EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION 
Bryssel den 27.03.1995 
KOM(95) 94 slutlig 
RAPPORT FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN 
Slutrapport 
om genomförandet 
av gemenskapsprogrammet 
om den ekonomiska ocb sociala integrationen 
av de ekonomiskt och socialt eftersatta grupperna 
"FATTIGDOM 3" (1989-94) 
Rådets beslut 89/457/EEG av den 18. juli 1989 
(EGT L 224 av den 2. augusti 1989) 

SAMMANFATTNING 
Fattigdom 3 (1989-94), programmet för den ekonomiska och sociala integrationen av de 
mest eftersatta grupperna, visar gemenskapens vilja att i den mån dess befogenheter och 
resurser tillåter bidra till medlemsstaternas kamp mot fattigdomen. 
Inom ramen för Fattigdom 3 har det utvecklats ett flerdimensionellt tillvägagångssätt 
gentemot fattigdomen som bygger på samarbete med offentliga och privata institutioner 
och på de mest eftersatta gruppernas deltagande. Programmets medel (55 miljoner ecu) 
har koncentrerats på 41 betydelsefulla pilotprojekt som på lokal nivå genomförs av en 
samling organisationer som har beslutat att under fem år samarbeta på ett samordnat sätt. 
Dessa projekt har lagts upp för att på europeisk nivå bilda en samlad dynamik, särskilt 
med tanke på att främja transnationellt utbyte av erfarenheter. 
Verksamheterna inom projekten har som mål att möta lokala behov och förnya vad gäller 
organisation. De förenar på olika sätt initiativ beträffande lokal utveckling, skapande av 
sysselsättning, utbildning, yrkesutbildning, hälsofrämjande åtgärder, tillgång till bostäder, 
självhjälp osv. De har föranlett en kontinuerlig utvärdering inom varje projekt och har 
under hela programmets gång främjat transnationellt utbyte mellan projekten. 
Samarbete, flerdimensionalitet och deltagande är principerna som har gett Fattigdom 3 
dess enhetlighet. Programmets värde har bekräftats av det progressiva sätt med vilket 
dessa principer har verkställts. Tillsammans med projektens kvalitet och den dynamik som 
härrör från att de genomförs på europeisk nivå utgör de programmets huvudpunkter. 
Programmet har också några svaga punkter: Dess utvärdering har blivit lidande till följd 
av att utvärderingen inom varje projekt har prioriterats, och på det nationella planet har 
projekten haft olika verkningar. 
Med tanke på vidden av omständigheter i samband med fattigdom och utslagning kan 
Fattigdom 3 inte vara mer än "en droppe i havet". Syftet med ett dylikt program är i 
själva verket att främja förnyelsen och att väcka intresse för politiska åtgärder: I detta 
avseende har programmets mål uppnåtts, framför allt genom att bidra till den europeiska 
debatten. Problem i samband med utslagning har fått mer uppmärksamhet i unionens 
politik och mervärdet av ett särskilt program för kampen mot social utslagning har 
bekräftats. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION 4 
Part I - What the poverty 3 programme sets out to do 7 
1 THE CHALLENGE OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION 7 
2 COMMUNITY ACTION 8 
3 THE PART PLAYED BY SPECDTIC PROGRAMMES 11 
4 THE SPECDTIC OBJECTIVES OF POVERTY 3 12 
Part II - Implementation of the Poverty 3 programme 14 
1 DECISION-MAKING, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR THE 
PROGRAMME 14 
2 THE PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 16 
3 GRADUAL IMPLEMENTATION 18 
Part III - The project 20 
1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS 20 
2 THE PROJECTS' DEVELOPMENT 28 
3 GRADUAL ABSORPTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF POVERTY 3 35 
Part IV - The impact of the programme 44 
1 ASSESSMENT: RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 44 
2 INTEGRATION OF THE MOST DISADVANTAGED GROUPS 46 
3 EXPERIMENTATION AND TRANSFER OF KNOW-HOW 52 
CONCLUSION 57 
1 THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAMME'S PRINCD?LES AND APPROACH 57 
2 THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ORGANISATIONAL PROCEDURES 58 
3 THE ADDED VALUE OF A SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 60 
ANNEX I STATISTICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE POVERTY 3 PROGRAMME 
PROJECTS 63 
ANNEX 2 STATISTICAL WORK CONDUCTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 
POVERTY 3 PROGRAMME 66 
INTRODUCTION 
The Commission has implemented a "Community programme for the economic and social 
integration of the least privileged groups in society" as provided for by Council Decision 
of 18 July 19891. 
The programme was established for a five-year period (1989-94) and was intended to 
extend and expand previous Community action, known as the first and second European 
programmes to combat poverty (1975-80 and 1984-89)2 which demonstrated the 
Community's intent to contribute, to the limits of its powers and its resources, to the fight 
against poverty undertaken in the Member States. 
The Poverty 3 programme was designed as a contribution to the efforts made in the 
Member States. Like the two previous programmes, it provided funding and support for 
pilot projects with the aim of encouraging innovation in the methods and policies 
implemented to prevent and combat poverty and exclusion. The total budget for the five 
years was 55 million ecus, which, although modest for a Community-scale programme, 
was considerably more than for the two previous programmes, for which 20 million ecus 
and 29 million ecus respectively were available. 
However, what Poverty 3 set out to do, was not merely to be an instrument for financing 
projects, but to be a coherent programme, i.e. a contribution of activities and players 
subscribing to common principles and goals. In the light of experience drawn from the 
previous programmes, Poverty 3 was hence determined from the start to adopt a 
multidimensional approach to social exclusion and also gave pride of place to strategies 
which were aimed at both economic and social integration of the least privileged groups 
in society, based on a partnership between public and private institutions and conducted 
with the participation of the groups concerned. 
The fight against poverty and exclusion is mainly the responsibility of the Member States 
and their national, regional and local authorities. A specific programme like Poverty 3 is 
neither intended nor able to tackle all aspects of poverty and exclusion in the Community. 
Its aim is to promote experimentation with new strategies for fighting poverty, and thus 
to contribute to identifying good practice, encouraging policy and stimulating public 
debate in this field. With this aim in view, Poverty 3 concentrated its resources on some 
forty local projects throughout the Member States which are linked by means of a 
transnational organisational structure created specifically for this purpose to form a 
dynamic European network. A very small percentage of its budget was also set aside for 
research work and statistical studies to improve our grasp of the processes underlying 
social exclusion. 
Council Decision 89/457/EEC of 18 July 1989 establishing a "medium-term Community action 
programme concerning the economic and social integration of the economically and socially less 
privileged groups in society" OJ L 224 of 2.8.1989. 
Council Decisions 75/458/EEC of 22 July 1975 (OJ L 199 of 30.7.1975) and 85/8/EEC of 18 
December 1984 (OJ L 2 of 3.1.1985). 
The practical experience acquired in these projects, the support activities and the various 
programme publications contributed to establishing the profile of Poverty 3 and the 
synergy between its activities and those conducted elsewhere at national and Community 
level. The programme helped to mobilise the players involved in the fight against poverty 
and social exclusion and to gain recognition for the contribution made by Community 
action here, as the White Paper on the future of European social policy3 points out. 
The local projects were selected by the Commission at the end of 1989 on the basis of 
proposals submitted by the Member States. They received financial aid from the 
Community during the five years of the programme on condition that co-funding from 
public authorities or private associations at national, regional and/or local level is 
available. They attended national and transnational meetings regularly to pool experience 
and compare notes and they were supported by technical assistance teams whose job it 
was to provide them with suitable help for project development and assessment. 
Poverty 3 supported two types of project. The thirty "pilot projects" were sizeable 
projects, bringing together the public and private partners at local level who were 
resolved to implement jointly a coherent and coordinated strategy to fight poverty. Each 
received from the Community an annual grant averaging between 250 and 300 000 ecus, 
i.e. almost 1.5 million ecus for the duration of the programme. A dozen projects called 
"innovatory measures" were on a more modest scale: they were micro-projects which 
sought to explore appropriate responses to the specific situations that isolated groups are 
in and each received an annual grant of 50 000 ecus, on average, i.e. around 250 000 
ecus for the duration of the programme. 
These projects, although very diverse, resembled each other in that they reflected the key 
principles of the programme - the multidimensional approach to social exclusion, 
partnership anchored in the process of local development, and the participation of the 
most disadvantaged groups - and sought to translate them into practical and lasting action 
at local level. Their activities have a European profile, particularly as they are involved 
in the dynamics of transnational exchanges implemented through the programme's 
organisational structure. They thus illustrate the vital aim of the programme, which is to 
encourage debate and national and Community policies on poverty and, in turn, to 
reinforce solidarity with the most disadvantaged groups by providing support in the search 
for innovatory responses to social exclusion. 
Poverty 3 actually started up on 1 March 1990. On 22 September 1993 the Commission 
submitted an interim report on the implementation of the programme4 which analysed its 
strength and weaknesses at the halfway stage. This report was accompanied by a proposal 
for a new programme to combat exclusion and promote solidarity (1994-1999) drawn up 
in the light of this mid-term analysis. This proposal is still being discussed in the Council. 
This document is the final report from the Commission on the implementation of the 
Poverty 3 programme. The Commission hopes that the assessment which it is thereby 
"European social policy. A way forward for the Union" COM(94) 333 of 27 July 1994. 
"Medium-term action programme to combat exclusion and promote solidarity: a new programme 
to support and stimulate innovation 1994-1999", COM (93) 435 Final of 22.9.1993. 
submitting for discussion will help to persuade the Council to adopt its proposal for a 
new programme. 
The Commission based its report on all the assessments carried out throughout the 
programme, especially the self-assessment carried out in each project and on the 
documents drawn up in the process of monitoring and organising the programme as a 
whole. The report also takes account of discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of 
the programme at the halfway stage, which took place before the interim report was 
drawn up, and more recent debate prompted by several Member States on the lessons 
learnt from the programme. 
Finally the Commission focused particular attention on independent assessments carried 
out in recent months and, in particular, the report which the House of Lords in the UK 
drew up in spring 19945 based on large number of interviews and inspections and which 
presents the achievements of Poverty 3 in a largely positive light. 
"The poverty programme" House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities. Ninth 
report HMSO 1994. 
Part I - What the poverty 3 programme sets out to do 
52 million people with low incomes, between three and five million homeless and poorly 
housed, and 17 million without jobs, half of them for more than a year. These figures are 
only approximate but they are enough to highlight the extent of poverty and exclusion in 
the European Union and the enormous challenge they represent for the Member States, 
the Union and the population as a whole (paragraph 1). Meeting this challenge will 
require increased solidarity to which the Union can contribute without encroaching on the 
responsibilities of the Member States and their regional and local authorities (paragraph 
2). Implementing specific programmes is one of the ways in which the Community can 
take action to encourage innovation and to promote the widest possible public debate 
(paragraph 3). The specific objectives of the Poverty 3 programme are a practical 
illustration of how this role of encouragement can be used in the fight against poverty 
(paragraph 4). 
1 THE CHALLENGE OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION 
1.1 Poverty is nothing new and has long given rise to a great deal of scientific 
and political discussion and many public and private initiatives. However, 
public opinion and debate on these questions have undergone a profound 
transformation over the last 15 years in most of the Member States as the 
nature of poverty has changed and, in turn, the challenge facing European 
society. 
Suburban crisis, the rise in homelessness, inter-racial tension and the 
increase of long-term unemployment, marginalisation of young people who 
have never been able to gain access to the employment market, the 
persistence of poverty in certain rural areas and the slide into poverty of 
households in debt are new phenomena which are more visible and 
numerous than in the past and have contributed to this transformation of 
the debate on poverty and social exclusion. 
Poverty can today no longer be regarded as a residual state of affairs, a 
mere heritage of the past which will disappear with economic progress and 
growth. Moreover, it can no longer be regarded as merely an absence or 
insufficiency of financial resources affecting individuals. On the contrary, 
we must acknowledge the structural character of poverty and the 
mechanisms which lead to it and the multidimensional character of the 
processes by which persons, groups and sometimes urban or rural areas are 
excluded from the social exchanges, practices and rights which are an 
intrinsic part of social and economic integration. 
This explains the increasing use of the concept of social exclusion which, 
in the majority of the Member States and at Community level6, is 
Resolution of the Council and the Social Affairs Ministers on combatting social exclusion on 
29 September 1989. OJ No C 277 of 31.10.1989. 
gradually replacing the concept of poverty. When we talk about social 
exclusion we are acknowledging that the problem is no longer simply one 
of inequity between the top and the bottom of the social scale (up/down), 
but also one of the distance within society between those who are active 
members and those who are forced towards the fringes (in/out). We are 
also highlighting the effects of the way society is developing and the 
concomitant risk of social disintegration and, finally, we are affirming that, 
for both the persons concerned and society itself, this is a process of 
change and not a set of fixed and static situations. 
1.2 On 23 December 1992 the Commission adopted a Communication which 
set out the challenge that social exclusion represented for the Member 
States and the Community7. This Communication underlines the fact that 
the situations and processes involved in social exclusion are largely the 
result of structural change in European economies and societies 
(technological change, changes in the labour market, increasing fragility 
of family structures, trends towards social fragmentation, development of 
migratory phenomena and changes in value systems) It draws attention to 
the increasing vulnerability of a large percentage of the population exposed 
to social exclusion, mainly due to changes in employment and family and 
social structures and explains that there is not only one group - and a 
small one at that - of people living in permanent poverty and exclusion 
but a variety of - increasingly large - groups whose economic and social 
integration is insecure, who experience periods of sporadic or recurrent 
poverty and who are threatened by the loss of the social ties which 
accompanies the process of social exclusion. 
These observations confirm the practical experience of the people most 
closely engaged in the fight against social exclusion - governments, local 
authorities, and NGOs in particular - who also stress the risk that the 
situation and the processes involved might deteriorate further. This is 
sufficient evidence - even taking into account the diversity of local and 
national situations - to convince us of the scale of the challenge throughout 
Europe and the echo it strikes in public opinion. 
COMMUNITY ACTION 
The fight against social exclusion is mainly the responsibility of the Member 
States and their national, regional and local authorities. However, the Community 
has repeatedly expressed its desire to contribute, within the constraints of its 
powers and resources, to what the Member States are doing: its activities are thus 
limited but are indicative of its growing concern and the way they have evolved 
shows how the types of Community action which, in conformity with the principle 
of subsidiarity, are best designed to make a specific additional contribution have 
gradually been identified and accepted. 
Towards a Europe of solidarity - intensifying the fight against social exclusion and fostering 
integration", COM(92) 542 final of 23 December 1992. 
8 
2.1 The Community has been concerned specifically with social exclusion 
since the mid-seventies. Its activities do not constitute so much a policy 
as a limited contribution, testifying to the concern for solidarity with the 
deprived in the process of building Europe. Its most favoured, and for a 
long time only, instrument has been the implementing of specific 
programmes with limited resources intended to support innovation and the 
pooling of experience. 
In 1975 the Community launched its first programme to combat poverty 
(1975-1980) which supported pilot projects throughout the nine Member 
States of the Community of that time. This programme, which was 
conceived in a period of growth and implemented during the crisis at the 
end of the seventies, prompted an administrative and political rethink in 
most Member States on the new aspects of the problem of poverty 
engendered by this new situation. This programme was followed by a 
second one (1985-1989), closely geared to the principle of transnational 
pooling of practices implemented in almost 100 local micro-projects. The 
Poverty 3 programme (1989-1994) is an extension of this but its resources 
are concentrated on a smaller number of more ambitious projects, the aim 
of which is to make the transition from the previous exploratory phase to 
a phase of selective development i.e. "full-scale experimentation" with the 
principles of action identified in previous programmes. 
2.2 Community action was gradually stepped up and diversified, especially 
towards the end of the eighties. This process took place in the context of 
various activities designed to graft a social dimension onto the internal 
market and promote European integration, and was facilitated by growing 
public awareness of the scale of the problem, partly because it stirred 
many people to action as poverty assumed ever greater proportions. 
In parallel with implementation of the Poverty 3 programme and 
palliatives, such as the distribution of food surpluses, the Commission 
devised a set of at once more ambitious and more coherent initiatives. 
Within the context of implementing the Charter of the Fundamental Social 
Rights of Workers, it proposed a recommendation on the right to sufficient 
resources and benefits in social protection systems which was adopted by 
the Council on 24 June 19928. This recommendation not only affirms the 
right to sufficient resources to live in human dignity but also emphasises 
the need to incorporate it in an overall approach to fighting social 
exclusion and thus to back it up with suitable measures to ensure 
integration in the fields of health, housing, education and training etc.9 in 
line with the Resolution of the Council and the Social Affairs Ministers 
meeting within the Council of 29 September 1989. 
Council Recommendation on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and assistance in 
social protection systems. OJ L 245, pages 46 to 48 (92/441/EEC) of 24 June 1992. 
Resolution of the Council and the Social Affairs ministers meeting within the Council on 29 
September 1993 concerning social exclusion. OJ C277 of 31.10.1989. 
The Commission also lent its support to studies and assessment work, 
creating an Observatory of policies for combating social exclusion 
following the Resolution of the Council and Social Affairs ministers 
mentioned above, and, moreover, launched various studies on urban social 
development. 
The Commission has also intensified support of NGOs, particularly with 
a view to uniting them in a European network10 with which it liaises 
regularly. It as also made arrangements for successful collaboration with 
management and labour and local authorities and their European 
organisations and with town and housing organisations networks. In 
general terms it has also ensured that synergy developed between various 
networks involved in the fight against social exclusion and the 
Community, mainly by organising a series of brainstorming seminars to 
devise a consistent approach at European level (Rotterdam in 1991, Porto 
and Brussels in 1992 and Copenhagen in 1993.) 
In order to incorporate the fight against social exclusion as a strand of 
Community policy as a whole, the Commission formed an 
interdepartmental group mainly engaged on examining how structural 
policy could be deployed, first through the initiatives for crisis areas 
(ERDF), for rural development (LEADER) and for particularly vulnerable 
groups (HORIZON and NOW) and subsequently by redefining the goals 
of these policies. Active consultation between departments has also been 
developed in research, especially to define the guidelines for the fourth 
framework research and development programme. 
2.3 The Communication from the Commission of 23 December 1992 took 
account of the progressive diversification of Community initiatives and 
proposed that moves to tackle social exclusion should figure more 
prominently in the Community's general and structural policies. These 
proposals were discussed at the major European conference organised on 
2-3 June 1993 in Copenhagen. They were also discussed within the 
framework of the debate prompted by the Green Paper on the future of 
European social policy. The White Paper on social policy emphasised the 
need to motivate all the players involved and to diversify initiatives on the 
basis of what had already been achieved. This was the framework which 
specific programmes such as Poverty 3 had to fit into. 
THE PART PLAYED BY SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES 
3.1 The effects of implementing specific programmes are threefold. 
These programmes are first of all valuable in their own right, as they 
signal the Community's concern for the problem and thus promote 
EAPN, European Anti-Povcrly Network A European network of NCJOs and voluntary 
organisations engaged in the fight against poverty. 
10 
indirectly other Community and national initiatives in this field (which is 
why the Commission is keen for these programmes to have a high profile 
both on the national and European stage, as this is one of the conditions 
of their acting as models). 
The programmes are also valuable on account of their experimental 
character: their main objective is not to subsidise isolated activities, 
however useful these may be but to contribute to identifying and validating 
suitable methods and policies for fighting current forms of social exclusion 
and, in particular, its multidimensional character (which explains why the 
Commission attaches such importance to the fact that the projects should 
serve as models and be assessed). 
Finally these programmes are also intended to contribute to the transfer of 
know-how and good practice and the building up of networks of players 
engaged in transnational exchanges on the basis of relatively comparable 
tangible experience (which accounts for the importance the Commission 
attaches to the coherence of the programme as a whole and its European 
organisational structure). 
3.2 These functions set specific programmes quite clearly apart from funds. 
They require the Commission's active presence at grass roots level as 
partners to demonstrate the Community's commitment, to stress the 
coherence which is sought and to help reap the benefits of the experience 
of all. 
They also require that specific support and technical assistance structures 
be set up, especially to accentuate the projects' exemplary nature, the 
quality of their management, the rigour of their assessment and the 
relevance of their transnational exchanges. They involve sustained 
cooperation with the Member States, not only to ensure that the projects 
are run as efficiently as possible but also to maximise the impact of the 
projects and programmes in providing impetus for policies and in the 
transfer of good practice. The value of these programmes can thus not be 
measured by the yardstick of the resources, which are very modest and do 
not compare with those of the Structural Funds, but by their contribution 
in terms of methodology and policy, which is why the people who 
participate in such programmes share a willingness to accept joint 
obligations and a scrupulous concern for the quality of the programme. 
THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF POVERTY 3 
4.1 The first two Community programmes to combat poverty were mainly of 
an exploratory nature: they comprised essentially a set of local micro-
projects which were extremely diverse and uneven even when they were 
integrated in a national-level organisational structure (first programme) or 
a transnational one (second programme). 
Poverty 3 was designed to make the transition from this exploratory phase 
to a phase of selective development i.e. validation of the effectiveness of 
the principles identified from previous experience - the multidimensional 
approach to poverty, partnership between institutions and plavers at local 
level and participation of the groups concerned. The challenge of the 
programme was to implement these locally in pilot projects of a fair size, 
anchored in the dynamic development process of an area. The contribution 
of Poverty 3 to defining suitable methods and policies assumed that the 
effectiveness of the programme's principles of action would be 
demonstrated and resided in the demonstrative value of the projects 
selected. 
In line with this basic approach, Poverty 3 concentrated its resources on 
a limited number of projects. This option tied in well with the decision to 
take Community action into a phase of selective development. It also 
meant that the Community was betting on local initiative and particularly 
on the capacity of local players to build an effective partnership, to work 
out a coherent strategy, maintain tight control of a relatively large budget 
and to serve as a valuable example on a national scale. 
The fact that the Community was making this gamble illustrated its desire 
to enter into partnership with local and national authorities. And it clearly 
assumed that the players did not regard the programme as a simple means 
of financing local activities but that, on the contrary, they sought to use 
their experience to contribute to intensifying the national and Community 
debate on the subject and exploring the principles of the programme more 
deeply. 
4.2 The three key principles of the Poverty 3 programme are as follows: 
» 
the multidimensional approach: this principle is based on the 
observation that poverty and exclusion are multifaceted phenomena 
which are not just a result of insufficient financial resources and 
which are evident in the fields of housing, training, employment, 
education, health, access to services, etc. This approach requires 
coherent strategy and synergism tailored to specific national and 
local situations and not a simple juxtaposition of isolated activities 
which have nothing in common or which are jumbled together in 
random groupings; 
partnership: this principle is the institutional expression of the 
multidimensional approach and constitutes its practical tool: this is 
viable only if all the key players in the various areas mentioned 
above share a common approach. Partnership involves collective 
responsibility for the success of the entire project and assumes that 
the players are in a position to define a joint strategy based on a 
consensus which transcends their respective interests or differences; 
12 
participation: this is based on the observation that social exclusion 
is also a condition of dependence or passivity vis-à-vis institutions 
and, in general, decisions taken by others. Accordingly, the active 
involvement of the groups concerned in the integration process is, 
at the same time, a prerequisite for, and a symbol of its success. In 
more general terms, it forms part of an approach which promotes 
citizenship and democracy and which wants the groups involved to 
be active partners in the policies being conducted. 
These three principles can be seen in various forms and to varying degrees 
in some of the innovatory social policies implemented in the Member 
States. Their relevance is pointed out in the Resolution of the Council and 
the Social Affairs Ministers meeting within the Council of 29 September 
1989. The Poverty 3 programme did not have a monopoly on these 
principles but it did aim to apply them systematically at local level, 
without, however, underestimating the problems. It is for this reason that 
the programme allocated not only financial aid but envisaged also 
technical assistance and support for conducting activities and for 
continuous assessment. For this reason too, the programme intended to 
enable good practice to be identified, i.e. practical procedures by which 
these principles could be implemented permanently and effectively and the 
transfer of know-how both at national and European level could be 
promoted. 
13 
Part II - Implementation of the Poverty 3 
programme 
The Commission was responsible for implementing the Poverty 3 programme (paragraph 
1) in accordance with a schedule which had maximum provision for continuity between 
the end of the second programme (November 1989) and launching of the third 
programme (March 1990) (paragraph 2). The Commission strove to ensure that the 
programme activities were implemented gradually within the limit of the administrative 
and financial constraints imposed on the programme, especially in the launch phase 
(paragraph 3). 
1 DECISION-MAKING, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES FOR THE 
PROGRAMME 
1.1 As provided for by the Council decision, the Commission was responsible 
for implementing the programme and was assisted by an Advisory 
Committee, comprising a representative of each Member State (most of 
whom were representatives of the national social affairs ministries), for 
monitoring the programme 
The Commission has elicited the help of an international team of 
consultants which it has instructed to provide technical assistance in the 
management and organisation of the programme. Under the direction of 
the Commission, this team dealt with all the technical details associated 
with the administrative and financial management of the funds allocated 
under the terms of the programme. It was also responsible for European 
coordination of organisational aspects of the programme, particularly with 
respect to transnational exchanges, assessment, publications and research. 
Its management was based in Lille (France) and its members, who worked 
part-time for the team, were based in Germany, France, Ireland and 
Portugal. This team formed the programme's central unit. 
This unit coordinated a network of national consultants responsible for 
providing the projects with technical assistance, helping to maintain the 
national impetus of the programme and contributing to the programme's 
organisation at Community level. Usually, there were two part-time 
national consultants per Member State, the number being determined by 
the size of the country and the number of projects. These consultants made 
up the programme's research and development units9. 
The Commission and the central unit cooperated very closely. The 
Commission, the central unit and all the research and development units 
held two-day workshops three times a year. Bilateral meetings between the 
The members of the research and development units were appointed by the Commission in 
consultation with the Member States concerned. In some cases they worked in the same institute; 
in other cases they belonged to different institutions. 
14 
players were nejd as the need arose. Many meetings connected with the 
organisation of the programme, especially the annual seminars and 
transnational meetings to deal with specific issues, brought the players 
together and also ensured that they remained in contact. 
1.2 The organisational structure of the programme was designed with two 
principles in mind: 
the need to enhance the projects' value as models and hence to 
provide the project with solid technical support which included 
help in self-assessment, definition of strategy, planning and 
management of activities and support for information and 
communication in order to maintain the national profile of the 
projects and the programme. 
This was the research and development units' main task and 
explains why they were designed as units combining theoretical 
(research and assessment) and practical (development and 
management) skills and experience. 
The need to ensure that the programme is coherent in itself and, at 
the same time, that the programme's European dimension is seen 
as a key factor by all the parties involved. 
The Commission's attention was mainly focused on the internal 
cohesion of the programme, i.e. the structuring the programme 
itself as a network of initiatives, experiments and individual players 
and hence made provision for transnational exchanges between 
projects, annual seminars, publications and, more generally, 
activities to promote communications and the profile of the 
programme as a European venture. These activities were 
coordinated by the central unit in conjunction with the research and 
development units. 
1.3 The programme implementation structures were highly decentralised in 
terms of resources, although from the point of view of decision-making at 
the Commission they were centralised. The programme funds were in fact 
distributed as follows (provisional budget): 
Global projects 41.05 million ecus 
Studies and research 4.95 million ecus 
Management, support and 
publications (of which 3 MEcus for 
C.U., 3.5 MEcus for RDU and 2.5 
MEcus for activities) 9.00 million ecus 
Total 55 million ecus 
15 
THE PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 
One of the concerns of the Commission and the Member States in 1989 was to 
avoid any interruption between the end of the second programme and the 
launching of the third. This was not just because they wished to prevent an 
interruption of Community financing for those projects from the second 
programme which had been selected for Poverty 3 (there were, after all, few of 
these, given the difference between the two programmes) but also because there 
was a desire to display continuity in the Community's activities on behalf of the 
deprived and to meet the expectations of the European Parliament in this respect. 
In parallel with the discussion process within the Council, the Commission had 
started practical preparations for the programme. As soon as the Council had 
adopted the decision, the Commission was able to start the procedure for 
presenting and selecting projects and setting up the programme management 
structures at the same time. 
2.1 The Council decision stipulated that the project applications were to be 
submitted to the Commission by the Member States and that they should 
be drawn up in close cooperation between the Member State concerned 
and the relevant public or private bodies designated by that Member State 
(Article 5). To this end the Commission thus placed at the disposal of 
Member States in July 1989 a detailed document setting out the guidelines 
of the programme and as a guide for projects being considered for 
proposal an indication of the information that applications should contain. 
It was decided that each Member State would preselect projects in 
accordance with its own procedures and would submit to the Commission 
no more than 6-8 projects, the total number of projects for each country 
reflecting its size and the need to make a specific effort on behalf of the 
less developed countries. 
As a result of the date of the Decision and the time taken by selection and 
internal cooperation procedures within the Member States, the Commission 
received the Member States' proposals in the course of October 1989. It 
examined them with the help of independent experts in November 1989. 
After consultation with the Member States at the beginning of December 
1989 it made its final selection. At the end of December 1989 it contacted 
the projects which had been selected and advised them that the contracts 
covering Community aid would be drawn up with effect from the 
beginning of March 1990 and provided all the necessary information 
relating to the financial aspects of Community aid. The final selection 
comprised 39 projects representing total provisional aid of 41 million ecus 
distributed as follows: 
16 
Country B DK D EL ES FR IRL IT LUX NL P UK TOTAL 
Pilot 
projects 2133332 3- 133 27 
Innovatory 
measures 111111111 1 1 1 12 
The map below shows where the projects are located. (Following the 
unification of Germany, the programme accepted three projects from the 
new Länder in 1992 which are also included on the map). 
The Commission had proposed that the Member States take account, when 
selecting, of the possible interaction between the projects put forward and 
national policy. In several countries, the national selection also reflected 
the main approach followed in certain national programmes to fight 
poverty and social exclusion, for example in Denmark, Spain, France, the 
Netherlands or Portugal. 
2.2 The programme's organisational structures were set up during the second 
half of 1989 in two complementary phases. First, the Commission 
published in the Official Journal a call for tenders for the general task of 
technical assistance associated with implementing the programme at 
European level; recruitment of the central unit started December 1989 and 
it took charge of the ground work for the practical launch of the 
programme (administrative and contractual procedures, organisation of a 
launch conference with the selected projects etc.). Second, the 
Commission, in close cooperation with each of the Member States, chose 
the consultants for the research and development units which started work 
in March 1990, i.e. at the same time as project support activities got under 
way. 
2.3 Poverty 3 is mainly an action programme but also had a "research" 
component, with a modest budget (not exceeding 9% of the total budget) 
which worked to a separate schedule. At the end of 1989 the Commission 
undertook a definition of a programme of statistical work which was 
discussed with the national statistical institutes (seminar in Noordwijk, the 
Netherlands, in 1989) and also prepared a programme of transnational 
socio-economic research, the guidelines for which were discussed with the 
Member States and the national research councils seminar in Bath in 
October 1990). 
2.4 The programme was launched officially at a major seminar in Brussels at 
the end of March 1990 to which project representatives, the research and 
development units, the central unit, the Advisory Committee and the 
Commission were invited. 
17 
lirimnlnn 
North and West ( onm-mara 
Limerick Aalbore L 
mi 
^.^MmM* ...._u..... # Actions Modèles 
Initiatives Novatrices 
Thessaloaiki 
Kallithcu 
Madrid 
Haelva 
l>Ws 
This seminar was a key moment in affirming the identity of the Poverty 
3 programme It was then agreed that there should be a major annual 
meeting between the projects, the Advisory Committee, the research and 
development units, the central unit and the Commission to examine certain 
key issues of the programme. The themes for discussion selected were 
local development (1991), involvement of labour and management (1992), 
partnership and multidimensionality (1993) and the lessons learned from 
the programme (1994). 
Apart from the organisation for these large annual meetings, each of which 
were attended by between 150 and 250 participants, and a specific meeting 
on innovatory measures, the following practical arrangements have been 
made with regard to the organisation of the programme: 
an internal bulletin (in two languages) and a magazine for large-
scale distribution have been published (five languages) with regular 
increases in the circulation and the number of countries (to 2000 
for the bulletin and 5000 for the magazine) and various other 
publications (project directory (in three languages), annual reports 
on developments in the programme (in two languages), documents 
for the annual meetings and documents on specific themes) and a 
programme presentation film; 
more technical meetings have been organised, especially 
transnational meetings for projects targeting a specific theme 
(housing, rural poverty, participation, economic integration etc.) 
either associated with the bilateral visits between projects or not; 
national meetings have been organised on the initiative of the 
projects, the research and development unit members and 
sometimes the member of the Advisory Committee concerned to 
build up progressively the national dimension and profile of the 
programme. 
GRADUAL IMPLEMENTATION 
Given the aspirations of Poverty 3, it was advisable for it to be implemented 
gradually. This is what the Commission tried to do, although it encountered 
problems occasioned by procedural and time constraints which it was obliged to 
respect. 
3.1 No matter how careful the Member States and the Commission were in 
ensuring the quality of the projects selected, the latter could clearly not all 
be fully operational right from the start, i.e. have sound partnership 
structures, appropriate and innovatory strategies, qualified teams and 
permanent co-funding agreements etc. in place in March 1990. 
For this reason it was agreed with the Member States that the first year of 
the programme would take the form of a project definition phase. The 
18 
schedule for the budgetary commitments disrupted the definition phase 
which was all the more damaging as the majority of the projects had 
underestimated the complexity of setting up decision and administrative 
and financial management structures involving large appropriations, which 
meant that they had to have co-funding. 
3.2 The curtailed duration of the first contractual period meant that some 
projects did not use all the appropriations allotted. This was particularly 
true of projects which recruited their operating team late or had not 
obtained actual payment of the co-funding promised and within the allotted 
period, or again those whose budgetary planning was not realistic. 
Generally speaking, the Community rules on co-funding and the using the 
appropriations allotted, such as the strict limits imposed on investment, 
were seen by several projects as being a major or excessive constraint in 
the first phase of the programme this lead to frustration or 
incomprehension however, the situation was eased gradually, by making 
some of the management procedures more flexible and endeavouring to 
explain the rules being applied. The projects also improved their 
management mainly by recruiting qualified personnel. 
The Commission paid to close attention to the structuring of the projects 
during this phase with the assistance of the central unit and adjusted the 
administrative and financial management procedures of the programme to 
circumstances and difficulties encountered as far as possible. It also visited 
each project to help solve any administrative or financial problems 
occurring but also to explain the objectives of the programme and to assist 
it in its implementation on a European scale. 
3.3 The research and development units played a key support role in 
structuring the projects and especially in setting up the decision-making 
management and assessment structures required and in planning activities 
realistically. However, the research and development units' task was made 
difficult by their position between the projects and both the central unit 
and the Commission and as a result of the expectations and conflicting 
pressures to which they were exposed. It was difficult to build up an 
atmosphere of mutual trust, since the operational teams were highly 
unstable in the first 18 months and some projects were slow to set up 
effective decision-making, management and self-assessment procedures. 
Once the Commission and the central unit realised that there were 
problems, they organised training and information courses both to set aside 
initial misunderstandings and to strengthen the professionalism of the 
operating teams but unfortunately these courses came somewhat late 
19 
Part III - The projects 
The projects, which are the key components of the programme, are very different from 
one another (paragraph 1). They were built up gradually as the principles of the 
programme were absorbed. 
1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS 
1.1 The Poverty 3 programme comprised 42 local projects, 30 of which were 
pilot projects (one of which discontinued its activities before the end of the 
programme) and 12 innovatory measures. 
a) in each pilot project a group of players and institutions teamed up 
to define and implement jointly, in a fairly well-defined area, a 
coherent strategy for economic and social integration of all the 
disadvantaged groups living in this area. 
The practical operations of a pilot project were in the hands of a 
"Steering Committee" made up of representatives of one or more 
local or regional authorities, one or more public or quasi-public 
organisations active in areas such as training, housing health etc. 
and one or more NGOs; occasionally, trade union and employers' 
organisations were also partners in local activities. An operating 
team of between 10 and 15 persons, sometimes more, was 
responsible for implementing the project's strategy under the 
auspices of the steering committee. 
Partnership here was not merely an abstract principle: the ongoing 
assessment of the project's activities showed that some 300 local 
partners, i.e. an average of 10 per project, were represented in the 
steering committees. 100 representatives of local and regional 
authorities and 100 representatives of NGOs were thus involved in 
overseeing the projects (cf Annex 1). 
b) Innovatory measures were generally implemented by a public 
institution or an individual private organisation with activities 
frequently targeting a specific social problem or population group. 
Nevertheless, several of them modelled themselves on the 
partnership principle - one of the key principles of the programme 
- and had much more in common with the pilot project, albeit on 
a smaller scale and with a more modest budget. 
20 
Projects 
Pilot projects 
BELGIUM 
AMOl Antwerp: Joint initiative by six local authorities to create a district 
development organisation (BOM) in the north-east of the city. The idea is to 
mount a more effective overall response to the needs of this district, with 
activities in three fields: the economy, housing and leisure activities. 
AM02 Charleroi: A project set up by the municipality and NGOs to direct the 
new social action policy in the city. Over 60 different services and organisations 
are involved in some 20 projects all subscribing to the three central ideas of 
partnership, participation by inhabitants and an integrated approach. 
DENMARK 
AM03 Samiko project: Three areas (urban/rural). The steering committee is made 
up of the national authorities, local authorities and NGOs. The objectives are to 
integrate deprived sections of the population in the local community and to 
reinforce community identity through joint action on employment, daily life and 
participation of people on the fringes. 
GERMANY 
AM04 Hamburg: An initiative by the social services of Eimsbuttel which is 
concentrated on deprived areas. A new form of creating a network of social policy 
agents has been devised in collaboration with community groups. Various 
activities are involved, mainly addressing women, immigrants and young people. 
AM06 Munich: A scheme devised by the Forum Habitat team to provide housing 
suitable for deprived sections of the population in Munich through low-cost 
renovation of buildings involving the tenants. Action is also taken to have these 
methods recognised and to transfer them elsewhere. 
AM40 Bautzen: A project created by an association of the inhabitants of this 
medium-sized city in conjunction with local authorities. The objective is to create 
a social network in the city to organise more effectively and to renew the tradition 
of helping one's neighbour for the benefit of young people, prison inmates, people 
who have served time in prison and the homeless. 
AM41 Berlin: District of Friedrichshain, with a high concentration of poor 
people. The target groups are the long-term unemployed, early retired and retired 
people and lone women with children. Action is taken mainly to promote 
information for and communication, and negotiation with these groups. 
21 
AM42 Weimar: A small district in this old town with very severe housing 
problems: rents are rising, conditions are unhealthy and there are prospects of 
people having to vacate their homes. The project's team acts as a mediator 
between the inhabitants and the city's administration to organise resources in the 
district and to encourage residents to renovate their environment for their own 
benefit. 
GREECE 
SPAIN AMOl Argyroupolis: A large suburb of Athens where there is a rapidly growing 
population, a lack of infrastructure and little social cohesion. A multifunctional 
centre is being created to ensure that there is coherence between activities to 
integrate the unemployed, to help the elderly and to support the families of the 
disabled. 
AM08 Thessalonika: Suburb district of Thessalonika. A new partnership has been 
set up between services to create a social pilot project to prevent poverty. Four 
target groups have been defined for action to be taken: lone-parent families, 
refugees from the former USSR, gypsies and families with special needs. 
AM09 Perama: An urban area near Athens with many poor inhabitants and 
severe housing problems where the public authorities are having difficulties in 
coordinating their activities. An employment centre is being created and a social 
and cultural centre offering new and diversified services to a population hitherto 
deprived of them. 
AM10 Burgos: A rural area in decline of the "Commerça Montes de Oca" made 
up of 54 villages. The aims of the project are to encourage solidarity in rural 
development, to consolidate a wide partnership and to encourage the villages to 
rebuild the identify of the Commerça through a strategy combining economic 
cultural and social development. 
AMU Girona: New social work practices in two districts of the city with 
different forms of poverty. A facility is being set up (for social integration) 
coordinating activities for the social integration of families and progressive 
organisation of the population to protect its interests. 
AM12 Huelva: A poor marginalised district of Huelva-Marismas del Odiel with 
severe urban problems. A large partnership has been set up (involving public 
institutions, employers and workers, associations and inhabitants) to create a 
project covering the school environment, employment, the living environment, 
information for inhabitants and support for associations. 
22 
FRANCE 
AM13 Calais: An attempt to transform conventional social work practices in the 
city by encouraging personalised support for marginalised persons to help them 
to rebuild their lives. Activities for families with young children, for young people 
and the unemployed with few prospects of employment. 
AM14 Mantois-Val de Seine: Joint action by the mayors of an underprivileged 
area in the Paris region to define an overall policy for social cohesion. The 
strategy is to create new services for employment, training, living environment, 
children's policy and success at school to prevent exclusion. 
AM15 Doubs: A joint project by deputies and the state departments in a large 
area to bring about a greater coherence in the operations of all social policy agents 
by obtaining more reliable information on the priorities of disadvantaged sections 
of the populations and by setting up a coordinated range of services to respond 
to these. 
IRELAND 
AM16 Limerick: A project targeting the poor population of Limerick. A 
partnership has been set up between public institutions and community 
organisations tackling six areas of action: access to employment, local 
development, services for the population, community infrastructure, aid to families 
at risk and information for inhabitants. 
AM17 Connemara: A depopulated rural area which is very isolated and 
dependent on public aid. A large highly structured partnership has been set up to 
deploy an overall and coordinated approach to local development involving 
closely all the inhabitants in a long-term project. Diversified activities. 
ITALY 
AM18 Roma: Tor Bella Monaca district of the Roman suburbs with a lack of 
infrastructure and production activities. The ultimate aim of the local organisations 
who originated the project is to create a local development agency. Diversified 
activities have been launched to tackle the economic, cultural and social aspects 
of poverty. 
AM19 Managio (Friuli): The project Bucaneve was created by public agencies 
to test a new intervention model in a mountainous rural area which responds 
better to the needs of the population and enables the social fabric to be restored. 
Local players are progressively being integrated in the partnership. 
AM20 Alto Belice: A rural area near Palermo combining eight municipalities. The 
initiative has been launched by a public organisation and a trade union with the 
support of local authorities to encourage new activities making use of all the areas 
resources. Employment agencies are being set up to coordinate development 
activities. 
23 
NETHERLANDS 
AM21 Den Helder, Eindhoven, Hengelo: The NIZW, the National Institute for 
Health and Social Security has coordinated this project in collaboration with the 
municipalities in three cities with different types of problems. The principles of 
the programme are being applied to transform the normal practice of social policy 
agents. 
PORTUGAL 
AM22 Almeida: A project in a rural area with a number of villages which are 
being depopulated. The promoter's idea is to combine a general development 
project useful to all the population by consolidating structures which are suitable 
for coordinating local initiatives with specific strategies addressing the poorest. 
AM23 Aldeias de Montanha: A small rural mountainous area which has few 
resources to cope with the decline in its agriculture and textile industry. A 
public/private partnership has been set up to launch a coordinating policy of new 
niche activities, training of the population and infrastructure. 
AM24 Porto: The historic centre of Porto is facing problems of decline in the 
living environment and marginalisation of part of its population. The project was 
initiated by the regional social security centre and focuses on urban renewal, 
training and education, sociocultural organisation and cooperation with local 
institutions. 
UNITED KINGDOM 
AM25 Liverpool: A district in the centre of Liverpool with problems which 
previous local programmes could not overcome. The project is intended to provide 
a link between institutions and the black community which is becoming more 
heavily involved in the partnership. The main objective is to combat various forms 
of racism'. 
AM26 Craigavon: A project created by the Brownlow Community Trust with 
representatives of the government, local authorities and the inhabitants of this new 
uncompleted area in Northern Ireland. The main aim is to organise the priority 
groups and to give them the means to negotiate with the authorities. 
AM27 Edinburgh: A partnership between the institutions and the inhabitants of 
the Pilton district. The strategic objective is to launch a process of change in 
Pilton based on more effective organisation of the inhabitants which is to be 
extended after the end of the programme. The method lies in identifying services 
which are needed and providing responses to these needs. 
24 
INNOVATORY MEASURES 
IN28 Eupen (Belgium): Two facilities have been created by the association of 
"Maisons de jeunes" and FOREM (public institution): an "open workshop" for 
initial training for young people with integration problems and a "development 
group" for long-term unemployed women mainly intended to remotivate them. 
IM29 Aalborg (Denmark): A district of Aalborg isolated from the remainder of 
the city. The main objective of the BIK project is to increase direct involvement 
of the inhabitants in renewing the district, rebuilding the bridges between the 
people and local democracy and encouraging them to get involved in existing 
organisations. 
IN30 Berlin (Germany): A project for a psychotherapeutic consultation centre 
XENION. Psychosocial assistance (for individual families or groups) for political 
refugees traumatised by their experiences who are having major difficulties in 
integrating after arrival in Germany. 
IN31 Kalithea (Greece): This project is part of an overall initiative to fight drug 
abuse in a city in the built-up area of Athens. The project works in close 
association with the hospital services and there are three main courses of action: 
prevention of relapse, retraining, economic and social reintegration. 
IN32 Madrid (Spain): A project for retraining and social integration of the 
chronically mentally ill and homeless piloted by the social integration service of 
the Community of Madrid. The aim is to define new types of response for a target 
group whose needs are not sufficiently known and are not being met. 
IN33 Paris (France): A project for an association for the right to economic 
initiative (ADIE). Loans and advice are offered to people without resources who 
wish to set up their own businesses but do not have access to bank loans. These 
activities are being gradually extended to a large number of French cities. 
IN34 Dublin (Ireland): The Dublin travellers education and development group 
(DTEDG) is a non-profit making organisation combining travellers and the 
residents of the north part of Dublin. The aim is to provide a reception centre for 
travellers and to promote their rights and recognition and identity. 
IN35 Bologna (Italy): The objective of the project is to find responses to 
problems with social integration of people leaving prison. Action is taken in and 
outside prison which is based on the inmates' own potential and goes further than 
traditional forms of assistance. 
IN36 Luxembourg: Project launched by the non-profit making association 
Wunnengshellef in response to the problem of the lack of housing in Luxembourg 
by encouraging the development of all forms of social housing and providing 
psychosocial monitoring of people leaving reception centres. 
25 
IN37 Limburg (Netherlands): A project initiated by a voluntary organisation 
whose target population is persons who suddenly become disabled and are 
declared invalids. Integration networks, information meetings, monitoring activities 
and training have been set up to cope with their feelings of frustration and 
exclusion. 
IN38 Lisbon (Portugal): Action has been defined by the institution for aid to 
children (IAE) on behalf of homeless children in deteriorating areas of the city. 
The activities are conducted by street workers who operate on the principle that 
the children are the main players in the process of integration which they are 
trying to launch. 
IN39 Bristol (United Kingdom): The single parent action network (SPAN) is a 
national organisation which is engaged in improving the life of poor single 
parents. It is a multi-racial organisation managed by the parents themselves. It acts 
as a pressure group to protect their rights and to provide various forms of 
assistance. 
1.2 More than 3/4 of the projects are located in urban areas. However, one 
project in five is in a rural area (or, perhaps, operates both in the country 
and in small rural towns). 
(a) Most of the projects operate in a clearly defined area such as a 
district, municipality or adjacent villages with varying population 
densities. In once case in three, there are no more than 20 000 
inhabitants: small urban district or depopulated rural areas. In one 
case in three, too, there are over 50 000 inhabitants. In a few rare 
cases, the projects operated in two or three separate locations a fair 
distance apart (cf Annex 1). 
Virtually all the areas where the projects were located were facing 
great problems and had been hit by unemployment and a 
deteriorating economic and social environment, even if they were 
in a region or an urban area which was relatively well off (cf 
Annex 1). 
(b) In urban areas, the projects covered one or more areas where the 
unemployment rate was generally far higher than the average for 
the country. Entire cities can be confronted by a crisis in traditional 
industrial activity and a decline in small enterprises (Charleroi, 
Calais, Limerick, Craigavon, Hengelo, etc.). But more often it was 
districts in city centres and suburbs where problems of poverty 
were concentrated. The level of qualification of the population was 
low The surroundings were shabby, decrepit or in a state of decay 
(Weimar, Perama, Huelva, Porto, etc.) or infrastructure and 
facilities are inadequate (Antwerp, Argyroupolis, Rome, etc.). 
Several of the districts or municipalities also had a high proportion 
of immigrants or travellers (Girone, Mantois-Val de Seine, Den 
Helder, Liverpool, Dublin, etc.) or an influx of asylum-
26 
seekers and refugees Thessalonika and Berlin). Many were facing 
problems with crime, drugs, alcoholism and prostitution 
(Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Porto, Huelva, Kallithea, Lisbon, etc.). 
Although faced with the same difficulties, not all the urban projects 
adopted the same strategy. The main objective for some was to 
help organise the inhabitants of a district or a suburban area to 
develop their ability to talk and negotiate with the public 
authorities in the medium-term (the projects in the United 
Kingdom, Berlin, Limerick, Aalborg, etc.). Others built their 
programme around the provision of new services to the population 
by creating a social infrastructure or setting up innovatory activities 
in certain fields (Munich, the Greek projects, Calais, Rome, Porto 
and the majority of the innovatory measures). Still others, mostly 
prompted by public institutions, wished to test a more integrated 
social action model responding better to the needs of the 
population in a restricted field in the hope of being able to apply 
it subsequently more extensively (Hamburg, Girone, Huelva, Le 
Doubs, etc.). 
(c) In rural areas, the projects targeted localities where, generally, the 
outlook for local development was bleak. Traditional activities and 
production structures generate low incomes and too few jobs 
(Connemara, Aldeias de Montanha, etc.). Migration, especially of 
young people and skilled workers, leads to a progressive ageing of 
the population (Burgos, Maniagua, etc.). The drift from the land, 
isolation, retarded development or a decline in traditional activities 
are reflected in poor housing, infrastructure and communications 
and a lack of or inadequate social, health, educational and cultural 
services (Almeida Alto Belice, Ile de Moen, etc.). 
Under these circumstances, all the rural projects tried to combine: 
- an endogenous local development approach based on support to 
all initiatives which could generate new activities and force 
unemployment and poverty into retreat, 
- specific strategies on behalf of the most deprived sections of the 
population which often took the form of improving the range of 
services and infrastructure in the social domain and training. 
Nevertheless, not all of them had the same resources at their 
disposal. Some had to rely on the willingness of outsiders (regional 
or national authorities) to experiment with new forms of action 
(Maniago, etc.). Others had to mobilise local financial and human 
resources which were, of necessity, limited. 
THE PROJECTS' DEVELOPMENT 
2.1 The programme has been supporting projects since March 1990. For the 
vast majority the beginning of the programme was the start of a step-by-
step build-up. The projects which existed already were few and far 
27 
between and the majority were created from nothing (one in three) or 
were extensions of an existing partnership (approximately one case in two) 
to cover new activities (cf Annex 1). Several projects were thus 
implemented by one or more players who had considerable experience and 
influence in a specific field and who and who were trying to expand their 
activities by joining forces with other actors. Other projects started off as 
teams of varying degrees of cohesion, comprising players and institutions, 
which all had their strengths and wished to develop. 
The majority of projects started up their activities before having defined 
clearly their overall strategy. Firstly, this took time, in particular when it 
required a preliminary study or difficult negotiations between partners. 
Secondly, the availability of funds meant that many activities could be 
launched immediately and some of the partners were clearly ready to 
expand number of their existing activities. 
Initially the co-funding procedures led to inflexibility in setting priorities: 
the co-funding available to some projects was dedicated to specific action 
by the authorities granting it (e.g. training) or was sometimes partly in 
non-monetary form (such as making available personnel from the joint 
facility, and the projects thus had to make adjustments for human, material 
and financial resources which did not necessarily fit in with an integrated 
strategy. 
In this context the main objective of many projects was to expand their 
area of activity to take in a great variety of fields of activity. They thus 
tried to remedy the inadequacies of the social work which they observed 
in their area but they also did so to prove that they intended to take action 
to combat all the aspects of poverty. An explicit strategy which was 
properly integrated and approved by the projects' partners was in most 
cases only adopted in the course of the programme. Sometimes this led to 
changes in the partnership or in the project's team and sometimes it 
resulted in the area of intervention being redefined either by relocating 
activities or by taking action in a smaller number of areas in which the 
project had proven skills. 
However, the differences in the initial situations and the ways in which the 
projects developed make it difficult to identify any general features which 
they all had in common. The most useful approach thus seemed to be to 
provide several examples of the way in which projects evolved during the 
course of the programme in the boxes on the following pages. 
28 
AM06 MUNICH (GERMANY) 
The Wohnforum project, initiated by two organisations, is a response to the fact that 
housing policy, particularly in Munich where rents are high, did not make it possible 
to meet the needs of disadvantaged sections of the population. Its aim was to prove 
that it is possible to redirect this policy by renovating low-cost housing with the 
participation of disadvantaged groups for whom the housing is intended. 
In order to be able to carry out its activities successfully, the project formed the 
necessary institutional partnership, making way for unconventional forms of 
cooperation, but nevertheless, encountered financial and legal obstacles and was not 
able to start its operations in the field quickly There was a loss of confidence 
amongst some of the partners and differences in opinion between members of the 
team who had deliberately been chosen from different professional backgrounds. 
Once work on the first site was completed, the merit of this approach was recognised 
by the institutional partner and the project was able to achieve its second objective: 
to pass on its experience, enable it to be used elsewhere and to lend support to other 
teams. 
During the course of the programme, Wohnforum launched five renovation 
operations for various groups (250 persons) and eight other projects were prepared. 
The occupants of the housing were persuaded to participate but the aim of creating 
permanent jobs in the building trade for them proved unrealistic. 
Moreover, the rules for setting rents did not enable the occupants to benefit from all 
the savings which were achieved. If the project is to be continued when the 
programme comes to an end, new sources of financing will have to be found and 
legal obstacles will have to be removed gradually, which is no easy matter. 
AM12 HUELVA (SPAIN) 
The city of Huelva bore the full brunt of the industrial crisis and the decline in the 
fishing industry. The project area of intervention - Marisma del Odiel - bears all the 
hallmarks of a fringe urban district: an insecure living environment, health problems 
and illicit activities. 
The project was fortunate to have a very solid local grounding. It was able to rely on 
the local and regional authorities and several other organisations becoming involved 
and formalise this partnership in management and steering organisations which 
quickly proved effective. A local programme for renovating 200 dwellings in the area 
provided an opportunity to examine in depth the issue of integration via the living 
environment, taking account of the inhabitants' needs and their participation in 
urbanisation programmes undertaken on their behalf. The activities undertaken to 
provide day-to-day support for the families affected by the programme revealed other 
difficulties facing them and the complexity of the responses which were needed to 
solve them. 
29 
On this highly pragmatic basis, the project devised a series of complementary 
activities and succeeded in involving the inhabitants in carrying them out. Apart from 
improving the living environment, activities to promote success at school for the 
children in the district assumed considerable importance, as did aid for vocational 
integration of young people and women. 
The quality and originality of the work carried out by the projects team has been 
acknowledged by the local authorities and AM12 Huelva is to extend its methods to 
the entire city once the programme is completed. 
AM19 MANIAGO (ITALY) 
The Bucanave project covers a mountainous rural area in Frioul (25 000 inhabitants), 
and especially mountain villages which are isolated, have ageing populations and 
whose skilled workers are leaving them. That the project was launched owes much 
the regional public agencies which were keen to experiment with a new intervention 
model - a local development agency - designed to create synergy between their 
activities and those of the local administrations. 
At first the predominance of these public agencies in the steering committee for the 
project occasioned a certain amount of inflexibility and, above all, little involvement 
by the local players despite the avowed aims of the project to promote an active 
approach amongst the population and break with the culture of isolation. However, 
the institutional partnership was changed, enabling the project to be opened up more 
to local organisations. 
The innovatory aspects and the effectiveness of the activities carried out to promote 
economic development and the improvement in social and health services are 
stressed in the assessment. The project also enabled a new social service organisation 
and a centre for the development of tourism to be set up, plans to revive the cutlery 
sector to be defined and other structures to be created which will become permanent 
once the programme is being completed. 
AM21 DEN HELDER, EINDHOVEN, HENGELO (NETHERLANDS) 
This pilot project was one of the only ones to take place at several locations: the 
poor districts of three cities experiencing various forms of exclusion. It was 
coordinated by the NIWZ, a national non-governmental organisation, in conjunction 
with the municipalities. 
The programme came during a crucial period of social policy reform in the 
Netherlands (social renewal policy) which, like Poverty 3 favours a multidimensional 
local approach involving the inhabitants. The project was thus able to pursue its 
activities within the framework of the reform, the aim being to match up supply and 
demand for services and to dismantle the barriers between public services or between 
public and private sectors. As its approach favoured participation, it obviously gave 
priority to the inhabitants organising themselves. 
30 
In each of the districts action was organised around different forms of support, for 
example: 
- a district centre at Den Helder which, after renovation by young unemployed 
persons, developed a range of services and became a meeting point for the residents, 
- setting up of a partnership between institutions and inhabitants to devise a social 
development plan for a district in Eindhoven and the opening up of an information 
office, 
- creation of networks at Hengelo to promote links between economic and social 
integration. 
The projects' team estimates that approximately 80% of the activities initiated by 
Poverty 3 will become permanent or have already been included in regular 
programmes. The pilot project has thus enabled existing policy to be adjusted in a 
number of domains. 
AM27 EDINBURGH (UNITED KINGDOM) 
It was no easy matter to define the strategic objectives for the Pilton Partnership Ltd. 
project in Edinburgh. It occasioned considerable debate at various levels of the 
partnership and the project only started at the beginning of 1992 on the basis of a 
strategy document approved by the steering committee. The general aim of the 
project was to act as a catalyst in the development of community initiatives in 
Greater Pilton. 
By adopting this stand, the project demonstrated both the provisional nature of the 
structure created under Poverty 3 and its willingness to take action to launch long 
term development. What was needed was both: 
- to contribute to reinforcing the capacity for action of the inhabitants' organisations 
of Greater Pilton to enable them to establish what their needs and their rights were 
and to give them the means to obtain a response from the public authorities, 
- to work with existing social structures to develop new responses to problems 
facing the population. 
In line with this strategy, the projects activities covered some direct action such as 
setting up a crèche or training programmes and support to local organisations, 37 of 
which received aid. 
At the end of the programme the main impact of the project will have been to 
provide Pilton with new local or regional funding which will enable several of the 
activities already initiated to be pursued. The operational team will be disbanded, 
which is consistent with the spirit of the project but nevertheless means that there is 
a risk of all the expertise accumulated during the programme being lost. 
31 
IN33 ADIE (FRANCE) 
The ADEE (Association for the Right to Economic Initiative) set itself the objective 
of enabling people without jobs and living on the fringes on society, who did not 
have access to normal credit channels, to obtain loans so that they could create their 
own jobs by working for themselves. Its strategy did not vary throughout the 
programme and was designed to: 
- extend gradually its field of activity through a national correspondence network, 
- improve rules and regulations on the creation of economic activity by undertaking 
a campaign to inform the public authorities and public opinion on the merit of this 
type of approach for excluded persons. 
Right from the start the AIDE was able to rely on volunteers with considerable 
experience in banking and job creation who were able to define specific techniques 
for loans and monitoring of borrowers depending on their economic situation and on 
cultural, psychological and social factors. The operational team thus developed highly 
individual contacts with each of them. 
The ADEE extended its range of partners considerably during the programme. The 
core of initial sources of finance, which was already large, has been extended to 
other ministries, other NGOs, local authorities and banks. 
The results of the first five years of activity have largely been positive. Its credit 
activities are increasingly rapidly and it has a good record for repayment of loans 
and consolidation of the activities supported. The impact on public opinion has been 
considerable as a result of a large number of reports on television and in the press 
and government organisations have also been impressed. ADEE is going to continue 
its activities and even extend them once Poverty 3 has come to an end and its 
development plans are ambitious (5000 loans per year). 
32 
2.2 We can take stock of the activities conducted by the projects in the course 
of the programme using a joint assessment method which does not, of 
course, reflect the complexity of the operations or the way they cater for 
local circumstances, but which has the advantage of providing a 
conspectus of their fields of intervention and of identifying clearly the 
partners involved. 
a) The fields of intervention were highly varied as many of the 
projects were keen to direct their efforts towards the main aspects 
of poverty. Many of the innovatory measures specialised in one or 
two fields of activity defined initially, but the majority of the pilot 
projects sought to increase at the same time opportunities for 
employment, qualification and access to social rights and to 
improve the living conditions of disadvantaged sections of the 
population in terms of housing, and cultural and leisure services. 
Health and the fight against failure at school were priorities but 
were tackled less frequently, although almost one in two projects 
were active in these fields. 
Number of projects by field of intervention (41 
projects) 
Employment and vocational training 33 
Social action, access to rights 30 
Local social development 29 
Culture and leisure 26 
Housing and urbanisation 25 
Health 21 
The fight against failure at school 17 
b) Access to employment and vocational training is the theme which 
mobilised most of the projects. This is a sign that for many people 
measures seeking to increase opportunities for employment are the 
key to combating poverty. It was also apparent that, as the 
programme advanced, teams which had hitherto been specialists in 
social support for target groups reinforced their activities in this 
field. Young people and women were often the main targets for 
such activity due to the difficulties they encounter in the labour 
market. 
The projects tackled this domain in three different ways, all of 
which on a fairly large scale: 
- increasing qualifications by training courses or relearning social 
skills with a view to training, 
33 
- providing better information on opportunities for employment 
and ways to gain access to them (job seeking assistance, 
counselling and information structures, etc.). 
- seeking out new sources of employment which could be 
accessible to people in difficulties. This was mainly in sectors 
offering family service jobs which are often insecure or temporary. 
Nevertheless, half the projects managed to persuade enterprises and 
associations of enterprises to try to create new regular employment 
c) The large number of activities surrounding access to rights and 
social action was generally a result of the fact that the traditional 
activities of the social services in the area covered by the projects 
were incomplete or unsuitable for certain population groups or for 
certain types of benefit. 
For many of the projects the idea was to "make good some of the 
inadequacies of state provisions" by creating reception centres or 
social facilities (18 projects), promoting access to rights with 
respect housing health or education (17 projects) or seeking sources 
of income to provide basic assistance (12 projects). 
Local authorities and professional social workers were inevitably 
partners to this type of activity but their efforts were not directed 
towards exactly the same type of action. The former were more 
concerned with access to rights whilst the latter were more likely 
to participate in setting up reception centres or new services. 
d) The projects' involvement in the field of local social development 
is perfectly in harmony with the programme's objectives of 
partnership and multidimensionality: 
- to encourage promoters with common aims to work together and 
to organise discussion groups on efficient local solutions 
(22 projects), 
- to advertise and promote local initiatives amongst all local 
players (19 projects), 
- to organise skills development in the area through suitable 
training activities (16 projects), 
- to devise logistic support to implement projects undertaken by 
other local players (15 projects), 
- to create infrastructure (14 projects) etc., 
The partners in these activities are, first, local authorities and, 
second, district associations which may get involved to preclude 
the risk of their respective activities being fragmented. 
e) The other fields of intervention are, in order of frequency, culture 
and leisure, housing and urbanisation, health and education. 
34 
A large number of culture and leisure activities were conducted in 
close cooperation with a network of associations and took the form 
of creation of socio-cultural structures (20 projects) or support for 
local associations working in this field (16 projects). This type of 
intervention, which was primarily aimed at children and 
adolescents, appears to offer more opportunities for active 
participation by the population in planning and carrying out 
activities than others. It also offers it an opportunity to get 
involved in rewarding activities which do not carry the stigma of 
conventional action on its behalf. 
Housing and urbanisation activities were intended to: 
- improve housing in the area and, in more general terms, the 
living environment (some 20 projects). For example, several pilot 
projects focused their efforts on renovating dilapidated housing 
- ease access to housing for certain groups with particular 
difficulties or who are generally taken charge of by institutions 
(15 projects). 
Although the organisations letting the accommodation rarely 
figured as partners in these projects, it did prove possible to 
mobilise local authorities and employers and workers organisations. 
Activities undertaken in the field of health were as much 
preventive as curative. The projects' first aim was to inform target 
groups and to make them aware of what a health lifestyle 
constitutes and to fight against alcohol and drug addiction 
(13 projects). This is the field of intervention of local authorities. 
Another group of projects, who were encouraged by professionals 
in social and health work, set themselves the aim of increasing 
opportunities for access to care for the most deprived sections of 
the population and to popularise the idea of a real entitlement to 
health (15 projects). 
Action to combat failure at school was generally intended to make 
up for the deficiencies of educational systems by providing help 
with school work (12 projects) and giving adults the possibility of 
escaping illiteracy (11 projects). 
GRADUAL ABSORPTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF POVERTY 3 
3.1 Listing the activities undertaken by the projects does provide a better 
picture of what they have actually been engaged on but does not enable 
us to assess their ability to meet the needs of deprived sections of the 
population, their internal coherence or their relevance vis-à-vis existing 
social programmes in the areas covered by the project. Apart from going 
back to the monographs, the results of several assessment studies can be 
used to address these questions. 
35 
a) First ofall, the projects seem to have concentrated their efforts on 
fields of activity which have been neglected hitherto. This is 
particularly true of social action and access to rights, and local 
social development: four out of five projects working on these 
aspects of poverty undertook types of action which did not exist 
hitherto. But this is also the case in other fields. We can thus see 
that the projects not only spurred development in conventional 
methods of action in social policy but also intervened frequently 
where national policy left areas or sections of the population 
without any specific support. 
Innovation in activities on behalf of disadvantaged groups was not 
only in terms of methodology (replacing unsuitable methods by 
other believed to be more effective). It often contributed to creating 
services where nothing comparable had existed hitherto. The 
correlation analyses carried out to compare the strands of activity 
given priority by the projects and the existence of national 
arrangements in such matters, moreover, shows up this aspect of 
Poverty 3 very clearly: it enabled local players to take action in 
new areas for them for which they had not received any special 
encouragement from national programmes. 
Few projects were engaged in the seven categories of activities 
listed above at the same time (2.2.a). Only five did so and seven 
other projects tackled six fields. However, one may not draw the 
conclusion that their activities were not sufficiently wide-ranging, 
as this can be only judged in the light of the existence of services 
which were already available through national or local systems. 
As regards the projects which only tackled some of the domains 
under consideration, analysis of the data showed that there were 
three main lines of attack: 
- a few projects concentrated most of their efforts on housing, all 
their other activities being directly linked with this 
(cf. AM06 Munich); 
- others sought a coherent approach in a local social development 
strategy, trying to activate the local community by encouraging 
local players to work together, creating forums for discussion and 
supporting some local initiatives (cf. AM27 Pilton Partnership); 
- finally, others wished to achieve the aim of economic and social 
integration by combining direct intervention in several domains, 
which they considered had to be tackled simultaneously to obtain 
any worthwhile results in (cf. AM 12 Huelva). 
b) Were these activities the ones which the target populations in the 
programme needed most? This question takes us back to both the 
degree and nature of participation by the target populations in 
defining and guiding action (cf. paragraph 3.2) and the ability of 
36 
the agents of social policy to analyse these needs and set priorities 
accordingly. 
The projects' activity reports and the local assessment reports 
seldom contain full and convincing arguments, based on an 
analysis of the population's needs, explaining cogently why a 
project focused its activities on one domain rather than another. 
There are some exceptions (cf. box). However, the choice of 
activities, which of course did respond to a real and pressing need, 
were often made on the basis of the initial skills of the projects' 
promoters, the possibilities for forming a partnership or finding the 
necessary funding. 
AM07 Argyroupolis 
A research project launched at the beginning of the programme 
demonstrated that there four factors leading to social exclusion 
in the area covered by the Argyroupolis project. 
1. Families, even poor ones, pursue a strategy of social 
climbing for their children which led them to make enormous 
financial sacrifices. As a result the young people end up by 
being over qualified for the jobs which are available. 2. The 
economic activities based on family structures were not able to 
step up their production capacity as a result of the lack of 
transparency in the market and their inability to obtain financing 
from banks. 
3. The rapid growth in the population and the difficulties 
experienced by new inhabitants in developing a new local 
identity within a short period of time allied with the highly 
introverted character of family relations created "considerable 
local alienation". 
4. The highly centralised nature of the administration 
constantly disrupted social services at local level and the 
situation was exacerbated by a lack of investment in social 
structures. 
The research project analysed the economic, demographic, 
socio-cultural, educational and administrative processes in 
combination with each other which revealed suitable courses of 
action such as setting up local multi-functional centres. 
When the target populations concerned were directly involved in 
running the project, they were probably able to assert their 
preferences, even though there might have been a risk of 
inequitable representation of all the disadvantaged groups. Where 
this was not the case, there was a possibility that the action taken 
did not always respond to their most urgent needs. Nevertheless, 
in situations frequently marked by a sharp rise in poverty and 
37 
exclusion, the target populations' needs were so great and so 
different and the resources available so inadequate that a very 
pragmatic approach by the projects was justified. Certainly, it was 
difficult to determine precisely which needs were most pressing 
and, in terms of effectiveness, it was preferable to take action 
where one was sure of being able to assemble the necessary skills 
and resources. 
3.2 The projects' teams managed to set out their strategies clearly and to 
persuade their partners to share them by gradually adopting the principles 
advocated by Poverty 3 - partnership, multidimensionality and 
participation - in a manner taking account of local circumstances. 
Although these principles might have appeared initially too abstract in 
general to constitute a proper guide to action, constant discussion within 
the programme of what they actually meant enabled them to become a 
very solid basis for steering projects in the right direction. The way in 
which they were used by the projects can be summarised and the 
conditions of application which help to make them particularly effective 
in the fight against poverty and social exclusion can be demonstrated as 
follows: 
a) Making partnership the organisational model for local activities 
was no easy matter. In some countries, the word itself meant little 
or nothing to the most of those involved and the idea of making all 
the public and private players work together constituted a major 
departure from traditional practice - a novelty and challenge to 
administrative and regulatory arrangements. All the same, even in 
countries which already had the concept of partnership in their 
local policies, various problems such as institutional rivalry or 
administrative inflexibility at times caused practical difficulties. 
In some instances, partnership was regarded at first as a simple 
contractual obligation (to convene formally the partners in the 
steering committee in order to obtain or share community 
financing). Pedagogical skills were required to convince the 
decision makers and implementing bodies of the value of a 
partnership embracing the whole project and not merely its 
financial aspects. Imagination was also needed to devise suitable 
forms of cooperation at local and national level and obtain the 
agreement of the parties concerned. 
The process of establishing partnerships intensified appreciably 
from 1990/91 onwards. This was accounted for by the fact that the 
Commission and the central unit organised a series of visits to the 
project to forge direct links with the local partners and that the 
projects drew their own conclusions from their first operational 
experience. Many projects immediately reorganised their 
partnership procedures, institutionalised their decision-making 
systems and at the same time opened new - sometimes unofficial 
38 
- avenues for participation of associations, and, to lesser extent, 
management and labour. 
On-going assessment of the programme has shown that the practice 
of partnership has gradually developed to a point where the 
contribution which can be made by each party is understood better. 
In the initial phase of the programme, partnerships were most 
frequently organised around the central course of action defined by 
the promoters of the project who, having designed the project, 
gradually involved other players, concluded contracts with the 
implementers, took on financial and administrative responsibility 
for the project and sought to ensure that it was internally consistent 
and to coordinate it with the European programme as a whole. This 
model was used by many projects, particularly in the initial phases 
of the programme. Another more complex model can be envisaged 
with a network structure where the project operates horizontally 
and each element of the structure makes its own contribution to the 
running of the partnership on an equal or relatively equal basis. 
The first model ensures that a leader is clearly identified, but its 
vertical structure does not guarantee that all the players see their 
interests being catered for in the partnership and hence become 
permanently involved. The second model, which functions as a 
network and is more open to a wide range of players, can result in 
a lack of shared objectives and strategies which gradually unravels 
the partnership. 
The projects' experiences mirror the search for a balance between 
the conflicting forces which inevitably arise when a partnership is 
set up. Without going into all the lessons which have been learnt 
from the programme, it is possible to identify several crucial 
factors in creating a sound and rewarding partnership for 
everybody involved: 
- one must appreciate that setting up a partnership is a slow and 
complex process and only medium-term objectives should be set, 
- the preparation and launch phase is crucial. One has to be able 
to select the players, explain the programme's goals, and define 
precisely the rules of the game and the commitments undertaken 
by each party, 
- a partnership involves a change in attitude on the part of the 
actors, and a departure from hierarchical and traditional corporate 
thinking, 
- all the players must find the partnership rewarding and must 
achieve results in return for their commitment. Distribution of 
resources is a critical phase and must be arranged in as even 
handed and transparent manner as possible, 
39 
- a partnership must not neglect political action but this must not 
become its central aim nor become the only forum for making 
political claims, 
- the effectiveness of partnership cannot be measured by the 
number of players involved but depends on a stable and committed 
core being formed, around which new players can gradually 
become involved, 
- the fact that the programme aims to bring different partners 
together inevitably means that there is a potential for conflict 
between them. The projects must learn to cope with this potential 
for conflict, accept differences in opinion and develop more ground 
for negotiation - a process which is easier at local level, 
- it is important for permanent structures to be created at all levels 
as a result of the partnership but this cannot be improvised and 
must be planned and set out as a goal right from the start of the 
programme. 
b) The principle of multidimensionality is based on the observation 
that social exclusion and poverty are complex and take many forms 
and are the result of both economic and social factors. Any action 
taken must seek to encourage comprehensive and coherent moves 
towards integration, taking into consideration all the domains 
where exclusion of the populations concerned is manifest and 
spreading. 
For the projects, this principle represented a real challenge, too: it 
meant that they had to aim for coherence and synergism in their 
activities rather than a proliferation of isolated activities. The 
profusion of activities in many of the projects meant that an 
integrated approach could not always be adopted immediately but 
only developed gradually in close association with the progress 
within the partnership. 
The studies on the programme suggest that the effectiveness of 
multidimensional action is determined by a few main factors: 
- the choice of area, 
- the accuracy of the diagnosis on the phenomena of exclusion and 
the project's ability to steer action in the right direction, 
- formation of a suitable partnership, 
- definition of sufficiently precise and realistic goals to enable 
them to provide a permanent bench mark for action and assessment 
strategies and thus to prevent the project from spreading itself too 
thinly. At the same time mobilisation of diversified instruments 
serving as technical support to underpin the coherence of the 
project and the search for synergy. 
The first two factors - choice of an area and the diagnosis -
normally take place in the first phase of the programme and the 
projects' initial uncertainty as to their strategy generally meant that 
40 
they were not fully in control of these factors. The territorial limits 
of projects frequently coincided with the promoters traditional area 
of action or the electoral ward of the representative chairing the 
steering committee without the relevance of this area being 
scrutinised in relation to the aims pursued. Elsewhere, it was 
apparent that the links between the diagnosis of the phenomena of 
poverty and the course of action chosen by the projects were not 
always convincing. Nevertheless, many projects have gone back to 
the drawing board in this respect in the process of self-assessment 
and have decided to redraw the map of their area of activity and 
adjust their priorities to achieve greater coherence. 
The link between partnership and multidimensionality seems to be 
self-evident. An isolated organisation cannot do everything and has 
to specialise when it actually takes action. In order to conduct 
multidimensional action against poverty, a partnership has to be set 
up and, what is more, this partnership must fit in with the project's 
strategy. In the case of many pilot projects the need to form a 
financial partnership came before this strategy was defined clearly 
which sometimes resulted in hold-ups and also two forms of 
partnership are being set up in parallel, an official partnership in 
the steering committee and a more operational partnership in the 
field. 
The conclusion would seem to be that a precise strategy needs to 
be defined first, with due care taken to ensure that it is consistent, 
before the partnership is formed. A realistic multidimensional 
strategy which is to be the basis for the projects' activities must be 
defined somewhere but not in an isolated organisation which does 
have not all the necessary data at its disposal. Forming a 
partnership and defining a multidimensional strategy are thus two 
complementary aspects of the same project which have to be 
controlled simultaneously and adjusted gradually. 
In the innovatory measures, and also in the pilot projects, realistic 
objectives were frequently defined and suitable resources mobilised 
by identifying precisely the target populations for which the 
projects attempted to map out an "integration scheme" combining 
activities in various domains to enable them to gradually escape 
from poverty and exclusion. Another approach favours a survey of 
the services offered to all the disadvantaged groups in the area, 
thus highlighting shortcomings, duplication of effort, and lack of 
coherence in action taken by various bodies. The explicit goal of 
the project was then to coordinate social action in the area more 
effectively to enable the poorest to have access to the fundamental 
rights and services normally guaranteed for the whole population. 
In practice these two approaches are not contradictory and many 
projects try to combine. 
41 
c) Participation of the disadvantaged groups in the activities and 
decisions relevant to them constitutes the third key principle of the 
programme and one which was a major concern right from the 
start. Nevertheless, in the majority of the project's this principle 
was implemented later and the projects energy was initially 
concentrated on stabilising their decision-making and management 
structures and defining their strategies. 
It should also be emphasised that the principle of participation can 
be interpreted in different ways, depending on cultural tradition and 
national policies and the ideas pursued by the projects promoters. 
This results in a mixed bag of practices and levels of participation: 
apart from the "passive" forms of participation i.e. being the target 
of an activity or user of a service, several projects devised ways of 
coopting the groups concerned and their representatives in the 
decision making procedures in (creating associations with a direct-
voice or counterbalancing role; participating in the steering 
committee; involvement in action to reinforce solidarity within the 
groups concerned, etc.). 
Several projects reported that they had had problems in 
implementing the principle of participation whilst the level of 
participation is largely a measure of the potential of the persons 
concerned, it also depends on the ability of the institutions to share 
power and to make a real effort to help the groups break with the 
passivity and dependency induced by being targets for assistance. 
Nevertheless, the principle of participation assumed growing 
importance for the projects as the programme progressed. All of 
them which made it the lynch pin of their strategy from the start 
pursued the same course and tested new types of participation and 
compared notes with each other. In many other projects the need 
for participation arose gradually. In very run-down economic and 
social environments, the limits of purely technical discussions on 
the means by which the social services can integrate people in 
difficulty emerged more and more clearly and it was the relations 
between social institutions and the most deprived groups which 
became important: how could collective access by such groups to 
full participation in society be promoted, how could they be made 
the agents of their own social, economic and political lives? 
Participation is not only a means of making public action more 
effective but it is a goal in its own right to strengthen the social 
fabric and to prevent rifts in society which could never be healed. 
42 
Part IV - The impact of the programme 
Assessment has been one of the Commission's concerns since the programme was being 
planned; agreement was thus reached with the projects to institute a system of continuous 
self-assessment (paragraph 1). 
1 ASSESSMENT: RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 
1.1 Since Poverty 3 was being planned, the Commission has stressed the need 
for continuous assessment of activities and its concern to make assessment 
a requirement for all the players concerned and a guarantee of the quality 
of the activities. 
Priority was given to self-assessment carried out as an integral part of the 
programme rather than assessment carried out from outside. This is the 
option taken by Article 3(c) of the Council decision which provides that 
assessment is one of the elements involved in organising the programme 
and one of the tasks of the research and development units, i.e. the 
consultants involved in the many tasks associated with supporting the 
projects. 
The decision to opt for continuous self-assessment was based on 
experience gained with the second programme to fight poverty but also 
from other national and Community programmes which highlighted the 
difficulties, and also the merit in terms of innovation and experimentation, 
of an approach to assessment closely associated with the action and 
designed as an aid to the players and not as an external means of control. 
The decision to opt for self-assessment meant that the initiative was 
delegated to local - project - level, since the complexity of the programme 
and the projects made it impossible to define a priori a procedure or 
indicators for assessment which could be used universally and for all 
activities independent of the local context. In order to be relevant to the 
local context, assessment procedures had to be "made to measure" at 
project level and the central unit could only produce general 
methodological guides which needed to be adjusted and absorbed by local 
players. Assessment was thus one of the contractual requirements for the 
project for which part of the budget had to be set aside (5%), but the way 
it was organised was left to the projects, with the support of the research 
and developments unit where the need arose. 
This option was, of course, a gamble on the ability of the players to accept 
methodical scrutiny of their practices and to allow this scrutiny to be 
conducted against the background of conflicting opinions which any action 
conducted under the auspices of the partnership is likely to give rise to. 
However, this gamble was consistent with the overall approach of a 
programme involving experimentation and partnership. 
43 
For many of the projects the introduction of self-assessment was a real 
innovation. It was sometimes difficult to implement and gave rise to 
conflicts at least initially but was a great help to all the projects in 
planning activities and adjusting development strategies. It also increased 
the merit of the projects in the eyes of their partners and the authorities 
under whose auspices they were operating as they were able to see for 
themselves that the players were at pains to adopt a rigorous and serious 
minded approach. The support lent by the research and development units 
in the process of self-assessment enabled the players concerned to absorb 
its principles properly. 
This arrangement thus incontestably helped the projects to come to terms 
with assessment and adaptation of assessment procedures to the 
characteristics of a complex programme, to the variety and diversity of the 
activities undertaken, the involvement of many different partners who 
inevitably did not pursue the same objectives, numerous instances of 
interference with national or local programmes which often had greater 
resources, etc. This type of programme cannot be assessed by the same 
procedures and methods as simple programmes or individual projects. Its 
overall impact on the situation can only be indirect with little visible effect 
in the short term and it is always difficult to distinguish between the 
impact attributable to the programme from that determined by external 
factors. Hence, one cannot expect a precise measure of all the effects of 
a programme from an assessment but more a demonstration of the lessons 
learnt from the programme formulated in fairly general terms. Assessment 
thus has strong element of learning and must first be perceived as useful 
to all the players in the programme, despite the differences in expectations 
that they have of it 
1.2 Whilst the self-assessment system was valuable in terms of the 
development of the project and the programme, its contribution to an 
assessment of the programme in its entirety was less positive. The research 
and development units and the central unit drew up national and European 
reports based on local assessment but these reports were determined very 
largely by the quality of the local assessments, and the extent of trust and 
openness in the relations between the projects, the research and 
development units and the central unit. These relations were sometimes 
close which enabled the research and development unit to steer the 
project's assessment work in a direction enabling the programme's 
assessment needs to be taken into account too. Generally speaking 
therefore they did have quality information on which to base their own 
national report which in turn was used to provide input for the assessment 
of the programme at European level. Nevertheless there were some 
problems which could be overcome: some projects were held up, initially 
there were very disparate views of the role, methods and objectives of 
assessment within the research and development unit which converged 
only gradually and some of assessment priorities and indicators which 
were comparable at European level were not defined clearly enough. As 
a result there was a lack of focus in the assessment which prevented the 
44 
results from being capitalised upon to assess the programme in its entirety. 
This was only really achieved in the final publication on the programme 
which was prepared jointly by the research and development units and the 
central unit and was entitled "The lessons learned from the Poverty 3 
programme" (in 1994). 
This only moderately favourable assessment does not call into question the 
relevance of opting for continuing self-assessment but is more of a cue for 
recommending certain adjustments to be made in a future programme. 
First, local self-assessment needs to be improved by making sure that the 
people responsible have a greater degree of independence and second, and 
more important, self-assessment needs to be accompanied by an external 
assessment, especially at key moments in the programme. 
1.3 Although priority has thus been accorded to self-assessment as an integral 
part of the programme, the Commission sought to promote an assessment 
conducted at some distance from the immediate scene of action. This is 
not properly speaking an independent assessment but an .assessment by 
players not directly involved in the project's action. 
With this in mind the Commission invited the representatives of the 
Member State to report on what they perceived to be the strengths and 
weaknesses of the programme at the half-way stage. The contributions 
from the Member States were used at the conference in Copenhagen in 
June 1993 and in preparing the interim report on the implementation of the 
programme (COM(93) 435 final) which was submitted to the Council on 
22 September 1993. It was also with this in mind that the Commission 
encouraged the Member States to organise national or regional meetings 
to review and discuss the impact of the programme and the dissemination 
of its results. 
Finally, we should point out that assessments were made which were 
totally independent of the Commission, especially one carried out on the 
initiative of the British House of Lords which visited the projects and 
interviewed many of the players with the support of external experts and 
whose report can thus be regarded as a genuine external assessment report. 
INTEGRATION OF THE MOST DISADVANTAGED GROUPS 
2.1 Several methodological problems were encountered in assessing the impact 
of the programme with regard to the general aim of integrating the most 
disadvantaged groups. 
a) As we have said, it is difficult to measure the net effects of a 
programme and of local projects which cover a wide range of 
activity: the overall effect is not the sum of the effect of each of 
the activities and effects which are not directly measurable need to 
be taken into account (such as synergism or rivalry between 
activities); as the relations between cause and effect are so difficult 
45 
to identify, global indicators (such as the statistics on poverty in 
the area), which are not always available at local level and whose 
development depends on external factors (changes in the economic 
situation or the existence of other public programmes which could 
also influence the value of the indicators used for example), must 
be referred to. 
b) The relevance of an observation on the situation of the persons 
concerned since the end of the programme should also be 
discussed. Poverty 3 was designed mainly to bring about effects in 
the long term at the expense of the short term impact and, as we 
have seen, creating new forms of partnerships, developing 
participation, defining global strategies are operations which take 
time and which can, initially, have a destabilising effect on social 
policy agents and may not occasion any appreciable increase in the 
effectiveness of their action. 
2.2 Having made these methodological observations, we can provide some 
information on the people who benefitted from the projects. 
a) Most of the activities conducted under the programme were in 
areas which were not being dealt with hitherto in the project's 
fields of activity and which owed their existence to the programme. 
The vast majority of the people concerned would then probably not 
have been able to benefit from the same type of services without 
Poverty 3. Generally speaking, therefore this is a net impact 
produced by the programme which provides better access to 
disadvantaged groups to services which they really need to improve 
their circumstances. 
b) Information was collected amongst the projects on the number of 
persons or families which benefitted from the project's activities. 
This information must be handled with care as the projects' 
operations were diverse and had a very varied impact, depending 
on the populations concerned. As a result, adding up the number 
of persons affected by the programme is a fairly crude or only 
indicative means of assessing the programme's impact. It is for 
example difficult to calculate in the same way the effect of an 
operation to monitor over a long period a small group of persons 
with access to a very full range of services and, on the other hand, 
the opening of municipal centre offering the inhabitants selective 
services or educational, cultural and leisure activities. 
Three-quarters of the projects provided sufficiently precise 
responses to be counted. Approximately 38 000 persons were 
affected by the programme. However, there were great differences 
between the projects Approximately half of the projects did not 
affect more than 500 persons (which is already a lot), whilst eight 
46 
projects announced that there were more than a 1000 users of their 
programmes' activities. 
In order to identify Poverty 3 target population more accurately, 
one can also refer to the data on the groups involved in each of the 
activities conducted by the projects. There are many of these, 
almost 450 for the pilot projects alone, an average of 15 per 
project. The accent was placed on selecting the target groups, 
people on a minimum income, children and young people, the 
unemployed and minorities, which bears witness to the fact that the 
projects were at pains to reach the most disadvantaged and most 
vulnerable groups at present and to combine action on behalf of 
people who are already living under very difficult conditions and 
preventive action to stop others, especially the youngest people, 
from joining them soon in social exclusion. 
Distribution of activities by target group 
Target group % of 
activities 
Recipients of minimum income 22 
Children and young people 22 
Unemployed 15 
Minorities (ethnic groups and migrants) 8 
All the population 7 
The elderly 6 
The ill and the disabled 5 
People in active but low income employment 5 
Other groups such as drug addicts, prostitutes, etc.) 5 
Voluntary organisations NGOs, team, etc. 5 
TOTAL 100 
2.3 The description of the projects' content and the development thereof has 
already showed up the positive effects of the programme at local level and 
its ability to stimulate real local activity. 
a) Generally speaking, the aims of the programme attract a certain 
amount of interest at local level and the European label acts as a 
magnet, easing recognition of its activities. The name normally 
given to the programme, which proclaims the notion of poverty, 
was a problem for some projects, at least in countries where the 
concept has negative associations. Clearly to the reference to the 
European programme has less of an effect in countries where 
public opinion thinks it has little to learn from Europe in matters 
47 
of social policy Nevertheless, and in general terms, identifying 
with the programme is a powerful incentive: the local partnership 
approach was convincing and enabled elected representatives, 
public administrations and non-governmental organisations to be 
involved in the action. The interest aroused by the programme 
amongst social policy players and also amongst researchers and in 
the media confirms this. Special praise is due to the operating 
teams which, feeling that they were getting more recognition, 
spared no effort to raise awareness of the programme's aims and 
principles. 
The projects' local action was expanded to take in other 
organisations and contribute to the debate or innovations on a 
larger scale. In Ireland the Limerick project carried out a local 
study which encouraged public authorities to reexamine the 
problem of school fees as an obstacle for deprived persons. In the 
Netherlands, the Valkenbourg projects set up a promising 
cooperation agreement with the regional office for aid for 
handicapped persons and the latter decided to inform all its 
beneficiaries of the services and activities offered by the project. 
In Antwerp, the project succeeded in launching a debate with the 
Flemish employers' organisation on the employers' responsibility 
for their social environment and, at the same time, persuaded local 
employers to take an interest in the programme's organisational set 
up. 
b) The programme definitely increased the ability of local players to 
take action against poverty and exclusion and in particular, 
increased the qualifications of the agents of the programme: the 
programme was a laboratory of ideas and innovatory operations 
where the project teams and their partners were able to stand back 
from conventional practice. They were able to give themselves the 
time and resources to plan new methods together, to experiment 
with them, assess them and to draw conclusions for the future. The 
training courses for the members of the operating teams organised 
by the central unit largely contributed to this increase in skills as 
did the methodological support provided by the research and 
development units. 
c) This enabled the programme to accomplish a vital task in fighting 
against the effects of poverty at local level and to start to rebuild 
the social and economic lives of the communities hit hard by 
poverty. The House of Lords already mentioned noted that 
"Poverty 3 made it possible to do a job which otherwise would not 
have been done or which would only have been done with great 
difficulty and the progress observed in the self-confidence of the 
communities involved in the programme and in their sense of 
solidarity are particularly encouraging in the long term. In this 
sense, the accent placed on training and education activities for all 
48 
ages, from the very young to adults was fully justified as were the 
cultural activities. Although the strengthening of local economies 
is a task beyond the programme's scope, in view of its resources, 
one must underline the determination and inventiveness shown by 
the projects in finding or creating new jobs. The principles of 
multi-dimensionality, partnership and participation were translated 
by the projects into concrete action catering for local situations". 
2.4 Poverty 3 was a programme lasting for five years and we should thus 
examine to what extent local activities can continue once the programme 
comes to an end. The projects were therefore asked in Autumn 1994 about 
their prospects and the possibility of their becoming permanent or being 
extended in order to prevent an interruption adversely affecting the 
momentum that had been built up. The future of the project can be 
analysed from several points of view: partnership, financial resources, 
maintaining the areas and types of intervention and the future of the teams. 
A total of three-quarters of the operating team stated that their project 
would be pursued after Poverty 3. Almost half of them (13 projects) have 
been taken entirely under the wing of local structures - generally the 
municipalities. The others have been renewed partially and are going to 
concentrate on other activities for which financial, infrastructure and/or 
personnel resources have been found. This outcome must be interpreted in 
the light of analyses conducted on the programme's activities. In the 
majority of cases, these activities covered new areas which were not dealt 
with hitherto in the area. The fact that there is only partial continuation of 
a project does not therefore mean that the area is returning to the situation 
before the programme but means, on the contrary, that the local regional 
or national public authorities are going to continue to uphold the financing 
of new operations initiated by the programme despite the budgetary 
situation which is sometimes very tight. 
The financial partnership launched by Poverty 3 will not be repeated in 
full. 11 projects have provision for funding by a single body, be it a local 
(7 projects), regional (2) or national (3) authority. Nevertheless, as we 
have seen, financial partnership should not be confused with the 
partnership in the field formed for the purposes of action. Teams have 
continued to search very actively for partners and 17 projects say that they 
have involved new players in some of their activities. Apparently, the 
moves to adjust partnerships in line with the developments and strategy of 
the projects already observed during the programme are continuing. 
Sometimes the end of the programme also led to the area of intervention 
being changed. In some cases the area was extended and the experience 
gleaned from Poverty 3 was extended to the entire city (AMI2 Huelva 
programme for example), new built-up areas (AM24 Porto) or larger areas 
(AM22 Almeida or AM 15 Le Doubs). In other cases, by contrast, the 
projects wished to limit intervention to areas experiencing the severest problems. 
49 
Not all the types of activity developed by the projects in the cause of the 
programme will be continued. The rate at which the same fields of 
intervention will be retained is slightly under 70% for all the projects 
(including those which will not definitely become permanent). A higher 
rate of activity will be sustained in areas such as the fight against failure 
at school, social action and access to rights and employment/training than 
in culture, leisure and health. These differences are not easy to explain on 
the basis of the information available. Nevertheless, a relationship does 
seem to exist between an area of activity becoming permanent and the 
changes in local opinion on this field as a result of the programme. For 
example, almost all the teams which managed to continue their activities 
in the field of employment and training report that there has been a change 
in local political views on the subject. This would support the theory that 
the programme has had enough impact on the social authorities and 
decision-makers for them to confirm their commitment to the types of 
activities undertaken during the programme once it has elapsed. 
The majority of the projects (some 70%) retained all or part of their 
operational teams whilst others are waiting to see what happens. Reduction 
of manpower or even the disbanding of a team is not, moreover, 
necessarily a sign of failure as some projects' initial aim was to have their 
activities taken over by other local organisations once the programme 
came to an end. Furthermore, several project leaders and members of 
operating teams have been recruited by local or national institutions to 
implement in their new department the methods born of their experience 
with Poverty 3, which testifies to the considerable improvement in their 
skills and qualifications and to the merit of the programme. 
Many of the projects had made preparations during the programme to 
continue their activities afterwards. The existence of a well-organised 
partnership often played a major role in creating relays for the future. 
Examples of these are local development companies and agencies, 
consultation committees between public authorities and users, new 
negotiating bodies between enterprises and trade unions, craftsmen 
associations, etc. 
EXPERIMENTATION AND TRANSFER OF KNOW-HOW 
3.1 One of the aims of Poverty 3 was to help to prompt national policy 
encouraging public debate on social exclusion and the dissemination of 
good practice. 
When the programme was being prepared the Commission invited the 
Member States to submit projects whose aims reflected innovatory national 
activities or, possibly, dovetailed with the national programmes for 
combating poverty. In several countries at least there was potential for this 
type of interaction with the national programmes in Ireland, Spain and 
Portugal; with urban policy and minimum integration income in France; 
with the social renewal policy in the Netherlands and with national 
50 
measures for supporting innovation and local partnerships, etc. in 
Denmark. Such interaction has helped to involve national authorities more 
directly in the monitoring of the programme in these countries and to raise 
the profile of the projects at national level. 
Triggering a knock-on effect at national level depended on a whole series 
of factors, first the quality of the initial selection and the work carried out 
in the projects and also the effectiveness of institutional and personnel 
relays which could be built up between local action and the national scene 
particularly as there were only a few projects (three or four in each 
country, sometimes fewer) and their energy was concentrated on their own 
organisation and consolidation. 
However, several projects achieved extremely encouraging results. In 
France the activities of the project on "Economic initiative development 
aid" resulted in aid to unemployed persons who were creating or restarting 
a business being extended to include the beneficiaries of the minimum 
integration income; in Greece the Kallithea project influenced new 
legislation on drugs and on the creation of rehabilitation centres for 
addicts; in Greece, too, the programme helped to reveal the sort of legal 
obstacles encountered in creating partnerships between public authorities 
and private organisations and a bill was submitted to the Greek Parliament 
as a result. In Germany the projects sought to activate public debate on 
poverty. In Denmark the programme influenced governmental 
commissions' work. In Belgium ideas and proposals from the Antwerp 
and Charleroi project were adopted by the public authorities of their 
respective municipalities In Italy the national heads of three large trade 
union organisations will henceforth cooperate on the promotion of regional 
projects built around the programme's principles. Where these projects 
attained local, and in some cases national, recognition it was primarily due 
to the quality of their work. But it is also a result of their efforts to 
publicise their activities, inter alia by producing information bulletins or 
video cassettes and films and through participation in or organisation of 
information activities. And, above all, it is due to the efforts of some 
research and development units and the national representatives in the 
Advisory Committee to promote synergy at national level. Although some 
synergy has been achieved it is still too isolated or disparate for us to be 
able to state that the programme has yet made an appreciable impact on 
the national stage in all the Member States. 
3.2 European level 
By supporting local experiments, the programme also intended to 
contribute to the transfer of good practice at national and also at European 
level and to promote Community discussion on the fight against social 
exclusion. Transnational exchanges between the projects, research work 
and the programme's publications were the main elements in this process. 
a) Activities and exchanges within the programme 
51 
Several networks of exchanges have grown up between the 
projects, their partners, the research and development units, the 
central unit and the Commission. Some have expanded to take in 
players outside the programme, in particular with a view to 
creating synergism with local initiatives or Community initiatives. 
These exchanges took several forms. Annual conferences were the 
main forums for motivating players to address major themes for 
discussion and action which would benefit from being brought into 
the focus of the programme local development, involving 
management and labour, and partnership and multidimensionality. 
The programme also set up several transnational groups, each 
bringing together seven or eight projects and concentrating on 
specific areas to see what methodological and political lessons have 
been learned ("housing and poverty", "poverty in a rural 
environment", "participation" and "integration by economic 
means"). Two transnational conferences were also organised on 
self-assessment and on local research. The training programme for 
project leaders intensified the process of pooling experience. 
A large number of bilateral exchanges were carried out in the form 
of visits between projects. These visits sometimes enabled 
experiments to be transferred directly from one country to another, 
for example between Charleroi and Le Doubs on health (cf box). 
More often these helped to circulate ideas by comparing national 
situations. The majority of the projects said that the visits had a 
positive outcome when they were properly prepared (such as the 
cooperation between the projects in Brownlow and Calais or 
Utrecht and between the Edinburgh project and Charleroi, and 
between the Spanish "forum" initiative which brought together the 
NGOs and management and labour and a similar initiative by the 
Italian project, etc.). 
An example of transfer of innovation: AM02 Charleroi and AMI5 
Le Doubs 
The Charleroi pilot project introduced an experimental "health pass" 
to help the most deprived members of society to gain access to health 
care on the basis of a system already tested in Le Doubs (AMI5). The 
beneficiaries of municipal social assistance could in general already 
obtain grants to cover medical expenses but there was a lot of red 
tape involved and many stopped going to a doctor. With the health 
pass, the municipal social welfare centre gave authorisation a priori to 
the user to be treated by a doctor of his/her choice free of charge, the 
doctor's fee being refunded by the social centre. This procedure was 
also extended to alternative medicine and the costs of medication. 
52 
The transfer of this system involved considerable groundwork: the 
social workers had to be informed, the operating rules for the social 
centre had to be changed, negotiations had to be conducted with 
doctors, pharmacists, insurance companies and the administrations. 
Positive results were obtained when this operation was assessed: a 
large number of deprived people were involved, there was no general 
increase in expenditure, and users stayed with their GP. 
The exchange between the projects was not only one-way; the Le 
Doubs project conducted activities inspired by the Charleroi project, in 
particular in the field of vocational integration. 
These exchanges, which were essential in building up the 
momentum of the programme, could only take place once a 
complex communications network had been set up between the 
projects, research and development units, national authorities, 
central unit and the Commission. It is unfortunate that the 
communication network was not more effective and more extensive 
which would have increased the range of transnational exchanges 
and the national impact of the projects and the programme. 
The fact remains that the principles of partnership, 
multidimensionality and participation, to which all subscribed, 
enabled similar skills to emerge everywhere which had hitherto not 
been in evidence in social work. The operating teams increased the 
ability of the players to manage a project tapping various sources 
of funding, to set up an assessment system, to work in partnership 
and even set partnerships up, to maintain consistency between 
operations in various areas (social work and employment, local 
development and cultural activities), to learn to adopt a different 
approach with the activities' users and beneficiaries, to create room 
for negotiation with them, to allow them more scope in defining 
their goals and to heed experience in other countries or locations. 
The programme thus helped a social operator with a new profile to 
emerge and, since the qualifications of such an operator have much 
in common from one country to another, there were benefits to be 
reaped from planning transnational training sessions which, in the 
unanimous opinion of the participants, were highly rewarding and 
would have gained much by being organised when the programme 
was launched. 
b) Research work 
Research work was also a component of the European approach of 
the programme. As Poverty 3 was an action programme, the 
research work was deliberately limited. Apart from the local 
studies conducted on the initiative of the projects, the research 
53 
component was made up of two sections, one statistical and the 
other economic and sociological. 
The statistical work was conducted in cooperation with Eurostat. 
The main idea was to devise a system for analysing national 
surveys on family budgets, mainly to update and refine 
measurement of poverty in terms of income. This has led to real 
progress, especially as microdata from national surveys have been 
used. However, it has also confirmed the methodological problems 
in measuring poverty and, in particular, the unreliability of 
comparing or aggregating data based on definitions which are not 
yet sufficiently harmonised. Subject to these constraints, the work 
confirmed that there were an estimated 50 million persons on low 
income, i.e. poor in accordance with the commonly used 
definition10 (Annex 2) in the Community at the end of the 80s. 
Economic and sociological research was also undertaken, 
concentrating on purely transnational aspects. The themes were 
determined in consultation with the representatives of the national 
research committees and the members of the Advisory Committee 
and the research teams were selected after two successive calls for 
tender. The following themes were examined: the process of 
disengagement from the labour market, the role of regional 
development policy in the fight against poverty, the links between 
poverty and migration, the involvement of management and labour 
in the fight against exclusion, moves to bring poverty within the 
province of social policy, and the effects of active employment 
policy in the fight against social exclusion. The results of this 
research work were discussed at a seminar in London in 
November 1994 attended by the researchers and the representatives 
of the national authorities concerned. 
The statistical studies and transnational research work contributed 
to work undertaken elsewhere for the Observatory of policies to 
combat social exclusion created in 1990. This work and the 
research conducted in the Member States fuelled the debate on 
analysing the extent of social exclusion and a major seminar was 
organised on this topic in Bath in June 1994 with the aid of the 
Department of Social Security in the United Kingdom. Work will 
continue in this direction in the fourth framework research and 
development programme. 
c) Raising the profile of the programme and its results 
Persons living in a household whose average disposable income per consumer unit 
(calculated on the basis of the expenditure declared in the survey) is less than half the 
average disposable income per consumer unit in the Member State in which the household 
lives. 
54 
The way the programme's profile is raised is based partly on its 
publications policy and partly on its communications strategy. 
Considerable energy was devoted to publications. The quarterly magazine 
(5 000 copies) and the monthly bulletin (2 000 copies) had a wide 
readership extending well beyond the parties involved in the programme. 
Other publications (the central unit's annual activity report, minutes of 
transnational seminars, directory of the projects, etc.) also had a very large 
circulation. 
The following activities figure prominently in the communications 
strategy: 
an electronic mailing service was instituted, aimed at developing 
interaction between the programme's various partners (projects, 
central unit, research and development units and Commission) and 
creating a bibliographical and statistical data base; 
public awareness has been raised through specific events such as 
the competition organised for students at schools of journalism, 
with the best report on social exclusion and poverty being 
published in 12 major European dailies (the report described the 
Perama project); 
- . a European network was set up comprising journalists interested in 
the problems connected with poverty and social exclusion. 
CONCLUSION 
A broad consensus has emerged from the local assessments and discussions at national 
and European level on the lessons which can be drawn from the programme as regards 
the validity of its principles and approach (paragraph 1) and the strengths and weaknesses 
of its organisational procedures (paragraph 2). The positive aspects must be seen in the 
light of questions surrounding the specific added value of a programme of this type with 
regard to other Community policies and measures (paragraph 3). 
1 THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAMME'S PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH 
1.1 The projects shared an approach to fighting poverty based on the 
principles of partnership, multidimensionality and participation. In the first 
place, these principles were implemented in the pilot projects but many of 
the innovatory measures also incorporated them. The programme as a 
whole was thus an experiment for the validity of these principles and the 
possibility of applying them in the light of specific local and national 
contexts. 
Partnership was one of the programme's strengths. It had already been 
adopted in other national programmes, sometimes well in advance of 
55 
Poverty 3, and has attracted a great deal of interest in countries where it 
was not a familiar concept. The projects have built up new organisational 
structures and forms of intervention which in themselves are an 
inducement for the institutions and associations involved in combating 
social exclusion to propagate them (national and local authorities, NGOs, 
management and labour organisations etc.) and will enable the majority of 
the projects to pursue their activities when the programme comes to an 
end. 
Poverty 3 has enabled the relevance of this principle in decision-making 
and implementation processes to be enhanced progressively through 
experience. 
There is no doubt that, in the course of the programme, attention has been 
focused increasingly on the multidimensionality of social exclusion and 
poverty, albeit to varying degrees. Whilst all the projects aimed to 
encourage the social and economic integration of deprived persons and 
whilst they were aware of the various dimensions of social exclusion, they 
are not always able to define or implement activities with the desired 
coherence or scope. Although there is agreement on the validity of the 
principle of multidimensional action, more thought should be given, in the 
light of the experience gleaned from the projects, to its practical 
application, in particular to make greater allowance for specific local 
(rural or urban environment) and national (northern or southern countries) 
conditions. 
Participation - i.e. making the deprived participate fully in the programme 
- was as much a challenge for the projects and the programme as a 
principle of action. Considerable progress was made, in particular when 
the projects were working with small groups, and were able to motivate 
the target groups to pursue practical and tangible aims. This was the case 
more frequently where there were national traditions which were 
conducive to self-organisation and where institutions set aside their rivalry 
and power struggles. 
1.2 The programme's own approach was gradually accepted by all the parties 
involved who accepted a commitment to a joint dynamic process which 
required the will to innovate and experiment, a concern for quality in 
designing and planning activities and close attention to assessment and 
transfer of experience. 
This was of course not an immediate process. Most of the projects applied 
to participate in the programme mainly because they were seeking 
financial support, which is a legitimate reason, and not all the parties were 
involved were initially prepared to commit themselves to the programme's 
dynamic concept. Difficulties were encountered in building up 
partnerships, obtaining co-funding or carrying out effective self-
assessment. Most of these were, however, resolved through explanation, 
persuasion and support on the part of the project leaders, technical 
56 
assistance units and the Commission to convince some of the institutional 
partners. Nevertheless the players were not mobilised sufficiently to obtain 
all the multiplier effects expected from the programme, particularly in 
respect of national policy. Several Member States were not fully involved 
in the programme and the contact points and communications between 
projects, Member State authorities and the Commission did not always 
function effectively. The overall quality of the projects has, however, very 
largely been recognised and when their activities continue on completion 
of the programme this will help to enhance the validity of their experience 
and their possible contribution to national discussions. 
THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ORGANISATIONAL PROCEDURES 
The Commission set up technical assistance units at national level (Research and 
Development Units) and at European level (central unit), in order to implement 
the programme. Their tasks were mainly the administrative and financial 
management of the subsidies allocated, support in the development of the projects 
and self-assessment, general organisation of the programme and coordination of 
its components and activities (assessment, transnational exchanges, research and 
publications). 
These technical support activities were highly varied, evolved as the programme 
progressed, and required great flexibility, a variety of skills and a wealth of 
experience on the part of the technical assistance teams. Taking into account the 
constraints which the schedule, management and cost imposed on the programme, 
they were, in the main carried out satisfactorily. Nevertheless, improvements could 
be made to streamline procedures. 
The arrangements made for the administrative and financial management of the 
programme have enabled the Commission to stay abreast of the progress of 
projects the soundness of the management and any difficulties which they 
encounter with co-funding such difficulties held up some projects' activities and 
resulted in credit being under-used. Apart from these problems, and as a result of 
the effort the projects and the Commission and central unit put into it, the quality 
of the management greatly improved in the projects and emerged as one of the 
keys to and hallmarks of the quality of the work the projects are doing. 
The members of the research and development units provided direct support which 
in many cases led to remarkable progress in self-assessment and coordination 
between the projects and national initiatives. Support was not always as effective 
in the case of projects facing major internal problems or chronic co-funding 
problems and more active involvement of the members of the research and 
development units in all aspects of management and organisation proved to be one 
of the keys to success. 
The strengths of the programme's European-level organisational structure were 
mainly that it endorsed the coherence of the programme and focused attention on 
its achievements through the quality of the publications and the transitional 
exchanges. The training programme for project leaders was also well-received and 
it is a pity that it was not introduced when the programme was launched. The 
57 
weak points were mainly assessment of the programme as a whole, which suffered 
from the fact that priority was given to self-assessment by the projects, 
communication between the programme's agents, at least in the initial phase, and 
failure to make research an active component of the programme. 
The above tasks involved both the central unit and the members of the research 
and development units. The geographical dispersion of the units' members and the 
fact that they were mostly recruited to work part-time often detracted from the 
cohesion and the efficiency of the Technical Assistance Units and it would be 
useful to look at alternatives for a further programme in particular as regards the 
central unit. Apart from this, the complexity of the programme itself sometimes 
put the technical assistance teams in an uncomfortable or equivocal position 
between the projects, the national authorities and the Commission where 
expectations or requirements were difficult to reconcile with one another. 
Cooperation between all the players was essential to enable the problems to be 
overcome and the Commission took a very active role in promoting this in the 
management and support of the programme. However, much would have been 
gained if the responsibilities, shared responsibilities and procedures involved in 
cooperation between the research and development teams at national level and the 
central unit at European level had been defined more precisely. 
THE ADDED VALUE OF A SPECD7IC PROGRAMME 
When Poverty 3 was conceived it was practically the only Community initiative 
specifically covering poverty and social exclusion11. Following immediately on the 
heels of the second European programme to fight poverty, its very existence 
constituted a political symbol of the Community's desire to make a modest but 
continuous contribution to the Member States own measures. Gradually the 
Commission developed and diversified its initiatives on poverty and exclusion and 
the programme took its place in a compendium of activities and measures. 
Expectations of Poverty 3 have thus changed: firstly it was expected to provide 
more in terms of developing know-how and good practice and secondly the 
Commission was expected to explain more clearly what added value could accrue 
from a specific programme and how much synergy could realistically be expected 
between the programme and other Community action. 
Over the past few years, the Commission has sought to introduce the fight against 
social exclusion in all its policies and measures. Its efforts have met with 
considerable success, particularly as regards structural and research policy, and 
Community action to combat exclusion is no longer confined to a "drop in the 
ocean" which, in view of the scale of the problem, was what the Poverty 3 
programme was. Such progress reflects the increasing attention commanded by 
social exclusion in the Member States as well as recognition of the contribution 
which the Union might make to action which has been undertaken. 
Except for food aid granted during winter. 
58 
12 The main Community activities which will henceforth take into consideration the 
aim to combat social exclusion are as follows: 
- structural funds and more precisely (a) as regards the ESF, measures 
coming under the new Objective 3 (integration of persons exposed to 
social exclusion in the labour market) and the employment and human 
resources initiative (particularly HORIZON, and also, to a certain extent, 
YOUTHSTART and NOW) (b) as regards the ERDF, the URBAN 
initiative and (c) as regards the EAGGF, the LEADER initiative. 
the fourth framework research and development programme which 
includes a programme on social exclusion and integration. 
Furthermore, various Community activities tackle exclusion in a more indirect and 
modest fashion such as educational initiatives to deal with illiteracy12. 
These activities do not duplicate the work done in a programme such as Poverty 3 
but highlight the value of such a programme in identifying and experimenting 
with good practice, which could be encouraged and supported on a large scale in 
structural policy, and creating a forum for comparing notes and ideas for 
generating the necessary synergy more effectively. One of the possible 
contributions of a programme is to make it easier to identify and experiment with 
good practice which could be used to enhance measures implemented on a quite 
different scale through the structural fund and/or more widely in regional or 
national policy. 
As a study of the programme's impact on these policies shows, this type of 
transfer can never be accomplished automatically, particularly when the 
programme is on a very modest scale. It takes time and the institutions concerned 
need to be persuaded to take action. 
As regards the possible impact on the funds it should be emphasised too that the 
funds and the programme do not have the same aims. The prime objective of the 
programme is not to finance action (like a fund) but to support experimentation 
and the transfer of good practice and its success cannot be measured by the scale 
of the financial resources granted but the quality of its activities on the basis of 
which experiments can be organised and compared. By contrast, funds are first 
and foremost an instrument of financial support and their scale of intervention 
usually results in standardised activities rather than innovatory activities being 
financed in cooperation with promoters who are mainly looking for funding rather 
than with promoters interested in creating know-how (this is true of Community 
initiatives which cover thousands of projects, even though the programmes 
emphasise the value of innovation and transnationality). Moreover, and above all, 
intervention by the funds in the field of exclusion is, by necessity, limited and, in 
The Commission's interdepartmental group on poverty and social exclusion compiled a systematic 
inventory of Community action which might contribute directly or indirectly to combating social 
exclusion. 
59 
the current legal and practical situation, could hardly support a multidimensional 
approach to exclusion even though the relevant provisions were relaxed in the 
latest regulations. 
What is more, the rules which govern the funds activities do not, in practice, 
enable a multidimensional approach to be taken to exclusion. The new Objective 3 
of the ESF refers to measures to integrate persons exposed to social exclusion in 
the labour market and this authorises support for integration schemes but could 
hardly be extended to integrated social development programmes or integration 
activities on behalf of the homeless. Also the programmes are more suitable for 
mobilising a range of different partners whilst a fund's activities largely 
concentrate on training and employment bodies even though a considerable effort 
has been made to extend its range of partners. The Member States' use of the new 
provisions is very uneven which shows that the funds, and especially the ESF, 
have not yet capitalised on national and Community action on exclusion. 
Against this background, the added value of a programme such as the new 
programme proposed by the Commission lies in the contribution which the 
programme could make to experience gained and action taken in the Member 
States and the progress made in incorporating inclusion in other Community 
policies and especially Social Fund action. It is thus important for the programme 
to cover practical activities which provide a means of comparing the players' 
methods and views. It is hence also important for the programme to be highly 
organised and to involve practitioners and experts who are able to motivate the 
public and private players fully on a permanent basis. One of the aims of a 
permanent group of high ranking national civil servants on social exclusion, the 
creation of which the Commission has proposed in the past, could be to help with 
the transfer and comparison of experience at a high level. 
60 
ANNEX I STATISTICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE POVERTY 3 PROGRAMME PROJECTS 
The Poverty 3 publications, particularly the central unit's reports and working documents 
contain a good deal ofinformation on the scale and quality of the projects. A descriptive 
directory of the projects is also published and updated regularly. The tables shown below 
merely illustrate some of their main features. 
Main features of the fields of activity of the pilot projects 
Number of 
inhabitants 
Rural area 
Urban area 
Region combining 
rural and urban 
areas Fewer than 
20 000 
inhabitants Between 20 
and 50 000 
inhabitants 
10 50 000 
inhabitants 
and more Total 
6 
26 
4 
Total 13 12 11 36 
Source: Poverty 3 programme central unit 
N.B.: The total number of pilot projects (36 not 29) takes account of the fact 
that three pilot projects are active in several areas. 
61 
Figures to indicate the scale of social exclusion encountered in the fîelds of activities 
of the projects 
Problem encountered 
Youth unemployment 
Long-term unemployment 
Inner-city crisis 
Poor and ill-equipped urban 
environments and housing 
Rural underdevelopment 
Emigration 
Immigration 
Racial discrimination 
Industrial decline, economic 
redevelopment Number of projects 
where this problem 
is particularly 
severe 
37 
37 
19 
25 
8 
12 
19 
20 
26 Number of projects 
where activity is 
focused on this 
problem 
23 
27 
12 
17 
8 
4 
9 
13 
17 
Source: Poverty 3 programme central unit 
N.B.: The data cover all the projects i.e. 48 areas and take account of the 
projects which are active in several separate areas. Some innovatory 
measures do not pursue their activities with reference to a specific area. 
62 
Nature and origin of the Poverty 3 programme projects 
Ongoing activities dating from 1990, involving the same (or 5 
almost the same) partners 
Development of new activities by the same (or almost the 5 
same partners 
Extension of an existing partnership, with participation of new 18 
partners and launching of new activities 
Creation of a totally new partnership to develop new activities 16 
No reply 1 
Total 45 
Source: Poverty 3 programme central unit 
N.B. : The total of 45 projects takes account of the fact that some projects pursue 
their activities in two or three separate areas. 
Partners with a seat on the project steering committees 
Local and regional activities 116 
National activities and government organisations 35 
NGOs 108 
(of which community organisations and local groups) (53) 
Management and labour organisations 31 
(of which employers' organisations) (21) 
(of which trade union organisations) (10) 
Miscellaneous 48 
(of which universities, research bodies etc.) (21) 
Total 338 
Source: Poverty 3 programme central unit 
N.B. This table was drawn up from information on all the projects. However, 
not all the innovatory measures have formed a steering committee with 
several partners. 
63 
ANNEX 2 STATISTICAL WORK CONDUCTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE POVERTY 
3 PROGRAMME 
1. One of the objectives of Poverty 3 is to help to find out more about poverty, in 
particular by regularly producing comparable data on its scale, main features and 
trends in the Member States. To this end and within the constraints of the limited 
resources granted by the Council, the programme thus provides aid for research 
on poverty and social exclusion. The Commission lent its support to statistical 
research with a provisional budget of 2.5 million ECUs for the total duration of 
the programme (1989 to 1994). 
2. This research work pursued two essential aims: first, to help analyse poverty from 
the point of view of financial resources in order to establish comparable data for 
all the Member States and to shed some light on trends responsible for recent and 
current developments; second, to help analyse poverty from a multidimensional 
point of view, mainly to overcome the limitations inherent in the approach which 
considers only its financial aspects. 
3. To a large extent this research aimed to improve the methodology used in the 
statistical analysis of poverty, especially with respect to the harmonisation 
required to make data comparable, the significance and implications of various 
conventions and definitions for units of measurements and quantitative indicators 
of poverty, the benefits of bringing statistical and administrative sources closer 
together and the possibilities of devising econometric models of the developments 
observed. 
4. This research work forms part of a medium-term programme and cannot be 
regarded as complete. Apart from the methodological work as such, it has also 
produced some results on the scale of poverty at the end of the 80s but these are 
still subject to shortcomings and uncertainties which are now being or need to be 
worked on. The strictly methodological proposals also need some refinement, 
especially to determine the respective advantages of alternatives to the sources of 
information, statistical indicators and data processing procedures. 
5. Priority was first given to analysing poverty in terms of financial resources. In 
compliance with the conclusions of earlier research and, in particular, the work 
of an international conference on this issue in 1989 at Noordwijk, in the 
Netherlands, the researchers concentrated on enhancing analysis of the household 
budget surveys carried out periodically by the national statistical institutes. These 
surveys, which were devised to provide more information on price indices, were 
not designed specifically for analysing poverty and have considerable failings in 
this respect. Moreover, they are carried out at varying intervals, usually every five 
years. However, at present, they represent the least unreliable of the sources of 
comparable data available. 
6. The researchers and statisticians engaged in this work have had access to the 
surveys' microdata. This is a great advantage and represents real progress in terms 
of analysis, earlier comparative work was based on aggregated data, combined 
64 
at statistical distribution decile level, which involved some hazardous 
approximations. What is more, surveys carried out in the same year (1988) or 
almost the same year (1987, 1989 or 1990), were available and this obviated the 
need for unreliable extrapolations. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the 
Quality of national household budget surveys is very uneven, especially as regards 
the size and representativeness of their samples and that the definitions used in 
these surveys, especially for expenditure on or linked with housing, are not 
sufficiently harmonized to ensure that data are wholly comparable or congruent 
with those used in administrative surveys and national accounts statistics. 
7. Apart from data production operations, the programme also saw completion of: 
a) a study on poverty in the Member States around 1988 with regard to 
"objective" relative poverty thresholds, i.e. derived from the statistical 
distribution based on analysis of household budget survey microdata, 
b) a study on the methodological advantages of "subjective" approaches to 
poverty, i.e. those which take account of the opinion of the households on 
what constitutes a decent standard of living, 
c) an exploratory study on matching data from statistical and administrative 
surveys, 
d) a feasibility study on direct measurement of poverty in terms of 
consumption of certain goods and services which represents an initial 
consumption-based contribution to defining non-monetary poverty 
indicators. 
e) methodological work on the possible use of econometric simulation and 
extrapolation models based on microdata to estimate poverty levels 
between two waves of surveys on family budgets. 
f) a preliminary analysis of various forms of insecurity and risks of exclusion 
in several countries. This study, which was based on existing national 
statistics, identifies poverty in terms of a process of social disqualification. 
8. The scope of these studies is largely or exclusively methodological. Their results 
are being discussed with independent experts, governmental experts and 
representatives of the national statistical institutes in order to determine how the 
proposals made might be applied and disseminated. However, the first study, 
which was published (in English) by the Commission services at the end of 1994, 
also produced figures on the scale of poverty in the Community in 1988. 
^ 9. This study was conducted by a research at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam 
(Netherlands). Its aims were: 
a) to establish, on the basis of the national household budget surveys and 
after discussing the relevance of various methodological conventions, an 
65 
estimate of the extent of poverty in each of the Member States and in the 
Community for as recent a year as possible, 
b) to examine, using the same methodological options, poverty trends in the 
80s, 
c) to examine the possibility of econometric modelling of these developments 
to devise a simulation method which would enable reliable estimates to be 
made on a permanent basis, of the scale of poverty in years in which 
household budget surveys were not conducted. 
10. Not all these aims have yet been achieved, mainly because the series of microdata 
from the national surveys before 1988, which were indispensible for trend 
analyses, were made accessible for research later than planned. National 
provisions on the confidentiality of the surveys called for highly complex 
negotiations with some of the national statistical institutes, particularly in 
Germany. All 12 series of national microdata for the years around 1988 were not 
made available until the beginning of 1993. Series of microdata for national 
surveys before 1988 - which are indispensable for trend analysis and econometric 
simulation - are now available for some Member States only. 
11. As the researchers had access to microdata they could carry out various checks 
on the quality of the information and, in certain cases, adjust it to correct for 
sampling distortions or disparities in the definitions used. It should, however, be 
stressed that it was not always possible to make adjustments and that there are 
still considerable uncertainties as to the reliability of some of the data on which 
the research was based. Moreover, Denmark reported that it had reservations about 
the quality of the figures based on its national household budget survey for the 
year in question. The Commission pursued its consultations with the national 
statistical institutes to ensure that the results of the analyses are as reliable as 
possible. 
12. The results presented below are the sole responsibility of the researchers. 
Moreover, they cannot be compared with those produced earlier by another 
research team for the year 1985. Earlier estimates were made on the basis of 
aggregated data and not microdata, which could not be and therefore were not 
adjusted; besides, for some countries, the researchers based their work on 
extrapolations from data from the earlier 80s as more recent surveys were not 
available. The results for the year 1988 are incontestably more reliable than earlier 
results - and demonstrate their limitations and shortcomings - but some 
uncertainty persists. 
13. The table shows the extent of poverty in the Member States around the year 1988 
in accordance with the following methodological conventions: 
a) poverty is seen here as a relative insufficiency of financial resources, with 
reference to the national context at a given moment (cf paragraph 14). 
66 
b) as poverty is defined in terms of unequal distribution of financial 
resources, several poverty thresholds can be envisaged (40%, 50% and 
60% of average income). In accordance with this approach, households are 
considered poor whose average disposable income per adult equivalent is 
lower by a specific fraction (usually 50%) than the average figure for all 
households in the same Member State (cf. paragraph 15). 
c) poverty is measured at household level; however, the statistical definitions 
of a household are not entirely harmonised and several conventions can be 
adopted to take into account the size and structure of the household (scales 
of equivalence) (cf. paragraph 16). The data for households are 
subsequently calculated per person, regarding poor persons as persons 
living in poor households (internal inequities in households are ignored 
and the method adopted assumes implicitly that each person in the 
household has access to a fraction of the household resources 
corresponding to the scale of equivalence). 
d) For the requirements of the study, resources are calculated from available 
information in national surveys on the expenditure of households, which 
is assumed to be more reliable (cf. paragraph 17). 
14 Without entering into a detailed discussion on these methodological conventions, 
it should be stressed that they all need refining. There is no need to reiterate the 
limitations of an approach to poverty based on the sole criterion of financial 
resources. However, we should bear in mind that the standard of living of a 
household does not depend solely on the level of its income but also - when the 
average income remains unchanged - on its regularity, reliability and nature. 
Besides, the effects of inadequate income vary, depending on whether it is regular 
or not or sporadic or recurrent. These distinctions can not, of course, be taken into 
consideration here. 
15. The choice of thresholds derived from one of the central values of statistical 
distribution (here a fraction of average income) is inevitably arbitrary: at most, its 
arbitrary nature can be reduced by putting forward several thresholds (here 40%, 
50% and 60%), which emphasises the relative nature of the poverty as it is 
viewed here. Nevertheless, what we need is information indicating precisely what 
standards of living and consumption are reflected in the thresholds used; it would 
also be useful to discuss to what extent a given threshold - i.e. 50% - has the 
same meaning in all the Member States, as there are varying degrees of 
unevenness in the distribution of income. Finally, the extreme sensitivity of the 
thresholds should not be underestimated: it is sufficient to add or subtract one ecu 
a month per person to increase or reduce by several tens of thousands the number 
of persons affected. 
16. The purpose of the scales of equivalence is to enable households of various size 
and composition to be compared. The need for a scale of equivalence is 
universally acknowledged but the one it should be is the subject of much debate 
in all the countries Besides, the same scale of equivalence can have different 
implications in countries where the population structures and cultural practices 
67 
differ. The empirical results given in the table were arrived at with a scale of 
equivalence used by the OECD, i.e one for the head of household, 0.7 each of the 
other adults (14 and over) 0.5 for each of the children (under 14). 
17. The research team carried out a series of exercises to examine the sensitivity of 
the results to various methodological options. Apart from the discussion on the 
choice of the scales of equivalence, these also included a study of the effects of 
alternative use of the survey data on the declared resources for households or 
information on the declared expenditure for these households. The problem here 
is mainly that of the reliability of the declarations collected for this purpose by 
the surveys, especially in some categories of the population (e.g. farmers). 
Whereas the researchers used the sum of expenditure as an indicator, the 
sensitivity analyses did not confirm this indicator to be the most reliable, 
illustrating once again the need for an in-depth discussion on the quality of the 
survey data used. The choice of one particular indicator in preference to another 
can, after all, affect the results relating to the characteristics of poor households: 
using the "expenditure" indicator, for example, probably tends to overestimate 
slightly the property of elderly persons who use less of their income. 
18. The number of poor persons in the Community as a whole is most often quoted 
as being some 50 million in the 80s. Subject to the methodological uncertainty 
mentioned above, this figure is confirmed by the results in the table which 
postulates a total of 52 million poor persons and 17.6 poor households in the 
period around 1988 (with a threshold of 50%). It should be stressed that this 
information was prepared before the unification of Germany and for years in 
which there was economic growth and jobs were being created. Since this date, 
poverty has certainly increased and figures quoted are minimum estimates. 
19. Work was started on analysing the trends in poverty during the 80s on the basis 
of microdata for earlier years, mainly to make up for the shortcomings and 
limitations of the results prepared in the past on the basis of aggregated data 
(particularly for some countries) which are subject to substantial reservations. The 
fragmentary information available for some countries suggest that the trend is 
towards a slight increase in poverty but this information needs to be confirmed 
and discussed. The results of the pilot study conducted to prepare econometric 
simulation models also suggest that a great deal of caution should be exercised. 
20. Work must be continued to examine the multidimensional and dynamic aspects 
of exclusion. The Commission is creating a Community panel on households, i.e. 
a survey to interview at regular intervals the same households in order to obtain 
longitudinal information on their situation and evolution. It is mainly focused on 
income but covers other information such as debt, labour force characteristics, 
health, education, housing, possession of certain articles, social aspects etc. 
Initially, three consecutive surveys will be carried out in 1994, 1995 and 1996. 
The size of the sample (some 60 000 households) will allow it to be used at 
national level and the national statistical institutes are participating in defining and 
implementing the survey. This panel provides a powerful instrument for improving 
the quality comparability and availability of data on the situation of households 
68 
and it should thus contribute, inter alia, to providing a clearer picture of poverty 
and social exclusion. 
21. As has been pointed out, analysis and measurement of the situations and processes 
involved in exclusion cannot be confined to the sole indicators of financial 
poverty. Various studies were undertaken within and outside the programme to 
prepare exclusion indicators taking in all its aspects. In June 1994 the Department 
of Social Security in the United Kingdom helped the Commission to organise an 
international seminar on measurement and analysis of social exclusion in Bath 
(United Kingdom) where these studies were discussed. 
The scope of the seminar must be seen in the light of the various Community 
activities tackling social exclusion directly or indirectly, especially the initiatives 
on research and new structural policy measures implemented by the European 
Social Fund. The seminar provided a useful contribution to the discussions of 
methods for implementing and assessing these activities, and, as a follow-up to 
this seminar, the Commission enlisted the support of the Department of Social 
Security of the United Kingdom to launch a consultation drive to bring together 
the players involved in the Member States and the departments of the 
Commission. 
22. Finally, given the scale of the phenomenon of homelessness in the Union, Eurostat 
feels obliged to follow efforts made at Community and national level to collect 
updated information regularly on the scale and nature of this problem in the 
European Union as a whole. Arrangements will also be made to coordinate 
national initiatives and a task force will be set up to examine the methodological 
problems relating to homelessness. 
Annex: Table 
69 
Estimates of poverty in the Member States around the year 1988. tKrachniHc 
Percentages and absolute figures (thousands) of poor households and person in accordance with the conventions used with thresholds 
of 40%, 50% and 60% of average income (OECD scale of equivalence) 
COUNTRY 
B 
DK (2) 
D(3) 
EL 
ES 
F 
IRL 
IT 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK YEAR 
88 
87 
88 
88 
88 
89 
88 
88 
87 
88 
90 
88 AVERAGE 
INCOME 
100% (1) 
367.017 
80.570 
22.782 
832.188 
674.331 
73.084 
5.130 
11.548.338 
516.846 
20.736 
556.118 
5.683 
EUR 12 HOUSEHOLDS 
THRESHOLD 40% 
% 
1.9 
1.3 
4.7 
13.0 
8.6 
6.5 
8.4 
11.2 
3.5 
1.1 
15.7 
5.8 (1000) 
75 
30 
1278 
445 
944 
1412 
85 
2288 
4 
64 
496 
1307 
8430 THRESHOLD 5f)% 
% 
6.1 
3.6 
10.8 
20.6 
16.7 
14.0 
16.9 
20.6 
8.8 
4.3 
25.2 
14.6 (1000) 
241 
84 
2938 
706 
1833 
3042 
171 
4208 
11 
252 
797 
3289 
17570 THRESHOLD 60% 
% 
13.7 
10.1 
19.7 
29.7 
26.2 
23.1 
27.0 
30.4 
17.2 
12.1 
34.4 
25.2 (1000) 
541 
235 
5358 
1017 
2875 
5019 
273 
6209 
22 
709 
1087 
5677 
29025. PERSONS 
•THRESHOLD 40% 
% 
3.0 
1.5 
5.0 
12.8 
9.2 
7.7 
10.1 
12.0 
5.4 
1.3 
15.5 
6.7 (1000) 
296 
77 
3062 
1279 
3564 
4313 
358 
6888 
20 
191 
1597 
3819 
25463' THRESHOLD 50% 
% 
8.6 
4.3 
11.9 
20.5 
17.7 
16.5 
19.4 
22.0 
11.5 
4.8 
25.1 
15.3 (1000) 
848 
220 
7287 
2048 
6856 
9243 
687 
12628 
42 
706 
258* 
8721 
51873. THRESHOLD 60% 
% 
17.7 
12.0 
21.3 
30.1 
27.7 
26.7 
30.3 
32.3 
21.1 
13.8 
34.6 
26.7 (1000) 
1745. 
615 
13044 
3007 
10730 
14957 
1073 
18540 
78 
2031 
3565 
15218 
84602 
Source : Erasmus University Rotterdam "Poverty statistics in the late 80's: research based on micro-data", research report submitted to the 
Commission, August 1994. 
(1) Annual average expenditure per adult equivalent in national currency for the survey year (consumption units in accordance with the 
OECD scale of equivalence) 
(2) Subject to uncertainty as to the quality of the data 
(3) Data for 1988, i.e. before the unification of Germany 
70 
ISSN 1024-4506 
KOM(95) 94 slutlig 
DOKUMENT 
SV 05 
Katalognummer : CB-CO-95-107-SV-C 
ISBN 92-77-86923-2 
Byrån för Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella publikationer 
L-2985 Luxemburg 
(3