« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit for managing fraud and error Administrative Commission the 329th meeting Warsaw , December 13, Elements of context & antecedents The methodology.
Download ReportTranscript « F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit for managing fraud and error Administrative Commission the 329th meeting Warsaw , December 13, Elements of context & antecedents The methodology.
Slide 1
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 2
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 3
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 4
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 5
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 6
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 7
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 8
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 9
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 10
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 11
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 12
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 13
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 14
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 15
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 16
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 17
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 18
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 19
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 20
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 21
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 22
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 2
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 3
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 4
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 5
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 6
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 7
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 8
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 9
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 10
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 11
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 12
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 13
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 14
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 15
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 16
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 17
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 18
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 19
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 20
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 21
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM
Slide 22
« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit
for managing fraud and
error
Administrative Commission the 329th meeting
Warsaw , December 13,
2011
Elements of context &
antecedents
The methodology F.E.R.M.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The manual : building &
explanations
Application FERM to annual
reports on Fraud & error
The results
Added value of F.E.R.M.
Evaluation after a « test »
period by the Administrative
Commission
Plan
The CONTEXT
1)
The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the
fight against fraud and error, but aims to
a. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)
b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and
employment conditions of these persons
c. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!
A.
1. Context & antecedents
LE CONTEXTE
2) The opportunity
BELGIUM is leading
delegation on Fraud &
errors issues
A.
1. Context and antecedents
B. RETROACTES
1) Decision nr H5 of the A.C. of 18 march 2010<>
cooperation on combating fraud and error
a. F & E ? Garantee that contributions are paid to the
right MS and that benefits are not unduly granted or
fraudulently obtained
b. Why ? proper implementation of Regulations
c. How ?
i.
Closer and more effective cooperation = a key
factor !!
ii. The identification of persons
iii. Evaluation ?
Annual Meeting of AC = discussion rapport EM
Point de contact national
1. Context and antecedents
2) Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3
november 2010
a.
Concept note and philosophy <> Impact Assessment
enhancing compliance through I.A. (cf. schéma)
1. Context and antecedents
Policy and programme
development phase for
prospective assessments.
Screening
Establishes fraud and error relevance of the
policy. Is an IA required?
Ex- ante assessment.
Scoping
Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set
boundaries.
Appraisal
Reporting
Policy implementation phase.
Formative evaluation.
Policy evaluation phase.
Summative evaluation.
Ex-post assessment
In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline,
prediction, significance, mitigation
Conclusions and recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance
positive actions
Monitoring
Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance
existing evidence base
Evaluation
Gathering relevant information on implemented
policies – feed-back on IA policy
Ex-post Assessment
Gathering input for future policies and strategies
2)
Note nr384/10 of the Belgian Presidency of 3 november
2010
b) Presentation of case-study by N.I.H.D.I. : « cross border
shopping, a case study »
1. Context and antecedents
3)
AC meeting of
mandat given to
15-16.12.2010
The Belgian delegation in order to
develop the
methodology
F.E.R.M.
1. Context and antecedents
:
a)
The manual : building
Consultation of sources
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,
MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET
Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC
Chirag Oil
Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact
Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009
Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment
and social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consulting
Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling
Policy , December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and
Watts Ltd
Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge
Manager, Centre for Good Governance
2. The methodology FERM
II.
a.
b.
c.
II.
Consultation autres sources
Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.
ECJ : case law
Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security
Développement du manuel : guidelines
2. The methodology FERM
b) Explications du manuel
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Overview of the methods : the matrix
Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further
in depth evaluation
Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this
analysis
Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously
Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the
assessment
Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an
action or decision is evolving
Evaluation provides relevant information
Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined
2. The methodology FERM:
overview of the methods
RULES
Tool
Scoop
Screening
Legislative proposals
Scoping
Legislative proposals
Appraisal
Legislative proposals
Reporting
Legislative proposals
Monitoring
If problem concerns
applicable legislation
Evaluation
If problems araise with
reaching the aim of the
legislation
Ex post assessment
Global policy failures
TOR (use)
Output
Follow-up
Establishes fraud and
error relevance of the
policy.
Identifies key F & E
issues, establishes ToR,
set boundaries
In-depth impact
assessment, afflicted,
baseline, prediction,
significance, mitigation
Conclusions and
recommendations to
remove/mitigate negative
impacts or enhance
positive actions
Reporting of flaws and
infractions
Report on the advisability
of an IA
Gathering relevant
information on
implemented policies –
Gathering input for future
policies and strategies
Follow-up report
Follow-up report
Amendments to the
proposal
Approach to tackle
problem
Recommendation for
readjusting
feed-back on IA policy –
propositions for alternative
and curative
implementation
Notes and proposals to
AC
2. The methodology FERM : the
matrix
II.
Potentialities of FERM
will provide direction in:
a. predicting probable impacts / determining impacts of strategies or
decisions that will be or have been implemented as to fraud and error
b. identifying which factors of a decision may lead or are leading to
unwanted (fraud and error enhancing) side effects
c. if possible, isolating those factors and make (re-)evaluation possible
(close the gaps, find alternative solutions)
d. if isolation prior to the decision is impossible, developing mitigation
mechanisms to reduce the harmful side effects
e. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to
learn from experience
2. The methodology FERM
- its potentialities
III. The
tasks of the leading delegation on
fraud and error, should consist of
a.
I.
Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in
their national reports
Is the issue actually posing fraud and error risks?
II.
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information
already available or is this a completely new issue?
III. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it poses
problems on regular basis?
IV. Is the issue relevant in the sense that it has a
substantial financial impact or undermines a social
security system or the EESSI system?
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Determine how selected issues can be
treated and by who ?
b.
I.
How ?: which methodology is to be followed out of the
FERM toolbox (e.g. Ex ante assessment, monitoring
the issue; attention to an already existing analysis ,
etc.)
II. Who ? <> optimizing the existing strengths
a) experts from the Belgian leading delegation
b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MS
c) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board
2. The methodology FERM
– possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Put the list of issues with the
followed/proposed
trajectory
at
disposal of the AC
d. Highlight and share best practices
developed by MS
e. Report at least once a year to the AC
c.
2. The methodology FERM – possible
tasks of the leading delegation
Belgian delegation is prepared to put an
electronic workspace that would take the
form of a forum between experts…
a. Why ? To facilate an effective working !
b. Limitation/exclusions ?
IV.
I.
Only national reports from MS on Fraud and
error
II. Neither personal files; neither personal data
c. Administration
?
E-workspace
administrated by Belgian delegation
2. The methodology FERM –
a forum between experts
a. The
application
of
FERM
to
annual
reports on Fraud &
errors
I.
II.
Voluntary reporting from
Member States in 2011 :
Finland and Spain (cf
decision H5 of AC)
Informal
informations
exchanged
with
the
Netherlands
2. The methodology FERM :
towards implementation
Member States
Reports
(decision H5,
point2 )
Identification of
problem
Social Security
Scheme
Tool
Netherlands
during informal
exchanges
Art. 12, 1
Regulation
883/2004:
differences in
interpretation of the
concept “normally”
Applicable
legislation
Monitoring /
evaluation
Best practices
mentioned in
annual reports of
M.S. or
implemented
solutions
2. La méthodologie FERM : the
results
Explanation and
illustration of
possible ways
forward
A vague term; this
problem was
already taken into
account by the
legislator in the exante phase (art. 14,2
Regulation
883/2004 &
decision A2 of the
AC).
After the problems
are identified, it
could be monitored
whether there is an
actual problem; if
yes, a
recommendation to
readjust Decision
A2 could be
forwarded.
C.
The added value of F.E.R.M.
1) An integrated approach to risk
management and errors
2) Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage all
MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error
3) Share best pratices of MS
4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation
during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!
5) Create connections between all the experts
and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUM
3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.
d)
Evaluation of FERM, after a test period
of 2 years, by the A.C.
4. Evaluation of FERM