DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Analysis, Evaluation, External Relations
Impact Assessment, Evaluation
Minutes
FEAD Evaluation Partnership meeting
11 March 2015
Venue: Centre Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels
- Welcome and opening remarks
Santiago Loranca García, Head of Impact Assessment and Evaluation Unit, DG EMPL (Chairperson) welcomed participants.
- Introduction of the FEAD Evaluation partnership members
Members of the partnership introduced themselves, as to which ministry they depend on and if they had previous exposure to ESF (which was the case for only 10 countries).
- Mandate of the FEAD Evaluation Partnership
The proposed mandate of the FEAD Evaluation partnership was presented by Jiri Polasek. It will be atechnicalexpert group of EC with the aim of
-improving FEAD monitoring and evaluations
- exchanging and discussing common positions
This mandate was endorsed. It was clarified that experience in evaluations and monitoring was be beneficial and that views expressed in this forum should represent broader positions in the MS. Further, it was confirmed that this mandate may evolve over time, upon agreement of the partners.
- FEAD Evaluation requirements for Member States and the Commission
FEAD evaluation requirements for the Commission and Member States were presented by Jeannette Monier. She confirmed that the Commission would share with MS its plans as regards its own mid-term evaluation in 2018, taking due account of evaluations plans/intentions of MS (there is no legal obligation under FEAD to have a plan, but it is a good practice) and evaluations carried out by MS. MS insisted on early guidance on the template of the structured survey of end-recipients, as it requires early planning on their side, to which the Commission concurred. To advance with the preparation, the Commission would circulate a request to share any previous experience/suggestions on this subject. The Commission reminded MS that evaluations have to be performed by functionally independent evaluators.
This exchange was followed by a tour de table on the state of play for the preparation of the Annual implementation reports (AIR) due in June 2015.The Commission confirmed that report templates for AIR are to be prepared in SFC by June.
- AIR data are expected to be reported by BE, ES, FR, LT, PL, PT, RO, SV,
- No activities will be reported by LU, MT, NL, SV, IT, CR, GR, B, CH, DK, IR
- The rest intend to report activities related to TA and ex-ante evaluations only.
Responses provided by the MA will be confirmed in a follow up survey.
- Draft Guidance note on monitoring and indicators under FEAD and discussion
The questions raised in writing by partners regarding the latest version of the guidance note were presented and solutions proposed. The summary below includes also questions raised during the meeting.
5.1.1.General
Question:What are changes to guidance on monitoring since October? Will there be an additional document explaining methods of evaluation to ensure all MS carry out FEAD evaluations respecting a set a consistent rules?
Answer:Yes, some minor changes were made to previous guidance since October, including a change to the definition of total food distributed and the counting of packages, see below. There will be separate guidance document on evaluations.
Q:How to report compliance with EU horizontal rules?
AAnnual implementation report form in SFC will contain a text field for a narrative description on compliance.
Q: What is a reporting year? What is the difference with financial and accounting year?
A: Indicators should be reported per financial year, running from 1/1 till 31/12, as in article 52(1) of FEAD regulation. The Guidance note will be amended accordingly.
5.1.2.Input indicators
Q:Difference between 3 financial indicators? Which one includes TA?
A: Indicator 1 is on eligible expenditure approved by MA
Indicator 2 is on actual incurred and paid costs by PO
Indicator 3 is on actual eligible public expenditure declared to COM by MA (thus, it is expected that Indicator 1>Indicator 2>Indicator 3)
It is important to note that, unlike what was said in the meeting, indicators 1-3 are to be reported including TA (to avoid creating a separate reporting field in SFC). The guidance will be amended accordingly.
5.1.3.Output indicators
Q: How to report packages if need to adjust to household size and admin burden in case delivered through voluntary workers with high turnover? One MS defines asingle package as a meal for one person for a day.
What are minimum principles for defininga package? Some MS would like content of packages not to be compulsory/predefined.Others have standardised contents of a package after consultation rounds.
A:Counted packages should be actual packages distributed. Guidance note will be amended as not to require adjustment per size of household.
Definition of packages is up to the MS/partners. However package contents and distribution method should be described and agreed by the MA.
The structured survey will be designed, among other, to estimate the conversion of food packages to the size of the household (portions). It will also try to address the issue that a food package may be for a day, a week or 6 months.
Q: Should meat balls of pork luncheon be reported as convenience? Same for pasta. Does choice need to be justified by MA?
Meals from social canteens are taken way to be consumed elsewhere. Are these considered to be packages?
A: The choice of category will depend on the degree of preparation of the food and the extent to which it is ready to eat. Convenience food to be defined as prepared food, ready to heat (only requiring defreezing and warming up).
Q: Burden of reporting beyond FEAD with new definition of indicator 11.
A: We propose to revert to previous definition, that is to count in indicator 11 only FEAD purchases and donations. Sum of indicators 4-10 equals indicator 11.
Indicator 11 b is proportionate, as it is based on an estimate and expressed as %
Q:For milk products, would conversion of 1 litre into 1 kilogram be appropriate?
A:Yes
Q:What controls should be put in place on distributed food?
A:Distributed food should be reported only. This may include some marginal loss due to the waste. However reported figures should exclude stock and destroyed items. MA should receive reports by PO on the actual distribution.
5.1.4.Result indicators
Q: Are Indicators 14a-f mutually non-exclusive?
AUnder 14 a-f, disadvantages should be reported, thus there is no requirement for mutual exclusion. One person can cumulate several disadvantages and be reported in several categories.
However, in the total, indicator 14, the person should be counted only once!
Q: Support to public schools. Students may be over 15. How to report?
A: Report all students in total beneficiaries (14 or 19) and also the share of up to 15 years in 14 a. There is no category "others".
Q:Quantities for school supplies are determined in June based on the school registers. Actual distribution is performed in October.
A:Persons should be counted/reported when they receive support.
5.1.5.Basis for informed estimate
Q: Detailed advice on how to set sampling approaches (how many reference weeks…) would be appreciated
Contradiction between estimation and absence of requirement to collect and store micro-data vs need to count persons once.
AInformed estimates are used for reporting number of persons. Actual methods may diverge. Some interventions rely on registers (number of children at school) others may rely on estimates. Partners should describe how they arrive at these (e.g.taking into account recurrent, occasional visits). MA should assess the reliability of such estimates. A survey may help in this respect.
Furthermore eligibility criteria set by the MA may require keeping detailed records on any of the indicators.
The Guidance note will be finalised by end of March and may be revised subsequently.
No translation of the guidance note is foreseen.
- Draft Work Programme for 2015-2018 and discussion
Jiri Polasek presented the draft work programme. MS again insisted on the need to adopt thetemplate (including guidance note) on structured surveys as soon as possible. Finally, the need to anticipate in the work programme wider guidance on evaluation was acknowledged by the EC.
- Closing remarks, future meetings and events
A short questionnaire will be sent during week 12on evaluation plans, AIR readiness, survey needs, potential for exchange of practices, notably regarding the estimations of persons.
Participants may submit further comments until 20 March 2015 on the;
- mandate
- guidance note on monitoring and indicators under FEAD
- draft work programme
Next meeting foreseen at 10 November 2015
1