migrants and minorities - European Commission - Europa EU

15 downloads 6 Views 2MB Size Report
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. ... BBI. Bernard Brunhes International. BEST. Business Employment Services Training ...... and Italy) are hosting 75 % of the former and 78 % of the latter.

The european social fund: migrants and minorities

background report

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

© European Union, 2010 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

IMPORTANT NOTE This study is produced by Bernard Brunhes International (BBI, www.bb-international.eu) under the contract “Reporting on ESF interventions in the EU.”  The report was written by Dr. Nicholas Glytsos in cooperation with Bruno Vilela and the support of BBI’s team of researchers: Georgios Voudouris, João Nunes, Livia Di Nardo and Tanja El-Nemr. A brochure summarising the findings of this study is available in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Polish at http://ec.europa.eu/esf

Table of Contents List of abbreviations

2

Introduction

4

A. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

4

B. THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: FRAMEWORK & ACHIEVEMENTS

5

C. APPROACH

Chapter 1 – General Context A. TRENDS AND RELEVANT CONCEPTS

12 14 14

1. International Developments

14

2. The European Context

16

B. RELEVANT EU POLICIES

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

21 26

A. INTEGRATION OF MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES AS A TARGET OF ESF SUPPORT

26

B. ESF INTERVENTIONS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES

27

1. Measures and Priority Axes

27

2. Expenditure on Migrants and Minorities

30

C. ESF ACHIEVEMENTS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES

33

1. Aggregate Achievements 2000-2006

33

2. Achievements by Type of Intervention, 2000-2006

34

3. Achievements, 2007-2013

44

Chapter 3 – Conclusion

48

Annexes

51

ANNEX 1: EXPENDITURE 2000-2006 AND BUDGET 2007-2013

51

ANNEX 2: ESF VOCABULARY

53

ANNEX 3: LIST OF ESF 2000-2006 MEASURES USED FOR THE STUDY

54

ANNEX 4: LIST OF ESF 2007-2013 PRIORITY AXES USED FOR THE STUDY

60

ANNEX 5: STANDARDISED INDICATOR NAMES USED FOR ANALYSIS

65

Index of figures, statistical tables and insights

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

71

1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Country codes

2

AT

Austria

IT

Italy

BE

Belgium

LT

Lithuania

BG

Bulgaria

LU

Luxembourg

CH

Switzerland

LV

Latvia

CY

Cyprus

MT

Malta

CZ

Czech Republic

NL

Netherlands

DE

Germany

NO

Norway

DK

Denmark

PL

Poland

EE

Estonia

PT

Portugal

ES

Spain

RO

Romania

FI

Finland

SE

Sweden

FR

France

SI

Slovenia

GR

Greece

SK

Slovakia

HR

Croatia

TR

Turkey

HU

Hungary

UK

United Kingdom

IE

Ireland

US

United States

IS

Iceland

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Other abbreviations BBI

Bernard Brunhes International

BEST

Business Employment Services Training

CBP

Common Basic Principles on integration

COMPAS

Centre on Migration, Policy and Society

EC

European Commission

ECRE

European Council on Refugees and Exiles

EPIM

European Programme for Integration and Migration

EQUAL

Community Initiative

ESRC

Economic and Social Research Council

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GFMD

Global Forum on Migration and Development

ICT

Information and Communication Technologies

IDELE

Identification, Dissemination and Exchange of Good Practice in Local Employment Development and Promoting Better Governance

ILO

International Labour Organisation

IMISCOE

International Migration Integration Social Cohesion

INTI (EU)

Integration of Third Country Nationals

IOM

International Organisation of Migration

IT

Information Technologies

MIDIS (EU)

Minorities and Discrimination Survey

MIPEX

Indicators of migrant integration

M&M

Migrants and minorities

MPI

Migration Policy Institute

MS

Member State

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

QED

Quality education Data

RCE (Objective)

Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective

SFC

Structural Fund Database

SME

Small and Medium Size Enterprises

UN

United Nations

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

3

Introduction A. SCOPE OF THE STUDY This study presents the interventions of the European Social Fund (ESF) in the area of Migrants and Minorities. It is one in a series of 21 studies describing what the ESF does and achieves on a range of policy topics or target groups. In addition to this background report, which exists only in English, a ‘summary fiche’ contains the major findings of the study and is translated in French, German, Spanish, Italian and Polish. The study will look at the types of measures and priority axes that support migrants and minorities and, whenever possible, their different sub-groups. These subgroups consist of migrants (EU Citizens, Third Country Nationals), asylum seekers, refugees, Roma, ethnic minorities and religious minorities. Although issues of mobility and integration of EU citizens were reported in the ‘Labour Mobility’ study of this series, the EU enlargement brought about new groups of EU citizens that, apart from various bureaucratic and legal hurdles, still have to cross economic and social barriers for their full integration. These new EU citizens, along with third country nationals, are therefore supported by ESF to overcome these problems. The ESF is one of the Structural Funds of the European Union (EU) and devoted in particular to promoting employment. The implementation of the ESF is structured along seven-year programming periods. This report contains information on the ESF interventions in the field of migrants and minorities for the programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. Since the programmes of the second period are currently in process, the findings on ESF achievements are limited to the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2008. Since 2000, the EU has grown from 15 to 27 Members, and thus the involvement of the respective Member States in ESF has also increased. Romania and Bulgaria only participate in the current programming period of 2007-2013. Following this introduction, the report consists of two chapters and a conclusion. The first chapter is a general context presentation which defines the theme and its dimensions for the scope of this study and puts it in a broader perspective. Particular attention will be given to the problems of integration in the labour market and to the policy responses from the EU for the social inclusion and the access to employment of migrants and minorities. The interventions and achievements of ESF in the field of migrants and minorities constitute the second and core chapter of this report. Starting from the way the theme of migrants and minorities is addressed in the ESF regulations, an overview will be given of the extent to which migrants and minorities are part of the individual Operational Programmes in both the previous and the current programming periods. The different types of assistance constitute the basis for the description of the ESF achievements on migrants and minorities. The concluding section contains a summary of the findings and looks at the continuity that exists in the ESF assistance to migrants and minorities across the programming periods.

4

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

B. THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: FRAMEWORK & ACHIEVEMENTS The ESF is one of the EU’s Structural Funds set up to reduce the gap in living standards between regions and between people and to promote economic and social cohesion across Europe. The ESF is devoted to promoting employment in the EU. It helps Member States make Europe’s workforce and companies better equipped to face new and global challenges. The ESF was created in 1957 at the time when the European Economic Community was established. While the overall purpose of the Fund has remained unchanged, its objectives and scope of application have been adapted to socio-economic developments. The ESF strategy and budget is negotiated and decided between the EU Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. On this basis, seven-year Operational Programmes (OPs) are planned by Member States together with the European Commission.

Programming Period 2000-2006 In the period 2000-2006, the Structural Funds were grouped around 3 Objectives1: Objective 1 promoted the development of regions where the GDP per capita was below 75% of the EU average, outlying regions (e.g. Azores) and sparsely populated regions in Finland and Sweden; Objective 2 supported areas adjusting to change in the industrial and services sector, rural areas in decline, urban areas in difficulty, and economically depressed areas heavily dependent on fisheries; Objective 3 provided funding throughout the EU to help adapt and modernise policies and systems of education, training and employment. Objectives 1 and 2 were financed by the ESF in combination with other Structural Funds. Objective 3 was financed solely by ESF. ESF supported activities related to five Policy Fields: (i) the development and promotion of active labour market policies; (ii) the promotion of equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis on those exposed to social exclusion; (iii) the promotion and improvement of training, education and counselling as part of lifelong learning policy; (iv) the promotion of a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce; and (v) the improvement of women’s access to and participation in the labour market. Across all programmes, the ESF has also addressed three horizontal themes: (i) support for local initiatives concerning employment; (ii) the social and labour market dimensions of the information society; and (iii) equal opportunities for women and men as part of the mainstreaming approach. Between 2000 and 2006 a total of 212 OPs2 were implemented by either regional or national authorities in the Member States. In 2000, the ESF was open to 15 Member States. Additional OPs were set up in 2004 to accommodate the priorities of 10 new Member States. The distribution of the programmes and the total ESF co-funded expenditure per Objective is presented in Figure 1.

1. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24203.htm 2. The research is based on data collected for 207 OPs covering the years 2000 to 2006. The remaining programmes are technical assistance OPs and a specific transnational OP promoting the peace process in Northern Ireland. This OP is not included in figure 1. The Equal Operational Programmes are not covered.

Introduction

5

Figure 1: Number of OPs and total ESF co-funded expenditure per Objective in the ESF 2000-2006 period

120 106 100

80 Budget in € billion

58 60

52

49

47

Number of OPs

40

20 5 0 Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006)

Between 2000 and 2006, over 75 million participants3 were involved in ESF funded activities. Because it is very likely that some people have benefited more than once from ESF funded interventions, it is more correct to refer to over 75 million participations.

Figure 2: Average yearly participation per Member State 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 ES FR PT DE

IT

GB EU PL GR 25

IE

SE BE AT

FI

CZ NL HU SK

SI LV LT DK EE CY LU MT

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006

This corresponds to approximately a fifth of the total population between 15-64 years4 in the 25 EU Member States. Participants may have benefited from more than one ESF intervention. In the case of Portugal, no aggregated data were available so data from the different years were added up. In Spain, participants could be funded under national and regional programmes. Furthermore, for the Netherlands limited data is available. 3. The findings are based on a total of 1,567 measures of which 1,260 have reported on participants. 4. Eurostat, Europe in figures, Eurostat Yearbook 2008, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook

6

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Figure 3: The proportion of the yearly average of ESF beneficiaries per Member State in relation to the total population between 15-64 years per Member State 16.0% 14.0%

Proportion on ESF beneficiaries per MS in 2006 (yearly values) EU Average

12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% PT ES

IE

FR GR SE BE

FI

SI

AT LV

IT

UK DE SL CZ PL HU LT LU NL EE MT CY DK

Source: Eurostat 2008 and for ESF, data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006

On an annual basis, ESF reached on average nearly 4% of the total EU-25 population between 15 - 64 years in the 25 EU Member States. In most of the Member States the yearly proportion of the active population benefiting from ESF money was lower. Exceptions to this were Portugal, Spain, Ireland and to a lesser extent France, Greece and Sweden. New Member States started later with the programming and this may explain the lower proportion of the active population addressed through ESF. Moreover in some Member States operational programmes focussed more on assistance to systems and structures than in others. The total ESF community expenditure was € 54 billion in the period 2000-2006. This amount was matched, through the basic principle of co-funding within ESF with about € 51 billion from the public and private sectors in the Member States concerned. A detailed breakdown of the financial allocations per Member State is available in Annex 1.

Introduction

7

Figure 4: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per Member State: proportion between ESF and Member State funds 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SE

FI

BE DK FR AT GB LU DE NL CY EU 25

IT

IE

ESF community expenditure

ES

PT

EE

CZ SK

PL

LT

SI MT LV HU GR

ESF national expenditure

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006)

The average percentage of the total ESF co-funded expenditure committed by Member States to ESF activities was 51.3%. The share of the ESF budget that each Member States received depended on several factors, such as the size of the population and the objective covered5. On average the new Member States received a higher share of ESF funding, which can be explained by the need for these countries to catch up with the global European economy. Funding was allocated to Member States where support was most needed to ensure that the whole of EU moved forward. The average total expenditure per ESF beneficiary was € 1,306 (€ 669 was the average ESF expenditure per beneficiary). Some Member States like Denmark and Germany, but also the Netherlands and the United Kingdom exceeded this average amount considerably. This may reflect a stronger focus of the Operational Programmes on assistance to systems and structures.

5. Priority Objectives in 2000-2006 have been defined on the basis of the per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Objective 1 territory were the ones with a GDP lower than 75% of the Community average, Objective 2 programmes were aimed at helping regions with indications of industrial decline; Objective 3 programmes were not geographically targeted and delivered the European Employment Strategy. http://europa.eu/scadplus/ leg/en/lvb/g24203.htm

8

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Figure 5: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per participant per Member State (in €) 7,000

Total Expenditure per participant

6,000

EU 25 Average ESF expenditure per participant

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 DK LU DE NL GB SE EE

FI

LT

IT

GR PL BE MT HU SK AT PT LV

IE

CZ FR ES

SI

CY

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006) data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

The ESF supported two types of interventions, assisting people and systems. Actions targeting the enhancement of systems (e.g. capacity building in Public Employment Services or the modernisation of vocational education and training systems) will ultimately address individual beneficiaries, too. However, such programmes tend not to have the same number of participants as those interventions directly aimed at e.g. training disadvantaged sections of the population in acquiring a better position for the labour market or supporting researchers to pursue part of their work in another region or country. Member States implementing more system-related interventions had a relatively lower number of participants and therefore the average ESF budget spent on each participant may be somewhat higher.

Figure 6: ESF community expenditure per participant per Member State (in €) 3,000

ESF Expenditure per participant

2,500

EU 25 Average ESF expenditure per participant 2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 DK EE LU NL DE LT GB GR PL

SE

IT MT HU

FI

SK LV PT CZ AT BE

IE

ES

SI

FR CY

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006) data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

Introduction

9

The ESF Regulation strongly reflected the EU’s commitment to eliminate inequalities between women and men following a combined approach of gender mainstreaming and specific activities for women in different fields. ESF resulted in a balanced participation of women and men: 52% of the participants are women and 48% are men.

Figure 7: Gender breakdown of ESF participants

men 48%

women 52%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

Most Member States had a balanced division of male and female participants. Seven Member States had a proportion of female participants exceeding 55% (Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Austria where 64% of the participants were women). 37% of the ESF participants were young people (< 25 years) while 7% were beneficiaries aged 50 years and older6. ESF helped to prepare young people to find suitable work and to succeed in their jobs. It assisted older workers to stay in employment, by e.g. re-skilling programmes. ESF addressed both employed and unemployed people: 54% of ESF participants were unemployed, of whom 25% were long term unemployed, 42% short term unemployed and 33% were not further specified. 38% were employed people of whom 4% self-employed. Another 7% of the participants were inactive, e.g. students.

Figure 8: Status of ESF participants in the labour market Inactive 8%

Employed 38% Unemployed 54%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

6. These two percentages were calculated independently. For the calculation of the proportion of young people and older persons, the maximum number of data was used for each of the respective categories. The proportions were calculated on the basis of all measures including data on young people on the one hand and on older persons on the other hand.

10

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Furthermore, 700,000 projects were funded. The majority of these projects were reported by Operational Programmes in Italy and Germany. In Germany, most of the 170,000 projects funded through ESF were situated in the priority ‘promotion of the work force potential and of equal opportunities’, while in Italy about 400,000 projects were spread over various programmes and priorities. Not all Member States have reported in the same way on results, meaning that in practice the scope and size of the results are expected to be higher. The success rate of participants gaining a qualification was on average 34%. Success rates above 75% were achieved in Greece (97%), Estonia (89%) and Latvia (85%)7. 22% of the participants were integrated into the labour market. Particularly high success rates were reported by Portugal (91%) and Slovakia (72%)8. The success rates were largely influenced by the type of target group ESF addressed, i.e. groups at risk for which it is difficult to, for example, (re)integrate into the labour market. Moreover, not all measures aimed at the achievement of a formal qualification or at an immediate integration in the labour market. The creation of 600,000 jobs with ESF funds was reported particularly in Spain and Greece. In Spain 152,227 jobs were created leading to self-employment. In Greece the majority of jobs were created in the framework of the programme ‘employment promotion and vocational training’. This programme was entirely devoted to job creation, including actions aiming at combating (long-term) unemployment, creating conditions to ensure job positions in enterprises and strengthening the acquisition of work experience. About 200,000 jobs were safeguarded as a result of ESF interventions. Finland and France reported particularly good results. The results in France were mainly related to the programme Midi-Pyrénées.

Programming Period 2007-2013 In the current period 2007-2013, the Structural Funds are concentrated around 3 new Objectives: (i) Convergence concerns the least developed regions, comparable to the old Objective 1, and aims to help the least-developed Member States and regions catch up more quickly with the EU average by improving conditions for growth and employment; (ii) Regional Competitiveness and Employment concerns the rest of the EU and aims to strengthen the competitiveness, employment and attractiveness of all regions; and (iii) European territorial cooperation aims at strengthening cross-border, trans-national and interregional cooperation through joint local and regional initiatives. The ESF is supporting activities under the first two Objectives that relate to the following Priorities: (i) adaptability of workers and enterprises; (ii) improved access to employment and the sustainable inclusion in the labour market of job seekers and inactive people; (iii) reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration in employment and combating all forms of discrimination in the labour market; (iv) enhancing human capital by promoting reform in education and training systems, as well as networking activities between higher education institutions, research centres and enterprises; and (v) promoting good governance, partnership and the involvement of social partners. Moreover, ESF addresses additional priorities under the

7. These rates have been calculated according to the number of measures on which data on participants gaining a qualification have been reported. 8. These rates have been calculated according to on the number of measures on which data on participants integrated into the labour market have been reported.

Introduction

11

Convergence Objective: (i) expanding and improving investment in human capital, in particular by increasing the participation in education and training through the life-cycle and by developing human potential in research and innovation; and (ii) improving the institutional capacity and efficiency of public administrations and public services at national, regional and local level. The current programming period features 117 OPs for all 27 Member States, including Bulgaria and Romania which did not participate at all in the previous ESF period. Half of the programmes concern Regional Competitiveness and Employment (59 OPs), while 42 OPs belong to the Convergence objective. The remaining 16 OPs contain initiatives for both objectives. The total co-funded budget available for ESF related interventions in the period 2007-2013 is € 117 billion, of which € 76 billion is contributed by the ESF. A detailed breakdown per Member State is available in Annex 1. The programming, implementation and financing procedures for the 2007-2013 period were simplified for all Structural Funds. In so far as the ESF is concerned, the current period features a strong link with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs: the ESF is supporting Member States’ policies to comply with the guidelines and recommendations adopted in the European Employment Strategy. The most important ESF concepts and documents across the programming periods are described in Annex 2. In 2007 and 2008 more than 7 million participants entered ESF funded interventions. There were slightly more women (53%) than men (47%). 37% of the participants were unemployed, including 9% of long-term unemployed; 32% were inactive of which 19% in education or training. The remaining 31% were employed, of which 2% selfemployed. One third of the ESF participants were younger than 25 and 4% were 55 years and older. The ESF mainly targets people with modest educational attainment: 83% of the participants have a primary or a secondary school degree (ISCED 1, 2 or 3). Also in this programming period the ESF funding targets people in society who are more vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion. 11% of the participants belong to one of the vulnerable groups (minorities, migrants, disabled).

C. APPROACH This study describes the ways in which Member States took advantage of the financial means offered by the ESF to promote the integration of migrants and minorities. It does not attempt to make any evaluation or judgement about the effectiveness of planned versus realised initiatives, but rather has as its goal to offer an overview - as comprehensively as possible - of initiatives implemented across the Member States and their achievements. The report is based on EU policy documents and available ESF data in the field of migrants and minorities. The findings on implemented actions and their outcomes are formulated on the basis of the database created by BBI for the purpose of data processing. Information and data were collected primarily from the Operational Programmes drafted by the Member States and regular reports on the progress of these programmes - Annual Implementation Reports and Mid-Term Reviews. This report mainly deals with the ESF programmes covering the period 2000-2006. The budget information was gathered from the SFC (EC Structural Funds financial database). All information on the 2000-2006 programme

12

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

finances in the text refers to the expenditure claimed by the Member States until September 2008, not to amounts budgeted or disbursed. The EC made available a series of documents on the current ESF programming period, in particular summaries (in English) of the individual Operational Programmes, the allocation of the planned interventions into domains and sub-domains, and the foreseen budget per programme and per theme. A key-word search was performed on the Operational Programme summaries to identify relevant interventions in the field of migrants and minorities in the period 2007-2013. The budget information for this period is taken from the EC Structural Funds database and refers to the amounts budgeted. The core section of this report, i.e. ESF interventions and achievements, was elaborated in three stages. In the first stage, quantitative and qualitative information on migrants and minorities in ESF is collected; in the second stage, the accumulated material is organised and analysed, while in the third stage the report is drafted. The data collection was organised as follows: taking as a basis the ESF indicators database, every measure containing at least some quantitative information on migrants or minorities was put on a preliminary list of relevant measures for the programming period 2000-2006. Moreover, a qualitative search for migrants and minorities in the ESF programme documents resulted in a number of additional measures taken on board. In order to select only measures in which migrants and minorities were involved to a certain extent, the preliminary list was filtered retaining only those measures that reported a certain number (1701) of migrants and minorities or in which migrants and minorities represented a certain share (5%) of the total participants. The final list contains about 97% of the preliminary measures and reduced the overall number of reported participants by 3.6%. The final list addressing migrants and minorities in 2000-2006 is presented in Annex 3 and contains 276 measures. It is important to bear in mind that this study refers to “migrants” and “minorities” in the way they have been defined by the different national or regional authorities and reported in the respective implementation reports. This means that different notions of “migrants” and “minorities” may co-exist. Moreover, not all Member States have specified consistently and to the same detail whether migrants were “EU nationals” or “third country nationals”. Finally, Member States may have programmed interventions for migrants or minorities without reporting on their involvement afterwards. With regard to the current programming period, a qualitative search was performed on the Operational Programmes identifying priority axes that contained reference to migrants, minorities or Roma. Moreover, every priority axis reporting in 2007 and 2008 on the involvement of migrants and minorities has been taken into consideration for the quantitative section of this study. The list featuring activities for migrants and minorities in 2007-2013 is presented in Annex 4 and contains 180 priority axes. For both financing periods the identification of relevant information was done as thoroughly as possible in order to provide a comprehensive report. Nevertheless, given the quantity and variety of source documents it is possible that individual relevant activities might have been overlooked. However, the scope for mistakes should be fairly small and hence any possible errors should not affect the overall picture presented in this report.

Introduction

13

Chapter 1 – General Context A. TRENDS AND RELEVANT CONCEPTS Since the late 1990s, research on migrant integration has expanded. Apart from the traditional issues of work, education, housing and health, as well as political, social and cultural/religious dimensions, it includes new topics such as language, interethnic relations, discrimination, age, gender and generation9. Integration policies are far more than providing facilities to immigrants to adapt and function in their new country and be part of their new society. The International Migration Integration Social Cohesion (IMISCOE) suggests that the traditional thinking of migration and integration as two independent fields of analysis should be merged into one more complex field to be approached from a new perspective of analysis and policy. In this respect, the societal systems into which the phenomenon of migration and the immigrants themselves are to be integrated must be considered “both as determinants of integration processes and as structures that (may) change as a consequence of migration and settlement”10. Within this framework, contemporary policy thinkers tend to consider integration requirements as criteria for the selection and admission of immigrants11.

1. International Developments The Global Commission on International Migration sets as one of its 6 principles of migration policies the strengthening of social cohesion through integration. It states in particular that migrants should benefit from a mutual process of adaptation and integration that accommodates cultural diversity and fosters social cohesion. It further suggests that the integration process should be actively supported by local and national authorities, employers and members of civil society, and should be based on a commitment to non-discrimination and gender equity12. In the same spirit, the European Commission considers the integration of migrants and minorities as a very broad and multidimensional concept; migrant integration takes place at every level and in every sector of the society involving a wide range of stakeholders. According to the ILO, “integration is among the most difficult challenges raised by international migration today. Finding workable balances between host community respect for difference and immigrant participation remains extremely difficult for most countries. The integration policy dilemmas faced by many States are rarely separable

9. Penninx, R., D. Spencer and N. Van Hear, Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research. ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford, 2008. 10. IMISCOE, Policy Brief, The Future for Migration Research in Europe, March 2008 No. 7. 11. Ibid. 12. IOM, Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action. Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, Switzerland, October, 2005

14

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

from more general debates on discrimination and race relations within host communities”13. The integration process involves such diverse activities as finding housing, jobs, and income, gaining access to educational and health facilities, and adopting new languages and ways of life14. The UN views migration as an “avenue that complements broader local and national efforts to reduce poverty and improve human development”. That is to say, the inclusion and integration of migrants have positive effects not only for the migrant families but also for the host communities15. OECD considers integration as the totality of policies and practices allowing societies to close the gap between the performance of natives and immigrants16. A study by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission takes a broad social view of the value and perspectives of migrant integration. Integration does not only alleviate migrants’ poverty but is also promoting social cohesion and public confidence on immigrant selection17. An ILO study acknowledges the fact that equality of opportunity, as well as non-discrimination, is of primary importance for migrant integration in the host societies18. Non-discriminatory policies are particularly important in employment, as it was found that in this area the discrimination of migrants and minorities is more severe than in other areas19. Recognising the importance of migration for the host society, the 2009 Global Forum on Migration and Development, hosted by Greece, expanded the usual debate on migrant integration by looking at the links between the creation of a protective, enabling environment for migrants and their contributions to development. The more migrants are included, protected and accepted in their host societies, the better they may be able to contribute to development in both host and origin countries; therefore migration policies should be integrated into national development strategies20. Commenting on the EU policies on migrant integration, an OECD study notes that although several relevant directives and communications have been issued since 1999, the Commission does not yet have a significant legal basis for common EU action21. In this context, the OECD study considers immigrant integration as an “exigent challenge for the Union as a whole”, affecting not only its economic prospects, but also its social cohesion and its strategy for enlargement. Therefore, there is clearly an “overriding political imperative for action both at the EU level and the individual Member State level”22.

13. ILO, International Labour Conference, 92nd Session, 2004, Report VI. Towards a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy, ILO, Geneva, 2004. 14. Mansoor Ali and Bryce Quillin, The Impact of Migrants and the Receiving Society: Integration Policies (Appendix 4.1). In Mansoor Ali and Bryce Quillin (Editors), Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, The World Bank, 2007. 15. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2009. 16. OECD, Gaining from Migration: Towards a New Mobility System, OECD Development Centre, OECD, Paris, 2007. 17. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (authors: W. Somerville and M. Sumption). Immigration and the Labour Market: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Paper prepared for the Equality and Human rights Commission, MPI, 2009. 18. Böhning W.R and R. Zegers de Beijl, The Integration of Migrant Workers in the Labour Market: Policies and their Impact. International Migration Papers 8, Employment Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, ILO Geneva, 1995. 19. In a first ever EU-wide survey on the experience of immigrants and ethnic minorities regarding discrimination, the EU MIDIS conducted a face-toface interview with 23,500 persons in all 27 EU Member States. Of the nine areas of discrimination in everyday life looked at in the survey, discrimination in employment emerged as the most significant area for discriminatory treatment and the situation is similar for education. This result is characterised as alarming by the survey as education and paid employment hold the key to integration and social inclusion (EU-MIDIS: European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Main results Report, 9/12/2009). 20. GFMD, integrating migration policies into development strategies for the benefit of all, Athens 4-5 November 2009. 21. Dayton-Johnson Jeff, Louka T. Katseli, Gregory Maniatis, Rainer Münz, Demetrios Papademetriou, Gaining from Migration: Towards a new Mobility System, OECD Development Centre, OECD 2007. 22. Ibid. p.51.

Chapter 1 – General Context

15

Turning to the practical recommendations of policies for integration, international organisations such as the UN, OECD or ILO, as well as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), have more or less converging views regarding the scope and the nature of policies to be applied for the integration of migrants and minorities in the host societies. For the scope, they view integration as a means for reducing poverty and unemployment of immigrants and improving human development, with further positive effects upon the social inclusion of migrants and minorities and the host communities23. Integration may also improve tolerance and alleviate discrimination and xenophobia. The converging policy recommendations include anti-discrimination measures, language courses, recognition of diplomas and qualifications, programmes to increase the relevance of migrant existing qualifications, life-long learning, and fair and equal access to the labour market and also to educational and health systems. According to the MPI, any efforts towards integration would not be successful without the involvement of several stakeholders, including workers, firms, communities and the immigrants themselves, as well as central governments, state schools, municipalities and NGOs. In addition, integration requires societies to accept change by responding and adapting accordingly24. The UN considers that participation of migrants in decision making of integration increases the acceptance of reform25.

2. The European Context Official estimates give about 18.5 million third country nationals as residing (in 2007) in EU-27, making up 3.8% of its 495 million total population26. The most numerous groups of third country nationals in the EU come from Turkey (2.3 million), Morocco (1.7 million), Albania (0.8 million) and Algeria (0.6 million)27. The international migrant population (from third countries and Member States) in the EU-27 is about 31 million (2008), representing 6.2% of the EU-27 population. Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the UK host about 22 million (77%). Six Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg and Latvia) have a rather heavy weight of migrants on their population (11.6%-18.3.0%, Luxembourg 42.6%). Less significantly populated by migrants are, generally, most of the new Member States and Finland and Netherlands from the older ones (with migrant shares in their total population of below 5%) (Table 1 and figure 9).

23. ILO studies show that more than one in every three qualified immigrant applicants in industrialised countries are unfairly excluded in job selection procedures (ILO, Facts on labour migration, ILO, Geneva, June 2006). 24. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (authors: W. Somerville and M. Sumption). Immigration and the Labour Market: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Paper prepared for the Equality and Human rights Commission, MPI, 2009. 25. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2009. 26. EC, Moving Europe: EU Research on Migration and Policy Needs. Directorate-General for Research: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, European Communities, 2009. 27. EC, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, COM(2007) 512 final, Brussels, 11.9.2007.

16

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Table 1: Population of foreign citizens in the EU-27 Member States, 2008 Total foreign citizens 000s

Citizens of another EU27 Member State

Citizens of countries outside the EU27

% of total population

000s

% of total population

000s

% of total population

EU27

30 779

6.2

11 302

2.3

19 476

3.9

Belgium

971

9.1

659

6.2

312

2.9

Bulgaria

24

0.3

4

0.0

21

0.3

Czech Republic

348

3.3

132

1.3

216

2.1

Denmark

298

5.5

93

1.7

205

3.7

Germany

7 255

8.8

2 516

3.1

4 740

5.8

Estonia*

229

17.1

8

0.6

221

16.5

Ireland

554

12.6

392

8.9

162

3.7

Greece*

906

8.1

158

1.4

748

6.7

Spain

5 262

11.6

2 113

4.7

3 149

7.0

France*

3 674

5.8

1 283

2.0

2 391

3.8

Italy

3 433

5.8

934

1.6

2 498

4.2

Cyprus

125

15.9

81

10.3

44

5.6

Latvia

415

18.3

8

0.3

408

17.9

Lithuania

43

1.3

3

0.1

40

1.2

Luxembourg

206

42.6

177

36.6

29

6.0

Hungary

177

1.8

101

1.0

76

0.8

Malta

15

3.8

8

2.0

7

1.8

Netherlands

688

4.2

263

1.6

425

2.6

Austria

835

10.0

290

3.5

545

6.6

Poland

58

0.2

25

0.1

33

0.1

Portugal

446

4.2

116

1.1

331

3.1

Romania

26

0.1

6

0.0

20

0.1

Slovenia

69

3.4

4

0.2

65

3.2

Slovakia

41

0.8

26

0.5

15

0.3

Finland

133

2.5

47

0.9

86

1.6

Sweden

524

5.7

241

2.6

284

3.1

United Kingdom*

4 021

6.6

1 615

2.6

2 406

3.9

Norway

266

5.6

138

2.9

128

2.7

Switzerland

1 602

21.1

968

12.7

634

8.3

Source: Eurostat, News release 184/2009, 16 December 2009

* Data estimated by Eurostat Out of the 31 million foreigners in the EU-27, 11 million are residents from another EU Member State and close to 20 million are third country nationals. The five largest Member States (Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom and Italy) are hosting 75 % of the former and 78 % of the latter.

Chapter 1 – General Context

17

Figure 9: Share of foreigners in total population, per Member State in 2007 45%

41,63%

40% 35% 30% 25% 18,98%

20%

17,61% 15,17%

15%

10,49% 10,36% 9,72%

10%

8,81%

8,81%

7,95%

6,01%

5,76%

5,40%

5,11%

4,97%

4,17%

4,10%

5%

3,40%

2,88%

2,66%

2,31%

1,67%

1,17%

0,60%

0,33%

0,14%

0,12%

MT

CZ

SI

FI

HU

LT

SK

BG

PL

RO

0% LU

LV

EE

CY

IE

ES

AU

DE

BE

GR

UK

FR

share of foreigners amongst total population

SE

DK

IT

NL

PT

EU-25 Share of foreigners amongst total population average

Source: Eurostat, Population by citizenship, 2007

Figure 10: Split of foreigners in the EU into third country nationals and migrants from EU-27 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% ES AU DE BE GR UK FR SE DK

IT

NL PT MT CZ

SI

FI HU LT

SK BG PL RO

ith

sw

5

m

7

-2

-2

EU

IE

EU

EE CY

EU

LU LV

s re

su

Non nationals but citizens of other EU-27 countries

ea

m

Third country nationals

d de dy clu u in n st o

Source: Eurostat, Population by citizenship, 2007

The flows of immigrants in recent years, rather than their accumulated number, are more relevant to integration policies, which is the concern of this report. This is because the new arrivals have a more urgent need for integration, rather than the old residents, most of whom may have already been integrated. Thus, in 2006 (the latest year with available data) about 3 million people immigrated to the EU-27, of which a little over 1 million were EU-27 citizens and a little less than 2 million were non-EU citizens. Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom received 1.8 million (767 thousand of EU-27 citizens and 1 million non-EU citizens) (Table 2). Figures presented by Eurostat show that compared to their population, Luxembourg, followed by Ireland, Cyprus and Spain had high immigration rates28. Half of all immigrants were younger than 29 years of age. Women, who represent about 47 % of the immigrants, were on average younger. Non-EU citizens were younger than the migrated EU-27 citizens29.

28. Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/2008 29. Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/2008

18

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Table 2: Immigrants (flow) by citizenship group, 2006 or latest available year (actual figures) Member States

Total Non-nationals

EU-27 citizens

Non-EU citizens

AT

85,384

45,170

40,214

BE (2003)

68,800

35,143

33,657

BG

-

-

-

CY

14,535

6,017

8,518

CZ

66,125

10,912

55,213

DE

558,467

320,727

237,740

DK

34,281

16,833

17,448

EE

-

-

-

ES

802,971

304,349

498,622

FI

13,868

5,368

8,500

FR

182,390

5,403

176,987

UK

451,702

141,407

310,295

GR

86,693

18,588

68,105

HU

19,367

10,516

8,851

IE

84,365

65,002

19,363

IT (2003)

392,771

102,045

290,726

LT

2,237

396

1,841

LU

13,731

11,512

2,219

LV

2,305

1,066

1,239

MT

658

-

-

NL

67,657

31,921

35,736

PL

1,824

409

1,415

PT

27,703

4,392

23,311

RO

7,714

1,085

6,629

SE

80,398

25,482

54,916

SI

18,251

1,741

16,510

SK

11,309

6,096

5,213

TOTAL EU*-

3,095,506

1,171,580

1,923,268

Source: Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/2008

* The total of the second and third columns do not add up to the total of column one because the Malta figure is not split in its two components. The asylum applications in the EU-27 totaled 245,210 in 2009, of which exactly half were filed in 4 Member States (Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom). From the remaining Member States, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, and Netherlands had relatively high numbers, representing another 33% of the EU total. At the other end of the scale, insignificant numbers of applications are found in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovenia (Table 3).

Chapter 1 – General Context

19

Table 3: Asylum applications in the EU, 2009 (actual figures) Member States

Number of applications

% Distribution by Member State

AT

15,830

6.5%

BE

17,190

7.0%

BG

850

0.3%

CY

3,200

1.3%

CZ

1,260

0.5%

DE

27,650

11.3%

DK

2,750

1.1%

EE

40

0.0%

ES

3,000

1.2%

FI

5,910

2.4%

FR

41,980

17.1%

UK

29,840

12.2%

GR

15,930

6.5%

HU

4,670

1.9%

IE

2,690

1.1%

IT

17,600

7.2%

LT

210

0.1%

LU

510

0.2%

LV

50

0.0%

MT

2,390

1.0%

NL

14,910

6.1%

PL

10,590

4.3%

PT

140

0.1%

RO

830

0.3%

SE

24,190

9.9%

SI

180

0.1%

SK

820

0.3%

EU - 27

245,210

100%

Source: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialised Countries, 2009: Statistical Overview of Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe and Selected Non-European Countries. Division of Programme Support and Management, 23 March 2010

Considering that access to employment is the sine-qua-non for the social inclusion of migrants and minorities, the ability of Member States to attain this goal becomes more difficult. It means that Member States need to take more comprehensive actions when the degree of unemployment of these vulnerable groups is particularly extensive. Generally, the migrant unemployment rate is considerably higher than the unemployment rate of natives in Member States. The unemployment rate of third country nationals rose over 2008 by 5 percentage points against 2.8 for citizens who moved from other EU Member States and 1.8 percentage points of nationals of Member States. In 2008 (Q4) and 2009 (Q1), the unemployment rate of non-EU nationals was 7-8 percentage points higher than that of nationals over recent years, the gap widening to 11 percentage points by the second quarter of 200930.

30. EC, Employment in Europe, 2009

20

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Although global labour mobility is presumed to ensure efficient and optimal utilization of labour, a match between migration and labour market demand in the host countries is prevented by erected barriers to the effective employment of foreign workers31. These barriers determine the types of actions required, either by ESF or any other EU policies, for migrant integration. The EC IDELE project, which points to the multi-faceted nature of immigrant integration, presents a typology of these barriers to integration in the labour market32 (Table 4). A major barrier is ethnicity-based discrimination in the labour market, which deprives employers from the possibility of overcoming their manpower shortages and leads to waste of human capital and valuable knowledge. In contrast, equal opportunities widen the choices of employers to recruit workers and create business to the benefit of the economy of the host country33. Table 4: Barriers to Migrant Integration in the Labour Market Type of barrier Migration history

Skills and competencies

Cultural background, attitudes and motivations

Personal obligations Employer attitudes, knowledge and discrimination

Description - Legal status in the host country (including in particular legislation which restricts asylum seekers from seeking training or employment opportunities) - Personal difficulties through experience of trauma/violence in previous country -

Language skills Lack of education in country of destination Lack of recognition of qualification in country of destination No previous work experience in country of destination

- Cultural background and cultural norms - Aspirations and attitudes to work (including longer term impacts of exclusion over generations) - Family structures and norms - Dependents - Prejudice and the ascribing of false or stereotypical characteristics - Lack of knowledge about the value and relevance of qualifications and experience gained in other countries

Source: EC, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (IDELE project). Theme: Integration of Minority Groups. Implemented by ECOTEC, 2004.

B. RELEVANT EU POLICIES Within the EC, The Directorate General for Justice, Liberty, Security (DG JLS) deals with EU migrant integration policy, while the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs (DG EMPL) and the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) also play a role in the integration of migrants34. Given the different perspectives of these Directorate Generals regarding inter-country population movements, the definition and the usage of “migration” also differs. Thus, DG JLS, reflecting its policy priorities to develop common EU immigration and asylum

31. ILO, Facts on labour migration, ILO, Geneva, June 2006. 32. EC, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, The Metropolitan City: seeking competitive advantage through local actions to integrate immigrants and minority groups. IDELE, Theme: Integration of minority groups 33. Kraal Karen and Judith Roosblad, Equal opportunities on the labour market for immigrant people and ethnic minorities, IMISCOE Working Paper No. 22, July 2008. 34. European Policy Centre, What does the EU do on integration? April 2008.

Chapter 1 – General Context

21

policies, generally refers only to non-EU migrants. Other bodies (DG Research, DG Employment and Eurostat, for example) use the term migrant in the broader sense, to refer to migration of all citizenships, including the nationals of Member States35. This report on the ESF support of ‘migrants and minorities’ is not concerned with the different definitions of migration even within the EU. Thus, any sub-group of migrants and minorities that is supported by relevant ESF measures falls within the scope of this report. The integration of migrants in the labour market is one of the main priorities in the framework of the European Employment Strategy and is expected to contribute significantly to the attainment of the Lisbon goals36. Therefore, the European Commission recommends greater resort to this Strategy and also the European Social Inclusion Process to eliminate the barriers to integration. It suggests the European Social Fund (ESF) as a policy instrument, including the lessons learnt from the EQUAL Community Initiative37. This initiative supported innovative good practices to prevent unemployment and fight labour market discrimination of immigrants38, including racism and xenophobia39. EQUAL Development Partnerships made efforts to overcome barriers, such as difficulties faced in having immigrants’ qualifications and experience recognised, limited language skills, the reluctance of many employers to hire immigrants, and poor information and advisory services. EQUAL also played a key role in the identification and dissemination of good practices on the integration of asylum seekers40. Considering the unfavourable situation of immigrants in respect to employment, unemployment and wages compared with native workers in many Member States, their integration is identified as a key priority by European governments41. Enhanced integration could lead to a significant reduction in the unemployment gap between non-EU and EU nationals that exists, as shown above, in the Member States42. Ever since the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere Summit, awareness has grown that integration can be achieved by appropriate common, comprehensive and proactive policies43. To this effect, the EU has moved forward towards establishing a legal framework for managing migration, calling for “more efficient management of migration flows at all their stages” and providing for a common migration policy that included legal migration and integration44. The Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment of the Thessaloniki Summit of 3 June 2003 was accepted as a basis for developing an EU integration policy45. The main policy messages from this Communication were: first, increasing immigration flows are necessary in the EU; second, a better integration of immigrants should be achieved as a condition of future immigration; and third, a more coherent framework of integration policies is

35. EC, Moving Europe: EU Research on Migration and Policy Needs. Directorate-General for Research: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, European Communities, 2009. 36. European Council, Common Basic Principles for immigrant integration policy, 19 November 2004 [http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/doc/council_conclusions_common_basic_principles.pdf ]. 37. This report does not cover the achievements of the EQUAL Community Initiative 38. ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/index_en.cfm 39. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Integrating migration issues in the European Union’s relations with third countries Brussels, 3.12.2002 COM(2002) 703 final. 40. Mary-Anne Kate and Jan Niessen, Locating immigrant integration policy measures in the machinery of the European Commission. A report prepared for European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM), June 2007. 41. EC, Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security, Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, Second Edition, May 2007, Chapter 3. 42. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013 43. Penninx Rinus, Integration of Migrants: Economic, Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions, Chapter 8 44. European Council (TAMPERE), “Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions”, 1999. 45. COM (2003)336. European Commission (2003), Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment. June 3rd.

22

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

needed at the EU level46. In this spirit, the Commission has provided guidance to the EU and to the Member States for integration policies, based on the Common Basic Principles adopted by the Council in November 200447. On the same track, one of the recommendations of the Hague Programme on integration, endorsed by the European Council on 4-5 November 2004, was the promotion of integration and intercultural dialogue and the fight against all forms of discrimination at Member State and EU level48. The European Commission underlines the necessity for migrants and minorities to be able to access the labour market and integrate with a status equal to the native workers49. The 2006 European Council Presidency’s Conclusions on a comprehensive European migration policy considered migration issues as “one of the major priorities for the EU at the start of the 21st century”50. Guideline 19 for the employment policies in Member States underlines the need to “Ensure inclusive labour markets, enhance work attractiveness, and make work pay for job-seekers, including disadvantaged people, and the inactive”51. Several anti-discrimination measures aiming at generating equal opportunities for immigrants are already in force in both EU directives and national laws52. The European Union defines integration “as a two-way process based on mutual rights and corresponding obligations of legally resident third-country nationals and the host society which provides for full participation of the immigrant”53. This implies that the host society must ensure that the individual immigrant has the possibility to participate in economic, social, cultural and civil life. In turn, the immigrants should respect the fundamental norms and values of the host society and participate actively in the integration process54. The Council decision on the Employment Guidelines indicates that actions “promoting access to employment for disabled people and integrating immigrants and minorities are particularly essential” 55. More recently, the EU is concerned with ‘Strengthening the Global Approach to Migration’56, emphasising the importance of the external policy dimension, as outlined in the Communication issued in October 2008. Such concern is also expressed in the Communication on ‘A Common Immigration Policy for Europe’57 and the Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which was formally adopted by the Council of Ministers in October 2008. The main focus of this pact is: legal immigration and integration; the control of illegal immigration; border controls; migration and development; and the finalisation of a common European asylum system. The pact stresses in particular the need to treat migrants fairly and promote their integration into society, with an emphasis on measures promoting language acquisition and access to employment. It also calls on the Member States to combat any forms of discrimination to which migrants may be exposed58. 46. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013 47. European Commission, A common Agenda for Integration: Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union, COM (2005) 389 final, Brussels, 2005. 48. EC, Communication: “Policy plan on legal migration” (COM (2005) 669 final). 49. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013. 50. Council of European Union, Brussels 12 February 2007, 16879/1/06, Rev. 1, CONL 51. Council decision of 12 July 2005 (2005/600/EC) 52. Ibid. 53. European Commission, 2003. Communication on immigration, integration and employment. COM(2003)336. 54. Ibid. 55. EC, ‘A Common Agenda for Integration Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union’, A Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, Brussels, 1.9.2005-COM (2005) 389 final. 56. European Commission (2008), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Strengthening the global approach to migration: increasing coordination, coherence and synergies. COM(2008) 611 Brussels. 57. COM(2008)359 58. Human Rights Watch, EU: Integration Policies should respect rights, New Releases, Commentary, October 31, 2008.

Chapter 1 – General Context

23

For the integration of refugees, the Integration Network of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) proposes some steps: firstly legal steps, such as facilitating the acquisition and application of citizenship and easing the restriction on family reunification; secondly, some practical actions, such as free orientation and language programmes, including during the reception phase, and also policies promoting and encouraging civic, socioeconomic and cultural participation59. According to a recent (21 October 2009) proposal of the then European Commission Vice President Jacques Barrot, there are two important issues that need regularisation. First, the clarification of the legal concepts that national governments use to define who should be protected. Second, assurance of the same treatment by National governments of the accepted refugees, for instance, in the duration of residence permits or access to health care. Barrot expects that his proposal would be approved by EU governments and the European Parliament by 201260. As the 2004 European Council underlined, “integration takes place simultaneously at the individual, family, and general community and State levels, and occurs in all facets of life; in fact, integration can easily span a generation or more. The Council, consequently, suggested that successful integration policies must engage the local, regional, and national institutions, with which immigrants interact, in both the public and private realms. The development and implementation of integration policy is therefore the primary responsibility of individual Member States rather than of the Union as a whole”61. Apart from the ESF, which will be discussed in the next section, other instruments for migrant integration and their objectives are: ●

The European fund INTI (Integration of Third Country Nationals)62. It promotes cooperation between Member States, regional/local authorities and other stakeholders63 and aims to create a new form of solidarity in Member States for enabling immigrants to fulfil conditions of residence and facilitate their integration64.



The European Refugee Fund supports tailored made integration measures for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection whose stay in the EU is of a lasting and stable nature65.



The new PROGRESS programme 2007-2013 supports the implementation of the anti-discrimination and gender equality principles.



The URBAN II Community initiative with a strong focus on social inclusion in disadvantaged urban areas66.



The EURES67 is a cooperation network of public employment services set up by the EC in 1993 to facilitate free movement of workers within the European Economic Area. Partners in the network include public employment services, trade union and employers’ organisations. The main objectives of EURES are: to inform, guide and provide advice to potentially mobile workers on job opportunities, as well as living and working conditions

59. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Refugees ignored in EU integration policies, PR4/5/2007/Ext/BJ. Press Release 10th May 2007. 60. Deutsche Presse Agentur, Brussels seeks end to EU ‘asylum lottery’ October 22, 2009. [http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/291181,brusselsseeks-end-to-eu-asylum-lottery.html] 61. Council of the European Union, Press Release, 14615/04 (Presse 321), 19 November 2004, p. 15. 62. INTI is a European Union (EU) funding programme for preparatory actions promoting the integration in the EU member states of people who are not citizens of the EU. Its aim is also to promote dialogue with civil society, develop integration models, seek out and evaluate best practices in the integration field and set up networks at European level. 63. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/inti/funding_inti_en.htm 64. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm 65. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm 66. ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/urban2/index_en.htm 67. http://ec.europa.eu/eures/home.jsp

24

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

in the EEA; to assist employers wishing to recruit workers from other countries; and to provide advice and guidance to workers and employers in cross-border regions. Furthermore, 2010-2013 EURES guidelines include a request to the national public employment services to establish cooperation mechanisms with organisations active in the provision of information and assistance for the integration of workers and their families, in particular vulnerable groups. In 2009, the European Commission launched two new instruments to facilitate the implementation of integration policies. The first instrument is the European Integration Forum, where EU institutions, stakeholders, and civil society organisations exchange views on integration issues. The second instrument is the European Website on Integration for integration practitioners and policy makers, providing high quality content from across Europe68. These instruments put into practice the Common Basic Principles on Integration, making integration a dynamic two-way process and helping to mainstream and evaluate integration policies in Europe69. Recently, the EC initiated two studies on overall migrant integration in Member states. The first, financed by the European Commission, calculated a composite index of integration and the second was a response to a questionnaire by the National Contact Points on Integration. The first, initiated in 2007, concerns a system of 140 policy indicators of migrant integration (MIPEX) that assigns scores of integration in six policy areas to the Member States70. More specifically, these scores located eight Member States with policies characterised as overall ‘partially favourable’ to integration; five Member States scored with ‘at least partially unfavourable’ integration policies; while ten Member States demonstrated the lowest scores. These Member states are however vastly diversified with respect to their six areas component scores. Overall, this report states that the integration policies of the EU-25 are scoring only halfway towards best practice. The second qualitative assessment collected specific information, through a questionnaire, on third country legal migrants concerning various dimensions of the integration process for the calendar year 2005 and the first half of 200671. In contrast to the previous assessment, this study does not assign scores, but indicates the types of integration. The results are structured along the eleven EC Common Basic Principles on integration (CBP) and the Common Agenda for Integration. The results show that the Principles of integration pursued by a high number of individual Member States are: knowledge of the host society’s language, history and institutions (20 MS); education (17 MS); access to institutions and public and private goods and services (17 MS); and participation in the democratic process and in the formulation of integration policies and measures (18 MS). At the other end of the spectrum, principles of integration pursued by only a small number of Member States are: respect of the basic values of the EU (10 MS); practice of diverse cultures and religions (8 MS); mainstreaming integration policies and measures (7 MS); and clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms (8 MS).

68. EU Funding News, Launch of two new tools in the area of integration: the ‘European Integration Forum’ and the ‘European Web Site on Integration’, 23 April 2009. 69. EC, Two new tools in the area of integration: The ‘European Integration Forum’ and the ‘European Web Site on Integration’, Memo/09/166, Brussels 20 April 2009. 70. The six policy areas are: labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and anti-discrimination (Jan Niessen, Thomas Huddleston and Laura Citron in cooperation with Andrew Geddes and Dirk Jacobs, Migrant Integration Policy Index, The British Council, September 2007. 71. EC, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, COM(2007) 512 final, Brussels, 11.9.2007.

Chapter 1 – General Context

25

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements A. INTEGRATION OF MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES AS A TARGET OF ESF SUPPORT ESF is an important financial instrument for actions of Member States in supporting the integration of migrants and minorities72. The ESF regulations for both the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 make provisions for the support of migrants and minorities, the former indirectly - without targeting them - through action on social exclusion and the latter by explicitly setting migrants and minorities as targets. Regulation 1784/1999 for the programming period 2000-2006 states its aim in Article 2b of the policy field Promoting Equal Opportunities as: “promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis on those exposed to social exclusion”73. Regulation 1081/2006 for the programming period 2007-2013 places emphasis on the migration issue and explicitly targets migration along with labour mobility. Article 3.1.b(iv) states the need for “specific action to increase the participation of migrants in employment and thereby strengthen their social integration and to facilitate geographic and occupational mobility of workers and integration of cross-border labour markets, including through guidance, language training and validation of competences and acquired skills”. Furthermore, in Article 3.1.c(i) this regulation suggests the search for “pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people, such as people experiencing social exclusion, early school leavers, ‘minorities’” and others, while Article 3.1.c(ii) underlines the need for “acceptance of diversity in the workplace and in the accessing and progressing in the labour market” 74. Finally, emphasis is given in recital 6 to the “integration of migrants, including those seeking asylum that in some Member States have no work permit”. Most of the ESF interventions that are related to migrants and minorities fall under the domain of social inclusion and are dealt with in the policy field “Promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis on those exposed to social exclusion”. However, activities in other ESF policy fields, such as “Developing and Promoting Active Labour Market”; “Improving Women’s access to and Participation in the Labour Market”; or “Life Long Learning” support in various ways the integration of migrants and minorities or some subgroups of them, such as minority women.

72. EC, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, COM(2007) 512 final, Brussels, 11.9.2007. INTI is a European Union (EU) funding programme for preparatory actions promoting the integration in the EU member states of people who are not citizens of the EU. Its aim is also to promote dialogue with civil society, develop integration models, seek out and evaluate best practices in the integration field and set up networks at European level. 73. EC, Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund. 74. EC, Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999.

26

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

The integration of third country immigrants can be achieved through a two-track approach: mainstreaming and specific migration actions75. The former suggests horizontal policies in all ESF programmes, ensuring that under all priorities, special attention is paid to immigrant integration. At the same time, specific actions can be pursued in parallel, targeting migrants through the priorities of access to employment and social inclusion. Relevant ESF interventions address the following target groups: ●

Migrants (EU Citizens, Third Country Nationals)



Refugees and asylum seekers



Ethnic Minorities76



Religious Minorities



National Minorities



Roma

Roma is a very special group of population numbering more than 10 million people in Europe, and they make up the continent’s largest minority population77. Due to their particular importance, and the need for policies to suit their culture and work practices78, a separate study on the European Social Fund and Roma has been prepared79. Nevertheless, the present report cannot set aside the case of Roma that make up a considerable part of ‘minorities’ in some Member States. Therefore, any ESF measure on migrants and minorities that make special reference to Roma will be considered in this report80.

B. ESF INTERVENTIONS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES 1. Measures and Priority Axes Tables 5 and 6 present the ESF Operational Programmes, Objectives, Measures and Priority axes that support migrants and minorities for the two programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. For the period 2000-2006, 207 Operational Programmes (OP) were implemented in 21 Member States, of which 108 addressed migrants and minorities, encompassing 276 measures (17.6%) out of the 1567 total ESF measures. 184 measures provide quantitative data on participants while 92 measures have qualitative information but no data on the number of migrants and minorities involved. Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy have the largest number of measures, representing 70% of the total number of measures that support migrants and minorities.

75. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013. 76. Ethnic minorities are by definition nationals of the country in which they reside. Ethnic minority groups include former migrant workers, their offspring who have obtained the nationality of their country of residence, and people gaining a new nationality as a result of geopolitical reconfigurations. Their right to equal treatment is stipulated in the ILO’s Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), which aims to combat discrimination. In article 1.1(a) of this Convention, discrimination is defined as “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation”. 77. Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma: Background Report produced by BBI on behalf of the European Commission, Brussels 2010. 78. EC, The Roma in the European Social Fund 2007-2013 79. Ibid. 80. A recently commissioned EU study on the discrimination of minorities (EU-MIDIS) found that the pressing problems in the Roma communities are very briefly related to the following issues80: education, high unemployment rate, housing to avoid ghettoisation, health and health education, gender discrimination inside Roma communities, Roma culture as part of the national culture, and Roma political participation.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

27

Overall, one out of six measures addresses migrants and minorities. In several Member States this share is somewhat higher and in Luxembourg almost three out of four measures address migrants and minorities.

Table 5: Measures addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2000-2006 Member State

Total number of OPs

OPs supporting migrants and minorities

Objective 1 OPs

Objective 2 OPs

Objective 3 OPs

Total number of ESF measures

Number of measures supporting migrants and minorities

Share of measures addressing migrants and minorities (in %)

AT

5

2

1

1

0

23

2

8.7%

BE

11

6

1

0

5

95

14

14.7%

CY

1

0

0

0

0

6

0

0.0%

CZ

3

2

1

0

1

21

4

19.0%

DE

15

9

5

3

1

116

26

22.4%

DK

2

1

0

0

1

11

2

18.2%

EE

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

0.0%

ES

35

25

15

1

9

347

99

28.5%

FI

6

5

2

2

1

29

7

24.1%

FR

28

4

1

2

1

146

5

3.4%

GR

18

6

6

0

0

111

8

7.2%

HU

2

2

2

0

0

15

4

26.7%

IE

3

3

3

0

0

19

3

15.8%

IT

27

22

7

0

15

320

38

11.9%

LT

1

1

1

0

0

5

1

20.0%

LU

1

1

0

0

1

22

16

72.7%

LV

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

0.0%

MT

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

0.0%

NL

2

2

1

0

1

15

4

26.7%

PL

2

1

1

0

0

16

1

6.2%

PT

15

2

2

0

0

72

4

5.6%

SE

7

2

1

0

1

25

5

20.0%

SI

1

1

1

0

0

4

1

25.0%

SK

2

1

1

0

0

12

1

8.3%

UK

17

10

4

3

3

126

31

24.6%

Total

207

108

56

12

40

1,567

276

17.6%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2000-2006

In the current programming period 2007-2013, all Member States except for Cyprus and Lithuania have announced actions supporting migrants and minorities through 106 out of 117 OPs. 180 Priority Axes announce actions in support of migrants and minorities, representing 28.4% of the total number of priorities. Nine Member States (6 old and 3 new Member States) are well above the EU average, with shares ranging between 33% and 67%.

28

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Table 6: Priority axes addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2007-2013

Total priority axes

Priority Axes supporting migrants and minorities

Share of priority axes addressing migrants and minorities (in %)

Member State

Total number of OPs

OPs supporting migrants and minorities

AT

2

1

0

1

10

2

20.0%

BE

6

6

1

5

26

6

23.1%

BG

2

1

1

0

12

4

33.3%

CY

1

0

0

0

3

0

0.0%

Convergence objective OPs

RCE objective OPs

CZ

3

3

2

1

21

4

19.0%

DE

18

18

6

12

84

33

39.3%

DK

1

1

0

1

3

1

33.3%

EE

1

1

1

0

7

3

42.9%

ES

22

21

10

11

123

27

21.9%

FI

2

2

0

2

7

3

42.9%

FR

5

4

3

1

21

4

19.0%

GR

4

2

1

1

47

4

8.5%

HU

2

2

1

1

14

4

28.6%

IE

1

1

0

1

3

2

66.7%

IT

24

24

7

17

146

50

3.4%

LT

2

0

1

0

6

0

0.0%

LU

1

1

0

1

4

2

50.0%

LV

1

1

0

0

6

1

16.7%

MT

1

1

1

0

5

1

20.0%

NL

1

1

0

1

4

1

25.0%

PL

1

1

1

0

10

2

20.0%

PT

4

3

2

1

17

4

23.5%

RO

2

1

1

0

10

6

60.0%

SE

1

1

0

1

3

1

33.3%

SI

1

1

1

0

6

1

16.7%

SK

2

2

2

0

10

2

20.0%

UK

6

6

3

3

25

12

48.0%

Total

117

106

45

61

633

180

28.4%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2007-2013

The information in the tables above show that, moving from the past to the current programming period, there is an increased attention to migrants and minorities in ESF. This is demonstrated firstly by the proportion of all OPS that address migrants and minorities, which has increased from 52% in the past period to 91% in the current period, and secondly by the proportion of all measures with actions on migrants and minorities (18%) in 2000-2006, and the proportion of Priority axes (28%) supporting migrants and minorities in the current period. The fact that some Member states in either period have not resorted to the ESF funding for the integration of migrants and minorities does not necessarily mean that they have not applied policies of integration, but only that they do it through other means, including other EU Funding instruments and national resources, as indicated above81. 81. EC, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, COM(2007) 512 final, Brussels, 11.9.2007.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

29

2. Expenditure on Migrants and Minorities Programming Period 2000-2006 Considering that the budget of ESF programmes is presented up to the level of the measure (2000-2006) or the priority axis (2007-2013) and that these units usually address more target groups than migrants and minorities alone, the claimed expenditure (in 2000-2006) and the budget (in 2007-2013) allocated specifically to migrants and minorities is not available and can only be roughly estimated82. The measures that support migrants and minorities, among others, represented 25% of the total expenditure claimed during the ESF period 2000-2006. Table 7 presents the detailed allocation of claimed expenditure for measures supporting migrants and minorities per Member State. The range is enormous and goes from 0% up to 98%, with the EU average being 25%. Table 7: Claimed expenditure of measures supporting migrants and minorities (2000-2006) MS

Number of measures supporting M&M

M&M expenditure (in € million)

total expenditure (in € million)

Share of M&M on total expenditure

AT

2

8

1,326

0.6%

BE

14

1,202

2,422

49.6%

CY

0

0

22

0.0%

CZ

4

68

297

22.9%

DE

26

4,439

20,930

21.2%

DK

2

246

779

31.6%

EE

0

0

71

0.0%

ES

99

9,617

17,388

55.3%

FI

7

424

2,365

17.9%

FR

5

1,445

12,204

11.8%

GR

8

316

4,783

6.6%

HU

4

54

288

18.8%

IE

3

270

1,778

15.2%

IT

38

2,503

12,902

19.4%

LT

1

15

166

9.0%

LU

16

46

47

97.9%

LV

0

0

115

0.0%

MT

0

0

9

0.0%

NL

4

424

2,458

17.2%

PL

1

66

1,776

3.7%

PT

4

819

7,073

11.6%

SE

5

1,004

2,661

37.7%

SI

1

6

60

10.0%

SK

1

1

241

0.4%

UK

31

3,854

13,285

29.0%

Total

276

26,827

105,446

25.4%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2000-2006 - EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006) 82. As an indication of this magnitude, though not pursuing it any further because of its inaccuracy, a very rough estimated aggregate figure of the ESF claimed expenditure by Member States, during the period 2000-2006, for financing the known figures of migrants and minorities is about € 8 billion. This was calculated from the total expenditure quoted by each relevant measure and the corresponding ratio of migrants and minorities over total participants of the measure This estimated total ESF expenditure is then totalled for each of the 12 Member States that provide data on migrants and minorities. But as noted above, many more migrants and minorities that do not appear in the statistics benefit from the € 13.5 billion of the ESF finance that among others also support migrants and minorities.

30

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Out of the total ESF expenditure of € 105 billion in the period 2000-2006, € 27 billion (25%) was spent on measures supporting migrants and minorities. The Community contribution in these measures was € 13.5 billion (50%). Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and Sweden have relatively high shares of expenditure supporting migrants and minorities in the total expenditure of this period, ranging between 32% and 55% (98% in Luxembourg), with an EU average of 25%. At the other end of the spectrum, very low expenditure shares, between 0.4% and 10%, can be seen in Austria, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. Possible disparities between the share of M&M measures per Member State and the share of expenditure for M&M per Member State can be explained by the fact that expenditure is not equally allocated amongst the several ESF measures. The financial information available does not allow for a systematic breakdown per target group of the claimed expenditure per measure, OP or Member State. There are only a few instances in which there is specific financial data on a given target group. One such case concerns the Roma, where financial information is available on four Member States (Spain, Hungary, Ireland and Slovakia) which have implemented interventions directly aimed at this group. Ten measures were dedicated to activities for Roma as described in table 8. A total € 806 million has been spent on these activities, € 506 million from the community fund and almost € 300 million from national private and public funding83. Table 8: Identified measures clearly targeting Roma (ESF co-funded expenditure in 2000-2006

MS

Number of Measures

ESF co-funded claimed expenditure € million

EU claimed expenditure € million

National Public claimed expenditure € million

National Private claimed expenditure € million

HU

1

24

18

6

0

SK

1

79

63

16

0

ES

7

236

152

71

13

IE

1

467

273

194

0

Total

10

806

506

287

13

Source: Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma, Brussels 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/esf_roma/ article_9932_en.htm#, Brussels 2010

Programming Period 2007-2013 In the current programming period 2007-2013, the priority axes that among others support migrants and minorities represent 44% of the total budget. Table 9 presents a detailed account of the Member States’ budget allocated to priority axes that support migrants and minorities. Just as had been the case in 2000-2006, the range is very wide. The budget of these priority axes amounts to € 52 billion out of the total of € 117 billion for this period, while the Community contribution is almost € 32 billion, which is 61% of the budget of priority axes supporting migrants and minorities. Ten Member States (7 old and 3 new) in the relevant priority axes have shares between 56%-99%, which is well above the EU average (44%). 7 Member States (4 old and 3 new) have relatively low budget shares, ranging between 8.4% and 28%.

83. Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma: Background Report produced by BBI on behalf of the European Commission, Brussels 2010.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

31

Table 9: Budget allocated to priority axes supporting migrants and minorities, 2007-2013 MS

Number of priority axes supporting M&M

M&M budget (in € million)

Total budget (in € million)

Share of M&M on total budget

AT

2

398

1,184

33.6%

BE

6

644

2,320

27.8%

BG

4

680

1,395

48.7%

CY

0

0

150

0.0%

CZ

4

1,567

4,436

35.3%

DE

33

8,737

15,666

55.8%

DK

1

358

510

70.2%

EE

3

334

462

72.3%

ES

27

5,035

11,426

44.1%

FI

3

472

1,420

33.2%

FR

4

2,679

10,275

26.1%

GR

4

582

5,726

10.2%

HU

4

2,561

4,270

60.0%

IE

2

1,354

1,360

99.6%

IT

50

9,013

15,321

58.8%

LT

0

0

1,210

0.0%

LU

2

39

50

78.0%

LV

1

224

657

34.1%

MT

1

37

132

28.0%

NL

1

790

1,705

46.3%

PL

2

2,059

11,420

18.0%

PT

4

1,292

9,210

14.0%

RO

6

3,926

4,335

90.6%

SE

1

929

1,383

67.2%

SI

1

75

889

8.4%

SK

2

297

1,764

16.8%

UK

12

7,684

8,598

89.4%

Total

180

51,766

117,275

44.1%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2007-2013

The priority theme number 70 “Specific action to increase migrants’ participation in employment and thereby strengthen their social integration”84 is budgeted with € 1.17 billion of community funds in the current period. Since any activity supporting disadvantaged groups - to which migrants and minorities are part - constitutes a form of social inclusion, migrants and minorities will additionally benefit from the budget of € 9.98 billion allocated to the priority theme number 71: “Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people; combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace” 85.

84. Annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 85. Id.

32

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

One should be very careful in comparing the financial information for both programming periods not only because new Member States were present just for a part of 2000-2006, but also because the programming units of the current period (priority axes) are much bigger than the measures of the previous period. However, the information available seems to indicate that compared to the previous period, there is an increase of 10 percentage points in interventions addressing migrants and minorities, as well as an increase of 19 percentage points between 20002006 expenditure and 2007-2013 budget for actions targeting M&M.

C. ESF ACHIEVEMENTS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES 1. Aggregate Achievements 2000-2006 On the basis of data for 12 Member States providing relevant figures, 1.166 million migrants and minorities - 949,000 migrants and 217,000 minorities - participated in ESF programmes during the period 2000-2006, and benefited from the implemented 184 measures. Spain alone has a share of 58% in the total number of migrants and minorities funded by the ESF through these measures, followed by Italy with 14% and Greece with about 8%. Table 10 also indicates that the share of migrants and minorities among the total participants is very low in several measures. Table 10: Number of migrants and minorities and total participants, for Member States reporting relevant data, 2000-200686

Member States

Migrants and minorities

Total ESF participants in measures that deal with migrants and minorities

BE

81,662

476,229

17.1

7,193

74,469

DE

12,062

1,049,503

1.0

12,001

61

ES

680,185

15,730,399

4.3

680,185

-

FI

9,977

156,728

6.4

-

9,977

% migrants and minorities on total participants

Number of migrants

Number of minorities

UK

37,219

1,294,985

2.8

-

37,219

GR

93,519

175,232

53.3

-

93,519

HU

131

37,773

0.3

-

131

IE

16,710

200,713

7.6

16,710

-

IT

164,003

1,679,154

9.5

163,964

39

LU

15,940

28,634

55.7

15,940

-

NL

1,783

6,464

1.8

-

1,783

SE

53,361

190,307

28.0

53,361

-

Total

1,166,552

21,026,121

5.5

949,354

217,198

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Moreover, due consideration should be given to the 92 measures in 9 Member States which provide only qualitative information on the ESF interventions on migrants and minorities. These measures have involved an unknown number of migrants and minorities. A case in point is Denmark, which does not report any migrant or minority figures, but nevertheless has implemented actions for these groups. 86. Note: the values on this table are presented as they were reported by the Member States, nevertheless the presentation and understanding of the categories “migrants” and “minorities” is not always clear or consistent amongst member states. Therefore, it is plausible that each category might include values from the other.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

33

Some Member States (Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden) include only migrants in their programmes, and others (Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherland and the United Kingdom) only minorities, while the rest of the 12 Member States include both (Table 10). Spain, Italy and Sweden report 95% of the migrants, whereas 92% of the minorities are reported in OPs from Belgium, Greece and the UK. Although Roma is an important minority in several Member States, the ESF Managing Authorities reported on only about 100,000 Roma from five Member States: Finland (500), Greece (33,000), Hungary (23,000), Ireland (7,000) and Spain (35,000). These figures represent the minimum level of participation since other activities involving Roma have been funded in other Member States and under the EQUAL initiative87.

2. Achievements by Type of Intervention, 2000-2006 ESF interventions usually address persons, systems or both. This study allocates the relevant measures on migrants and minorities to one of two broad groups, i.e. measures addressed to persons (I) and measures addressed to systems and structures (II). Each group covers a wide spectrum of policies and interventions which can be further divided in three sub-groups, representing different types of ESF interventions for migrants and minorities. Social inclusion is the policy field that embraces most of the ESF interventions on migrants and minorities. Some overlapping of measures between different types of intervention is inevitable, especially for measures that are addressed to both persons and systems.

I. Individualised Actions and Pathways to Integration 1. Training and lifelong learning: Individual personalised training and education of all kinds for both youths and adults. 2. Information, counselling and guidance: Assistance offered to individuals through information giving, counselling or guidance by any governmental or private agency or institution, for job seeking, increasing employability and facilitating access to the labour market. 3. Integrated actions: This is a combined type of intervention that encompasses all sorts of integrated or sequential actions, including actions of the above two sub-groups when they are taken as part of this package. Such integrated packages may incorporate orientation, balance of competences, personalised counselling, training and orientation courses, placements with companies and guidance to work, or other actions foreseen in measures focusing on active labour market policies.

II. Systems, Mechanisms and Practices for Social Inclusion and the Fight against Discrimination 1. Networking and organisational support: Networking and partnerships between different stakeholders and public and private agencies at the national and local level; assisting existing and promoting new types of work organisation. 87. Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma: Background Report produced by BBI on behalf of the European Commission, Brussels 2010.

34

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

2. Promoting entrepreneurship: Assistance to existing companies for the integration process of migrants and minorities; help to business start-ups through training and guidance concerning management and entrepreneurial skills; promotion of new models of entrepreneurship; development of advisory services for entrepreneurs and support of mechanisms for SMEs. 3. Supporting education and training systems and practices: System development for facilitating access to literacy, numeracy and basic adult education of migrants and minorities; development of a strategic and flexible framework for lifelong learning; training the trainers; development of methods of connecting language learning and the labour market; provision of programmes of intercultural education and programmes for facilitating coexistence in school of native and migrant pupils to help combat social exclusion. A synopsis of this typology of ESF activities on the support of migrants and minorities is as follows:

Individualised actions to persons Systems, mechanisms and practices for and pathways to integration social inclusion and the fight against discrimination Training and lifelong learning

- personalised training and education

Information, counselling and guidance

- job searching - increasing employability - facilitating access to the labour market

Integrated actions

-

balance of competences, personalised counselling, training and orientation internships with companies guidance to work, etc.

Networking and organisational support

- between private stakeholders - between public and private agencies - promoting new types of work organisation

Promoting Entrepreneurship

-

Supporting Education and Training systems and practices

- develop systems for access to literacy, numeracy and basic adult education - develop a strategic and flexible framework for lifelong learning - develop methods of connecting language learning and the labour market - design programmes of intercultural education - design programmes for coexistence in school of native and migrant pupils

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

help business start-ups assist existing companies promote new models of entrepreneurship develop advisory services for entrepreneurs support mechanisms for SMEs

35

Figure 11 presents the relative significance of the two main groups of measures. An important finding is that 45% of the relevant measures address both persons and systems and therefore offer a combination of the activities presented in the table above.

Figure 11: Measures on migrants and minorities with actions for persons (I), systems (II) and jointly for both (I&II), 2000-2006

I-119

II- 28

I&II- 129

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Figure 12 indicates the incidence of each of the sub-groups. The majority of person-related measures are of an integrated nature, i.e. integrated or sequential actions for the support of migrants and minorities. All three subgroups are well represented in the measures addressing systems and structures.

Figure 12: ESF measures supporting migrants and minorities by type of intervention, 2000-2006 159

63

55

59 43

26

training and lifelong learning

Information counselling and guidance

Integrated actions

Networking and organizational support

Promoting Entreprenurship

Supporting Education and training systems and practices

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Table 11 presents the detailed allocation of measures supporting migrants and minorities into the above 6 types of interventions per Member State for the period 2000-2006.

36

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Table 11: Migrants and minorities’ measures, by typology per Member State, 2000-2006 Measures supporting systems, structures and practices

Measures supporting people Member States

Total number of measures

Training and lifelong learning

Information, counselling and guidance

Integrated actions

Networking and organisational support

Promoting Entrepreneurship

Supporting Education and training systems and practices

AT

2

-

-

2

-

-

-

BE

14

1

1

11

1

-

-

CY

0

-

-

1

-

-

-

CZ

4

1

-

-

2

-

2

DE

26

5

2

16

2

4

4

DK

2

-

-

-

2

-

-

EE

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES

99

31

-

54

6

29

8

FI

7

1

-

4

3

1

3

FR

5

2

1

1

1

-

1

UK

31

8

4

16

6

14

6

GR

8

-

1

4

3

-

1

HU

4

1

-

1

3

-

1

IE

3

-

-

-

2

-

1

IT

38

6

3

29

15

5

13

LT

1

-

-

1

-

1

-

LU

16

3

2

8

5

-

3

LV

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

MT

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

NL

4

-

-

4

-

-

-

PL

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

PT

4

2

-

2

2

1

-

SE

5

1

1

3

2

3

-

SI

1

1

-

1

-

-

-

SK

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

Grand Total

276

63

26

159

55

59

43

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Note: Due to the overlapping of some measures in the two major divisions, i.e. support to persons and support to systems and structures, the sum of the allocated figures exceeds the number of total measures in the first column of data. Four Member States (Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) have implemented 115 out of the 159 measures with integrated actions to persons, while in the category of actions to systems and structures, three Member States (Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) have adopted 102 out of 157 relevant measures. For the promotion of entrepreneurship in particular, Spain and the United Kingdom made use of 43 of the total 49 measures supporting entrepreneurship.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

37

Figure 13 shows that the majority of the claimed expenditure for measures addressing migrants and minorities went to measures supporting persons.

Figure 13: Division of expenditure per type of intervention, 2000-2006

35% Only Group I - People Only Group II - Systems and Structures 59%

Group I&II

6%

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006)

A more detailed account of the allocation of this expenditure by type of intervention is given in table 12. Table 12: Expenditure (Community plus national and private) on people, on systems and structures, and combined expenditure on both through the measures that support migrants and minorities, 2000-2006 (in € million)

Member States

Expenditure only on people measures

Expenditure only on systems and structures measures

Expenditure on people and systems and structures combined measures

Total

AT

8

-

-

8

BE

1,202

1

-

1,203

CZ

-

4

64

68

DE

4,226

88

125

4,439

DK

-

246

-

246

ES

6,724

299

2,595

9,618

FI

-

207

217

424

FR

1,432

4

8

1,444

UK

459

310

3,085

3,854

GR

174

96

46

316

HU

-

18

36

54

IE

-

270

-

270

IT

997

-

1,506

2,503

LT

-

-

15

15

LU

32

3

11

46

NL

424

-

-

424

PL

66

-

-

66

PT

159

-

660

819

SE

-

-

1,004

1,004

SI

5

-

-

5

SK

-

-

1

1

Grand Total

15,908

1,546

9,373

26,827

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006)

38

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

The sum of total claimed expenditure for the implementation of measures that, among others, finance migrants and minorities, amounted for the period 2000-2006 to € 27 billion, of which € 16 billion went to the support of persons and € 9.5 billion to the joint support of persons and systems and structures. Only € 1.5 billion was spent on systems and structures alone. Spain spent over one-third (€ 9.6 billion) of the total sum. Four Member States (Belgium, Germany, Spain, and France) have absorbed 85% of the total expenditure allocated to persons, while Spain, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom have spent 87% of the total amount addressing both persons and systems. A total of 1.166 million migrants and minorities have reportedly benefited from ESF programmes in 2000-2006. A considerable number of these have benefited from the individual support and from the services provided through the support of systems and structures. Due to the number of M&M assisted by measures under these two types of interventions, the sum of EU-wide participations presented on table 13 (1.743 million) in the two main categories of interventions (people and systems/structures) exceeds the number of participating individuals (1.200 million). With this caveat, the number of beneficiaries from actions directed towards persons is about 1 million and from actions towards systems and structures about 740,000. Figure 14 shows the number of migrants and minorities that benefited from the ESF programmes.

Figure 14: Migrant and minority participants per type of intervention, 2000-2006 703521,2088

352553,1651 274404,6851

177911,8081 117538,7448

training and l ifelong learning

Information counselling and guidance

117429,488

Integrated actions

Networking and organizational support

Promoting Entreprenurship

Supporting Education and training systems and practices

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Figure 14 shows that the sub-group of integrated actions contains by far the biggest number of beneficiaries. The promotion of entrepreneurship also reached a considerable number of migrants and minorities.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

39

Although Roma are included among the total number of migrants and minorities, it is useful to note that the 77 measures supporting Roma and other vulnerable groups are promoting employment (37%) and training (26%). Moreover, particular attention is given to system actions improving the infrastructure (18%).88 The number of beneficiaries of the ESF programme at the level of Member States per type of intervention is presented in table 13. Table 13: Migrants and minorities by type of intervention per Member State, 2000-2006 People

Systems and Structures

Member States

Number of measures supporting migrants and minorities

Training and lifelong learning

Information, counselling and guidance

Integrated actions

Networking and organisational support

Promoting Entrepreneurship

Supporting Education and training systems and practices

BE

14

-

1,085

80,578

-

-

-

DE

26

5,036

109

5,610

145

940

2,701

ES

99

115,555

82,703

432,472

36,488

278,358

92,630

FI

7

1,770

-

8,207

8,123

-

1,854

UK

31

8,660

2,107

20,117

5,650

15,661

4,051

GR

8

-

-

-

-

-

93,519

HU

4

-

-

-

131

-

-

IE

3

-

-

-

-

-

16,710

IT

38

27,880

15,435

120,687

47,133

23,726

58,687

LU

16

342

129

15,346

267

-

4,253

NL

4

-

-

1,783

-

-

-

SE

5

18,669

15,971

18,721

19,492

33,868

-

Total

255

177,912

117,539

703,521

117,429

352,553

274,405

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

The table shows that there are in particular many interventions focusing on M&M in three Member States (Spain, Italy and Sweden). In other Member States, notably Greece and Ireland, a large number of M&M benefited from actions supporting education and training systems. Spain has put particular emphasis on integrated actions and entrepreneurship. In fact, Spain applied a variety of actions including training, the provision of administrative information and the development of partnerships (see Insight 1 for Spain). Italy also emphasised integrated actions, while Sweden, targeting persons with a foreign background, focused on promoting entrepreneurship, networking and partnership (see Insight 2 for Sweden). Greece built training facilities which it then used for training and other services to beneficiaries (see insight 3 for Greece). Many beneficiaries from the United Kingdom were involved in integrated actions (see insight 4 for the United Kingdom). Germany and Finland reported a limited number of participants mainly involved in integrated actions, training and lifelong learning and networking.

88. Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma: Background Report produced by BBI on behalf of the European Commission, Brussels 2010.

40

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Insight 1: The multi-dimensional programme for migrants in Aragón, Spain89 Spain has a variety of actions targeting migrants. One of these actions is described as migrant’s sociovocational mediation and aims to help with the hiring of temporary workers in agricultural/farming activities by providing information and administrative assistance to both employers and jobseekers. This action was implemented by the Spanish Labour Relations Services in Aragón in collaboration with the Aragón Institute of Employment (INAEM). The Federation of Aragón´s Agricultural Cooperatives, the Farmers’ Union and the Association of Agricultural Entrepreneurs cooperated to programme the workplaces according to seasonal farming/agricultural needs and manage the project. A second action of this measure, entitled “Migrants”, was implemented by the training service of the Aragón Institute of Employment (INAEM) and the Department of Economics, Finance and Employment of the Aragón Government. It offered training programmes specially designed for migrants, including Spanish lessons for migrants, alphabetisation and initial training in sectors offering jobs (welding, industrial cleaning, nursing home assistance for old people, hotel sector). A third action of this measure concerns orientation and counselling to support the integration of the migrant population. The Aragón Government has signed several partnerships for promoting programmes for migrants, especially those recently arrived who are more vulnerable, providing various, mostly legal services, but also orientation services. A number of professional legal associations and social agencies cooperate in this effort. Other services provided to migrants include mediation, training and awareness. Furthermore, the University of Zaragoza has studied and reported about the impact of migration in Aragón´s economy, whereas the Picarral Foundation provided training materials for the integration of migrants in the hotel sector. Finally, the Doctors of the World helped with a programme preventing the Ulysses syndrome. Under this third action, almost 25,000 migrants were supported of which almost 10,000 were women. Most beneficiaries were between 25 and 45 years old, possessed a vocational training degree and had a job.

89. 2000ES053PO301-7,2 Aragón Obj. 3

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

41

Insight 2: Sweden: developing networking and regional partnerships on integration and diversity90 In Sweden, measure 3.1, entitled “Integration and diversity”, aims to integrate people with a foreign background and disabled persons into the labour market through skills development, validation of training, facilitation of self-employment and increased ICT skills. The starting point is to test new approaches that can provide additional and effective training methods. It concerns links to the corporate/activity action plans and the competence analysis plans they have prepared. The action of this priority is characterised by a high degree of flexibility and adaptation to regional and local needs and conditions. It is therefore a task for the regional partnerships to help with formulating calls for projects in this action which respond to the needs of the regions and which stimulate interesting applications. The primary target group are unemployed persons for whom the status as foreigner or their disability is a major obstacle to entering the labour market. The total number of beneficiaries was 27,989, of which 14,382 women. From the total, 18,668 were migrants, 7,193 EU citizens and 11,475 third country nationals. Examples of activities are: ●

networking and opportunities for participants to show their real ability;



interaction between local trade unions and interest associations that engage in the situation of the target groups;



targeted competence development and training measures in line with corporate needs;



competence development analysis as a basis for corporate action plans on diversity;



validation of professional skills acquired abroad;



furthering new businesses, business knowledge and promoting innovation efforts, including ICT services.

90. 1999SE053DO001-3.31 Sweden, obj.3

42

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Insight 3: Greece: Building and improving training and accompaniment facilities for assisting specific disadvantaged groups in areas and sectors with high unemployment91 To deal with the exclusion of vulnerable groups from the labour market, the Greek OP for Employment Promotion and Vocational Training created integrated intervention programmes, which were implemented by over 250 Vocational Training Centres, Centres of Accompaniment and Supportive Services and Specialised Centres. Since the existing infrastructure for the implementation of these programmes was inadequate, additional facilities were built for this purpose covering all needs nationwide. Overall, 2,150 integrated programmes were implemented through which 31,694 persons benefited. The aim of the integrated interventions was to provide equal opportunities in accessing the labour market and, as much as possible, to facilitate the insertion into the social frameworks of persons who face different and multifaceted problems of inclusion and immigration status, with the priority being the unemployed. The actions of this measure were mainly addressed to persons with cultural particularities, such as Greek Roma, Greek Muslims, returning Greek emigrants, refugees and migrants. These programmes used an approach of individual treatment and consisted of two categories of actions: ●

Integrated interventions for the unemployed from vulnerable groups where these people are at risk of exclusion from the labour market. This is about training to develop basic knowledge and skills, including: developing social abilities, specialised professional orientation, development of existing qualifications, job seeking techniques, etc.



Assistance to the beneficiaries to enter employment. This is given either in the form of new job subsidisation, self-employment, or even encouragement and support of cooperative activities of those that who already benefited from the integrated interventions.

Insight 4: Outcomes of projects with ethnic minorities in Great Britain92 The Objective 3 Programme for England, Scotland and Wales made a significant impact in terms of promoting the Equal Opportunities of the relevant target groups. Data analysed up to June 2005 shows that 23% of all beneficiaries (almost 470,000) in England belonged to an ethnic minority group. The corresponding data for Scotland was 6% (over 10,000 people) and 7% for Wales (8,000 people). The data shows that 21% of those moving into education and training found a job upon leaving their project. The programme’s update to the Mid-Term Evaluation Report concludes that ESF can act as a ‘stepping stone’ to employment by encouraging beneficiaries to progress towards further work-related education/training. In fact, the most disadvantaged groups generally show the biggest net increase in positive outcomes, although their employment rates are still lower than in other groups. The report considers the groups targeted by Equal Opportunities, including ethnic minorities, as less likely to be in work following their courses than other groups, on the grounds that structural inequalities play a large role in these trends.

91. 2000GR051PO001-2.3 Greece Employment promotion and vocational training 92. Update to the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Community Support Framework for England/Gibraltar, Scotland and Wales (Final Report)

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

43

3. Achievements, 2007-2013 Data available on 76% of the current programmes show that at least 7 million people have benefited from ESF in the years 2007 and 2008. 6% of these participants are migrants and 1% are minorities. Table 14 presents separately the migrants and minorities and their total as a proportion of participants in priority axes that support migrants and minorities along with other groups of beneficiaries. Table 14: Number of migrant and minorities participating in ESF 2007-2008 MS

Migrants

Minorities

Total

Total number of participants

% of migrants and minorities from total participants

AT

31,412

100

31,512

157,022

20%

BE

46,319

-

46,319

335,826

14%

BG

464

18,762

19,226

125,540

15%

CY

-

-

-

-

-

CZ

-

-

-

-

-

DE

80,277

732

81,009

423,327

19%

DK

254

-

254

3,991

6%

EE

11

5,714

5,725

21,638

26%

ES

70,936

14,104

85,040

1,986,783

4%

FI

1,698

168

1,866

24,199

8%

FR

156,003

2,026

158,029

1,384,914

11%

GR

-

-

-

9,136

-

HU

-

4

4

26,462

0.02%

IE

5,664

2,330

7,994

250,459

3%

IT

10,632

-

10,632

808,368

1%

LT

96

-

96

3,500

3%

LU

1

2

3

561

1%

LV

-

958

958

5,723

17%

MT

-

-

-

-

-

NL

21,873

25,522

47,395

167,820

28%

PL

16

37

53

262,742

0.02%

PT

1,633

-

1,633

733,560

0.22%

RO

-

-

-

-

-

SE

2,106

-

2,106

8,420

25%

SI

-

26

26

5,193

1%

SK

-

-

-

110

-

UK

884

35,343

36,227

422,755

9%

Grand Total

430,279

105,828

536,107

7,168,049

7%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of EC Structural Fund database, 28.05.2010.

The migrant and minority participants are 536,107, divided into 430,279 migrants and 105,828 minorities, with women representing 55% of the total. These figures refer not only to the priority axes (180) selected on a qualitative basis for their reference to migrants and minorities, but also to priority axes (196) who have reported on the involvement of migrants and minorities but did not announce in the programming document that they would address these target groups. The former amounts to 278,365 migrants and 88,649 minorities and the latter to 151,914 migrants and 19,179 minorities.

44

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain have reported 89% of all migrants, whereas Bulgaria, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom account for 89% of all reported minorities. Five Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands) make up almost 80% of all reported migrants and minorities. Seven Member States (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Malta, Romania and Slovakia) have either not reported yet on the migrant and minority participants in their Operational Programmes, or do not address these target groups. Migrants and minorities are particularly present among the ESF participants in Austria, Estonia, the Netherlands and Sweden, and their share is also well beyond the EU average in Bulgaria, Germany and Latvia. Even if data are not yet complete, it should be noted that certain Member States who had not or who had hardly reported on migrants and minorities in 2000-2006 - such as Austria, Estonia and Latvia - are now reporting on these groups through ESF in a consistent manner. Moreover there are now actions supporting M&M taking place in Latvia. Across the Member States with a focus on migrants and/or minorities, Estonia has a relevant programme with the objective being a better harnessing of the immigration and migration potential of the labour force. Among the activities for this purpose are the improvement of labour regulations, labour relations and the promotion of flexible working, an increase of administrative capacity for policy formulation and implementation, the development of relevant information systems and the raising of the level of personnel qualifications in institutions that develop and initiate employment policies. The Estonia Human Resource Development OP has benefited 5647 people from minorities93. Belgium assisted migrants (no minorities) through two OPs with actions relevant to specific and/or innovative social inclusion activities in terms of alphabetisation (initial and language education), as well as combating discrimination related to ethnic origin. Priority 3 of the Wallonie-Bruxelles OP94, aims to improve access to employment and combat exclusion in the labour market, and it concerns 8,053 migrants, while Priority axis 1 of the Bruxelles-Capitale Region OP95 concerns 15,277 migrants and has the general objective to avoid unemployment or to support inclusion into the labour market. Particular attention is given to those who are most exposed to exclusion, targeting migrants along with others, focusing on general assistance and help to find a job. Counting in addition the beneficiaries of some other actions, BE assisted a total of 46,319 migrants. Sweden applies actions jointly to persons and systems. Priority axis 2 of the Sweden OP96 embraces all migrants (1,701 persons) and supports them to establish themselves in employment. It addresses in particular persons outside the labour market. Education schemes or other measures to bring them closer to finding a job are part of this effort. Specific policies to attain this involve encouraging early school leavers to return to education or training, or to participate in activities designed to prepare them for working life. This programme also provides services of assistance and follow-up for unemployed persons, including intensified job-seeking, counselling, and guidance, as well as mentoring. Furthermore, support is offered for the cooperation between different actors, including the municipality, the Public Employment Service, educational institutions, private and public employers as well as organisations and businesses within the social economy.

93. 94. 95. 96.

2007EE051PO001-3 2007BE052PO002-3 2007BE052PO004-axev1 2007SE052PO001-2

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

45

Insight 5: Supporting Entrepreneurship in the UK 97 A project in Leeds (UK), called New Start at the Unity Business Centre, Roundhay Leeds, is run by a partnership of BEST (Business Employment Services Training) and QED (Quality Education Data). It provides a range of support services to those who are newly arrived in the UK and are looking for work. This programme has a regional dimension, is flexible enough to be able to accommodate new arrivals with as diverse qualifications as teachers and lawyers and people without adequate education, and can convert their qualifications to suit the local labour market needs. Although this is an ongoing programme, it does give a result and an impact indicator. A more detailed description is presented below in the form of an insight, following the previous insights that referred to the 2000-2006 programming period. The services of the programme include language support, skills for job application in the UK (which could be very different from those used in the country of origin), IT help and assisting individuals to compare their qualifications with those used in the UK. Following assessment and counselling, other courses may also be offered, in line with the employment sector in which the individual is aiming to settle. Each individual is offered up to 18 weeks of support, with between 10 and 30 hours of support per week. Whilst some people are referred by the national Job Centre, many of the people on New Start find their way to the centre through word of mouth. The employment advisers are highly skilled at using local intelligence to find vacancies which may not even have reached the point of being advertised, and at convincing employers that the people they put forward for interview are well prepared and highly motivated. New Start is able to be very flexible in the support it can offer, vital for so varied a participant group. There are those who are qualified teachers, lawyers and businessmen from their own countries who may have to accept work of a completely different kind in order to enter the labour market. There are also those who did not receive a high level of education in their own countries, and may need literacy as well as language support. However, the degree of motivation is very great and this combined with the knowledge and networking skills of both QED and BEST has meant that the project is able to meet its objectives and provide an essential service to this group. The project, which has a budget of £1,355,050, started in June 2008 and ends in June 2011. The number of participants entering the project was 28,675, of which 11,220 were women, while the total completing the project in 2008 was 12,878 persons, of which 4,768 were women. Project results: Across the West Yorkshire sub region, the project has achieved more than its target for starts and has achieved 85% of its target in getting people into work. These results are achieved through good local knowledge and networking with employers, and a programme which is flexible enough to address the needs and aspirations of a wide range of individuals from many different countries.

97. 2007UK05UPO001-1

46

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Concluding the section on achievements, the following findings covering both programming periods are worth being reminded of: ●

The number of Member States reporting on migrants and minorities through the ESF is growing: from 12 Member States in 2000-2006 to 20 Member States in 2007-2013;



The relative incidence of measures and priority axes addressing migrants and minorities is growing: 18% of all measures catered for their needs in 2000-2006, while the share of relevant priority axes is 28%;



The financial information available seems to indicate that compared to the previous period, a bigger number of interventions addressing migrants and minorities will receive more financial support in the current period;



While it is too early to say anything about the absolute number of migrants and minorities in the current programming period, it is clear that the annual participation now exceeds the previous period, with 268,000 participations per year against the previous 167,000.

Member States are using ESF to a different extent to support migrant and minority interventions across the programming periods. For the EU as a whole, these changes in the Member States resulted in a greater support for migrants and minorities in the current period compared to the previous, raising respectively their share from 4.9% of the total number of participants to 6.3%.

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

47

Chapter 3 – Conclusion Migration from third countries increased significantly in recent years, and is still rising. By official estimates (2007), 18.5 million third country nationals reside in the EU-27, making up 3.8% of the Union’s population. On top of that, another 10 million citizens are residing in another EU Member State. This being the case, a major question is: how can we prepare these individuals to feel at home, to make them and the human potential they bring from their home country become an integral and productive element, alongside the local population, towards their own wellbeing and the benefit of the economies they live in? The European Social Fund is an important financial instrument that helps Member States to achieve such goals by promoting equal opportunities, ensuring social inclusion, opening pathways to integration, accepting diversity in the workplace, and combating discrimination. This study reports on the ESF interventions in the field of migrants and minorities for the programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. It presents an overview of initiatives implemented across the Member States and of their achievements. Since the programmes of the second period are currently in progress, the findings on ESF achievements are limited to the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2008. The majority of Member States takes advantage of ESF co-funding and have been designing and implementing a variety of policies for migrant integration. During the previous programming period, 276 measures (out of 1567) from 108 Operational Programmes (out of 211) in 20 out of 25 Member States have addressed migrants and minorities. In 2007-2013, 180 priority axes (out of 683) from 106 Operational Programmes (out of 117) in 25 out of 27 Member States target migrants and minorities. Most of the ESF interventions that are related to migrants and minorities fall under the domain of social inclusion and are pursued through the promotion of equal opportunities. In addition, migrants and minorities, or particular groups of them, are supported by activities in the policy fields of promoting an active labour market and improving women’s access to the labour market, as well as by lifelong learning. A total of 187 measures (out of 276 supporting vulnerable groups) have reported on the involvement of 1.166 million migrants and minorities: 949,000 migrants and 217,000 minorities. This is certainly an underestimate of the absolute number of migrants and minorities that were reached through ESF supported interventions. Some Member States (Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden) report only on migrants in their programmes, even if they might very well address minorities as well, while others (Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherland and the United Kingdom) report only on minorities, even if these programmes may have also been open to migrants. This report has discussed ESF interventions under the two broad categories of assistance to persons and assistance to systems and structures, each containing three sub-categories of interventions. The assistance to persons refers to individualised actions and pathways to integration, such as training and lifelong learning activities, information, counselling and guidance, and integrated activities (i.e. packages of activities with a variety of specific policies).

48

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

The assistance to systems consists of networking and organisational support, promotion of entrepreneurship, and support to educational and training systems and practices. Measures featuring interventions for migrants and minorities have claimed a total expenditure of € 27 billion, 25% of the total expenditure claimed in the period 2000-2006. 59% of the claimed expenditure went to actions for persons, 6% to actions for systems and structures and 35% to combined actions to persons and to systems and structures. Such combined actions attempt to implement a variety of activities and realise simultaneous efforts on several fronts in order to attain a holistic integration of migrants and minorities into the labour market. Measures combining actions to persons and systems are prominently present in the United Kingdom, Italy, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden. Many migrants and minorities have benefited in two ways from ESF supported interventions: the first directly as an individual and the second indirectly through better quality services. About 700,000 migrants and minorities have been supported through integrated actions encompassing a variety of sequential actions, such as orientation, balance of competences, personalised counselling, training, internships with companies and guidance to work. More than 350,000 beneficiaries were reached through interventions promoting entrepreneurship, and 274,000 migrants and minorities have benefited from improved services in education and training, which related notably but not exclusively to literacy, numeracy and basic adult education. Concrete examples of relevant interventions show that the ESF has supported a comprehensive mixture of actions and policies for migrants and minorities in order to tackle the complex and multifaceted problems of social exclusion, discrimination and equal opportunities in the labour market. The ESF regulation for the current programming period 2007-2013 reflects more strongly and more explicitly the intention of the EU to proceed faster and deeper with the integration of migrants and minorities. The Member States, for their part, made the most of this development and intensified their efforts for the social inclusion of migrants and minorities in the new operational programmes. As a result, 91% of the current OPs and 28% of the priority axes contain provisions supporting migrants and minorities. Member States can commit part of their ESF budget to activities for migrants and minorities; the ESF budget for the following priority themes amounts to more than € 11 billion: “specific action to increase migrants’ participation in employment and thereby strengthen their social integration” and “pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people; combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace”. Overall, 536,107 participants have been reported as migrants or minorities in 2007 and 2008: 430,279 migrants and 105,828 minorities. About 55% of the beneficiaries in these interventions are women. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain have reported 89% of all migrants, while Bulgaria, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom account for 89% of all reported minorities. Five Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands) make up almost 80% of all reported migrants and minorities.

Chapter 3 – Conclusions

49

Looking at the ESF co-funding achievements across the two programming periods up to the year 2008, for which data are available, the reported number of migrant and minority beneficiaries amounts to a little over 1.7 million: 1.4 million migrants and more than 300,000 minorities. This does not include the unrecorded - but most likely high - numbers of migrants and minorities for which Member States are committed to help through measures and priority axes addressed to vulnerable and socially excluded people in general. It also does not anticipate the future beneficiaries of the remainder of the programming period 2007-2013. These developments show that ESF co-funded interventions towards the integration of migrants and minorities in the labour market have worked and continue to work with even more intensity. This is one of the main priorities in the framework of the European Employment Strategy and it is moreover expected to contribute effectively to the attainment of the Lisbon goals. Through these achievements, ESF advances its fundamental mission to help Member States make Europe’s workforce and companies better equipped to face new and global challenges, reduce the gap in living standards between regions and between people, and promote economic and social cohesion across Europe.

50

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Annexes ANNEX 1: EXPENDITURE 2000-2006 AND BUDGET 2007-2013 1. Operational Programmes 2000-2006 expenditure claimed (in € million) per Member State MS

EU %

National public %

National private %

Total

AT

43.7%

BE

34.7%

48.7%

7.6%

1,326

55.3%

10.1%

2,422

CY

50.0%

50.0%

--

22

CZ

69.8%

30.2%

--

297

DE

46.5%

45.7%

7.8%

20,930

DK

41.5%

37.2%

21.3%

779

EE

69.3%

25.9%

4.9%

71

ES

60.4%

38.4%

1.2%

17,388

FI

31.4%

42.9%

25.6%

2,365

FR

43.4%

50.8%

5.8%

12,204

GR

78.6%

21.4%

--

4,783

HU

75.6%

24.4%

--

288

IE

53.9%

45.8%

0.3%

1,778

IT

52.7%

45.5%

1.8%

12,902

LT

74.6%

25.4%

--

166

LU

45.3%

52.8%

2.0%

47

LV

75.2%

24.8%

--

115

MT

75.0%

25.0%

--

9

NL

49.6%

21.6%

28.8%

2,458

PL

74.3%

25.7%

--

1,776

PT

62.2%

34.2%

3.6%

7,073

SE

31.3%

39.1%

29.6%

2,661

SI

75.0%

25.0%

--

60

SK

74.0%

25.2%

0.8%

241

UK

44.1%

51.5%

4.4%

13,285

EU 25

51.3%

42.8%

5.9%

105,446

Annexes

51

2. Operational Programmes 2000-2006 co-funded expenditure claimed (in € million) per Objective Objectives

EU

National Public

National Private

Total

1

30,859

16,627

833

48,319

2

2,167

2,352

582

5,101

3

21,103

26,111

4,811

52,026

EU25

54,129

45,091

6,226

105,446

3. Operational Programmes 2007-2013 budget (in € million) per Member State

52

MS

ESF %

National Public %

National Private %

Total Budget

AT

44.3%

46.4%

9.3%

1,184

BE

46.3%

49.8%

4.0%

2,320

BG

85.0%

15.0%

--

1,395

CY

80.0%

20.0%

--

150

CZ

85.1%

14.9%

--

4,436

DE

59.9%

30.6%

9.6%

15,666

DK

50.0%

33.4%

16.6%

510

EE

84.8%

11.2%

4.1%

462

ES

70.5%

28.4%

1.1%

11,426

FI

43.5%

56.5%

--

1,420

FR

52.5%

35.9%

11.6%

10,275

GR

76.2%

23.8%

--

5,726

HU

85.0%

15.0%

--

4,270

IE

27.6%

72.2%

0.2%

1,360

IT

45.3%

54.7%

--

15,321

LT

85.0%

8.7%

6.3%

1,210

LU

50.0%

50.0%

--

50

LV

83.8%

13.0%

3.1%

657

MT

85.0%

15.0%

--

132

NL

48.7%

27.4%

23.9%

1,705

PL

85.0%

15.0%

--

11,420

PT

70.7%

29.3%

--

9,210

RO

85.0%

15.0%

--

4,335

SE

50.0%

50.0%

--

1,383

SI

85.0%

15.0%

--

889

SK

85.0%

15.0%

--

1,764

UK

52.0%

46.9%

1.1%

8,598

EU 27

64.8%

32.1%

3.2%

117,275

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

ANNEX 2: ESF VOCABULARY The table below compares a number of documents and concepts across the two consecutive programming periods. 2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

The Community Support Framework (CSF) is the basic programming document agreed between the European Commission and the Member States, setting out plans for Structural Fund support for objective 1 regions. It identifies the problems, the strategy and the priorities for action and where money should best be channelled. It must be supplemented by more detailed Operational Programmes. CSF’s are not compulsory for the objectives 2 and 3.

The National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) is not a management instrument as the CSF were in the preceding period. However, it defines policy priorities whilst suggesting the key elements of implementation such as the list of operational programmes and an indicative annual allocation from each Fund for each Operational Programme It is applied to the convergence and regional competitiveness and employment objectives. It is optional for the territorial cooperation objective.

The Operational Programmes (OPs) detail how and where funds will be spent, what the expected impact is and how the programmes will be monitored and evaluated. OPs may exist at a national or regional level. An OP can cover only one of the three Objectives. An OP can be financed by more than one Fund.

An OP can cover more than one objective but can be financed by only one Fund.

Priorities are a set of aims within a operational programme that have to be tackled through the implementation of specific Measures.

In the new programming period priorities are formally

Measures are the means by which a Priority is implemented over several years and which enable operations to be financed. Measures are listed in the Operational Programmes, fully described in the Programme Complements and reported on in the Annual Implementation Reports.

There are no measures in the 2007-2013 Programming Period. Instead of this, the description of the priority axes contains an indicative list of actions.

called Priority Axes. Resource allocation (community and national cofinancing) is done at the level of the priority axes.

Resource allocation (community and national cofinancing) is done at the level of the measure. Programme Complements (PC) provide further details on the implementation of the operational programmes such as the indicators that are used. Programme complements may be formulated as needed throughout the implementation of the OP.

There are no Programme Complements for the 2007-2013 Operational Programmes. Information that was contained in the PC such as about the indicators is now to be found in the OP itself.

The Policy Fields refer to the five broad types of activities than can be financed with ESF. Most OPs are structured along these policy fields, one priority corresponding to one policy field.

The types of activities that can be financed with ESF

Annexes

are called priorities.

53

2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

Annual Implementation Reports (AIR) are prepared every year by the national or regional managing authorities and describe the progress on the implementation of the priorities and the financial implementation of the assistance. AIRs also report on the main socio-economic trends or on changes in national, regional or sectoral policies that are relevant to the implementation of the assistance. Indicators are used to “indicate” the outcomes of the ESF interventions. The types of indicators that are relevant to this study can be quite diverse in nature: (i) output indicators relate to the immediate consequences of an activity and are measured in physical or monetary units, e.g. number of people trained, number of firms financially supported. (ii) result indicators relate to the direct and immediate effects on direct beneficiaries brought by a programme. Result indicators can be of a physical (e.g. number of successful trainees) or financial nature (e.g. leverage of private sector resources); (iii) impact indicators refer to the consequences of the programme beyond the immediate effects on its direct beneficiaries.

ANNEX 3: LIST OF ESF 2000-2006 MEASURES USED FOR THE STUDY

54

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

AT

1999AT161DO001

Burgenland

5,2

AT

2000AT162DO008

Wien

3,2

BE

1999BE161DO001

Hainaut obj. 1

6,2

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

1,10

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

1,12

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

1,15

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

2,215

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

2,225

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

3,31

BE

1999BE053DO001

Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3

5,52

BE

1999BE053DO002

Belgium Federal Ministry of Employment Obj. 3

2,1

BE

1999BE053DO003

Vlaanderen Obj. 3

1,2

BE

1999BE053DO003

Vlaanderen Obj. 3

2,2

BE

1999BE053DO003

Vlaanderen Obj. 3

4,1

BE

1999BE053DO004

Wallonie-Bruxelles Obj. 3

2,22

BE

1999BE053DO005

German-speaking Community of Belgium

2,21

CZ

2003CZ051PO001

Czech Republic HRD Obj. 1

2,1

CZ

2003CZ051PO001

Czech Republic HRD Obj. 1

2,3

CZ

2003CZ051PO001

Czech Republic HRD Obj. 1

3,1

CZ

2003CZ053DO001

Prague Region Obj. 3

2,3

DE

1999DE161PO001

Berlin

4,12

DE

1999DE161PO001

Berlin

4,13

DE

1999DE161PO001

Berlin

4,21

DE

1999DE161PO001

Berlin

4,22

DE

1999DE161PO001

Berlin

4,51

DE

1999DE161PO002

Thüringen

4,21

DE

1999DE161PO002

Thüringen

4,22

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

DE

1999DE161PO002

Thüringen

4,61

DE

1999DE161PO004

Mecklenburg - Vorpommern

4,21

DE

1999DE161PO004

Mecklenburg - Vorpommern

4,22

DE

1999DE161PO004

Mecklenburg - Vorpommern

4,61

DE

1999DE161PO006

Sachsen

4,4

DE

2000DE051PO007

Germany Obj. 1

2,4

DE

2000DE051PO007

Germany Obj. 1

2,5

DE

2000DE051PO007

Germany Obj. 1

6,11

DE

2000DE162DO001

Rheinland-Pfalz

5,2

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

1,41

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

1,42

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

1,43

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

2,41

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

2,42

DE

2000DE162DO002

Berlin West

3,21

DE

2000DE162DO004

Nordrhein-Westfalen

4,22

DE

1999DE053DO001

Germany SPD Obj.3

20,4

DE

1999DE053DO001

Germany SPD Obj.3

20,5

DE

1999DE053DO001

Germany SPD Obj.3

60,11

DK

1999DK053DO001

Denmark Obj. 3

2,1

DK

1999DK053DO001

Denmark Obj. 3

2,2

ES

2000ES051PO014

Spain Vocational Training System Obj. 1

41,12

ES

2000ES051PO014

Spain Vocational Training System Obj. 1

41,13

ES

2000ES051PO014

Spain Vocational Training System Obj. 1

41,15

ES

2000ES051PO015

Spain Entrepeneurship and Lifelong Training Obj. 1

43,2

ES

2000ES051PO016

Spain Fight Against Discrimination Obj. 1

44,11

ES

2000ES051PO016

Spain Fight Against Discrimination Obj. 1

44,20

ES

2000ES051PO017

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 1

42,6

ES

2000ES051PO017

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 1

42,8

ES

2000ES051PO017

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 1

43,4

ES

2000ES051PO017

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 1

50,61

ES

2000ES161PO002

Cantabria

41,15

ES

2000ES161PO002

Cantabria

44,10

ES

2000ES161PO002

Cantabria

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

42,7

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

42,9

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

41,12

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

41,15

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO003

Andalucia

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO004

Asturias

41,15

ES

2000ES161PO004

Asturias

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO005

Canarias

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO005

Canarias

42,9

ES

2000ES161PO005

Canarias

41,15

Annexes

55

56

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

ES

2000ES161PO005

Canarias

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO006

Castilla-La Mancha

5,6

ES

2000ES161PO006

Castilla-La Mancha

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO006

Castilla-La Mancha

42,8

ES

2000ES161PO006

Castilla-La Mancha

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO007

Castilla Y León

41,15

ES

2000ES161PO007

Castilla Y León

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

5,6

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

42,8

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO008

Ceuta

45,17

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

42,7

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

43,2

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

41,12

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

41,15

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO009

Comunidad Valenciana

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO011

Galicia

41,12

ES

2000ES161PO011

Galicia

41,13

ES

2000ES161PO011

Galicia

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO011

Galicia

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO012

Melilla

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO012

Melilla

42,9

ES

2000ES161PO012

Melilla

44,10

ES

2000ES161PO012

Melilla

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO012

Melilla

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

42,6

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

42,8

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

43,2

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

44,11

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

45,16

ES

2000ES161PO013

Murcia

45,17

ES

2000ES162DO004

Cataluña

1,8

ES

2000ES053PO301

Aragon Obj. 3

6,1

ES

2000ES053PO301

Aragon Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO301

Aragon Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO302

Baleares Obj. 3

4,4

ES

2000ES053PO302

Baleares Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO302

Baleares Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

2,1

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

4,4

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

6,2

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

6,3

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

7,2

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

ES

2000ES053PO303

Cataluña Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

1,1

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

1,3

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

3,1

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

6,1

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

6,2

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO304

Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO305

Navarra Obj. 3

4,4

ES

2000ES053PO305

Navarra Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO305

Navarra Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

1,1

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

1,3

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

2,1

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

4,4

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO306

Pais Vasco Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO307

La Rioja Obj. 3

1,1

ES

2000ES053PO307

La Rioja Obj. 3

1,3

ES

2000ES053PO307

La Rioja Obj. 3

4,4

ES

2000ES053PO307

La Rioja Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO307

La Rioja Obj. 3

7,3

ES

2000ES053PO312

Spain Fight Against Discrimination Obj. 3

7,2

ES

2000ES053PO312

Spain Fight Against Discrimination Obj. 3

7,5

ES

2000ES053PO313

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 3

1,1

ES

2000ES053PO313

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 3

1,3

ES

2000ES053PO313

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 3

3,3

ES

2000ES053PO313

Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 3

8,2

FI

1999FI161DO001

Pohjois-Suomen (North Finland)

3,4

FI

1999FI161DO002

Itä-Suomen (East Finland)

2,4

FI

1999FI162DO001

Etelä-Suomen (South Finland)

3,3

FI

1999FI162DO002

Länsi-Suomen (West Finland)

3,4

FI

1999FI053DO001

Finland SPD Obj. 3

2,22

FI

1999FI053DO001

Finland SPD Obj. 3

2,23

FI

1999FI053DO001

Finland SPD Obj. 3

4,41

FR

2000FR161DO002

Guyane

8,3

FR

2000FR162DO005

Pays de le Loire

5,2

FR

2000FR162DO019

Picardie

1,1

FR

2000FR162DO019

Picardie

2,3

FR

1999FR053DO001

France SPD Obj. 3

2,2

UK

1999GB161DO001

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

3,8

UK

1999GB161DO002

Merseyside

2,14

UK

1999GB161DO002

Merseyside

4,26

UK

1999GB161DO003

South Yorkshire

3,17

UK

1999GB161DO003

South Yorkshire

4,22

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

1,4

Annexes

57

58

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

2,4

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

3,1

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

4,1

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

4,2

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

4,3

UK

1999GB161DO004

West Wales and the Valleys

4,5

UK

2000GB162DO002

West Midlands

3,4

UK

2000GB162DO007

East of England

2,3

UK

2000GB162DO007

East of England

3,3

UK

2000GB162DO009

London

1,3

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

1,1

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

1,2

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

1,3

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

2,1

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

2,2

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

2,3

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

2,4

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

3,1

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

3,2

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

4,4

UK

1999GB053PO001

East Wales Obj.3

5,1

UK

1999GB053PO002

Scotland Obj. 3

2,1

UK

1999GB053PO003

England Obj. 3

2,21

UK

1999GB053PO003

England Obj. 3

2,22

UK

1999GB053PO003

England Obj. 3

2,23

GR

2000GR051PO001

Greece Employment promotion and vocational training

2,1

GR

2000GR051PO001

Greece Employment promotion and vocational training

2,2

GR

2000GR051PO001

Greece Employment promotion and vocational training

2,3

GR

2000GR051PO002

Greece Education and initial vocational training

1,1

GR

2000GR161PO002

Attica

3,4

GR

2000GR161PO006

Thessaly

5,2

GR

2000GR161PO010

South Aegean

4,8

GR

2000GR161PO011

Ionian Islands

5,2

HU

2003HU051PO001

Hungary HRD

2,1

HU

2003HU051PO001

Hungary HRD

2,2

HU

2003HU051PO001

Hungary HRD

2,3

HU

2003HU161PO001

Hungary Regional development

3,2

IE

2000IE051PO001

Employment & HR Development in Ireland Obj. 1

22

IE

2000IE161PO005

Southern and Eastern Region

4,7

IE

2000IE161PO006

Border, Midland and Western Region

4,7

IT

1999IT161PO006

Calabria

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO007

Campania

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO008

Molise

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO009

Puglia

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO010

Sardegna

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO010

Sardegna

3,6

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

IT

1999IT161PO011

Sicilia

3,4

IT

1999IT161PO012

Basilicata

3,4

IT

1999IT053PO002

Marche Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

1,12

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

3,34

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

4,41

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

4,43

IT

1999IT053PO003

Piemonte Obj. 3

5,51

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

1,12

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

3,32

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

3,34

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

4,41

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

4,43

IT

1999IT053PO004

Emilia Romagna Obj. 3

5,51

IT

1999IT053PO005

Toscana Obj. 3

1,12

IT

1999IT053PO005

Toscana Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO005

Toscana Obj. 3

3,32

IT

1999IT053PO005

Toscana Obj. 3

3,34

IT

1999IT053PO006

Bolzano Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO006

Bolzano Obj. 3

5,51

IT

1999IT053PO007

Italy Ministry of Employment Obj. 3

4,41

IT

1999IT053PO008

Trento Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO009

Valle d'Aosta Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO010

Lombardia Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO011

Umbria Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO012

Abruzzo Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO013

Liguria - Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO014

Veneto Obj. 3

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO015

Friuli Venezia Giulia

2,21

IT

1999IT053PO016

Lazio Obj. 3

2,21

LT

2003LT161DO001

Lithuania

2,3

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

1,11

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

1,12

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

1,13

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

1,15

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

2,21

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

2,22

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

2,23

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

2,24

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

3,32

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

3,33

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

3,35

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

3,36

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

3,37

Annexes

59

MS

CCI

Title

Measure

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

4,41

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

4,43

LU

1999LU053DO001

Luxembourg

4,44

NL

1999NL161DO001

Flevoland

3,2

NL

1999NL161DO001

Flevoland

4,1

NL

1999NL161DO001

Flevoland

4,2

NL

1999NL053DO001

Netherlands Active Labourmarket Policy and Lifelong learning

1,1

PL

2003PL051PO001

Poland Human Resources Development

1,5

PT

1999PT051PO002

Portugal Employment, Training and Social Development

5,1

PT

1999PT051PO002

Portugal Employment, Training and Social Development

5,3

PT

1999PT051PO002

Portugal Employment, Training and Social Development

5,4

PT

1999PT161PO015

Lisboa e Vale do Tejo

3,6

SE

1999SE161DO001

Norra Norrland

3,3

SE

1999SE053DO001

Sweden Obj. 3

2,21

SE

1999SE053DO001

Sweden Obj. 3

2,22

SE

1999SE053DO001

Sweden Obj. 3

3,31

SE

1999SE053DO001

Sweden Obj. 3

3,32

SI

2003SI161DO001

Slovenia SPD

2,2

SK

2003SK051PO001

Slovakia HR Development

2,21

ANNEX 4: LIST OF ESF 2007-2013 PRIORITY AXES USED FOR THE STUDY

60

MS

CCI

Title

Priority Code

AT

2007AT052PO001

Austria Employment

3

AT

2007AT052PO001

Austria Employment

4

BE

2007BE051PO001

Hainaut

3

BE

2007BE052PO001

German-speaking Community of Belgium

3

BE

2007BE052PO002

Wallonie-Bruxelles

3

BE

2007BE052PO003

Belgium Federal State

Axe 1

BE

2007BE052PO004

Bruxelles-Capitale Region

axe1

BE

2007BE052PO005

Vlaanderen

2

BG

2007BG051PO001

Bulgaria Human Resources Development

01

BG

2007BG051PO001

Bulgaria Human Resources Development

04

BG

2007BG051PO001

Bulgaria Human Resources Development

05

BG

2007BG051PO001

Bulgaria Human Resources Development

06

CZ

2007CZ052PO001

Praha Adaptability

17.2

CZ

2007CZ05UPO001

Czech Republic Human Resources and Employment

4.3

CZ

2007CZ05UPO002

Czech Republic Education for Competitiveness

7.1

CZ

2007CZ05UPO002

Czech Republic Education for Competitiveness

7.3

DE

2007DE051PO002

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

C

DE

2007DE051PO003

Niedersachsen - Region Lüneburg

A

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

MS

CCI

Title

Priority Code

DE

2007DE051PO004

Sachsen

1

DE

2007DE051PO005

Sachsen-Anhalt

3

DE

2007DE051PO006

Thüringen

C

DE

2007DE052PO001

Baden-Württemberg

C

DE

2007DE052PO002

Bayern

C

DE

2007DE052PO003

Berlin

B

DE

2007DE052PO003

Berlin

C

DE

2007DE052PO004

Bremen

B

DE

2007DE052PO005

Hamburg

A

DE

2007DE052PO005

Hamburg

B

DE

2007DE052PO005

Hamburg

C

DE

2007DE052PO006

Hessen

B

DE

2007DE052PO006

Hessen

C

DE

2007DE052PO007

Niedersachsen (except for Region Lüneburg)

C

DE

2007DE052PO008

Nordrhein-Westfalen

2

DE

2007DE052PO008

Nordrhein-Westfalen

3

DE

2007DE052PO009

Rheinland-Pfalz

A

DE

2007DE052PO009

Rheinland-Pfalz

B

DE

2007DE052PO009

Rheinland-Pfalz

C

DE

2007DE052PO010

Saarland

A

DE

2007DE052PO010

Saarland

B

DE

2007DE052PO010

Saarland

C

DE

2007DE052PO011

Schleswig-Holstein

A

DE

2007DE052PO011

Schleswig-Holstein

B

DE

2007DE052PO011

Schleswig-Holstein

C

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

A.1

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

A.2

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

B.1

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

C.2

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

D.1

DE

2007DE05UPO001

Germany Federal State

D.2

DK

2007DK052PO001

Denmark More and better jobs

01

EE

2007EE051PO001

Estonia Human Resource Development

1

EE

2007EE051PO001

Estonia Human Resource Development

2

EE

2007EE051PO001

Estonia Human Resource Development

3

ES

2007ES051PO002

Castilla La Mancha

A1

ES

2007ES051PO002

Castilla La Mancha

A2

ES

2007ES051PO003

Extremadura

A2

ES

2007ES051PO004

Galicia

A1

ES

2007ES051PO004

Galicia

A2

ES

2007ES051PO005

Andalucia

A1

ES

2007ES051PO005

Andalucia

A2

ES

2007ES051PO006

Asturias

B2

ES

2007ES051PO007

Ceuta

B2

ES

2007ES051PO008

Melilla

B2

ES

2007ES051PO009

Region De Murcia

B2

Annexes

61

62

MS

CCI

Title

Priority Code

ES

2007ES052PO001

Canarias

D2

ES

2007ES052PO002

Castilla y Leon

D2

ES

2007ES052PO003

Comunidad Valenciana

D2

ES

2007ES052PO004

Aragon

C2

ES

2007ES052PO005

Baleares

C2

ES

2007ES052PO006

Cantabria

C2

ES

2007ES052PO007

Cataluña

C2

ES

2007ES052PO008

Madrid

C2

ES

2007ES052PO009

Navarra

C2

ES

2007ES052PO010

Pais Vasco

C2

ES

2007ES052PO011

La Rioja

C2

ES

2007ES05UPO001

Spain Employment and Adaptability

A2

ES

2007ES05UPO002

Spain Fight Against Discrimination

A2

ES

2007ES05UPO002

Spain Fight Against Discrimination

A4

ES

2007ES05UPO002

Spain Fight Against Discrimination

B2

ES

2007ES05UPO002

Spain Fight Against Discrimination

B4

FI

2007FI052PO001

Mainland Finland

3

FI

2007FI052PO001

Mainland Finland

4

FI

2007FI052PO002

Finland: Åland

1

FR

2007FR051PO001

Martinique

3

FR

2007FR051PO002

Guadeloupe

3

FR

2007FR051PO003

Guyane

3

FR

2007FR052PO001

French National OP

2

GR

2007GR05UPO001

Greece Human Resource Development

04

GR

2007GR05UPO001

Greece Human Resource Development

10

GR

2007GR05UPO001

Greece Human Resource Development

11

GR

2007GR05UPO001

Greece Human Resource Development

12

HU

2007HU05UPO001

Hungary Social Renewal

1

HU

2007HU05UPO001

Hungary Social Renewal

3.

HU

2007HU05UPO001

Hungary Social Renewal

5.

HU

2007HU05UPO001

Hungary Social Renewal

8.

IE

2007IE052PO001

Ireland Human Capital Investment

1

IE

2007IE052PO001

Ireland Human Capital Investment

2

IT

2007IT051PO001

Campania

02

IT

2007IT051PO001

Campania

03

IT

2007IT051PO002

Calabria

02

IT

2007IT051PO002

Calabria

03

IT

2007IT051PO003

Sicilia

02

IT

2007IT051PO003

Sicilia

03

IT

2007IT051PO003

Sicilia

04

IT

2007IT051PO004

Basilicata

01

IT

2007IT051PO004

Basilicata

02

IT

2007IT051PO004

Basilicata

03

IT

2007IT051PO004

Basilicata

04

IT

2007IT051PO004

Basilicata

05

IT

2007IT051PO005

Puglia

02

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

MS

CCI

Title

Priority Code

IT

2007IT051PO005

Puglia

04

IT

2007IT051PO006

Italy Governance and System Actions

02

IT

2007IT051PO006

Italy Governance and System Actions

04

IT

2007IT051PO007

Italy Competences for Development

01

IT

2007IT052PO001

Abruzzo

02

IT

2007IT052PO001

Abruzzo

03

IT

2007IT052PO002

Emilia Romagna

02

IT

2007IT052PO003

Friuli Venezia Giulia

02

IT

2007IT052PO003

Friuli Venezia Giulia

03

IT

2007IT052PO003

Friuli Venezia Giulia

05

IT

2007IT052PO004

Lazio

02

IT

2007IT052PO004

Lazio

03

IT

2007IT052PO005

Liguria

02

IT

2007IT052PO005

Liguria

03

IT

2007IT052PO005

Liguria

04

IT

2007IT052PO006

Lombardia

02

IT

2007IT052PO006

Lombardia

03

IT

2007IT052PO006

Lombardia

04

IT

2007IT052PO007

Marche

02

IT

2007IT052PO007

Marche

03

IT

2007IT052PO007

Marche

05

IT

2007IT052PO008

Molise

02

IT

2007IT052PO008

Molise

03

IT

2007IT052PO009

Bolzano

02

IT

2007IT052PO010

Trento

02

IT

2007IT052PO010

Trento

03

IT

2007IT052PO011

Piemonte

02

IT

2007IT052PO012

Toscana

02

IT

2007IT052PO013

Umbria

02

IT

2007IT052PO013

Umbria

03

IT

2007IT052PO014

Valle d'Aosta

02

IT

2007IT052PO014

Valle d'Aosta

03

IT

2007IT052PO015

Veneto

02

IT

2007IT052PO015

Veneto

03

IT

2007IT052PO016

Sardegna

02

IT

2007IT052PO016

Sardegna

05

IT

2007IT052PO017

Italy Systemic Actions

02

LU

2007LU052PO001

Luxembourg

1

LU

2007LU052PO001

Luxembourg

2

LV

2007LV051PO001

Latvia Human Resources and Employment

3

MT

2007MT051PO001

Malta Empowering people for more jobs and a better quality of life

3

NL

2007NL052PO001

Nederland

3

PL

2007PL051PO001

Poland Human Resources

01

PL

2007PL051PO001

Poland Human Resources

07

PT

2007PT051PO001

Azores

EP1

Annexes

63

64

MS

CCI

Title

Priority Code

PT

2007PT05UPO001

Portugal Human Potential

EP6

PT

2007PT05UPO001

Portugal Human Potential

EP8

PT

2007PT05UPO001

Portugal Human Potential

EP9

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

1

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

2

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

3

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

4

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

5

RO

2007RO051PO001

Romania Human Resources Development

6

SE

2007SE052PO001

Sweden

2

SI

2007SI051PO001

Slovenia Human Resources Development

4

SK

2007SK05UPO001

Slovakia Education

26130

SK

2007SK05UPO002

Slovakia Employment and Social Inclusion

27120

UK

2007UK051PO001

Highlands and Islands of Scotland

2

UK

2007UK051PO002

West Wales and the Valleys

1

UK

2007UK051PO002

West Wales and the Valleys

2

UK

2007UK051PO002

West Wales and the Valleys

3

UK

2007UK052PO001

East Wales

1

UK

2007UK052PO001

East Wales

2

UK

2007UK052PO002

Lowlands and Uplands of Scotland

1

UK

2007UK052PO002

Lowlands and Uplands of Scotland

2

UK

2007UK05UPO001

England and Gibraltar

1

UK

2007UK05UPO001

England and Gibraltar

2

UK

2007UK05UPO001

England and Gibraltar

4

UK

2007UK05UPO001

England and Gibraltar

5

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

ANNEX 5: STANDARDISED INDICATOR NAMES USED FOR ANALYSIS The indicators used in the report have been collected from the official ESF Operational Programme reports (Annual Implementation Reports and Evaluations). Each Member State defined a set of physical indicators “to be able to monitor a programme’s implementation and judge its performance against the objectives set”98. In each Operational Programme (and more specifically in the Programme Complements) a set of indicators have been defined and target levels that corresponded to the objectives of the programme have been assigned. There are three levels of indicators that were used for the analysis: output, result and impact indicators99. In order to analyse all indicators from different Operational Programmes, a procedure was introduced to standardize the indicators’ names. This procedure consisted of inserting the indicator name in the database in its original language, then translate it into English and allocate it a name mentioned in the list below.

Indicator name in its

Indicator exact translation

original language

in English

Ex: Anzahl der geplanten

Ex: Number of planned male

TeilnehmerInnen

and female

Standardised indicator’s name Ex: Participants (TOTAL)

98. European Commission Directorate-General XVI Regional Policy and Cohesion: coordination and evaluation of operations The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working papers WORKING PAPER 3. Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An indicative methodology. (Brussels: 2000) 99. For a description of the differences between types of indicators see Annex 4 - ESF Vocabulary.

Annexes

65

List of Standardised Output, Result and Impact Indicator Names:

OUTPUT INDICATORS100 Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Further specifications

Participants (TOTAL)

Total participants of a measure or a priority starting the activities.

Characteristics of participants can be defined according to:

Participants

Participants101 starting the activities in a measure or a sub-measure (activity or action).

- Gender (Male, Female, Both)

Participants (completing)

Participants completing the activities in a measure or in a sub-measure (activity or action).

Participants (interrupting)

Participants interrupting the activities in a measure or in a sub-measure (activity or action).

Participants (continuing the same activities)

Participants continuing the same activities even after the end of the implementation year.

- Age (50) - Status in the Labour Market (Employed, Self employed (entrepreneurs), Unemployed, Short term Unemployed (less than 12 months), Long term Unemployed (more than 12 Months), Inactive, (all people who are not classified as employed or unemployed (among persons of 16-64 years old), Inactive in training (mainly students), Workers with special status). - Educational level ( Primary or lower secondary, Upper secondary, Postsecondary non-tertiary, Tertiary, post-tertiary, other non-academic, Vocational Education, Lower than primary level). - Vulnerable groups (Minorities, Migrants, Disabled, Other disadvantaged groups, EU Citizens, Third country Nationals, Disabled+Migrants). - Status (Researcher, Students, Households, Apprentices, Teachers, Trainers, Managers, Social Workers, Health workers, Civil servants, Farmers).

100. Please note that some standardised indicators can be used at different levels, according to the context of the intervention. 101. Participants without specification are considered to be beneficiaries at the starting point.

66

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Further specifications

Organisations (TOTAL)

Total of organisations participating in a measure.

Characteristics of Organisations are:

Organisations

Organisations include all kind of organisations supported, helped or involved in ESF activities.

(size not specified), Large enterprises, Organisations not specified, Public Employment Services (PES), Schools or education institutions (referring to the individual schools/educational institutes or training organisations participating in a measure/being supported), non-profit organisations (community, voluntary, charity, NGOs).

Systems + Structures

Systems or structures supported by ESF

Systems and structures can be: Educational (for measures addressing the creation or improvement of school or educational systems or parts of educational systems/structures in a specific area/region, i.e. the creation of

Microenterprises, SMEs, Firms.

new departments in Universities, new life-long education centers etc), Human Resource management, Other Initiatives implemented

Activities or initiatives implemented under a measure.

Partnerships

Partnerships or networks supported

Courses

Training courses (Programmes) realised under a measure.

Curricula designed

New educational or training a course of study developed (list of topics + objectives , teaching methods and contents).

Services delivered

New services designed under ESF delivered to participants.

Research and analysis

Studies, research realised.

Jobs created102

Workplaces created

Jobs supported

Workplaces supported

Jobs safeguarded

Workplaces safeguarded

Qualifications achieved103

Number of qualification achieved by participants after the end of training activities (certifications).

102. If those jobs refer to people placed into employment they could be used as result indicator and added to “Participants integrated into the labour market”. The indicator “Jobs created” is in fact used as Output or Result depending on the context. 103. Although in most of OPs it is listed as Output, “Qualifications achieved” can also be used as result indicator and analysed together with “Participants gaining a qualification”.

Annexes

67

68

Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Further specifications

Projects funded (TOTAL)

Total projects of a measure or a priority funded.

Projects funded

ESF projects funded (started)

Projects completed (TOTAL)

Total projects of a measure or a priority completed.

Projects completed

ESF projects completed

Start-ups supported

New Start-ups supported

Firms created

New firms created

Events organised

Events, conferences, meetings organised.

Products new

New products developed under a measure.

Scholarships

Scholarships funded under ESF.

Places created

e.g. at universities (for students), childcare, etc

Days

Days of activities

Hours

Hours of activities (training, counselling, etc).

Years

Years of duration of activities or projects.

Months

Months of duration of activities or projects.

Apprenticeship places created

New apprenticeship places created.

Apprenticeship places supported

Number of apprenticeship places receiving ESF support.

Incentives

Economic individual incentives (for training or business creation, self employment, etc.)

Equipment

New equipments purchased with ESF (e.g. PC stations, etc.)

Participants * days

Training and work number of days * participants.

Participants*Hours

Participants * Hours of Activities

Indirect Beneficiaries

For example: a measure is directed at students, but teachers are trained in order to teach the students. Teachers are therefore indirect beneficiaries.

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Electronic tools

Electronic/Virtual tools developed (portals, branch points, software etc).

Internships places created

Traineeships-stages places created.

Vacancies notified to PES

Vacancies about which the PES is informed, which is an indicator of measuring success of contacts with employers.

Action plans

Individual action plans or employment plans for jobseekers produced.

Further specifications

RESULT INDICATORS Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Positive outcomes on leaving

This label is used for all results indicators for a measure, so all positive outcomes of the measure after the end of the activities.

Participants starting a training

After having benefited from counselling services or guidance

Further specifications

activities. Participants integrated into the labour market

People integrated into the labour market after the end of the activities.

Participants gaining a qualification

Participants gaining a qualification after the end of training activities.

Participants following insertion paths

Participants following insertion paths in the labour market after the end of activities.

Start-ups existing after 1 year

Number of start-ups that continue to exist 1 year after the creation.

Annexes

People integrated into the LM can be classified according to the time after completion of activities in which they have been integrated: 0-3 months after the end of the activities, 3-6 months after the end of the activities, 6-12 months after the end of the activities, more than 12 months after the end of activities, before the end of the programme.

69

IMPACT INDICATORS

70

Name of the standardised indicator

Definition

Activity Rate

General activity rate of a country/ region/sector.

Unemployment rate

General unemployment rate of a country/ region/sector.

Start-ups existing after 2 years

Number of start-ups that continue to exist 2 years after the creation.

Unemployment rate of young people on the total Unemployment rate

The relation of youth unemployment rate (persons aged 15-24 years) to the total unemployment rate (M/F).

Long-term unemployed on the total unemployed

The relation of the long-term unemployed persons (12-24 months) to the total number of unemployed persons.

Participants that consider an advantage participating in the measure

% of persons who consider that their participation in the Measure was advantageous for them.

Employment rate

General employment rate of a country/ region/sector.

Students access to Internet index Productivity growth

The indicator measuring the students access to the Internet.

Participation in Lifelong learning (% of 25-64 years age)

‘Participation in lifelong learning (% in the population of 25-64 years).

Participants starting tertiary education

Share of persons who continue studies at the college among total of high school pupils -recipients of the scholarship in the last grade.

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Index of figures, statistical tables and insights FIGURES Figure 1:

Number of OPs and total ESF co-funded expenditure per Objective in the ESF 2000-2006

6

period Figure 2:

Average yearly participation per Member State

6

Figure 3:

The proportion of the yearly average of ESF beneficiaries per Member State in relation to

7

the total population between 15-64 years per Member State Figure 4:

Total ESF co-funded expenditure per Member State: proportion between ESF and

8

Member State funds Figure 5:

Total ESF co-funded expenditure per participant per Member State (in €)

9

Figure 6:

ESF community expenditure per participant per Member State (in €)

9

Figure 7:

Gender breakdown of ESF participants

10

Figure 8:

Status of ESF participants in the labour market

10

Figure 9:

Share of foreigners in total population, per Member State in 2007

18

Figure 10:

Split of foreigners in the EU into third country nationals and migrants from EU-27

18

Figure 11:

Measures on migrants and minorities with actions for persons (I), systems (II) and jointly

36

for both (I&II), 2000-2006 Figure 12:

ESF measures supporting migrants and minorities by type of intervention, 2000-2006

36

Figure 13:

Division of expenditure per type of intervention, 2000-2006

38

Figure 14:

Migrant and minority participants per type of intervention, 2000-2006

39

Index of figures, statistical tables and insights

71

TABLES Table 1:

Population of foreign citizens in the EU-27 Member States, 2008

17

Table 2:

Immigrants (flow) by citizenship group, 2006 or latest available year (actual figures)

19

Table 3:

Asylum applications in the EU, 2009 (actual figures)

20

Table 4:

Barriers to Migrant Integration in the Labour Market

21

Table 5:

Measures addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2000-2006

28

Table 6 :

Priority axes addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2007-2013

29

Table 7:

Claimed expenditure of measures supporting migrants and minorities (2000-2006)

30

Table 8:

Identified measures clearly targeting Roma (ESF co-funded expenditure in 2000-2006

31

Table 9 :

Budget allocated to priority axes supporting migrants and minorities, 2007-2013

32

Table 10:

Number of migrants and minorities and total participants, for Member States reporting

33

relevant data, 2000-2006 Table 11:

Migrants and minorities’ measures, by typology per Member State, 2000-2006

37

Table 12:

Expenditure (Community plus national and private) on people, on systems and structures,

38

and combined expenditure on both through the measures that support migrants and minorities, 2000-2006 (in € million) Table 13:

Migrants and minorities by type of intervention per Member State, 2000-2006

40

Table 14:

Number of migrant and minorities participating in ESF 2007-2008

44

INSIGHTS Insight 1:

The multi-dimensional programme for migrants in Aragón, Spain

40

Insight 2:

Sweden: developing networking and regional partnerships on integration and diversity

42

Insight 3:

Greece: Building and improving training and accompaniment facilities for assisting

43

specific disadvantaged groups in areas and sectors with high unemployment

72

Insight 4:

Outcomes of projects with ethnic minorities in Great Britain

43

Insight 5:

Supporting Entrepreneurship in the UK

47

The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Index of figures, statistical tables and insights

73

What ESF does for you ESF: active labour market policies and public employment services ESF: adaptability of enterprises and continuous training of workers ESF: developing human potential in research and innovation ESF and labour mobility ESF: education and lifelong learning ESF: women, gender mainstreaming and reconciliation of work and private life ESF and Roma ESF: sustainable development and eco-technologies ESF: migrants and minorities ESF: urban areas and local employment ESF and older workers ESF and health ESF and entrepreneurship ESF and young people ESF and disability ESF and institutional capacity ESF and social inclusion ESF and equality mainstreaming ESF and social partners ESF support to building partnerships ESF: culture and tourism

Check the latest on these publications at http://ec.europa.eu/esf