« F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit « F.E.R.M. » - the toolkit for managing fraud and for managing fraud and 

error error 

Administrative Commission - the 329th meeting

Warsaw , December 13, 2011

PlanPlan

1. Elements of context & antecedents

2. The methodology F.E.R.M.a. The manual : building &

explanationsb. Application FERM to annual

reports on Fraud & errorc. The results

3. Added value of F.E.R.M.4. Evaluation after a « test »

period by the Administrative Commission

1. Context & antecedents1. Context & antecedents

A. The CONTEXT1) The objective of Regulation on coordination is not the 

fight against fraud and error, but aims toa. Ensure the free movement of persons (cf. art.48, TFUE)b. contribute to the improvement of living standards and

employment conditions of these personsc. But there are cases of manifest error and fraud!

1. Context and antecedents1. Context and antecedents

1. Context and antecedents1. Context and antecedents

1. Context and antecedents1. 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)

Screening

Scoping

Establishes fraud and error relevance of the policy. Is an IA required?

Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR, set boundaries.

AppraisalIn-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline, prediction, significance, mitigation

Reporting

Conclusions and recommendations to remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance positive actions

Monitoring Action to monitor actual impacts to enhance existing evidence base

Gathering relevant information on implemented policies – feed-back on IA policy

Policy and programme development phase for prospective assessments.

Ex- ante assessment.

Policy implementation phase.Formative evaluation.

Policy evaluation phase.Summative evaluation. Ex-post assessment

Evaluation

Ex-post Assessment Gathering input for future policies and strategies

1. Context and antecedents1. Context and antecedents

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 antecedents1. Context and antecedents

3) AC meeting of 15-16.12.2010 : mandat given to

The Belgian delegation in order to

develop the methodology

F.E.R.M.

2. The methodology FERM2. The methodology FERM

a) The manual : building

I. Consultation of sourcesa. Guidelines for managing risk in the western Australian public sector,

MINISTRY OF THE PREMIER AND CABINETb. Project Environmental & Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, AIOC Chirag

Oilc. Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact

Assessment system, Ref. Ares(2009)326974 - 17/11/2009d. Review of Methodologies applied for the assessment of employment and

social impacts (VC/2008/0303), Ecorys, Research and consultinge. Social Impact Assessment of the Draft Nelson City Council Gambling Policy ,

December 2006, NMDHB Public Health Service and Quigley and Watts Ltdf. Social Impact Assessment Methodology, Vivek Misra, Knowledge Manager,

Centre for Good Governance

2. The methodology FERM2. The methodology FERM

II. Consultation autres sourcesa. Circa : note from M.S., Secretariat, Decisions, etc.b. ECJ : case lawc. Tress : Training and reporting on European Social Security

II. Développement du manuel : guidelines

2. The methodology FERM:2. The methodology FERM:overview of the methodsoverview of the methods

b) Explications du manuel I. Overview of the methods : the matrix

a. Screening a decision will be taken on whether or not further in depth evaluation

b. Scoping and frequency define the boundaries of this analysis

c. Appraisal detailed analysis of the previously d. Reporting conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the

assessmente. Monitoring a tool that provides information indicating if an

action or decision is evolvingf. Evaluation provides relevant information g. Mix of methods in practice all methods will be intertwined

2. The methodology FERM : the 2. The methodology FERM : the matrix matrix

RULES

Tool Scoop TOR (use) Output Follow-up

Screening Legislative proposals Establishes fraud and error relevance of the

policy.

Report on the advisability of an IA

Scoping Legislative proposals Identifies key F & E issues, establishes ToR,

set boundaries

Follow-up report

Appraisal Legislative proposals In-depth impact assessment, afflicted, baseline, prediction, significance, mitigation

Follow-up report

Reporting Legislative proposals Conclusions and recommendations to remove/mitigate negative impacts or enhance positive actions

Amendments to the proposal

Monitoring If problem concerns applicable legislation

Reporting of flaws and infractions

Approach to tackle problem

Recommendation for readjusting

Evaluation If problems araise with reaching the aim of the

legislation

Gathering relevant information on implemented policies –

feed-back on IA policy – propositions for alternative

and curative implementation

Ex post assessment Global policy failures Gathering input for future policies and strategies

Notes and proposals to AC

2. The methodology FERM 2. The methodology FERM - its potentialities- its potentialities

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 effectsc. 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 effectse. evaluating decisions / actions to counter fraud and error in order to

learn from experience

2. The methodology FERM 2. The methodology FERM – possible– possible tasks of the leading delegation tasks of the leading delegation

III. The tasks of the leading delegation on fraud and error, should consist of

a. Screening of issues mentioned by delegations in their national reports

I. 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 2. The methodology FERM – possible– possible tasks of the leading delegation tasks of the leading delegation

b. Determine how selected issues can be treated and by who ?

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 ? <> optimizingoptimizing the existing strengthsa) experts from the Belgian leading delegation b) (on voluntary basis) experts from different MSc) the referral to a SED expert group/Conciliation Board

2. The methodology FERM – possible2. The methodology FERM – possible tasks of the leading delegation tasks of the leading delegation

c. 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

2. The methodology FERM – 2. The methodology FERM – a forum between expertsa forum between experts

IV. 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 ?

I. Only national reports from MS on Fraud and error

II. Neither personal files; neither personal datac. Administration ? E-workspace

administrated by Belgian delegation

2. The methodology FERM : 2. The methodology FERM : towards implementationtowards implementation

2. La méthodologie FERM : the 2. La méthodologie FERM : the results results

3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.3. La plus-value du F.E.R.M.

C. The added value of F.E.R.M.1) An integrated approach to risk

management and errors2)2) Highlight Highlight the reports of EM <> encourage

all MS in their reporting in Fraud and Error3)3) Share Share best pratices of MS4) Supported by Leading Belgian delegation

during 2 years during 2 years <> No cost for A.C. free !!5) Create connections between all the experts

and already existing ad-hoc groups FORUMFORUM

4. Evaluation of FERM4. Evaluation of FERM

d) Evaluation of FERM, after a test period of 2 years, by the A.C.