Euroopa Liidu perioodi 2021–2027 Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi, Sisejulgeolekufondi ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu vahehindamiseks riigihanke komisjoni koosseisu ja riigihanke alusdokumentide kinnitamine

Dokumendiregister	Siseministeerium
Viit	1-24/147
Registreeritud	04.10.2023
Sünkroonitud	26.03.2024
Liik	Otsus
Funktsioon	1 Ministeeriumi töö korraldamine. Juhtimine. Planeerimine. Aruandlus
Sari	1-24 Otsus
Toimik	1-24/2023
Juurdepääsupiirang	Avalik
Juurdepääsupiirang
Adressaat
Saabumis/saatmisviis
Vastutaja	Anu Rebane (kantsleri juhtimisala, varade asekantsleri valdkond, õigusosakond)
Originaal	Ava uues aknas

Dokument on kokkuvõtte tegemiseks liiga mahukas (676351 tm).

Failid

1-24147 04.10.2023 Otsus.asice

270392_hankepass_taiendavate_selgitustega.pdf

270392_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf

270392_vastavustingimused.pdf

HD Lisa 1.2_juhendmaterjal_GUIDANCE.pdf

HD Lisa_1.1_revised-background-note-mid-term-evaluation-and-evaluation-plans-v2.pdf

Hankeleping.pdf

Otsus.pdf

RHAD uldosa .pdf

Tehniline kirjeldus.pdf

Vorm Meeskonna liikmed.pdf

Vorm. Meeskonnaliikmete kinnitus.pdf

270392_hankepass_taiendavate_selgitustega.pdf

1 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

HANKEPASS

Hankepass ehk Euroopa ühtne hankedokument (ESPD) on ettevõtja enda kinnitus, mis on esialgne tõend ametiasutuste või kolmandate isikute poolt väljastatavate tõendite asemel. Käesolev PDF vormingus registri poolt koostatud dokument on selgitava iseloomuga ja sisaldab hankija sätestatud tingimusi, ettevõtjalt oodatavate vastuste vormingu vaadet ja registri poolt lisatud viiteid RHS-ile. Käesolev dokument ei ole ette nähtud täitmiseks vaid tingimustega tutvumiseks. Ettevõtja täidab hankepassi elektrooniliselt infosüsteemis või ESPD teenuses.

I OSA: HANKE JA HANKIJAGA SEOTUD TEAVE

Teave avaldamise kohta Teate number ELTs:

ELT URL:

Riigi ametlik teataja:

270392

Kui Euroopa Liidu Teatajas hankekuulutust avaldatud ei ole või kui selle avaldamist ei nõuta, peab avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija ise teabe esitama, et hankemenetlust saaks üheselt identifitseerida (nt viide siseriikliku avaldamise kohta).

Hankija andmed Ametlik nimi:

Siseministeerium (70000562)

Riik:

Eesti

Hankija aadress:

Pikk tn 61

Hankija veebiaadress:

http://www.siseministeerium.ee

E-posti aadress:

[email protected]

2 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Teave hankemenetluse kohta Hanke menetlusliik:

Avatud hankemenetlus

Pealkiri:

Euroopa Liidu perioodi 2021-2027 Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi (AMIF), Sisejulgeolekufondi (ISF) ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu (BMVI) vahehindamine

Lühikirjeldus:

Riigihanke eesmärgiks on riigihanke alusdokumentides sätestatud tingimustel ja korras perioodi 2021– 2027 Euroopa Liidu siseturvalisuspoliitika fondide, Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi (AMIF), Sisejulgeolekufondi (ISF) ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu (BMVI) vahehindamine (edaspidi nimetatud ka vahehindamine) ning kolme hindamisaruande koostamine (edaspidi töö) lähteülesandes toodud ja riigihankes sätestatud tingimustel. Eeltoodud 3 (kolm) rakenduskava kiitis Euroopa Komisjon heaks septembris ja oktoobris 2022. Rakenduskavade elluviimine toimub aastatel 2021-2029.

Avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija poolt toimikule antud viitenumber (kui on asjakohane):

270392

Hanke liik:

Teenused

Hanke CPV-d: 73110000-6 Uurimistööteenused

3 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

II OSA: ETTEVÕTJAGA SEOTUD TEAVE

A: Teave ettevõtja kohta

Nimi:

Registrikood:

Riik:

Aadress:

Üldine veebileht:

Kontaktisikud:

Kontaktide e-posti aadressid:

Kontaktide telefoninumbrid:

Ettevõtte suurus:

Töötajate arv:

Käive:

Valuuta:

Finantsalase võimekuse kirjeldus:

Tehnilise võimekuse kirjeldus:

Teostatud tööde kirjeldus:

Ettevõtja tegevusvaldkond:

4 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

ETTEVÕTJA ON KAITSTUD TÖÖKOHT

Ainult reserveeritud hangete puhul: kas ettevõtja puhul on tegemist kaitstud töökohaga, sotsiaalse ettevõttega või ta täidab lepingut kaitstud tööhõive programmide raames?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Mis on Teie vastus? 2. Milline on puudega või ebasoodsas olukorras olevate töötajate osakaal? 3. Kui seda on nõutud, täpsustage, millisesse puudega või ebasoodsas olukorras olevate töötajate kategooriasse või kategooriatesse asjaomased töötajad kuuluvad? 4. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 5. URL 6. Kood 7. Väljaandja

ETTEVÕTJA ON KANTUD TUNNUSTATUD ETTEVÕTJATE AMETLIKKU NIMEKIRJA

Kui see on asjakohane, siis kas ettevõtja on kantud tunnustatud ettevõtjate ametlikku nimekirja või kas tal on olemas samaväärne tõend (nt riikliku (eel)kvalifitseerimissüsteemi alusel)?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Mis on Teie vastus? 2. a) Vajaduse korral märkige asjakohane registreerimis- või sertifitseerimisnumber: 3. c) Viited, millele registreerimine või sertifitseerimine tugineb ja vajaduse korral ametlikus nimekirjas omistatud klassifikatsioon: 4. d) Kas registreerimine või sertifitseerimine hõlmab kõiki nõutud valikukriteeriume? 5. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 6. URL 7. Kood 8. Väljaandja

HANKEMENETLUSES KOOS OSALEVAD ETTEVÕTJAD

Kas ettevõtja osaleb hankemenetluses koos teistega?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Ettevõtja nimi 2. Ettevõtja ID 3. Ettevõtja roll 4. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 5. URL 6. Kood 7. Väljaandja

TEAVE TEISTE ÜKSUSTE SUUTLIKKUSELE TOETUMISE KOHTA

Kas ettevõtja toetub teiste üksuste suutlikkusele, et täita esitatud valikukriteeriumid ning eeskirjad (kui neid on)?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Mis on Teie vastus? 2. Ettevõtja nimi 3. Ettevõtja ID 4. Ettevõtja roll 5. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 6. URL 7. Kood 8. Väljaandja

5 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

TEAVE NENDE ALLHANKIJATE KOHTA, KELLE NÄITAJATELE ETTEVÕTJA EI TUGINE

Kas ettevõtja kavatseb sõlmida lepingu mis tahes osa kohta allhanke kolmanda isikuga?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Mis on Teie vastus? 2. Ettevõtja nimi 3. Ettevõtja ID 4. Ettevõtja roll 5. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 6. URL 7. Kood 8. Väljaandja

HANKE OSAD

Hanke osad, mille kohta ettevõtja soovib pakkumuse esitada

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Hanke osa number 2. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 3. URL 4. Kood 5. Väljaandja

ETTEVÕTJA KINNITUSED MAKSUDE TASUMISE KOHTA

Kas ettevõtja saab esitada tõendi sotsiaalkindlustusmaksete ja maksude tasumise kohta või esitada teabe, mis võimaldaks avaliku sektori hankijal või võrgustiku sektori hankijal saada sellise teabe otse ükskõik millise liikmesriigi tasuta andmebaasist?

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Mis on Teie vastus? 2. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? 3. URL 4. Kood 5. Väljaandja

B: Teave ettevõtja esindajate kohta

Eesnimi:

Perekonnanimi:

Sünniaeg:

Sünnikoht:

Aadress:

Linn/vald:

Postiindeks:

Riik:

E-post:

Telefon:

Vajaduse korral esitage üksikasjalik teave esindamise kohta (selle vormid, ulatus, eesmärk, ...):

6 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

III OSA: KÕRVALDAMISE ALUSED

A: Kõrvalejätmise alused seoses kriminaalasjas tehtud süüdimõistva otsusega

OSALEMINE KURITEGELIKUS ORGANISATSIOONIS

Kas ettevõtja ise või tema haldus-, juht- või järelevalveorgani liige või isik, kellel on volitused seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on lõpliku süüdimõistva kohtuotsusega süüdi mõistetud kuritegelikus organisatsioonis osalemise eest kõige rohkem viimase viie aasta jooksul või kehtib süüdimõistvas kohtuotsuses sätestatud kõrvalejäämise kohustus endiselt?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 1 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud kuritegelikus ühenduses osalemise eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Süüdimõistmise kuupäev (Kuupäev) 3. Põhjus (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 4. Kes süüdi mõisteti? (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 5. Süüdimõistvas otsuses sõnaselgelt esitatud kõrvalejätmise kestus. (Periood) 6. Kas olete võtnud meetmeid, et tõendada oma usaldusväärsust („Self-Cleaning”)? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 7. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 8. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 9. URL (Url) 10. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 11. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

KORRUPTSIOON

Kas ettevõtja ise või tema haldus-, juht- või järelevalveorgani liige või isik, kellel on volitused seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on lõpliku süüdimõistva kohtuotsusega süüdi mõistetud korruptsiooni eest kõige rohkem viimase viie aasta jooksul või kehtib süüdimõistvas kohtuotsuses sätestatud kõrvalejäämise kohustus endiselt? See kõrvalejätmise alus hõlmab ka korruptsiooni avaliku sektori hankija (võrgustiku sektori hankija) või ettevõtja riigi õiguses sätestatud määratluses.

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 1 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud aususe kohustuse rikkumise või korruptiivse teo eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

7 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

PETTUS

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 1 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud kelmuse eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

TERRORIAKTI TOIMEPANEK VÕI TERRORISTLIKU TEGEVUSEGA SEOTUD

ÕIGUSRIKKUMISED

Kas ettevõtja ise või tema haldus-, juht- või järelevalveorgani liige või isik, kellel on volitused seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on lõpliku süüdimõistva kohtuotsusega süüdi mõistetud terroriakti toimepaneku või terroristliku tegevusega seotud õigusrikkumiste eest kõige rohkem viimase viie aasta jooksul või kehtib süüdimõistvas kohtuotsuses sätestatud kõrvalejäämise kohustus endiselt?

Viide seadusele:

8 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

RHS § 95 lg 1 p 1 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud terroriakti toimepaneku või muu terroristliku tegevusega seotud kuriteo või sellele kihutamise, kaasaaitamise või selle katse eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

RAHAPESU VÕI TERRORISMI RAHASTAMINE

Kas ettevõtja ise või tema haldus-, juht- või järelevalveorgani liige või isik, kellel on volitused seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on lõpliku süüdimõistva kohtuotsusega süüdi mõistetud rahapesu või terrorismi rahastamise eest kõige rohkem viimase viie aasta jooksul või kehtib süüdimõistvas kohtuotsuses sätestatud kõrvalejäämise kohustus endiselt?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 1 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud rahapesualase süüteo või terrorismi rahastamise eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

9 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

LASTE TÖÖJÕU KASUTAMINE JA MUUD INIMKAUBANDUSE VORMID

Kas ettevõtja ise või tema haldus-, juht- või järelevalveorgani liige või isik, kellel on volitused seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on lõpliku süüdimõistva kohtuotsusega süüdi mõistetud laste tööjõu kasutamise või muude inimkaubanduse vormide eest kõige rohkem viimase viie aasta jooksul või kehtib süüdimõistvas kohtuotsuses sätestatud kõrvalejäämise kohustus endiselt?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 3 "keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud laste tööjõu ebaseadusliku kasutamise või inimkaubandusega seotud teo eest". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

B: Kõrvalejätmise alused seoses maksude või sotsiaalkindlustusmaksete tasumisega

MAKSUDE TASUMINE

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud oma maksude tasumise kohustusi nii asukohariigis kui ka avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija liikmesriigis, kui see erineb asukohariigist?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 4 „kellel on riikliku maksu, makse või keskkonnatasu maksuvõlg maksukorralduse seaduse tähenduses või maksuvõlg /…/ tema asukohariigi õigusaktide kohaselt“

10 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Tingimuse kirjeldus: Piirmäär: 0

Valuuta: EUR

Lisainfo: Maksukorralduse seaduse kohaselt ei väljasta maksuhaldur maksuvõlgade tõendit juhul,kui maksukohustuslasel olev kõikide sama maksuhalduri hallatavate maksude võlg, arvestamata haldusaktiga kindlaksmääramata intressi, on väiksem kui 100 eurot või kui maksuvõla tasumine on ajatatud. Välismaise ettevõtja puhul väljastatakse maksuvõlgade tõend tema asukohariigi õigusaktide kohaselt.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Asjaomane riik või liikmesriik (Riigikood) 3. Asjaomane summa (Summa) 4. Valuuta (Vääring) 5. Kas see kohustuste rikkumine on tuvastatud muude vahenditega kui kohtu- või haldusotsusega? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 6. Kirjeldage kasutatud vahendeid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 7. Kui kohustuste rikkumine tuvastati kohtu- või haldusotsusega, märkige, kas see otsus on lõplik ja siduv. (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 8. Süüdimõistmise kuupäev (Kuupäev) 9. Süüdimõistvas otsuses sõnaselgelt esitatud kõrvalejätmise kestus. (Periood) 10. Kas ettevõtja on täitnud oma kohustused tasumisele kuuluvate maksude või sotsiaalkindlustusmaksete tasumisega või siduva kokkuleppe sõlmimisega tasumisele kuuluvate maksude või sotsiaalkindlustusmaksete, sealhulgas vajaduse korral kogunenud intresside ja viiviste tasumise kohta? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 11. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 12. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 13. URL (Url) 14. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 15. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

SOTSIAALKINDLUSTUSMAKSETE TASUMINE

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud oma sotsiaalkindlustusmaksete tasumise kohustusi nii asukohariigis kui ka avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija liikmesriigis, kui see erineb asukohariigist?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 4 „kellel on riikliku /…/ makse /…/ maksuvõlg maksukorralduse seaduse tähenduses või sotsiaalkindlustusemaksete võlg tema asukohariigi õigusaktide kohaselt

11 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Tingimuse kirjeldus: Piirmäär: 0

Valuuta: EUR

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

C: Kõrvalejätmise alused seoses maksejõuetusega, huvide konfliktiga või ametialaste käitumisreeglite rikkumisega

KESKKONNAÕIGUSE VALDKONNAS KOHALDATAVATE KOHUSTUSTE TÄITMATA

JÄTMINE

Kas ettevõtja on enda teada rikkunud keskkonnaõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 2 „kes on rikkunud õigusaktidest või kollektiivlepingust tulenevaid keskkonnaõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

12 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 3. Kas olete võtnud meetmeid, et tõendada oma usaldusväärsust („Self-Cleaning”)? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 4. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 5. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 6. URL (Url) 7. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 8. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

SOTSIAALÕIGUSE VALDKONNAS KOHALDATAVATE KOHUSTUSTE TÄITMATA

JÄTMINE

Kas ettevõtja on enda teada rikkunud sotsiaalõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 2 „kes on rikkunud õigusaktidest või kollektiivlepingust tulenevaid sotsiaalõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

TÖÖÕIGUSE VALDKONNAS KOHALDATAVATE KOHUSTUSTE TÄITMATA

JÄTMINE

Kas ettevõtja on enda teada rikkunud tööõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 2 „kes on rikkunud õigusaktidest või kollektiivlepingust tulenevaid tööõiguse valdkonnas kohaldatavaid kohustusi“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

13 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

PANKROT

Kas ettevõtja on pankrotis?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kes on pankrotis, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 3. Märkige põhjused, miks lepingu täitmine on sellest hoolimata võimalik. Seda teavet ei ole tarvis esitada, kui ettevõtja kõrvalejätmine on kohaldatava siseriikliku õiguse alusel muudetud konkreetsel juhul kohustuslikuks ja puudub võimalus teha erandit, isegi kui ettevõtja suudab lepingut täita. (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 4. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 5. URL (Url) 6. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 7. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

MAKSEJÕUETUS

Kas ettevõtja suhtes on algatatud maksejõuetus- või likvideerimismenetlus?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kes on likvideerimisel või kelle suhtes on algatatud pankrotimenetlus, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

14 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

KOKKULEPE VÕLAUSALDAJATEGA

Kas ettevõtja on sõlminud kokkuleppe võlausaldajatega?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kes on muus sellesarnases olukorras tema asukohamaa õigusaktide kohaselt, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

SISERIIKLIKU ÕIGUSE KOHANE SAMALAADNE OLUKORD, NÄITEKS PANKROT

Kas ettevõtja on siseriiklike õigusnormide alusel toimuva samalaadse menetluse tõttu samalaadses olukorras?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kes on muus sellesarnases olukorras tema asukohamaa õigusaktide kohaselt“, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

15 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

VARA HALDAB LIKVIDEERIJA

Kas ettevõtja vara haldab likvideerija või kohus?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kes on pankrotis, likvideerimisel või kelle suhtes on algatatud pankrotimenetlus või kes on muus sellesarnases olukorras tema asukohamaa õigusaktide kohaselt, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

ÄRITEGEVUS ON PEATATUD

Kas ettevõtja äritegevus on peatatud?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 3 „kelle äritegevus on peatatud, välja arvatud asjade ostmisel RHS § 49 lõikes 4 sätestatud juhul ja tingimustel“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

16 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

SÜÜDI AMETIALASTE KÄITUMISREEGLITE OLULISES RIKKUMISES

Kas ettevõtja on süüdi ametialaste käitumisreeglite olulises rikkumises? Vt siseriiklikud õigusaktid, asjaomane teade või hankedokumendid, kui see on asjakohane.

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 4 „kes on raskelt eksinud ametialaste käitumisreeglite vastu ja see muudab tema aususe küsitavaks“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

KONKURENTSI MOONUTAMISE EESMÄRGIL TEISTE ETTEVÕTJATEGA

SÕLMITUD KOKKULEPPED

Kas ettevõtja on teiste ettevõtjatega sõlminud kokkuleppeid, mille eesmärk on moonutada konkurentsi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 5 „konkurentsi kahjustava kokkuleppe, ettevõtjate ühenduse otsuse või kooskõlastatud tegevuse tõttu“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

17 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

HANKEMENETLUSES OSALEMISEGA KAASNEV HUVIDE KONFLIKT

Kas ettevõtja on teadlik hankemenetluses osalemisega kaasnevast mis tahes huvide konfliktist siseriikliku õiguse, asjakohase teatise või hankedokumentide kohaselt?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 6 „kui huvide konflikti ei ole muude vahenditega võimalik vältida“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Kirjeldage neid (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 3. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 4. URL (Url) 5. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 6. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

OTSENE VÕI KAUDNE OSALEMINE KÄESOLEVA HANKEMENETLUSE

ETTEVALMISTAMISEL

Kas ettevõtja või temaga seotud ettevõtja on nõustanud avaliku sektori hankijat või võrgustiku sektori hankijat hankemenetluse ettevalmistamisel või olnud muul viisil seotud hankemenetluse ettevalmistamisega?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 7 „kelle pakkumuse või taotluse koostamisel on osalenud isik, kes on osalenud sama riigihanke ettevalmistamisel või on muul viisil hankijaga seotud, ja sellele isikule seetõttu teadaolev info annab talle eelise teiste riigihankes osalejate eest ning sellest tingitud konkurentsi moonutamist ei ole muude vahendistega võimalik vältida“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

18 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

ENNETÄHTAEGNE LÕPETAMINE, KAHJUTASU VÕI VÕRRELDAVAD

SANKTSIOONID

Kas ettevõtja on kogenud, et varasem riigihankeleping või võrgustiku sektori hankijaga sõlmitud varasem hankeleping või varasem kontsessioonileping on lõpetatud enneaegselt, või on määratud kahjutasu või sellega võrreldavad sanktsioonid seoses kõnealuse varasema lepinguga?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 8 „kes on oluliselt või pidevalt rikkunud eelnevalt sõlmitud hankelepingu olulist tingimust või hankelepingute olulisi tingimusi nii, et rikkumise tulemusena on lepingust taganetud või leping üles öeldud, hinda alandatud, hüvitatud kahju või makstud leppetrahvi". Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud. Alates 1.09.2017 alustatud hangete tulemusena sõlmitud riigihankelepingute kohta leiab infot riigihangete registrist.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

SÜÜDI VALEANDMETE ESITAMISES, ON JÄTNUD TEAVET ESITAMATA, EI SUUDA

NÕUTUD DOKUMENTE ESITADA, HANKINUD KÄESOLEVA MENETLUSE KOHTA

KONFIDENTSIAALSET TEAVET

Kas ettevõtja on olnud ühes järgmistest olukordadest: a) ta on kõrvalejätmise aluste puudumise või valikukriteeriumide täitmise kontrollimiseks nõutava teabe esitamisel esitanud valeandmeid; b) ta on jätnud sellist teavet esitamata; c) ta ei ole esitanud viivitamata avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija nõutud täiendavad dokumendid, ja d) ta on tegutsenud eesmärgiga mõjutada lubamatul viisil avaliku sektori hankija või võrgustiku sektori hankija otsustusprotsessi, et saada konfidentsiaalseid andmeid, mis võivad anda talle põhjendamatu eelise hankemenetluses, või hooletusest esitanud eksitavat teavet, mis võib oluliselt mõjutada kõrvalejätmise, valiku või lepingu hindamise kohta tehtavaid otsuseid?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 9 „kes on esitanud valeandmeid käesolevas paragrahvis sätestatud või RHS §- des 98-101 sätestatu alusel hankija kehtestatud kvalifitseerimise tingimustele vastavuse kohta“;

19 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

RHS § 95 lg 4 p 9 „kes on jätnud andmed käesolevas paragrahvis sätestatud või käesoleva seaduse §-des 98-101 sätestatu alusel hankija kehtestatud kvalifitseerimise tingimustele vastavuse kohta esitamata“; RHS § 95 lg 4 p 9 „kes on jätnud käesoleva seaduse § 104 lõigete 7 ja 8 alusel hankija nõutud täiendavad dokumendid esitamata“; RHS § 95 lg 4 p 10 „kes on tegutsenud eesmärgiga mõjutada hankijat või esitanud hooletusest eksitavat teavet, mis on võinud mõjutada hankija otsuseid riigihankes, või on tegutsenud eesmärgiga saada konfidentsiaalset teavet, mis on võinud anda talle põhjendamatu eelise teiste riigihankes osalejate ees“. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Mis on Teie vastus? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 2. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 3. URL (Url) 4. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 5. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

D: Ainult siseriiklikest õigusaktidest tulenevad kõrvalejätmise alused

AINULT SISERIIKLIKEST ÕIGUSAKTIDEST TULENEVAD KÕRVALEJÄTMISE

ALUSED: SEADUSLIKU ALUSETA VIIBIVALE VÄLISMAALASELE TÖÖTAMISE

VÕIMALDAMISE EEST

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud RHS § 95 lg 1 p-st 2 tuleneva kõrvalejätmise alusega seotud kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 2 „keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget, prokuristi või muud isikut, kellel on volitus seda ettevõtjat esindada, tema nimel otsuseid teha või teda kontrollida, on karistatud riigis ilma seadusliku aluseta viibivale välismaalasele töötamise võimaldamise või välismaalase Eestis töötamise tingimuste rikkumise võimaldamise, sealhulgas seaduses sätestatud töötasu määrast väiksema töötasu maksmise eest“. Kohustuslik kõrvaldamise alus. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

AINULT SISERIIKLIKEST ÕIGUSAKTIDEST TULENEVAD KÕRVALEJÄTMISE

ALUSED: RAHVUSVAHELISE SANKTSIOONI SUBJEKT

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud RHS § 95 lg 1 p-st 5 tuleneva kõrvalejätmise alusega seotud kohustusi?

20 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 1 p 5. Alates 14.08.2022 kontrollib hankija kõrvaldamise aluse puudumist pakkuja või taotleja kinnituse alusel. Hankija võib põhjendatud kahtluse korral nõuda pakkujalt või taotlejalt täiendavate andmete või tõendite esitamist, mis võimaldavad kõrvaldamise alust kontrollida (RHS § 96 lg 2.1).

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

AINULT SISERIIKLIKEST ÕIGUSAKTIDEST TULENEVAD KÕRVALEJÄTMISE

ALUSED: KARISTATUD MAKSUALASTE SÜÜTEGUDE EEST

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud RHS § 95 lg 4 p-st 11 tuleneva kõrvalejätmise alusega seotud kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 11 „keda või kelle haldus-, juhtimis- või järelevalveorgani liiget või muud seaduslikku esindajat on karistatud maksualaste süütegude eest“. Vabatahtlik kõrvaldamise alus. Kui hankemenetlusest kõrvaldamise alus esineb, võib ettevõtja soovi korral esitada tõendeid selle kohta, et ta on võtnud meetmeid oma usaldusväärsuse taastamiseks. Heastamise võimalus on ettevõtjal juhul, kui tegemist on rahvusvahelist piirmäära ületava hankega või hankija on selle hanke alusdokumentides ette näinud.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

AINULT SISERIIKLIKEST ÕIGUSAKTIDEST TULENEVAD KÕRVALEJÄTMISE

ALUSED: HANKIJA ASUKOHAJÄRGSE KOHALIKU MAKSU MAKSUVÕLG

Kas ettevõtja on rikkunud RHS § 95 lg-st 4.1 tuleneva kõrvalejätmise alusega seotud kohustusi?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4.1 „kellel on hankija asukoha järgse, ühishanke puhul iga ühishankija asukoha järgse, või kui hankijaks on kohaliku omavalitsuse üksuste ühendus, iga ühendusse kuuluva hankija asukoha järgse kohaliku maksu maksuvõlg maksukorralduse seaduse tähenduses“. Vabatahtlik kõrvaldamise alus. RHR-i kaudu saab päringuid teha vaid Tallinnas registreeritud hankija (MTA maksuvõlapäring + tänavate sulgemise maks).

21 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

AINULT SISERIIKLIKEST ÕIGUSAKTIDEST TULENEVAD KÕRVALEJÄTMISE

ALUSED: OSALEJA PIIRAMINE ETTEVÕTJA ELU- VÕI ASUKOHA PÕHISELT

Kas ettevõtja rikub hankija kehtestatud piirangut pakkumust või taotlust esitada?

Viide seadusele: RHS § 95 lg 4 p 12 „kellel puudub käesoleva seaduse alusel õigus pakkumust või taotlust esitada“. RHS § 7 lg 3 sätestab, et hankija võib piirata pakkujate ja taotlejate ringi, lubades riigihankes osaleda ainult RHS § 3 punktis 2 nimetatud riikidest pärit ettevõtjatel või andes nendest riikidest pärit ettevõtjate esitatud pakkumustele eeliseid teistest riikidest pärit ettevõtjate esitatud pakkumuste ees. Hankija sätestab piirangu ettevõtja elu- või asukohale hanke alusdokumentides.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

IV OSA: KVALIFITSEERIMISTINGIMUSED

C: Tehniline ja kutsealane suutlikkus

TEENUSLEPINGUTE PUHUL: TÄPSUSTATUD LIIKI TEENUSTE OSUTAMINE

Ainult teenuste riigihankelepingute puhul: Ettevõtja on arvestusperioodi jooksul osutanud täpsustatud liiki teenuste puhul alljärgnevaid peamisi teenuseid. Avaliku sektori hankijad võivad nõuda kuni kolme aasta kogemuse tõendamist ja võtta arvesse rohkem kui kolme aasta vanuseid kogemusi.

Viide seadusele: RHS § 101 lg 1 p 2 „nimekiri hankija kindlaks määratud tunnustele vastavate teenuste osutamise lepingutest, mis on täidetud riigihanke algamisele eelneva 36 kuu jooksul, koos teabega nende maksumuse, kuupäevade ja teiste lepingupoolte kohta“ RHS § 101 lg 2 „hankija võib piisava konkurentsi tagamiseks arvesse võtta andmeid rohkem kui 36 kuu eest täidetud teenuste osutamise lepingute kohta“

Tingimuse selgitus: Pakkuja peab olema 3 (kolme) viimase aasta jooksul käesoleva riigihanke väljakuulutamisest tagasiulatuvalt (s.o periood alates oktoober 2020 kuni pakkumuse esitamiseni) nõuetekohaselt teostanud vähemalt 2 (kaks) sarnast tööd. Sarnaseks tööks loetakse programmide või projektide vahehindamise ja/või mõju ja tulemuste hindamise töid maksumusega vähemalt 10 000 (kümme tuhat) eurot ilma km-ta töö kohta. Töö, mille alusel pakkuja oma kvalifikatsiooni tõendab, peab olema pakkumuse esitamise hetkeks lõpetatud (tellijale üle antud).

22 / 22

Koostatud 28.09.2023 10:40:28 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Tingimuse kirjeldus: Minimaalne teostatud tööde arv: 2

Kirjeldus: Pakkuja esitab tingimusele vastavuse tõendamiseks loetelu varasematest töödest koos töö tellija andmete, sh tellija kontaktisiku kontaktandmetega, info töö maksumuse, teostamise ajaperioodi ja sisu kohta, riigihanke korral riigihanke viitenumbri ning pakkuja kinnituse tööde nõuetekohase teostamise kohta.

Ettevõtjalt oodatavad vastused:

1. Kirjeldus (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 2. Kogusumma (Summa) 3. Valuuta (Vääring) 4. Ettevõtja vastutusala (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki)) 5. Summa (Summa) 6. Valuuta (Vääring) 7. Ajavahemik (Periood) 8. Kas info on konfidentsiaalne? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 9. Tellija nimi (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 10. Kontaktisiku nimi (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 11. E-mail (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 12. Telefon (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 13. Kas see teave on elektrooniliselt kättesaadav? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei") 14. URL (Url) 15. Kood (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki)) 16. Väljaandja (Sisestusväli (max pikkus 250 tähemärki))

270392_hindamiskriteeriumid.pdf

Koostatud 04.10.2023 14:25:00 1 / 2 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/ 6433497/general-info

HINDAMISKRITEERIUMID JA HINNATAVAD NÄITAJAD

Viitenumber: 270392 Hankija: Siseministeerium (70000562) Hange: Euroopa Liidu perioodi 2021-2027 Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi, Sisejulgeolekufondi ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu vahehindamine

Pakkumuse maksumust hinnatakse - Ilma maksudeta Kriteeriumi kaalumise meetod - Osakaaludega Elektroonilist oksjoni kasutatakse: ei

Jrk nr

Nimetus Kirjeldus Tüüp / hindamismeetod

Osakaal Kogus Ühik Pakkuja täidetav

1 Pakutava teenuse sisu kvaliteet Kriteeriumi „Pakutava teenuse sisu kvaliteet“ hindamisel saab enim punkte RHAD üldosa punktis 9.3 alampunktides esitatud hindamiskriteeriumite suhtes parima ehk sisukama ja kvaliteetsema sisuga pakkumus (kokku on võimalik saada kuni 65 punkti), millest 1) pakkuja arusaam hindamise lähteülesandest 15 punkti, 2) pakutud hindamismetoodika asjakohasus ja põhjendatus 25 punkti, 3) riskide hindamine 5 punkti ning 4) tegevus- ja ajakava 20 punkti. Täpsem info RHAD üldosa punktis 9.3.

Kvaliteet - hankija hinnatav

2 Pakutava teenuse kogumaksumus Pakkumuse kogumaksumuse hindamiskriteeriumi hindamisel võetakse aluseks pakutudd teenuse kogumaksumus eurodes (käibemaksuta). Väärtuspunktide arvutamine: kõige madalama kogumaksumusega pakkumusele omistatakse kriteeriumile määratud maksimaalne arv väärtuspunkte, teised pakkumused saavad riigihangete registrisse (RHR) sisestatud automaatse valemi alusel

Maksumus - vähim on parim

35 EUR jah

Koostatud 04.10.2023 14:25:00 2 / 2 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/ 6433497/general-info

punkte proportsionaalselt vähem. Pakkumuse kogumaksumuseks (EUR ilma km-ta) loetakse teenuse osutamise kogumaksumust, mis sisaldab kõiki lepingu nõuetekohaseks täitmiseks vajalikke kulusid ja olema lõplik. Pakkumuse kogumaksumus tuleb esitada e-RHRi töölehel toodud vormi kohaselt.

Kokku: 100

Hindamismetoodika kirjeldus 1. Pakutava teenuse sisu kvaliteet

"Hankija hinnatav" meetodi puhul sisestatakse väärtuspunktid hankija poolt koondhindena. Väärtuspunkte saab anda maksimaalselt nii palju kui suur on kriteeriumi osakaal. Tulemus ümardatakse 2 komakohani.

2. Pakutava teenuse kogumaksumus "Vähim on parim" ja "suurim on parim" punktid arvutab süsteem automaatselt pakkuja sisestatud väärtuste põhjal.

RHR valem on järgmine: madalaima väärtusega pakkumus saab maksimaalse arvu punkte. Teised pakkumused saavad punkte arvutades valemiga: "osakaal" - ("pakkumuse väärtus" - madalaim väärtus") / "suurim väärtus" * "osakaal".

270392_vastavustingimused.pdf

1 / 3

Koostatud 04.10.2023 12:12:15 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

VASTAVUSTINGIMUSED Viitenumber: 270392 Hankija: Siseministeerium (70000562) Hange: Euroopa Liidu perioodi 2021-2027 Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja

Integratsioonifondi, Sisejulgeolekufondi ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu vahehindamine

ÜHISPAKKUJATE VOLIKIRI Ühispakkujad nimetavad riigihankega ning hankelepingu sõlmimise ja täitmisega seotud toimingute tegemiseks endi seast volitatud esindaja.

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Kas tegemist on ühispakkumusega? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

2. Kui tegemist on ühispakkumusega, kas olete lisanud pakkumuse "Lisadokumentide" lehele ühispakkujate volikirja? Kui tegemist ei ole ühispakkumusega, vastake "Ei"". (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

PAKKUMUSE ESITAMINE Pakkumuse esitamisega kinnitab pakkuja kõigi riigihanke alusdokumentides esitatud tingimuste ülevõtmist.

Tingimusliku pakkumuse esitamine ei ole lubatud.

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Kas ettevõtja saab kinnitada, et pakkumus vastab hanke alusdokumentides sätestatud tingimustele? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

PAKKUMUSE MAKSUMUS Pakkumuse maksumus tuleb esitada töölehel "Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajad" toodud struktuuri kohaselt.

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Kas ettevõtja kinnitab, et täidab pakkumuse lehe "Hindamiskriteeriumid ja hinnatavad näitajad" lehel ette antud struktuuri kohaselt? (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

ÄRISALADUS Pakkuja märgib pakkumuses, milline teave on pakkuja ärisaladus ning põhjendab teabe määramist ärisaladuseks.

Teabe ärisaladuseks määramisel lähtutakse ebaausa konkurentsi takistamise ja ärisaladuse kaitse seaduse § 5 lõikes 2 sätestatust. Pakkuja ei või ärisaladusena märkida: 1) pakkumuse maksumust ega osamaksumusi; 2) teenuste hankelepingute puhul lisaks punktis 1 nimetatule muid pakkumuste hindamise kriteeriumidele vastavaid pakkumust iseloomustavaid numbrilisi näitajaid; 3) asjade ja ehitustööde hankelepingute puhul lisaks punktis 1 nimetatule muid pakkumuste hindamise kriteeriumidele vastavaid pakkumust iseloomustavaid näitajaid (RHS § 46.1).

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Kirjeldage lühidalt pakkumuses sisalduvat ärisaladust ja lisage selle määramise põhjendus või märkige, et pakkumus ei sisalda ärisaladust. (Suur sisestusala (max pikkus 4000 tähemärki))

KÕRVALDAMISE ALUSEGA ALLTÖÖVÕTJA MITTEKAASAMINE Pakkuja kinnitab, et ei kaasa hankelepingu täitmisel alltöövõtjat, kes kuuluks RHS § 122 lõike 7 alusel asendamisele.

2 / 3

Koostatud 04.10.2023 12:12:15 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakkuja kinnitab, et ei kaasa hankelepingu täitmisel alltöövõtjat, kes kuuluks RHS § 122 lõike 7 alusel asendamisele. (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

SAMAVÄÄRSUS Pakkuja kinnitab, et pakkumus vastab hanke alusdokumentides nõutule ja vajadusel on samaväärsus selgitatud ja tõendid samaväärsuse kohta lisatud.

Iga viidet, mille hankija teeb riigihanke alusdokumentides mõnele RHS-i § 88 lõikes 2 nimetatud alusele (standardile, tehnilisele tunnustusele, tehnilisele kontrollisüsteemile vms), tuleb lugeda selliselt, et see on täiendatud märkega „või sellega samaväärne“. Iga viidet, mille hankija teeb riigihanke alusdokumentides ostuallikale, protsessile, kaubamärgile, patendile, tüübile, päritolule, tootmisviisile, märgisele või vastavushindamisasutuse väljastatud katsearuandele või tõendile, tuleb lugeda selliselt, et see on täiendatud märkega „või sellega samaväärne“ (RHS § 88 lg-d 5-6, § 89 lg 2, 114 lg-d 5-7). Hankija aktsepteerib objektiivsetel põhjustel muid asjakohaseid tõendeid, kui pakkuja tõendab hankijale vastuvõetaval viisil, et pakutav asi, teenus või ehitustöö vastab konkreetse märgise või hankija esitatud nõuetele, välja arvatud juhul, kui hankija nõutud märgis, samaväärne märgis või konkreetse või samaväärse vastavushindamisasutuse väljastatud katsearuanne või muu tõend on seaduse alusel eelduseks asja, teenuse või ehitustöö pakkumiseks turul (RHS § 114 lg 7).

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakkuja kinnitab, et pakkumus vastab hanke alusdokumentides nõutule ja vajadusel on samaväärsus selgitatud ja tõendid samaväärsuse kohta lisatud. (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

RAHVUSVAHELISE SANKTSIOONI OBJEKT Pakkuja kinnitab, et pakutav kaup ei ole rahvusvahelise sanktsiooni objektiks või pärit sanktsiooni all olevatest piirkondadest. Hankija lükkab tagasi pakkumuse, mille alusel sõlmitav hankeleping oleks RSanS § 7 lg 1 alusel tühine.

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakkuja kinnitab, et pakutav kaup ei ole rahvusvahelise sanktsiooni objektiks ega pärit sanktsiooni all olevatest piirkondadest. (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

EL NÕUKOGU SANKTSIOON. ALLTÖÖVÕTJAD JA TARNIJAD. Pakkuja kinnitab, et ta ei kaasa üle 10% hankelepingu maksumusest hankelepingu täitmisele alltöövõtjaid ega tarnijaid, kes on: 1. Vene Föderatsiooni kodanik, resident või Vene Föderatsioonis asutatud ettevõtja, sh füüsilisest isikust ettevõtja, juriidiline isik, asutus või muu üksus; 2. rohkem kui 50% ulatuses otseselt või kaudselt punktis 1 nimetatud isiku, asutuse või muu üksuse omandis; 3. punktis 1 või 2 nimetatud isiku, asutuse või muu üksuse esindaja või tegutseb sellise isiku juhiste alusel. Hankija lükkab tagasi pakkumuse, mille alusel sõlmitav hankeleping oleks RSanS § 7 lg 1 alusel tühine.

Määrust kohaldatakse riigihangetele alates rahvusvahelisest piirmäärast. NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EL) 2022/576, 8. aprill 2022, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) nr 833/2014, mis käsitleb piiravaid meetmeid seoses Venemaa tegevusega, mis destabiliseerib olukorda Ukrainas.

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakkuja kinnitab, et ta ei kaasa üle 10% hankelepingu maksumusest hankelepingu täitmisele alltöövõtjaid ega tarnijaid, kes on: 1. Vene Föderatsiooni kodanik, resident või Vene Föderatsioonis asutatud ettevõtja, sh füüsilisest isikust ettevõtja, juriidiline isik, asutus või muu üksus; 2. rohkem kui 50% ulatuses otseselt või kaudselt punktis 1 nimetatud isiku, asutuse või muu üksuse omandis; 3. punktis 1 või 2 nimetatud isiku, asutuse või muu üksuse esindaja või tegutseb sellise isiku juhiste alusel. (Raadionupp valikutega "Jah/Ei")

3 / 3

Koostatud 04.10.2023 12:12:15 https://riigihanked.riik.ee/rhr-web/#/procurement/6433497/general-info

PAKUTAV TEENUSE SISU KIRJELDUS

Pakutav teenus peab vastama riigihanke alusdokumentides esitatud tingimustele. Pakkuja esitab pakutava teenuse sisu kirjelduse sellise detailsusega, et hankijal oleks võimalik üheselt kontrollida pakutava teenuse sisu vastavust riigihanke alusdokumentides esitatud tingimustele ning pakkumuse sisu kvaliteeti võrrelda ja hinnata (vt tehniline kirjeldus ja hindamiskriteeriumid).

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakkuja esitab pakutava teenuse sisu detailse kirjelduse (vt tehnilise kirjelduse punkt 7) (Vabas vormis dokument)

PAKUTAVA TEENUSE TEGEVUS- JA AJAKAVA

Pakutava teenuse teostamise tegevus- ja ajakava, mis sisaldab konkreetseid tegevusi, võttes mh arvesse pakutava teenuse kirjeldust, sh selles esitatud töö etappe ja lõpptähtaega (sh ettevalmistavaid tegevusi ja etappe kuni tööde teostamiseni ja lõpparuande üleandmiseni- vastuvõtmiseni) ning pakutavat meeskonda. Tegevus- ja ajakavast peab ilmnema mh selge seos meeskonnaliikmete rollide, vasutuse ja töö mahuga.

Ajakava esitada nädala täpsusega ning sellest peab mh selguma vahearuannete ja lõpparuande hankijale üleandmise ajad ja nende sisu (vt tehniline kirjeldus ja hindamiskriteeriumid).

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Pakutava teenuse detailne ajakava (Vabas vormis dokument)

PAKUTAVA MEESKONNA KIJRELDUS, ROLLIDE JA VASTUTUSE JAOTUS

Pakutud meeskonna kirjeldus, mis peab olema esitatud sellise detailsusega, et hankijal oleks võimalik üheselt kontrollida meeskonna vastavust tehnilise kirjelduse punktis 8 esitatud tingimustele ning pakkumusi võrrelda ja hinnata (vt tehniline kirjeldus ja hindamiskriteeriumid).

Küsimused ettevõtjale: 1. Meeskonna liikmete nimekiri koos meeskonna kirjeldusega vastavalt riigihankele lisatud vormile (Vorm. Meeskonna liikmed). (Vabas vormis dokument)

2. Pakutavate meeskonnaliikmete vabas vormis CV-d, mis peab olema esitatud viisil, et hankijal on võimalik CV alusel üheselt kontrollida meeskonnaliikmete vastavust RHAD tehnilises kirjelduses esitatud tingimustele (sh tehnilises kirjelduses nõutud meeskonnalikmete teadmiste ja kogemuste kirjeldus). Varasema kogemuse juures tuua välja konkreetsed tööd, tööde teostamise aeg, töö sisu lühikirjeldus ning meeskonnaliikme roll ja vastutus selles, tööde tellija või tööandja kontaktandmed). CV-d peavad olema meeskonnaliikme poolt digitaalselt allkirjastatud. (Vabas vormis dokument)

3. Meeskonnaliikmete digitaalallkirjastatud kinnitused. (Vorm. Meeskonnaliikmete kinnitus) (Vabas vormis dokument)

HD Lisa 1.2_juhendmaterjal_GUIDANCE.pdf

Prepared by DG Migration and Home Affairs in collaboration with Joint Research Centre January 2017

EUR [number] EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs

Directorate E Migration and Security Funds

Unit E.2 National programmes for South and East Europe, Evaluation, AMIF/ISF Committee

Contact: Evaluation Team

E-mail: [email protected]

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 3

Guidance on the common monitoring

and evaluation framework of the

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

(AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund

(ISF)

Prepared by DG Migration and Home Affairs in collaboration with Joint Research Centre January 2017

DRAFT

LEGAL NOTICE

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

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

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels

may charge you).

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Date Changes made - content Changes made

- pages

1.0 - -

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 6

ABBREVIATIONS

AA = Audit Authority

AIR = Annual Implementation Report

AMIF = Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions (replies published in SFC2014)

ISF = Internal Security Fund

MS = Member State

RA = Responsible Authority

SFC= SFC2014

TCN = Third country nationals

ToR = Terms of Reference

EQ = Evaluation Questions

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 9

2. INTERVENTION LOGIC OF AMIF AND ISF ................................................................. 11

3. MONITORING AND INDICATORS ............................................................................. 13

4. PLANNING THE EVALUATION ................................................................................. 17

4.1. Legal deadlines for the interim evaluation of AMIF and ISF ............................... 17

4.2. Evaluation plan ........................................................................................... 17

4.3. Selecting the evaluation experts .................................................................... 18

4.4. Preparing Terms of Reference ....................................................................... 19

5. CARRYING OUT THE EVALUATION .......................................................................... 22

5.1. How to fill in the interim evaluation report in SFC2014 ..................................... 22

5.1.1. Replies to Evaluation Questions (section 4) ..................................................... 25

5.1.2. Efficiency, relevance, coherence, complementarity, EU added value, sustainability, and simplification and reduction of administrative burden ............ 33

5.1.3. How to insert the indicators .......................................................................... 36

5.2. Assessment of the evaluation report .............................................................. 37

5.3. Best practice of CIE: pilot studies in collaboration with JRC ............................... 37

6. ANNEXES ............................................................................................................ 39

6.1. Indicators by specific objective – AMIF ........................................................... 39

6.1.1. S01: Asylum and reception ........................................................................... 40

6.1.2. S02: Legal Migration and Integration ............................................................. 46

6.1.3. S03: Return ................................................................................................ 52

6.1.4. S04: Solidarity ............................................................................................ 57

6.1.5. Horizontal indicators .................................................................................... 59

6.2. Indicators by specific objectives – ISF ............................................................ 60

6.2.1. SO1: Visa ................................................................................................... 61

6.2.2. SO2: Border ............................................................................................... 64

6.2.3. SO5: Crime ................................................................................................ 70

6.2.4. SO6: Risk and crisis ..................................................................................... 83

6.2.5. Horizontal indicators .................................................................................... 86

6.3. Methodology examples ................................................................................. 88

6.3.1. Naive before and after comparison (B-A) ........................................................ 90

6.3.2. Multivariate regression analysis ..................................................................... 90

6.3.3. Fixed Effects ............................................................................................... 91

6.3.4. Instrumental Variables (IV) .......................................................................... 92

6.3.5. Difference in Differences (DiD) ...................................................................... 93

6.3.6. Regression discontinuity design (RDD) ........................................................... 94

6.3.7. Propensity score matching (PSM) .................................................................. 95

6.4. Pilot projects in collaboration with JRC ........................................................... 96

6.4.1. Micro-data and methodology for AMIF evaluation ............................................ 96

6.4.2. Micro-data and methodology for ISF evaluation ............................................... 97

6.5. Evaluation report template in SFC2014 ........................................................ 101

6.5.1. Draft model interim evaluation report AMIF .................................................. 101

6.5.2. SFC2014 template for indicators AMIF ......................................................... 118

6.5.3. Draft model interim evaluation report ISF ..................................................... 127

6.5.4. SFC2014 template for indicators ISF ............................................................ 147

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 8

6.6. Frequently Asked Questions ........................................................................ 160

6.6.1. AMIF FAQ ................................................................................................. 160

6.6.2. ISF FAQ .................................................................................................. 180

6.7. Example of Terms of Reference ................................................................... 182

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 9

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this guidance document is to provide the Responsible Authorities in

the Member States with an operational tool to prepare their interim evaluation of

the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security

Fund (ISF). It is a living document which will be further completed and

adjusted according to the needs arising in the Member States. It is part of the

overall support provided by the Commission to Member States and their partners

in the implementation of these Funds.

This document is not a methodological guide on evaluation tools and methods,

but a hands-on document, tailored to the needs of the Responsible Authorities.

Along with this guidance document, the Member States are also invited to

consult the Better Regulation Guidelines1 and the Better Regulation

"Toolbox"2 which provide a recommended range of evaluation tools and

methods. Where relevant, references to some specific tools are also included in

this Guidance.

The purpose of the interim evaluation of AMIF and ISF is to assess the progress

made in the implementation of the instruments and the results achieved at mid-

term of the programming period 2014-2020. The evaluation will be based on the

five compulsory evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence,

relevance and EU added value, as set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines. In

addition, the AMIF and ISF evaluation will also look at the sustainability and

complementarity of actions as well as at simplification and reduction of

administrative burden, in compliance with the Regulation (EU) No 514/2014

(hereafter referred to as the Horizontal Regulation).

Member States will submit their national evaluation reports by the end of

December 2017. Their reports will contribute to the overall evaluation that will

be carried out by the Commission between the fall of 2017 and the first

semester of 2018. The national evaluation reports by the Member States will

cover only the national programmes implemented under shared management,

1 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm

2 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm#

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 10

while Emergency assistance projects and Union Actions will be evaluated by the

Commission. The Commission's interim evaluation report on the implementation

of AMIF and ISF will be submitted to the European Parliament, to the Council, to

the European Economic and Social Committee, and to the Committee of the

Regions by the end of June 2018.

This guidance on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) has

been developed by DG HOME with the technical support of the Joint Research

Centre, and the active contribution of the members of the European Evaluation

and Monitoring Network AMIF/ISF (hereafter referred to as EEMN), composed of

the national evaluation coordinators and appointed by the Responsible

Authorities. The guidance will be presented to the national authorities through

ad hoc workshops. Further support will be provided via the framework of the

EEMN.

As a result of the interim evaluation and in view of the ex post evaluation, the

document will be reviewed and revised as necessary. The scope of the review

will be to address additional needs identified during the evaluation process and

to include guidance specific to the ex post evaluation.

This document includes a chapter on Frequently Asked Questions3, which

gathers the replies to queries raised by the national authorities in the last

months. The FAQ chapter will be progressively updated upon submission of new

questions. These questions and replies are also published in the SFC2014, for

the benefit of all Member States.

3 For more information on FAQ, please refer to chapter 6.6.1. AMIF FAQ or 6.6.2. ISF FAQ.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 11

2. INTERVENTION LOGIC OF AMIF AND ISF

The intervention logic is the cornerstone for the evaluation of a Fund. The

intervention logic represents a methodological instrument which establishes the

logical link between programme objectives and the envisaged operational

actions. It shows the conceptual link from an intervention's input to its output

and, subsequently, to its results and impacts. Thus, an intervention logic allows

an assessment of a measure's contribution to achieving its objectives. Please

also refer to the "TOOL #41: DESIGNING THE EVALUATION" of the Better

Regulation Toolbox4.

The intervention logic summarises how the intervention was expected to work

and it shows how different inputs/activities/outputs triggered by the EU

intervention were expected to interact to deliver the promised changes over time

and ultimately achieve the objectives (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Intervention logic model and evaluation criteria.

4 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_41_en.htm

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 12

Based on the intervention logic which demonstrates the assumptions of what

was expected to happen, evaluations look back at the performance of the Funds

and critically compare what has actually happened to the earlier estimates.

In addition, the intervention logic can be very helpful in selecting the specific

evaluation criteria to look at during the evaluation and, based on these, in

identifying the underlying evaluation questions and relevant indicators.

For AMIF and ISF, the evaluation will look altogether at 8 evaluation criteria.

These include the five compulsory evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency,

coherence, relevance and EU added value), as set out in the Better Regulation

Guidelines. In addition, as foreseen in the Horizontal Regulation, the evaluation

will also cover the sustainability and complementarity of actions as well as the

simplification and reduction of administrative burden5.

Based on these selected evaluation criteria, the Commission together with the

Member States via the EEMN developed a range of common evaluation

questions6 and result & impact indicators7. These will form a frame for the

interim and ex post evaluations. As all the Member States will use the same set

of EQ and indicators, this will allow for the aggregation of national evaluation

results at the European level.

5 For more information on evaluation criteria, please refer to chapter 5.1.1. and 5.1.2.

6 For more information on evaluation questions, please refer to chapter 5.1.1.

7 For more information on result & impact indicators, please refer to chapter 3 and chapters 6.1 and 6.2. of the

Annex.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 13

3. MONITORING AND INDICATORS

Difference between monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring is a continuous and systematic process of data collection about an

intervention. It helps to identify and address any implementation problems and

generates factual information for future evaluation and impact assessments. It is

important to note, however, that the data collected will not only reflect changes

due to the EU intervention but also those which are caused by other factors.

While monitoring looks at “what” changes have occurred since the entry into

force of a policy intervention, evaluation looks at “whether” the intervention has

been effective in reaching its objectives, and whether the objectives have been

met efficiently (i.e. at least cost), as well as the reasons for the success or

otherwise of an intervention.

What, When and How should evidence be collected and reported

To set up a good monitoring system a clear link needs to be established between

the objectives and indicators, bearing in mind the arrangements needed to

collect the necessary new evidence in time to meet reporting requirements.

The timing of the gathering of the evidence needs to be considered vis-à-vis the

progress of the intervention's implementation and reporting requirements. The

desired outcome of a policy intervention may not materialise for many years and

this should be reflected in the monitoring arrangements. Where it takes too long

to capture the final policy outcome, or where it will not be possible to measure

the outcome, it may be necessary to monitor against intermediate or proxy

outcomes.

Indicators are the main instrument for monitoring. For AMIF and ISF, the

following groups of indicators were established:

− Output indicators: These relate to the specific deliverables of the

intervention.

− Result indicators: These match the immediate effects of the intervention

with particular reference to the direct addressees.

− Impact indicators: These relate to the intended outcome of the intervention

in terms of impact on the wider economy/society beyond those directly affected

by the intervention.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 14

The indicators used to monitor the two Funds were established in two different

moments.

First of all, ANNEX II of regulation 513/2014, ANNEX IV of regulation 515/2014,

and ANNEX IV of regulation 516/2014 list the common indicators that should be

collected in order to be able to monitor year by year, and to evaluate the two

Funds in the interim evaluation and at the end of the programming period.

These common indicators are to be reported on an annual basis in the Annual

Implementation Report (AIR).

In addition, a Delegated Regulation on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework of AMIF and ISF (hereafter referred to as the Delegated Regulation

on CMEF)8 complements the list of common indicators, by developing a list of

common results and impact indicators (details can be found in the chapters 6.1.

and 6.2. of the annex) and, which should be reported in SFC2014 for the interim

and ex post evaluations.

Guidance on the definition of the common indicators has been provided to the

Responsible Authorities through a system of questions and answers, which is

recorded in SFC under the FAQ section. The same approach will continue during

the implementation of the Funds.

The list of data sources and units of measurement for all the indicators, by Fund

and by specific objective, is reported in chapters 6.1. and 6.2. of the Annex.

These indicators should be collected on a financial year9 basis for all the years

involved in the current programming period (2014-2020), plus for the baseline

year, i.e. 2013.

How to reconcile the financial year and the calendar year

For some of the indicators for which data must be collected, the reference period

is based on a calendar year. Mixing together indicators with a reference period

8 Delegated Regulation (EU) C(2016) 6265 on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of AMIF

and ISF (CMEF) adopted by the Commission on 3/10/2016.

9 Article 38 of the Horizontal Regulation defines the financial year as being "the period commencing on 16

October of year 'N-1' and ending on 15 October of year 'N'". As a result, Member States should report for the

period starting from 16/10 of year N-1 to 15/10 of year N.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 15

based on a calendar year with other indicators based on a financial year could

lead to discrepancies in evaluation results.

Therefore, for all indicators, the reporting period that will be used for the interim

evaluation is the financial year. The data collected on a calendar year will be

reported on a pro rata basis.

Example:

SO1 I2. Share of final positive decisions at the appeal stage.

The data for this indicator is to be found in the Eurostat Database (the variable

is coded as “migr_asydcfina”) and is available annually on a calendar basis.

For the financial years 2014-2015 (16/10/2014 until 15/10/2015), DG HOME, at

the level of the 28 MS calculates the indicator as follows:

Final decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex Annual data (rounded)

[migr_asydcfina]

CITIZEN Extra-EU-28

GEO/TIME 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

201

European

Union (28

countries)

86.77

93.25

97.68

128.5

132.1

134.6

136.03

182.38

5 35

For 2014, DG HOME will take 136.030 * 2,5/12 = 28.340

For 2015, DG HOME will take 182.385 * 9,5/12 = 144.388

Total for this indicator for the financial years 2014-2015 (16/10/2014 until

15/10/2015) is 172.728 positive decisions.

Result and impact indicators come from different data sources: some of them

are provided directly by DG HOME; others are provided by the Member States.

Another set of indicators comes from sources like Eurostat, EASO, Frontex, etc.

All the indicators, for which the source is DG HOME, Eurostat, EASO, Frontex,

etc., will be introduced by DG HOME directly in SFC 2014 in the evaluation

module for each Member State. This ensures that for these indicators, the data

will be aggregated and that the method will be identical, without any difference

of interpretation. Moreover, it will reduce the number of data that Member

States must collect. For more information, please also refer to the chapter 5.1.3.

During the implementation of the Funds, the financial years will not always have the same length. When calculating

indicators pro rata, the following conditions need to be taken into account:

Total number of

months

Baseline - 01/01/2013 until 31/12/2013 Baseline 12 months No pro rata needed, will be the calendar year

Financial year 1 - Start on 01/01/2014 until 15/10/2014

Reporting period 9,5 months

Pro rata, if the data collected is on calendar year, the data must be calculated on a pro rata basis of 9,5 months.

Financial year 2 - 16/10/2014 until 15/10/2015 12 months Pro rata, 2,5 months for 2014 and 9,5 months for 2015.

Financial year 3 - 16/10/2015 until 15/10/2016

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Cover the period 01/01/2014 until 30/06/2017 Interim evaluation 42 months

For 1st semester 2017, if the data is not available, the data provided will be based on the best estimate which can be, for example, to take the figures of 2016 as a basis.

Financial year 4 - 16/10/2016 until 15/10/2017

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 5 - 16/10/2017 until 15/10/2018

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 6 - 16/10/2018 until 15/10/2019

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 7 - 16/10/2019 until 15/10/2020

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 8 - 16/10/2020 until 15/10/2021

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 9 - 16/10/2021 until 15/10/2022

Reporting period 12 months Pro rata, same way of calculation as financial year 2.

Financial year 10 - 16/10/2022 until 15/10/2023

Reporting period

8,5 months

Pro rata, 2,5 months for 2022 and 6 months for 2023. If the data is not available for the 1st semester of 2023, the data provided will be based on the best estimate which can be, for example, to take the figures of 2022 as a basis.

4. PLANNING THE EVALUATION

4.1. Legal deadlines for the interim evaluation of AMIF and ISF

The legal basis of the AMIF and ISF states that the Commission shall submit an

interim evaluation report on the implementation of the AMIF and ISF to the

European Parliament, to the Council, to the European Economic and Social

Committee, and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018 (Art. 57 of

the Horizontal Regulation).

The interim evaluation of AMIF and ISF will build mainly on the national interim

evaluation reports submitted by each Member State to the Commission by 31

December 2017 using the common template in SFC2014. It will also include an

assessment of the mid-term review10 and an evaluation of the Union Actions and

the Emergency Assistance projects.

The deadline for the submission of the Commission's report is extremely tight,

considering the parallel exercise to be carried out for the two Funds and the

many administrative steps in view of the publication of the evaluation reports.

For this reason, timely preparation and submission of the national evaluation

reports will be necessary and crucial.

4.2. Evaluation plan

Good evaluation planning is a critical step to ensure the availability of the

national evaluation results on time. It is fundamental to have sufficient internal

and/or external staff able to deal with the process and communicate effectively

with the beneficiaries, together with a detailed calendar of the implementation of

the evaluation to allow supervision and troubleshooting.

In this regard, it is recommended that the Responsible Authorities prepare

thorough evaluation plans, which should identify at least the following:

 the resources needed to carry out the evaluation;

 the work plan with a timeline and clear deadlines to allow follow-up and

review of the progress;

 the procedures to check and validate the results of the evaluation.

10 Carried out in accordance with the Horizontal Regulation and the Specific Regulations.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 18

If the evaluation is carried out by an external consultant, the work plan should

allow sufficient time for contracting (including for preparation of the terms of

reference, launch of the call for tenders, selection of the contractor and

signature of the contract).

In addition, the time margin necessary for carrying out the quality assessment

of the deliverables needs to be taken into account in the end of the contract and

also for filling the template in SFC2014.

Finally, in their evaluation plan, RAs should also foresee the strategy and

approach in disseminating the results of the national evaluation.

4.3. Selecting the evaluation experts

Article 56(3) of the Horizontal Regulation states that the evaluation shall be

carried out by experts who are functionally independent from the Responsible

Authorities, the Audit Authorities and the Delegated Authorities. This implies that

the Member States have the choice to entrust the evaluation to external experts

(contractors), or to an internal but functionally independent body. Under the

second option, these experts may be affiliated to an autonomous public

institution responsible for the monitoring, evaluation and audit of the

administration. The hierarchical independence of the evaluators should be

ensured through an appropriate assessment of the situation, to be also reported

to the Commission services via the ad hoc section of the evaluation report

template in SFC2014.

Depending on the option selected by each Member State, procurement may be

necessary or not. In both cases it is recommended to set up a detailed plan and

to write precise Terms of Reference (hereafter referred to as the ToR).

Procurement practices for selecting the external evaluators by the Member

States should start as soon as possible and no later than April-May 2017 so that

the experts may be selected by June 2017. The interim evaluation study should

start no later than July-August 2017.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 19

4.4. Preparing Terms of Reference11

The ToR presents an overview of the evaluation manager’s requirements and

expectations related to the evaluation study, providing a brief and concise

description of the main scope and purpose of the evaluation, the roles and

responsibilities of the actors involved, the methodology, the selection criteria,

the timeline, and the amount of resources available for the evaluation (if

applicable).

In the ToR it is important to clearly explain the logical connection between

several elements: the rationale for the evaluation, the objectives of the Fund,

the purpose of the evaluation, and the evaluation questions. The ToR should be

structured to include the following key elements:

1. Background introduction and description of the intervention providing

context information and the objectives of the Fund.

2. Specific purpose and scope of the evaluation, explaining what will be

evaluated and why, complemented by the main evaluation questions.

3. Intervention logic with the expected broad methodological approach, wide

enough to ensure room for the evaluators to assess the quality of the

proposed methodologies and if appropriate suggest additional/alternative

ones.

4. Evaluation questions encouraging critical analysis. The evaluation

questions selected by the Commission were worded in a way that forces

the evaluator to go beyond providing a yes/no answer based on simple

description, and to look at what the links were between the changes

observed and the EU intervention(s).

5. Availability of relevant data (e.g. outcome measures, covariates) on the

target population directly provided by the commissioning authority or

publicly available.

11 For more information on the Terms of Reference, please refer to chapter 6.7. which provides an example of

the ToR.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 20

6. Availability of data on the control group if Counterfactual Impact

Evaluation methods are being used (CIE, see chapter 6.3 on Methodology

examples).

7. Description of the required professional competences and qualifications of

the evaluators (according to the scope and methodology of the

evaluation) as well as of the selection and award criteria.

8. Expected tasks and deliverables (inception, intermediate and final reports,

presentations, other documents expected from the evaluators), the time

schedule of the study and the available budget.

In order to provide an additional safety net, ensuring a high editorial quality of

the contractors' final report, it is recommended to consider including the

following clause in the ToR: "In view of its publication, the final report by the

contractors must be of high editorial quality. In cases where the contractor does

not manage to produce a final report of high editorial quality within the

timeframe defined by the contract, the contracting authority can decide to have

the final report professionally edited at the expense of the contractor (e.g.

deduction of these costs from the final payment)."

Finally, the ToR should contain detailed information on the methodology that it is

advisable to adopt for the evaluation. Different methodologies can be used

depending on the data at hand. Various examples of methods are described in

chapter 6.3: Methodology examples. RAs can choose to be very prescriptive and

to describe in the ToR which data collection tools and analytical methods shall be

used, or request the evaluation experts to propose their approach and

methodology, and use these as one of the criteria for the selection of the

experts. However, the ToR should specify that triangulation of methods is

required.

The contractors should be asked to explain in their bid the advantages, the

limitations and the risks involved in using the proposed tools and techniques.

To make this step smooth it is important that the RAs are in touch with the

beneficiaries of the Funds in terms of data availability and collection. Please also

refer to chapter 5.1.1. which provides further details about the data collection

and analysis approaches.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 21

During the inception phase of the evaluation, the evaluators may be asked to

refine the methodology proposed in the tender bid and to provide further details

on the data collection tools, sources, analysis methods, data limitations and

back-up solutions.

An example of the ToR can be found in chapter 6.7 of the Annex.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 22

5. CARRYING OUT THE EVALUATION

5.1. How to fill in the interim evaluation report in SFC2014

The independent evaluation experts will produce an evaluation report in line with

the requirements of the RA stipulated in the ToR. The report can follow any

format agreed between the two parties, but it is recommended that the experts

fill in also the template of the evaluation report to be submitted via SFC2014 (for

the template, please refer to chapter 6.5. of the Annex). This will save time and

resources at the level of the RA, and will help reduce the risk of submitting

incomplete reports. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that the

template of the evaluation report in SFC2014 will have a limited number of

characters allowed for each section. This means that when reporting to the

Commission, the results of the evaluation will have to be synthesized.

Therefore, it is recommended that the experts are aware of the space limitation

and that this is taken into account when developing the synthesized report

according to the SFC2014 template. The synthesis report must, however, be

self-contained and cannot refer to information in any attached document or

contain hyperlinks.

This synthesis report is the key deliverable of the evaluation process. It should

be built on the critical judgements and it should summarise the evaluation,

presenting the replies to the evaluation questions, research undertaken,

analysis, findings and conclusions/recommendations of the evaluation.

The national evaluation reports for AMIF and ISF interim evaluation cover the

time period between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2017. The template in SFC

2014 is mostly based on the evaluation questions which are common for all the

Member States and are set in the Delegated Regulation on CMEF. The impact

and result indicators, which are also part of the Delegated Regulation on CMEF,

should be used to support the replies to the evaluation questions.

The interim evaluation report is composed of 12 sections (see the box below).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 23

In the section on "Independent experts", RAs should explain whether the

evaluation was entrusted to external experts (contractors) or to an internal but

functionally independent body. They should also explain how the independence

requirement (as set in Art. 56(3) of the Horizontal Regulation) was ensured.

The Executive Summary should provide a comprehensive overview of both the

results from the interim evaluation and the mid-term review.

In section 1 MS should provide a short description of the context in which the

Funds have been implemented during the period covered in the interim

evaluation (from January 2014 to June 2017). MS should explain the background

information which is relevant to the implementation of the AMIF and ISF national

Structure of the evaluation template in SFC2014

Independent experts Executive Summary

1. Context of implementation of the Fund during the relevant

period. 2. Challenges encountered and their impact on the

Implementation of the National Programmes 3. Deviations in the implementation of the National Programmes

(if any)

4. Evaluation questions: a. Effectiveness. Possible methods to be used to provide

answers about effectiveness: i. Conclusions, based on the common impact and

result indicators

ii. Stakeholder consultation and other data collection tools

iii. Counterfactual impact evaluation b. Efficiency c. Coherence

d. Complementarity e. EU added value

f. Sustainability g. Simplification and reduction of administrative burden

5. Project examples

6. Methodology 7. Main conclusions and recommendations

8. Results of the Mid-term review 9. Annex

Result & Impact indicators

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 24

programmes and useful to understand the country’s main needs in the field of

migration for AMIF and of security for ISF.

In Sections 2 and 3 MS should explain the challenges they faced in the

implementation of the Funds and whether these challenges and new needs led to

deviations from the established national programmes.

Section 4 is devoted to the evaluation questions. Questions are organised by the

evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence,

complementarity, EU added value, sustainability and simplification and reduction

of administrative burden. Where relevant, the replies to the evaluation questions

need to be supported by the result and impact indicators and also by the data to

be reported in the Annex (see section 9). Please note that the national

evaluation reports should cover only the actions implemented under the national

programmes (shared management). Emergency Assistance projects and Union

Actions will be evaluated by the Commission.

Section 5 focuses on examples of projects financed by the Fund. MS should

report three cases of success stories and one case of a failure story. MS should

particularly look at the projects' effectiveness and/or efficiency in achieving the

objectives, and at a more global level at the contribution of the project to the

effectiveness of the national programme. Both qualitative and quantitative

methods can be used to achieve this goal. For more information, please refer to

chapter 5.3.

Section 6 presents the methodology used for the evaluation and how the data

collection process was handled.

It is followed by section 7 on conclusions and recommendations. The conclusions

shall be streamlined and should focus on the most essential and pertinent

issues. Therefore, the maximum number of conclusions which can be selected in

the SFC2014 template is five. Each recommendation should be linked to a

specific conclusion. In the specific case of an interim evaluation, the report

should also include some recommendations to improve the implementation for

the remaining period.

Section 8 presents the results of the mid-term review.

The Annex (Data) includes a number of tables with information which is usually

contained in the accounts and can be used to support the replies under the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 25

evaluation questions. For the period 01/01/2014-15/10/2016 this information

will be automatically generated from the accounts. However, as the interim

evaluation also covers the period 16/10/2016-30/06/2017, this additional data

will have to be encoded manually by the RA, based on the best estimates

available by the end of 2017.

5.1.1. Replies to Evaluation Questions (section 4)

Effectiveness

The evaluation sub-questions are grouped together under a more general

evaluation question. For example, for AMIF, under a "Solidarity" topic, the

overall evaluation question "How did the Fund contribute to enhancing solidarity

and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards

those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical

cooperation?" is further detailed by two evaluation sub-questions "How did the

Fund contribute to the transfer of asylum applicants (relocation as per Council

Decisions (EU) 2015/1253 and 2015/1601)?" and "How did the Fund contribute

to the transfer between Member States of beneficiaries of international

protection?". The suggested approach is to first prepare replies to the sub-

questions, and then to merge them into a comprehensive reply for the overall

question.

Three possible approaches can be used to reply to the evaluation questions

related to effectiveness.

I. Approach: Common result and impact indicators set in the

Delegated Regulation on CMEF

The common output, impact and result indicators are the first tool to be used to

provide an answer to the evaluation questions. Indicators provide an empirical

assessment of the functioning of the interventions financed by the Funds. Each

indicator can be mapped to a specific evaluation question and then to an

evaluation criterion. Therefore, where possible, when answering the evaluation

questions, MS should refer to the indicators linked to the evaluation question:

this guarantees objectiveness in the replies and comparability across MS.

A mapping of the specific objectives, evaluation questions and indicators is

presented in Tables 1 and 2 for AMIF and ISF respectively.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 26

In addition, MS can use any other relevant information they consider useful to

answer the evaluation questions, including the Data reported in the Annex to the

evaluation report. Reference can be made to some specific projects within an

action or to the whole action implemented – as described in the national

programmes. The replies to evaluation questions should not, however, be the

place to provide an exhaustive list of the activities and projects implemented. It

is expected that a qualitative assessment, based on a thorough in-depth

analysis, will be provided for each question. As for the EQ which are not linked

to any indicator, MS should base their reply on the data collected via other

sources.

In order to assess the progress made, one can comment on the dynamic of

these indicators over time. It should be noted that in order to make this before-

after comparison, it is desirable to have a similar set of indicators for the pre-

AMIF period, at least for a baseline year (e.g. the year immediately preceding

the use of the Fund).

Nevertheless, relying only on indicators to answer the evaluation questions is a

sub-optimal strategy as indicators are useful in describing the current situation

and the evolution over time, but they do not allow us to assess how and if this

evolution is really due to the Funds or to other external factors.

AMIF

The table below illustrates the mapping of the evaluation questions contained for

the AMIF (Annex I) onto a subset of indicators (common result and impact).

Table 1. To what extent has the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund ("Fund")

reached the objectives defined in Regulation (EU) No 516/2014?

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS INDICATORS

SO1: Asylum and reception

How did the Fund contribute to

strengthening and developing all

aspects of the Common European

Asylum System, including its external

dimension?

What progress was made towards strengthening

and developing the asylum procedures, and how

did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?

SO1 R1, SO1 R3, SO1

I1, SO1 I2

What progress was made towards strengthening

and developing the reception conditions, and

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?

SO1 R2, SO1 R4, SO1

I3, SO1 I4, SO1 I5

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 27

What progress was made towards the

achievement of a successful implementation of

the legal framework of the qualification directive

(and its subsequent modifications), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

SO1 I6

What progress was made towards enhancing

Member State capacity to develop, monitor and

evaluate their asylum policies and procedures,

and how did the Fund contribute to achieving

this progress?

SO1 C4, SO1 C5, SO1

What progress was made towards the

establishment, development and implementation

of national resettlement programmes and

strategies, and other humanitarian admission programmes, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?

SO1 C6

SO2: Legal Migration and Integration

How did the Fund contribute to

supporting legal migration to the

Member States in accordance with

their economic and social needs, such

as labour market needs, while

safeguarding the integrity of the

immigration systems of Member States, and to promoting the effective

integration of third-country nationals?

What progress was made towards supporting

legal migration to the Member States in

accordance with their economic and social

needs, such as labour market needs, and how

did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

SO2 R1, SO2 R2, SO2 I1

What progress was made towards promoting the

effective integration of third-country nationals,

and how did the Fund contribute to achieving

this progress?

SO2 R2, SO2 I2, SO2 I3,

SO4 I4, SO2 I5, SO2 I6,

SO2 I7

What progress was made towards supporting co-

operation among the Member States, with a

view to safeguarding the integrity of the

immigration systems of Member States, and how

did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?

SO2 C3, SO2 C4

What progress was made towards building

capacity on integration and legal migration

within the Member States, and how did the Fund

contribute to achieving this progress?

SO2 C3, SO2 C5

SO3: Return

How did the Fund contribute to

enhancing fair and effective return

strategies in the Member States which

contribute to combating illegal

immigration, with an emphasis on

sustainability of return and effective

readmission in the countries of origin

and transit?

What progress was made towards supporting the

measures accompanying return procedures, and

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?

SO3 R2, SO3 R4, SO3

R7, SO3 R8

What progress was made towards effective

implementation of return measures (voluntary and forced), and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?

SO3 R3, SO3 R5, SO3 I1, SO3 I2, SO3 I3

What progress was made towards enhancing

practical co-operation between Member States

and/or with authorities of third countries on

return measures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

SO3 R6

What progress was made towards building

capacity on return, and how did the Fund

contribute to achieving this progress?

SO3 R1, SO3 C4,

SO4: Solidarity

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 28

How did the Fund contribute to

enhancing solidarity and responsibility-

sharing between the Member States,

in particular towards those most

affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical

cooperation?

How did the Fund contribute to the transfer of

asylum applicants (relocation as per Council

Decisions (EU) 2015/1253 and 2015/1601)? SO4 R1, SO4 R2

How did the Fund contribute to the transfer

between Member States of beneficiaries of

international protection?

ISF

The following table illustrates the mapping of the evaluation for ISF (Annex II)

onto a subset of indicators (output, result and impact).

Table 2. How did the Internal Security Fund ("Fund") contribute to the achievement of the general objective defined in the Regulation 515/2014? (VISA

AND BORDERS)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS INDICATORS

S01- VISA

How did the Fund contribute to the

achievement of the following specific

objectives: · Support a common visa policy to

facilitate legitimate travel;

· Provide a high quality of service to

visa applicants;

· Ensure equal treatment of third-

country nationals and

· Tackle illegal migration?

What progress was made towards promoting the

development and implementation of the

common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards ensuring

better consular coverage and harmonised

practices on visa issuance between Member

States, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?

SO1 R2, SO1 I1, SO1 I2

What progress was made towards ensuring the

application of the Union's acquis on visas and

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

SO1 R3

What progress was made towards Member

States' contribution to strengthening the

cooperation between Member States operating

in third countries as regards the flows of third-

country national into the territory of Member States, including prevention and tackling of

illegal immigration, as well as the cooperation

with third countries, and how did the Fund

contribute to achieving this progress?

SO1 C3, SO1 R1, SO1

R6, SO1 R5

What progress was made towards supporting the

common visa policy by setting up and running IT

systems, their communication infrastructure and

equipment, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?

SO1 R4

How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation (EU) No 515/2014

contribute to the achievement of the specific

objective on common visa policy?

S02 - BORDERS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 29

 Supporting integrated border

management, including promoting

further harmonisation of border

management-related measures in

accordance with common Union

standards and through the sharing of

information between Member States

and between Member States and the

European Agency for the Management

of Operational Cooperation at the

External Borders of the Member States of the European Union?

· Ensuring, on one hand, a uniform

and high level of control and protection

of the external borders, including by

the tackling of illegal immigration and,

on the other hand, the smooth

crossing of the external borders in

conformity with the Schengen acquis,

while guaranteeing access to international protection for those

needing it, in accordance with the

obligations contracted by the Member

States in the field of human rights,

including the principle of non-

refoulement?

What progress was made towards promoting the

development, implementation and enforcement

of policies with a view to ensure the absence of

any controls on persons when crossing the

internal borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards carrying out

checks on persons and monitoring efficiently the crossing of external borders, and how did the

Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

SO2 C2, SO2 R2, SO2

I3, SO2 I5

What progress was made towards establishing

gradually an integrated management system for

external borders, based on solidarity and

responsibility, and how did the Fund contribute

to achieving this progress?

SO2 R5

What progress was made towards ensuring the

application of the Union's acquis on border

management, and how did the Fund contribute

to achieving this progress?

S02 R1, SO2 R3, SO2

What progress was made towards contributing to reinforcing situational awareness at the

external borders and the reaction capabilities of

Member States, and how did the Fund contribute

to achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards setting up and

running IT systems, their communication

infrastructure and equipment that support

border checks and border surveillance at the external borders, and how did the Fund

contribute to achieving this progress?

SO2 I1, SO2 I2, SO2 I4

How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation n° 515/2014

contribute to the achievement of the specific

objective on border management?

Table 3. How did the Internal Security Fund ("Fund") contribute to the achievement of the general objective defined in the Regulation 513/2014? (CRIME

AND RISK & CRISIS)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS INDICATORS

S05 CRIME

How did the Fund contribute to the

following specific objectives:

• Prevention of cross-border, serious

and organised crime, including

terrorism;

• Reinforcement of the coordination

and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other

What progress was made towards the

achievement of the expected results of

strengthening Member States' capacity to

combat cross-border, serious and organised

crime, including terrorism and to reinforce their

mutual cooperation in this field?

SO5 R1

SO5 I1

SO5 I2

SO5 I3

SO5 C3

SO5 R3

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 30

national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or other

relevant Union bodies, and with

relevant third Countries and

international organisations?

What progress was made towards the achievement of the expected result of

developing administrative and operational

coordination and cooperation among Member

States' public authorities, Europol or other

relevant Union bodies and, where appropriate,

with third Countries and international

organisations?

SO5 R1 SO5 I5

SO5 I6

SO5 C4

SO5 I7

What progress was made towards the

achievement of the expected result of developing training schemes, such as those

regarding technical and professional skills and

knowledge of obligations on human rights and

fundamental freedoms, in implementation of EU

training policies, including through specific Union

law enforcement exchange programmes?

SO5 R2

What progress was made towards the

achievement of the expected result of putting in

place measures, safeguard mechanisms and

best practices for the identification and support

of witnesses and victims of crime, including

victims of terrorism?

S05 I4

S05 C3

S06 RISK AND CRISIS

How did the Fund contribute to

improve the capacity of Member States

to manage effectively security-related

risks and crises, and protecting people

and critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-

related incidents?

What progress was made towards reinforcing

Member States' administrative and operational

capacity to protect critical infrastructure in all

sectors of economic activity, including through

public-private partnerships and improved coordination, cooperation, exchange and

dissemination of know-how and experience

within the Union and with relevant third

countries, and how did the Fund contribute to

the achievement of this progress?

S06 R1

S06 R2

S06 I1

What progress was made towards establishing

secure links and effective coordination between

existing sector-specific early warning and crisis

cooperation actors at Union and national level,

and how did the Fund contribute to the

achievement of this progress?

S06 R1

S06 R2

S06 I1

What progress was made towards improving the

administrative and operational capacity of the

Member States and the Union to develop

comprehensive threat and risk assessments, and

how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

S06 R2

S06 C2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 31

II. Approach: Conducting surveys targeted to the beneficiaries

The second approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the Funds is to rely on

“qualitative” methodologies. These methodologies will complement the

conclusions drawn through the assessment of the progress of the result and

impact indicators and will allow to support the replies to the Evaluation

Questions with additional sources of data. Diversification of data sources is

necessary in an evaluation based on evidence. These qualitative methodologies

may include: beneficiary surveys; case studies; an expert panel; focus groups;

theory based impact evaluation, and others.12 Please also refer to the Better

Regulation Toolbox, TOOL #50: Stakeholder Consultation Tools13 and to Tool

#2: Evidence Based Better Regulation14.

The national evaluations of AMIF and ISF shall be supported at least by

the approaches I and II.

III. Approach: CIE using data on final recipients and non-

recipients

Finally, we present the third approach that can be used to assess the

effectiveness of the Fund: Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE).

As this approach is more demanding in terms of data, it is fundamental that the

RAs cooperate closely with the beneficiaries of the Fund for the gathering of all

the information on the final recipients15 of projects/actions financed by the Fund

(e.g. for AMIF a group of final recipients of a project could be asylum applicants,

12 For a comprehensive review and description of these methods please refer to “EVALSED sourcebook. The

resource for the evaluation of Socio-Economic Development: Sourcebook - Method and techniques.”

(2013).

13 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_50_en.htm

14 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_2_en.htm

15 Final recipients or treated group: those who did receive support from a specific project financed by the Fund.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 32

refugees or TCNs, who participated in a given training, etc.). At the same time,

it would be extremely important to also collect data on a group of non-

participants16 to the projects (e.g. asylum applicants, refugees or TCNs who did

not follow the training). These data usually come in the form of register or

administrative data (e.g. social security data, tax records, where the nationality

of the individuals is reported). The use of unsuccessful applicants to a project

financed by the Fund as a comparison group offers the opportunity to gather

information on the outcome in terms of performance after the project.

The absence of a non-recipient control group to compare with the final recipient

group limits the possibility of quantifying the impact of a project on a specific

objective (integration of TCNs). Generally, the group of non-recipients (what is

known in the literature as a 'control group') is used as a ‘benchmark’ for the

group of beneficiaries, in terms of what would have happened to the

beneficiaries had the project not been implemented. Control groups are the core

component of any evaluation study, so collecting the data on non-recipients

becomes extremely important.

The individuals (both recipients and non-recipients) may have also received

support from other projects in the past that fall outside the period of interest in

the evaluation. A well-built counterfactual analysis can help to solve these

contamination effects.

Example

One of the SFC2014 evaluation questions reads as “What progress was made

towards promoting the effective integration of third country nationals, and how

did the [AMIF] Fund contribute to this progress?”.

The first part of the question asks for the progress made with respect to the past

in achieving a specific goal, namely effective integration of third country

nationals. This EQ is linked to various results and impact indicators collected in

SFC2014, such as the gap between third country nationals and host country

nationals in the employment rate (indicator SO2 I2), the unemployment rate

16 Non-recipients, comparison group or control group: those who did not receive support from a specific project

financed by the Fund.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 33

(indicator SO2 I3) and the activity rate (SO2 I4), and others. These indicators

are described in chapter 6.1. of the Annex.

However, the evidence based on these common and impact indicators is not

sufficient to answer the second part of the question, which concerns the

contribution of the Fund to the progress observed. This is indeed a question on

the impact of the Fund, and can be addressed by means of Counterfactual

Impact Evaluation methods. The goal of the impact evaluation is to isolate

the causal effect of the Fund on the three indicators above from potential

confounding factors. It may happen, for instance, that although the money was

spent properly, the host country vs. third country national employment gap

worsened over time because of the business cycle or the Great Recession.

Indeed, the first workers who are fired in an economic crisis are those who enjoy

less employment protection, typically the “outsiders”, which often include low

skilled third country nationals. Then, in order to assess the causal effect of the

Fund, it is important to have an idea of what would have happened to the three

indicators in the absence of the Fund. To put it in other words, it is important to

find and define a proper counterfactual.

5.1.2. Efficiency, relevance, coherence, complementarity, EU added

value, sustainability, and simplification and reduction of administrative burden

In the following part of section 4, MS should reply about the efficiency,

relevance, coherence, complementarity, EU added value, sustainability of the

Fund and also about simplification and reduction of administrative burden.

Please also refer to the Better Regulation Toolbox, TOOL #42: Identifying the

Evaluation criteria and questions17 and TOOL #43: What Key Impacts Must be

considered?18, which provide further guidance on these evaluation criteria.

Efficiency (i.e. cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis)

Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used by an

intervention and the changes generated by the intervention. Efficiency analysis

is a key input to policy making, helping both policy makers and stakeholders to

17 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_42_en.htm

18 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_43_en.htm

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 34

draw conclusions on whether the costs of the EU intervention are proportionate

to the benefits.

Good evaluations should make strong efforts to go beyond a qualitative

description of the different costs and benefits of the EU intervention and seek to

quantify them. In order to identify the relevant categories of the costs, the full

efforts to support and perform an intervention can be broken into different

categories such as: staff, purchases made, time and/or money spent, fixed

costs, running costs, etc. Please also refer to TOOL #51: TYPOLOGY OF COSTS

AND BENEFITS19 and to TOOL #52: METHODS TO ASSESS COSTS AND

BENEFITS20.

Relevance

The evaluation must look at the objectives of the EU intervention being

evaluated and see how well they (still) match the (current) needs and problems.

The answer to this question should identify if there is any mismatch between the

objectives of the intervention and the (current) needs or problems. This is key

information that will assist policy makers in deciding whether to continue,

change or stop an intervention.

Coherence

The evaluation should look at how well the intervention works: i) internally and

ii) with other EU interventions within the same policy field or in areas which may

have to work together. At its widest, external coherence can look at compliance

with international agreements/declarations.

Complementarity

The evaluation should look at the extent to which EU policies and interventions

support and usefully supplement other policies (in particular those pursued by

the Member States).

EU added value

19 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_51_en.htm

20 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_52_en.htm

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 35

The evaluation should consider arguments about the value resulting from EU

interventions that is additional to the value that would have resulted from

interventions initiated at regional or national levels by both public authorities

and the private sector. For spending programmes, EU added value may result

from different factors such as co-ordination gains, improved legal certainty,

greater effectiveness or complementarity. The analysis of EU added value is

often limited to the qualitative, given the stated difficulties to identify a counter-

factual.

Sustainability

Evaluation should look at whether the effects are likely to last after the

intervention ends. It is often hoped that the changes caused by an intervention

are permanent. It can be important to test this expectation for interventions

which have a finite duration, such as particular programmes. For the purpose of

the evaluation of AMIF and ISF programmes, and given an extensive variety of

projects, MS may select a limited number of types of projects (e.g. language

courses, purchase of equipment, renovation of a reception centre) and make

sustainability checks after the end of the intervention only for a sample of

projects within the selected categories.

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden

AMIF and ISF were set-up differently in comparison to the SOLID Fund structure.

Switching from an annual to a multi-annual structure of national programmes;

allowing eligibility rules to be set at a national level; proposing a number of

simplified cost options — all these changes were aimed at the reduction of

administrative burden for the Member States and the beneficiaries, and at the

simplification of the procedures. Whether the new set-up has produced the

intended effect needs to be evaluated during the interim and ex post

evaluations, providing a qualitative assessment under the evaluation question on

whether the Fund management procedures were simplified and the

administrative burden was reduced for its beneficiaries.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 36

5.1.3. How to insert the indicators

In SFC2014 Member States will find tables to insert the results and impact

indicators contained in the Delegated Regulation on CMEF21. Only some of the

indicators are to be inserted by MS. Indicators which come from other data

sources (EASO, Eurostat, Frontex, European Commission, etc.), will be pre-filled

in SFC2014 by the Commission (before October 2016), and MS will be able to

see the numbers already in SFC. MS can correct the pre-filled indicators if they

have more updated data. In that case, MS should justify the reason for the

correction and the source of the new data. For the indicators which are to be

inserted by the MS, RAs should refer to chapters 6.1. and 6.2. of the Annex of

this guidance document for information about unit of measurement, reference

period and definition.

Some indicators are expressed as ratios, i.e. they have to be built from two

indicators. In this specific case, Member States need to report the original

numbers (numerator and denominator) and the ratio of the two will be

calculated by SFC.

Example

The result indicator S01 R2 for ISF-Borders and Visa is built as the ratio of the

number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of visas addressed

with the support of the Fund (S01 R2 a), over the total number of Schengen

Evaluation recommendations issued (S01 R2 b). Thus, for this indicator we will

have three values: the value of the denominator (S01 R2 b), the value of the

numerator (S01 R2 a) and the value of the ratio (S01 R2), which should be

automatically generated by SFC.

Other indicators have multiple values, therefore within one indicator there may

be more than one value associated. See for example indicator ISF-Borders and

Visas S02 I1 (number of irregular border crossings detected at the EU external

borders), distinguishing between a) between the border crossing points; and b)

at the border crossing points. This indicator is thus composed of two distinct

variables: S02 I1a and S02 I1b.

21 For the template, please refer to chapters 6.5.2. and 6.5.4 of the Annex.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 37

In case a MS wishes to send other relevant data (e.g. data disaggregated at the

regional level, or quarterly data) they will have the possibility to upload

supplementary files in SFC.

5.2. Assessment of the evaluation report

The assessment of the evaluation report (and any other requested documents) is

needed to ensure that the final deliverables respond to the information needs.

The quality of the final deliverables should be assessed against the requirements

in the ToR. When carrying out the assessment of the report, the RA should check

the reliability of data, and the analysis provided by the evaluators: the replies to

the evaluation questions must be systematically supported by the data analysed

in the report. The findings must follow a logical flow from the data, the analysis

of information and the interpretation. Evaluations are based on the best

available evidence (factual, opinion based, etc.), which should be drawn from a

diverse and appropriate range of methods and sources (triangulation principle –

TOOL #2: Evidence based Better Regulation). Not all sources of evidence are

equally robust and consideration must be given to when and how the evidence

was collected and whether there is any bias or uncertainty in it.

5.3. Best practice of CIE: pilot studies in collaboration with JRC

Project examples (such as the ones to be reported under section 5 of the

evaluation report template) can be analysed using CIE methods. Currently, JRC

and DG HOME are collaborating together to identify 2-3 MS that are interested in

testing this new evaluation approach on a voluntary basis. These examples are

named pilot studies as they illustrate what should/could be ideally done in the

future to properly evaluate projects/actions financed by a Fund.

The aim of the pilot studies is to complement the interim evaluation by further

developing one or more aspects of migration and internal security in the Member

States, to better assess the EU challenges on this matter in the near future. The

results of the pilot studies will be used for the Commission's interim evaluation

to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council on June 2018, and

not for the national interim evaluation that the RAs will submit by the end of

December 2017.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 38

More information on the CIE methods which could be used in pilot studies is

provided in the chapter 6.3 of the Annex.

Chapter 6.4 of the Annex provides detailed examples of possible pilot projects

that make use of CIE methods to evaluate the impact of a selected

project/action on pre-defined objectives (e.g. integration, asylum, etc. for

AMIF).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 39

6. ANNEXES

6.1. Indicators by specific objective – AMIF

In this section the common indicators contained in the Regulation (EU) No

516/2014 and the result and impact indicators contained in Annex III of the

Delegated Regulation on CMEF are presented. The figures on the common

indicators are reported annually by the Member States by means of the Annual

Implementation Report (AIR) in SFC 2014.

For the indicators listed below, further information is provided in order to help

the Member States collect the data and prepare the interim evaluation report: i)

Data source; ii) Measurement unit; iii) Reference period; iv) Definition, and v)

Useful information where necessary.

For each indicator we report the measurement unit and the reference period.

The indicators are organised by AMIF specific objective, following Article 3 of the

Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 and Annex III of the Delegated Regulation on

CMEF.

6.1.1. S01: Asylum and reception

Specific Objective: To strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension

Definition / Clarification Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baselin e

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO1 C4. Number of country-of-origin information products and fact-finding missions conducted with the assistance of the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of products and missions

Member States Annual - financial year

2013

SO1 C5. Number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum policies in Member States

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of projects Member States Annual - financial year

2013

SO1 C6. Number of persons resettled with support of the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of persons Member States Annual - financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO1 R1. Number of target group persons provided with assistance through projects in the field of reception and asylum systems supported under the Fund: i) number of target group persons benefiting from information and assistance throughout the asylum procedures ii) number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance and representation iii) number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014).

Number of persons Member States Annual - financial year

2013

SO1 R2. Capacity (i.e. number of places) of new reception accommodation infrastructure set up in line with the common requirements for reception conditions as set out in the Union acquis and of existing reception accommodation infrastructure improved in accordance with the same requirements as a result of the projects supported under the Fund and percentage in the total reception accommodation capacity

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 41

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). This indicator is broken down in sub-categories such as:

a) new reception accommodation infrastructure, set up in line with the common requirements for reception conditions as set out in the Union acquis, and of existing reception accommodation infrastructure improved in accordance with the same requirements as a result of the projects supported under the Fund

b) the same number as a percentage of the total accommodation capacity.

Useful information: The response to this indicator shall report on the number of places created or improved under projects supported by AMIF. If a Member State does not fund projects aiming at creating new places or improving accommodation capacity, the result reported will read "zero" new/improved places. Therefore the percentage in the total reception accommodation capacity will also be "zero percent".

Number of places and percentage

Member States Annual - financial year

2013

SO1 R3. Number of persons trained in asylum-related topics with the assistance of the Fund, and that number as a percentage of the total number of staff trained in those topics

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). This indicator is broken down in sub-categories such as:

a) with the assistance of the Fund b) as a percentage of the total number of staff trained in those

topics.

Number of persons for a) and percentage for b)

Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

SO1 R4. Number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 42

This indicator measures the evolution of the ratio of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) supported by the Fund, out of the total number of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) supported by the Fund (Member States)

b) total number of places adapted for UAM (Member States) c) number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM)

supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors

Unaccompanied minor as defined in Article 2 of the Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU). Accommodation adapted for unaccompanied minors as defined in Article 24 of the Reception Conditions Directive.

Numbers of places and percentage A ratio for c) will be generated automatically by the system (SFC). Stock at the end of the reporting period.

Member States Annual – financial year

2013

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO1 I1. Stock of pending cases at first instance, by duration.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 43

This indicator is broken down in sub-categories such as: a) less than 6 months b) more than 6 months Definition: This indicator refers to the stock of applications for which decisions in first instance are still pending. It includes all cases under consideration by the national authority responsible for the first instance determination of the application for international protection (until the first instance decision has been issued) at the end of the reference period (i.e. last day of the reference month). The total number is broken down by duration of pending number of days from the date of lodging the application to the end of the reference period, in line with Article 31 of the recast APD: 1. Less than 6 months: pending for 182 calendar days or less; 2. More than 6 months: pending for 183 calendar days or more.

Number of cases, duration

EASO and is defined as EPS indicator 2: “Pending cases at first instance”.

Data collected by DG HOME.

Annual – Financial year

2013

SO1 I2. Share of final positive decisions at the appeal stage.

This indicator measures the evolution of the share of appealed cases which have a positive outcome. Definition: Final decision on appeal means a decision granted at the final instance of administrative/judicial asylum procedure and which results from the appeal lodged by the asylum seeker rejected in the preceding stage of the procedure. Evolution of the share of final positive decisions (refugee status and subsidiary protection) taken in appeal stage compared to the number of all final decisions taken in appeal. Final decisions granting national

Numbers of decisions and percentage

Eurostat (migr_asydcfina). Data collected by DG HOME.

Annual – Data available on a calendar year basis for final instance decisions. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC

2013

22 EASO’s Early warning and Preparedness System (EPS) is a data collection system gathering information under indicators focussing on all key stages of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Countries provide monthly data to EASO within 15 days, with all 30 EU+ countries (EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland) contributing. For more information visit the EASO website:

https://www.easo.europa.eu/analysis-and-statistics

23 Data available on a monthly basis

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 44

humanitarian protection are not considered as positive decisions but are included in the denominator in the total number of final decisions. Based on Eurostat data (migr_asydcfina), which will be downloaded from this website by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/migr_asydcfina. The variable is coded as “migr_asydcfina”. The meta-data can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/migr_asydec_esms. htm. The information reported by the Member States is the following: - total final positive decisions in appeal stage (refugee status and subsidiary protection) - total all final decisions in appeal stage - those numbers expressed as a ratio

2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

SO1 I3. Number of persons in the reception system (stock at the end of the reporting period)

Definition: This indicator measures the evolution of the number of persons in the reception system. This includes all persons who have applied for international protection in the reporting state and are effectively under the reception system, as a measure of stock of persons in the reception system at the end of the reporting month. The reception system is understood as the set of arrangements in place to accommodate asylum applicants as per the recast Reception Conditions Directive point 8 (Directive 2013/33/EU). Each person is to be reported individually: if a family is receiving reception, each family member shall be reported. For example, a family composed of four persons shall be reported as four persons in the reception system.

Number of persons EASO - EPS indicator 7: Number of persons in the reception system (stock at the end of the reporting period.)

Annual – data available on a monthly basis. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO1 I4. Number of persons in the reception system as compared to the number of asylum applicants (migr_asyappctza)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 45

This indicator measures the evolution of the ratio of the number of persons in the accommodation system out of the total number of asylum applicants. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of persons in the reception system (stock at end of the reporting period) (EASO)

b) asylum and first time asylum applicants (Eurostat migr_asyappctza)

c) Number of persons in the reception system as compared to the number of asylum applicants

Numbers of persons and percentage. Number for a) and b), and ratio for c).

EASO + Eurostat (migr_asyappctza) For a) data to retrieve from EASO, EPS indicator 7 For b) data collected by Eurostat using the variable “migr_asyappctza” ( http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/ metadata/en/migr_asyapp_esms.htm) . For c) the ratio between a) and b) will be generated automatically by the system (SFC).

Annual – The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO1 I5. Number of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) as compared to the number of unaccompanied minors.

This indicator measures the evolution of the ratio of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) out of the total number of unaccompanied minors. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of accommodation places adapated for unaccompanied minors (Member States)

b) asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors (Eurostat migr_asyunaa)

c) Number of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) as compared to the number of unaccompanied minors.

a) Number of places. b) Number of unaccompanied minors. c) is the ratio calculated on a) and b).

For a) data will be provided by Member States. For b) data available in Eurostat (migr_asyunaa), The meta-data can be extracted using this link: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa& lang=en .

Annual – For a) it is reported by the MS on financial year. For b), the data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO1 I6. Convergence of first instance/final instance recognition rates by Member States for asylum applicants from a same third country.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 46

This indicator measures the evolution towards the convergence of recognition rates by MS for asylum seekers from a same third country. A proper implementation, at Member State level, of the standards for qualification laid down in Directive 2011/95/EU should lead towards an increased convergence of the recognition rates. Calculation: the recognition rate at first instance/final instance in the Member States for asylum seekers from specific third country (e.g. Afghanistan). For Member States with at least 100 total first instance/final instance decisions regarding asylum seekers from Afghanistan. (the higher the gap between MSs in percentage points, the higher the difference between MSs recognition rates for specific nationality). Grants of humanitarian status are not considered as positive decision but are included in the denominator in the total number of decisions. Calculations based on Eurostat data (migr_asydcfina).

Percentage points Eurostat (migr_asydcfina) Annual – The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

6.1.2. S02: Legal Migration and Integration

Specific Objective: To support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of the Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-country nationals

Definition / Clarification Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baselin e

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO2 C3. Number of local, regional and national policy frameworks/measures/tools in place for the integration of third-country nationals and involving civil society and migrant communities, as well as all other relevant stakeholders, as a result of the measures supported under the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of frameworks/measures /tools

Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO2 C4. Number of cooperation projects with other Member States on the integration of third-country nationals supported under the Fund

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 47

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of projects Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO2 C5. Number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate integration policies in Member States

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of projects Member States Annual – financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO2 R1. Number of target group persons who participated in pre-departure measures supported under the Fund.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). Useful information: The target group for pre-departure measures is defined in Article 8 and in Recital 21 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 lists actions which could be supported by the Fund in the context of pre-departure measures. Examples of pre-departure measures: information provision through one-to-one counselling sessions/ specifically developed material, skills development, job matching, recognition of qualifications (for more examples: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/Headstart_to_Integration.p df ).

Number of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO2 R2. Number of target group persons assisted by the Fund through integration measures in the framework of national, local and regional strategies: i) number of target group persons assisted through measures focusing on education and training, including language training and preparatory actions to facilitate access to the labour market, ii) number of target group persons supported through the provision of advice and assistance in the area of housing, iii) number of target group persons assisted through the provision of health and psychological care, iv) number of target group persons assisted through measures related to democratic participation.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 48

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). Useful information: The common indicator is broader than the subcategory indicators and therefore it includes all types of assistance provided by the Fund through integration measures in the framework of national, local and regional strategies. The value of the common indicator should, in principle, be higher than any one of the subcategory indicators. Persons taking part in various assistance activities falling under various subcategory indicators will be counted under each relevant sub- category. In the common indicator these persons will only be counted once.

Numbers of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO2 I1. Share of third-country nationals (TCNs) having received long-term residence status out of all TCNs.

Definition: This indicator expresses the share of TCNs having received long-term residence status out of all TCNs.

Percentage of TCNs having received long- term residence status out of all TCNs.

Eurostat (migr_reslas) Annual – calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I2. Employment rate: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 49

Definition: The employment rate is the percentage of employed persons in relation to the comparable total population. For the overall employment rate, the comparison is made with the population of working-age. In this case the indicator is calculated as the difference of the employment rate of third-country nationals (TCNs) and the host-country nationals (or native population). ‘Third-country national’ means any person who is not a citizen of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) TFEU. In the European Union, the term is often used, together with "foreign national" and "non-EU foreign national", to refer to individuals who are neither from the EU country in which they are currently living or staying, nor from other member states of the European Union. The data to compute these two indicators are taken from EU-LFS, where it is possible to calculate the employment rate by age, sex, citizenship. One of the main results of an effective integration policy is to provide TCNs with the opportunity to access the labour market and participate to the economic and social life of their communities. The reduction of the gap in unemployment of TCNs cannot be the result of a single programme / policy, but a link between this result and the AMIF contribution to the national integration policies is evident. More details on the statistical concepts are provided here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/EU_labour_force_survey_-_methodology

Percentage points (difference in employment rate between TCNs and host country nationals).

Eurostat - EU-Labour force survey http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/ overview. Data on employment and unemployment: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/m etadata/en/employ_esms.htm

Annual – calendar year

24 .

The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I3. Unemployment rate: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals.

24 data can be collected both quarterly and annually

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 50

Definition: An unemployed person is defined by Eurostat, according to the guidelines of the International Labour Organization, as: • someone aged 15 to 74 (in Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway: 16 to 74 years); • without work during the reference week; • available to start work within the next two weeks (or has already found a job to start within the next three months); • actively having sought employment at some time during the last four weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of people unemployed as a percentage of the labour force. This indicator is broadly calculated as the difference between the unemployment rate for the TCNs and the host country nationals for the age-group 15-74. However, it is possible to calculate this indicator for different age groups. As for the definition of TCNs, it is possible to calculate the indicator by citizenship and by country of birth.

Percentage points Eurostat - Labour force survey Annual – calendar year

25 .

The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I4. Activity rate: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals.

Definition: This indicator is calculated as the difference in the activity rate between TCNs and host-country nationals. The activity rate represents active persons as a percentage of same age total population. It can be also calculated separately by age, sex, citizenship and so on.

Percentage points Eurostat - Labour force survey - Variable name: lfsa_argan

Annual – calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I5. Share of early leavers from education and training: gap between third country nationals and host-country nationals.

25 data can be collected both quarterly and annually

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 51

This indicator will allow to analyse the trend over the implementation periods of the AMIF in an area which is highly regarded as meaningful for integration. It is defined as the percentage of population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training, as compared to the same population of host-country nationals. Definition: Early leavers from education and training denotes the percentage of the population aged 18 to 24 having attained at most lower secondary education and not being involved in further education or training. The numerator of the indicator refers to persons aged 18 to 24 who meet the following two conditions: (a) the highest level of education or training they have completed is ISCED 2011 level 0, 1 or 2 (ISCED 1997: 0, 1, 2 or 3C short); and (b) they have not received any education or training (i.e. neither formal nor non-formal) in the four weeks preceding the survey. The denominator in the total population consists of the same age group, excluding the respondents who have not answered the questions 'highest level of education or training successfully completed' and 'participation in education and training'. This indicator can be calculated separately by gender and citizenship. Hence, it is possible to calculate the gap in the share of early leavers between TCNs and host- country nationals.

Percentage points Eurostat - Labour force survey using the variable name “edat_lfse_02” and the online data code "t2020_40".

Annual – calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I6. Share of 30 to 34-years-olds with tertiary educational attainment: gap between third country nationals and host-country nationals.

Definition: This indicator is calculated as the difference between the share of 30 to 34-years-olds TCNs with tertiary educational attainment and the share of the 30 to 34-years-olds host-country nationals.

Percentage points Eurostat - Labour force survey. The name of the variable is “edat_lfs_9911”.

Annual – calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO2 I7. Share of population at risk of social poverty or social exclusion: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 52

Definition: This indicator is computed as the difference in the share of population at risk of social poverty or social exclusion (defined as the population aged 18 and over) between TCNs and host-country nationals. For further information, please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/FR/ilc_esms.htm . It is proposed to use this indicator to measure the improvement of social inclusion at the launch and after closure of the AMIF. As clarified under "employment rate" AMIF contributes to the implementation of national policies aimed at promoting integration of TCNs, and these policies benefit also from other funds and incentives.

Percentage points Eurostat (European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU- SILC)).

Annual – calendar year

26 .

The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

6.1.3. S03: Return

Specific Objective: To enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States supporting the fight against illegal immigration with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit

Definition / Clarification Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baselin e

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO3 C4. Number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate return policies in Member States

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of projects Member States Annual – financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO3 R1. Number of persons trained on return-related topics with the assistance of the Fund

26 the various statistics are generally presented on an annual basis (the survey year, whatever the underlying income reference period), although certain longitudinal indicators

may cover a longer period (e.g. 4 years).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 53

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). Useful information: This indicator refers to the number of persons trained, no matter the number of trainings they attended. A person should therefore only be counted once, even if he has attended several trainings.

Number of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO3 R2. Number of returnees who received pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014) Useful information: This indicator refers to the number of returnees, no matter the type(s) or amount of assistance received. A returnee should therefore only be counted once, even if it has received more than one form of assistance. This indicator measures reintegration assistance provided pre (ex-ante) and post (ex-post) return. The pre return reintegration assistance can take place in the Member State. All and any assistance can be included but the assistance must be measureable or traceable in case of monitoring or auditing. In-kind assistance should be included.

Number of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO3 R3. Number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund, persons who returned voluntarily and persons who were removed.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014). This indicator shall be further broken down in sub-categories such as:

a) who returned voluntarily b) who were removed c) whose return was co-financed by the Fund

Definition: This indicator refers to all return operations (voluntary, assisted voluntary, forced) which were co-financed by the Fund, regardless of the percentage of co-financing. The indicator refers to direct costs: costs which are identifiable and necessary for the implementation of the return. Small administrative consumables, supplies and general services

Numbers of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 54

should not be considered as direct costs.

SO3 R4. Number of monitored removal operations co-financed by the Fund.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of operations Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO3 R5. Numbers of removals supported by the Fund, as compared to the total number of returns following an order to leave.

This indicator measures the evolution of the number of forced returns (persons) supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of TCNs returned following an order to leave. This indicator provides a proxy for the sustainability of effective returns with the support of the Fund, using an overall estimate on the number of returns from each Member State. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of persons who were removed (and whose return was co-financed by the Fund) (Member States)

b) - total number of returns following an order to leave (Eurostat migr_eirtn)

c) Numbers of removals supported by the Fund, as compared to the total number of returns following an order to leave (ratio R5a/R5b)

Numbers of persons Member States + Eurostat (migr_eirtn)

Annual – calendar year. The Eurostat data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO3 R6. Number of persons returned in the framework of the joint return operations supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of returns supported by the Fund.

This indicator measures the evolution of the number of joint return operations supported by the Fund out of all the returns supported by the Fund. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of persons returned in the framework of joint return operations (assisted-voluntary and forced) supported by the Fund

b) total number of returns (assisted-voluntary and forced) supported by the Fund (EU 516/2014 Annex IV (c) (iii))

c) Number of persons returned in the framework of the joint return operations supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of returns supported by the Fund (ratio R6a/R6b)

Numbers of persons Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 55

SO3 R7. Number of returnees who have received pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund, as compared to the total number of voluntary returns supported by the Fund.

This indicator measures the evolution of the numer of persons who received pre or post return reintegration assistance supported by the Fund, as compared to the total number of voluntary returns supported by the Fund. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of persons who have received pre or post return reintegration assistance supported by the Fund (EU 516/2014 Annex IV (c) (i))

b) total number of voluntary returns (persons) supported by the Fund (EU 516/2014 Annex IV (c) (iii))Common standards for reintegration packages are expected to be included in Council conclusions in the 2nd half of 2016, based on EMN REG (European Migration Network Return Expert Group) recommendations. The EMN REG currently advises to use a minimum amount for in-kind assistance of 500 euro and a maximum amount of 2500 euro. Reintegration assistance could consist of, inter alia, business start-up, training and mediation, lodging and health care.

c) Number of returnees who have received pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund, as compared to the total number of voluntary returns supported by the Fund (ratio R7a/R7b)

Numbers of persons Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO3 R8. Number of places in detention centers created/renovated with support from the Fund, as compared to the total number of places in detention centres.

This indicator measures the evolution of the number of places in detention centres created/renovated with support from the Fund, as compared to the total number of places in detention centres. It is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) number of places in detention centres created/renovated with support from the Fund

b) total number of places in detention centres c) Number of places in detention centres created/renovated with

support from the Fund, as compared to the total number of

Number of places and percentage

Member States Annual – financial year

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 56

places in detention centres (ratio R8a/ R8b)

Definition: This indicator refers to the number of places in detention centres which are created or renovated with support from the Fund. In order to ascertain the importance of the fund, it is necessary to calculate a ratio and confront this number with the total number of places in detention centres.

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO3 I1. Number of returns following an order to leave compared to the number of TCN ordered to leave.

This indicator measures the evolution of the number of return decisions which are effectively followed by a return. This indicator is based on two sets of data and a ratio:

a) Number of TCN returned following an order to leave (migr_eirtn)

b) Number of TCN ordered to leave (migr_eiord). c) Number of returns following an order to leave compared to the

number of third-country nationals ordered to leave (ratio I1a/I1b)

Each person is only counted once, irrespective of the number of notices issued to the same person. For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/migr_eil_esms.htm"

Absolute numbers Eurostat (migr_eiord for (SO3 I1.b) + migr_eirtn) for (SO3 I1.a)

Annual – calendar year. The Eurostat data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

SO3 I2. Return decisions issued to rejected asylum applicants.

This indicator measures the evolution of the return decisions. It includes all persons covered in administrative or judicial return decisions issued during the reporting month following the withdrawal or rejection of an application for international protection as provided for in Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. The return decision must: - State or declare the stay of a third-country national to be illegal and impose or state an obligation to leave the territory of the reporting

Absolute numbers of return decisions issued to rejected asylum applicants.

EASO, the variable name is: EPS indicator 8a)

Annual – calendar year. The Eurostat data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 57

country (or, alternatively, the territory of EU Member States and Norway and Switzerland), and; - Be issued in accordance with the provisions of the EC Return Directive 2008/115/EC or, if applicable, in accordance with national law. Statistical unit: Persons included in the return decision. Each person is to be reported individually: if a decision covers several family members, each family member shall be reported. For example, a single decision for four persons shall be reported as four return decisions. Multiple decisions per person may be counted during the same reporting month.

2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

SO3 I3. Effective returns of rejected asylum applicants.

Definition: This indicator measures the evolution of the effective returns. It includes all persons who left the territory of the EU+ countries during the reporting month, either through voluntary departure or by forced return (removal), in compliance with a return decision issued by the reporting country following the withdrawal or rejection of their application for international protection. Reference period: The reporting date should refer to the date of when the return took place. Statistical unit: Persons who were effectively returned to a third country. Each person is to be reported individually. If a family is returned, each family member shall be reported. For example, a family composed of four persons is returned it shall be reported as four returns.

Number of of effective returns of rejected asylum applicants.

EASO - variable name: EPS indicator 8b)

Annual – calendar year. The Eurostat data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

6.1.4. S04: Solidarity

Specific Objective: To enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 58

Definition / Clarification Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baseline

COMMON RESULT INDICATORS

SO4 R1. Number of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection transferred from one Member State to another with support of the Fund.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of persons Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

SO4 R2. Number of cooperation projects with other Member States on enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States supported under the Fund.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 516/2014)

Number of projects Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

6.1.5. Horizontal indicators

(Indicators on efficiency, added value and sustainability, as foreseen in

Regulation (EU) No 514/2014)

H1: Number of Full Time Equivalent in the Responsible Authority, the Delegated

Authority and the Audit Authority working on the implementation of the Fund

and paid by the technical assistance or national budgets as compared to:

a) the number of projects implemented

b) the amount of the funds claimed for the financial year

H2:

a) Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost

b) Amount of funds claimed for the financial year

c) Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost

of projects as compared to the amount of funds claimed

for the financial year (ratio H2a/H2b)

H3:

a) Amount of the accounts submitted by the Member State

b) Total amount of funds allocated to the national

programme

c) Absorption rate of the Fund (ratio H3a/3b)

6.2. Indicators by specific objectives – ISF

In this section the common indicators contained in the Regulation (EU)

No 513/2014 (ISF Police), 515/2014 (ISF Borders) and the result and

impact indicators contained in Annex IV of the Delegated Regulation (EU)

C(2016) 6265 of 3/10/2016 on CMEF are presented.

The figures on the common indicators are reported annually by the

Member States by means of the Annual Implementation Report (AIR) in

SFC 2014.

For the indicators listed below, further information is provided in order to

help the Member to collect the data and prepare the interim evaluation

report: i) Data source; ii) Measurement unit; iii) Reference period; iv)

Definition, and v) Useful information where necessary.

For each indicator we report the measurement unit and the reference

period. The indicators are organised by ISF specific objective, following

Article 3 of the Regulation (EU) No 513/2014, Article 3 of the Regulation

(EU) No 515/2014 and Annex III of the Delegated Regulation on CMEF.

6.2.1. SO1: Visa

Specific objective - Supporting a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, provide a high quality of service to visa applicants and ensure equal treatment of third-country nationals and tackle illegal migration

Definition - clarifications Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baseline

OUTPUT INDICATOR

SO1 C3: Number of specialised posts in third countries supported by the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) The indicator is broken down into sub-categories: 1) immigration liaison officers; 2) others.

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO1 R1: Number of Schengen Evaluation missions in the area of visa carried out with support of the Internal Security Fund ("Fund")

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2013. The number of Schengen evaluation missions are included in the Annual Work Programmes for Scheval (type of mission: one regular mission and one unannounced mission). The Schengen evaluation mechanism (established by COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2013), entered into force on 14 November 2014. It is only after this date that the Schengen evaluations are carried out under the overall coordinating role of the Commission and financed under the ISF Visa and Borders.

Number European Commission (HOME.C2: Border Management and Schengen)

Annual – calendar year. The data will

be recalculated and

reported by DG

HOME in SFC

2014 on a pro rata

basis in order to

correspond to the

financial year.

2014

SO1 R2: Number of consular cooperation activities developed with the help of the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) The indicator is broken down into sub-categories:

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 62

1) co-locations; 2) common application centres; 3) representations; 4) others.

SO1 R3: Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to the common visa policy with the help of the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) To be split as following:

 SO1 C2.1: Number of staff trained in common visa policy related aspects with the help of the Fund

 SO1 C2.2: Number of training courses (hours completed).

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO1 R4: Percentage and number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund out of the total number of consulates

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) To be split as following:

 Percentage of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund out of the total number of consulates

 Number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund out of the total number of consulates.

Percentage and Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO1 R5: Number of Schengen Evaluations recommendations in the area of visas addressed with the support of the Fund, as compared to the total number of

recommendations issued (a/b)

Number of recommendations provided by the MS To be split as following: a) Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of visas addressed with the support of the Fund b) Total number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations issued. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2013. The number of Scheval recommendations concern regular evaluations and unannounced on-site visits. Are excluded, the recommendations given by a MS (following the

Number Member States Annual - financial year

2014

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 63

participation of the MS to a Schengen evaluation) to another MS. These should not be reported.

SO1 R6: Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at consulates supported by the Fund.

To be split as following:

 Number of persons with fraudulent documents applying for a Schengen visa

 Total number of persons applying for a Schengen visa. The term "Travel document" refers to all the documents which persons are entitled to travel with (including visas). The term "fraudulent" refers to false, counterfeit or forged.

Percentage and Number Member States - Consulates Annual - financial year

2013

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO1 I1: Number of visa applicants having to apply for a Schengen visa outside of their country of residence

The place and date of application, as well as the applicant's home address is registered in the VIS. The indicator concerns only the applicants who need to go in another country to apply for a visa because there is no consulate present in the country of the applicant nor a consulate of another MS representing the MS.

Number of persons Member States Annual - financial year

2013

SO1 I2: Number of visa required countries in the world where the number of Member States present or represented has increased

Number European Commission (HOME.B2: Visa Policy and document security)

Annual - calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 64

6.2.2. SO2: Border

Specific objective - Supporting integrated border management, including promoting further harmonisation of border management-related measures in accordance with common Union standards and through the sharing of information between Member States and between Member States and the Frontex Agency, to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis, while guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing it, in accordance with the obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement

Definition Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baseline

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO2 C2: Number of border control (checks and surveillance) infrastructure and means developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) The indicator is broken down into sub-categories: 1) Infrastructure; 2) Fleet (air, land, sea borders); 3) Equipment; 4) Others

Number Member States Annual - financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO2 R1: Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to border management with the help of the Instrument

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) To be split as following:

 Number of staff trained in border management related aspects with the help of the Fund

 Number of training courses in border management related aspects with the help of the Fund

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO2 R2: Number of border crossings of the external borders through ABC gates supported by the Instrument out of the total number of border crossings

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) To be split as following:

 Number of border crossings of the external borders

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 65

through ABC gates supported by the Fund

 Total number of border crossings

SO2 R3: Number of Schengen Evaluations missions in the area of borders carried out with the support of the Fund

Total number provided by the EC COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2013

Number of evaluations missions

Provided by the European Commission (HOME.C2: Border Management and Schengen)

Annual – calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2014

SO2 R4: Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders addressed with the support of the Fund, as compared to the total number of recommendations issued (a/b)

number of recommendations provided by the MS COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1053/2013 To be split as following: a) Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders addressed with the support of the Fund b) Total number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders issued

Number Member States Annual - financial year

2014

SO2 R5: Number of equipment 27

items used during Frontex Coordinated Operations which were purchased with support of the Funds as compared to the total number of equipment items used for Frontex Coordinated Operations (a/b).

All equipment with a value > than EUR 10.000. To be split as following: a) Number of equipment items used during Frontex Coordinated Operations which were purchased with support of the Fund b) Total number of equipment items used for Frontex

Number of equipment items. FRONTEX Annual – financial year

2013

27 Amounting to above 10 000 euro per item.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 66

Coordinated Operations Frontex joint operations are planned and developed on the basis of an Annual Risk Analysis Report which analyses the likely future risk of irregular migration and cross-border crime along the EU external border. During the annual meetings with Member States the agency then prioritises the proposed joint operations on the basis of their importance and the resources available in order to ensure an effective response. Together with the host country Frontex makes an assessment of the number of officers with specific expertise and the quantity and type of technical equipment required. Frontex then directs a request to all Member States and Schengen Associated Countries for the necessary officers, clearly specifying their required profiles (false document experts, border checks, surveillance experts, dog handlers, de-briefers etc) as well as specific equipment needed for the operation (e.g. helicopters, planes, patrol cars, thermo-vision equipment, heart-beat detectors). Those countries then decide on the level of contribution they can make to the joint operation. The Operational Plan clearly defines the aim of each joint operation, where it is to take place and the quantities and types of technical equipment and officers to take part. In the Implementation stage, border guards and technical equipment are deployed to the operational area and carry out their duties according to the operational plan. The deployed officers (guest officers) work under the command and control of the authorities of the country hosting the operation.

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO2 I1: Number of national border surveillance infrastructure established/further developed in the framework of Eurosur

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) The indicator is broken down into sub-categories: 1) National Coordination Centres;

Number Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 67

2) Regional Coordination Centres; 3) Local Coordination Centres; 4) Other types of coordination centres.

SO2 I2: Number of incidents reported by Member States to the European Situational Picture

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex IV of Regulation EU 515/2014) The indicator is broken down into sub-categories: 1) Illegal immigration, including incidents relating to a risk to the lives of migrants; 2) Cross-border crime; 3) Crisis situations.

Number Member States Annual – Financial year

2013

SO2 I3: Number of irregular border crossings detected at EU external borders a) between the BCPs b) at the BCPs

1. Border: A line separating land territory or maritime zones of two States or subparts of States. It can also refer to a region that is found at the margin of settled and developed territory. 2. External borders refer to the borders between Member States and third countries. The borders between Schengen Associated Countries (Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) and third countries are also considered as external borders. The borders between Schengen Associated Countries and Schengen Member States are considered as internal borders. 3. Border crossing points (BCP): any crossing-point between two States authorised by the competent authorities for the crossing of external borders. 4. Border crossing: The physical act of crossing a border either at a border crossing point or another point along the border. 5. Irregular border crossing: Crossing borders without complying

Number of crossings, implying that if a person crosses twice it is counted twice.

FRONTEX 28

Annual – Financial year

2013

28 Data sent by Frontex and covering the period January 2012 to September 2016. They will send the following months update later. NB: data cannot be released publicly!

Only for internal!

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 68

with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State. The entry of a non-EU national into a Schengen State without complying with the requirements laid down in the Schengen Borders Code (Regulation 562/2006).

SO2 I4: Number of searches in Schengen Information System (SIS II).

Both national and central systems are concerned. The Schengen Information System - SIS II - allows information exchange between national border controls, customs and police authorities, ensuring that the free movement of people within the EU can take place in a safe environment. The EU Member States currently connected to SIS II are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK (connected as of 13 April 2015). Associated Countries connected to SIS II are Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The authorities of Ireland, Cyprus and Croatia are currently preparing for their technical connection to SIS II. Pursuant to Article 50(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereafter referred to as the “SIS II Regulation”) and parallel provision in Article 66(3) of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA2 (hereafter referred to as the “SIS II Decision”), each year the Management Authority shall publish statistics on: a) the number of records per category of alert, b) the number of hits per category of alert, c) how many times SIS II was accessed, in total and for each Member State

Number of searches, including manual and automated process. No distinction is made between accesses to SIS II achieved through the Central SIS II or through a national copy of the Central SIS II.

EU-Lisa and SIS II annual report

Annual – Calendar year

29 . The data

will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

29 Data are released in an annual report usually in April of the following calendar year.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 69

Definitions: 1) Access to SIS II entails both: a. Any query, regardless of whether a hit is made or not and whether the Central System or a national copy of the SIS II database is queried; b. Any transaction intended to create/update/delete (CUD) an alert. Every access is counted, even if an access resulted in an error and an error message was returned from the system (e.g. if the operator commits an error) 2) Manual searches, when there is a human intervention: This covers checks by staff using radios, telephones, computer terminals, document scanners and all other forms of “traditional check” where a user makes the decision to carry out a check. 3) Automated searches: This covers queries carried out by automatic number plate recognition systems (ANPR) or other forms of automated bulk queries. These systems are relevant for alerts under Articles 36 and 38 SIS II Decision. Useful links: http://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Publications/Reports/SIS%20II%20- %20public%202015%20stats.pdf (Data for 2015 are in Figure 1, pg7) http://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Publications/Reports/SIS%20II%20- %20public%202014%20stats.pdf (Data for 2014 are in Figure, pg7)

SO2 I5: Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at the border crossing points

Number of persons with fraudulent documents crossing the borders / Total number of persons crossing the borders. The indicator concerns the aggregated number of border crossing points on the territory (land, air, sea).

Number of crossings, implying that if a person crosses twice it is counted twice.

FRONTEX 30

Annual – Financial year

2013

30 Data sent by Frontex and covering the period January 2012 to September 2016. They will send the following months update later. NB: data cannot be released publicly.

Only for internal use.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 70

The term "Travel document" refers to all the documents which persons are entitled to travel with (including visa). The term "fraudulent" refers to false, counterfeit or forged.

6.2.3. SO5: Crime

Specific objective - Crime prevention, combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third countries and international organisations

Definition - Clarifications Unit of measurement Source of Data Frequency of measurement

Baseline

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO5 C3: Number and financial value of projects in the area of crime prevention

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014) To be split as following:

 Number of projects in the area of crime prevention;

 Financial value of projects in the area of crime prevention The indicator shall also be further broken down by type of crime: 1. Terrorism; 2. trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children; 3. illicit drug trafficking; 4. illicit arms trafficking; 5. money laundering; 6. corruption; 7. counterfeiting of means of payment; 8. computer crime; 9. organised crime.

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 71

SO5 C4: Number of projects supported by the Fund, aiming to improve law enforcement and information exchange, which are related to Europol data systems, repositories, or communication tools

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014) The indicator shall be further broken down by type of crime: 1. Data loaders; 2. extending access to SIENA; 3. projects aimed at improving input to analysis work files 4. others.

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO5 R1: Number of joint investigation teams (JITs) and European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) operation projects supported by the Fund, including the participating Member States and authorities

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014)

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO5 R2: Number of law enforcement officials trained on cross-border related topics with the help of the Fund, and the duration of their training (person days).

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014) To be split as following:

 Number of law enforcement officials trained on cross-border related topics with the help of the Fund

 Duration of the training (carried out) on cross-border related topics with the help of the Fund

Number and Duration Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO5 R3: Results of actions supported by the Fund leading to the disruption of organised crime groups:

EMPACT and JITs, substantially supported by EU funding, contribute to the EU objective of dismantling and disrupting organised crime. Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 provides for the definition of the criminal organisation and of the offences related to the participation in it.

Estimated value in EUR, with the exception of drugs, where the units indicated in SO5-I3 apply. Number for identified

Member States

Annual – Calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 72

1. Seizures of criminal commodities: drugs as broken down in SO5-I3, counterfeited goods, contraband goods, stolen goods, firearms, environmental crimes 2. seizures of cash (value); 3. seizures of other assets as appropriate (estimated value); 4. takedowns of web domains (number); 5. victims identified (for certain crime types); 6. persons arrested. ‘Criminal organisation’ means a structured association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons acting in concert with a view to committing offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order of a maximum of at least four years or a more serious penalty, to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. ‘Structured association’ means an association that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of an offence, nor does it need to have formally defined roles for its members, continuity of its membership, or a developed structure. The Decision provides also for the common rules on jurisdiction and coordination of prosecution. The definitions of specific crime offences are provided by the EU legal basis ( for instance Directive (EU) 2013/40 on the attacks against information systems, Directive 2011/36/EU etc.). Data relate only to the law enforcement operations facilitated by Europol which take place using funding from ISF-Police.

victims.

rata in 2017 in order to correspond to the financial year.

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO5 I1: Number/value of frozen, seized and confiscated criminal assets as a result of actions within the scope of Regulation (EU) 513/2014

The Directive 2014/42/EU establishes common definitions and minimum rules on the freezing of property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation of

Value of property in EUR million.

Member States

Annual – Calendar year.

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 73

property in criminal matters. It requires Member States to collect relevant statistics, maintain and transmit them to the Commission

31 . As regards the

number of not executed orders, Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA requires Member States to inform the Commission of the number of cases where the confiscation order has not been executed. NB At the EU level the baseline will be elaborated from the report issued by Europol in June 2016 on criminal assets for the period 2010-2014. 1. Number of freezing orders executed; 2. number of confiscation orders executed; 3. estimated value of property frozen, at least of property frozen with a view to possible subsequent confiscation at the time of freezing; 4. estimated value of property recovered at the time of confiscation; 5. number of cases where the confiscation order issued on the basis of the Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA has not been executed. Figures on arrests and seizures/confiscation of criminal assets. Due to the nature of the different crimes, the seizures data (weight, value) cannot be combined into a single figure. The statistics should be looked at within the context of the actions undertaken. The following definitions should apply: (1)‘proceeds’ means any economic advantage derived directly or indirectly from a criminal offence; it may consist of any form of property and includes any subsequent reinvestment or transformation of direct proceeds and any valuable benefits; (2)‘property’ means property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents or instruments

Cases in number.

The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in 2017 in order to correspond to the financial year.

31 This Directive establishes common definitions and minimum rules on the freezing of property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation of property in criminal

matters. Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA provides legal basis for the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders. It is foreseen

that a framework to collect and consolidate data from MSs be put in place by the Commission services. When this becomes operational, the source of statistics for

evaluation purposes will be modified accordingly.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 74

evidencing title or interest in such property; (3) ‘instrumentalities’ means any property used or intended to be used, in any manner, wholly or in part, to commit a criminal offence or criminal offences; (4) ‘confiscation’ means a final deprivation of property ordered by a court in relation to a criminal offence; (5) ‘freezing’ means the temporary prohibition of the transfer, destruction, conversion, disposal or movement of property or temporarily assuming custody or control of property; (6) ‘criminal offence’ means an offence covered by any of the instruments listed in Article 3 of the Directive Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA provides legal basis for the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders.

SO5 I2: Number of police-recorded offences, suspects, prosecutions and convictions resulting from actions falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) 513/2014

Statistics on police-recorded crime and on the criminal justice response, relating to serious and organised crime offences. The UNODC's International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, formally adopted in 2015, provides a good framework for classifying crimes. The EU guidelines, being prepared by Eurostat, will aim at assisting the implementation step by step process focused on the most relevant types of crime for EU statistics. The figures on crime and criminal justice are collected through a joint Eurostat- UNODC data collection. The Eurostat-UNODC data collection replaces earlier series published by Eurostat and refers to the period from 2008 onwards. It is available at country level for European Union Member States, EFTA countries, EU Candidate countries, and EU Potential Candidates. We report for each item the exact data source and Eurostat variable name and other useful definitions 1. Police-recorded offences Variable name in Eurostat: crim_off_cat Definitions: Data on offences recorded by the police are to be disaggregated by crime type

Eurostat

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 75

following these definitions:

 Intentional Homicide (country and largest city: Unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person. Data on intentional homicide should also include serious assault leading to death and death as a result of a terrorist attack. It should exclude attempted homicide, manslaughter, death due to legal intervention, justifiable homicide in self-defence and death due to armed conflict. (Select ICCS = ICCS0101)

 Assault: Physical attack against the body of another person resulting in serious bodily injury, excluding indecent/sexual assault, threats and slapping/punching. ‘Assault’ leading to death should also be excluded. (Select ICCS = ICCS02011)

 Sexual Violence (Rape and Sexual Assault) (Select ICCS = ICCS0301)

a) Rape: Sexual intercourse without valid consent. In the current classification used by the UNODC, offences of statutory rape where the victim is below the age of consent are classified separately as sexual offences against children. (Select ICCS = ICCS03011)

b) Sexual Assault: Sexual violence not amounting to rape. It includes an unwanted sexual act, an attempt to obtain a sexual act, or contact or communication with unwanted sexual attention not amounting to rape. It also includes sexual assault with or without physical contact including drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual assault committed against a marital partner against her/his will, sexual assault against a helpless person, unwanted groping or fondling, harassment and threat of a sexual nature. (Select ICCS = ICCS03012)

 Robbery: Theft of property from a person, overcoming resistance by force or threat of force. Where possible, the category “Robbery” should include muggings (bag-snatching) and theft with violence, but should exclude pick pocketing and extortion. (Select ICCS = ICCS0401)

 Kidnapping: Unlawfully detaining a person or persons against their will (including through the use of force, threat, fraud or enticement) for the purpose of demanding for their liberation an illicit gain or any other

Number. Select UNIT = NR

For crime offences the standard reference period is the calendar year. Usually data are available within two years of the reference year.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 76

economic gain or other material benefit, or in order to oblige someone to do or not to do something. “Kidnapping” excludes disputes over child custody. (Select ICCS = ICCS020221)

 Theft: Depriving a person or organisation of property without force with the intent to keep it. “Theft” excludes burglary, housebreaking and robbery, which are recorded separately. (Select ICCS = ICCS0502)

 Theft of a Motorised Land Vehicle: Removal of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Motor vehicles include all land vehicles with an engine that run on the road, such as cars, motorcycles, buses, lorries, construction and agricultural vehicles. (Select ICCS = ICCS050211)

 Burglary: Gaining unauthorised access to a part of a building/dwelling or other premises, including by use of force, with the intent to steal goods (breaking and entering). “Burglary” should include, where possible, theft from a house, apartment or other dwelling place, factory, shop or office, from a military establishment, or by using false keys. It should exclude theft from a car, from a container, from a vending machine, from a parking meter and from fenced meadow/compound. (Select ICCS = ICCS0501)

 Burglary of Private Residential Premises (Domestic Burglary): Burglary of a house, apartment or other dwelling place. (Select ICCS = ICCS05012)

 Unlawful Acts Involving Controlled Drugs or Precursors: Illegal possession, cultivation, production, supplying, transportation, importing, exporting, financing etc. of drug operations which are not solely in connection with personal use. (Select ICCS = ICCS0601).

The following three indicators all are included in the Eurostat variable crim_just_ctz, and are recovered selecting different values of the legal status variable. As for value of citizenship we are interested in all persons, therefore we should select CITIZEN = TOTAL.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 77

2. Persons brought into formal contact with the police and/or criminal justice system Definition: May include persons suspected, or arrested or cautioned for a criminal offence, at the national level. Select LEG_STAT = PER_SUSP 3. Prosecuted persons Definition: Alleged offenders against whom prosecution commenced in the reporting year. Persons may be prosecuted by the public prosecutor or the law enforcement agency responsible for prosecution, at the national level, irrespective of the case-ending decision. Select LEG_STAT = PER_PRSC 4. Convicted persons Definition: Persons found guilty by any legal body authorized to pronounce a conviction under national criminal law, whether or not the conviction was later upheld. The total number of persons convicted should also include persons convicted of serious special law offences but exclude persons convicted of minor road traffic offences, misdemeanours and other petty offences. Select LEG_STAT = PER_CNV These data are to be disaggregated by crime type, with new crime types added as data become available at EU level, including trafficking in human beings, cybercrime, migrant smuggling, etc.

Number. Select UNIT = NR

SO5 I3: Quantity of drugs seizure within the scope of the Fund on organised crime

Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 lays down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Other relevant legal basis are: Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange,

risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances.

Council Conclusions on improving the monitoring of drug supply in the European

Union, of 15 November 2013.

Number • Data on drug seizures relate to all seizures made in each country during the year by all law enforcement agencies (police, customs, National Guard, etc.). Caution is

EMCDDA This indicator is taken from the EMCDDA (European Monitor Centre for Drugs and Drug addiction) statistical bulletin (points 1 to 6), and

Annual – Calendar year (E.g. data for 2014 comprises seizures done between January and December 2014.) The data will be

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 78

1. Cannabis seizures 2. Heroin seizures 3. Cocaine seizures 4. Amphetamine and methamphetamine seizures 5. Ecstasy seizures 6. New psychoactive substances notified 7. LSD seizures

Definitions: 1. New psychoactive substance (NPS) means a new narcotic or psychotropic drug, in pure form or in preparation, that is not controlled by the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions. The NPS comprise more than 600 types of substances. The two main categories are synthetic cannabinoids (which are sold as replacements for cannabis - within this category 168 different substances are monitored) and synthetic cathinones (which are sold as replacements for stimulants, such as amphetamine, MDMA and cocaine - within this category 117 different substances are monitored). The seizure data collected on NPS should be regarded as minimum estimates due to the lack of standardised reporting in this area. It should be noted that these data are not directly comparable with the data on established illicit drugs. Note: seizures presented in the bulletin are not restricted to ISF-funded actions, but provide context for assessing the actions either individually or together. Useful links: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2016 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/edr/trends-developments/2016 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2637/TDAT16001ENN. pdf http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2373/TD0216072ENN.

required in relation to double-counting that might occur within a country — although it is usually avoided — between various law enforcement agencies. • Data on seizures is reported by almost all countries both in terms of the number of seizures and the quantity seized. For the purpose of the evaluation we only focus on quantity. Seized quantities of cannabis, heroin, cocaine and amphetamine are provided in kilograms, of LSD in doses, and of ecstasy in tablets. Quantities seized may fluctuate from one year to another, due to a small number of large seizures. For this reason, the number of seizures is usually considered as a better indicator of trends. In all countries, it

from the EU Early Warning System (EU EWS) on new psychoactive substances (NPS) (point 7). The bulletin is released every year in May and presents the latest available data on drug seizure. Data usually refers to two years before the releasing data (e.g. in the 2016 bulletin the latest figures are for 2014). The earliest figures date back to the mid-80s. This data is also used to prepare the European Drug Report, written yearly since 1996, and released in May.

recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

32 A separate entry for LSD is added since LSD is measured in dose, while all the others in kg.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 79

PDF http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/3353/TD0416736ENN. pdf http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/activities/action-on-new-drugs http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/408/Monitoring_new _drugs_72902.pdf

includes a major proportion of small seizures from the retail level of the market. All trend data, though, are subject to extraneous influences affecting them, e.g. changes in legislation, changes in police practices, etc. • In the bulletin data Amphetamine and methamphetamine are reported separately. For the purpose of the evaluation, the total number of Kg seizures should be reported (i.e. the sum of the kg in Amphetamine and the kg in methamphetamine)

SO5 I4: Number of protected or assisted crime victims

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 80

Directive 2012/29/EU of 25 October 2012 establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. In this respect, the victim should be meant as - a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence; - family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person's death; 1. Number of victims recorded by the law enforcement agencies 2. Number of referrals by police to victim support services 3. Number of victims that request and receive support 4. Number of victims that request and do not receive support According to the recital 64 of the Directive "as far as such data are known and are available, they should include the number and age and gender of the victims". Definitions: • Victim (taken from Directive 2012/29/EU of 25 October )

 a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or

Number of persons, number of referrals

Member States 33

. Article 28 of the Directive 2012/29/EU requires Member States to share available data showing how victims have accessed the rights set out in this Directive.

Annual – Financial year. Data available from 2017 onwards.

2017

33 Member States should provide this indicator. Following Directive 2012/29/EU (the Victims' Rights Directive) Recital 64 provides guidelines for Member State on type of

data and how to collect it: "Systematic and adequate statistical data collection is recognised as an essential component of effective policymaking in the field of rights set

out in this Directive. In order to facilitate evaluation of the application of this Directive, Member States should communicate to the Commission relevant statistical data

related to the application of national procedures on victims of crime, including at least the number and type of the reported crimes and, as far as such data are known and

are available, the number and age and gender of the victims. Relevant statistical data can include data recorded by the judicial authorities and by law enforcement

agencies and, as far as possible, administrative data compiled by healthcare and social welfare services and by public and non-governmental victim support or restorative

justice services and other organisations working with victims of crime. Judicial data can include information about reported crime, the number of cases that are

investigated and persons prosecuted and sentenced. Service-based administrative data can include, as far as possible, data on how victims are using services provided by

government agencies and public and private support organisations, such as the number of referrals by police to victim support services, the number of victims that

request, receive or do not receive support or restorative justice.”

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 81

emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence;

 family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person's death;

SO5 I5: Volume of exchange of information in the Prüm framework

1. Prüm: total number of DNA matches ('hits') per year 2. Prüm: total number of fingerprint matches ('hits') per year 3. Prüm: total number of vehicle registration data matches ('hits') per year Useful information The Treaty of Prüm establishes a legal framework to further develop cooperation among Member States in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration. More specifically, it provides for the exchange between the Contracting Parties of data on DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration, and personal and non-personal data related to cross-border police cooperation. Data collected at EU level is included in DG HOME Statistical compilation (annual report). Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross- border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime lays down the terms and definition of the exchange of information such as (a)provisions on the conditions and procedure for the automated transfer of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and certain national vehicle registration data (b) provisions on the conditions for the supply of data in connection with major events with a cross-border dimension (c) provisions on the conditions for the supply of information in order to prevent terrorist offences (d)provisions on the conditions and procedure for stepping up cross-border police cooperation through various measures. For the investigation of criminal offences, the Member States shall, by mutual consent, via their national contact points, compare the DNA profiles of their unidentified DNA profiles with all DNA profiles from other national DNA analysis files' reference data. Profiles shall be supplied and compared in automated form.

Number of hits

European Commission (DG HOME Statistical compilation)

Annual – Financial year.

2013

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 82

Unidentified DNA profiles shall be supplied for comparison only where provided for under the requesting Member State's national law. Member States shall ensure the availability of reference data from the file for the national automated fingerprint identification systems established for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. Reference data shall only include dactyloscopic data and a reference number. Member States shall allow other Member States' national contact points, as referred to in Article 12, access to the following national vehicle registration data, with the power to conduct automated searches in individual cases. Definitions

 Dactyloscopic data: fingerprint images, images of fingerprint latents, palm prints, palm print latents and templates of such images that are stored and dealt with in an automated database.

 Non-coding part of DNA: chromosome regions that are not expressed genetically.

 DNA profile: a letter or number code that represents a set of identification characteristics of the non-coding part of an analysed human DNA sample.

 Automated searching: an online access procedure for consulting the databases of one, several, or all of the EU countries.

 Hit/no-hit procedure: in this procedure the parties grant each other limited access to the reference data in their national DNA and fingerprint databases and the right to use these data to conduct automated checks of fingerprints and DNA profiles. The personal information related to the reference data is not available to the requesting party.

SO5 I6: Volume of exchange of information in the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) framework

1. Number of SIENA cases initiated per year, by Member States, Europol and Third Parties 2. Number of SIENA messages exchanged per year by Member States, Europol and Third Parties The Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) is a state-of-the-

Number of cases (1); number of messages (2)

Europol Annual - Calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 83

art platform that enables the swift and user-friendly exchange of operational and strategic crime-related information among:

 Europol’s liaison officers, analysts and experts

 Member States

 Third parties with which Europol has cooperation agreements. SIENA ensures the secure exchange of sensitive and restricted information. The SIENA user community includes liaison officers from Member States, seconded national experts and Europol officials at Europol headquarters, officials in the Member State Europol National Units and competent authorities as well as National Contact Points and competent authorities of Third Parties.

2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

SO5 I7: Volume of sharing of data via the Europol Information System (EIS)

1. Number of persons and objects inserted in the EIS by Member State per year 2. Number of person objects inserted in the EIS by Member State per year (suspects, convicts etc.) 3. Number of EIS searches performed by Member State per year The Europol Information System (EIS) is Europol’s central criminal information and intelligence database covering all of Europol’s mandated crime areas. It contains serious international crime-related information on suspected and convicted persons, criminal structures, and offences and means used to commit them. It is a reference system which provides Europol and its Member States with a rapid means to verify whether information on a certain person or another object of interest is available beyond national or organisational jurisdictions.

Number Europol Annual - Calendar year. The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

2013

6.2.4. SO6: Risk and crisis

Specific objective - Enhancing the capacity of Member States and the Union for managing effectively security-related risks and crises, and preparing for and protecting people and critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents

Definition - clarifications Unit of measurement Source of Data

Frequency of measurement Baseline

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 84

OUTPUT INDICATORS

SO6 C2: Number of projects relating to the assessment and management of risks in the field of internal security supported by the Instrument

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014)

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

RESULT INDICATORS

SO6 R1: Number and tools put in place and/or further upgraded with the help of the Instrument to facilitate the protection of critical infrastructure by Member States in all sectors of the economy

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014)

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

SO6 R2: Number of expert meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, websites and online consultations organised with the help of the Instrument.

Common indicator for the measurement of the specific objectives (Annex II of Regulation EU 513/2014) The indicator shall be further broken down in sub-categories such as: 1. Relating to critical infrastructure protection; 2. relating to risk and management.

Number Member States Annual – financial year

2013

IMPACT INDICATORS

SO6 I1: Volume of terrorist attacks

a) Number of failed and foiled terroristic attacks b) Number of completed terrorist attacks c) Number of casualties resulting from terrorist attacks The Framework Decision (2002/475/JHA) and amending Decision (2008/919/JHA) define terrorist offences, as well as offences related to terrorist groups or offences linked to terrorist activities. A new Directive was proposed by the

Number of attacks; number of deaths.

Europol - EU Terrorism situation and trend report

Calendar year. The report is published in year n with reference to what happened in year n-1.

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 85

Commission on 3 December 2015. The notion of terrorist offence is a combination of: — objective elements (murder, bodily injuries, hostage taking, extortion, committing attacks, threat to commit any of the above, etc.); and — subjective elements (acts committed with the objective of seriously intimidating a population, destabilising or destroying structures of a country or international organisation or making a government abstain from performing actions). — A terrorist group as a structured group of two or more persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences. Data relate to —criminal preparatory acts as offences linked to terrorist activities - examples include public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment and training for terrorism and theft, extortion or forgery with the aim of committing terrorist offences; — criminal inciting or aiding or abetting, as well as attempting to commit certain types of offences; — criminal liability for legal persons and set rules and thresholds for penalties and sanctions; Definitions

 Terrorism: In the absence of a generally accepted definition under international law, “terrorism” can be defined as the intentional and systematic use of actions designed to provoke terror in the public as a means to certain ends. Terrorism can be the act of an individual or a group of individuals acting in their individual capacity or with the support of a State. It may also be the act of a State, whether against the population (human rights violations such as forced labour, deportation, genocide, etc.), or in the context of an international armed conflict against the civil population of the enemy State.

Useful links:

The data will be recalculated and reported by DG HOME in SFC 2014 on a pro rata basis in order to correspond to the financial year.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 86

https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/eu-terrorism- situation-and-trend-report

6.2.5. Horizontal indicators

EFFICIENCY - article 55 (3) of the Horizontal Regulation 514/2014

Number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) in the Responsible Authority, the Delegated Authority and the Audit Authority working on the implementation of ISF and paid by the technical assistance or national budgets as compared to the number of projects implemented and to the amount of the funds claimed for the financial year

If the Authorities are in charge of both AMIF and ISF, the staff should be apportioned.

Number of Full Time Equivalent Number of projects Amount of the Fund

Member States Annual – financial year.

2013

Technical Assistance (TA) plus the administrative (indirect) cost of projects as compared to the amount of funds claimed for the financial year

Example of indirect costs: - costs related to horizontal services, such as administrative and financial management and human resources (e.g. staff); - rents; - communication costs (postage, fax, telephone, mailing, internet connection, telecommunication software, etc.); office supplies (stationery, photocopies, paper, ink, cartridge, etc.); - office furniture; - standard office IT equipment, (copy machine, projector, beamer, PC, laptop, normal office software, etc.), cameras, video cameras; - maintenance costs; - heating, water supply, electricity or other forms of energy and - insurance policies.

Number Member States Annual – financial year.

2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 87

Absorption rate of the Fund Amount of the accounts submitted by the Member State as compared to the total amount of funds allocated to the national programme.

Percentage SFC 2014 Annual – trend (evolution by year)

2013

SUSTAINABILITY - article 55 (3) of the Horizontal Regulation 514/2014

Number of equipment in use 2 years after their acquisition / number of equipment acquired under ISF (> than EUR 10.000)

Number Member States Annual - financial year.

2013

Share of the maintenance cost of acquired equipment under the Fund in the total Union contribution to actions co-financed by the Fund

Percentage Member States Annual - financial year

2013

6.3. Methodology examples

Impact evaluation aims at finding evidence on whether a specific EU policy

induced the intended changes in the target group’s outcome (such as, for

instance, immigrants’ or refugees’ integration and welfare or citizens’ security),

had no impact, or even had unintended positive or negative consequences (e.g.,

spillovers on the non-targeted group). In other words, impact evaluation

concerns constructing data-based evidence on the question: What would have

happened to the target group affected by a policy in case the policy had not

been implemented? This is called the counterfactual question.

Impact evaluations that expressly aim to answer the counterfactual questions

are called Counterfactual Impact Evaluations (CIE). This is the standard in

policy evaluation.

The features of target groups that are relevant for the policy impact evaluation

are either called outcome variables, or result indicators. Result indicators

concern both the intended and unintended effects of the policy. A reasonable

number of result indicators does not exceed a handful. Examples of result

indicators are: for the ISF fund, the number of persons using fraudulent travel

documents detected at consulates supported by the Fund or the number of

protected or assisted crime victims; for the AMIF fund, the number of places

adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) as compared to the total number of

places adapted for unaccompanied minors, or the gap between third country

nationals and host country nationals.

The contribution of the programme to these results must be assessed by ex-post

impact evaluations. The evaluation plan should specify how deeply the

programme's contribution to the observed results (its impact) will be evaluated.

The impact can be thought of as the share of the (potential) improvement in the

result indicator only attributable to the Fund. When making an evaluation all

potential external factors which might have also affected the result indicators

must be taken into account. A good evaluation should aim at isolating the “net

effect” of the policy (i.e. the effect over and above the external factors), which

allows in turn the identification of the EU added value.

Result indicators are linked but distinct from output indicators, which generally

refer to the “means” through which a given objective is accomplished. For the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 89

ISF fund, examples of output indicators are the number and the value of the

equipment acquired to improve border security (as in the case of iris recognition

software installation).

Impact evaluation requires the expert use of data collected at the level of the

unit that the policy targets, for example individuals or regions/municipalities.

This type of data usually exists in the form of administrative data collected by

Member States (MS) for the government administration, like tax records, social

security records, etc.

Confidentiality of the data should be protected. Because these records are used

for administrative purposes, they are usually subject to continuous updates and

scrutiny, which results in good quality of data. In any case, the collection and

access to data should be planned as early as possible.

Different policy characteristics and features of the available data lend

themselves to the application of different CIE methods. Guidance from experts

on CIE methods is probably needed to determine which data should be analysed

by which method. The Commission Competence Centre on Microeconomic

Evaluation (CC-ME) provides guidance on data provisions and on CIE methods.34

In what follows, a brief description of various CIE methods is provided. There is

no method which is generally superior to others. The appropriate evaluation

method must be chosen based on the type of data available and the features of

the programmes to be evaluated. Nevertheless, the key strategy is always to

identify the causal effect of an intervention with a regression controlling for any

possible confounding factors (external factors that may confound the effect

under analysis). For instance, with the Instrumental Variables approach, the

confounding factor remains unobserved, and we solved the identification

problem by finding an instrument correlated with the regressor of interest but

not with the confounder. These are the basic strategies to deal with confounding

factors, and they form the core of the toolkit of the empirical evaluator. But

there are variations on these themes and strategies, which place some particular

structure on the confounder or the variable of interest. These strategies are for

34 Commission Competence Centre on Microeconomic Evaluation (CC-ME), all the details are available at this

url https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/microeconomic-evaluation, email: [email protected].

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 90

instance fixed effects, and its cousin differences-in-differences. In particular, in

what follows a brief description is provided of CIE methods that can be used for

policy evaluation.

6.3.1. Naive before and after comparison (B-A)

A very naïve way of answering the evaluation questions could be to identify the

related result indicators and compute the difference between the values of the

indicators before and after the policy implementation. For the AMIF fund,

imagine that the native-migrant employment gap fell by 1 percentage point in

the period in which the AMIF fund was adopted, one may conclude that the Fund

was effective in achieving the specific objective of migrants’ economic

integration. Why is this a naïve conclusion? Because the intervention logic makes

it clear that other external factors may have contributed to producing this

specific outcome, e.g., other funds such as the ESF fund allocated by countries

to increasing integration. In the case of ISF, suppose it is possible to compare

two countries (A and B). Imagine that, at some point in time, A receives the

Fund while B does not. Afterwards, the evaluator may observe a reduction in the

number of illegal border-crossings that is attributable to the Fund. As before,

this is a naïve conclusion, in the sense that many other factors (not controlled in

the comparison) may drive the result.

This is the methodology that can be used for the interim evaluation of AMIF and

ISF as yearly data on the indicators and for each country is available.

6.3.2. Multivariate regression analysis

A more sophisticated way of evaluating the Fund could then be the use of

multivariate regression analysis. As the name suggests, multivariate

regression analysis allows the evaluator to take into account several

explanatory variables which may contribute to a specific result (outcome

variable). Multivariate regression analysis enables one to determine the specific

contribution of each variable over and above other variables, i.e. “keeping under

control” the other characteristics. In the example taken above, this would

consist of including in a regression explaining the native-immigrant employment

gap, not only the amount of AMIF funds received and spent by a country, but

also other EU or national funds spent for migrants’ integration, together with

other external factors. One such factor could be the changing composition of the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 91

migrants’ stocks in terms of education. Increasing waves of relatively well

educated refugees (e.g., from Syria) with respect to the past, for instance,

might increase migrants’ employability for factors which are totally unrelated to

the AMIF fund. All these “control variables” must be included in the regression.

The choice of control variables should be theory-driven. For this reason, it is

very important to always have clearly in mind the intervention logic of the Fund

and have already identified all potential external factors in order to collect data

on them.

The B-A analysis can be implemented using the multivariate regression

framework every time a comparison is made between a period before a

programme was in place and the period after the programme was implemented,

controlling for the external factors.

In many cases, simple regression analysis estimated with ordinary least squares

(OLS) will not be enough to establish a cause-effect link between a programme

and an outcome. This can be easily understood through an example. Imagine

that funds are allocated in higher proportion to promote integration of the least

integrated migrant groups, e.g. those who are less employable because they do

not speak the host-country language well. Let us say that regression analysis

shows a negative association between migrants’ employment outcomes and the

amount of funds received, should we conclude that the fund did have a negative

effect on immigrants’ employment probability? Not at all. This negative

association only reflects how the funds were allocated in the first place. Those

who received fewer funds are not a good comparison group (counterfactual) for

those who received more funds, as individuals in this group were more

employable ex-ante, and they may keep this advantage also ex-post. In this

case the allocation of funds analysis is unlikely to establish a causal link. There

are other CIE methods that are better suited to evaluate causality.

6.3.3. Fixed Effects

Another way to control for possible confounding factors relates to the fixed effect

method (individual or region/province). Suppose you are interested in whether

some particular area, in which, for example, a refugee camp or an Identification

and Expulsion Centre (CIA) has been located reports a higher number of

irregular immigrants. However, we are concerned that places with this kind of

structure may be different from the ones without. It is also possible that all the

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 92

controls that the evaluator includes in the regression are not enough to capture

all the differences between locations (following the multivariate regression

approach). Many of these factors will not be observable to the econometrician

(namely, standard omitted variable bias problem) and therefore the error term

and presence of a CIA will be correlated and OLS will be biased. A fixed effect

model would address this problem because it takes into consideration all the

confounders which are time-invariant (such as characteristics that do not vary

with the time, e.g. inherited ability) so that it is likely to recover an unbiased

estimate of the parameter of interest. In practice, there are two ways of

estimating these fixed effects models: (1) Demeaning (sometimes called "within

estimator") the observations and/or (2) First differencing. The former implies

that the econometrician needs to calculate “area” averages of the dependent

variable and all explanatory variables and then to subtract these averages from

the variables included in the regressions so that all the time-invariant variability

is wiped out. An alternative way of estimating the fixed effects model is first

differencing, which would also remove time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity.

With two periods (e.g data for two years) the two methods are algebraically the

same, otherwise they are not. Both should work, but with first differencing you

introduce serial correlation of the error terms, therefore demeaning is usually

the best option.

6.3.4. Instrumental Variables (IV)

In many cases, the problem with multivariate regressions is that the main

explanatory variable of interest (the treatment) is a choice variable for the

individual. In all these cases, a possible concern is that unobservable variables

affecting the treatment may also affect the outcome of interest. Let us assume

that we wish to use micro-data35 to evaluate the outcomes produced by a

language course on asylum seekers, the outcome being language skills. In the

regression analysis, our treatment of interest is an indicator for the individual

having participated in the course. An unobservable variable might be the high

(or low) motivation of an individual to learn the host country language, perhaps

35 Micro-data are data collected at the lowest level of aggregation (individual, family, firm, etc.) and they can be

obtained from different sources: census data, administrative data (e.g. social security records, tax records,

matched employer-employee data etc.), and sources of big data (e.g. social networks

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 93

because he/she perceives his/her migration as permanent (or temporary) in that

specific country. This unobserved motivation will affect both participation in the

course and the outcome, because, for instance, highly motivated individuals will

be involved in more interactions with natives, and acquire language skills by this

additional channel. In this case, OLS will lead to a biased assessment of the

effect of the course. Instrumental Variables (IV) consists in finding a source of

variation in course participation which is not under the control of the individual.

We define this variation as exogenous variation. This kind of variation can be

provided by a variable affecting course participation but uncorrelated with

motivation (the unobservable variable), and which only affects the outcome

through the treatment. This variable is called an instrument. An example of

instrument could be the supply of courses in the refugee centre in which the

asylum seeker is hosted. Since allocation of refugees to hosting centres is

generally unrelated to their language skills, and more importantly refugees

cannot generally choose the centre where they will be hosted, language course

supply could be considered as “good as random” with respect to refugees’

unobservable characteristics affecting language skills, meeting the requirement

of a “good instrument”.

6.3.5. Difference in Differences (DiD)

A step towards establishing causality is represented by the CIE method called

Difference in Differences (DiD). The application of this method requires that we

can identify a treated group (i.e. treated by the policy) and an untreated or

control group (i.e. those not affected by the policy). The latter is considered as

the counterfactual of what would have happened to the former in the absence of

the policy. Treated and control groups are usually identified using institutional

features of a policy. Imagine that a Fund sets a priority in the target group,

saying that refugees from country A should benefit from the Fund. This implies

that we can identify refugees from countries different from A, who were not the

beneficiaries of the Fund. There will be many of such countries. A good idea is to

choose a country as similar as possible to A (e.g. geographically close, with a

similar GDP per capita, population, etc.). The DiD consists in taking the

difference in the outcomes (i.e. employment rate) between the two countries

after the policy implementation (say period t+1), the difference before the policy

implementation (say period t), and finally the difference between the two

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 94

differences (difference-in-differences). By defining the outcome with Y, we

have

= (+1 − +1

) − ( −

)=(+1 −

) − (+1 −

The DiD method can also be implemented in regression form, including potential

external factors in the regression. The advantage of this CIE method crucially

hinges on the assumption that group B is a good counterfactual of what would

have happened to group A in the absence of the policy. This can be checked, for

instance, by verifying that the two countries were behaving similarly (e.g., with

respect to immigrants’ employment) before the implementation of the

programme (sometimes called the “parallel trends” assumption). Specifically, in

the absence of the treatment, both treated and control groups would have

experienced over time the same trend in the outcome variable. Therefore, any

deviation from the trend observed in the treated group can be interpreted as the

effect of the treatment. Note that, the unobserved heterogeneity is time

invariant and is cancelled out by comparing the before and after situations.

6.3.6. Regression discontinuity design (RDD)

Also for the application of the regression discontinuity design (RDD) method we

need to be able to identify a treated (by the policy) and a control group. In this

case the policy eligibility has to be defined according to a quantitative variable

for which a threshold was set. This could be, for instance, income or age. Let us

assume that a specific Fund to increase migrants’ employability is only allocated

to individuals in the age range 18-24. We might use a DID considering as

treated the 18-24 age group and the 25-29 as the control group. However, the

latter may not represent a good comparison group for the former, as employers

may prefer younger individuals who just left education and can be more easily

trained. The RDD then consists in only focusing our attention on two age groups

which are close to the eligibility threshold, for instance, considering as treated

individuals aged 24 and as untreated those aged 25. Now, these individuals are

very close in terms of age (only one year of difference) and we do not expect

employers to substantially discriminate against individuals aged 25 when they

have to decide whether to employ a 24-year old or a 25-year old individual. Also

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 95

this RDD method can be implemented in regression form. The main issue with

this powerful CIE method in terms of internal validity36 is that it can only

estimate causal effects around the threshold, in this case around the 24 year-old

age group, while it would be difficult to generalize its results to other age groups

(external validity). To put it in other words, estimates are likely to be “local”.

Similar arguments apply for the ISF.

6.3.7. Propensity score matching (PSM)

In some cases there are no institutional rules which define the treated group

according to qualitative (e.g. nativity) or quantitative (e.g. age) variables. An

example could be the case of participation in a voluntary course financed by the

AMIF fund. In this case DiD and RDD methods are not applicable. A problem with

such programmes is that individuals are self-selected into a training course.

Individuals who are ex-ante more likely to participate in the course may also be

those who are ex-post more likely to find employment (e.g. highly motivated

individuals). Under the assumption that self-selection occurs only according to

observable characteristics (e.g. age, gender, educational level, etc.) and they

are available in the data, the evaluator can use propensity score matching

(PSM). PSM consists in matching to each treated individual T (who voluntarily

participated in the course) a control individual C with very similar (or even the

same) characteristics but who did not participate in the training course. Then the

average treatment effect (ATE) of the course (or programme) can be computed

by taking the mean of the difference in outcomes between each pair of

individuals:

= ( −

The advantage of this CIE method depends on the credibility of the “selection on

the observables assumption” (also said Conditional Independence Assumption).

In order to use PSM one must have a very rich database, providing information

on many variables which may potentially affect participation in the programme.

36 Internal validity refers to the ability of a CIE method to estimate causal effects.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 96

6.4. Pilot projects in collaboration with JRC

Each pilot study will be accompanied by a report, which may be used as example

for the other Member States in order to perform similar analysis in the future

(ideally in view of the ex post evaluation). In particular, Member States would

need to provide access to micro-level data. Micro-data are data collected at the

lowest level of aggregation (individual, family, firm, etc.) and they can be

obtained from different sources: census data, administrative data (e.g. social

security records, tax records, matched employer-employee data etc.), and

sources of big data (e.g. social networks). Since the AMIF and ISF deal with

issues related to migration, integration and security, the type of micro-data

needed to design the evaluation plan usually come from registers held by

Responsible Authorities such as the Ministry of Interior, Police departments, etc.

Furthermore, these registers can be matched with information on the allocation

of the funds within the country (by region, province, etc.). These pilot studies

would, for instance, allow for a comparison of labour market outcomes of

immigrants who attended a programme financed by AMIF with individuals who

have similar observable characteristics (nationality, age, gender, etc.) but who

did not participate in the programme. On the granularity of the aggregation, the

aim of the pilot projects is to analyse the impact of the funds at the level of the

beneficiaries (being the individual, family or regions in countries with a more

decentralized system). The Commission and the Member States will closely

cooperate in the design of the impact evaluation plan, data collection and

preparation, following the required protocols.

6.4.1. Micro-data and methodology for AMIF evaluation

The use of micro-data is becoming the standard for programme evaluation. In

this paragraph, we outline a simple example on the use of micro-data to

evaluate the effectiveness of projects financed under AMIF.

One may wish to assess whether AMIF succeeded in increasing immigrants’

socio-economic integration by focusing on some language courses. This

evaluation poses several challenges. First, data on each single individual taking

the course must be available (treated). Information on a comparable sample of

individuals not taking such course (and in general not taking any course) is also

needed. The data must also provide basic information on individual

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 97

characteristics (e.g. gender, age, country of origin, ethnicity, level of education,

etc.). These characteristics are useful to select control individuals who match the

treated sample’s characteristics. What can be a good outcome variable? In some

countries there may be an official standardized language test which must be

taken and passed to renew the residence permit. A first way of realizing a pilot

evaluation may be to use PSM and compute ATE on the final score obtained in

the standardized test.

In other countries, however, there might not be any standardized test and the

pass/fail grade may reflect different standards of language assessment.

Moreover, only migrants attending the course may have their skills assessed. In

this case, were administrative data on labour market or criminal records

available, one could focus on the differences between treated and untreated

individuals in the probability of being employed or having no criminal record.

PSM is based on the assumption of selection on observable variables only. This

assumption may be too strong in some cases. One may look for presumably

exogenous sources of variation in language course supply, which are

uncorrelated with individual unobservable characteristics affecting motivation

and, later on, language skills or employability. If there is some geographical

variation in course supply to be exploited, for instance, and under the

assumption that this variation is not related with individuals' motivation or local

labour market characteristics (i.e. it satisfies the requirement of exogeneity), it

is possible to apply an IV strategy. The underlying logic is the following. Asylum

seekers are not generally able to choose the centre where they are hosted, so

there is no self-sorting into specific centres. Some centres may have a large

language course supply, while in other centres supply may be much lower. Thus

from the perspective of the individual refugee, local course supply is exogenous,

i.e it is not a choice variable, but it will affect his/her chances to take the course.

These differences in supply provide the exogenous variation in taking the

language course (the endogenous choice variable) which is used in the IV

estimation to quantify its causal effect on socio-economic integration.

6.4.2. Micro-data and methodology for ISF evaluation

With ISF it is more difficult to identify the proper unit of analysis needed to

collect the micro-data. In addition, many of the indicators are available

exclusively at the national levels, and it is meaningless and/or impossible to

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 98

collect data at a lower level (for example indicator S01 I1 – number of visa

applicants having to apply for a Schengen visa outside of their country of

residence- is a data set which is collected at national level and cannot be

collected in a different way). Nevertheless, the following two examples explain

how a more disaggregated data collection combined with information on how the

funds are distributed can be useful in the evaluation process of ISF.

(1) Individual data (e.g. police station)

Suppose that ISF provides some resources to police stations that have to be

invested in a particular device (for example, iris recognition device) to control

and limit, to some extent, the number of illegal border-crossings. Suppose that

there is a rule that defines a treated (by the policy) and a control group. For

example, it is possible that money is allocated considering distance from the

borders, so that some police stations may receive the money because they are

closer to the borders (for example within 10 km) and others do not receive the

money as they are located further away from the borders (more than 10 km). In

this case, the policy eligibility defines a quantitative variable for a threshold (in

or outside 10 km). The RDD then consists in focusing attention only on two

groups of police stations which are close to the eligibility threshold, for instance,

considering as treated the police station within 10 km from the border and as

untreated those located at 12 km. Now, these police stations are very close in

terms of observables (only 2 km of difference) and we do not expect enormous

differences between those around the threshold. The main issue with this

powerful CIE method in terms of internal validity37 is that it can only estimate

causal effects around the threshold, in this case around the 10 km, while it

would be difficult to generalize its results to other distance groups. To put it in

other words, estimates are likely to be “local”.

The following equation provides a simple way to make this estimation procedure

operational:

= 0 + 1 + () + (1)

Where:

37 Internal validity refers to the ability of a CIE method to estimate causal effects.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 99

i = the outcome measure for observation unit (the number of illegal border-

crossings detected by each police station i);

0 = the average value of the outcome for those in the treatment group after

controlling for the rating variable;

i = 1 if observation, a police station, i is assigned to the treatment group and 0

otherwise;

i = the rating variable for observation i, centred at the cut-off point (around 10

km);

= a random error term for observation i, which is assumed to be independently

and identically distributed.

The coefficient 1, for treatment assignment represents the marginal impact of

the program at the cut-off point.

To summarize, we can properly evaluate an action (buying a device for iris

recognition) aiming at reaching the specific objective 2 (borders) of ISF if we

have access to micro-data at the level of police stations, if we know which units

were treated (which police stations received the money to buy the device), and

if assignment of the unit (i.e. police stations) into the treatment or control group

is based on a clear and objective rule (i.e. police stations within 10 km from the

borders receive the money, police stations located further away do not receive

the money).

(2) Municipality level data

Idea: use a DID setting.

Suppose the ISF provides funding to municipalities where there is an

Identification and Expulsion Centre (IEC). The funding is available since 2014,

while before that year no municipalities received ISF funding.

Municipalities without an IEC are always untreated, i.e. they never receive

funding, while places with IEC are treated by ISF funding after 2014, i.e. receive

the money only after 2014 (first year of implementation).

The estimated equation is

= 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 × + 4 + (1)

is the outcome to be investigated (e.g. crime rate or the number of illegal

immigrants registered); is a dummy variable which equals 1 if the

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 100

observation refers to places with an IEC and equals 0 otherwise (intercept

shifter); is a post-2013 dummy; the coefficient on × (3) is our

effect of interest; and is a vector of controls varying at the country, regional

or municipality level (e.g. % of migrants, average GDP, etc.). For this setting to

be valid, it is necessary that ISF is not producing any spillover effect on the

control group for the outcomes of interest. In addition, it is also necessary that

before the fund was allocated, the trend in the outcomes (i.e. crime rate)

between the treated and control municipalities was parallel.

The main idea is that, in the absence of the ISF, outcome (e.g. crime rate)

would have been 0 + 1 + 2+ 4.

Equation (1) can also be changed to account for the intensity of treatment

(amount of funds spent or number of projects financed), i.e. the amount of

funds or projects of region i at time t, that is

= 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 × × + 4 + (2)

Exploiting increases cross-country or cross-regional variation, but may

introduce an issue of endogeneity of fund allocation across countries or regions.

To summarize, we could evaluate the effectiveness of the fund in decreasing

crime rate if we are able to have information on units which are treated and

units which are not treated (e.g. municipalities receiving or not the money) and

if we are able to have information on a time series of data going back to years

previous to the intervention (before 2014).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 101

6.5. Evaluation report template in SFC2014

6.5.1. Draft model interim evaluation report AMIF

CCI

Title The interim evaluation report of the national programme of the Asylum, Migration and

Integration Fund for [Member State]

Version

Time period covered 01/01/2014- 30/06/2017

Independent experts (as required in Art. 56(3) of the Regulation (EU) No 514/2014)

Please explain how the requirement in Art. 56(3) of the Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 was fulfilled

Max 1748 characters

Executive Summary

Max 9922 characters

Section I: Context of implementation of AMIF during 01/01/2014-30/06/2017

Max 2426 characters

Section II: Challenges encountered and their impact on the implementation of the National Programme

Max 2426 characters

Section III: Deviations in implementation of the National Programmes in comparison with what was initially planned (if any)

Max 4961 characters

Section IV: Evaluation questions

The information in the boxes must be self-contained and cannot refer to information in any attached document or contain hyperlinks.

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 102

1. Effectiveness

1.1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Asylum

Strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System.

The overall question: How did the Fund contribute to strengthening and developing all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension?

Max 2426 characters

1.1.1. What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the asylum procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.2. What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the reception conditions, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.3. What progress was made towards the achievement of a successful implementation of the legal framework of the qualification directive (and its subsequent modifications), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.4. What progress was made towards enhancing Member State capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate their asylum policies and procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.5. What progress was made towards the establishment, development and implementation of national resettlement programmes and strategies, and other humanitarian admission programmes, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Integration/legal migration

Support legal migration to the Member States in line with their economic and social needs such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and promote the effective integration of

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 103

third-country nationals.

The overall question: How did the Fund contribute to supporting legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promoting the effective integration of third- country nationals?

Max 2426 characters

1.2.1. What progress was made towards supporting legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.2. What progress was made towards promoting the effective integration of third- country nationals, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.3. What progress was made towards supporting co-operation among the Member States, with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.4. What progress was made towards building capacity on integration and legal migration within the Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Return

Enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States, which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit.

The overall question: How did the Fund contribute to enhancing fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit?

Max 2426 characters

1.3.1. What progress was made towards supporting the measures accompanying return

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 104

procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.2. What progress was made towards effective implementation of return measures (voluntary and forced), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.3. What progress was made towards enhancing practical co-operation between Member States and/or with authorities of third countries on return measures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.4. What progress was made towards building capacity on return, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: Solidarity Enhance the solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation.

The overall question: How did the Fund contribute to enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation?

Max 2426 characters

1.4.1. How did the Fund contribute to the transfer of asylum applicants (relocation as per Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1253 and 2015/1601)?

Max 4961 characters

1.4.2. How did the Fund contribute to the transfer between Member States of beneficiaries of international protection?

Max 4961 characters

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 105

2. Efficiency

The overall question: Were the general objectives of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?

Max 9922 characters

2.1. To what extent were the results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost in terms of deployed financial and human resources?

Max 4961 characters

2.2. What measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow up on cases of fraud and other irregularities, and how did they perform?

Max 4961 characters

3. Relevance

The overall question: Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?

Max 2426 characters

3.1. Did the objectives set by the Member State in the National Programme respond to the identified needs?

Max 4961 characters

3.2. Which measures did the Member State put in place to address changing needs?

Max 4961 characters

4. Coherence

The overall question: Were the objectives set in the national programme coherent with the ones set in other programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work? Was the coherence ensured also during the implementation of the Fund?

Max 2426 characters

4.1. Was an assessment of other interventions with similar objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage?

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 106

Max 4961 characters

4.2. Were co-ordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established for the implementation period?

Max 4961 characters

4.3. Were the actions implemented through the Fund coherent with and non- contradictory to other interventions with similar objectives?

Max 4961 characters

5. Complementarity

The overall question: Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding implemented actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies, in particular those pursued by the Member State?

Max 2426 characters

5.1. Was an assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage?

Max 4961 characters

5.2. Were co-ordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established to ensure their complementarity for the implementing period?

Max 4961 characters

5.3. Were mechanisms aimed to prevent overlapping of financial instruments put in place?

Max 4961 characters

6. EU added value

The overall question: Was any added value brought about by the EU support?

Max 2426 characters

6.1. What are the main types of added value resulting from the support by the Fund (volume, scope, role, process)?

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 107

Max 4961 characters

6.2. Would the Member State have carried out the actions required to implement the EU policies in areas supported by the Fund without its financial support?

Max 4961 characters

6.3. What would be the most likely consequences of an interruption of the support provided by the Fund?

Max 4961 characters

6.4. To which extent have actions supported by the Fund resulted in a benefit at the Union level?

Max 4961 characters

7. Sustainability

The overall question: Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when its support will be over?

Max 2426 characters

7.1. What were the main measures adopted by the Member State to ensure the sustainability of the results of the projects implemented with support of the Fund (both at programming and implementation stage)?

Max 4961 characters

7.2. Were mechanisms put in place to ensure a sustainability check at programming and implementation stage?

Max 4961 characters

7.3. To what extent are the outcomes/benefits of the actions sustained by the Fund expected to continue thereafter?

Max 4961 characters

8. Simplification and reduction of administrative burden

The overall question: Were the Fund management procedures simplified and the administrative burden reduced for its beneficiaries?

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 108

Max 2426 characters

8.1. Did the innovative procedures introduced by the Fund (simplified cost option, multiannual programming, national eligibility rules, more comprehensive national programmes allowing for flexibility) bring about simplification for the beneficiaries of the Fund?

Max 4961 characters

Section V: Project examples

Description of three “success stories”, among all the projects funded

Example 1

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Example 2

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Example 3

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Description of one ‘failure’, among all the projects funded

Example 4

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Section VI: Methodology

Briefly explain the methodology used for the evaluation, including for collection of

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 109

data to formulate the indicators

Max length 4961 characters

Section VII: Main conclusions and recommendations

(Guidance pop-up for both recommendations and conclusions)

Conclusion 1 –up to 5 conclusions but should also be able to select fewer

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 2

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 3

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 4

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 5

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 1 –up to 5 recommendations but should also be able to select fewer; each recommendation

should be linked to a conclusion

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 2

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 3

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 4

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 5

Max 1748 characters

Section VIII: Mid-Term Review

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 110

Provide an assessment of the mid-term review carried out in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014. If relevant, summarize the main changes having an impact on your activities in the policy areas covered by the Fund, and how your National Programme was/will be adjusted.

Max 1748 characters

ANNEX: Data

Table 1 Progress in financial implementation, by specific objectives (in Euro)

Financial report AMIF

National objective A

Total paid

01/01/2014- 15/10/2016

Total paid

16/10/2016- 30/06/2017

Total paid (A+B) / SO

programmed (%)

SO1.OO1: Reception/asylum

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO1.OO2: Evaluation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO1.OO3: Resettlement

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Subtotal for national objectives

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SA1: Transit Centres

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SA2. Access to Asylum

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 1: SO1: Asylum

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO2.OO1: Legal migration

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO2: Integration

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO3: Capacity [generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 111

Subtotal for national objectives

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO2.SA1: Joint Initiatives

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.SA2: Unaccompanied minors

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.SA3: Legal migration

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 2: SO2: Integration/Legal migration

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO3.001: Accompanying measures

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO3.002: Return measures

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO3.003: Cooperation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Subtotal for national objectives

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO3.SA1: Joint return

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO3.SA2: Joint reintegration

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO3.SA3: Joint family and unaccompanied minors

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 3: SO3: Return

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO4.001: Relocation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 4: SO4: Solidarity

[generated] [generated] [generated]

Special cases: Resettlement

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 112

Special cases: Transfer & relocation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 5: Special cases

[generated] [generated] [generated]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

TOTAL 6 = (total 1+total 2+ total 3+total4 + total 5 + TA)

[generated] [generated] [generated]

Table 2 Number of projects and EU contribution to finished and open projects, by specific objectives (in Euro)

Number of projects and EU contribution

1/1/2014-15/10/2016

Total Nr of finished projects

Total EU contribution to finished projects

Total Nr of open projects

Total EU contribution to open projects

SO1: Asylum [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO2: Integration/Legal migration

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO3: Return [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO4: Solidarity [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

Total 1 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 113

Number of projects and EU contribution

16/10/2016-30/6/2017

Total Nr of finished projects

Total EU contribution to finished projects

Total Nr of open projects

Total EU contribution to open projects

SO1: Asylum [to be filled- in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO2: Integration/Legal migration

[to be filled- in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO3: Return [to be filled- in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO4: Solidarity [to be filled- in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

Total 2 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

Total 1+2 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

Table 3 Number of projects and EU contribution, by types of beneficiaries and by specific objectives (in Euro)

Project beneficiaries

1/1/2014-15/10/2016

SO1: Asylum SO2: Integration/Le gal migration

SO3: Return SO4: Solidarity

State/federal authorities

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 114

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Local public bodies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

NGOs [generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

International public organisations

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

National Red Cross

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

International Committee of the Red Cross

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Private and public law companies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Education/rese arch organisations

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 115

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Project beneficiaries

16/10/2016-30/6/2017

SO1: Asylum SO2: Integration/Le gal migration

SO3: Return SO4: Solidarity

State/federal authorities

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Local public bodies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

NGOs [to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

International public organisations

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

National Red Cross

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in [to be filled-in [to be filled-in [to be filled-in

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 116

manually]

Amount

manually]Amount manually]

Amount

manually]

Amount

International Committee of the Red Cross

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Private and public law companies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Education/rese arch organisations

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Table 4 Special cases (Generated) 2014 - 2015 2016 - 2017 Total

Resettlement Priorities (pledge numbers and actual number of resettled persons) 2 numbers for each category

Resettlement other cases – (pledge numbers and actual number of resettled

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 117

persons) generated from accounts

Relocation (pledge numbers and actual number of relocated persons)

TOTAL

118

6.5.2. SFC2014 template for indicators AMIF

(only result and impact indicators are included)

In d

ic at

o r

Indicator description

Click on the [?] for a guidance pop- up

M e

as u

re m

e n

u n

B as

e lin

e v

a lu

Source of data

2014 (01/01/14

to 15/10/14)

2015 (16/10/14

to 15/10/15)

2016 (16/10/15

to 15/10/16)

2017 (16/10/16

to 30/06/17)

1 - Indicators by specific objectives

Specific Objective 1 - ASYLUM & RECEPTION To strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension

SO1 - Result indicators

SO1 R1

Number of target group persons provided with assistance through projects in the field of reception and asylum systems supported under the Fund:

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

i) number of target group persons benefiting from information and assistance throughout the asylum procedures

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C1.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

ii) number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance and representation

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C1.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

iii) number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C1.c)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R2

Capacity (i.e. number of places) of new reception accommodation infrastructure set up in line with the common requirements for reception conditions as set out in the Union acquis and of existing

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C2.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 119

reception accommodation infrastructure improved in accordance with the same requirements as a result of the projects supported under the Fund.

The percentage in the total reception accommodation capacity

Percenta ge

0 AIR (indicator SO1 C2.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R3

Number of persons trained in asylum-related topics with the assistance of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C3.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

That number as a percentage of the total number of staff trained in those topics

Percenta ge

0 AIR (indicator SO1 C3.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R4

(a) Number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) supported by the Fund [?]

Number 0 Project

Reporting #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors [?]

Number Member State # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors.

Percenta ge

0 /

Generated SO1 R4 (a)

/ SO1 R4 (b)

Generated SO1 R4 (a)

/ SO1 R4 (b)

Generated SO1 R4 (a)

/ SO1 R4 (b)

Generated SO1 R4 (a)

/ SO1 R4 (b)

SO1 - Impact indicators

SO1 I1

Stock of pending cases at first instance, less than 6 months [?]

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 2)

# (no decimal)

Stock of pending cases at first instance, more than 6 months [?]

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 2)

# (no decimal)

SO1 I2

Share of final positive decisions at the appeal stage [?]

Percenta ge

# Eurostat (migr_asydcfina)

# (2 decimals)

SO1 I3

Number of persons in the reception system (stock at end of the reporting period) [?]

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 7)

# (no decimal)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 120

SO1 I4

(a) Number of persons in the reception system

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 7)

Generated SO1 I3

(b) Number of asylum and first time asylum applicants [?]

Number # Eurostat (migr_asyappctza)

# (no decimal)

Number of persons in the reception system as compared to the number of asylum applicants

Ratio / /

Generated SO1 I4 (a)

/ SO1 I4 (b)

Generated SO1 I4 (a)

/ SO1 I4 (b)

Generated SO1 I4 (a)

/ SO1 I4 (b)

Generated SO1 I4 (a)

/ SO1 I4 (b)

SO1 I5

(a) Number of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors [?]

Number # Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

(b) Number of asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors (Eurostat migr_asyunaa) [?]

Number # Eurostat (migr_asyunaa)

# (no decimal)

Number of accommodation places adapted for unaccompanied minors (UAM) as compared to the number of unaccompanied minors

Ratio / /

Generated SO1 I5 (a)

/ SO1 I5 (b)

Generated SO1 I5 (a)

/ SO1 I5 (b)

Generated SO1 I5 (a)

/ SO1 I5 (b)

Generated SO1 I5 (a)

/ SO1 I5 (b)

SO1 I6

Convergence of first instance/final instance recognition rates by Member States for asylum applicants from a same third country

Percenta ge points

Calcu lated

by DG

HOM E C.3

Eurostat (migr_asydcfina)

Calculated by DG

HOME C.3

Calculated by DG

HOME C.3

Calculated by DG

HOME C.3

Calculated by DG

HOME C.3

Specific Objective 2 – LEGAL MIGRATION & INTEGRATION To support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-country nationals.

SO2 - Result indicators

SO2 R1

Number of target group persons who participated in pre-departure measures supported by the Fund

Number 0 AIR (Indicator SO2 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 R2

Number of target group persons assisted by the Fund through integration measures in the framework of national, local and regional strategies

Number 0 AIR (Indicator SO2 C2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 121

i) number of target group persons assisted through measures focusing on education and training, including language training and preparatory actions to facilitate access to the labour market

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C2.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

ii) number of target group persons supported through the provision of advice and assistance in the area of housing

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C2.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

iii) number of target group persons assisted through the provision of health and psychological care

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C2.c)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

iv) number of target group persons assisted through measures related to democratic participation

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C2.d)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 - Impact indicators

SO2 I1

Share of third-country nationals (TCNs) having received long-term residence status out of all TCNs [?]

Percenta ge

# Eurostat (migr_reslas)

# (2 decimals)

SO2 I2

Employment rate: gap between third-country nationals and host- country nationals [?]

Percenta ge points

Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

(lfsa_ergan) (lfsa_ergacob)

# (2 decimals)

SO2 I3

Unemployment rate: gap between third-country nationals and host- country nationals [?]

Percenta ge points

Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

(lfsa_urgan) (lfsa_urgacob)

# (2 decimals)

SO2 I4

Activity rate: gap between third- country nationals and host-country nationals [?]

Percenta ge points

Eurostat (Labour Force Survey)

(lfsa_argan) (lfsa_argacob)

# (2 decimals)

SO2 I5

Share of early leavers from education and training: gap

Percenta ge points

# Eurostat

(Labour Force Survey) (edat_lfse_02)

# (2 decimals)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 122

between third-country nationals and host-country nationals [?]

SO2 I6

Share of 30 to 34-year-olds with tertiary education attainment: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals [?]

Percenta ge points

# Eurostat (edat_lfs_9911)

# (2 decimals)

SO2 I7

Share of population at risk of social poverty or social exclusion: gap between third-country nationals and host-country nationals [?]

Percenta ge points

# Eurostat

(Labour Force Survey) (ilc_peps05)

# (2 decimals)

Specific Objective 3 – RETURN To enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States supporting the fight against illegal immigration with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit.

SO3 - Result indicators

SO3 R1

Number of persons trained on return-related topics with the assistance of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO3 R2

Number of returnees who received pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO3 R3

(a) persons who returned voluntarily

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C3.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) and persons who were removed Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C3.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund

Number 0 AIR

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

SO3 R4

Number of monitored removal operations co-financed by the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C4)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO3 R5

(a) Persons who were removed (and whose return was co-financed

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C3.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 123

by the Fund) (no decimal)

(b) Total number of returns following an order to leave [?]

Number # Eurostat (migr_eirtn)

# (no decimal)

Number of removals supported by the Fund, as compared to the total number of returns following an order to leave

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO3 R5 (a)

/ SO3 R5 (b)

Generated SO3 R5 (a)

/ SO3 R5 (b)

Generated SO3 R5 (a)

/ SO3 R5 (b)

Generated SO3 R5 (a)

/ SO3 R5 (b)

S03 R6

(a) Number of persons returned in the framework of joint return operations (assisted-voluntary and

forced) supported by the Fund [?]

Number 0 Project Reporting # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

(b) Number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund

Number 0 AIR

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Generated SO3 R3 (a)

+ SO3 R3 (b)

Number of persons returned in the framework of the joint return operations supported by the Fund as compared to the total number of returns supported by the Fund

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO3 R6 (a)

/ SO3 R6 (b)

Generated SO3 R6 (a)

/ SO3 R6 (b)

Generated SO3 R6 (a)

/ SO3 R6 (b)

Generated SO3 R6 (a)

/ SO3 R6 (b)

SO3 R7

(a) Number of returnees who received pre or post return reintegration assistance co- financed by the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Persons who returned voluntarily (and whose return was co-financed by the Fund)

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO3 C3.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of returnees who have received pre or post return reintegration assistance co- financed by the Fund, as compared to the total number of voluntary returns supported by the Fund

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO3 R7 (a)

/ SO3 R7 (b)

Generated SO3 R7 (a)

/ SO3 R7 (b)

Generated SO3 R7 (a)

/ SO3 R7 (b)

Generated SO3 R7 (a)

/ SO3 R7 (b)

SO3 R8

(a) Number of places in detention centres created/renovated with support from the Fund [?]

Number 0 Project Reporting # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of places in Number # Member States # # # #

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 124

detention centres [?] (no decimal) (no decimal) (no decimal) (no decimal)

Number of places in detention centres created/renovated with support from the Fund, as compared to the total number of places in detention centres

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO3 R8 (a)

/ SO3 R8 (b)

Generated SO3 R8 (a)

/ SO3 R8 (b)

Generated SO3 R8 (a)

/ SO3 R8 (b)

Generated SO3 R8 (a)

/ SO3 R8 (b)

SO3 - Impact indicators

SO3 I1

(a) Number of third-country nationals returned following an order to leave (migr_eirtn) [?]

Number # Eurostat (migr_eirtn)

# (no decimal)

(b) Number of third-country nationals ordered to leave (migr_eiord) [?]

Number # Eurostat (migr_eiord)

# (no decimal)

Number of returns following an order to leave compared to the number of third-country nationals ordered to leave

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO3 I1 (a)

/ SO3 I1 (b)

Generated SO3 I1 (a)

/ SO3 I1 (b)

Generated SO3 I1 (a)

/ SO3 I1 (b)

Generated SO3 I1 (a)

/ SO3 I1 (b)

SO3 I2

Return decisions issued to rejected asylum applicants [?]

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 8a)

# (no decimal)

SO3 I3

Effective returns of rejected asylum applicants [?]

Number # EASO (EPS Indicator 8b)

# (no decimal)

Specific Objective 4 – SOLIDARITY To enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation.

SO3 - Result indicators

SO4 R1

Number of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection transferred from one Member State to another with support of the Fund.

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO4 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO4 R2

Number of cooperation projects with other Member States on enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States supported under

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO4 C2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 125

the Fund.

2 - Indicators on efficiency, added value and sustainability, as foreseen in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014

Number of Full Time Equivalent in the Responsible Authority, the Delegated Authority and the Audit Authority working on the implementation of AMIF and paid by the technical assistance or national budgets as compared to:

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

(a) the number of projects implemented

Number 0 AIR Generated from AIR

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) the amount of the funds claimed for the financial year

Amount million EUR

0 Accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(a) Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost

Amount million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

(b) Amount of funds claimed for the financial year

Amount million EUR

0 Accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost of projects as compared to the amount of funds claimed for the financial year

Ratio 0 /

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Amount of the annual accounts submitted by the Member State compared to the

Amount in EUR

Accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Total amount of funds allocated to the national programme.

Amount in EUR

Accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Absorption rate of the Fund Ratio 0 /

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 126

127

6.5.3. Draft model interim evaluation report ISF

CCI

Title The interim evaluation report of the national programme of the Internal Security Fund

for [Member State]

Version

Time period covered 01/01/2014- 30/06/2017

Independent experts (as required in Art. 56(3) of the Regulation (EU) No 514/2014)

Please explain how the requirement in Art. 56(3) of the Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 was fulfilled

Max 1748 characters

Executive Summary

Max 9922 characters

Section I: Context of implementation of ISF during 01/01/2014-30/06/2017

Max 2426 characters

Section II: Challenges encountered and their impact on the implementation of the National Programme

Max 2426 characters

Section III: Deviations in implementation of the National Programmes in comparison with what was initially planned (if any)

Max 4961 characters

Section IV: Evaluation questions

The information in the boxes must be self-contained and cannot refer to information in any attached document or contain hyperlinks.

1. Effectiveness

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 128

1.1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Visa policy / ISF-B Article 3(2)(a)

The overall question

How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of the following specific objectives:

- Support a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel;

- Provide a high quality of service to visa applicants;

- Ensure equal treatment of third-country nationals and

- Tackle illegal migration?

Max 2426 characters

1.1.1. What progress was made towards promoting the development and implementation of the common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.2. What progress was made towards ensuring better consular coverage and harmonised practices on visa issuance between Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.3. What progress was made towards ensuring the application of the Union's acquis on visas and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.4. What progress was made towards Member States' contribution to strengthening the cooperation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States, including prevention and tackling of illegal immigration, as well as the cooperation with third countries, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.5. What progress was made towards supporting the common visa policy by setting up and running IT systems, their communication infrastructure and equipment, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.1.6. How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation (EU)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 129

No 515/2014 contribute to the achievement of the specific objective on common

visa policy?

Max 4961 characters

1.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Borders / ISF-B Article 3(2)(b)

The overall question

How did the Fund contribute to the following specific objectives:

- Supporting integrated border management, including promoting further harmonisation of border management-related measures in accordance with common Union standards and through the sharing of information between Member States and between Member States and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union?

- Ensuring, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis, while guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing it, in accordance with the obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement?

Max 2426 characters

1.2.1. What progress was made towards promoting the development, implementation and enforcement of policies with a view to ensure the absence of any controls on persons when crossing the internal borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.2. What progress was made towards carrying out checks on persons and monitoring efficiently the crossing of external borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.3. What progress was made towards establishing gradually an integrated management system for external borders, based on solidarity and responsibility, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.4. What progress was made towards ensuring the application of the Union's acquis on border management, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 130

progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.5. What progress was made towards contributing to reinforcing situational awareness at the external borders and the reaction capabilities of Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.6. What progress was made towards setting up and running IT systems, their communication infrastructure and equipment that support border checks and border surveillance at the external borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.2.7. How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 contribute to the achievement of the specific objective on border management?

Max 4961 characters

1.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5: Crime / ISF-P Article 3(2)(a)

The overall question

How did the Fund contribute to the following specific objectives:

- Prevention of cross-border, serious and organised crime, including terrorism?

- Reinforcement of the coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third countries and international organisations?

Max 2426 characters

1.3.1. What progress was made towards the achievement of the expected results of strengthening Member States' capacity to combat cross-border, serious and organised crime, including terrorism and to reinforce their mutual cooperation in this field, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.2. What progress was made towards developing administrative and operational coordination and cooperation among Member States' public authorities, Europol

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 131

or other relevant Union bodies and, where appropriate, with third countries and international organisations, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.3. What progress was made towards developing training schemes, such as those regarding technical and professional skills and knowledge of obligations on human rights and fundamental freedoms, in implementation of EU training policies, including through specific Union law enforcement exchange programmes, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.3.4. What progress was made towards putting in place measures, safeguard mechanisms and best practices for the identification and support of witnesses and victims of crime, including victims of terrorism, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6: Risks & crisis / ISF-P Article 3(2)(b)

The overall question

How did the Fund contribute to improve the capacity of Member States to manage effectively security-related risks and crises, and protecting people and critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents?

Max 2426 characters

1.4.1. What progress was made towards reinforcing Member States' administrative and operational capability to protect critical infrastructure in all sectors of economic activity, including through public-private partnerships and improved coordination, cooperation, exchange and dissemination of know-how and experience within the Union and with relevant third countries, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

1.4.2. What progress was made towards establishing secure links and effective coordination between existing sector-specific early warning and crisis cooperation actors at Union and national level, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 132

Max 4961 characters

1.4.3. What progress was made towards improving the administrative and operational capacity of the Member States and the Union to develop comprehensive threat and risk assessments, and how did the Fund contribute to the achievement of this progress?

Max 4961 characters

2. Efficiency

The overall question

Were the results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?

Max 9922 characters

2.1. To what extent were the expected results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost in terms of deployed financial and human resources?

Max 4961 characters

2.2. What measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow up on cases of fraud and other irregularities, and how did they perform?

Max 4961 characters

3. Relevance

The overall question

Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?

Max 2426 characters

3.1. Did the objectives set by the Member State in their National Programmes respond to the identified needs?

Max 4961 characters

3.2. Which measures did the Member State put in place to address changing needs?

Max 4961 characters

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 133

4. Coherence

The overall question

Were the objectives set in the national programme coherent with the ones set in other programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work? Was the coherence ensured also during the implementation of the Fund?

Max 2426 characters

4.1. Was an assessment of other interventions with similar objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage?

Max 4961 characters

4.2. Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established for the implementing period?

Max 4961 characters

4.3. Were the actions implemented through the Fund coherent with and non- contradictory to other interventions with similar objectives?

Max 4961 characters

5. Complementarity

The overall question

Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding implemented actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies - in particular those pursued by the Member State?

Max 2426 characters

5.1. Was an assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage?

Max 4961 characters

5.2. Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established to ensure their complementarity for the implementing period?

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 134

Max 4961 characters

5.3. Were mechanisms aimed to prevent overlapping of financial instruments put in place?

Max 4961 characters

6. EU added value

The overall question

Was any added value brought about by the EU support?

Max 2426 characters

6.1. What are the main types of added value resulting from the support of the Fund (volume, scope, role, process)?

Max 4961 characters

6.2. Would the Member State have carried out the actions required to implement the EU policies in the areas supported by the Fund without its financial support?

Max 4961 characters

6.3. What would be the most likely consequences of an interruption of the support provided by the Fund?

Max 4961 characters

6.4. To which extent have actions supported by the Fund resulted in a benefit at the Union level?

Max 4961 characters

6.5. What was the added value of the operating support?

Max 4961 characters

7. Sustainability

The overall question

Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when its support will be over?

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 135

Max 2426 characters

Max 4961 characters

7.2. Were mechanisms put in place to ensure a sustainability check at programming and implementation stage?

Max 4961 characters

7.3. To what extent are the outcomes/benefits of the actions sustained by the Fund expected to continue thereafter?

Max 4961 characters

7.4. What measures were adopted to ensure the continuity of the activities carried out thanks to the operating support?

Max 4961 characters

8. Simplification and reduction of administrative burden

The overall question

Were the management procedures of the Fund simplified and the administrative burden reduced for its beneficiaries?

Max 2426 characters

8.1. Did the innovative procedures introduced by the Fund (simplified cost option, multiannual programming, national eligibility rules, more comprehensive national programmes allowing for flexibility, operating support and Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania) lead to simplification for the beneficiaries of the Fund?

Max 4961 characters

Section V: Project examples

Description of three “success stories”, among all the projects funded

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 136

Example 1

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Example 2

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Example 3

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Description of one ‘failure’, among all the projects funded

Example 4

(background/context, activity, results, lesson learnt)

Max length 4961 characters

Section VI: Methodology

Briefly explain the methodology used for the evaluation, including for collection of

data to formulate the indicators

Max length 4961 characters

Section VII: Main conclusions and recommendations

(Guidance pop-up for both recommendations and conclusions)

Conclusion 1 –up to 5 conclusions but should also be able to select fewer

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 2

Max 1748 characters

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 137

Conclusion 3

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 4

Max 1748 characters

Conclusion 5

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 1 –up to 5 recommendations but should also be able to select fewer; each

recommendation should be linked to a conclusion

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 2

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 3

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 4

Max 1748 characters

Recommendation 5

Max 1748 characters

Section VIII: Mid-Term Review

Max 1748 characters

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 138

ANNEX: Data

Table 1 Progress in financial implementation, by specific objectives (in Euro)

Financial report ISF-Borders

National objective A

Total paid

01/01/2014- 15/10/2016

Total paid

16/10/2016- 30/06/2017

Total paid (A+B) / SO

programmed (%)

SO1.OO1:V - national capacity

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO1.OO2:V - Union Acquis

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO1.OO3:V - Consular cooperation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Subtotal for national objectives

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO1.SA1:Consular cooperation

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 1: SO1: Visa Policy

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO2.OO1:B- EUROSUR

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO2:B- Information exchange

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO3:B - Common Union standards

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO4:B - Union Acquis

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO5:B -Future challenges

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO2.OO6:B- National capacity

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 139

Subtotal for national objectives

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO2.SA1:FRONTEX equipment

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total 2: SO2: Borders

[generated] [generated] [generated]

SO3.001:Visa [generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

SO3.002:Borders [generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

Total OSO3: Operating Support

[generated] [generated] [generated]

Operating support of the Special Transit Scheme (Lithuania)

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

[generated] [to be filled- in manually]

[generated]

TOTAL 4 = (total 1+total 2+ total 3 (+OS Lith) + TA)

[generated] [generated] [generated]

Financial report ISF-Police

National objective A

Total paid

01/01/2014- 15/10/2016

Total paid

16/10/2016- 30/06/2017

Total paid (A+B) / SO programmed (%)

SO5.OO1:C-Prevention and combat

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO5.OO2:C-Exchange of information

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO5.OO3:C-Training [generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO5.OO4:C-Victim support [generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO5.OO5:C-Threat & risk [generated] [to be filled-in [generated]

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 140

assessment manually]

Total 5: SO5: Crime [generated] [generated] [generated]

SO6.OO1:R-Prevention and combat

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO2:R-Exchange of information

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO3:R-Training [generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO4:R-Victim support [generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO5:R-Infrastructure [generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO6:R-Early warning & crisis

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

SO6.OO7:R-Threat & risk assessment

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

Total 6: SO6: C-Risks & Crisis [generated] [generated] [generated]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

200,000 + ((total allocation) * 5%)

[generated] [to be filled-in manually]

[generated]

TOTAL 7 = (total 5+total 6 + TA - P)

[generated] [generated] [generated]

Table 2 Number of projects and EU contribution to finished and open projects, by specific objectives (in Euro)

Number of projects and EU contribution

1/1/2014-15/10/2016

Total Nr of finished projects

Total EU contribution to finished projects

Total Nr of open projects

Total EU contribution to open projects

SO1: Visa policy [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 141

SO2: Borders [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO3: Operating support [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO4: Special transit scheme projects (only to be open for LT)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO5: Crime [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

SO6: Risks & crisis [generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

[generated]

(Nr., from accounts)

[generated]

(amount, from accounts)

Total 1 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

Number of projects and EU contribution

16/10/2016-30/6/2017

Total Nr of finished projects

Total EU contribution to finished projects

Total Nr of open projects

Total EU contribution to open projects

SO1: Visa policy [to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO2: Borders [to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO3: Operating support [to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 142

accounts) accounts) accounts) accounts)

SO4: Special transit scheme projects (only to be open for LT)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO5: Crime [to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

SO6: Risks & crisis [to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled- in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(Nr., from accounts)

[to be filled-in manually]

(amount, from accounts)

Total 2 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

Total 1+2 [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

Table 3 Number of projects and EU contribution, by types of beneficiaries and by specific objectives (in Euro)

Project beneficiaries

1/1/2014-15/10/2016

SO1: Visa policy

SO2: Borders

SO3: Operating support

SO5: Crime SO6: Risks & crisis

State/federal authorities

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Local public bodies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated] [generated] [generated] [generated] [generated]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 143

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount

NGOs [generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

International public organisations

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

National Red Cross

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

International Committee of the Red Cross

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Private and public law companies

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Nr of projects or amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Education/res earch

[generated]

Nr of

[generated]

Nr of

[generated]

Nr of

[generated]

Nr of

[generated]

Nr of projects or

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 144

organisations projects or amounts

projects or amounts

amounts

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

[generated]

Amount

Project beneficiaries

16/10/2016-30/6/2017

SO1: Visa policy

SO2: Borders

SO3: Operating support

SO5: Crime SO6: Risks & crisis

State/federal authorities

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Local public bodies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

NGOs [to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 145

International public organisations

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

National Red Cross

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

International Committee of the Red Cross

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Private and public law companies

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of

[to be filled-in manually]N r of

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 146

projects or amounts

amounts amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

Education/res earch organisations

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]N r of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled- in manually]Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Nr of projects or amounts

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]A mount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

[to be filled- in manually]

Amount

[to be filled-in manually]

Amount

147

6.5.4. SFC2014 template for indicators ISF

(only result and impact indicators are included)

In d

ic at

o r

Indicator description

Click on the [?] for a guidance pop- up

M e

as u

re m

e n

u n

B as

e lin

e v

a lu

Source of data

2014 (01/01/14

to 15/10/14)

2015 (16/10/14

to 15/10/15)

2016 (16/10/15

to 15/10/16)

2017 (16/10/16

to 30/06/17)

1 - Indicators by specific objectives Specific Objective 1 – VISA Supporting a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, provide a high quality of service to visa applicants and ensure equal treatment of third-country nationals and tackle illegal migration

SO1 - Result indicators

SO1 R1

Number of Schengen Evaluation missions in the area of visa carried out with support of the Internal Security Fund ("Fund")

Number 0

Commission Unit HOME C.2 Border Management and

Schengen

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R2

Number of consular cooperation activities developed with the help of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R3

Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to the common visa policy with the help of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 R4

Number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund out of the total number of consulates

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO1 C4.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Percentage of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Fund out of the total number of consulates

Percenta ge

0 AIR (indicator SO1 C4.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 (a) Number of Schengen Evaluation Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 148

R5 recommendations in the area of visa addressed with the support of the Fund

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations issued

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of visa addressed with the support of the Fund, as compared to the total number of recommendations issued

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO1 R2 (a)

/ SO1 R2 (b)

Generated SO1 R2 (a)

/ SO1 R2 (b)

Generated SO1 R2 (a)

/ SO1 R2 (b)

Generated SO1 R2 (a)

/ SO1 R2 (b)

SO1 R6

Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at consulates supported by the Fund:

(a) Number of persons with fraudulent documents applying for a Schengen visa

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of persons applying for a Schengen visa

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(c) Percentage of persons with fraudulent documents applying for a Schengen visa

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO1 R6 (a)

/ SO1 R6 (b)

Generated SO1 R6 (a)

/ SO1 R6 (b)

Generated SO1 R6 (a)

/ SO1 R6 (b)

Generated SO1 R6 (a)

/ SO1 R6 (b)

SO1 - Impact indicators

SO1 I1

Number of visa applicants having to apply for a Schengen visa outside of their country of residence

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO1 I2

Number of visa required countries in the world where the number of Member States present or represented has increased

Number 0

Commission Unit HOME B.2

Visa Policy Policy / VIS system

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Specific Objective 2 – BORDERS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 149

Supporting integrated border management, including promoting further harmonisation of border management-related measures in accordance with common Union standards and through the sharing of information between Member States and between Member States and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union ("Frontex"), to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis, while guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing it, in accordance with the obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement

SO2 - Result indicators

SO2 R1

Number of staff trained in borders management related aspects with the help of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C1.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of training courses in border management related aspects with the help of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C1.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 R2

Number of border crossings of the external borders through ABC gates supported from the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C3.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Total number of border crossings Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C3.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 R3

Number of Schengen Evaluation missions in the area of borders carried out with the support of the Fund

Number 0 Commission

Unit HOME B.2 Visa Policy Policy / VIS system

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 R4

(a) Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders addressed with the support of the Fund

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders issued

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of Schengen Evaluation recommendations in the area of borders addressed with the

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO2 R2 (a)

/ SO2 R2 (b)

Generated SO2 R2 (a)

/ SO2 R2 (b)

Generated SO2 R2 (a)

/ SO2 R2 (b)

Generated SO2 R2 (a)

/ SO2 R2 (b)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 150

support of the Fund, as compared to the total number of recommendations issued

SO2 R5

(a) Number of equipment items used during Frontex Coordinated Operations which were purchased with support of the Fund

Number 0 Frontex

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Total number of equipment items used for Frontex Coordinated Operations

Number 0 Frontex

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of equipment items used during Frontex Coordinated Operations which were purchased with support of the Fund as compared to the total number of equipment items used for Frontex Coordinated Operations

Ratio 0 /

Generated SO2 R3 (a)

/ SO2 R3 (b)

Generated SO2 R3 (a)

/ SO2 R3 (b)

Generated SO2 R3 (a)

/ SO2 R3 (b)

Generated SO2 R3 (a)

/ SO2 R3 (b)

SO2 - Impact indicators

SO2 I1

Number of national border surveillance infrastructure established/further developed in the framework of EUROSUR:

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C4)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(a) National coordination centres Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C4.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Regional coordination centres Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C4.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(c) Local coordination centres Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C4.c)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(d) Other types of coordination centres

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C4.d)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 151

SO2 I2

Number of incidents reported by the Member State to the European Situational Picture

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C5)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(a) Illegal immigration, including on incidents relating to a risk to the lives of migrants

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C5.a)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Cross-border crime Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C5.b)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(c) Crisis situations Number 0 AIR (indicator SO2 C5.c)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 I3

Number of irregular border crossings detected at the EU external borders: between the border crossing points

Number # Frontex

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of irregular border crossings detected at the EU external borders: at the border crossing points

Number # Frontex

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 I4

Number of searches in Schengen Information System (SIS) II

Number # EU-Lisa and SIS II

annual report

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO2 I5

Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at the border crossing points

Number # Frontex

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Specific Objective 5 – CRIME Crime prevention, combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third countries and international organisations.

SO5 - Result indicators

SO5 R1

Number of joint investigation teams (JITs) and European Multidisciplinary Platform against

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO5 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 152

Criminal Threats (EMPACT) operation projects supported by the Fund, including the participating Member States and authorities

SO5 R2

Number of law enforcement officials trained on cross-border related topics with the help of the Fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO5 C2.1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Duration of the training (carried out) on cross-border related topics with the help of the fund

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO5 C2.2)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 R3

Results of actions supported by the Fund leading to the disruption of organised crime groups: 1. seizures of criminal commodities:

Member States

Counterfeited goods

Value million EUR

Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Contraband goods

Value million EUR

0 Member States #

(2 decimals) #

(2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Stolen goods

Value million EUR

0 Member States #

(2 decimals) #

(2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Firearms

Value million EUR

0 Member States #

(2 decimals) #

(2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Environmental crimes

Value million EUR

0 Member States #

(2 decimals) #

(2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Cannabis (in number of seizures) Number 0 Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 153

(no decimal)

Heroin (in number of seizures)

Number 0 Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Cocaine (in number of seizures)

Number 0 Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Amphetamine - methamphetamine (in number of seizures)

Number 0 Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Ecstasy (in number of seizures)

Number 0 Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

New psychoactive substances (in number of seizures)

Number 0 Member States #

(no decimal) #

(no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

LSD (in doses) Number

0 Member States #

(no decimal) #

(no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. seizures of cash (by value); Value million EUR

Member States

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

3. seizures of other assets (by estimated value);

Value million EUR

Member States #

(2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

4. takedowns of web domains (number);

Number 0

Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

5. victims identified (for certain crime types);

Number 0

Member States

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

6. persons arrested Number 0

Member States #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 154

SO5 - Impact indicators

SO5 I1

Number/value of frozen, seized and confiscated criminal assets as a result of actions within the scope of Regulation (EU) 513/2014: 1. number of freezing orders executed;

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. number of confiscation orders executed;

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. estimated value of property frozen, at least of property frozen with a view to possible subsequent confiscation at the time of freezing;

Value million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

4. estimated value of property recovered at the time of confiscation

Value million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

5. number of cases where the confiscation order issued on basis of the Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA has not been executed

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I2

Number of police-recorded offences, suspects, prosecutions and convictions resulting from actions falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) 513/2014: 1. Police-recorded offences

Number # Eurostat

(crim_off_cat) #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. Persons brought into formal contact with the police and/or criminal justice system

Number # Eurostat

(crim_just_ctz) #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. Prosecuted persons Number # Eurostat

(crim_just_ctz) #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

4. Convicted persons Number # Eurostat # # # Estimation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 155

(crim_just_ctz) (no decimal) (no decimal) (no decimal) by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I3

Quantity of drugs seizure within the scope of the Fund on organised crime: 1. Cannabis seizures

Number #

EMCDDA - European Drugs Report

- Early Warning System (EWS) and European Database on

New Drugs (EDND)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. Heroin seizures Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. Cocaine seizures Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

4. Amphetamine and methamphetamine seizures

Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

5. Ecstasy seizures Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

6. New psychoactive substances notified

Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

7. LSD (doses) Number # EMCDDA # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I4

Number of protected or assisted crime victims: 1. Number of victims recorded by the law enforcement agencies

Number # Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. Number of referrals by police to victim support services

Number # Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. Number of victims that request and receive support

Number # Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 156

4. Number of victims that request and do not receive support

Number # Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I5

Volume of exchange of information in the Prüm framework: 1. total number of DNA matches per year

Number of 'hits'

# EC HOME D.1

(Statistical compilation)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. total number of fingerprint matches per year

Number of 'hits'

# EC HOME D.1

(Statistical compilation)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. total number of vehicle registration data matches per year

Number of 'hits'

# EC HOME D.1

(Statistical compilation)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I6

Volume of exchange of information in the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) framework: 1. SIENA cases initiated per year by Member States, Europol and third parties

Number # Europol

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. SIENA messages exchanged per year by Member States, Europol and third parties

Number # Europol

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO5 I7

Volume of sharing of data via the Europol Information System (EIS): 1. number of persons and objects inserted in the EIS by Member States per year

Number # Europol

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2. number of person and objects inserted in the EIS by Member States per year (suspects, convicts)

Number # Europol

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

3. number of EIS searches performed by Member States per year

Number # Europol

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 157

Specific Objective 6 – RISKS & CRISIS Enhancing the capacity of Member States and the Union for managing effectively security-related risks and crises, and preparing for and protecting people and critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents.

SO6 - Result indicators

SO6 R1

Number and tools put in place and/or further upgraded with the help of the Instrument to facilitate the protection of critical infrastructure by Member States in all sectors of the economy

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO6 C1)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO6 R2

Number of expert meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, websites and online consultations organised with the help of the Instrument.

Number 0 AIR (indicator SO6 C3)

Generated from AIR

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

SO6 - Impact indicator

SO6 I1

Volume of terrorist attacks: (a) number of failed and foiled terrorist attacks

Number # Europol -

EU Terrorism situation and trend report

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Volume of terrorist attacks: (b) number of completed terrorist attacks

Number # Europol -

EU Terrorism situation and trend report

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Volume of terrorist attacks: (c) number of casualties resulting from terrorist attacks

Number # Europol -

EU Terrorism situation and trend report

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

2 - Indicators on efficiency, added value and sustainability, as foreseen in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014

Number of Full Time Equivalent in the Responsible Authority, the Delegated Authority and the Audit Authority working on the implementation of the Fund and paid by the technical assistance or national budgets as compared to:

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(a) the number of projects implemented

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

Guidance on the common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF and ISF

DRAFT 158

(no decimal)

(b) the amount of the funds claimed for the financial year

Amount million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

(a) Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost

Amount million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

(b) Amount of funds claimed for the financial year

Amount million EUR

0 Member States # (2 decimals)

# (2 decimals)

Estimation by MS

# (2 decimals)

Technical assistance plus the administrative (indirect) cost of projects as compared to the amount of funds claimed for the financial year

Ratio 0 /

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Generated H2 (a)

/ H2 (b)

Amount of the annual accounts submitted by the Member State compared to the

Amount in EUR

SFC2014 Generated

from accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no

decimal)

Total amount of funds allocated to the national programme.

Amount in EUR

SFC2014 Generated

from accounts

Generated from

accounts

Generated from

accounts

Estimation by MS

# (no

decimal)

Absorption rate of the Fund Ratio 0 /

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

Generated H3 (a)

/ H3 (b)

(a) Number of equipment in use 2 years after their acquisition (> than

EUR 10.000) Number 0 Member States #

(no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Number of equipment acquired under the Fund (> than EUR 10.000)

Number 0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Number of equipment in use 2 years after their acquisition / number of equipment acquired

Ratio 0 / Generated

H4 (a) /

Generated H4 (a)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DRAFT 159

under the Fund (> than EUR 10.000) H4 (b) H4 (b) H4 (b) H4 (b)

(a) Maintenance cost of acquired equipment under the Fund

Amount in EUR

0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

(b) Total EU contribution Amount in EUR

0 Member States # (no decimal)

# (no decimal)

Estimation by MS

# (no decimal)

Share of the maintenance cost of acquired equipment under the Fund in the total Union contribution to actions co-financed by the Fund

Ratio 0 /

Generated H5 (a)

/ H5 (b)

Generated H5 (a)

/ H5 (b)

Generated H5 (a)

/ H5 (b)

Generated H5 (a)

/ H5 (b)

160

6.6. Frequently Asked Questions

6.6.1. AMIF FAQ

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general provisions on the

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and

combating crime, and crisis management

THE PERIOD TO REFER TO WHEN REPORTING AND USING THE COMMON INDICATORS

Article 38: "For the purpose of this Regulation, the financial year, as

referred to in Article 59 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, shall

cover expenditure paid and revenue received and entered into the accounts of the Responsible Authority in the period commencing on 16

October of year "N-1" and ending on 15 October of year "N".

Questions/Observations from MS

Clarification by the Commission

• The financial year goes from

October of a year to October of the following year, but most of the

projects are implemented through the calendar year (from 1st January

to 31 December, except some that can be implemented in a period that

cover some months of two years). How should MS report collecting

data:

- Year N: from October to December

- Year N+1: From January to October

• As per Art. 54 of the Horizontal

Regulation (514/2014) the RA shall submit to the Commission "an

annual report on the implementation of each national

programme in the previous financial year". Art. 38 defines the Financial

Year as being "the period commencing on 16 October of year

'N-1' and ending on 15 October of

year 'N'".

As a result, MSs should report for

the period from 16/10 of year N-1 to 15/10 of year N.

EVALUATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAMMES BY MEMBER STATES

Article 56.3: "The evaluations referred to in Article 57(1) shall be carried

out by experts who are functionally independent of the Responsible Authorities, the Audit Authorities, and the Delegated Authorities. Those

experts may be affiliated to an autonomous public institution responsible for the monitoring, evaluation and audit of the administration. The

161

Commission shall provide guidance on how to carry out evaluations".

Questions/Observations from MS

Clarification by the Commission

• According to Art 56(3) the experts that shall carry out the evaluations

may be affiliated to a public institution and should be

functionally independent of the RA and AA.

Can the experts be affiliated to internal audit units (i.e, Interne

Revision in Germany) which are independent from the other

departments and report directly to the top management? Would this

provision be in line with the conditions of Art 56(3)?

• The legal basis does not exclude this possibility, provided that

independence and autonomy are ensured. However, the Responsible

Authority should check if the body they want to entrust the evaluation

to has experience in evaluation or at least in performance audit (i.e.

not limited to financial and compliance audit).

Regulation (EU) NO 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing the ASYLUM, MIGRATION

and INTEGRATION FUND, amending Council Decision 2008/381/ EC and repealing Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/

EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision 2007/435/EC

Annex IV List of common indicators for the measurement of the specific objectives

Specific objective – Asylum and Reception

Indicator (a)(i): Number of target group persons provided with

assistance through projects in the field of reception and asylum systems supported under the Fund. For the purposes of annual

implementation reports, as referred to in Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, this indicator shall be further broken down in sub-

categories such as: - number of target group persons benefiting from information and

assistance throughout the asylum procedures,

- number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance and representation,

- number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance.

Questions/Observations from Clarification by the Commission

162

• What does exactly the term "specific assistance“ mean? Should

we count only those, who were

provided with specific assistance (i.e. assistance which is not

provided to any other group of persons), or all vulnerable persons,

who were provided with assistance of any kind?

• This subcategory should include the number of vulnerable persons

and unaccompanied minors that

received specific assistance, not any type of assistance. Based on Recital

33 of Regulation 516/2014, "specific assistance" should be

understood as a special attention paid to, or a dedicated response

provided for the specific situation of vulnerable persons, in particular

women, unaccompanied minors and other minors at risk. The definition

of vulnerable asylum applicants as per the Reception Conditions

Directive 2013/33 (Art. 2(k) and Art. 21) should be taken into

account on this issue.

• Especially the subcategory

indicator “number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors

benefiting from specific assistance”. What was really meant to be

counted under this subcategory – the general number of vulnerable

persons/ unaccompanied minors in the projects of SO 1 OR, or the

number of vulnerable persons/ unaccompanied minors who

received only specific assistance?

For example, a disabled person

(i.e. vulnerable) received legal

advice which is a general one (the same legal advice as many asylum

seekers receive). In which subcategory of indicator No 1

should this person be counted?

- in the subcategory No 1.3

“number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors benefiting

from specific assistance” (because this is a vulnerable person);

• This subcategory should include

the number of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied minors that

received specific assistance, not any type of assistance. Based on Recital

33 of Regulation 516/2014, "specific assistance" should be

understood as a special attention paid to, or a dedicated response

provided for the specific situation of vulnerable persons, in particular

women, unaccompanied minors and other minors at risk. The definition

of vulnerable asylum applicants as

per the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (Art. 2(k) and

Art. 21) should be taken into account on this issue.

In the first example given, the person with a disability receiving

'general' legal advice will be counted under subcategory No 1.2

"number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance and

representation". It should not be counted in 1.1 because the

163

- in the subcategory No 1.1 “number of target group persons

benefiting from information and

assistance throughout the asylum procedures“ (because the word

“assistance” should be understood in a very broad way and covers also

legal advices);

- in the subcategory No. 1.2

"number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance and

representation“ (because the person received legal advice);

- or in all above-mentioned subcategories of indicator No 1?

The other example would be

pregnant women (i.e. vulnerable)

who received psychological consultations throughout the

asylum procedures. In which subcategory of indicator No 1

should this person be counted?

- in the subcategory No 1.1

“number of target group persons benefiting from information and

assistance throughout the asylum procedures“ (because the word

“assistance” should be understood in a very broad way and covers also

psychological consultations);

-in the subcategory No 1.3 “number

of vulnerable persons and

unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance” (because

this is a vulnerable person);

-or in both above-mentioned

subcategories of indicator No 1?

assistance should refer to any assistance excluding specific

assistance covered in subcategory

indicators 1.2 (legal assistance and representation) and 1.3 (vulnerable

persons and UAM).

In the second example given, the

vulnerable person will be counted under subcategory No 1.1 if she

benefits from psychological assistance (or other kind of

assistance) which is not specifically targeted to vulnerable persons. If

the psychological assistance is only offered to vulnerable persons, then

she will be counted under subcategory No 1.3.

The common indicator is broader

than the subcategory indicators and therefore it includes all types of

assistance provided under the Fund in the field of reception and asylum.

The value of the common indicator should, in principle, be higher than

any one of the subcategory indicators.

For example, persons who received legal counselling should be included

in the relevant subcategory referring to legal assistance and

representation. However, if the same person has received both

legal assistance and representation

and information and assistance, it should be counted under both sub-

categories. Obviously, in the common indicator (a(i)) this person

should be counted only once.

• Concerning the subcategory indicator “number of target group

persons benefiting from information

• This is correct. If the cost of providing the exact values for

certain indicators is excessive,

164

and assistance throughout the asylum procedures", we want to

make a comment about the

implementation of this indicator.

Since the projects are implemented

under the Fund for the development of sources of information, such us

periodicals, posters, documents, web sites etc., in order to facilitate

the diffusion of the information, the project assessment is done

according to the number of potential readers, publications, or

the website traffic statistics.

estimates can be provided instead. If estimates are provided, it should

be clearly indicated as well as the

methodology/the basis used for estimation (e.g. evaluation studies

and reports, historical averages, publications etc.).

• We would like to have clarification on how to count participation from

the target group, for instance an asylum seeker can benefit from

actions and different projects

covering housing, legal aid, developing of IT-systems/case

management systems and etc. As we see it, it is difficult to always

be sure that one person will only be counted once.

• A person should be counted only once under the common indicator.

It can, however, be counted in several sub-categories.

For example, persons who received

legal counselling should be included in the relevant subcategory

referring to legal assistance and representation. However, if the

same person has received both legal assistance and representation

and information and assistance, it should be counted under both sub-

categories. Obviously, in the common indicator (a(i)) this person

should be counted only once.

• We propose the breakdown of the category "vulnerable persons" in

order to include the following

persons: "minors, people with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant

women, single parents with minor children and persons who have

undergone torture, rapes or other serious forms of psychological,

physical or sexual abuse/harassment (former article 5

Decision 2007/575 / EC), victims of human trafficking, persons with

serious illnesses" (as identified by

• The common indicators for the measurement of the specific

objectives have been defined by the

co-legislators in Annex IV of Regulation (EU) 516/2014. These

indicators can't be modified.

The definition of "vulnerable person" is provided in Article 2 (i) of

Regulation (EU) 516/2014: "vulnerable person means any

third-country national who complies

165

art. 4 of the Decree of the Ministry of Interior "Guidelines for the

implementation of programs of

voluntary and assisted return", 27 October 2011);

-number of target group persons benefiting from information and

assistance throughout the asylum procedures,

- number of target group persons benefiting from legal assistance

and representation,

- number of vulnerable persons and

unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance.

with the definition under Union law relevant to the policy area of action

supported under the Fund "

• For the “number of target group

persons benefiting from information and assistance throughout the

asylum procedures“: according to

the formulation of the subcategory, does it mean that the person should

be counted only if he/she receives both measures – information and

assistance? Or could we also count the person which received only

information services?

• Please also count the persons who

received only information services. So it should rather be read as

"persons benefiting from

information and / or assistance".

• For the "Number of target group persons benefiting from information

and assistance throughout the asylum procedures": Is it correct

that the total number of persons assisted should be given here,

including particularly vulnerable

persons, unaccompanied minors and persons who have benefited

from legal assistance?

• Yes this is correct, if the information and assistance were not

specifically addressed. This subcategory indicator refers to any

information or assistance excluding the specific assistance covered in

subcategory indicators 1.2 (legal

assistance and representation) and 1.3 (vulnerable persons and UAM).

A person receiving legal assistance will be counted under subcategory

1.2. A vulnerable person benefitting from specific assistance will be

counted under subcategory 1.3.

For example, a vulnerable person

receiving "general" psychological

166

assistance (i.e. offered to all asylum seekers) will be counted under

subcategory 1. If this vulnerable

person benefits from specific psychological assistance through a

project addressing the specific needs of the vulnerable persons,

then it should be recorded under subcategory 1.3.

• For the "Number of target group

persons benefiting from legal assistance and representation":

Does the legal assistance have to be provided by (fully qualified

lawyers)?

• No, the Regulation does not

specify that legal assistance has to be provided only by fully qualified

lawyers. For further information, you may refer to Article 21

('Conditions for the provision of legal and procedural information

free of charge and free legal assistance and representation') of

Directive 2013/32.

• For the "Number of vulnerable

persons and unaccompanied minors benefiting from specific assistance":

How is specific assistance defined?

• Based on Recital 33 of Regulation

516/2014, 'specific assistance' should be understood as a special

attention paid to, or a dedicated response provided for the specific

situation of vulnerable persons, in particular women, unaccompanied

minors and other minors at risk.

Indicator (a) (ii): Capacity (i.e number of places) of new reception accommodation infrastructure set up in line with the common

requirements for reception conditions as set out in the Union acquis and of existing reception accommodation infrastructure improved in

accordance with the same requirements as a result of the projects supported under the Fund and percentage in the total reception

accommodation capacity.

Questions/Observations from

Clarification by the Commission

• If a Country does not operate asylum reception centres nor have

permanent accommodation (i.e. if the service is contracted out and

places are made available based on the demand), it will be impossible

to calculate this indicator. To this

• The response to this indicator shall report on the number of places

created or improved under projects supported by AMIF. If a MS does

not fund projects aiming at creating new places or improving

accommodation capacity, the result

167

end, a MS could instead provide the number of asylum seekers in

receipt of accommodation support,

against the total number of asylum claims.

reported will read "zero" new/improved places. Therefore the

percentage in the total reception

accommodation capacity will also be "zero percent".

In the narrative section of the report, it is possible to explain how

the services are organised and delivered, and MS should provide

data on the capacity to respond to the demand ("number of asylum

seekers in receipt of accommodation support, against

the total number of asylum claims").

• The percentage in the total

reception accommodation capacity. There are different authorities

responsible for accommodation for

asylum seekers (Swedish Migration Agency) and unaccompanied minors

(Municipalities), in this case we probably aggregate a total

requirement for both target groups (UAM and other asylum seekers –

adults, families etc.).

• The total reception

accommodation capacity refers to the accommodation of asylum

seekers, including unaccompanied

minors.

• Questions to be clarified/discussed:

1) Detailed definition of improvement standards/ statistical

concepts; 2) Definition of the methods of

estimation;

3) Confirm that the total reception capacity refers to the baseline year

of the AMIF National Program presentation or to a specific

conventional date (e.g. 31.12.2014)

• In this indicator, the improvement to the accommodation

infrastructure should be understood as improving reception

infrastructure in line with the Directive 2013/33/EU laying down

standards for the reception of

applicants for international protection (recast). There is no

detailed standard defined at EU level. Member States have to

provide reception conditions in line with the Directive, especially its

Article 17 (General rules on material reception conditions and

health care).Under this indicator, the total reception capacity refers

to the situation at the time of reporting (actual situation), not the

168

baseline.

• We have a question related to the part of this indicator, i.e. capacity of

existing reception accommodation

infrastructure improved. We do understand that we should count

the number of improved places in the room for target group persons –

we should simply count the places in the room. But there is some

uncertainty how we should count the number of places if the common

premises of the building of target group persons were improved, i.e.

the common kitchen or corridors of the building for the target group

persons. For example, the building for the target group persons has 88

places – part of the rooms, e.g. 15

rooms (each of 4 places) and the common kitchen, bathrooms and

corridors are improved. How should we count the indicator – 60 places

(15x4) or 88 places (because all the residents of the building will use the

common improved kitchen, etc.).

• Please only count the number of improved places in the room. In

your example, it would mean 60

places.

• Would the AMIF Indicator on reception accommodation cover

temporary accommodation used for asylum seekers for a short period

(2 days-2 months) before they are transferred to other accommodation

(this temporary accommodation is

privately owned)?

• The response to this indicator shall report on the number of places

created or improved under projects supported by AMIF. If a MS does

not fund projects aiming at creating new places or improving

accommodation capacity, the result

reported will read "zero" new/improved places. Therefore the

percentage in the total reception accommodation capacity will also be

"zero percent".

Indicator (a) (iii): Number of persons trained in asylum-related topics with the assistance of the Fund, and that number as a percentage of the

total number of staff trained in those topics.

Questions/Observations from MS

Clarification by the Commission

169

• The number of trained people can be provided, but it could be difficult

to provide the percentage due to

fluctuations in the staff.

• For each reporting period, MSs will calculate the total number of

staff trained in asylum-related

topics and earmark those having benefitted from training funded

through AMIF. The percentage will be then calculated financial year by

financial year, independently from the mobility of the staff.

• Persons trained may be from

various authorities and organisations working with asylum

topics – Swedish Migration Agency, Swedish Red Cross, staff within

county administrative boards and municipalities and others.

Indicator C3.2 ("total number of staff trained in those topics"): we

do see a problem with aggregating

results since we believe trained staff will be from different

organisations. Percentage of total number of staff trained will hence

have a risk of becoming misleading, although we will ask each separate

organisation to report total number staff trained and percentage of total

staff trained

• Percentage= number of persons

trained in asylum related topics with the assistance of AMIF / Total

number of persons trained in asylum related topics (under AMIF

and with other sources) *100.

You will need to obtain data on total number of staff trained in asylum

Seosed

Nimi	K.p.	Δ	Viit	Tüüp	Org	Osapooled
Submission of mid-term evaluation reports of 2021-2027 HOME Funds as of 31.03.2024	25.03.2024	1	14-13.2/39-1	Väljaminev kiri	sisemin	European Commission, DG Home
Töövõtuleping	30.11.2023	117	7-3/995-1	Leping	sisemin

Euroopa Liidu perioodi 2021–2027 Varjupaiga-, Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi, Sisejulgeolekufondi ning Piirihalduse ja viisapoliitika rahastu vahehindamiseks riigihanke komisjoni koosseisu ja riigihanke alusdokumentide kinnitamine

Failid

Digiallkirjad

Seosed