FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation

1. FEAD Mid-Term Evaluation Draftconclusionsandlessonslearnedfromthe FEAD mid-term evaluation FEAD Evaluation Partnership Meeting Costanza Pagnini, Isabel Naylon, Brussels, 27.04.18

2. Purposeandscopeofthe MTE • The mid-term evaluation is a requirement of the Regulation (EU) No 223/2014, Article 17.1. • The FEAD MTE examines effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, European added value and relevance of the activities carried out under OP I and OP II of the FEAD. • The evaluation draws on the monitoring data (cut-off date December 2016), OPs, around 55 interviews, the OPC, the focus groups at MS and EU level, the structured surveys carried out in 2017/2018.

3. Methodology • At country level, country fiches (not foreseen in the ToR) have been produced by country experts which were also delivered with the Final Report after validation round with MAs. • These summarise mainly the desk research and interviews, as well as the focus groups at country level (DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, PL and RO)

4. Background figures • OP I accounts for 97.56% of the allocated funding with the lion’s share going to food support (85%). • Material assistance accounts for 14% of the allocated funding but has been slow to implement. • OP II accounts for 2.44% of the funding with four MS carrying out different types of social inclusion measures for EU migrants (DE and SE), homeless (DE and DK), and older people (NL). • Accompanying measures are carried out or planned in all OP I countries. They are mandatory and reimbursed at a flat rate of 5% (or paid for with national funding).

5. Background figures • The highest allocations of FEAD funding are in Italy, Spain, France, Poland and Romania (between EUR 441 in Romania and 670 million in Italy). These are followed by Greece and Portugal, at over EUR 200 million, while the remainder is around, or more often below, EUR 100 million. • OP II countries havemostlylowerratesoffunding (EUR 3.9 million in DK and NL and EUR 7.8 million in SE). Germany has EUR 78.9 million.

6. Background figures • 10 OP I countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Poland, Slovenia, Malta and the United Kingdom) devote 100% of their FEAD allocation to food support (including accompanying measures). • 14 also devote funds to material assistance. Austria only to material assistance.

7. Main findings - Effectiveness • Effectiveness is measured in terms of • Financial and physical progress • Coverage and intensity of support provided (OPI) • Effects on end beneficiaries • Whether the types of support are fit for purpose • Limitations to evaluating effectiveness • The nature of the programme • Lack of targets/benchmarks (OPI) • Lack of a standardised/comparable measure for support • Double counting

8. Main findings – Effectiveness/ OPI • By end 2016, €911 million were incurred by beneficiaries (20%); + 97% was for OPI of which 85% for food assistance. • The pace of financial progress has systematically increased over time. • Nearly one million tons of food distributed up until 2016 • Approx. 15 M people supported annually • Six of the 14 MS that chose material support delivered to 660,000 individualsup until 2016 • Food support smoother than material support

9. Main findings – Effectiveness / OPII • OPII reachedapproximately 23,000 individuals, the majority of them (21,660) in Germany • Result indicators for OPII show very good achievements with most indicators having almost reached or even surpassed targets. • Results also have been achieved in terms of capacity building and networking and empowerment and improved awareness.

10. FEAD makes a differenceforthemostdeprived… • Addresses a basic humanneed (OPI) and in some instances freesresources for end recipients’ otherneeds • Especiallyforchildren and lowworkintensityhouseholds (OPI) • Solid support to families and individuals in need • Reaches out to a broad range of target groups amongst the MD, includingindividualsthatwouldbeotherwise « invisible »

11. FEAD makes a differenceforthemostdeprived… • Stable support to PO • Strengthenscooperationamong PO (and effectiveness) and btwthem and social services … but does not address the underlying poverty causes

12. How isassistancedelivered and isitfit for purpose • OPI support: significantvariations in target groups, delivery modes and quantitiesacrosscountries • Accompanyingmeasures (OPI): compulsoryyetlimited in scope and funding • Social inclusionmeasures (OPII): variations across countries; viable alternatives to developpersonalskills to integrateinto society • FEAD has adjusted to changing needs (targeting end receipients, delivery modes)

13. Main findings - Coherence • FEAD coherent and complementary to the national anti-poverty systems • Fills in “social assistance gaps” • supporting the work of the third sector • targeting individuals that are not reached by national policies • Fostering dialogue and cooperation with social services • No evidence that FEAD replaces national policies although it clearly fills in gaps that should be covered through public intervention

14. Main findings - Coherence • ESF and AMIF are complementarywithoutoverlapping: • Scope • Target groups • Complementaritywith ESF couldbestrengthened: • Joint MA can leverage on sharedexperiences and ensure the complementarity in activities and financialresources. • Joint actions/calls • Identify ESF services thatcouldbeaccessed by end-recipients

15. Main findings - Efficiency • Efficiency has been evaluated in terms of operational efficiency (i.e. inputs vs outputs) and cost-effectiveness (inputs vs results achieved). • FEAD is a useful fund for contributing to the alleviation of poverty and social exclusion but it is in some cases administratively burdensome, due to: • identification and registration of end recipients • the requirements to accredit the situation of poverty of end recipients • national procurement procedures • some double requirements of national and EU regulations leading to gold plating

16. Main findings - Efficiency • In OP I countries, there are large variations in the unit cost per person and per kg. • Large variations also in the cost per person of basic material assistance. • Administrative costs for the distribution and delivery of food support are considered high. • Many indirect effects that cannot be costed (e.g. social solidarity, self-esteem and sense of belonging, leverage effects through extensive volunteering action).

17. Administrative burden

18. Main findings - Efficiency • OP I programmes use mainlyincomeeligibilitycriteriasuch as minimum income support or proof of their situation of povertythroughincomestatements and/or interviews with social services or similar. • In OP II, outreachactivities are the main channelused to identify the end recipients. • In both OP I and OP II, local coordination and local networks play an important role in helping end recipientsaccess FEAD support. • Involvement of NGOs in the identification of end recipientsmayincreaseefficiency.

19. Main findings - Efficiency • Accompanying measures have a low allocation but potential for social inclusion – can be achieved with a narrower scope and links with ESF • Although flat rates under OP I simplify the activities of partner organisations, the actual administrative costsoftensurpasss the eligible 5%. • Potential simplifications encompass all stages of the programming and coveringgovernance, financial and eligibilityrequirements, public purchases, delivery, monitoring and reporting

20. Scope for simplification • Maintain flexibility to contextualise FEAD support and define target groups in the Regulation • Simplify the procurement procedures in the MS, e.g. multiannual procurement, broader use of flat rates • Rationalise data collection (minimum, accurate, non-stigmatising and result oriented) • Documentation requirements should not discourage participation • Simple audit principle and on a smaller scale • Simplify or digitalise food delivery forms

21. Main findings – European Added Value • FEAD provides additional funding, new types of support for new target groups and new ways of doing things. • Significantprocesseffectscanalsobenoted in the field of networking and building partnerships. • The vastmajority of Member States experienced a volume effectfrom the FEAD in theircountries. • FEAD eitherfilled a gap, or added to local and regional initiatives. • There was a leverage effect in terms of further sources of food and material assistance (donations) and to the mobilisation of local organisations and volunteers.

22. Main findings – Scopeeffects • The main scope effect is in the inclusion of new target groups in the provision of non-financial support. • In nineMember States, the FEAD had a differenttarget group than national policies. • In OP II MS, the FEAD supports vulnerable groups (EU migrants, homeless people and older people) in accessingexisting services. • The low threshold nature of the measures helps the most deprived access social services.

23. Main findings – Scopeandroleeffects • FEAD had a strong scope effect in reaching the poorest and most rural regions and in covering all the territory throughout the year. • Three quarters of Member States agreed that FEAD contributed to raising awareness for the needs of the most deprived. • Little evidence of role or mainstreaming effects was noted in half of all Member States, partly because it is too early to tell.

24. Main findings – Scopeeffects

25. Main findings – Processeffects • Mutual learning in the form of improved cooperation between the authorities and NGOs, between social services and local organisations, between partner organisations on the ground, and between individual stakeholders represents a major process effect. • Mutual learning in the framework of the FEAD Network meetings was also an added value for partner organisations that do not normally have the opportunity to exchange at European level.

26. Main findings – Processeffects • The OPC corroboratesthesefindingswith 73% of respondentsagreeing or stronglyagreeingwith the statementthat the FEAD contributes to raisingawareness. • 78% of respondentsagreed or stronglyagreedwith the statementthat the FEAD contributes to mutuallearning. • 74% of respondentsagreed or stronglyagreedwith the statementthat the FEAD contributes to the creation of partnerships. • 71% agreed or stronglyagreedwith the statementthat the FEAD contributes to engaging new organisations.

27. Main findings – Relevance • In some OP I countries, the FEAD is the onlyfood programme, in othersitsupplementsexistingfood programmes. In all cases, itisconsideredrelevant. • There is evidence of some gaps in the types of food provided in a small number of Member States, many of which were closed during the implementation. • Materialassistance in OP I accounts for a fraction of all spendingincurredso far but there are calls for more provision of hygieneproducts and othermaterialgoods for specificneeds (babies etc.).

28. Main findings – Relevance • FEAD provides first and sometimes essential stepstowards social inclusion through the accompanyingmeasures in OP I. • Accompanying measures provide empowerment to the end-recipients by helping them out of isolation and giving them access to services for which they are eligible. • The accompanying measures also empower the organisations providing them by helping them develop new services and skills.

29. Main findings – Relevance • However, the limitedresourceswithin FEAD (5% of OP I budget) restrict the quality and scope of accompanyingmeasures, e.g. volunteersmay not be able to provide the kind of advice and counselling the target group requires. • Further alignment with the ESF would be advantageous in order to ensure a smooth transition from non-financial support to active social inclusion and labour market measures.

30. Conclusions and lessonslearnt • FEAD contributes to the alleviation of the effects of poverty but cannot be expected to have major impacts on overall poverty figures or on homelessness. • FEAD makes a difference on the ground. Provides support to millions of people unable to access other forms of assistance, e.g. in 2016 • 4.4 m in FR • 1.5 m in ES • 3.3 m in RO • 2.8 m in IT

31. Conclusions and lessonslearnt • Food and material support alone cannot solve the problem of poverty. Hence the crucial role of the accompanying measures to help people take the first steps out of poverty. • Accompanying measures require some skills and capacity. There is a need for training for those offering accompanying measures. • Closer links to the ESF would be useful as an option for providing training to NGO workers and for end recipients to progress to.

32. Conclusions and lessonslearnt • The capacity to addresstarget group needs and local delivery and cooperation are key factors for the efficiency of operations in both OP I and OP II. • OP II provides essential social inclusion support to target groups otherwise neglected by national programmes. • OP II starts upstream from the ESF with low threshold measures for those furthest from the labour market but could be linked to the ESF to ensure a pathways approach.

33. Conclusions and lessonslearnt • Nevertheless, it is essential to maintain the main characteristics of the FEAD: food and material assistance, accompanying measures, social inclusion… • Implementation should be kept as simple as possible, including further simplification of the current programme with regard to procurement, reporting, documentation and auditing.

34. Conclusions and lessonslearnt • The aim of social integration of the most deprived is a very long-term process that goes over generations. Current programmes sow the seeds for the impact a long way down the road.

35. Nextsteps • Finalisation of the Final Report • Validation of the country fiches with the Managing Authorities