Guidance

Annual Implementation Report 2017

Updated 27 May 2021

Applies to England

1. Part A

1.1 Idenitification of the annual, final implementation report

CCI	2014UK05M9OP001
Title	ESF England
Version	2017.0
Date of approval of the report by the monitoring committee	30-May-2018

2. Overview of the implementation of the operational programme (article 50(2) and 111(3)(A) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Key information on the implementation of the operational programme for the year concerned, including on financial instruments, with relation to the financial and indicator data.

Throughout this report all commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and all commitment and spend against the Performance Framework is reported in Euros (€). All Euro values in this part of the report are as transmitted to the European Commission in January 2018 and are therefore converted using the EUR exchange rate of 0.88768.

The Operational Programme was formally adopted by the European Commission in September 2015 and launched by the then Minister for Employment in January 2016.

At the end of 2017, overall committed spend was £2.47bn. This was broken down in to Direct Bid Funding Agreements with a total value of £584m and Memoranda of Understanding for the four National CFOs valued at £1.89bn.

In terms of progress against Performance Framework milestones, in Priority Axes 1 and 2 combined, the Programme was committed to 136% against the spend target for 2018 (€2m committed spend against a 2018 milestone target of €1.5m).

Progress towards the Performance Framework targets was positive.

The data below demonstrates positive commitments across all Categories of Region in achieving the 2018 milestones as follows:

Priority Axis 1:

• Less Developed 9,613 committed outputs against 2018 target of 7,300

• Transition 103,835 committed outputs against 2018 target of 43,600

• More Developed 461,826 committed outputs against 2018 target of 183,500

• YEI 65,386 committed participants against target of 112,000.

Priority Axis 2:

• Less Developed 3,356 committed outputs against 2018 target of 2,500

• Transition 51,456 committed outputs against 2018 target of 38,400

• More Developed 121,824 committed outputs against 2018 target of 133,300

At end of 2017, More Developed and Transition regions were on target to meet 2018 spend targets, based upon the following commitment levels:

• More Developed: commitment to Q2 2018 of €964m against a 2018 target of €612.3m

• Transitional: commitment to Q2 2018 of €310m against a 2018 target of €198m

• Less Developed: commitment to Q2 2018 of €49.6m against a 2018 target of €44m

A significant percentage of the ESF England Programme is delivered through co-financing arrangements with four partner organisations. At the end of 2017 all four Co-Financing Organisations (CFOs) had committed the entirety of their allocations.

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) (previously known as the National Offender Management Service (NOMS))

£132m committed with contracts signed for the duration of the Operational Programme.

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

£135m committed.

Big Lottery Fund (BLF)

£173m committed.

Employment and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)

£559m committed.

3. Implementation of the Priority Axis (article 50(2) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

3.1 Overview of the implementation

ID	1
Priority Axis	Inclusive Labour Markets

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems

At end of 2017:

IP 1.1: Funding Agreements (FAs) to the value of £75m were in place. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to the value of £112m and with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) CFO to the value of £110m. Calls to the value of £32,344,816 were issued at the end of 2017.

IP 1.2: FAs to the value of £13m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £145m and with the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) to the value of £2.6m. Calls to the value of £23,386,232 were issued at the end of 2017.

IP 1.3: FAs to the value of £157m were in place. Calls to the value of £12,948,000 were issued at the end of 2017.

IP 1.4: FAs to the value of £40m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £29m, with BLF to the value of £170m, with DWP CFO to the value of £17m and with the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to the value of £131m. Calls to the value of £32,680,000 were issued at the end of 2017.

IP 1.5: FAs to the value of £22m were in place.

ID	2
Priority Axis	Skills for Growth

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems

At end of 2017:

IP 2.1: FAs to the value of £21m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £247m. Calls to the value of £89,390,669 were issued at the end of 2017.

IP 2.2: FAs to the value of £39m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £26m. Calls to the value of £15,569,541 were issued at the end of 2016.

Calls to the value of £5,150,000 for joint IP2.1 and IP2.2 were issued at the end of 2017.

ID	3
Priority Axis	Technical Assistance

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems

At end of 2017:

ESF Full Applications for Technical Assistance were valued at £23m.

Common and programme specific indicators (article 50(2) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Priority axes other than Technical Assistance

Priority axis	1- Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	8i - Access to employment for job seekers and inactive people, including the long term unemployed and people far from the labour market, also through local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility.

Tables 2A, 2C and 4C can be found within the data table 8i

Priority axis	1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	8ii - Sustainable integration into the labour market of young people (ESF), in particular those not in employment, education or training, including young people at risk of social exclusion and young people from marginalised communities, including through the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A, 4B, 2B, 4A and 4B can be found within the data table 8ii

Priority axis	1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	9i - Active inclusion, including with a view to promoting equal opportunities and active participation, and improving employability.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A, and 4B can be found within the data table 9i

Priority axis	1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	9vi - Community-led local development strategies

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within the data table 9vi

Priority axis	2 - Skills for Growth
Investment Priority	10iii - Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups in formal, non formal and informal settings, upgrading the knowledge, skills and competences of the workforce, and promoting flexible learning pathways including through career guidance and validation of acquired competences.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within the data table 10iii

Priority axis

2 - Skills for Growth

Investment Priority

10iv - Improving the labour market relevance of education and training systems, facilitating the transition from education to work, and strengthening vocational education and training systems and their quality, including through mechanisms for skills anticipation, adaptation of curricula and the establishment and development of work based learning systems, including dual learning systems and apprenticeship schemes.

Tables 2A, 2C, and 4A can be found within the data table 10iv

There is no information within Table 4B.

Priority axes for Technical Assistance

Priority axis

3 - Technical Assistance

Tables 4B and 2c can be found within the data table 3

Priority axis	3 - Technical Assistance
Investment Priority	3.1 - To ensure that the activities which fall within the scope of the programme are managed, monitored and evaluated in line with the Common Provisions Regulation, European Social Fund Regulation and the Commission’s delegated and implementing regulations.

Table 2c can be found within data table 3 above.

Table 5:

Information on the milestones and targets defined in the performance framework can be found within table 5

3.2 Financial data (article 50(2) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Table 6

Financial information at priority axis and programme level (as set out in Table 1 of Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1011/2014 (Model for the transmission of financial data)) can be found within table 6

Table 7

Breakdown of the cumulative financial data by category of intervention for the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund (Article 112(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) can be found within table 7

Table 8

The use made of cross-financing can be found within table 8

Table 10

Expenditure incurred outside the Union (ESF) can be found within table 10

Table 11

Allocation of YEI resources to young people outside the eligible NUTS level 2 regions can be found within table 11

4. Synthesis of the evaluations

Synthesis of the findings of all evaluations of the programme that have become available during the previous financial year, with reference of name and reference period of the evaluation reports used.

4.1 Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) process evaluation

The YEI Process Evaluation was commissioned to Ecorys UK Ltd in May 2016. The cost of the evaluation was £62,602 (excluding VAT). This evaluation is now complete with the report published on GOV.UK on 12 October 2017.

Aims

The evaluation aimed to assess the strategic fit, design and early implementation of the YEI in England. It also included a feasibility study on the design of a future impact evaluation of YEI.

Methods

The evaluation employed qualitative research methods including a document review and telephone interviews with ESF Managing Authority and EC representatives, European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) sub-committee representatives in YEI-eligible areas and YEI provider representatives. The fieldwork also included two stakeholder workshops in preparation for the YEI impact evaluation. Fieldwork for the evaluation was carried out between August and November 2016.

Findings

The evaluation findings showed that overall feelings towards YEI were positive. In terms of strategic fit, YEI objectives were found to fit with wider local, national and EU priorities. Partnership working was found to be functioning well at all levels during the design phase. However, some design challenges were encountered, including geographical mismatches between Local Enterprise Partnership areas and YEI areas; the perceived restrictiveness of YEI eligibility rules and the requirement to find local match funding. The length of the procurement process was also noted as a challenge to delivery.

Although implementation was in its early stages at the time the research was carried out, the evaluation found delivery structures to be working well so far. Features of YEI provision cited as working well were the case-worker function and flexibility of range of provision.

Based on the findings, the report identified a number of issues for taking forward in the future delivery of YEI. These included ensuring there is need in eligible areas before bidding for additional funding; exploring ways to reduce the time between submission of bids and contract signing; and reviewing evidence requirements for eligibility, particularly making provider staff aware of any flexibilities. Full findings are available in the published report on GOV.UK.

4.2 Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) impact evaluation

The YEI Impact Evaluation was commissioned to Ecorys UK Ltd in April 2017. The cost of the evaluation is £99,322 (excluding VAT). This evaluation is in progress.

Aims

The evaluation aims to:

• assess the extent to which the YEI has achieved its objectives (Sustainable integration into the labour market of young people not in employment, education or training, including those at risk of social exclusion and young people from marginalised communities)

• evaluate how efficient the YEI has been (in terms of achieving its objectives at the minimum cost and without duplicating existing provision) and which elements of the programme were most cost-effective

• gather evidence on the impact of the YEI and the extent to which observed outcomes can be considered an effect of the programme

Methods

The evaluation is using mixed methods, including qualitative and quantitative research utilising primary and secondary data from a range of sources including: YEI stakeholders and participants; programme management information; government administrative datasets; the YEI Leavers’ Survey and programme documentation. Impact will be measured using counterfactual impact evaluation (CIE) methods. Using government administrative data to draw a comparison group of young people not in employment, education or training who are not participating in YEI, we will compare employment and skills related outcomes between YEI and non-YEI participants. This approach draws on the feasibility study conducted as part of the YEI Process Evaluation. Where it is not possible to use a counterfactual, theory-based evaluation will be used drawing on a Theory of Change developed for the YEI.

DWP analysts will then use results of the impact evaluation to conduct a value-for-money assessment of the YEI using cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis techniques.

Progress

The qualitative elements of this project have been completed and work is now beginning on the counterfactual impact evaluation. Once complete, the impact evaluation will be followed by the value-for-money assessment. The aim is for all analysis to be complete by autumn 2018 and a final report to be ready by the end of 2018. The final report will be published on GOV.UK.

4.3 ESF and YEI participant leavers’ survey 2016-2018

The ESF Leavers’ Survey 2016-18 was externally commissioned to IFF Research Ltd, via a competitive tender process in summer 2016; the contract commenced in October 2016.

Due to the uncertainty around the final number of interviews that will be required and achieved across the lifetime of the programme, the survey was costed on a minimum and maximum capped costs basis, depending on the number of interviews. The minimum cost is £730,264 (excluding VAT) and the maximum cost is £1,432,219 (excluding VAT).

The survey is running over 8 quarterly waves up to January 2019 with an option on the existing contract to run 2 additional waves to July 2019.

Aims

The primary aim of the ESF Leavers’ Survey 2016-18 is to collect the data required for the ESF & YEI LTRI (Longer-Term Results Indicator) data. It also aims to collect additional information on participants’ experiences and perspectives of ESF or YEI provision.

Methods

The survey will ask a sample of ESF or YEI leavers about their situation 6 months after they have left ESF or YEI provision (and also 12 months after for YEI leavers). This will primarily be via a telephone interview though provision has been made for some additional face to face interviews and postal or online questionnaires. The minimum cost is based on 29,480 telephone interviews (18,700 with ESF participants and 10,780 with YEI participants); the maximum cost is based on 49,000 telephone interviews (28,000 with ESF participants; 21,000 with YEI participants; 2,500 face to face interviews; and 25,000 postal or online questionnaires).

Progress

Four waves of the survey have been completed to the end of February 2018 and wave 5 is in the field at the time of writing (April 2018).

Up to the end of wave 4, a total of 1,030 interviews had been completed, a response rate of 19%. So far the volume of leavers eligible to be sampled has been lower than expected, therefore we have been taking an attempted census approach and contacting all eligible leavers to take part in the survey. This approach will be reviewed as leaver volumes increase in future waves.

The response rate is slightly lower than expected but it is thought this will improve as fieldwork continues. In part this reflects the large proportion of participants from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Co-Financing Organisation (CFO) in the early wave of fieldwork, who have been found to be difficult to contact. DWP are working with the HMPPS CFO to improve the response rate and to consider alternative ways to engage with this group. However, over time the share of participants from the HMPPS CFO as a portion of the total leavers is expected to fall.

4.4 Findings

YEI Long Term Results Indicators based on all YEI leavers who left YEI provision up until mid-2017 participating in the first 4 waves of the survey (whose status has been verified by Management Information) are included earlier in this report.

They show that around 1 in 5 (20 per cent) of respondent participants who left YEI provision up to mid-2017 were in continued education, training programmes leading to a qualification, an apprenticeship or a traineeship six months after leaving.

Around half (51 per cent) of respondent participants who left YEI provision up to mid-2017 were in employment, including self-employment, six months after leaving. A further 2 per cent were in self-employment only, six months after leaving.

It should be noted that these figures are unweighted and therefore not representative of the whole YEI participant population. They are accompanied by a Voluntary Statement of Compliance following the principles of the UK Code of Practice for Statistics.

ESF Long Term Results Indicators based on the Leavers’ Survey will appear in the AIR 2018 report. A full final report of all Leavers’ Survey waves will be published on GOV.UK in 2019.

4.5 European Social Fund impact evaluation: research design and scoping study

The ESF impact evaluation scoping study was commissioned to Ecorys UK Ltd in June 2017. The cost of the study is £30,722 (excluding VAT).

Aims

The aims of the study are to:

• develop and refine an intervention logic model(s) for the ESF 2014-20 Programme (covering priority axes 1 and 2)

• provide advice on the feasibility of impact evaluation design options, including: the possible scope of the evaluation, evaluation questions and outcome measures

• outline the methodological approaches which could feasibly be used to conduct an impact evaluation, and the pros, cons, requirements, and risks of each method

• provide an outline of the contractor’s recommended approach

Methods

The study will include a desk-based review of ESF documentation, along with consultations with ESF and ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) stakeholders and other government departments.

There will also be a Theory of Change workshop to consider the presumed causal links between ESF activities and the programme’s intended results and impacts and an impact evaluation workshop bringing stakeholders together with insights into Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) approaches and available datasets. This will explore the potential scope and focus of a CIE, possible comparison groups, and any related work using similar methods that has been, or is being, undertaken.

The study will develop and appraise potential approaches to evaluating the impact of the ESF.

Progress

The scoping study is in its final reporting stages. The expected publication date for this report is spring 2018. Based on the scoping study, the ESF Impact Evaluation is expected to be commissioned in summer 2018 and report at the end of 2019.

5. Information on the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative, where applicable.

The YEI is being delivered locally via Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) who work with the ESF Managing Authority (ESF MA) to develop proposals to invite applications for funding to tackle youth unemployment in their area alongside existing Government provision.

The YEI builds on and enhances existing provision, or develops new innovative programmes to support young NEETs to access the labour market or education or vocation training opportunities.

There have been a number of challenges with regards to the YEI implementation such as the availability of match funding which must be integral to the project and be drawn from the same eligible area. Furthermore, the improvement in the economic climate and falling youth unemployment rate has reduced the number of eligible participants.

The MA and its partners recognise that YEI (Investment Priority 1.3 of the England Operational Programme) is strictly for those aged 15-29 and Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET), and that it must operate in specific areas which had high youth unemployment at the time the initiative was conceived. In England its focus is help for marginalised participants into traineeships, apprenticeships and work. Participants might, for example, be members of gangs, care leavers, young lone parents, ex-offenders or young people with learning difficulties. They are likely to require more intensive and tailored interventions. They must reside in an eligible area.

Examples of the sort of activity developed in 2016 and currently taking place under YEI in England include:

5.1 Problems identified and measures taken to address them

YEI in England is expected to underspend owing to lack of take up. The reasons for this include restrictive eligibility, limited available time and the reducing numbers of NEETs due to the youth unemployment falling; Co-Financing Organisations such as the Education and Skills Funding Agency and DWP declining to participate in the initiative due to the added complexities involved around making their systems compliant to ensure accurate reporting and the shortage of match funding.

The ESF MA has worked with LEPs to find solutions to these issues and is in regular discussion with LEPs about driving the programme forward and identifying appropriate match funding. However, timescales are tight and it is unlikely that new projects will come on line.

Initially, European Commission (EC) guidance stated that the YEI had to be spent by the end of 2018. However, the EC have recently clarified that YEI contracts may run beyond 2018.

The EC are yet due to update the YEI guidance in light of amendments to the decommitment methodology which in turn will then allow the MA to provide clear guidance to Grant Recipient holders.

Two examples of YEI in operation are:

Working Futures is a Liverpool City Region Programme, which offers a personalised, flexible package of support to help young people, aged 16 to 29 who are currently not in employment, education or training (NEET), to move towards a better future. Everyone enrolling on to the programme is assessed to identify the help that they require. Once the programme is complete participants are supported to move on to employment, self-employment, apprenticeships, Further Education, training or volunteering.

The programme aims to help 2,000 young people and has a budget of £2.7m of ESF and YEI funding Delivered by a partnership of 22 voluntary, community and social enterprise providers across the Liverpool City Region, the project offers short, medium and long term support, using funding from ESF and the Youth Employment Initiative.

Young Ambition Tees Valley provides young people aged 15 to 29 of NEET status with caseworker support to progress on personalised route ways to education, employment and training.

The project, run by New College Durham across 43 locations, with a combined ESF and Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) a total of £2.5m and UK investment to identify, engage and support over 1,700 eligible participants that are a significant distance from work or mainstream education.

The project provides support that builds confidence in accessing education or employment opportunities, and also provides funds to remove barriers, such as travel costs or childcare, enabling steady but effective steps towards work.

The United Kingdom took the decision not to implement the Youth Guarantee, instead continuing to tackle youth unemployment by offering individualised support, in line with local circumstances, focusing resources flexibly where they are most needed.

6. Issues affecting the performance of the programme and measures taken (article 50(2) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

(a) Issues which affect the performance of the programme and the measures taken

The Programme made significant progress during 2017 with a high volume of commitment through Funding Agreements. At the beginning of the year there was a slight reduction in the level of applications received as a result of uncertainties around the UK’s exit from the EU, however following assurances given to partner organisation the levels increased in the latter part of 2017.

Following the agreement on phase 1 of the EU exit negotiations in December 2017, the published UK EU joint report reflects the UK’s intention to continue to participate in all EU programmes financed by the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, until their closure. Therefore, EU funding for UK participants and projects will be unaffected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU for the entire lifetime of such programmes and projects. This means that England and the Devolved Administrations will continue to have access to the same level of funding as they would have done in the EU, ensuring no parts of the UK lose out.

In terms of the YEI funding, the decisions taken by the Co-Financing Organisations (CFOs) and Greater London Authority (GLA) not to utilise this funding have created some issues, with the Programme unlikely to be able to draw down the full allocation. At the end of 2017 the total commitment in Funding Agreements for YEI, including the ESF element, was £243.2m. At the time of writing there are proposals for further spend which has the potential to increase that commitment by £87.6m. Additionally, the Greater London Authority, who have not until now utilised their YEI, are currently exploring the use of YEI in the capital.

The reporting of results so far has fallen behind schedule. This is partly due to the new delivery model (based on local engagement and joint commissioning of activity with local committees) which has meant that the Programme was adopted in late 2015 and has also had a significant time lag in terms of delivery of activity on the ground. Secondly, due to the nature of the Programme, many operations will be working with individuals for significant periods before they leave the provision, and therefore before the results can be measured. This has meant that these have been slow to come through in some areas. The MA are anticipating an acceleration of reporting throughout 2018. Encouraging progress is being made in other areas of the Programme, such as P1 Transition at almost 49% of the target.

The results reported on basic skills attainment remain low in the Programme, with fewer than anticipated individuals needing this type of support. However, this is an area that the Programme continues to focus on, with specified targets in calls over the last 12 months. In addition, the MA is working with partners to understand the reasons why this trend has developed, and what more we need to do to ensure that participants who need this type of support can easily access it. This should mean that these increase from 2018 onwards, as more projects focus on providing that support.

At the moment Men account for 65% of the total participants, which is primarily due to the fact that a significant proportion of the results reported to date come from Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service, whose target population is, as a proportion, male dominated. However, at commitment level, the ratio of male to female is much closer to 50/50, so in future years the reporting on achievements should balance out.

For CLLD, while the Strategies (and associated applications) were approved in 2017, in the majority of cases the local activity had not yet started by the end of the year. The MA therefore anticipate outputs and results accruing for these from 2018 onwards.

Progress in Priority 2 has been slower, with the associated impact on the achievement of outputs and results. This is because the Programme focussed primarily on committing funding to Priority 1 activity during 2015- 2016, in order to ensure that there was no gap in provision for unemployed individuals from the 07 – 13 Programme. Therefore, work to commission activity in Priority 2 only gained momentum during 2017, and as a result activity on the ground has, generally, not yet reached the stage of achieving significant outputs or results.

With regard to the financial progress of the Programme, this has also been slower than anticipated, but again, much of this is due to the new delivery model of the Programme, requiring a much longer lead-in time, in particular from the CFOs compared to previous Programming periods. The requirement for all projects to be considered by the local ESIF Committees, and the 2-stage application process have meant that, on average, it has taken up to 12 months from the Call closing to project approval. That, coupled with the time required to set up the project (such as recruiting staff and getting participants signed up) has meant that the claims have been slower than anticipated to come into the MA. However, we are now seeing a significant ramping up of these, with the result that the amounts now paid out by the MA are increasing significantly month on month. We have also set up a dedicated group to monitor achievement of both N+3 and the PF targets. This group is implementing concrete actions to ensure that the MA meet these targets. This additional activity will be reflected in both increasing volume, and value of IPAs to the European Commission over the coming months. 2016 saw the MA introduce the ECLAIMS IT system which is the Digital Service supporting the delivery of ESF and ERDF, enabling beneficiaries to submit compliant claims directly to the MA, utilising a series of validation checks.

The reporting tool used for ECLAIMS is Jaspersoft. As development of the reports wasn’t ready when ECLAIMS went live, the MA introduced a contingency system to ensure performance could be monitored. This system has been used to develop reports that are used across the MA and CA. They feature in diverse ways: planning future calls, overall assessment of the programme, driving programme performance - analysing areas where it can be improved and making policy changes as a result of the data itself.

Phase 1 of ECLAIMS roll out to GRs was undertaken in October 2017, (with Phase 2 completed in March 2018). At the time of writing there are just eight projects where technical issues mean they have not converted. ECLAIMS enables GR to input their claims direct, speeding up the process for payment and performance collation.

2017 saw further development. The claims process was looked at, especially looking at how information on transactions & participants was accurate upon submission. Further validation was added to ECLAIMS. The Participant Data Schema validation was enhanced to cross reference with postcode data, then mapped out to check that the Category of Region was correct. For YEI projects a check is done on the participant’s postcode, to ensure eligibility. ECLAIMS prevents the upload of data which doesn’t map correctly.

(b) An assessment of whether progress made towards targets is sufficient to ensure their fulfilment, indicating any remedial actions taken or planned, where appropriate.

Not applicable to ESF.

7. Citizens Summary

The England European Social Fund Programme (ESF) was formally adopted by the European Commission in September 2015 and launched by the then Minister for Employment in January 2016.

An extensive consultation process was launched in April 2012. This resulted in a final model for the Programme which was tested through a number of established contacts and in consultation with the then, Department of Communities and Local Government (now Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Internal and external stakeholders and organisations with relevant knowledge and expertise on the target groups, social inclusion, education and training, equality issues and other Programme themes were invited to participate. Representatives from economic and social partners such as the CBI and the TUC were also involved. LEPs consulted with a wide range of stakeholders with specialised knowledge of the target groups and partners from the business, education, voluntary and environmental sectors. This produced important information and analysis that ensured a strong local emphasis for the Programme.

Throughout this summary commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and commitment and spend against the Performance Framework is reported in Euros (€). All Euro values are as transmitted to the European Commission in January 2018 and are therefore converted using the EUR exchange rate of 0.88768. The total value of the Programme is approximately €6.4bn over seven years.

At the end of 2017, the Programme had £2.47bn already committed. This comprised Funding Agreements with organisations contracting directly with the ESF Managing Authority with a total value of £584m and Memoranda of Understanding with four national Co-Financing Organisations (DWP, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, the Education and Skills Funding Agency and The Big Lottery Fund) with a total value of £1.89bn. In terms of progress against Performance Framework milestones, for Priority Axes 1 and 2, the Programme was committed to 136% against the spend target for 2018.

Progress towards the Performance Framework targets was positive. The data below demonstrates positive commitments across all categories of region in achieving the 2018 milestones as follows:

Priority Axis 1:

Less Developed	9,613 committed participants against target of 7,300
Transition	103,835 committed participants against target of 43,600
More Developed	461,826 committed participants against target of 183,500
YEI	65,386 committed participants against target of 112,000

Priority Axis 2:

Less Developed	3,356 committed participants against target of 2,500
Transition	51,456 committed participants against target of 38,400
More Developed	121,824 committed participants against target of 133,300

As mentioned above, a significant percentage of the England ESF Programme is delivered through co-financing arrangements with four partner organisations. At the end of 2017 all four Co-Financing Organisations (CFOs) had onward procurement covering the entirety of their allocations:

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS)

£132m committed with contracts signed for the duration of the Operational Programme.

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

£135m committed.

Big Lottery Fund (BLF)

£173m committed.

Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)

£559m committed.

7.1 Governance of the programme

The ESF programme is governed through the national ESI Funds Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) which is also responsible for the England ERDF programme. The committee is known as the ESI Funds Growth Programme Board (GPB). The GPB meets quarterly.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Common Provision Regulations (CPR), the GPB invites representation from:

• local authorities - city and county councils, including the Greater London Authority

• urban and other public authorities - LEPs, educational establishments

• economic and social partners - chambers of commerce, local representative groups

• organisations, including the Trades Union Congress and those representing equality and environmental issues, small businesses and the voluntary and community sector

In addition to partnership working through the GPB, the ESF programme is further supported through partners who make up the GPB National sub-Committees (NSCs). The sub-Committees comprise representatives from relevant organisations who advise and challenge policy approaches to ensure the ESI programmes respond to emerging needs and issues.

The DWP MA leads on two GPB sub-Committees:

NSC employment, skills and social inclusion

This sub-Committee provides the Board with an update on the progress of the ESF 2014-2020 Programme and provide examples of projects being funded to promote inclusive labour markets on the programme. NSC report directly to the GPB.

NSC equality and diversity

This sub-Committee provides the Board with an update on the progress of the ESF 2014-2020 Programme in respect of Equality and Diversity and provides examples of projects being funded to promote equal opportunities, active participation and improving employability for participants on the programme. NSC report directly to the GPB.

The DWP MA participates in two further GPB sub-Committees:

Performance and dispute resolution (PDR)

This sub-Committee monitors and assesses spend and performance across ESF. It considers and assesses programme or project related dispute cases raised by LEP arrears and GDTs to advise the GPB and MAs as needed. The PDR reports findings, trends and outcomes to the GPB, providing recommendation where possible.

Communications

This sub-Committee advises on communication related issues and activity and promotes best practice. It evaluates the effectiveness of the Communication Strategy, undertaking regular reviews of both strategy and activities. It also drives the delivery of the Annual Communication Activity Plans. The group reports directly to the GPB.

European Structural Investment Funds (ESIFs) committees

At local level, the role of partners is embedded through the 39 local ESIF Committees which complement the functions of the MA. Committees comprise members from business, public, environmental, voluntary and civil society sectors. The role and purpose of the ESIF Committees is to provide advice to the MA on local development needs, to work with local sectors and organisations to understand the opportunities provided by the ESF to support local economic growth and to provide practical advice and information to the MA to assist in the preparation of local plans that contribute towards the ESF OP priorities and targets. It also has an advisory role providing advice to the MA on local strategic fit for new project appraisals. Through this, partners deliver the role foreseen in the Common Provisions Regulation and the main principles and good practices set out in the European Code of Conduct on Partnership.

Report on the implementation of financial instruments

Financial Instruments are not applicable to ESF.

Optional for the report to be submitted in 2016, not applicable to other light reports: actions taken to fulfil ex-ante conditionalities

Table 14: Actions taken to fulfil applicable general ex-ante conditionalities are not applicable to ESF.

Table 15: Actions taken to fulfil applicable thematic ex-ante conditionalities are not applicable to ESF.

8. Progress in preparation and implementation of major projects and joint action plans (article 101(h) and 111(3) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

8.1 Major projects

Major Projects can be found within table 12

Significant problems encountered in implementing major projects and measures taken to overcome them

Not applicable to ESF.

8.2 Joint action plans

Joint action plans (JAP) can be found table 13

Significant problems encountered and measures taken to overcome them

Not applicable to ESF.

9. Part B

9.1 Reporting submitted in years 2017, 2019 and Final Implementation Report (articles 50(4), 111(3) and (4) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

9.2 Assessment of the implementation of the Operational Programme (articles 50(4) and 111(4) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

9.3 Information in Part A and achieving objectives of the programme (article 50(4) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Priority axis

1 - Inclusive Labour Markets

Priority axis

2 - Skills for Growth

Priority axis

3 - Technical Assistance

Specific actions taken to promote equality between men and women and to prevent discrimination, in particular accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the arrangements implemented to ensure the integration of the gender perspective in the operational programme and operations (articles 50(4) and 111(4), second subparagraph, (e) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

Sustainable development (articles 50(4) and 111(4), second subparagraph, (f) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

9.4 Reporting on support used for climate change objectives (article 50(4) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Priority axis	Amount of support to be used for climate change objectives (EUR)
Total	0.00

Priority axis	Proportion of total allocation to the operational programme (%)
Total	0.00

9.5 Role of partners in the implementation of the programme

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

9.6 Obligatory information and assessment according to article 111(4), first paragraph, (A) and (B), of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013

Progress in implementation of the evaluation plan and the follow-up given to the findings of evaluations

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

The results of the information and publicity measures of the funds carried out under the communication strategy

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

Actions taken to fulfil ex-ante conditionalities (article 50(4) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013) (may be included in report to be submitted in 2016(see point 9 above). Required in report submitted in 2017) option: progress report

Not Applicable to ESF.

Additional information which may be added depending on the content and objectives of the operational programme (article 111(4), second subparagraph, (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h), of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Not Applicable.

Progress in the implementation of the integrated approach to territorial development, including development of regions facing demographic challenges and permanent or natural handicaps, integrated territorial investments, sustainable urban development, and community led local development under the operational programme.

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

Progress in the implementation of actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities and beneficiaries to administer and use the Funds.

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

Progress in the implementation of any interregional and transnational actions

Not Applicable to ESF.

Where appropriate, the contribution to macro-regional and sea basin strategies

As stipulated by the regulation (EU) no 1303/2013, article 27(3) on the “content of programmes”, article 96(3)(e) on the “content, adoption and amendment of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal”, article 111(3), article 111(4)(d) on “implementation reports for the Investment for growth and jobs goal”, and Annex 1, section 7.3 on “contribution of mainstream programmes to macro-regional and sea-basin strategies, this programme contributes to MRS(s) and, or SBS:

• EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

• EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)

• EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR)

• EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP)

• Atlantic Sea Basin Strategy (ATLSBS)

Not Applicable to ESF.

Progress in the implementation of actions in the field of social innovation, where appropriate

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

Progress in the implementation of measures to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or of target groups at highest risk of poverty discrimination or social exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities and persons with disabilities, long term unemployment and young people not in employment including, where appropriate, the financial resources used.

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

10. Part C

10.1 Reporting submitted in the year 2019 and final implementation report (article 50(5) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

10.2 Financial information at Priority Axis and programme level (articles 21(2) and 22(7) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

10.3 Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (option: progress report)

Information on and assessment of the programme contribution to achieving the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

10.4 Issues affecting the performance of the programme and measures taken - Performance Framework

(article 50(2) of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013)

Where the assessment of progress made with regard to the milestones and targets set out in the performance framework demonstrates that certain milestones and targets have not been achieved, Member States should outline the underlying reasons for failure to achieve these milestones in the report of 2019 (for milestones) and in the final implementation report (for targets).

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

10.5 Youth Employment Initiative (article 19(4) and (6) of regulation (EU) no 1304/2013 (where applicable))

The report submitted in 2019 shall set out and assess the quality of employment offers received by YEI participants, including disadvantaged persons, those from marginalised communities and those leaving education without qualifications. The report shall also set out and assess their progress in continuing education, finding sustainable and decent jobs, or moving into apprenticeships or quality traineeships.

The report shall set out the main findings of evaluations assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of joint support from the European Social Fund and the specific allocation for YEI including for the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

Not Applicable to the ESF Annual Implementation Report submission for 2017.

11. Documents

Document Title	Document Type	Document Date	Local Reference	Commission Reference	Files	Sent Date	Sent by
Citizen’s Summary	Citizen’s Summary	11-May- 2018	None	Ares(2018)2799549	Citizen’s Summary	30 May 2018	n0027byn