This report presents an indicator proposal to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of return governance by systematically linking policy design, implementation practices, and observable outcomes. Building on the policy effectiveness framework developed by Czaika and de Haas (2013) and insights from GAPs’ research addressing return policy frameworks (WP2), return infrastructure (WP3) and return cooperation (WP4), the proposal combines instrumental dimensions (such as legal clarity, institutional capacity, coordination, costs, and implementation performance) with normative dimensions (human rights, protection guarantees, and reintegration sustainability). The indicator proposal is structured around three interconnected stages: policies on paper, policy implementation, and outcomes. For Stage 1 (policy on paper), it identifies dimensions and relevant indicators that capture the presence, clarity, and coherence of legal bases and safeguards; the configuration of institutional and administrative design (roles, coordination mechanisms, resources, stakeholder involvement, and data infrastructures); and the formal architecture of international cooperation, including intra-EU coherence, EU-level agreements, bilateral and informal arrangements, and alignment with non-migration policies. Stage 2 (implementation) mirrors these dimensions to evaluate how far formal commitments translate into practice, focusing on implementation consistency, operational safeguards, monitoring and accountability, functioning coordination, use of financial and human resources, stakeholder participation in practice, and the real operation of cooperation and readmission mechanisms. Stage 3 (outcomes) moves beyond simple return numbers to capture a differentiated set of policy effects. Direct policy effects are assessed through return figures (volume and efficiency), changes in the composition of returnees, and geographical destination patterns. External and relational outcomes focus on the quality and sustainability of cooperation with third countries and the role of power asymmetries and historical ties. Reintegration outcomes are captured through “reintegration capacity in origin countries”, covering policy commitment, institutional and administrative capacity, service provision, labour‑market absorption, and monitoring systems. Individual and social outcomes encompass migrants’ livelihoods, living conditions, rights protection, (re)migration behaviour, exposure to chain deportation, community acceptance, social tensions, media framing, and local development effects. Finally, a separate dimension on substitutive effects addresses unintended consequences such as route shifts, burden shifting across control mechanisms, and the production of “non‑removable” returnees, conceptualised as policy externalities. The report also suggests a flexible scoring, scaling, and weighting proposal rather than a fixed composite index. For policy stages, indicators are generally scored on an ordinal scale and can be aggregated additively, multiplicatively, or through hybrid designs depending on whether components are treated as substitutable or necessary; for outcomes, mixed quantitative and qualitative evidence is normalised to a common scale, with explicit benchmarks (country-over-time, regional averages, or theoretical ideals). Moreover, there is need for transparency in methodological choices, the need to consider thresholds for core safeguards, and the importance of sensitivity analysis and data validity.
Elmas et al. (Fri,) studied this question.