Data management | 2014 Support Materials MS

Yes. SFC allows to retroactively update monitoring data in case of changes in participation records or to correct errors in recording for already submitted AIRs. Further clarifications on what constitutes an update or a correction of reported data are included in an explanatory note submitted by the Commission to the ESF Technical Working Group to its meeting on 24-25 March 2015.

The design of monitoring systems and the methods used to transfer data between beneficiaries and managing authorities are not prescribed. Nevertheless, there are some minimum requirements in terms of the need to store micro-data for all participants, the annual reporting schedule, and the need to ensure quality of data (see section 2 in Annex D of the EG guidance on monitoring and evaluation).

In terms of transferring cumulative data between beneficiaries and managing authorities then whether or not this is a reasonable approach depends on what is transferred. If a full set of micro-data covering all participants to date is transferred then there should be no problem as the managing authority can prepare data for annual reporting purposes based on the start/end dates associated with each participation record and perform checks to identify any revisions to previously reported data and ensure the appropriate treatment. If only cumulative aggregates are provided then, in theory, annual figures can be derived each year by subtracting the values sent in previous years but there is then no obvious way to check for revisions. Unless suitable procedures are put in place to ensure that any revisions to previously reported data are appropriately identified and treated then this approach is unlikely to satisfy basic requirements for data quality. 

Values for all common (output and result) indicators have to be reported for all chosen investment priorities (IP). Zero values may be reported if no relevant value was recorded under that indicator in the IP concerned (for example, there may be zero participants below 25 years of age for operations funded under the investment priority on active and healthy ageing).

Only aggregated data for each of the common indicators and any additional programme-specific indicators should be entered to SFC. All indicator values to be reported are aggregates for the period (year). Data should be aggregated at the level of investment priority, and all indicators related to participants must be broken down by gender (i.e. include separate values for men and for women) and by category of region (the latter does not apply to YEI operations).

The monitoring system should have automated procedures for calculating the necessary aggregates from the micro-data. The total number of participants in each year does not need to be reported as a separate value: it will be automatically calculated as a sum of three common output indicators “Employed”, “Unemployed” and “Inactive”. Note that this is the only combination of output indicators that can be used to derive total participants.

Data should be reported for completed and partially implemented operations alike. In cases where an operation is on-going at the end of a year this means that numbers of participants covered by immediate result indicators may not match those covered by output indicators, because some of the participants that contribute to the output indicators are still actively participating in the operation and do not yet have an associated result.

See section 3.4.4 (Data protection) in EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation and section 4.6 (…

Yes, the use of registers is recommended since it avoids collecting again information that already exists. For the use of existing register(s) to maintain micro-data for ESF purposes, the following questions should be considered:

• Will it cover all participants? If not, how/where will you store the micro-data for participants who are not covered? How will this be merged with the data in the register when compiling indicators or developing representative samples?
• For which of the common indicators does the register include the required information? Are the relevant variables recorded in a way that is consistent with the definitions? If not, how to deal with the gaps/differences?
• Will data be maintained in the register for long enough (ESF monitoring /evaluation/ audit)?
• Are adequate procedures/agreements in place to ensure that any requests for detailed information are fulfilled comprehensively and in a timely manner?
• Is the information up-to-date? 

The requirement to collect and store individual participant data is laid down in Art. 125(2)(d) of the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) dealing with functions of the managing authority. Member States should adapt their systems, if needed, in order to comply with it. In addition, the annexes to the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) state clearly that the data processing arrangements put in place by Member States must be in line with the provisions of Directive 95/46 of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof.

Further to Art. 6(1)(e) of the above mentioned directive, the personal data must be "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed". The purposes are set out in the above mentioned articles and annexes of the CPR and the ESF Regulation. In addition, the duration of data retention is also influenced by the evaluations conducted by the Member States and the Commission. For example, impact evaluations often use counterfactual methods with control or comparison groups, which require information on the situation of the participants throughout the implementation period. To this end, data on individual participants are needed

There is no formal requirement to collect an existing personal identification number. However, the possibility to uniquely identify each individual in the micro-data is a minimum requirement for monitoring systems (e.g. to ensure that all participants can be re-contacted at a later date in case they are selected as part of a representative sample). As a result, it is recommended that an existing personal identifier, such as the social insurance number, is used since this is:

a. normally straightforward to collect, and

b. can be used to extract relevant data from other administrative registers and thereby reduce the burden of data collection.

However, this is not obligatory and in some cases might conflict with data protection legislation. It is also possible that a unique personal identifier is generated by the monitoring system specifically for the purposes of ESF monitoring. In this case evidence of a robust methodology would be needed for audit purposes.

The monitoring system must be set up in a way that it permits the managing authorities to perform the tasks related to monitoring and evaluation as set out in Art. 56 CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) and Articles 5 and 19(4) and (6), Annex I and II of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013). This implies that all participant records should include some sort of unique personal identifier that allow an individual to be traced and re-contacted (in case they are selected for a representative sample), as well as the operation identifier and dates of starting and leaving the operation.  Personal identifiers can be used to link ESF monitoring data with records from national registers, but this is not a requirement.

Yes. The structure of the monitoring system is not prescribed.  Although the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) requires Member States to collect and store detailed data about each participant (i.e. to maintain micro-data) there is no specific requirement for the data to be stored all together in one place or at any particular organisational level. So, as long as the monitoring system as a whole fulfils the minimum requirements for monitoring and evaluation then the design is up to Member States (see section 2.2 in Annex D of the EC guidance). In this respect, it is necessary that the system can link participation records with IDs and personal contact details in order to:

• provide evidence that  each of the aggregate figures reported (at IP level) as indicator values in AIRs relate to identifiable individuals who have the relevant characteristics and who actually received support from the relevant operations;
• allow for representative sampling  (full data-set necessary);
• provide contact for follow-up surveys (longer-term result indicators).

All participant records should include, as a minimum: an operation identifier (a code that links a participant to a specific operation); some sort of unique personal identifier that allows an individual to be traced and re-contacted (if selected for a representative sample); dates of starting and leaving an operation. As far as the data for the representative sample are concerned, personal data do not need to be asked again: the information collected for output indicators should always be used as the reference point for both immediate and longer-term result indicators.