1. Findings of the MIS survey and work programme for 2015
ESF Support Centre
Alphametrics Ltd. & Applica Sprl.
13 March 2015

2. Basis of review
MIS fiches pre-filled where possible with replies to 1st survey
Validation of replies
Editing, translation
Checks on completeness, clarity, coherence
Risk assessment
Several rounds of consultation (mid-Sept 2014 – end-Feb 2015)
41 replies received out of 47
National / regional level
Mostly MAs, but also national coordinating bodies
Risk assessment notes prepared on the basis of the information provided in the MIS fiches.

3. MIS structure Potential risk
(EE, EL, ES, LT, UK-England: not determined yet)
Potential risk
In terms of data quality where the number of beneficiaries per MA is high.
Beneficiaries per MA
Countries
<100
BE-Actiris, DE-Hamburg, LU, MT, NL, UK-Northern Ireland, UK-Scotland and UK-Wales
BE-Agence FSE, DK, DE-Berlin, DE-Saarland, DE-Schleswig-Holstein, PT-Madeira LV
1,000-1,999
DE-Bremen, IT-Liguria, SI, SK, FI and SE
2,000-10,000
BG, CZ, DE-Baden-Württemberg, DE-Brandenburg, HR, IT-Emilia-Romagna, CY, HU, PT (National) and RO
>10,000
DE-Thüringen, FR, IT (National), AT and PL

4. Planned developments MIS 2014-2020 Main changes
Existing system to be updated in most cases
New system in 10 MAs
Main changes
New module on micro-data
Links with administrative registers
Online submission of participant data
New validation rules
Most systems are still under development
Planned for 2015
In a few cases, data input is already possible but validation rules not ready yet
Potential risk
In terms of schedule: MIS not fully operational for reporting on YEI (April 2015) in many countries.

5. Type of support offered
Guidance material
Specific dedicated document (sometimes available online)
Integrated in the template of the questionnaires
Integrated in the MIS itself
FAQ on monitoring and evaluation
Obligation to follow the guidance stated in the contracts in some cases
Training/workshop/information sessions
Helpdesk/contact points offering personalised assistance
Potential risk
In terms of data quality and comparability: specific guidelines are necessary to ensure that definitions are clear/consistent.

6. Indicators based on national definitions
Foreign background/minorities, participants with disabilities and other disadvantaged: national definitions.
In many MS, national definitions exist and in some MS the EC recommended definitions will be used.
Potential risks
Specific groups may not be included (e.g. unlawful to ask questions about minorities).
Double counting: ‘Other disadvantaged’ includes groups already covered.
Internal comparability: open definition of ‘Other disadvantaged’.

7. Consultation of data protection authorities
Compliance with legislation on data protection in many cases
Specific arrangements concluded for
Existing legislation already allows collection of personal data
Administrative registers already comply with data protection laws.
Consultation process still in progress in a number of cases
Potential risk
Delay in collecting participant data if no decision is taken relatively quickly.

8. Refused consent Procedures to handle refused consent
Consent forms
Option ‘does not wish to reply’ for questions on sensitive data
Importance of complete data records highlighted in forms/guidance
Individuals refusing to provide basic (non-sensitive) data are not eligible to benefit from ESF support in a number of cases.
Clarification
Eligibility <> Monitoring

9. Administrative registers
Registers will be used in 19 MAs (PES, Social security, Population registers…)
Use of registers not planned in 12 MAs
To be decided in the remaining 10 MAs
Data not covered will be collected directly from participants
Potential risks
Data extracted from registers are not synchronised with ESF observation points.
Administrative data obtained with a time lag, which represents a risk of delay in the reporting.

10. Data validation Consistency and completeness of data
Built-in checks in most systems (+ sometimes on-the-spot checks).
Potential risk: In terms of data quality if the validation procedures are not automated.
Treatment of inconsistent/incomplete records
Flagging of inconsistent/incomplete records
Warning messages, beneficiaries asked to correct/complete records
Not possible to save incomplete records
Incomplete records saved in a separate database
Level of validation
More than 1 level in most countries (+ sometimes external bodies).
Potential risk: In terms of data quality if data is not validated at different levels (beneficiaries/IB and MA).

11. Data storage Level of storage of micro-data
MAs in 9 cases
Beneficiaries in 3 cases
ΙΒ/Statistical Offices in 3 cases
Multiple levels in most cases (beneficiaries, MA, IB, other).
Practices in storage of data
Centralised shared system (with different permission levels)
Micro-data are provided to the MA on request
Potential risk
Single data set necessary for drawing representative sample.

12. Data aggregation
Automated aggregation by IP/category of region in all cases except one.
Potential risk: In terms of data quality if calculations are done manually.
Different methods planned to ensure that incomplete/ inconsistent records are not included.
Alternative aggregations in response to ad hoc requests planned in most countries but not all.
Potential risk: Specific information stored but not available.
Retroactive changes in aggregates is planned in most cases.

13. Representative sampling
Responsible organisation
MAs in charge in 5 cases.
Outsourced in 16 cases.
Data collected for all participants for all indicators in 6 cases.
Data collected for all participants for some indicators in 2 cases.
Potential risks
Samples based on participants with incomplete records (instead of complete records only).
Samples drawn at the beneficiary level (instead of the IP).

14. Risk assessment notes
Identification of risks in terms of data quality and compliance with monitoring requirements.
Suggested actions to remedy the risk(s).
Further information (clarification and/or completion) needed in many cases.
Follow-up will be carried out by geo-desks (ESF centre in copy).
End-2015: final summary on issues which have been addressed (and how) and what is outstanding.

15. Next steps Follow up on the findings of the MIS survey
Ongoing methodological support
Update of the Practical guidance document (Annex D) and FAQ guide
Developing and testing the SFC reporting module.