The European Court of Auditors has recently published a special report analyzing vocational training actions for women co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF). This is another report slamming the Commission. The Court considered that vocational training actions for women co-funded by the European Social Fund, during the 2000-2006 programme period, were not appropriately selected neither adequately monitored.
The European Social Fund is the main Community instrument for the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women on the employment market. The projects co-funded by the ESF are implemented through multiannual programmes drafted by the Member States and approved by the Commission. Such programmes set up priorities and define the respective measures, including vocational training actions for women. During the 2000–06 programme period €3 billion was allocated for vocational training actions for women. Although Member States are responsible for implementing the programmes, the Commission is ultimately responsible for budget implementation.
The Court found that there was no “clear link” between the Member State authorities’ analyses of labour markets and the proposed objectives of the vocational training actions. According to the Court the projects selection criteria were not based on the priorities identified in labour markets analysis as well as on the programme objectives. According to the Court the operational programmes prepared by the Member States and approved by the Commission identified the barriers that women face entering the labour market however the proposed actions were not a direct response to analysis of labour market requirements.
The Court pointed out that the Commission adopted, in 2002, a Communication acknowledging the shortcomings, particularly the considerable gap, in the majority of programmes, between the analysis of labour markets and programming strategy. Nevertheless, it has taken no action to remedy such issues. The Court has stressed that “the selection criteria did not ensure that the issues arising from the labour market analysis were sufficiently addressed nor provide a sound basis for the attainment of programme objectives.”
According to the Court some projects audited aimed at promoting women’s employment in areas were they were insufficiently represented have focused on training in traditional occupations for women. Moreover, the Court noticed that “the candidates selected were not necessarily those most in need of support for entering the labour market.”
The Court concluded that the measures established by Member States and approved by the Commission “(…) comprised broad actions with a general bias towards the participation of women rather than focused actions taking into account the way in which gender equality could best be advanced in the specific labour markets concerned.”
Moreover, the European auditors found that monitoring information was not enough to assess whether vocational training actions for woman achieved their objectives. The Court has pointed out that whereas all audited programmes had established output indicators, results’ indicators such as number of participants obtaining required qualifications and impact indicators, for instance the number of trainees finding a job after the end of the course, had not been established for all programmes. Moreover, the Court found that “Targets to be achieved were not set for all measures audited.”
The Commission has not addressed the inconsistencies of the annual implementation reports, particularly “the lack of impact indicators.”
The Court also found problems with the monitoring information provided by the projects promoters which it described as “unreliable” and “incomplete.” The Commission was aware of the monitoring and reporting issues through each programme mid-term evaluations nevertheless, according to the report, “it did not implement checks on the reliability of monitoring data when carrying out its on-the-spot audits.”
The Court concluded, therefore, that “neither the implementing authorities in the Member States nor the Commission are in a position to assess to what extent the objectives pursued by the specific measures were met.” Consequently, €3 billion, of taxpayer’s money, has been spent on training actions but it is impossible to assess whether they were effective.
