1. FEAD Evaluation Partnership meeting 10 March, 2016 DG EMPL G4
Preparation for the Commission mid-term evaluation Common evaluation framework
FEAD Evaluation Partnership meeting
10 March, 2016
DG EMPL G4

2. FEAD Evaluations 1. Mid-term evaluation
Evaluation Roadmap
Evaluation questions (updated)
Indicative timeframe
2. Proposed common framework for COM and MS
3. Planning by MS

3. A. Mid-term evaluation
Article 17' Evaluation during the programming period
The Commission shall present a mid-term evaluation of the Fund to the European Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2018.
'REGULATION (EU) No 223/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

4. Evaluation roadmap
An evaluation roadmap is being prepared (draft circulated)
Will be published "Your voice in Europe" website
4-week feedback by stakeholders will be undertaken
Terms of Reference will be finalised based on the feedback

5. Evaluation questions (Updated) Mandatory evaluation criteria Set by Better Regulation Guidelines

6. Effectiveness
1.1 What have been the outputs and results of OP I/OP II to date?
1.2 If targets were set, were they achieved?
1.3 To what extent have interventions covered the most vulnerable groups (homeless, children at risk of poverty, etc.)? In particular are there some groups insufficiently covered or some types of assistance insufficiently provided?
1.4 To what extent have the OP objectives been achieved, in particular as regards deprivation and social inclusion?

7. Effectiveness
1.5 How well have horizontal principles such as reducing food waste been respected (Article 5 of FEAD regulation)?
1.6 What main factors, have facilitated or stood in the way of effective implementation, in particular regarding the Management and Control System set-up?
1.7 What were the most effective delivery modes? What good practice cases and success factors can be identified?

8. Efficiency
2.1 How do costs compare to outputs and results? What are main reasons for differences in costs per output or result between operations?
2.2 Is the level of administrative burden on recipients, partners and MA appropriate and how could it be reduced, while allowing for accountability?
Administrative burden should encompass the entire lifecycle of operations.
Designation and set-up of MCS including Information systems ;
Appropriateness of the eligibility requirements for partner organisations and end recipients;
Project selection;
Requirements for the implementation by the project partners, including public procurement;
Reporting on implementation and indicators;
Evaluations;
Audit;
Level of the technical assistance and its use.

9. Efficiency
2.3 Was FEAD used to supporting donations and upscaling interventions?
2.4 What's the feasibility of application of alternative delivery mechanisms and support modes (e.g shared management, indirect management, budget support)?
2.5 Were flat rate arrangements appropriate?

10. Relevance
3.1 To what extent has the OP contributed to national objectives and EU policies of achieving poverty reduction?
3.2 How relevant was the aid to the target groups and how well does it responded to the needs? In particular, does it allow for adjustments when needs change or new needs emerge?
3.3 Were accompanying measures provided, corresponding to the needs of the target groups?

11. Coherence
4.1 To what extent are the interventions coherent with other EU or national interventions which have similar and complementary objectives, in particular operations related to ESF and AMIF?
4.2 To what extent is the OP coherent internally (e.g. multiple support forms, delivery methods)?

12. EU-added-value
5.1 What are the main types of EU added value resulting from the FEAD support (volume, scope, role, process)?
5.2 What would be the most likely consequences of stopping the FEAD support?

13. Timeframe: Key dates (indicative)
09/2016 – Contract with external evaluators
02/ Interim draft report
Including results of 12 week open public consultation
05/2018 – Final report
Including results from survey of end recipients
09/2018 – Regulatory Scrutiny Board
12/ Adoption by COM

14. B. Proposed common framework for COM and MS
Presented in the previous meeting
Set of evaluation questions (updated) and recommended methods to be used by EC and MS (MS can of course add, as COM)
Allowing complementarities to build-up
Building also on Structured survey of end recipients
Covering mandatory evaluation criteria

15. C. Planning by MS What are MA evaluation plans (particularly OP2)?
Any plans for similar surveys?

16. D. Conclusions

17. Thank you!