European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Evaluation of the
SME Funding
Schemes - summary
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation
Services
Aims of evaluation
An evaluation of the SME funding scheme was
carried out in the first half of 2003.
The main aims were to:
 Assess the impact and sustainability of the
2001 projects
 Carry out a preliminary evaluation of the
2002 projects
 Prepare recommendations for future funding
schemes
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Overall conclusion
 A well-run programme that is achieving useful
results in the field of health and safety at work.
 Relevant to the health and safety issues faced
by SMEs and shows a high degree of financial
additionality.
 Considerable added value, beneficial impacts on
the target group of SMEs, and wider
‘demonstration’ effects.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Methodology – key phases
P h ase 1
PPreparatory
reparatory TTasks
asks
 S et up m eeting
 D esk research
 M ethodology
Inception R eport
Jan u ary
P h ase 2
SSurvey
urvey W
Work
ork && Interview
Interviewss
 S urvey of 103 projects
 C ase studies w ith sam ple of
35 projects
 Interview s w ith A gency staff
and N ational F ocal P oints
P h ase 3
AAnaly
nalysis
sis&& RReporting
eporting
 A nalysis of research
findings
 P reparation of draft final
report
Interim R eport
F inal R eport
30 M arch
21 Ju n e
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
6
Numbers of projects
 A total of 103 projects involving total costs of
some €14.7 million from the Agency.
2001-02
National
Transnational
Total
2002-03
National
Transnational
Total
2003-04
National
Transnational
Total
Number of
eligible
projects
281
129
410
Number of
eligible
projects
248
111
359
Number of
awarded
projects
35
16
51
Number of
awarded
projects
41
12
531
Number of
eligible
projects
437
212
649
Number of
awarded
projects
26
14
40
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Total cost of
awarded
projects (€m)
4.53
3.58
8.11
Total cost of
awarded
projects (€m)
4.54
2.03
1
6.57
Total cost of
awarded
projects (€m)
3.10
2.61
5.71
Agency
contribution
(€m)
2.21
2.28
4.49
Agency
contribution
(€m)
2.17
1.51
1
3.68
Agency
contribution
(€m)
1.63
1.95
3.58
Intervention
rate %
48.8
63.6
55.3
Intervention
rate %
47.8
74.5
56.1
Intervention
rate %
52.7
74.6
62.7
Types of projects
 Projects supported under the SME Funding Scheme
addressed a very diverse range of subjects. The
analysis below is limited to the 2002-03 scheme
Types of Risk
General H & S
Accidents
Asbestos
Chemical, solvents
Ergonomic/stress
Other risks
Total
National
No.
11
9
1
6
4
9
40
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Transnational
%
28
22
3
15
10
22
100
No.
1
2
0
0
5
3
11
%
13
25
0
0
37
25
100
Acceptances
 A large number of applications.
 Relatively few accepted - 12% under the 2001-02
scheme and 14% the following year.
 Calls for proposals and subsequent procedures
were clear.
 More time is needed to prepare project proposals.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Financing
 National projects received funding of up to €90,000 and
transnational projects generally received amounts up to
€200,000.
 The Agency’s intervention rate was 55.6%.
 There is a higher intervention rate for transnational
projects (67%) than national projects (54%).
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Additionality
 Very few projects would have gone ahead
without some input from Agency funding.
Response options
Yes, the project would have gone ahead without funding
The project would have gone ahead but on a reduced scale
The project would have gone ahead but on a reduced scale
No, the project would not have gone ahead at all without funding
Don’t know
Total
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
No.
2
12
3
26
3
46
%
4.3
26.1
6.5
56.5
6.5
100.0
Projects that did not go ahead
 Of projects that did not receive Agency funding,
most were unable to obtain alternative funding
and did not go ahead.
Response
No.
%
Project went ahead in full as planned
6
14
Project went ahead in part
11
26
Project did not go ahead
26
60
Total
43
100
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Achievement of objectives
 Most projects considered that they had fully or
partially achieved their objectives.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fully achieved Partially achieved Not achieved at
all
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Help and advice
 Those carrying out projects rated highly the help
and advice received from the Agency.
Response option
Agency
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor Total
% Fair Excellent
Answering questions
17
18
4
3
1
43
90.7
Giving additional information
15
16
10
3
0
44
93.2
Monitoring projects
13
18
8
4
2
45
86.7
Response option
National Focal Points
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor Total
% Fair Excellent
Answering questions
2
10
4
1
1
18
88.9
Giving additional information
3
8
5
0
1
17
94.1
Monitoring projects
3
8
2
0
2
15
86.7
Source: survey of 2002-03 projects
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Numbers of SMEs benefiting
 Of the order of 700,000 SMEs will have benefited from
the scheme in some way (after scaling up for non
respondents).
 Of these 700,000 SMEs of the order of 80,000 SMEs
will have received direct advice .
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Number of SMEs benefiting
2001-02 Scheme
Responses
A
Received advice
23
6,143
141,000
66,000
Viewed website
12
430,492
5,166,000
166,000
Received written info
20
8,744
175,000
50,000
5,482,000
282,000
Total

B
2002-03 Scheme
C
D
Responses
A
B
C
Received advice
27
1,574
42,000
Viewed website
15
13,978
210,000
Received written info
34
5,468
186,000
Total
438,000
Note: A = Number of respondents; B = Average number of beneficiaries claimed by respondents;
C = Total. For the 2001-02 scheme a further total D is shown which excludes one Netherlands
scheme where the data includes beneficiaries from other non Agency work
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Period for which SMEs benefit
 Project holders considered that SMEs continue to
benefit from the results of projects.
Responses
2001-02 Scheme
No.
%
Up to a year
2
6.1
More than a year
31
Total
33
Responses
2002-03 Scheme
No.
%
Up to a year
3
6.8
93.9
More than a year
41
93.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Benefits to SMEs
Feedback from interviews and case studies suggests
that the benefits of the SME Funding Scheme are
very diverse (and consequently difficult to measure):
For example:
 Useful case studies but difficulties in transferring
experiences.
 The challenge of reaching SMEs.
 Spin off into other areas, for example reduced insurance
premiums.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Timescale for each
programme
 Each funding scheme takes two years from start
to completion. But this only allows about 9
months for fieldwork.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Work period
8
9
10 11 12
ed.
5
com
plet
4
ents
3
Pay
m
2
Repo
rt.
igne
Agr
eem
ents
s
com
plet
tion
1
Year 2
6 7
d.
10 11 12
ed .
9
Sele
c
pos
a
Ret
urn
of p
ro
eme
ertis
adv
8
ls.
5
nt.
4
OJ
3
nali
sed
.
2
Bud
get
fi
1
Year 1
6 7
Project timescales
 The one-year period for completion of projects is too
short.
 Not enough time after completion of schemes to
disseminate the results.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Publicity and dissemination
 Most projects involved a research phase and a publicity
or dissemination phase.
 Need to concentrate more on dissemination.
 There are many studies carried out by others who bring
together research on safety and health.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Recommendations - General
 Continued support, preferably on a larger scale, for the
SME Funding Scheme.
 Consider whether the SME Funding Scheme should
continue in its current form, i.e. as a separate scheme,
or become part of a larger EU-funded programme.
 If the SME Funding Scheme continues in its present form,
the funding arrangements should be altered to allow
projects to be supported on a multi-annual basis.
Similarly, if the SME Funding Scheme continues in its
present form, there should be a greater focus on the types
of projects that deliver the highest Community added value.
 There also needs to be more emphasis on ensuring that
the results of projects are disseminated as widely as
possible.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Recommendations – Using
other EU funds
 Steps should be taken to ensure that synergies with
other EU funded networks and programmes are
maximised.
 ‘Horizontal’ theme in major EU-supported programmes
such as the Structural Funds.
 Prepare guidance aimed at policymakers in regional
authorities explaining what sorts of health and safety
projects are eligible for support.
 The Agency should investigate the possibility of similar
guidance being included in other major EU funding
initiatives, in particular the agricultural and fishery funds.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services
Recommendations – New
Member States
 Whilst a transfer of know-how from the Agency’s EU15




SME Funding Scheme to the New Member States (NMSs) is
desirable, this should be a two-way process.
Following EU enlargement, there is a strong case for a
special SME Funding Scheme for the NMSs.
There is a need to review experience from EU15 to
identify ideas and good practices in the safety and health
at work field that are especially relevant to the NMSs.
Support should be provided, where necessary, to help develop
safety and health at work institutional capacity and
policies in the NMSs.
Many of the suggested improvements to the SME Funding
Scheme that has operated in EU15 are especially relevant to
the NMSs and should be implemented there if a scheme is to
be launched
that goes beyond transferring best practices.
Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services