1. Presentation ESF performance report AIR 2016 Evaluation Partnership meeting 7 December 2017 Brussels

2. Overview performance report AIR2016
Overview of progress made in the implementation
Assessment of the performance
Overview of progress towards the milestones and targets of the performance framework.
Analysis of the contribution to the main EU policy objectives
Analysis of the qualitative information on progress in implementation
Overview of implementation of evaluations and findings
Overview of specific actions undertaken required by the Common Provisions Regulation and ESF Regulation.
Assessment of the consistency of reporting by MA and the reporting on progress EaC 7

3. Financial progress ESF/YEI

4. Overview outputs and results ESF/YEI
Participations
6,479,327 participations in ESF
1,308,716 participations in YEI
Gender balanced

5. Overview outputs and results ESF/YEI
Projects:
7,413 projects by social partners or non governmental organisations
5,694 projects dedicated to women in employment
3.975 projects targeting public administration and public services at national, regional and local
197,463 micro and SME enterprises

6. Overview intermediate results ESF/YEI
Common result indicator (immediate)
Total ESF
Total YEI
Total ESF +YEI
Inactive participants engaged in job searching upon leaving
129,580
18,846
148,426
Participants in education/training upon leaving
235,887
39,591
275,478
Participants gaining a qualification upon leaving
667,908
82,258
750,166
Participants in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving
617,420
192,977
810,397
Total (CR1-4)
1,650,795
333,672
1,984,467
Disadvantaged participants engaged in job searching, education/ training, gaining a qualification, or in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving
322,206
138,221
460,427

7. Regional differences
Consistently lower project selection rates in MS / regions that would benefit most from ESF
Employment (IP8i - figure)
Social inclusion (IP9i):
less developed regions (26%)
more developed (45%)
transition regions (44%)
Early school leaving (IP10i):
less developed regions (18%)
more developed (28%)
transition regions (33%)

8. Comparison with 2007-2013 period

9. Comparison with 2007-2013 period

10. Progress milestone achievement ESF
In 2016, 4 MS passed average milestones (based on average target achievement)
More developed: 60%
Transition regions: 41%
Less developed regions: 18%

11. Progress milestone achievement (2)
In 2016, eligible expenditure 24% of milestone target at EU level
8 MS still below 10%
High scores largely due to unreliable targets

12. Implementation barriers
Delays due to a focus on preparation / setting up organisation / programme management, not yet on attracting proposals (mentioned by 138 AIR);
Complications with regards to programming requirements/features (e.g. obligations of procedural nature/characteristics of the programme itself, i.e. timing/others) (mentioned by 137 AIR)
National contextual factors (political, economic, legal etc.) influencing the performance of the programme (mentioned by 135 AIR).
Specific IT issues and complications related to setting up or using the management / monitoring system, are also mentioned by many AIR (respectively 74 and 71 times).

13. Evaluations 38 ESF/YEI evaluations published in 2016
2 evaluations on YEI, 16 evaluations on ESF and YEI, and 20 solely on ESF.
Evaluations in 14 out of 28 MS
Poland, the Netherlands, and Germany report the highest number of published evaluations.
Most published evaluations focused specifically on IP 8.ii (11) and IP 9.i (4).

14. Reporting on Actions
Specific actions taken to promote equality: mostly horizontally integrated in all actions
Actions directed at specific target groups: 22 MS define target groups for specific attention
Actions in the field of social innovation: MS do not always explain how this is linked to specific interventions
Progress of transnational actions: most MS limit themselves to providing illustrations of ongoing projects, few offer a complete account of all transnational activities

15. Inconsistencies
Consistency in reporting improved in comparison to 2015
We focus on inconsistencies that affect EU aggregations
Main area of attention:
Low financial targets in performance framework (distorts performance in earlier figures)
Selection of intervention fields in line with OP (1% of eligible costs inconsistent with OP)

16. Conclusions
MS are now moving from closing accounts to reporting data
Current data give some reason for concern, but…
…MS often report higher figures in textual parts of AIR than in monitoring data (backlog in entering data)