EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52002DC0169

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Daphne Programme (2000-2003) - January 2002 (SEC(2002) 338)

/* COM/2002/0169 final */


Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Daphne Programme (2000-2003) - January 2002 (SEC(2002) 338) /* COM/2002/0169 final */

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Daphne Programme (2000-2003) - January 2002 (SEC(2002) 338)

Table of Contents

Executive summary

1. Purpose of the report

2. Background

2.1. Context

2.2. Short history

2.3. Links with other programmes

2.4. Related measures and events in 2000 and 2001

3. Lifecycle of the programme

3.1. Call for proposals

3.2. Budget

3.3. Guiding and informing

3.4. Types of projects selected in 2000/2001

3.5. Monitoring and assessments

3.6. Dissemination

4. Results and Impact of the Daphne Initiative

5. Conclusions

6. Annexes (SEC(2002) 338)

Executive summary

This report presents the progress of the Daphne Programme since its approval in January 2000 and a summary of its main achievements, as required by Article 9(2) of the Decision. Daphne aims to address a widespread and growing concern at both public and political levels about the issue of violence. It followed the 1996 World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Stockholm. All types of violence are covered, including domestic violence, violence in schools, violence towards minority groups such as homosexuals, handicapped persons, ethnic minorities, etc.

The Daphne Programme is one of the building blocks of the European Commission, within the frame of its priority to set up an area of freedom, security and justice, to combat crime. Other programmes and actions exist in order to fight specific offences. Daphne liaises with them to ensure adequate coordination and consistency.

The programme

During its first two years, Daphne met with a response far greater than could have been expected. In 2000 and 2001 respectively over 1500 and 1000 application forms were requested from the Commission; 415 and 207 proposals were received with requests for funding totalling EUR40 million and EUR22 million (from a EUR5 million budget line). This overwhelming response shows that the Programme clearly meets a deeply felt need within the voluntary sector. The precursor to the Daphne Programme, the Daphne Initiative, had already funded 149 projects (totalling EUR11 million ) between 1997 and 1999; the first two years of the Daphne Programme have now added 73 new projects. These first two years show a marked improvement of both policy development and practical solutions to violence-related issues and their operational applications across Europe.

In order to achieve this in the best possible conditions, the Commission pays particular attention to monitoring progress and evaluating the results achieved by funded projects. All projects are monitored and assessed individually during their implementation phase, and an annual summary report is produced.

The results

It was clearly acknowledged the 2nd World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Yokohama in December 2001 that the Daphne Programme, its projects and its results are recognised, in Europe and beyond, as a major programming tool against violence. The long list of project activities, including innovative methods for prevention, cooperation, exchanges, networking, developing new models and sharing best practices, have already started to have multiplier effects on NGO and institutional activities in Europe.

What immediately strikes the reader of final, monitoring or ex-post evaluation reports is that organisations have gained much, basically by their participation in European partnerships. Be it by learning on the substance, or by improving coordination and management skills or their external image, they all came out with increased stature. The networking mechanism in itself already has an impact: it puts organisations in contact and in the position of having to collaborate, and this has made a significant difference to the work of organisations which, by their nature, more often tend to be in competition. In turn, these partnerships have led to more effective programming, moving away from duplication and wasted resources. As a consequence, the Daphne Programme can be seen as successful in continuing the mobilisation of the NGO sector at all levels, resulting in many new partnerships and alliances that are working together for more comprehensive European policies on violence.

During its first two years of operation (but building on the three years of the Daphne Initiative 1997-1999), this EU programme has already substantially contributed to the development of EU policy on violence, trafficking, sexual abuse and pornography, with implications well beyond the boundaries of Europe.

1. Purpose of the report

Article 9(2) of Parliament and Council Decision 293/2000/EC [1] setting up the Daphne Programme requires the Commission to present, during the second year of the programme, an evaluation report to the European Parliament and the Council.

[1] OJ L 34, 9.2.2000, p. 1.

This report presents the progress of the Daphne Programme since its approval in January 2000 and a summary of its main achievements. The focus is mainly on the structure and the management of the Programme. The projects funded by the Daphne Programme (2000-2003) were selected in autumn 2000 and started in December 2000 / January 2001 for at least one year of activity. Therefore, those projects were not yet completed when this report was compiled and hence results cannot be commented on. The Final Report due at the end of the Daphne Programme (end 2003) will include an analysis of these projects.

The report does, however, include an in-depth analysis of the results achieved under the former Daphne Initiative (1997-1999) and thus goes beyond the requirement of Article 9(2) of Decision 293/2000/EC. This is done in the Commission's concern to be fully transparent. The presentation of past achievements is also useful because, the Initiative and the Programme being similar, the lessons learnt from the former Daphne projects remain valid for 2000 and 2001. Examples from projects in 1997-1999 are also representative of the projects selected in 2000-2001.

2. Background

2.1. Context

The purpose of the Daphne Programme is to support the work of organisations and local authorities in protecting women and children and in preventing violence against them. Daphne adds value at European Community level to this work and encourages the exchange of ideas and of best practice through the formation of networks and partnerships and the implementation of pilot projects.

The Daphne Programme aims to address a widespread and growing concern at both public and political levels about the issue of violence. It followed the 1996 World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Stockholm, and the events that unfolded in Belgium that same summer, which focused attention on one particular form of violence: sexual violence against children and young people in the form of abduction, sexual abuse and exploitation and trafficking for sexual purposes. These forms of sexual violence are also all too frequently perpetrated against women and were condemned in the Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. In its Communication on Trafficking in Women for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation (1996) the Commission highlighted the important role played by NGOs in combating trafficking and in helping the victims. Other forms of violence, however, are implicated in the phenomenon of sexual violence: domestic violence in the family, for example, often leads to children and young people entering the sex trade and to becoming abusers themselves.

Sexual violence is not the only type of violence dealt with by the Daphne Programme; far from it. All types of violence are covered, including domestic violence, peer violence, institutional violence, for example in residential institutions or in schools, violence towards minority groups such as homosexuals, handicapped persons, ethnic minorities, etc.

This culture of violence spreads out into other parts of our society; for instance, it is prevalent in schools and in both urban and rural surroundings; it tends often to be inflicted on members of minority and disadvantaged groups. Sexual, psychological and physical violence are a deadly cocktail of abuse that seriously affects the health in its fullest sense - the physical, mental and social well-being - of those who suffer violence, and diminish the ability of society to function effectively and achieve its potential now and in the future.

2.2. Short history

The Daphne Initiative was set up by the European Parliament with a 1997 Budget line of EUR3 million to fund measures to combat violence against children, young people and women. It funded measures to support non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the voluntary sector active here. The Daphne Initiative was run by the Commission for three years (1997-1999), with a budget of 3 million ECU in 1997 and 1998 and EUR5 million in 1999.

On 24 January 2000, the Daphne Programme was approved in order to pursue the action, with a budget of EUR20 million for the period 2000-2003.

Daphne is based on the recognition of violence as a crime and a serious threat to the health of society. It tackles this phenomenon through a victim-based approach.

The new Daphne Programme (2000-2003) differs from the earlier Initiative in three main respects:

* it is no longer limited to NGOs and the voluntary sector; local public institutions may now apply;

* it is open to the Central and Eastern European Applicant States and to Cyprus, Malta, Turkey and the EEA/EFTA countries;

* multi-annual (2 or 3 years duration) projects can be funded. Until 1999, projects had been limited to 12 months only.

The Daphne Programme includes measures to protect three categories of beneficiaries (children, young people and women) and to prevent violence towards them. These measures involve:

* setting-up networks at European level between NGOs as well as to promote cooperation between NGOs and the appropriate authorities;

* measures to protect target groups and prevent violence towards them;

* studies and research to investigate the causes of violence, methods of intervention involving prevention, support and reintegration;

* the exchange of information and best practice;

* the dissemination of information, including seminars, conferences and written and audio-visual material;

* the organisation of awareness-raising campaigns both for the general public and for victims, potential victims and those working with them.

2.3. Links with other programmes

The Daphne Programme is one of the building blocks of the European Commission's fight against crime within its priority programme to establish an area of freedom, security and justice. Other programmes and actions exist in order to fight specific offences. Daphne liaises with them to ensure adequate coordination and consistency.

Daphne complements the STOP Programme [2] in that it recognises the grassroots-level work being done by NGOs and the voluntary sector, in addition to the public sector or authorities prosecuting violence or trafficking (such as legal practitioners, police forces, etc.), and aiming to forge collaborative networks among these divers sectors at European level. Additionally, Daphne covers all forms of violence, not only, as in the case of STOP, trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. It was therefore intended to help all victims and potential victims of violence, whether that violence was of a sexual or non-sexual nature.

[2] STOP Programme, OJ L 322, 12.12.1996, and STOP II Programme, OJ L 186, 7.7.2001.

An action on child sex tourism is implemented via activities such as participation in travel fairs, awareness raising campaigns, certified codes of conduct for tour operators, etc.

The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is also supporting actions to protect children - but outside the Union - such as, in 2000, the allocation of over EUR1 million to projects to combat child trafficking, modern forms of slavery and the exploitation of minors in Gabon, Benin, Togo and Nigeria.

An Action Plan (1999-2002) to promote safer use of the Internet includes the fight against child pornography.

The Odysseus programme [3] aims to extend and strengthen existing cooperation in the matter of asylum and immigration within the Member States of the Union. It complements Daphne, which tackles also immigration and asylum but from the point of view of violence against migrants in Daphne's target groups.

[3] Joint Action 98/244/JHA, OJ L 99, 31.3.1998.

These programmes tackle each an important part of violent behaviours. However, Daphne has the interesting characteristics of incorporating all these topics, which brings a common approach and the necessary cross relations between these diverse areas of violence.

2.4. Related measures and events in 2000 and 2001

Since the approval of the Daphne Programme in January 2000, the period 2000-2001 has been marked by a large array of EU instruments and actions in connection with violence-related crimes. These show that the struggle against violence towards children and women is still high on the political agenda in the EU.

On 30 March 2000, the European Parliament in a Resolution [4] called for the implementation of Commission measures to combat child sex tourism, while reiterating that child sex tourism is a criminal act closely linked to those of sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

[4] European Parliament, A5-0052/2000.

In April 2000, the European Parliament, in its Legislative Resolution, [5] called for legislative action against sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, including common definitions, offences and penalties.

[5] European Parliament, A5-0090/2000.

The Council of the European Union adopted in May 2000 a Decision to combat child pornography on the Internet. [6] This aims at promoting the effective investigation and prosecution of offences, and includes articles on the setting-up of specialised units within law enforcement authorities, the communication of established points of contact set up on a 24-hour basis, and cooperation between the Internet industry and Member States in order to examine appropriate measures to eliminate child pornography on the Internet.

[6] Official Journal L 138, 9.6.2000, p. 1.

From 4 to 6 May 2000, the Portuguese Presidency of the EU held a conference in Lisbon on "Violence Against Women: Zero Tolerance - Closing of the European Campaign". The conference drew up recommendations for the Commission on issues relating to violence against women, focusing on the following key areas: education and prevention, stopping violence, preventing reoccurrence, support to victims. [7]

[7] Violencia contra as Mulheres: Tolerancia Zero; Conferencia Europeia, Lisboa 2000.

In June 2000, the UN General Assembly met in Special Session in New York for its review of progress since Beijing. There were some significant advances made and the Outcome Document [8] incorporates a number of EU proposals, [9] including States' obligation to combat violence against women.

[8] Draft Resolution II. Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. UN 2000.

[9] The EU called for UN Members to prevent and punish all types of gender-based violence in the private and public sphere.

Among the important events in the second half of 2000, the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on 7 December was particularly significant. It includes a number of specific provisions to promote gender equality, ban slavery and forced labour and protect children, as specified by Articles 3, 5, 20, 21, 24 and 32. [10]

[10] OJ C 364, 18.2.2000, p. 1.

In December 2000, the Commission adopted a Communication on Combating trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children; two proposals for framework decisions. [11] One proposal focuses on trafficking in human beings and one on the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Both proposals address approximation of the criminal laws of the Member States, and criminal procedure. The Council of the European Union reached a first agreement on the proposal on trafficking in September 2001, including a definition of the trafficking offence modelled on the definition of the 2000 UN Trafficking Protocol, and a maximum level of penalties set at no less than eight years. The Belgian Presidency made a serious effort on the proposal on sexual exploitation of children and child pornography during the second half of 2001, and reached a political agreement on the articles on definitions. The Spanish Presidency will pursue the articles concerning penalties, during the first half of 2002.

[11] COM (2000) 854 final, 21.12.2000, OJC 62, 27.2.2001.

Also in December 2000, at a meeting in Palermo, the Commission and the 15 Member States signed a UN protocol that covers not only offences concerning trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation but also labour exploitation. [12]

[12] Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children supplementary to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 2000.

In June 2001, the European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children was officially set up, under the auspices of Commissioner Vitorino and Belgian Minister of Justice, Mr Verwilghen. This federation is composed of 18 NGOs from the EU and Central and Eastern Europe, and aims at collaborating in the search for missing children across borders and in transmitting cases of sexual exploitation of children to the appropriate authorities.

As a complement, in September 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted a Resolution on the contribution of civil society in finding missing or sexually exploited children. [13] The Resolution encourages cooperation between competent authorities and civil society organisations and includes paragraphs on, for example, emergency telephone lines, support to families of missing children, exchange of information, and compilation of data to help us better understand the extent of the problem and trends.

[13] OJC 283, 9.10.2001.

A political agreement was reached, in the aftermath of the JAI Council on 6 December 2001, on a Framework Decision on a European Arrest Warrant, whose importance to effective cooperation was underlined by the events of 11 September 2001. This document contains explicit references to the offences of child sexual exploitation, trafficking and child pornography, allowing offenders to be transferred from any Member State to the one requesting him for these offences.

Finally, the 2nd World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children was held in Yokohama, Japan, from 17 to 20 December 2001; the Daphne and Stop programmes participated actively with a workshop sharing the work achieved at EU level since the first Congress in Stockholm in 1996.

3. Lifecycle of the programme

Like many of the Community programmes, Daphne is based on a cycle. The Daphne cycle is spread over three years, starting with an annual plan of work (to be approved by the programme Committee), followed by a call for proposals, the selection of the most relevant projects, the signing of the contracts and the first payments, for the first year. During the second year, projects are implemented (they usually start in December of the year of the call) and monitoring visits are paid by a Commission official or an external expert. After their twelve-month period of work, the projects have another three months to present their final report and accounts. As a consequence, the final payments and the Daphne Website update occur at year n+2 for a call at year n. Also, six months after projects end, an ex-post evaluation is carried out by external experts in order to draw a global pictures of the results achieved (see Annex 3 for an overview of this cycle).

3.1. Call for proposals

Calls for proposals are issued during the first quarter of the year, allowing around three months for the proposers to respond. Each year, the content of the call is adapted according to the annual work plan and in the light of the lessons learnt from previous years.

In 2000, no specific priority was given because it was the first year of the programme and the whole scope of Daphne was open to participation. In 2001, the specific priorities were 1) to use, adapt and disseminate existing Daphne results; 2) information campaign and awareness raising actions to combat child sexual abuse and paedophilia. The latter was set in order to respond to the creation of a new budget line (B5-804) by the European Parliament [14] in order to combat child sexual abuse and paedophilia.

[14] EP Amendment 1046 to the Commission budget for 2001: new budget line B5-804N: "European information campaign to combat child exploitation and paedophilia".

The lessons learnt from these first two calls will affect the year 2002 call for proposal by the setting of the following priorities: 1) to use, adapt and disseminate existing Daphne results; 2) Female genital mutilation; 3) child sexual abuse and paedophilia; 4) violent men. Here again, priorities 2 and 3 are a response to two amendments requested by the EP on the year 2002 budget. [15]

[15] EP Amendment 0129 to the Commission budget for 2002: adding EUR1 000 000 to the Daphne budget in order to combat paedophilia, sexual exploitation and female genital mutilation.

The following figures illustrate the Daphne activity so far. It shows a growing demand, which results in a constant over-subscription.


Following the last selection process in 2001, Daphne has now supported 222 projects (plus nine under budget line B5-804 in 2001), representing a budget of around EUR20.4 million spent over the last five years. The geographical equilibrium is well balanced - all 15 Member States are participating in projects, as well as some EFTA and Central and Eastern European countries as associated partners (see full statistics in Annex 5). From 2000 onwards, the projects can also be multi-annual (max. three years) and therefore can sustain better their activities.

In 2001, 26 new projects were selected. If compared with previous years, this lower number is due to the impact of the possibility offered to the projects to have duration up to three years. This entails managing the budget differently. In 2001, the selected projects of two or three years' duration were offered a contract for that entire period of time at once. As a consequence, such projects weigh twice as much as an annual one on the budget for 2001. On the other hand, it offers more flexibility to the project partnership in the use of their budget during the project implementation. This is also a facility for the Commission because these project budgets are committed once and for all and will no longer weigh on next year's budget. On the contrary, in 2000, budgets for the first year of the projects were committed, requiring a fresh commitment in 2001 for the second year, etc. As a consequence, in 2001, a sum of EUR1 301 045 had to be committed to ensure the continuation of the 13 multi-annual projects selected in 2000 and was therefore not available for new projects in 2001, so that fewer new projects could be funded in 2001. This effect will disappear in 2002 and 2003, allowing between 45 and 50 projects to be selected each year.

The eligibility for funding required several criteria to be fulfilled: (a) the proposed actions have to fall within the scope of Daphne; (b) the proposal must be made on the appropriate form; (c) it must be signed and submitted before the deadline; (d) several documents to ensure the existence and liability of the organisations have to be submitted altogether. Unfortunately, despite extensive explanations and reminders in the guidelines, around 25% of the applicants still fail to meet these criteria.

The selection process is based on an evaluation made by a group of external experts. These are recruited by a call for expressions of interest [16] on the base of their general expertise in the various fields of interest for the Daphne Programme. Each year, a group of around ten experts is contracted, with a renewal of 2/3 of them each year in order to multiply the viewpoints. These experts and the Commission proceed to the evaluation of the eligible proposals by assessing the following elements:

[16] Call for expressions of interest Daphne Programme, OJ S40, 26.2.2000

* Relevance to the Daphne Programme's objectives;

* Clarity and pertinence of the project's objectives;

* Usefulness of the expected results;

* Appropriateness and feasibility of approach, methodology and timeframe;

* Suitability and experience of partners;

* European added value;

* Dissemination of results, lessons learnt, acquired know-how;

* Planning of follow-up and sustainability;

* Value for money.

In addition, in 2001, thanks to the database built in 2000, it was possible to retrace all previous work done by respondents to that year's call. Evaluators have consequently been provided with more documents - not just the proposal but also final reports of completed projects, previous application forms (accepted or rejected), monitoring visit reports. This information has been highly appreciated by the evaluators, who enjoyed a broader overview.

Proposals are divided into two groups, one-year projects and multi-annual projects. Multi-annual projects, when accepted, weigh heavily on the Daphne budget, as explained above, and therefore restrict the available budget for annual projects. As a consequence, a limit has to be placed on the number of multi-annual projects that can be accepted. This is why they are treated separately.

All proposals are read by three different experts. Marks and comments are added in order to produce a list of the proposals ranked by merit. A ranking is then established for all the proposals in each group, according to their merit, to the coverage of the various areas of the Programme and to the equilibrium between the targeted beneficiaries (children, young people, women). Then, there is a comprehensive discussion with all the experts to produce a list of accepted projects that exhaust the available budget. This list is submitted to the Daphne Programme Committee for its opinion. In 2000 and 2001, these opinions were unanimously favourable.

The main reasons for rejection of proposals are:

* a clear lack of quality in the programming of the proposed activities, but also in the focus of the intended actions; many remain vague or dangerously over-ambitious;

* a majority remains local in scope, despite clear indications of the importance of transnational cooperation and the European dimension in the guidelines;

* many applicants build partnerships that look transnational (several Member States) but which, after a careful reading of the various tasks involved, turn out to have only a token transnational dimension, with the partners not doing much of the work (but often only travelling extensively for "consultation" meetings);

* other partnerships seem active in the project but do not have the appropriate background or expertise for the particular subject to be tackled in the project. The risk is then that poor achievements or misleading conclusions will be obtained from such actions;

* the proposed approaches and means to achieve the stated objectives are not convincing; or

* the proposed activity has already been largely implemented.

3.2. Budget

On average, 6.8% of the budget is spent on administration (experts, TAOs, [17] meetings), leaving the rest to fund projects. In 2000 and 2001, respectively 96.4% and 97.5% of the money available was spent on projects.

[17] Technical Assistance Offices contracted to deal with the logistics of the call for proposals: opening process, encoding into the database, organising translations and the expert meetings, photocopying, filing.


This table does not include budget line B5-804 (to combat paedophilia and child sexual abuse) of EUR3 million for 2001 only, which allowed the funding of nine projects (six of two-year and three of one-year duration).

Due to the change in the budget management for the multi-annual projects (as explained above), the situation for the year 2002 (and 2003) will be more favourable. As can be seen from the table below, the need for a budget to fund the multi-annual projects started in 2001 is EUR0, leaving the total amount for new projects. In addition, an EP amendment offers an additional EUR1 000 000 for Daphne in 2002, in favour of projects to combat female genital mutilation and paedophilia and child sexual abuse. This comes in replacement of the line B5-804 granted in 2001. The fact that we no longer have to deal with two different budget lines will ease and speed up the commitment process.


3.3. Guiding and informing

Careful preparation is half the key to the success of a project. In order to assist applicants, detailed guidelines have been designed to ensure that the application form is fully understood and properly filled in.

To further guide organisations in deciding whether or not their idea matches the scope of the programme, a "mapping" of the subjects already tackled during the previous years is also provided in the form of a catalogue.

In addition, a document called "How to write a proposal" is available to ensure that applicants have examples of best practices and of errors to be avoided in preparing their proposal.

All these documents are available on the Daphne Website, which is regularly updated to reflect the current situation:

Over and above these pragmatic guidelines for formal aspects, there is another important tool to assist organisations more on the substance. From the Daphne webpage, one can access a database where all 222 projects can be sorted out and displayed. On top of the usual contact data of the project coordinator, title and summary are available for all projects and, for those which are already completed, a copy of the final report can also be displayed or downloaded.

3.4. Types of projects selected in 2000/2001

Full statistics on the projects can be found in Annex 5. The main comments that can be extracted from them are as follows:

* There is a balance (in terms of both project numbers and budgets) between projects dedicated to children/young people and to women or to combined targets;

* 25% of the projects are multi-annual (two or three years), which improves their sustainability . But these projects weigh heavily on the budget and their number has to be limited;

* All 15 Member States are involved (as coordinator or partner) and EFTA/EEE and CEEC organisations represent 6% of the total number of partners;

* The average number of partners per projects is nine, but some projects can go up to more than 20 (mainly local partners in this case). It appears from the monitoring visit and from the ex-post evaluation that there are usually too many partners for each to be adequately involved. In addition, it adds to the management burden of the coordinator to the detriment of project activities mainstreaming;

* In 2001 (not measured in 2000), 14 projects (54%) propose activities that build on 17 results achieved by previous Daphne projects. This respects the priority given in the call for proposals in 2001;

* Four projects (three for two years, one for one year) deal specifically with Female Genital Mutilation. This respects fully the priority voiced by the European Parliament. The duration of three of these projects tends to show that the approaches will favour long-term solution(s);

* Daphne remains an over-subscribed programme, although a decrease in submissions of 50% is observed (207 instead of 415 in 2000). This decrease can probably be explained by i) the high level of rejection experienced in 2000, which might have disappointed some applicants; and ii) the fact that some organisations being granted projects for several years and therefore refraining from applying every year. Still, 207 proposals requested more than EUR22 million for 2001;

* There is a decrease in the number of proposals concerning children and young people (28% compared to 35% in 2000). This can be understood by two factors: i) the call gave the possibility to specifically submit proposals for topics related to child sexual exploitation and paedophilia under the B5-804 budget line and ii) probably quite a number of organisations were busy preparing for both the "2nd World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children" in Yokohama in December 2001 and for the postponed UN Special Session on Children scheduled for September 2001, leaving them little time to prepare and submit new proposals. It should be noted that the rescheduling of the UN Special Session to May 2002 may well have also an impact on submissions in 2002;

* A tendency appears in which applicants propose more expensive projects every year. The average funding per project in 2001 was EUR104 500, compared to EUR98 000 in 2000 and EUR90 000 in 1999. This also explains the lower number of projects proposed for funding in 2001;

* Concerning the areas of activity, clearly sexual violence in all its forms comes top (sexual violence 17%, commercial sexual exploitation 8%, trafficking 7%). The next topic in terms of importance is the gender-/family-related violence (gender violence 8%, violence in family 7% and violence in domestic context 11%). Internet and child pornography are also significant, with 6% of the total.

* The Daphne objectives as described in the decision (and subsequently in the guidelines for the calls for proposals) are all tackled adequately, with a slight predominance for studies (26%) and exchange of good practices (21%);

* But once the more specific objectives are detailed, the picture becomes more precise: a majority deals with prevention of (26%) and protection from violence (17%), but important goals such as legislative measures (8%), treatment of victims (12%) and of offenders (5%) are also present;

* These last figures on specific objectives are consistent with the audiences targeted by the projects, such as perpetrators/offenders and violent men for 6%, judicial and police staff for 20%. Also, the audience made by media/journalist (11%) matches the share of projects implementing information campaigns (13%).

* As for the way these projects will implement their objectives, the most important instruments/methodologies are networking (23%), dissemination of good practice (14%), production of materials (12%), awareness raising (12%) and training (11%). Compared to 1997 and 1998, projects on telephone help lines have now fallen to only 2%.

3.5. Monitoring and assessments

As mentioned in point 3 above, Daphne has a cycle of implementation - monitoring - ex-post evaluation (see Annex 3 and 4 for an outline of these cycles).

a) Monitoring

During the course of the projects, most receive a visit from a technical expert contracted by Daphne, with a view both to evaluating progress of projects and to providing advice and networking suggestions where appropriate. Each monitoring report is shared with the coordinating organisation and provides feedback to the Daphne Programme.

Monitoring visits are an important follow-up mechanism for the Commission and could be very helpful for projects. They are crucial for many projects, but especially for those who are inexperienced in working with EU programmes, guideline requirements and procedures. Many organisations need help and advice when they need to change some of their focus, partners, methodologies or budgets. With these visits, the Commission can gain general insights into project implementation, progress achieved and also difficulties detected. For the projects, the visit represents a source of help and advice in relation to procedural and administrative matters, and above all the opportunity for a closer direct contact with the Commission - a demand that most organisations voiced strongly. For these reasons monitoring visits will continue with a target of 100% of projects visited during the implementation phase.

The monitoring exercise indicates that hitherto the large majority of Daphne projects have followed their planned timetables and adhered closely to their budget allocations. The methodology being followed was in all cases progressing according to plan and reaching target beneficiaries. Additionally, many of the organisations indicated that they were reaping unexpected results from their new experiences in working at European level, including valuable identification of strengths and weaknesses, greater access to new methodologies and examples of best practice, and important lessons on transferrability and adaptation of established models. The monitoring exercise also allowed interim lessons to be drawn which could be shared with organisations implementing or submitting Daphne projects. These lessons were drawn from a comparative analysis of the different working methods, operational hurdles and problem-solving strategies of the projects visited, and constituted a useful overview of how the funded projects were being implemented.

b) Ex-post evaluation

The objective of the ex-post evaluation is to assess the results achieved by the projects and to measure their impacts on the beneficiaries and target groups. It gives the Daphne Programme a full picture of the results reaped thanks to its funding. For the time being, only projects funded under the Daphne Initiative (1997-1999) could have been visited once completed, for the same obvious reason that those from the Daphne Programme are not yet completed.

The criteria used for assessing the projects' outcome are very similar to those used during the evaluation of the proposals and those of the monitoring visits. This ensures continuity in project assessment and enables the evolution over time to be highlighted.

Visiting organisations at their operational place is often an eye-opener about their competence, financial situations and level of activities. Most projects welcomed ex-post evaluation visits, offering them the chance to assess the impact, success or shortcomings of their projects with hindsight, and to report on their current activities. A few projects were surprised by the visit because they could not see the point of it. This was explained to them.

This exercise culminates in an individual report on each of the projects and a summary report that summarises the findings and proposes recommendations for further improvements of both the projects and the Daphne Programme itself. These evaluation reports are available publicly on the Daphne website and, in addition, are sent to the projects as a feedback regarding their collaboration and participation.

3.6. Dissemination

Ensuring that the projects and the results they achieve are widely known is of key importance in the success of the whole initiative. This responsibility is shared by the projects and the Commission.

The projects should be (and generally are) the most interested party in disseminating the outcome of their activities, be it a methodology, an audio-visual product, new legislation or whatever.

At the proposal stage, a chapter of the project workplan application form must be dedicated to dissemination to ensure that appropriate measures will be taken. At the time of the monitoring visit, it is checked and, if necessary, updated. Later on, when ex-post evaluation takes place, experts work with the partners to identify the impact of dissemination measures. Unfortunately, some projects have no clear idea on dissemination. They have a tendency to think that holding a seminar or a conference would be enough. This is simply a presentation, and it is far from reaching the necessary interested/targeted people. To improve this situation, the Daphne Programme guidelines and monitoring visits will stress this issue more than before, and attention will be paid to it during monitoring visits so that advice can be provided to organisations who may be struggling with this aspect of the project.

The Daphne Programme began disseminating project descriptions and results in 2000 with the creation of i) a website and ii) an on-line database (222 descriptions of projects and, when available, the final report including results description), which allows any organisation to learn from others.

More pro-actively, the Commission sends regular e-mails informing the whole "Daphne community" [18] of the new selection of projects and of any update of the database and the website, prompting organisations to make full use of these tools.

[18] The "Daphne community" means all past and present project coordinators, who in turn relay the information to their partners, reaching therefore several hundred organisations in Europe.

Recently, the Commission also took the initiative of writing some short information material on some illustrative cases that were judged to be particularly successful. Here again, the idea is to make those good practices/methodologies/measures known by a maximum of organisations in Europe. The 19 cases written so far have not only been posted on the Daphne website, but also sent to the entire "Daphne community". They were also distributed as part of an information pack at the 2nd World Congress in Yokohama, thus reaching a much wider audience than usual. It is intended that approximately ten such stories will be written every year.

4. Results and Impact of the Daphne Initiative

This Chapter concerns the results of completed Daphne Initiative projects (1997-1999). As mentioned earlier, this comes as a complement to the Daphne Programme description, because the Commission is of the opinion that this brings information and added value to the report. Since the Initiative and the Programme are very similar, the conclusions drawn here would be mostly applicable to the projects funded in 2000-2003. The Final Report due at the end of the Daphne Programme (end 2003) will include such an analysis for these projects.

The Daphne Initiative and Programme, their projects and their results are recognised, in Europe and beyond, as a major programming tool against violence. This was clearly acknowledged at the World Congress in Yokohama in December 2001. A majority of the European organisations attending the Congress were, in a way or another, related to the Daphne Programme, which gives an idea of the extent of the partners involved in Daphne. Many of the results and practices developed under Daphne were presented as examples to be followed, including during plenary presentations at the Congress and in workshops. The visibility of this Community programme is already very high, not only for NGOs but also in the main international bodies and the level of governments.

The monitoring and ex-post evaluation reports [19] show that organisations have gained much, basically by their participation in European partnerships. Be it by learning on the substance, or by improving coordination and management skills or their list of partners or their external image, they all came out with increased stature. The networking mechanism in itself has already an impact: it puts organisations in contact and in the position of having to collaborate, thus decreasing isolation, competition and wasted resources.

[19] See chapter 3.5 "Monitoring and Assessment".

As a consequence, the Daphne Programme can be seen as successful in continuing the mobilisation of the NGO sector at all levels, resulting in many new partnerships and alliances that are working together for more comprehensive European policies on violence.

The broad spectrum of activities resulted in a wide range of achievements and products of various types and of different quality and effectiveness. One of the most exciting developments among these projects is the innovative ways in which they dealt with some of the critical issues. The results range from establishing a European Charter for Children's Helpline operators, mapping the situation in Europe in relation to rape and multi-agency training programme working with perpetrators of domestic violence to developing training modules for trainers on the prevention of violence in children's behaviour, elaborating a research agenda for academics on female genital mutilation, and many others. Some project methods were innovative, such as a pilot training module based on a drama workshop for the self-empowerment of girls and preventing sexual abuse, and a training resource pack to be used within the workplace to increase awareness of domestic violence. The multiplier effects of new methodologies, multi-agency cooperation, training programmes, audio-visual and information technology materials and other outcomes/products of some of the projects are far-reaching and impressive.

a) Categories of results

The main categories of "products" yielded by projects are of the following categories :

(figures collected for the years 1998 and 1999 - 102 projects):


In a more descriptive and qualitative approach, the results can be described as follows:

* Training, training packages and educational materials

For example: training modules for journalists on the representation of children in the media; European Charter for operators of child helplines and a scheme for the identification of their competencies; training of teachers and professionals on the evaluation of the programmes in the educational field to prevent child sexual abuse particularly in vulnerable groups; a drama workshop for self-empowerment of girls and a training programme for teachers and social workers in the prevention of violence and sexual abuse against young women; training resource pack for the workplace to increase awareness of domestic violence, targeting both trade union members and employers; domestic violence intervention, best practice intervention model, manuals and training materials to work with perpetrators of domestic violence and their (ex) partners; a website for training health professionals on how to deal with domestic violence; animated video and written materials addressing the problems of gender and violence in schools.

* Research and studies

For example: a research study on the identification of indicators of child vulnerability in order to make preventive intervention by educators, teachers, and parents more prompt and effective; research and transnational data collection producing a pilot study examining the problems of deliberate self-harm among young people in Europe; exposing the situation of unaccompanied migrant minors in the EU and focusing on asylum seeking or migrant children from three Member States; Muslim girls' negotiation between parents and social professionals; how to integrate different social services; how confidentiality is perceived and interpreted in cases of sexual abuse; the reviewing and refining of the first draft of an international manual for staff of residential institutions to combat sexual abuse of young people;. an analysis of the prosecution of reported rape cases across Europe to identify key problem areas and a plan of action; a structural plan for a lesbian anti-violence programme at EU level; compilation of statistical data on sexual harassment in the workplace.

* Information and awareness campaigns

For example: campaign by people with learning disabilities against violence and bullying of children and young people with learning disabilities; helping children and young people experiencing or exposed to domestic violence through developing school-based strategies and interventions to prevent violence; a campaign to raise awareness among women of lower social status of male domestic violence; promotion of public debate on the problems of domestic violence; information campaigns and networking to prevent sexual trade in women; networking among women journalists about media treatment of prostitution and trafficked women for the purposes of sexual exploitation. the production of a booklet providing practical advice for young women on how to prevent violence and sexual abuse while travelling in Europe; production of a website, a CD and other instruments to raise men's awareness on male violence against women and children.

* Network and information sharing

For example: establishment of a European network for the prevention of female genital mutilation; assessment and services for migrant women domestic workers; good practices and case studies for NGOs working on women's violence; 'correct' language for journalists writing about trafficking; building up a network for the protection from domestic violence of young women from a Muslim background; establishment of NGO networks of Nordic and Baltic country NGOs working against trafficking in women.

* Operational models and programming aids

For example: indicators for measuring violence against women; creating coordinating centres with NGOs and other agencies to help victims of violence and trafficking of women for prostitution; a programme for European experts concerning the treatment of young perpetrators of sexual abuse and the elaboration of an Action Plan for Europe, including a series of Recommendations for minimum standard rules on child sexual exploitation, to be implemented at national and EU level; an Internet helpline aiming to offer advice to sexually abused children; creating a European Committee against modern forms of slavery; comparative research and recommendations for EU and national policies against trafficking in human beings.

b) Project performance

Most projects carried out a complex range of activities employing multi-sectoral and multi-agency approaches. A smaller number of projects focused more on a specific activity and involved those directly implicated in the activities. The majority of projects shared an approach based on a mutual learning process and cooperation between professionals, academics/experts, the beneficiaries and with NGOs working at grass-roots level. Sometimes, the methodology turned out to be more complicated to carry out than anticipated, and creativity and flexibility were shown in solving the problem. Occasionally, however, this problem was not dealt with adequately, resulting in unreliable work or incomplete/abandoned activities.

Methodology is an unfamiliar concept for many groups and this leads directly to problems with fulfilling commitments and interpreting results. Obviously, groups that identify themselves as researchers and/or who work closely with academic advisors, are more familiar with methodological concepts.

A few other projects stretched themselves almost too far in the attempt to get everything done within their contract period of one year. The reasons for this were a combination of a) proposing too many activities and b) lacking experience in the subject matter or the know-how necessary for implementation. The time required for effective transnational partnership building and implementation is also often under-estimated.

The majority of the projects implemented most of their planned activities and attained their objectives. Many of the projects worked on different levels, often involving multi-sector agencies, public and government institutions, national and transnational networks. The performance of these projects could be divided into four groups: the excellent (25%), the good (40%), the fair (25%) and the poor/inadequate (10%).

The first group was considered excellent because of their vision and understanding of the issues and policies, their methodology, cooperation and innovation. Half of these projects used existing national and EU networks; most of them carried out extensive consultation not only with related/caring professionals in the fields, but also with the target group, e.g. the final beneficiaries of the projects. All the organisations involved have had many years of experience of working on the subject matter of their projects. They were aware of the existence or non-existence of national or EU policy in the area they were tackling and often made special efforts (extra work) to surmount persistent difficulties/obstacles. This excellent performance is due to a combination of different factors: clearly defined objectives with transnational scope; a European-wide partnership highly motivated in the achievement of shared objectives; an efficient coordinator able to share responsibilities with others; the establishment of European scientific committees of experts which set the scientific guidelines and coordinated the work of national experts; the involvement of a variety of professionals; and an efficient management of work.

The second group of projects was assessed as good because of innovative interaction with their subject matter, their methodological know-how and their commitment to finding solutions. But there were some shortcomings. All projects had an important and some an innovative area of activity, with well worked-out methodologies and good cooperation with partners. The most numerous group of projects implemented all or most of the planned activities, achieved their most important objectives and produced interesting results. Some of the organisations had been working for long time in their field/policy area, while for some others this was the first time they had been involved in a collaborative project at EU level. The evaluation did not lose sight of this point. In some cases, however, some of the objectives were too ambitious and not achievable, either because of the lack of resources and time, or because of the inadequacy of the chosen methodology/activity.

The third group of projects produced fair results. All these projects had entirely different working methods. Some of them worked with as few as two partners, while the others were able to use the existing EU network for the dissemination of results. This group of projects implemented all or a part of the planned activities, but the implementation was often inadequate and therefore the results of limited value. These under-performances were due to several different factors: too many activities were pursued, resulting in fragmented initiatives and dispersion of limited resources; the modest level of expertise of the coordinator/lead organisation; insufficient care put into the work by research teams.

The remaining 10% of the projects either did not complete their planned objective(s) or produced insufficient results. They were involved in a wide range of diverse activities, with unclear methodologies and insufficient experience in the targeted field of activity. Inconsistency is usually the word which comes to mind when looking at these projects, be it about the methodology used, or in terms of non-adequacy between the instrument(s) used and the objective to be achieved or with the audience/beneficiaries targeted. For example, two projects, both aiming to produce EU-wide impact, performed poorly because, despite their numerous EU partners, the promoting organisations did not pay any attention to contribution and cooperation at EU level and thus, no effective transnational partnership was formed and the projects functioned as dispersed local activities.

In case of patently obvious side-slipping or lack of achievement, projects have to be stopped. The Commission was faced with such an obligation in one case and had also to launch a recovery procedure in three cases, for amounts received by the projects but not properly/entirely used.

This last ("poor/inadequate") category should not necessarily be seen as a failure, either for the projects or for the Daphne Programme. In fact, in spite of the lack of concrete output, these projects have provided a base for a learning process: cooperation has to start somewhere, and success is not necessarily guaranteed at the first attempt. The Daphne Programme should remain a place where such attempts are made possible; this is a way of achieving one of its goals, which is to set up and promote the networking of such organisations in Europe. It would be illusory to think that 100% success can be achieved with newcomers. The important thing to retain here is that such learning processes must be documented and shared.

c) Impact

The concepts of results, dissemination and impact are sometimes confused by organisations. The most common understanding of these terms in programming is as follows. An output (called result in this document) is any product obtained by the contractor as a consequence of its funded work (it can be of various categories as listed in point a) here above). An outcome is an immediate effect on direct beneficiaries. An outreach (called impact in this document) is a sustainable effect on the direct beneficiaries and/or on the concerned population in overall terms. The dissemination of the results (and the knowledge gained with them) is any mechanism to make those results known or used as widely as possible.

The impact of information and awareness-raising campaigns, for example, is difficult to assess. The number of people participating in EU-wide conferences or seminars, the amount of material produced and distributed in forms of articles in local or national press, and the amount of TV or radio broadcasting, has varied enormously and is not always known by the promoters themselves. However, here below are some examples of impact measured with other types of projects/results:

* The implementation of a project directly influenced the setting up of a parliamentary fact-finding mission on modern forms of slavery in one Member State; the influence of the lead organisation has been publicly acknowledged. As a consequence of their work, the lead organisation was also invited to participate in training seminars for police officers on trafficking at national level as well as in the framework of the future EU College for the police.

* Large improvement in the conduct of a group of violent young residents in a welfare institution was noticed after they had participated in an experimental programme for behavioural change (40 weeks of systematic intervention and observation) which was developed by the partner, a university research group, within the project's framework

* A project, dealing with the problems of domestic violence, completed training and awareness raising for public service personnel and police, with interactive video scenes showing different methods of intervention. As a consequence of their work, the national government is planning to produce editions of their video with wide distribution.

* A school-based project examined the impact of language/linguistic structures/insults on violence. They were successful in engineering some immediate policy changes: the recommendations of their report have already been adopted and implemented in the local schools.

* NGOs concerned with women's issues, involved in actions against trafficking in women were asked to participate as national experts in many different activities, such as research, seminars, media events, and political intervention and to cooperate with national authorities on the issue.

* An organisation that produced and distributed a booklet, with a detachable postcard, for young women on how to avoid risks of violence while travelling in Europe, received 500 postcards (1% of the number distributed) commenting on the booklet.

* The teachers and parents involved in completing a questionnaire for a research study on child vulnerability, requested further training on dealing with the issues. As a result, a new project of research and training on children's vulnerability was funded and started in the same local community.

* The work of a project on the discrimination and violence against lesbians, resulted in findings that demonstrate the lack of services and measures to deal with the problem. One of the direct effects of this work was the appointment of a local police representative, who is now responsible for problems/policies relating to lesbians.

* As follow-up to a training seminar for teachers and psycho-social workers on the prevention and the treatment of sexual abuse in children, the national Ministry of Education funded a subsequent seminar to be held by the same organisation.

* A project working on prevention and training programmes to fight against abuses of mentally disabled adolescents succeeded through ingeniousness and with private financial contribution to finance the publication of their work in other languages than those planned originally, for a broader European dissemination.

Remark: Other examples of good practices and methodologies developed by Daphne projects are presented in Annex 6 in a condensed form. More detailed illustrative stories (19) can be read on the Daphne website:

5. Conclusions

The purpose of the Daphne Programme is to support the work of organisations (including NGOs) and public local authorities in protecting women and children and in preventing violence against them. Daphne adds value at European Community level to this work and encourages the exchange of ideas and best practice through the formation of networks and partnerships and the implementation of pilot projects. These provide opportunities for learning, for the sharing of information and the transfer of skills and comprehensive coverage of problem areas and are designed to be in the best interests of those who suffer violence.

In addition, Daphne supports actions which raise awareness about violence both among the general public and among those at risk as well as actions involving research and seminars on the subject of violence. Importantly, all this work is done through new European networks, and with a view to collaborative European action and best-practice exchange.

During its first two years, Daphne met with a response far greater than could have been expected. In 2000 and 2001 respectively over 1500 and 1000 application forms were requested from the Commission; 415 and 207 proposals were received with requests for funding (from a EUR5 million budget line) totalling EUR40 million and EUR22 million. This overwhelming response shows that the Programme clearly meets a deeply felt need within the voluntary sector.

These first two years of the Daphne Programme show a marked improvement of both policy development and practical solutions to violence-related issues and their operational applications across Europe. As detailed in the report, the implementation phase of projects demonstrates both successes and weaknesses. The weaknesses concern mainly difficulties in transnational implementation and in management. However, a positive trend can be seen in the increasing European cooperation and in the useful synergy between NGOs and public institutions.

Through the consolidation of this cooperation, and above all through the numerous information and public awareness-raising campaigns, the projects of the Daphne Initiative/Programme have exerted notable influence. Their impact is felt not only on the slowly changing social perceptions of violence, but also on the development of EU policies. New models and methodologies are being explored and developed by public institutions, all contributing to the creation of a common framework and convergence of policies throughout the Member States.

Daphne deals with the wide array of difficult and profoundly human problems of violence, at all levels of its manifestation, and it is in a strong position to propose solutions and deliver results. As emphasised throughout this report and acknowledged at the 2nd World Congress against CSEC in Yokohama in December 2001, the long list of project activities, including innovative methods for prevention, cooperation, exchanges, networking, developing new models and sharing best practices, have already started to have multiplying effects on NGO and institutional activities in Europe and, indeed, beyond. During its first two years of operation (but building on the three years of the Daphne Initiative 1997-1999), this EU programme has already substantially contributed to the development of EU policy on violence, trafficking, sexual abuse and pornography, with implications well beyond the boundaries of Europe.

The future should allow an amplified programme of action that would offer additional types of activities in order to enhance the dissemination of the already developed good practices. For example, a new Daphne Programme could propose the secondment/exchange of experts, skilled and experienced people from an organisation to another one in view of adapting new solutions/practices. Furthermore, it could also entrust experienced organisations with the task of disseminating, using and adapting existing practices.

6. Annexes (SEC(2002) 338)

Annex 1: European Parliament and Council Decision 293/2000/EC; OJ L 34, 9.2.2000

Annex 2: Daphne Programme Committee: list of Member States' representatives

Annex 3: Daphne Programme life-cycle

Annex 4: Daphne project life-cycle

Annex 5: Daphne statistics on projects

Annex 6: Daphne illustrative cases