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: 112-116

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

112

a policy response to national and/or local needs (F EAD projects i n Germany), EU and

national strategic framework (e.g. deinstitutionalisation reforms), or policy

experimentation to test innovative approaches to address societal challenges (Housing

First approach).

2 Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses

In the 2014-2020 ESIF programming peri od, the 2013 Recommendation on Investing in

children was used to leverage more funding from the ESF, ERDF and FEAD for children and

their families. The programming rules of the 2014-2020 period foresaw a strengthened link

to the European Semester. Member States now have to make a clear link between EU -

funded interventions and the Europe 2020 strategy at the programming stage, with a

particular focus on the relevant country-specific recommendations. Although interventions

targeting homeless children and their families are funded to some extent in several Member

States, a lack of clear objectives and targets on reducing child homelessness discourages

commitments to invest in this area and complicates the monitoring and reporting of

progress.

2.1 Impact on target group

Examples o f ESIF-funded projects and FEAD-funded activities i n Germany, presented i n

the first section of this case study, were based on the strategic individual needs assessment

of the target groups, though chi ldren were not a primary target group for these

interventions (wi th the exception of ‘Leave No Child Behind’дй Due to monitoring

requirements, information on participants or recipients of assistance is unavailable or

limited to the number of children below 15 years old (in t he case of the FEAD).

The impact of interventions addressing homelessness and housing exclusion for children

and their families is usually assessed at the level of individual projects or groups of similar

projects. For example, the ‘Leave No Child Behind’ project in Bulgaria demonstrated higher

than planned numbers of persons benefiting from social services d elivered within the

community and closed specialised institutions for children with di sabilities (see Box 2).

In Brno, the University of Ostrava followed the families who received housing support over

a 12-month period and found that the rehousing project had a positive impact in terms of

children’s health and well-being (see Box 3).

The Housing First approach applied in Brno was also shown to reunite families. Children in

the treatment group spent on average 33 days less in institutional or foster care than those

in the control group. As one mother put it:

‘When we liv ed in the h ostel, my daughter would hardly communicate, she was silent all

the time …. And now that we have the flat she has started to communicateз she has her

own room, she talks, she learns, she is happier’147.

Other parents have also noticed better educational achievements and socio-emotional

improvements after their children have a safe and decent place (even their own room) to

live, learn and grow. The project can reduce the negative i mpact of anti -Roma

discrimination in the housing sector, which impedes Roma families from obtaining

permanent housing. The project aimed at an 80% housing retention rate after one year,

and reached 96% in 2018. In addition, the experiment showed the Housing First approach

helped make municipality expenditure savings of CZK мзртозурл г€смзллнд in мн monthsй

The indirect impact of EU-funded interventions on children experiencing homelessness and

housing exclusion would result in the changed employment status and incomes of their

parents. But due to the fact that children usually are not involved in the decisions on family

spending, this effect is limited and difficult to measure.

147 Ripka et al. (2018).