- The fifth Opinion on the IMV finds that, in 2024, 51% of recipient households received at least one other benefit and 16% combined the IMV with two or more additional benefits
- The unemployment subsidy is the benefit most commonly combined with the IMV, particularly among people aged 52 and over. Concurrent receipt of the IMV and the unemployment subsidy doubles from the age of 52
- AIReF compares the IMV with last-resort benefits in other European countries and finds that Spain combines a more generous than average benefit with below-average outcomes in terms of coverage and poverty reduction
- AIReF updates the results of previous evaluations and notes that 52% of households eligible for the IMV still do not apply, meaning that significant challenges remain
- It finds that a higher level of protection provided by the IMV is associated with a longer duration of benefit receipt and reinforces the need to improve the connection between the IMV and employment
- After five years of evaluation, AIReF reviews the main findings and proposals made, brings this first cycle of Opinions on the IMV to an end and will resume its evaluation when structural reforms are approved that warrant further analysis
- It retains the five proposals made in previous evaluations and adds two new ones to make the IMV more coherent with the rest of the social protection system and improve the benefit’s design and operation in light of the European experience
The Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF) today published its fifth Opinion on the Minimum Income Scheme (IMV), bringing the annual evaluation cycle to an end with a review of the main findings and proposals from the past five years. It also assesses, for the first time, how the IMV fits within the wider social protection system and compares it with last-resort benefits in other European countries. AIReF notes that the IMV has strengthened protection against poverty, but structural challenges that limit its effectiveness remain. It therefore retains the proposals made to date and also proposes making the IMV more coherent with other benefits and reviewing its design in light of the European experience.
The analysis of complementarity with other benefits shows that, in 2024, 51% of households receiving the IMV received at least one other benefit during the year and 16% combined the IMV with two or more additional benefits. These findings show that there is scope to improve how the IMV fits with other benefits, which calls for greater coherence across forms of support in order to avoid overlap.
The analysis concludes that the unemployment subsidy is the benefit most commonly combined with the IMV. During the first 12 months of IMV receipt, 16.6% of recipients also receive this subsidy, while 17% of unemployment subsidy spells are subsequently followed by an IMV application. Of the households that apply for the IMV after receiving the subsidy, 47% do so after the subsidy has ended.
This relationship becomes more pronounced from the age of 52, when the subsidy becomes open-ended and, in practice, operates as a last-resort benefit alongside the IMV until retirement. Concurrent receipt of the IMV and the unemployment subsidy doubles from the age of 52. AIReF therefore proposes making the two benefits more coherent and reviewing whether concurrent receipt is appropriate, particularly in the case of the unemployment subsidy for people aged 52 and over, so that each need is addressed through a single benefit.
The comparison with other European countries reveals scope to improve the design of the IMV. AIReF concludes that Spain combines a relatively generous benefit with below-average European outcomes in terms of coverage and poverty reduction. It also uses a less up-to-date income reference period, a broad definition of the household unit and less stringent employment-related conditions.
Duration of benefit receipt
In this Opinion, AIReF also analyses the level of protection provided by the IMV and the duration of benefit receipt. Forty-six per cent of households receiving the IMV remain on the scheme after 60 months. This figure rises to 57% among beneficiaries whose IMV amount is closest to their guaranteed income and falls to 34% among those whose IMV represents a smaller share of guaranteed income. These findings show that a higher level of protection is associated with a longer duration of benefit receipt and reinforce the need to improve the connection between the IMV and employment by redesigning the employment incentive.
The fifth Opinion also updates the results from previous years. Progress was made in rolling out the benefit in 2025, including a 16% increase in beneficiary households, an increase in coverage to 44.2% and a reduction in the median processing time to 99 days. However, 52% of households eligible for the IMV still do not apply, while 71% of households potentially eligible for the Child Support Supplement (CAPI) also fail to do so. In addition, 51% of households continue to experience changes to their benefit as a result of income reviews, while the employment incentive has similar coverage to 2024 and has yet to address the design problems previously identified by AIReF.
Assessment of the IMV after five AIReF Opinions
The assessment concludes that, although the IMV has strengthened protection against poverty, structural challenges that limit its effectiveness remain. In particular, the definitions of income and the household unit need to be simplified and aligned with the information available in existing administrative records, paving the way for automated awards that significantly reduce the high number of potentially eligible households that do not apply. In addition, the income reference period should be updated using more recent information to facilitate the transition into work and reduce the long duration of IMV receipt among employable beneficiaries. The income reference period also needs to be updated by using more recent information, thereby avoiding repeated adjustments and repayment requests that erode trust in the benefit.
In light of the findings of the fifth Opinion, AIReF also makes two new proposals: make the IMV more coherent with other benefits, particularly the unemployment subsidy for people aged 52 and over, and review certain elements of the IMV’s design in light of the European experience to ensure a more consistent benefit.
More than five years after the IMV was introduced, AIReF considers the planned cycle of annual evaluations of this public policy to be complete. The institution will resume issuing Opinions when structural reforms to the benefit are approved, some of the proposals made are implemented or exceptional circumstances arise whose evaluation could help further improve this public policy and generate value for society as a whole.