REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Daphne Programme (2007-2013)
Date: 2017-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, child protection, children's rights, financial aid, help for victims, innovation, violence, woman, young person

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.2.2017  COM(2017) 55 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Daphne Programme (2007-2013)   
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

1.1  OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................. 2 

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ......................................... 2 

1.3  OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 2 

2 

EVALUATION RESULTS ......................................................................................... 6 

2.1  RELEVANCE OF THE DAPHNE III PROGRAMME .............................................. 6 

2.2  COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY ........................................................... 7 

2.3  EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................................... 9 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY ................................................... 10 

2.5  EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION ........................................... 11 

2.6  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................ 14 

3 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 17 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

The Decision establishing the Daphne III programme requires the Commission to present an  ex post 
evaluation  covering  2007-20131.  The  evaluation2  was  carried  out  by  an  independent  external 
evaluator assisted by the Commission staff.  

This  report  is  based  on  that  evaluation.  The  programme's  total  planned  budget  for  2007-2013  was 
EUR 123.88m. The report is structured by the main evaluation criteria (and corresponding questions), 
including  relevance,  coherence  and  complementarity;  effectiveness,  impact  and  sustainability; 
efficiency and scope for simplification; and European added value. 

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION 

1.2 
This final evaluation of the Daphne III programme is based on the following: 

 

 

 

an extensive review of documentation on all 302 action or operating grants funded under the 
2007-2013 programme; 
a  review  of  programme  documents,  e.g.  the  funding decision,  annual  work  programmes  and 
calls for proposals for both grants and public procurement contracts; 
a  review  of  other  online  information,  e.g.  EU  policy  documents,  websites  and  funding 
decisions on related EU programmes; 
a quantitative analysis of the 302 projects; 
an analysis of 145 responses to the online survey from Daphne III grant beneficiaries; 

 
 
  write-ups of 30 follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects or organisations receiving 

Daphne III grants between 2007 and 2013 who took part in the online survey;  
interviews with six Commission officials. 

 

1.3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME 

Daphne  III  was  set  up  in  2007  by  Decision  No  779/2007/EC,  following  three  Commission 
instruments  with  the  same  aims:  the  Daphne  Initiative  (1997-1999)3;  the  Daphne  Programme 
(2000-2003)4; and the Daphne II Programme (2004-2008)5. It is managed by the Directorate-General 
(DG) Justice of the European Commission.  

Article 2 of Decision No 779/2007/EC outlines its general objectives, which are: 

 

 

to  help  protect  children, young  people and  women  against  all  forms  of  violence  and  to help 
them attain a high level of health protection, wellbeing and social cohesion; 
to help develop Community policies (in public health, human rights and gender equality) and  
action  to  protect  children’s  rights  and  combat  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  sexual 
exploitation. 

1 Article 15(3)d, Decision No 779/2007/EC of  20 June 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and 
combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme) as part of the 
General Programme on ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ 
2 The ex post evaluation report of the external evaluator is published here: Main report: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf, Annexes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_annexes_1_2_4.pdf, and 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dap_annex_3_quantitative_analysis.pdf.   

The mid-term evaluation report of the Commission is published here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0254&from=EN  
3 Evaluation report: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/evaluation/search/download.do;jsessionid=h594TThJ1lLxvM8Y501gLP7m8nMNv7c1kmY6vX59JJjGDJspS92q!1601440011?do
cumentId=2882  
4 Evaluation report: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=1946  
5 The evaluation report was not published.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Article  3  states  that  the  programme's  specific  objective  is  to  help  achieve  the  general  objectives  by 
supporting preventive measures and providing support and protection for victims and groups at risk. It 
also lists transnational actions and other types of actions to achieve the specific objective, namely: 

assisting and encouraging NGOs and other organisations working in the field; 

 
  developing or implementing targeted awareness-raising; 
  disseminating  the  results  of  Daphne  I  and  II,  including  their  adaptation,  transfer  and  use  by 

 
 

 

other beneficiaries or in other geographical areas; 
identifying and improving the treatment of people at risk of violence; 
setting up or supporting multi-disciplinary networks involving NGOs and other organisations 
active in this field; 
expanding  evidence-based  information  and  the  knowledge  base  and  exchanging,  identifying 
and disseminating information and good practice, through research, training, study visits and 
staff exchanges, among other means; 

  designing, testing, supplementing and adapting awareness-raising and educational materials; 
 
studying phenomena linked to violence and its impact on victims and society in general;  
  developing  and  implementing  support  programmes  for  victims  and  people  at  risk  and 

intervention programmes for perpetrators. 

Daphne  III,  like  other  programmes  under  DG  Justice’s  General  Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights 
and Justice (2007-2013), funds measures through three different mechanisms: 

  Action  grants:  co-funding  (up  to  80%  of  total  costs)  for  specific  projects  designed  and 
implemented  by  not-for-profit  organisations  and/or  public  institutions,  which  may  run  for  a 
maximum of two years. 

  Operating  grants:  financial  support  (up  to  80%)  for  the  running  costs  of  an  organisation’s 

annual budget.  

  Tendered  contracts  or  public  procurement:  funds  are  also  available  for  specific  actions 
initiated by the Commission (Commission’s initiatives), e.g. feasibility studies, research into 
specific topics, organising conferences or building IT systems. 

Table 1-1 below lists the number of grants funded in each year of the period evaluated6.  

Table 1-1 Number of grants funded annually 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

20137 

TOTAL 

Action grants  

Operating grants  

Specific action grants 
(116 Missing Children Hotline, 
Child Abduction Alert 
Mechanism) 

Specific operating grants  
(116 Missing Children Hotline) 

41 

9 

- 

- 

42 

12 

- 

- 

83 

60 

7 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

5 

226 

44 

21 

21 

6 

- 

14 

- 

14 

Note: The figures in the table differ from the number of projects analysed for this evaluation (302), as documentation was not 
available for all projects (305). 

The  total  budget  earmarked  for  Daphne  III  (2007-2013)  was  almost  EUR  124m,  the  average  annual 
planned budget being just almost EUR 18m8. The lion's share of the budget (EUR 97,7m or just over 

6 Calls for proposals for action grants were split across years from 2009 to 2010 and 2011 to 2012. 
7 Not considered within the scope of this evaluation, because the final reports were not submitted during this evaluation process. 
8 Decision No 779/2007/EC of  20 June 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and combat violence 
against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme) as part of the General 
Programme on ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
79%) was earmarked for action grants. As regards the extent to which the initial programme allocation 
was  effectively  committed,  roughly  EUR  60m  was  committed  to  action  grants  (in  terms  of  grant 
agreements signed), EUR 4.5m euro to operating grants and EUR 1.2m to procurement between 2010 
and 2013 (see Table 1-2 Planned budgetary breakdown for Daphne III (2007-2013)). 

Table 1-2 Planned budgetary breakdown for Daphne III (2007-2013) 

Available budget for grants and contracts 

Action grants 

Operating grants 

Commission initiatives 

Total annual budget 

Year 

Value (EUR ) 

% 

Value (EUR ) 

% 

Value (EUR ) 

2007 

11 000 000 

85% 

1 900 000  

15% 

1 000 000  

2008 

11 944 160  

81% 

2 000 000  

14% 

800 000  

2009 

14 417 120  

81% 

2 580 000  

14% 

800 000  

2010 

15 393 600 

83% 

2 500 000 

14% 

560 000  

% 

8% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

 Value (EUR ) 

% 

13 000 000  

100% 

14 744 160  

100% 

17 797 120  

100% 

18 453 600  

100% 

2011 

14 476 000 

71% 

2 000 000 

10% 

4 000 000 

19% 

20 476 000 

100% 

2012 

14 007 0009 

2013 

16 504 00011 

70% 

90% 

4 000 00010 

20% 

2 000 000 

10% 

20 007 000 

100% 

1 000 00012 

5% 

1 000 00013 

5% 

18 504 000 

100% 

Total 

97 741 880 

15 980 000 

10 160 000 

123 881 880 

Source: DAPHNE III - annual work programmes (2007-2013) 

Most  Daphne  III  projects  were  led  by  national  NGOs  (including  national  platforms  and  networks) 
(47%), followed by universities (18%) and European networks, platforms and forums (13%)14.This is 
consistent  with  the  programme's  specific  objectives,  which  state  that  these  objectives  are  to  be 
achieved by assisting NGOs and other organisations in the field.  

Action  grants  were  awarded  to  organisations  working  together  in  partnership.  The  involvement  of 
partner organisations follows a similar structure to that of the lead organisations observed. The most 
common  partners  (56%  of  the  total)  are  national  NGOs,  including  national  platforms  and  networks, 
while universities account for 15% of all partners. However, the distribution of partner organisations 
differs  from  that  of  lead  organisations,  with  higher  representation  of  public  services  (4%)  among 
partner organisations than among lead organisations (0.33%)15. Again, this follows the requirements of 
the  Programme’s  specific  objectives,  as  it  is  supposed  to  set  up  and  support  multidisciplinary 
networks, while also strengthening cooperation between NGOs and other organisations in the field. 

As regards public procurement, almost 70% of the budget committed went on studies or research (e.g. 
the  2009  Eurobarometer  survey  on  European  citizens'  perception  of  violence  against  women,  young 
people and children), including the mid-term and final evaluations of the programme. A further 27% 

9 This type of action includes action grants to specific transnational projects of EU interest (call for proposals) and action grants under Article 
168 of the Implementing Rules. 
10 This type of action includes operating grants to support annual activity programme of non-governmental organisations or other entities 
(calls for proposals) and operating grants to support NGOs mandated to run the 116 000 hotline for missing children. 
11 This type of action includes action grants to specific transnational projects of Union interest (call for proposals), 116 000 Hotline (specific 
action grants) and Child Abduction Alert Mechanism – specific action grants. 
12 This type of action includes operating grants to support annual activity programmes of non-governmental organisations or other entities 
(calls for proposals). 
13 In 2013, this type of action consisted of public procurement only. 
14 Based on an extensive review of documentation on all 302 action and operating grants funded under the 2007-2013 programme. Ex post 
evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG Justice – Specific programme 
evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, p. ii  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf  
15 Based on an extensive review of documentation on all 302 action or operating grants funded under the 2007-2013 programme. Ex post 
evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Daphne quantitative analysis, ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 
24-27  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/dap_annex_3_quantitative_analysis.pdf  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  spent  on  awareness-raising,  including  events,  and  almost  4%  on  maintaining  the  Daphne  III 
website.16 

16 Based on a review public procurement contracts. Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial 
perspective. Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG Justice – 
Specific programme evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 3  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf 

6 

 
 
 
2 

2.1 

EVALUATION RESULTS  

RELEVANCE OF THE DAPHNE III PROGRAMME 

The relevance of a programme is assessed in terms of the extent to which its actions logically address 
its objectives, the wider EU policy needs and the needs of the target audiences. 

2.1.1 

Relevance of measures to objectives 

The  measures  implemented  under  the  programme  and  the  programme  priorities  were  found  to  be 
relevant to the programme and its objectives. However, the analysis also showed that the alignment of 
priority areas on programme objectives was a weak indicator of 'relevance' (both of the priority areas 
and of the projects funded under those priorities). This was because both the programme's objectives 
and  the  priorities  set  were  broad  in  nature  and  not  clearly  linked  to  specific  EU  policy  objectives.17 
This lack of targeting at programme level may have made it more challenging to achieve targeted and 
therefore  relevant  results  in  this  EU  policy  area.  Indeed,  the  strategic  programming  of  the  annual 
priorities in the first half of the programme was not determined by long-term policy analysis. Rather, it 
was based on an analysis of topics already covered by funded projects.  

Nonetheless,  the  programme  had  funded  many  initiatives  which  informed  and  supported  the 
development of policy and, to a lesser extent, legislation. Further, the Commission held wider internal 
consultations  on  policy  priorities  from  2011  and  placed  more  emphasis  on  relevance  as  a  selection 
criterion.18 The aim was to shape the results of the programme better and to boost its impact.  

Reporting  by grant  beneficiaries suggests that end beneficiaries responded positively to the projects, 
indicating  that  they  considered  the  measures  relevant.  However,  this  cannot  be  confirmed  without 
gathering their views independently. Nonetheless, a review of the measures funded suggests that they 
were designed to respond to beneficiaries' identified needs and that most were developed on the basis 
of needs assessments.19  

2.1.2 

Relevance of the funded projects / work programmes to the objectives of the 
Programme 

In  all  action  grant  and  operating  grant  calls,  relevance  to  the  programme's  general  and  specific 
objectives was a key criterion for selection. A review of the operational objectives and areas of activity 
of the 302 projects (out of 307 projects in total, see Table 1-1 Number of grants funded annually) and 
work programmes funded through Daphne III shows that all were designed either to prevent violence 
against women, children and young people or to protect victims and people at risk. Their project and 
work programme objectives were therefore aligned on those of the Daphne III programme20. The types 
of activities covered by both are described below: 

Projects designed to prevent violence, including those focusing on: 

 
 

studies investigating the root causes of particular forms of violence;  
awareness-raising  among  the  general  public,  people  likely  to  encounter  victims  or  people  at 
risk of falling victim to or perpetrating violence;  
setting up positive treatment services for identified perpetrators;  

 
  developing policies to prevent violence more effectively. 

17 Ibid., pp. 3-4 
18 Ibid., p. 4 
19 Needs assessment should include relevant and reliable data and should contain a robust analysis clearly demonstrating the need for the 
action. The applicant can refer to existing research, studies, previous projects which had already identified the need. The needs assessment 
must make it clear to what extent the action will meet the need and this shall be quantified. The applicant should be specific and focus on the 
actual needs that the project will aim to address and not limit the analysis to general statements and information about the problems and 
needs of the target group in general. 
Evidence collected  during an extensive review of documentation on all 302 action or operating grants funded under the 2007-2013 
programme. Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG Justice – 
Specific programme evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 4 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf 
20 Ibid., p. 6 

7 

 
 
 
 
Projects designed to protect victims or people at risk, including those focusing on: 

training for professionals in contact with victims; 

 
  providing support services to victims; 
 

evaluating  support  services  or  action  to  protect  women,  young  people  and  children  and/or 
disseminate good practices. 

2.1.3 

Relevance to target group needs 

Daphne III received 1921 applications in total, i.e. 6.36 applications for every grant awarded. Daphne 
had a high application rate compared to the other four DG Justice programmes. There are a number of 
possible  reasons  for  its  popularity:  there  are  no  other  EU  programmes  focusing  on  violence  and  its 
prevention  (grant  beneficiaries  interviewed  reported  that  the  Daphne  programme  was  'unique'); 
national  funding  has  fallen  as  a  result  of  the  economic  crisis;  the  programme  targets  interest  groups 
and  organisations,  which  are  more  used  to  identifying  funding  streams  and  applying  for  grants  than 
public authorities, for example; and the priority areas were sufficiently broad to accommodate a wide 
range of eligible projects.21 

Most  online  respondents  (96%)  considered  the  priorities  relevant  both  to  the  target  group's  specific 
needs  and  to  those  of  their  country.  Moreover,  of  the  30  grant  beneficiaries  interviewed  for  the 
evaluation,  almost  all  stated  that  the  programme's  conceptual  framework  (i.e.  its  objectives  and 
priorities)  had  enabled  them  to  develop  their  projects  as  originally  envisaged.  Only  four  had  found 
some of the calls restrictive, and the main reason for this was the duration and/or size of the grant, not 
the conceptual framework.22   

2.2 

COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

Article 11 of Council Decision No 779/2007/EC establishing the Daphne III programme outlines the 
scope for complementarity and creating synergies with the following EU financial instruments: 

  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties  (comprising  two  programmes,  ‘Prevention  and  Fight 
against  Crime  (ISEC)’  and  ‘Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management  of 
Terrorism and other Security Related Risks’ (CIPS)); 

  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  (comprising  the  External  Borders  Fund 
(EBF),  European  Return  Fund  (RF),  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  and  European  Fund  for 
the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF)); 

  Seventh Research and Development Framework Programme; 

  Programmes on health protection, employment and social solidarity — PROGRESS; 

  Safer Internet Plus.  

The  Decision  also  provides  that  complementarity  with  the  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality 
(EIGE) and the Community Statistical Programme (Eurostat) will be sought. The rationale is that these 
may have objectives, target groups or end beneficiaries, and/or approaches that are similar or identical 
to those of the Daphne III programme.  

Other EU instruments that could potentially complement or overlap with Daphne III include:  

  other  DG  Justice  programmes,  including  Criminal  Justice  (JPEN),  Fundamental  Rights  and 
Citizenship  (FRC),  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme  (DPIP)  and  Civil  Justice 
(JCIV);  

21 Ibid., pp. 8-10 
22 Ibid. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  European Social Programme (ESP);  

  Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP). 

There are several possible ways of ensuring that Daphne complements and is consistent with other EU 
programmes.23  Firstly,  information  is  shared  with  other  DGs  through  inter-service  consultations  and 
inter-service  groups.  For  example,  it  was  agreed  that  DG  Home  Affairs  would  be  responsible  for 
funding  projects  on  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  unaccompanied  minors.  Secondly,  staff  from 
different  DGs  also  hold  ad-hoc  meetings  with  DG  Justice  on  topics  that  offer  the  potential  for 
discussing any complementarity and overlap issues. 

2.2.1 

Objectives and thematic areas 

Daphne  III's  objectives,  as  defined  by  the  legislator,  are  fairly  broad.  In  principle,  this  means  there 
may be some overlap between EU programmes. Daphne has much in common with ISEC as regards 
objectives  and  thematic  focus,  as  both  seek  to  prevent  and  combat  violence  and  to  protect  victims. 
However, Daphne is more victim-centred, whereas ISEC focuses mainly on perpetrators.  

Table  2-1  below  illustrates  the  potential  complementarity  and  overlap  of  Daphne’s  objectives  and 
themes with selected EU funding programmes. The analysis above and the table below indicate that, 
while Daphne III provided ample opportunities for creating synergies, it was also open to the risk of 
overlap  with  various  other  EU  programmes  -  especially  JPEN  and  Safer  Internet+  -  as  regards 
objectives and themes. The same applied to Daphne III and FRC. This  problem has been resolved in 
the  current  programming  period  by  combining  the  objectives  of  both  programmes  in  the  Rights, 
Equality and Citizenship Programme for 2014-2020.  

Table 2-1 Potential complementarity and overlap of types of thematic areas of Daphne III with other related EU 
programmes 

Preventing 
violence & 
protecting victims  
of violence 
Daphne III 

JPEN 

Gender equality & 
women’s rights 

Protecting 
children's rights  

Daphne III 

FRC 

PROGRESS 
ESF 

Daphne III 
FRC 

JPEN 

ESF 

Human trafficking 
& sexual 
exploitation  

Protecting 
physical & mental 
health 

Daphne III 

Daphne III 

JPEN 

DPIP 
JPEN 

ISEC 
ERF 
Safer Internet + 

Safer Internet + 
LLP 

ISEC 
ERF 
Safer Internet + 
LLP 

ISEC 
ERF 
Safer Internet + 

ESF 
Community action 
for public health 

Safer Internet + 

This  evaluation  concludes  that  the  programme's  general  objectives  could  remain  broad  and  general, 
enabling  the  Commission  to  respond  to  changing  needs  on  the  ground,  or  in  innovative  research  or 
practices.  However,  each  programme's  specific  objectives  could  be  formulated  in  such  a  way  as  to 
differentiate it more clearly from others (e.g. theme, focus, approach, type of organisation involved).24 
The  evaluation  also  found  that  it  was  vital  to  translate  these  objectives  into  priorities  for  calls  for 
proposals and into projects to be selected for funding, so as to avoid overlap and create synergies. 

23 Ibid., p. 11 
24 Ibid., pp. 14-15 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2 

Complementarity at project level 

At project level, there was little risk of overlap between Daphne-funded projects addressing the same 
priorities or involving the same kind of actors or the same kind of activities, as DG Justice tended to 
select projects covering quite a broad range of activities. Similar projects (e.g. anti-bullying education 
projects) tended to be implemented in different countries, so there was no overlap in beneficiaries.25 
However, those implementing the projects could have done more to incorporate lessons learned from 
previous projects, to improve the potential for creating a ‘critical mass’ of impacts.  

2.3 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of a programme refers to the extent to which the programme has been successful in 
achieving  its objectives,  and  the  extent  to  which  Daphne  projects  were  successful  in  achieving  their 
own project objectives. 

2.3.1 

Programme achievements 

Overall, the evaluation found that most measures implemented through Daphne III contributed to the 
programme’s general objectives, although the significance of individual contributions was difficult to 
measure, as the programme's objectives were very broad.26 Most measures helped improve protection 
for  victims  of  violence  or  groups  at  risk,  and  a  significant  number  contributed  to  policymaking  and 
lawmaking  at  EU  or  national  level.  It  was  Daphne  III’s  support  to  EU  networks,  research  and 
innovation and direct support to victims and at-risk groups that did most to improve protection against 
violence.  Grant  beneficiaries  managed  to  influence  policymakers  through  targeted  dissemination 
activities.27  

2.3.2 

Projects' achievements 

Research, studies and other analytical activities funded by Daphne have contributed to policymaking 
and improvements to practice. They have improved understanding of the phenomenon of violence. A 
total  of  217  of  the  302  projects  mapped  by  the  evaluators  (72%)  carried  out  analytical  activities  of 
various kinds (see Figure 2-1 Number of action and operating grants for different activities). A further 
203  out  of  302  (67%)  carried  out  mutual  learning  activities,  including  networks.  Networks,  which 
integrate  the  perspectives  of  relevant  parties,  naturally  have  a  wider  geographic  impact,  which  can 
give them greater visibility and leverage with policymakers. Daphne-funded networks have served as a 
readily identifiable focal point for new audiences, and have aggregated the work of their members into 
one central location (i.e. a website), again widening the channel for dissemination.28  
Over a quarter of Daphne III-funded projects (81) provided support and advice services. Direct support 
services, i.e. helplines and counselling services, but also training and educating victims and groups at 
risk,  to  help  them  protect  themselves  better,  have  directly  improved  protection  for  these  groups.  By 
contrast, the development of educational material and the training of practitioners appear to have had a 
smaller, more localised impact.29 Forty-nine of the 302 grants awarded supported key players - mainly 
NGOs - working to protect the main target groups (children, young people and women).30 

25 Ibid., pp. 15-16 
26 Ibid., p. 17 
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid., pp. 17-18 
29 Ibid. 
30 Ibid., pp. 21-22 

10 

 
 
 
Figure 2-1 Number of action and operating grants for different activities 

Source: data mapping of the documentation of the 302 action grant and operating grant-funded projects and work programmes 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY 

It was analysed whether the results, outcomes and impact of the projects were sustainable beyond the 
project funding period. Three levels of sustainability were identified: 

1.  short-term sustainability, achieved mainly by disseminating project results; 

2.  medium-term sustainability, implying continuation of project results and/ or partnerships; 

3. 

longer-term sustainability, achieved mainly by transferring projects’ results to other contexts, 
organisations and EU countries without additional funding (or with limited funding only).31 

2.4.1 

Continuing project activities and outputs implemented and dissemination 

Overall,  the  dissemination  of  the  projects’  results  by  the  Commission  was  limited,  since  it  mostly 
relied on its beneficiaries to disseminate the outputs directly to their target groups, and its own human 
resources were reserved mostly to the financial management. Therefore, even though the Commission 
had its own dissemination tool (Daphne toolkit), it was found to have been generally less effective at 
disseminating  results.  By  contrast,  grant  beneficiaries  appear  to  have  planned  and  effectively 
disseminated the results of their projects to policymakers, practitioners and other organisations in the 
field.  

As  regards  pursuing  project  activities,  most  grant  beneficiaries  said  that  although  there  were 
arrangements  in  some  cases  for  the  continued  use  and/or  availability  of  the outputs  (e.g.  a  website), 
additional  funding  was  needed.  Evidence  regarding  the  sustainability  of  partnerships  set  up  with 
programme  funding  is  rather  contradictory;  while  project  documents  suggested  that  very  few  were 
going  to  continue,  most  survey  respondents  said  their  partnerships  would  be  sustainable  beyond  the 
project.32  

2.4.2 

Continuing partnerships after the project’s completion 

Of the 216 projects for which final reports were available, two thirds (154) reported  that the projects 
would  be  sustainable  to  some  extent  at  least,  in  that  the  project  activities  and/or  partnership  would 
continue,  either  in  full  or  in  part.  In  most  of  these  cases  (105  out  of  154),  project  activities  would 
continue at least to some extent, while partnerships set up for the project would continue in just 29 out 
of 154 cases.  

31 Ibid., p. 27 
32 Ibid. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
At the time of the online survey, a higher percentage, i.e. 68% (94 of 139 respondents) stated that the 
partnership  set  up  for  the  purposes  of  their  project  would  outlive  the  project.  This  significantly 
different  figure  may  be  due  to  timing  (e.g.  opportunities  to  extend  the  partnership  may  have  been 
identified after the submission of the final report) or sampling (i.e. the sample responding to the online 
survey could be skewed). 

Examples in the final reports included descriptions of activities already planned with partners; others 
mentioned  that  the  outputs  of  the  measures  implemented  had  been  incorporated  into  training  or 
educational curricula (14 measures). Others again stated that outputs (e.g. websites, reports, leaflets) 
produced  using  programme  funding  would  continue  to  be  disseminated  and/or  available  after  the 
project had been wound up. 

Overall, though, there is no strong evidence that the results of the projects  were not only continued, 
but actually proved sustainable once project funding was no longer available. A total of 79% of online 
survey respondents (113 out of 143) said further funding was needed to guarantee the sustainability of 
the results of the project or activities.33   

2.4.3 

Potential sustainability and transferability of outputs 

Data from the online survey show that most outputs could be transferred to other EU countries. This 
was confirmed by all grant beneficiaries interviewed. Out of 139 respondents, 82% reported that all or 
some  outputs  could  be  used  unaltered  in  more  than  one  country.  Of  the  135  respondents,  67%  said 
outputs could be transferred with some minor changes to more than one country, while 10% said that 
was not possible. A few beneficiaries noted that the transferability of outputs or approaches could be 
significantly affected by progress made by other EU countries in a given policy area. Advanced social 
policies  could  make  it  easier  to  transfer  innovative  methods,  whereas  countries  lagging  behind  in  a 
given policy area were unable to adopt a new approach.34 

On the basis of an analysis of final reports and interviews with grant beneficiaries, some projects were 
found  to  include  a  higher transferability potential  at  the  project  design  phase.  For  example,  where  a 
needs assessment or comparative research was conducted, as part of the project, into how a given issue 
was addressed in a number of EU countries, or into differences in legislation or policy, a product such 
as a guide could immediately be developed and adapted to the various known contexts. This is a more 
effective and efficient approach to ensuring transferability than trying to adapt an existing product to 
different contexts. Moreover, membership of a network or having a number of partners abroad helps 
encourage transferability.  

2.5 

EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION 

The  assessment  of  efficiency  found  that  the  funding  made  available  for  the  implementation  of  the 
programme  was  possibly  not  sufficient  considering  the  high  level  of  ambition  of  some  of  the 
objectives, the very high demand for funding and the overall high absorption rate of grants. Moreover, 
the  issues  addressed  by  Daphne  III  are  very  'popular',  especially  among  those  stakeholders  that  are 
more prone to dependency on external funding. The grants produced outputs that were commensurate 
with the inputs, and represented good value for money, given the close links between activities.35 

2.5.1 

Planned budget  

Daphne  III's  general  objectives  were  helping  prevent  violence;  protecting  women  from  violence; 
protecting  children  from  violence;  protecting  young  people  from  violence;  and  influencing  the 
development of community policy.  

The  first  four  objectives  are  very  ambitious  and  cannot  be  tackled  effectively  with  just  EUR  124m 

33 Ibid. 
34 Ibid. 
35 Ibid., p. 32 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
over seven years. This is why the wording of the founding decision specifies that the aim is to make a 
contribution  towards  tackling  these  issues.  Nevertheless,  the  scale  of  the  problems  of  abuse  and 
violence overall call for far more funding. The last objective, which focuses on developing EU policies 
in support of the first four objectives, is more realistic and commensurate with the funding available. 

The fact that the programme has now reached its third round and has been growing steadily with each 
financial perspective may indicate that demand is higher and that the funding earmarked for initiatives 
of this kind is inadequate (i.e. mostly transnational and/or provided at EU level). On the other hand, 
the  Daphne  programmes  addressed  very  ‘popular’  themes  for  which  there  may  have  been  relatively 
little national funding but with many stakeholders (e.g. NGOs) being dependent on external financing. 

Compared to the initial allocations, action grants received approximately EUR 7m more than initially 
envisaged,  whereas  operating  grants  received  EUR  7m  less.  In  spite  of  this  apparent  transfer,  the 
grants were in very high demand overall, and more funding could have been absorbed too.  

2.5.2 

Extent to which the resources spent were reasonable in view of the impact 

The  evidence  collected  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation  may  be  insufficient  to  conclude  that  the 
resources spent on the programme were reasonable in view of the outcomes and the impact achieved, 
especially as just under 30% of the measures funded were still incomplete, and given that it takes time 
for  certain  outcomes  and  impacts  to  manifest  themselves.  However,  the  outcomes  and  the  impact 
identified suggest that spending was reasonable in the light of what the projects achieved.36 

Daphne  III  provided  about  EUR  109m  in  funding  for  over  300  mainly  transnational  projects, 
representing  over  1,000  lead  and  partner  organisations.  Analysis  of  the  projects  completed  so  far 
shows  there  is  evidence  of  outcomes  and  effects  for  about  81%  of  finalised  action  grants  (142)  and 
operating grants (40). As expected, given the nature of the funding tool, 83% of action grants showed 
evidence of outcomes and effects, more than the 76% of operating grants to do so. There may be some 
bias,  as  these  outcomes  and  impacts  are  based  on  self-reporting  by  grant  beneficiaries.  However,  it 
also needs to be borne in mind that overall outcomes and impacts take time to manifest themselves; for 
many projects, these would not yet have been observable at the time the final reports were written.37 

Only EUR 2m of the EUR 10m earmarked for procurement were committed. This suggests that needs 
were  overestimated.  However,  funding  earmarked  for  procurement  but  not  spent  in  this  way  was 
reallocated to grants following the principle of sound financial management.38  

2.5.3 

Scope for simplification 

An analysis was made of documentation required from grant applicants at the application stage in the 
Daphne  2007,  2009-2010  and  2013  calls  for  proposals.  In  2007,  the  application  form  was  split  into 
two parts – (i) a part asking for information on the project’s objectives, relevance, concrete outputs, 
sustainability  and  EU  added  value  and  (ii)  a  part  on  the  applicants  and  partners.  In  addition  to  the 
Application  Form,  applicants  were  required  to  complete  a  number  of  annexes,  including  partner 
declarations, budget forms, a staff-cost analysis, legal entity forms, etc. In the 2009-2010 period, the 
application form was modified to also include a detailed description of project work streams, setting 
out activities, deliverables and outputs. Although the requirement to provide a detailed description of 
work streams and outputs increased the complexity and amount of effort required from the applicants, 
arguably this also increased the quality of the project design and project planning.  

In  the  2013  call,  a  single  Guide  for  Applicants  was  provided  for  a  number  of  programmes  (all  DG 
Justice five programmes, ISEC and PROGRESS) which also included step-by-step guidance on using 
the PRIAMOS system. The guide contributed to simplification for organisations which benefited from 

36Based on an extensive review of documentation on all 302 action or operating grants funded under the 2007-2013 programme. Ex post 
evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG Justice – Specific programme 
evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 40 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf 
37 Ibid.  
38 Ibid., p. 41 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
multiple programmes  and increased the efficiency of the application process for both applicants and 
programme officers.  

With regard to submitting an application, 58 out of 143 (40%) respondents reported that they knew of 
organisations/projects/  practitioners  that  did  not  respond  to  the  call  for  proposals  because  it  was 
considered too complex/difficult.39 Moreover, a number of grant recipients considered the application 
procedures as complex and burdensome, in particular the past two calls for proposals were regarded as 
“too  technical”  by  the  respondents.  This  might  have  prevented  organisations  from  applying  for 
funding or limited the access to entities with high levels of expertise in project management/planning 
(but not necessarily with knowledge of the field/policy area). 

The assistance provided by the Commission to applicants was overall assessed as positive. Out of 137 
responses  to  the  survey,  more  respondents  strongly  agreed  (49)  or  partially  agreed  (37)  with  the 
statement “We have received good support from the Commission during the application procedure”. 
Nevertheless, 24% of respondents did not know or did not express their opinion, possibly because they 
had never contacted the Commission during the application phase, or because they were not aware of 
the possibility to receive support from the Commission during this phase.   

Detailed guidelines for Daphne III grant applicants were available on the DG Justice website and the 
data gathered through this evaluation indicates that information provided to applicants was perceived 
as  clear  and  easy  to  understand.    Out  of  144  respondents  to  the  survey,  most  grant  recipients  either 
strongly  agreed  (50%,  or  72  respondents)  or  partially  agreed  (36%  or  52)  with  the  statement  “the 
information  in  the  calls  for  proposals was  clear  and  easy  to understand”.  However,  responses  to  the 
online survey indicated that in order to respond to the call, just over half of the respondents (54 out of 
104  respondents  to  this  question)  had  to  request  help  from  persons  with  specific  expertise  and 
knowledge on the procedures.  

The PRIAMOS IT system worked well according to the overall majority of grant recipients consulted 
as part of this study. However, some project beneficiaries reported to have had issues with regard to 
the attachments.   

Projects were required to report on their finances in order to obtain a payment. For Daphne III, such 
reporting was requested at project completion, in order to obtain final payment40. It can be observed 
that  the  number  of  documents  needed  for  contractual  reporting  has  increased  over  the  funding 
period.From the first call for AGs (2007) until the 2009-2010 call, only a final financial statement was 
required to accompany the final request for payment. From the 2011-2012 call onwards a number of 
documents detailing financial expenditure where requested. In support of these new requirements, the 
Commission  issued  additional  guidance  on  financial  management  and  financial  reporting41.Some  of 
the new requirements, such as the submission of timesheets42, appear to put an unnecessary burden on 
organisations, which normally would not have a time recording system in place, and on Commission 
officials, who would have to verify these.   
The  monitoring  and  evaluation  requirements  in  the  first  call  for  proposals  were  limited  to  a  final 
report,  whereas  the  request  for  some  form  of  progress  reporting,  thus  allowing  the  Commission  to 
monitor the project during implementation, was introduced from the second call onwards.  

The  narrative  progress  reports  introduced  in  the  second  call  were  very  short  and  mainly  asked  for: 
implementation  of  the  project  so  far,  timetable,  changes  to  the  scope  of  the  project  and  overall 
assessment  and  difficulties  encountered.  Significantly  more  detailed  information  was  required,  from 
the last call onwards, for projects lasting 24 months or more, asking grant beneficiaries to report, per 
work stream, on outputs, deliverables, and activities delayed or not implemented.  

39 Based on the fact that 38 respondents “strongly agreed” and 28 “partially agreed” with this statement in the online survey. 
40 The Commission can introduce an interim payment where necessary as specified in the guide for applicants. 
41 Management Guide for projects co-financed by EU action grants awarded in 2012 under the financial programmes managed by DG 
Justice.  
42 The use of these is extensively explained in the Management Guide for projects co-financed by EU action grants awarded in 2012 under 
the financial programmes managed by DG Justice.  

14 

 
 
 
Grant  beneficiaries  considered  the  Commission’s  monitoring  arrangements  as  partially  good  and 
helpful during the implementation of the project/activities by about 68% of respondents (89 out of 131 
respondents).  Only,  14%  (19  out  of  131)  partially  disagreed  with  this  view.  Three  interviewees 
consulted noted that the Commission’s monitoring visits to projects were rare and that some projects 
were  not  visited  at  all.  This  was  considered  a  missed  opportunity  on  both  sides,  as  visits  were 
considered  as  useful  by  grant  recipients,  being  an  effective  tool  to  provide  the  Commission  with  a 
good  understanding  of  activities  implemented  and  overall  project’s  results,  while  at  the  same  time 
allowing the project to use the visit to further promote its activities and Daphne III in general. It could 
be  argued  that  the  Commission  therefore  puts  a  disproportionate  focus  on  the  expenditure  of  the 
projects rather than progress made.  

Similarly to the progress reporting requirements, there has been a significant increase in the level of 
detail requested from the grant beneficiaries. Whereas the 2007 call requested in this regard a simple 
final narrative report, this request became slightly more detailed in the 2009-2010 call, to a request for 
final  reporting  according  to  the  separate  work  streams  from  the  2011-2012  call.  An  important 
additional feature was the introduction of the Annex on quantitative reporting from this call onwards.  

In  order  to  evaluate  efficiency  or  scope  for  simplification,  it  is  important  to  look  at  the  balance 
between  the  resources  required  for  reporting,  both  by  the  grant  beneficiaries  as  well  as  for  the 
Commission in terms of reviewing this information, and the usefulness of reporting in terms of being 
able  to  assess  project  performance,  outputs  and  wider  effects.  While  no  data  is  available  on  the 
resources spent by the Commission on the review of project reports, the majority of grant beneficiaries 
surveyed  were  satisfied  with  the  reporting  requirements  and  moreover,  as  expressed  several  times 
during follow-up interviews, they found the Commissions’ monitoring of the project very important. 
In  this  regard,  it  seems  also  commensurate  with  the  detailed  financial  reporting  requirements. 
Obviously, the quality of this final reporting provided by the grant beneficiaries determines its ultimate 
effectiveness and usefulness for the Commission. 

2.6 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

EU  added  value  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  nature  of  the  programme  brings  value  to  its 
stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  has  a  comparative  advantage  over  national  and 
international actors working  in the area. First, the EU nature of the  programme and its geographical 
coverage is discussed. The EU added value is then analysed in terms of value brought to the EU and to 
beneficiaries. However, it has not yet been possible to identify and measure EU added value in terms 
of impacts. 

In  general,  funding  through  financing  programmes  managed  by  DG  Justice  and  covered  by  this 
evaluation was only available to activities with a clear European dimension. This means that activities 
must  transcend  national  or  local  interests  to  become  truly  ‘European’,  with  relevance,  coverage  and 
impact at EU level. 

The three main features of Daphne III that give it an ‘EU dimension’ are:   

  Programme objectives: Art. 2 of the founding decision stipulates that one of the programme's 
general  objectives  is  to  help  develop  ‘Community  [now  EU]  policies’.  Compared  to  the 
previous  Daphne  programmes,  Daphne  III  now  focuses  on  all  forms  of  violence  against 
women, children and young people (while DG HOME focuses more on combating paedophilia 
and  trafficking  in  human  beings).  Its  legal  basis  is  the  promotion  and  protection  of 
fundamental  rights,  as  recognised  by  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union.   

  Theme of projects: The founding Decision stipulated in Art. 4(b) that the action grants will 
fund  projects  of  ‘Community  [EU]  interest’.  The  annual  work  programmes  and  calls  for 
proposals subsequently required projects to cover a theme of relevance to the EU. These work 
programmes  set  out  the  annual  priorities  -  involving  the  EU's  efforts  to  combat  violence 
against children, young people and women  - and required  the projects to complement  these. 
The  call  for  proposals  stipulated  that  proposals  must  demonstrate  that  they  would  provide 

15 

 
 
 
‘added value at EU level as opposed to national or regional level’.  

  Transnational  nature:  The  annual  work  programmes  and  calls  for  proposals  laid  down  the 
requirement for action grant beneficiaries to form transnational partnerships between at least 
two  partner  organisations  from  at  least  two  EU  countries.  Operating  grant  recipients  were 
obliged to cover at least 12 EU/EFTA/EEA countries. Art. 9(6) of the founding Decision also 
states  that  one  of  the  evaluation  criteria  for  selecting  operating  grant  applications  is  the 
‘geographic  impact  of  the  activities  carried  out’.  The  transnational  nature  of  the  Daphne  III 
programme  was  one  of  its  key  features,  distinguishing  it  from  the  other  EU  funding 
programmes in the field of justice implemented at the same time (see section 3). For the EU, 
the aim of such partnerships was to encourage the sharing of information at EU level, an EU-
wide  dissemination  of  good  practices,  a  coordinated  and  multidisciplinary  approach  and  a 
greater scale or impact of the programme.  By requiring partnerships to be transnational, the 
programme also adheres to the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on 
European Union, requiring that the Union shall act only if and in so far the objectives of the 
proposed  action  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States  or  can  be  better 
achieved at Union level.  

2.6.1 

Geographical coverage of projects 

The  number  of  lead  organisations  and  thus  the  number  of  projects  implemented  differs  significantly 
across EU countries. Italy was home to the largest number of participating organisations, followed by 
the  UK  and  Spain,  with  most  of  these  organisations  being  partner  organisations.  Malta,  Ireland  and 
Estonia were the countries with the lowest participation rates. Malta did not lead any projects, though 
Maltese organisations participated as partners.  

Lead organisations were clustered within three EU countries: Italy, Belgium and the UK. In total, 43% 
(131) of all projects were led by one of these three. However, projects registered in Belgium include 
EU  networks  and  platforms,  which,  though  not  led  by  national  bodies,  inflate  the  share  of  lead 
organisations based in Belgium.  

As  regards  partner  organisations,  participation  among  EU  countries  is  more  evenly  spread;  17  EU 
countries  supplied  more  than  25  partner  organisations.  Non-EU  countries  were  also  involved, 
including  Norway  (with  both  lead  and  partner  organisations),  Turkey,  Ukraine,  Iceland,  Switzerland 
and F.Y.R.O.M. (as associated – not funded – partners only).43  

The  analysis  demonstrates  that  the  Daphne  III  programme  did  not  cover  all  Member  States  equally. 
Coverage  largely  reflects  the  number  of  applications  received  by  different  countries.  For  example, 
Italy, one of the countries receiving most grants, submitted 537 grant applications in the course of the 
programme (see Figure 2-2 Number of applications per EU country). This represents 28% of all 
applications (1921 received).  

Overall, lead partners based in Italy did not have a very high success rate. Italy's success rate was 9%, 
as  compared  to  the  average  of  19%.  The  UK's  success  rate  was  slightly  above  average  at  21%  (44 
applications were accepted). The proportion of universities making successful applications was quite 
high in Italy and the UK: UK universities accounted for 39% (21 out of 54) of all those that received 
funding  under  Daphne  III,  while  their  Italian  counterparts  accounted  for  20%  (11  out  of  54). 
Universities may have been better placed to apply for grants than other bodies, as academics are used 
to  making  such  applications.44  The  countries  with  the  highest  success  rates  were  Denmark  (43), 
Belgium (34%), Norway (33%), and Hungary and Austria (31% in both cases). Germany's success rate 
was 24%.45 

43 Ibid., p. 48 
44 However, NGOs, which were the main grant applicants in most Member States, should also be accustomed to applying for funding. 
45 Ibid., p. 50 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-2 Number of applications per EU country  

As regards the partnership structures of the three countries with most lead organisations (Italy, the UK 
and Belgium), the figures show that lead organisations are always  much  more likely to partner with 
organisations  from  their  own  country  than  with  those  from  other  EU  countries.  For  instance,  Italian 
lead organisations formed partnerships with 38 Italian partners, 24 Spanish partners and 15 Bulgarian 
partners. Belgian lead organisations partnered with 15 Belgian partners, 8 Greek partners and 6 French 
partners.  UK  lead  organisations  partnered  with  27  UK  partners,  11  Bulgarian  partners,  11  French 
partners and 11 Italian partners.  

Given the strong link between the country of the lead organisation and that of the partner organisation, 
the  top  three  countries  for  lead  organisations  are  also  among  the  top  countries  for  partner 
organisations. However, Portugal and Slovenia had the highest ratio of partner to lead organisations. In 
other words, they accounted for a large number of partner organisations (Portugal 35 and Slovenia 31) 
despite low levels of lead organisations (1). As expected, both countries participated in projects run by 
the organisations from the main lead countries: the UK, Italy, Belgium and Germany. 

2.6.2 

Added value for the EU and for grant beneficiaries 

Consultations with the programme’s grant beneficiaries suggest there were a number of features of the 
programme  that  brought  added  value.  These  include  the  themes  covered  and  the  programme's 
‘conceptual  framework’,  the  availability  of  funding  (when  no  other  funding  was  available),  and  the 
opportunity to partner with organisations in other countries. A number of partners also found that by 
receiving EU funding, the credibility of their organisation / project grew, helping them to garner more 
support  for  their  aims.  Some  grant  beneficiaries  mentioned  that  the  ‘EU  brand’  can  also  boost  an 
organisation’s reputation. For certain funded actions, the EU nature of the programme was crucial to 
their  endeavour  –  this  was  particularly  true  of  projects  which  sought  to  create  and/or  maintain  EU 
networks  (e.g.  EuroNet-FGM,  the  116  network  of  organisations,  Verein  Autonome  Österreichische 
Frauenhäuser) and those seeking to have an impact on EU issues (e.g. the rights of victims, missing 
children). 

The results of the online survey indicate that projects added value in that they contributed to achieving 
EU objectives. For example, most survey respondents reported that the project and or activities carried 
out made a significant or major contribution to formulating and disseminating of best practices (86% 
of  144  respondents);  creating  practical  tools  and  solutions  that  address  cross-border  or  EU-wide 
challenges (75% of 140 respondents); improving cross-border cooperation (75% of 143 respondents); 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
and developing mutual trust among countries (67% of 141 respondents).46 

46 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG Justice – Specific 
programme evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 50 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf, 

18 

 
 
 
3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance of the programme47 

 

In  general,  the  initiatives  carried  out  under  the  Daphne  III  programme  were  relevant  to  the 
programme and its objectives and priorities. The extent to which the priority areas were aligned on 
the  programme's  objectives  proved  to  be  a  poor  indicator  of  ‘relevance’,  as  both  objectives  and 
priorities  were  broad  in  nature  and  not  clearly  linked  to  specific  EU  policy  objectives.  Priority-
setting was not a standardised process. There was minimal investment in the first half time of the 
programme in setting priorities as a strategy for influencing programme outcomes; however, this 
changed somewhat in the programme's later stages. 

  Despite  this,  the  programme  funded  many  initiatives  which  informed  and  supported  policy  and 
legislative  development.  Overall,  initiatives  appear  to  have  been  designed  to  respond  to 
beneficiaries' identified needs and developed on the basis of needs assessments. 

  Reporting  by  grant  beneficiaries  also  suggests  that  end  beneficiaries  responded  positively  to  the 
projects,  indicating  that  they  considered  the  actions  relevant;  however,  this  cannot  be  confirmed 
without gathering end beneficiaries' independent views.  

Coherence and complementarity 

  There was substantial scope for complementarity and thus also the risk of overlap between Daphne 
III  and  the  Criminal  Justice  (JPEN)  and  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  (FRC)  DG  Justice 
programmes,  as  well  as  -  to  a  lesser  extent  -  the  Safer  Internet  Plus  programme  (DG  DIGIT). 
There was some overlap between the programmes’ objectives, so it was decided to bring Daphne 
III and FRC together for the current programming period (2014-2020).  

  Even though there is some overlap between Daphne III, FRC and JPEN, the stage of the process 

involving calls for proposals helped differentiate them to some extent.  

  Several types of synergies were created between projects under Daphne III, and between Daphne 
III  projects  and  other  organisations  in  the  same  field  which  were  perceived  as  reinforcing  each 
other's strengths.  

Effectiveness 

  Evidence  to  date  suggests  that  overall  Daphne  III  was  effective  in  achieving  the  programme 
objectives.  Most  measures  helped  improve  protection  for  victims  of  violence  or  groups  at  risk, 
either directly or indirectly. A significant number also appear to have contributed to policymaking 
and lawmaking at national level – and to some extent at EU level. 

  The  greatest  contributions  to  protection  from  violence  came  from  Daphne  III’s  support  to  EU 
networks,  research  and  innovation  and  direct  support  to  victims  or  at-risk  groups;  and  grant 
beneficiaries managed to influence policymakers through targeted dissemination activities. 

  Most projects achieved their own objectives and there is already good evidence of positive results, 

as well as evidence of unexpected positive results. 

Sustainability  

 

It  was  found  that  the  Commission,  despite  having  its  own  dissemination  tool,  had  been  less 
successful in projects' outputs dissemination. This was mainly due to lack of human resources and 
emphasis on financial reporting and production of project outputs. By contrast, grant beneficiaries 
appear to have planned and effectively disseminated the results of their projects to policymakers, 
practitioners and other organisations in the field.  

47 Ibid., pp. 52-54 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  The  fact  that  many  grant  beneficiaries  have  been  successful  in  reaching  policymakers, 
practitioners and/or in transferring their outputs and methods to other EU countries suggests that 
grant beneficiaries were reasonably effective at disseminating the results of their initiatives.  

  Although arrangements have been made in some cases to continue using the outputs and making 
them available (e.g. a website), grant beneficiaries say additional funding is needed to be able to 
continue project activities. On the other hand, a significant part of activities developed under the 
programme would have not been developed had the programme not existed, since the programme 
itself had created a demand for new activities. 

Efficiency 

  Demand for Daphne III funding was high, mainly because of the nature of the programme and the 

type of eligible grant beneficiaries. 

  The  funding  made  available  was  sufficient  for  grants  to  achieve  their  objectives.  However,  the 

needs of procurement as a funding tool were overestimated. 

  As  regards  scope  of  simplification,  the  level  of  detail  required  in  the  application  form  has 
increased  from  the  2010  call  onwards  and  included  the  introduction  of  work  streams.  This  has 
benefited  both  the  Commission  and  the  applicants.  Reporting  requirements  were  considered 
appropriate by the vast majority of the respondents. The Commission’s monitoring arrangements 
were  at  least  partially  considered  as  good  and  helpful  during  the  implementation  of  the 
project/activities. The reporting requirements reflect a more balanced approach between financial 
justification on the one hand and evaluation of outputs on the other. Evaluation of the (potential) 
impacts of the projects is limited.  

EU added value 

  The fact that the programme was carried out under the EU's auspices brought added value to most 
grant beneficiaries. Most found that the transnational partnerships required under the programme 
enabled them to learn from other countries. For many others, the chance to disseminate the outputs 
and results of their project at EU level was also a real advantage.  

  EU  ‘branding’  also  gave  added  momentum  to  some  projects  and  greater  leverage  with 

policymakers and other key stakeholders. 

  For  networks,  such  as  EuroNet-FGM  and  Missing  Children  Europe,  it  is  likely  that  only  an  EU 
programme would have enabled them to achieve their goals. For grant beneficiaries, the fact that 
the programme offered funding for projects focusing on human rights or social science at a time 
when little funding was available, particularly at EU level, was also very important.  

  However,  the  geographic  coverage  of  the  project  was  rather  limited,  with  the  main  lead 
organisations  being  based  in  the  UK,  Italy,  Germany  and  Belgium.  Furthermore,  it  has  not  yet 
been possible to identify and measure EU added value in terms of impacts.   

Key recommendations 

  Better  define  the  priorities;  the  Commission  should  invest  more  time  and  human  resources  in 
setting priorities, to ensure that these help the programme to achieve specific objectives relevant to 
the programmes’ general objectives, and to DG Justice’s wider policy objectives.   

  Support  the  achievement  of  longer-term  objectives,  and  to  influence  policymakers  and  target 
audiences; the Commission should utilise the budget available for procurement activities to collate 
the results and outputs of the Daphne III programme on its website and/or consider publicising the 
existing databases of results more effectively.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
  Realistic assessments of project risks and better risk mitigation strategies: the Commission should 
better  monitor  risks  throughout  the  project  duration,  for  example  by  asking  for  brief  progress 
reports that identify any potential risks as they arise during the implementation of the project. 

 

Increase  focus  on  assessment  of  impacts  at  all  levels  and  not  merely  on  outputs,  as  regards 
monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  need  to  collect,  analyse  and  use 
objective and independent evidence in order to perform project and programme evaluations. 

  Explore  ways  of  enhancing  the  uptake  of  project  outputs,  results  and  best  practices  by  other 
organisations,  including  in  other  Member  States,  including  more  resources  for  translations, 
communication and dissemination.  

  Sharpen the programme's intervention logic; further to the scope of the programme and its general 
and specific objectives and priorities, types of action and types of intervention and implementing 
measures,  the  Commission  shall  seek  to  sharpen  the intervention  logic48,  and  make  the  relations 
between  the  rationale,  objectives,  inputs,  outputs,  beneficiaries,  expected  outcomes  and  impacts 
articulate, precise and concrete in any future continuation of the programme. 

48 See for instance Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Final Report to DG 
Justice – Specific programme evaluation: Daphne Programme, ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 1-2 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/daphne_programme_evaluation__final_report.pdf. 

21