indicators
Improve use of longitudinal and micro-data
Capture effects other than employment and qualifications – "soft results"
Evaluation:
More robust impact evaluations
Reintroduce final evaluations/timing of evaluations

10. Lessons requiring attention from COM on 2014-2020 and post 2020
Encourage MS to report on "soft results"
Increase uptake of simplification
Continue building MS evaluation capacity
Better capture the results of capacity building activities of the programme
Support and promote use of FEIs
Streamlining application of the single audit principle
Consider the recommendations of the High Level Group on simplification

11. Thank you! Link to all evaluation documents
urtherNews=yes