Summary

• Author: Applica, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER)
• Pages: 15-15

EEA Grants 2009-2014, Children and Youth at Risk programmes in Estonia, Lithuania and Romania

15

Summary

This case study focuses on three Children and Youth at Risk programmes funded under the

EEA Grants in Estonia, Lithuania and Romania, with allocated funding of €сйрmз €сйоm and

€нлймm respectively. They were implemented between 2013 and the end of 2017.

The programmes focused primarily on chil dren and youth in precari ous family situations

and those in or at risk of being in institutions by e.g. enhancing the quality of child welfare

and protection systems and/or improving school attendance and preschool day-care,

health and social care access. The programmes might also target minority children,

including Roma in selected countries.

The programmes have contributed – in some cases significantly - towards effectively

establishing systems and public service-provision for children and young people at risk, for

example contributing to developing various abilities, socialisation, nutrition and hygiene,

particularly in rural areas. There are several examples of the programmes successfully

impacting national policies and programm es and mo re sel ective examples of the

programmes leveraging extra financial resources.

Lessons for EU Funding Programmes

The review of the case study programmes has highlighted five main lessons that may

support the future use of EU funding to assist vulnerabl e children.

1. Programmes should follow a strateg ic approach. Where the p rogrammes

appeared to be most successful was where an integrated approach was followed,

which combined soft and hard measures, the development of strategies with

working tools, i nvestments in capacity building and awareness raising of staff,

additional organisations and, in certain cases, regional politicians, as well as

monitoring and evaluation as part of an evidence-based approach. Programmes

can also aim to be preventive in nature. Fewer programmes and larger funding

would boost the potential impact of the programmes and cut thei r associated

management costs.

2. Build administrative capacity and institutional involvement. Increased

capacity, particularly at local and regional levels, was seen not just as a success

factor for implementation but also for sustainability, wh ich was greatest when

programmes included a strong competence building component. Involving local

institutions (government and the third sector) appears to hav e been of benefi t

in all three programmes, increasing buy-in, awareness an d understanding as

well as, in some cases, helping drive reforms.

3. Ensure programmes are relevant to needs. This can be facilitated by

stakeholder involvement in the programme or project design, as well as during

implementation. It also includes providing services in a way that does not

stigmatise and di scourage children from accessing services and involving

parents and families in the process. Providing flexibility to modify the

programme during implementation allows for programme components to be

adapted in accordance with needs.

4. Sustainability can be encou raged through building poli tical support, capacity

building and legal mechanisms that require the continued operation of

established centres.

5. Political attention and support. Each of the three programmes has

underscored the importance of political and policy interest, whose presence can

help buy-in and leveraging funding and whose absence can hamper

implementation and/or wider effects.