Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses

• Author: Applica, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER)
• Pages: 20-26

Case studies on the effectiveness of funding programmes – Key findings and study reports

20

Several projects aimed to encourage and provide support for local and regional authorities,

or private and civil society actors, to develop initiatives to strengthen antidiscriminatory

measures for groups vulnerable to social and economic exclusion.

Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses

This section assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes in terms of their

impact on the target group, on leveraging extra resources for the target group and on

national (or sub-national) policies and programmes. It concludes with lessons for EU

funding programmes.

Impact on target group

The programme in Lithuania was judged by evalu ators to have had a significant i mpact

on the development of public services for children and young people at social risk.

However, quality varies among specific projects, which might depend on regional or local

capacities as well as engagement in implementation.

The programme was i ntended to establi sh or develop 24 day -care centres, but u ltimately

43 centres were established or renovated: 23 chi ld day-care centres, 7 child day-care

centres with open youth spaces and 13 open youth centres10. The evalu ation emphasises

that the development of child day-care centres as well as open youth centres have

contributed to developing various abilities, soci alisation, nutrition and hygiene of children

and youth at risk. This is particularly the case in rural areas. The programme far exceeded

its target insofar as the new or renovated centres were attended by almost 6,000 children

and youth, instead of the 1,300 targeted.

Looking only at children, the program me has contributed considerably to increasin g the

number and prop ortion of chil dren at social risk attending day-care c entres. At th e start,

around 23% of attendees at child day-care centres were children at risk from deprived

families. By the end of 2017, the proportion of at- risk children attending day-care centres

had increased to around a third (6,244 out of 18,345 chil dren living with families at social

risk11). It is worth pointing out that, during programme implementation, it was decided

that day-care centres c ould be attended by all children and young people12, regardless of

whether they are at riskз in order to promote children’s mutual und erstandingз tolerance

and integration into society.

As an example, during one project the likelihood of children entering foster care was

reduced through social work with children and their parents, and during the project

implementation period 51 families were removed f rom the list of th ose at soci al risk, the

number of children at risk was reduced t o 238 and less children were accommodated at

custody care institutions.

In developing the day-care centres, the programme placed a strong emphasi s on

competence building for both staff and volunteers, training nearly 400 people and

exceeding the target by more than three times. This appears to have allowed the

programme to increase its effect iveness and sustainability. The pr ogramme also created

and launched a new integrated service fo r children and famili es at risk, which is provided

at day-care centres. The service aims t o empower families, by involving the whole family

and its environment to raise awar eness among family members about t heir decisions and

lives. Such projects were first attempts to provide this service in Lithuania and – considered

a success – have since been extended to other child day -care centres in Lithuania.

10 Open youth centres and open youth spaces supported open youth work with youth at risk and with fewer

opportunities.

11 Estep (2018).

12 Youth are 14-29 year olds in this programme.