EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL HOME AFFAIRS
Directorate C
Unit C/4: Financial support - Migration and Borders
SOLID/2011/21
Committee
General programme
Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows
______________________________________________________________________________
___
Subject:
Draft template for the ex-post report for the European Return Fund
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary
According to Article 50(2), point b) of Decision 575/2007/EC, Member States shall submit by 30
June 2012 an evaluation report on the implementation of actions co-financed by the Fund. On the
basis of the reports from the Member States, the Commission shall submit to the EP, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, by
31 December 2012 an ex-post report on the results achieved and qualitative and quantitative
aspects of implementation of the Fund.
In light of the fact that the eligibility period for actions for the 2010 annual programme ends at
the end of June 2012, and in order to allow for the incorporation of the results of this programme
in the report, it is proposed that Member States send their contributions by 31 October 2012.
This is a draft template of the report to be submitted by Member States (consisting of both word
and excel documents). The approach for the ex-post evaluation was presented at the meeting of
5 July this year.
The final versions of the documents will be made available before the end of September this year.
Action to be taken
When reviewing the documents, please start with the "Guidance document".
Template for preparation by Member States of the
EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN RETURN FUND
ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 TO 2010
(Report set out in Article 50(2) (b) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)
2
EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN RETURN FUND
ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 TO 2010
(Report set out in Article 50(2) (b) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)
Report submitted by the Responsible Authority of: (Member State)
……………………………………………………………
Date:
……………………………
Name, Signature (authorised representative of the Responsible Authority):
………………………………………………………………
Name of the contact person (and contact details) for this report in the Member State:
………………………………………………………………………………..
Important remark
This evaluation is to be performed by
1. staff with evaluation expertise within the Responsible or Delegated Authorities, dedicated to
this task and not involved in programming/implementation;
2. a dedicated evaluation department within the national administration; or
3. external evaluation expertise
We strongly recommend either option 2 or 3.
All options can be supported by technical assistance.
3
GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE RESPONSIBLE
AUTHORITY ON EVALUATION EXPERTISE AND ON METHODOLOGY
- Did you have recourse to evaluation expertise to prepare this report?
Yes/ No
- If yes, for what part(s) of this report?
- Please explain what kind of evaluation expertise you had recourse to:
* In-house evaluation expertise (for instance, Evaluation department of the Ministry, etc.) : (please
describe)
* External evaluation expertise: (please describe)
________
Important remark
Any evaluation expertise must be obliged by the Responsible Authority to:
- use this template, exclusively
- fully comply with any instruction, methodological note, maximum length, etc. set out as annex to
this template.
4
EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN RETURN FUND
ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 TO 2010
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION – DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ........... 6
PART I – NATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FUND WAS IMPLEMENTED....... 6
1.1. SECURING CO-FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS IN THE FIELD ............................ 6
PART II – REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................... 7
2.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING BODY”
METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING BODY”
METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3. PROGRAMME REVISIONS ............................................................................................... 10
2.4. USE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE................................................................................. 11
2.5. QUALITATIVE OPINION ON THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SET-UP........... 11
PART III – REPORTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS ................................................................. 13
3.1. PRIORITY 1 - SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC APPROACH
TO RETURN MANAGEMENT BY MEMBER STATES ......................................................... 13
3.2. PRIORITY 2 – SUPPORT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN RETURN
MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.3. PRIORITY 3 – SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC INNOVATIVE (INTER)NATIONAL TOOLS FOR RETURN
MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.4. PRIORITY 4 – SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND BEST PRACTICES IN RETURN
MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.5. OVERALL RESULTS ACHIEVED WITH THE FUND INTERVENTION ............................................ 15
3.6. CASE STUDIES/BEST PRACTICES.................................................................................. 16
3.7. LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................................................... 16
PART IV – OVERALL ASSESSMENT - IMPACT AND LOOKING IN THE FUTURE .. 16
4.1. ADDED VALUE AND IMPACT ........................................................................................ 16
4.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME'S PRIORITIES AND ACTIONS TO THE
NATIONAL SITUATION ......................................................................................................... 16
4.3.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME................................................................ 18
4.4.
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME ....................................................................... 18
4.5.
COMPLEMENTARITY................................................................................................. 19
5
INTRODUCTION – PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS ON THE DATA COLLECTION
AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PUT IN PLACE IN YOUR COUNTRY
0.1.
Please present an overview of the evaluation system set up as part of the implementation
of the Return Fund. What information is required from the final beneficiaries on the
progress and final results of the project and how is it assessed?
0.2.
Please provide also information on any specific / additional data collection methodology
used for this report.
PART I – NATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FUND WAS IMPLEMENTED
1.1. SECURING CO-FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS IN THE FIELD
1.1.1.
Within the national budgetary framework, how do you secure the national resources available
for national and private co-financing for the Fund? What was the approach for the 20082010 annual programmes? Do you envisage or expect any changes for the future?
1.1.2. What investments do you undertake at national level in the field of return?
Table n° 1
Forced
removals
Voluntary
return
programmes
Counselling
(€)
(€)
(€)
Support
to third
parties
(i.e. NGO)
(€)
Case
management
(IT tools)
Staff and
management
costs
(€)
(€)
Other
(please
detail –
add more
columns if
needed)
2008 total
2009 total
2010 total
2011 total
2012
total
(as planned)
2012
total
for first half
year
1.1.3. Does the above table include all your expenditure in the field of return? If not, what is
excluded? Please also indicate an estimate of the share of the Fund (% of all) in relationship
to total national expenditure in the area of its intervention.
1.1.4. Please outline any further developments in the national return policy and management since
the approval of the multi-annual programme (including legislative, judicial, administrative
and/or national institutional set-up perspective).
6
PART II – REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION
2.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING BODY”
METHOD
2.1.1
Overview of calls for proposals for the programmes
According to what logic do you organise the launching of calls for proposals for the implementation
of the annual programmes?
2.1.2. Overview of project proposals received, selected and funded after calls for proposals
under the awarding body method
Table n° 2
Programme
2008
Number of
Proposals
received
Projects
selected
Projects funded
Including
multiannual
projects
Out of which
multiannual
projects
Programme
2009
Programme
2010
TOTAL
2008-2010
If not all projects were selected for funding after the calls for proposals, please explain the reasons
why, per annual programme, where applicable:
Annual Programme 2008:
Annual Programme 2009:
Annual Programme 2010:
2.1.3.
Overview of projects funded in the “awarding body” method without a call for
proposals or similar
Table n° 3
Programme
2008
Number of
Projects funded
Out
of
which
multiannual
Programme 2009
Programme
2010
TOTAL
2008-2010
7
2.1.4.
Total number of projects funded in the “awarding body” method in the
programmes 2008, 2009 and 2010
Table n° 4
Number of …
Projects funded
after calls for proposals
(total "projects funded"
table 3)
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2010
Programme 2010
Projects funded without
such calls
(total "projects funded"
table 4)
TOTAL
Projects funded in the
“awarding body” method
(including multiannual
projects)
2.1.5.
Co-financing
Please describe the process of verifying and ensuring the presence of co-financing by the final
beneficiaries whose projects were selected.
2.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING BODY”
METHOD
2.2.1.
Overview of calls for expression of interest in the "executing body method"
According to what logic do you organise the launching of calls for expression of interest for the
implementation of the annual programmes?
2.2.2. Proposals received, selected and funded after calls for expression of interest or similar
selection method in the “executing body method”
Table n° 5
Number of …
Proposals received
project selected
Projects funded
Out
of
multiannual
projects
Programme
2008
Programme
2009
Programme
2010
TOTAL
2008-2010
which
If not all projects were selected for funding after the calls, please explain the reasons why, per annual
programme, where applicable:
8
Annual Programme 2008:
Annual Programme 2009:
Annual Programme 2010:
2.2.3.
Projects funded in the “executing body” method without a call for expression of
interest or similar selection method
Table n° 6
Number of
Projects funded
Out
of
which
multiannual
2.2.4.
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
Programme
2010
TOTAL
2008-2010
Total number of projects funded in the “executing body” method in the
programmes 2008, 2009 and 2010
Table n° 7
Number of …
Projects funded
after calls for expression
of interest or similar
selection method
(total "projects funded"
table 5)
Projects funded without
such calls
(total "projects funded"
table 6)
TOTAL
Projects funded in the
“executing body”
method, including
multiannual projects
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
Programme 2010
TOTAL
2008-2010
2.2.5. Co-financing
Please describe the process of verifying and ensuring the presence of co-financing by the final
beneficiaries whose projects were selected.
9
2.3. PROGRAMME REVISIONS
2.3.1. Overview of revisions for 2008-2010 annual programmes
Table n° 8
AP
EU
contribution
allocated
Was a revision
concerning a
change of
more than
10% of the
allocation
needed? (Y/N)
Percentage of
allocation
concerned by
the revision, if a
revision was
needed
AP 2008
AP 2009
AP 2010
2.3.2. In case a programme revision was necessary, please provide the main reasons. Please select
from the list below and provide a brief explanation/ elaboration, per annual programme
concerned.
Annual programme 2008
 Financial change beyond 10%
 Changes in the substance/nature of the actions
 New action(s) needed
 All/part of the above
 Other (please explain)
Explanation/elaboration:
Annual programme 2009
 Financial change beyond 10%
 Changes in the substance/nature of the actions
 New action(s) needed
 All/part of the above
 Other (please explain)
Explanation/elaboration:
Annual programme 2010
 Financial change beyond 10%
 Changes in the substance/nature of the actions
 New action(s) needed
 All/part of the above
10
 Other (please explain)
Explanation/elaboration:
2.3.3. In case you revised the annual programme, was the revision useful? To what extent did it lead
to a better consumption of the allocation?
2.4. USE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (TA)
2.4.1. Allocation and consumption 2008-2010
Table n° 9
AP
2008
2009
2010
Total 2008-2010
Table n° 10
AP/Use of
TA (€)
Staff
within
the RA,
CA, AA
(n°/€)
TA allocated (€)
IT and
equipment
(€)
Office/
Consumables
(€)
TA consumed (€)
Travelling/
Events
(€)
Monitoring,
project
management
(€)
Reporting,
translation
(€)
Total
(€)
2008
2009
2010
2.4.2. Did the TA support prove to be useful? For what was it most helpful? Would you have
preferred that the TA allows for other elements to be funded as well and if so which ones?
2.5. QUALITATIVE OPINION ON THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SET-UP
2.5.1. Has there been a review of the management and control systems at national level during the
reporting period? In case any changes occurred, please briefly mention why they were needed
and what they consisted of.
2.5.2. To what extent were you legally or financially dependent on the approval of the Commission
Decisions for launching the implementation of the annual programme?
2.5.3. What was the implementation rate by priority? (how much did you spend out of how much
you actually allocated?)
11
Table n° 11
Priority 1
EU
cofin
Total
budget
(EU and
national)
Implementation rates by priority (%)
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
EU
cofin
Total
budget
(EU and
national)
EU
cofin
Total
budget
(EU and
national)
EU
cofin
Total
budget
(EU and
national)
Total
EU
cofin
Total
budget
(EU and
national)
AP 2008
AP 2009
AP 2010
%
2.5.4. Please fill in Annex 2 to this report.
2.5.5. In light of Annex 2, what is your overall assessment of the implementation of the Return
Fund allocations in your Member State from 2008 to 2010? Please choose among the options
below:
 Not satisfactory
 Satisfactory
 Good
 Very good
2.5.6. Please explain your choice in relation to question 2.5.5.:
12
PART III – REPORTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS
3.1. Priority 1 - Support for the development of a strategic approach to return management by
Member States
3.1.1
What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of this priority,
grouped by action?
Table n° 12
(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the
table at the annex)
Example:
2. More
forced
Returns
Common core indicators
OUTPUT
RESULTS
No of unilateral forced No of countries to which No of persons retuned in
return operations performed forced
return
unilateral unilateral
forced
return
operations were carried out
operations
Actually
Baseline Overall
Actually
Baseline Overall
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
achieved
at
achieved
at
through
national through
national through
national
APs
level
APs
level
APs
Level
2008200820082008200820082010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
260
110
300
10
4
11
3000
1500
3800
3.1.2. To what extent are the achievements of the 2008-2010 annual programmes consistent with
the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme?
AP 2008
…
AP 2009
……
AP 2010
……
3.1.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to
improving the overall return management in your country?
3.2. Priority 2 – Support for cooperation between Member States in return management
3.2.1. What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of this priority,
grouped by action?
Table n° 13
13
(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the
table at the annex; where necessary add comments)
Please see example above
3.2.2. To what extent are the achievements of the RF through the 2008-2010 annual programmes
consistent with the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme?
AP 2008
…
AP 2009
……
AP 2010
……
3.2.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to
improving the overall return management in your country?
3.3. Priority 3 – Support for specific innovative (inter)national tools for return management
3.3.1. What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of this priority,
grouped by action?
Table n° 14
(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the
table at the annex, where necessary add comments)
Please see example above
3.3.2. To what extent are the achievements of the RF through the 2008-2010 annual programmes
consistent with the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme?
AP 2008
…
AP 2009
……
AP 2010
……
3.3.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to
improving the innovative approach to return management in your country?
3.3.4. Please indicate which of the innovative tools/practices under these projects/actions, were
subsequently continued and/or rolled out more broadly in your country?
14
3.4. Priority 4 – Support for Community standards and best practices in return management
3.4.1. What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of this priority,
grouped by action?
Table n° 15
(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the
table at the annex, where necessary add comments)
3.4.2. To what extent are the achievements of the RF through the 2008-2010 annual programmes
consistent with the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme?
AP 2008
…
AP 2009
……
AP 2010
……
3.4.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to
improving the overall return management in your country?
3.5. Overall results achieved with the Fund's intervention
3.5.1. Please insert an overview table presenting the overall achievements through the Fund's
intervention.
Table n° 16: Overall 2008-2010 RF results following aggregation by priorities
(Please transfer to this page and complete all indicators listed in the table at the annex by aggregating the results listed
by priority)
Please see example above
3.5.2. How do you assess the results of section 3.5.1. in the national context of
implementation of the Return Fund?
 Neutral
 Positive
 Very positive
 Excellent
3.5.3. Please comment on the overall results achieved in relation to your initially set
expectations (as presented in Table n° 16)
15
3.6. CASE STUDIES/BEST PRACTICES
3.6.1. Important /successful projects funded in the annual programmes 2008, 2009 and 2010
Please describe at least 5 projects which deserve, in your opinion, particular mention since you
consider them as a good practice, or of an innovative nature, of interest for other Member States
(example of a project supporting an EU policy priority) or of particular value in the light of the
multiannual strategy and your national requirements.
3.6.2. Description of best practices derived from the implementation of the Return Fund
Please describe a few best practices you consider you have acquired through implementation of the
Return Fund in terms of:
1. tools for administrative management and cooperation at national level and with other
Member States as well as with return countries
2. practices at the level of the return management overall (return plans, integrated approach,
etc.)
3.7. LESSONS LEARNED
3.7.1. Description of 3 less successful projects, among the projects funded in the annual
programmes 2008 and 2010
3.7.2. Lessons learned
3.7.2.1. Please describe what are the lessons learned and practices developed for the future both in
terms of Fund/project management and in terms of practices developed for the management
of return overall.
3.7.2.2. Were you already able to integrate some of these practices in the management of the
projects?
PART IV – OVERALL ASSESSMENT - IMPACT AND LOOKING IN THE FUTURE
4.1. ADDED VALUE AND IMPACT
Volume effects:
4.1.1. Taking into account the information in part I, how and where did the Fund's intervention
contribute to the overall span of activities on return in your country?
4.1.2. To what extent did the Fund contribute to improving the image of return management
and/or the credibility of immigration policy and its enforcement in your society?
16
4.1.3. How do you perceive the programme's added value in comparison with existing national
programmes/policies at national, regional and local level, and in relation to the national
budget in the area of intervention of the Fund?
Scope effects:
4.1.4. What alternatives would you have used to the problems identified at national level should the
Fund have not been available? To what extent and in what timeframe would you have been
able to address them?
4.1.5. Taking into account the analysis of your programmes' achievements, please evaluate the
overall impact of the programmes under the Return Fund (choose one or more options and
explain):
 consolidation and limited extension of return management in your country (target group,
incentives)
 consolidation and significant extension of return management in your country (target
group, incentives)
 limited modification of practices/tools and/or schemes for return management
 significant modification of practices/tools and/or schemes for return management
 introduction of new practices/tools and/or schemes for return management
 other
4.1.6. Please indicate to what extent the activities co-financed by the Fund would not have taken
place without the financial support of the EU and explain:
 they could not have been carried out
 they could have been carried out to a limited extent
 they could have been carried out to a significant extent
 part of the activities carried out by public authorities (namely…) could not have been
carried out
 the co-financing of the Fund, activities by the non-governmental organisations could not
have been carried out (namely)
 other
Role effects:
4.1.7. To what extent did the Fund contribute to preparing your country to implement adequately
the Returns Directive? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions
and/or projects.
4.1.8. To what extent did the Fund encourage / assist you in co-operating more with other
Member States on return management? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to
specific actions and/or projects.
4.1.9. What other effects did the implementation of the Fund bring at national level; different from
what was initially expected or estimated?
17
Process effects:
4.1.10. To what extent did the Fund make a difference in the overall development of your national
return management system? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions
and/or projects.
4.1.11. To what extent did the Fund empower and support the involvement of civil society in the
return policy? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or
projects.
4.1.12. To what extent did the Fund enhance the capacity of public authorities on case management
in the area of return? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or
projects.
4.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME'S PRIORITIES AND ACTIONS TO THE
NATIONAL SITUATION
4.2.1. Building on the results in the excel sheets and on the analysis under Part III of this
questionnaire, please describe how relevant the programme's objectives are overall to the
problems and needs initially identified in the field of return management. Has there been an
evolution which required a reshaping of the intervention?
4.3.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME
4.3.1. Building on the results in the excel sheets and on the analysis under Part III of this
questionnaire, please highlight the key results of the programme overall and the extent to
which the desired results and objectives (as set out in the multiannual programme strategy)
been attained. Are the effects resulting from the intervention consistent with its objectives?
4.4.
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME
4.4.1. What were the programme management costs according to the categories below for the
programme years 2008 to 2010?
Table n° 17
Calendar year
TA contribution (€)
National
contribution
(€)
National
contribution inkind (offices, IT
tools) – (€
estimate)
Total (€)
2008
2009
2010
2011
First six month 2012
18
4.4.2. Breakdown by different categories of the national contribution in-kind (from point
4.4.1. above)
Table n° 18
Calendar year
2008
2009
2010
2011
First six
2012
Staff within the
RA, CA, AA
(n°& €)
IT and
equipment (€)
Office/
consumables(€)
Travelling/events
Total (€)
month
4.4.3. What is your opinion on the overall efficiency of the programme implementation?
4.5.
COMPLEMENTARITY
4.5.1. Please indicate any issues you have had with establishing the complementarity and/or
synergies with other programmes and/or EU financial instruments such as the other three
Funds of the General Programme, the Thematic Programme on Asylum and Migration
and/or the Structural Funds.
4.5.2. Please indicate, for the period 2008-2010, the complementary funding available in the area
(besides national sources if this was mentioned already at point 1.1.2.)
***
19
Overall list of results/indicators
ANNEX 1
Common core
indicators
1. More
voluntary
returns
2. More forced
Returns
3. More/better
information/
counselling
OUTPUT
Number of voluntary return
Number of voluntary return
applications/ declarations of
operations carried out
intent
Actually
Baseline Overall
Actually
Baseline Overall at
achieved
at
achieved
national
through
national through
level
APs 2008level
APs 20082010
20082010
20082010
2010
RESULTS
Number of persons returned
Number of persons having
benefitted from reintegration
support (where applicable)
Actually
Baseline Overall
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
achieved
at
through
national through
national
APs
level
APs 2008level
200820082010
20082010
2010
2010
Number of national forced
return operations performed
Number of persons retuned in
unilateral
forced
return
operations
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
Level
200820082010
2010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of countries
forced return national
were carried out
Actually
Baseline
achieved
through
APs 20082010
to which
operations
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Number of information
activities/campaigns organised
Number of persons counselled
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
Level
20082010
Baseline
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Number of vulnerable persons
assisted
4. More/better
assistance to
vulnerable
people
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Number of persons who
returned voluntarily as a result
of the counselling
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
level
200820082010
2010
Number of the assisted
persons who returned
voluntarily
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
level
200820082010
2010
Number of the assisted
persons who were returned
forcefully
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Number of reintegration
activities undertaken
5. More/better
reintegration
assistance
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Number of persons assisted with
reintegration
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall at
national
level
Number of new tools/initiatives
introduced
6. New
tools/initiatives
tested or
introduced
7. Improved
knowledge
base in the MS
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of income
generating/productive activities
undertaken after the return
Number of return cases
addressed/affected by the use
of new initiatives
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
level
200820082010
2010
Number of persons actually
returned thanks to the new
tools/initiatives introduced
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Number of legal provisions or
administrative practices related
to return changed or
introduced
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Number of staff of public
authorities' who acquired new
knowledge
Number of staff of NGOs/other
actors involved who acquired new
knowledge
Number of cooperation
partnerships developed
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs
20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of new cooperation
partnerships developed
8. More/better
cooperation
with other MS
Number of persons who have
returned after or in
anticipation of reintegration
activities
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
level
200820082010
2010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Baseline
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Number of joint return operations
carried out with other Member
States
Actually
Baseline Overall at
achieved
national
through
level
APs 200820082010
2010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of persons returned
through joint return
operations
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs
level
200820082010
2010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of practices
transferred and applied
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
21
9. Improved
application of
EU rules and
standards
10. More/better
cooperation at
national level
11. More/better
cooperation
with third
countries
Number of preparatory
measures taken for the
transposition of the Directive
Actually
Baseline Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Number of organisations applying
the measures
Number of new partnerships
developed (NGOs, NGOs and
state institutions, etc.)
Number of common activities
developed and undertaken
Number of persons who
returned forcefully further to
the cooperation
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs
20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Baseline
Baseline
Number of returns carried out
following the introduction of
the measures
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number of new partnerships
developed
Number of documented cases
thanks to the better cooperation
with third countries
Number of persons who
returned forcefully further to
the cooperation
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs 20082010
Actually
achieved
through
APs
20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Baseline
Overall at
national
level
20082010
Baseline
Overall
at
national
level
20082010
Number
of
persons
who
returned voluntarily further to
the
cooperation/common
activities
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Number
of
persons
who
returned voluntarily further to
the
cooperation/common
activities
Actually
Baseline
Overall
achieved
at
through
national
APs 2008level
2010
20082010
Legend:
Baseline – situation before the beginning of the intervention (it should be calculated as an average of the 5 and a half years before the implementation of the programme;
thus it would be a comparable reference with the duration of implementation for 2008-2010 programmes.)
22
Annex 2
Legend
OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTIONS IN THE APS 2008-2010
Questions:
1. Was the expected number of projects initially set finally achieved through the action?
2. Did you spend a higher amount than you initially programmed for this action?
3. Did you achieve the expected results for the projects?
4. Did you encounter issues with the management of this action?
5. Did you encounter issues with individual projects implementation?
6. Was this action subject to AP revision?
Yes
Q1
No (pls
explain)
Q2
Yes (why ?)
Q3
No
Yes
No (Why)
Q4
Yes
(what?)
No
Q5
Yes (what
kind?)
No
No
Q6
Yes,
<10%
Yes,
>10%
AP 2008
A1 (name)
A2
A3
Etc…
AP 2009
A1
A2
A3
…
AP 2010
A1
A2
A3
…
23
Legend
Questions:
1. Was the expected number of projects initially set finally achieved through the action?
2. Did you spend a higher amount than you initially programmed for this action?
3. Did you achieve the expected results for the projects?
4. Did you encounter issues with the management of this action?
5. Did you encounter issues with individual projects implementation?
6. Was this action subject to AP revision?
Yes
Q1
No (pls
explain)
Q2
Yes (why ?)
Q3
No
Yes
No (Why)
Q4
Yes
(what?)
No
Q5
Yes (what
kind?)
No
No
Q6
Yes,
<10%
Yes,
>10%
24
End of the report
☻