natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Typy propojenó s ostatnómi bｸ™ócómi projekty
Type of links with the other running project
Projekt vyu™óvè v̅sledkヮ jinïho projektu
Project uses the results of other project
Projekt þóﾖó v̅sledky jinïho projektu
Project disseminates results of other project
Dｸti a/nebo ™eny obecnｸ
Mffe d i a / jo u r n a l i s t s V i o l e n t men ̌ p e r p e t r a t o r s / o . e n d e r s S o c i a l w o r k e r s E m p l o y e r s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s U n i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s C h i l d r e n and/or women in g e n e r a l N G O s O t h e r
(k) Pokud sledujeme cóle projektu DAPHNE (jak jsou de«novènyvrozhodnutóapﾖipomenutyv textech v̅zvy k pﾖedlo™enó nèvrhヮ), bylo zjiþtｸno nèsledujócó dｸlenó a v̅voj:
(k) If we consider the Daphne objectives (as de«nedinthedecisionandrecalledinthetextsof the calls for proposals), the following split and evolution were detected:
V̅mｸna sprèvn̅ch postupヮ
Exchange of good practices
Studie, v̅zkum nebo sbｸr dat
Studies, research or data collection
Zdroje informacó
Information sources
Ilustruje to skuteｲnou pﾖidanou hodnotu projektu Daphne, tj. pﾖenos sprèvn̅ch postupヮ mezi partnery v rèmci mezinèrodnó spoluprèce.
This illustrates the true added value of Daphne, i.e. the transfer of good practices within and between transnational partnerships.
Napro-ti tomu budovènó zdrojヮ informacó je nadèle zastoupeno mèlo.
On the contrary, the building of information sources is still not greatly tackled.
Je zﾖejmï, ™e po prvnóch pèr letech, kdy byla potﾖeba takov̅ch kampanó oｲividnè, se orga-nizace ÿｲastnócó se boje proti nèsiló zaｲaly mïnｸ zab̅vat tómto pﾖóstupem a vóce se zamｸﾖily na dalþó cóle.
Obviously, after the «rstfewyearswhentheneedforsuchcampaignswasobvious,theorganisationsinvolved in the «ghtagainstviolencestartedtorelylessonthisapproachandtofocusmore on other objectives.
Budeme-li podrobnｸji analyzovat podstatu cólヮ projektヮ, objevóme nèsledujócó kategorie:
When analysing in more detail the nature of the projects' objec-tives, the following categories appear:
Lepþó pochopenó nèsiló
Improved understanding of violence
Ochrana pﾖed nèsilóm
Protection from violence
V̅sledky a dopad DAPHNE
Results and impact of Daphne
Pro potﾖeby tïto zprèvy bylo zhodnoceno sedm let ｲinnosti DAPHNE (1997›2003).
For the purpose of this report, an evaluation of the seven years of Daphne activities (1997›2003) was carried out.
Hlavnóm rysem tïto studie je, ™e je ÿplnè: byly analyzovèny vþechny projekty (303) z iniciativy (1997›1999) a z programu (2000›2003).
The main characteristic of this study is that it is exhaustive: all projects (303) from the initiative (1997›99) and the programme (2000›03) have been analysed.
Zèvｸry jsou nèsledujócó:
The conclusions were as follows:
¶Cóle iniciativy a programu byly a zヮstèvajó relevantnó potﾖebèm podle svïho vzniku, tj. ochra-nｸ dｸtó, mlède™e a ™en proti nèsiló a prevenci tohoto nèsiló.
`The initiative and programme objectives were and remain relevant to the needs at their origin i.e. protecting children, young people and women from violence and preventing it.
Jak v̅stupy projektヮ, tak jejich pヮsobenó a dopady pﾖispóvajó k dosa™enó vþech cólヮ programu DAPHNE, co™ potvrzuje jeho ÿｲinnost. Pヮsobivï v̅sledky a ÿｲinky ve srovnènó se skromn̅mi pﾖidｸlen̅mi prostﾖedky do-kazujó u™iteｲnost programu.
Both the outputs and the impacts contribute to achieving each objective of the Daphne programme, so con«rmingits e.ectiveness.Thee/ciencyof theprogrammeis evidencedby theimpressiveoutputsandim-pacts, compared with the modest resources allocated.
Jejich udr™itelnost po dokonｲenó projektヮ je ponｸkud slabþó, a to kvヮli nedostateｲnｸ naplènovanïmu a cólenïmu rozþiﾖovènó v̅sledkヮ a problïmヮm s «nanco-vènóm po skonｲenó projektヮ.ƒ
Their sustainability once the projects have ended is rather weak, because of insu/cientlyplannedandtargeteddisseminationanddi/cultieswith post-project funding.'
Nèsiló proti dｸtem, mlède™i a ™enèm"
" young people and women
Efektivnost: vynikajócó u™itnè hodnota k cenｸ
E/ciency: excellent value for money
Zèva™nost: patﾖiｲnè, odpovódajócó àｲinnost: dobrè jak kvヮli v̅stupヮm, tak dopadヮm
E.ectiveness: good for both outputs and impacts
Zèva™nost programu DAPHNE je dèna rozsahem, v nｸm™ cóle odpovódajó a nadèle budou od-povódat danïmu kontextu, tj. vyhovujó socièlnóm potﾖebèm, kterï mè program plnit.
The relevance of the Daphne programme is evaluated by the extent to which the objectives are and remain appropriate to the context, i.e. to the social needs the programme is meant to satisfy.
Zèva™nost a dヮle™itost cólヮ DAPHNE pro socièlnó potﾖeby
Relevance of the Daphne objectives to the social needs
Boj proti nèsiló sdru™uje velk̅ poｲet iniciativ a akcó. Cólem DAPHNE nenó pﾖómo sni™ovat poｲet obｸtó nèsiló.
The «ghtagainstviolencecombinesalargenumberofinitiativesandactions.Daphnedoesnot aim to directly reduce the number of victims of violence.
Mósto toho se program zamｸﾖuje na podporu organizacó, jejich™ ｲinnost pﾖispóvè k ochranｸ proti nèsiló, prevenci nèsiló a pomoci obｸtem.
Instead, the programme aims to support organisations whose actions contribute to protecting against violence, preventing it and assisting victims.
To vysvｸtluje klóｲovou ÿlohu, kterou hrajó v programu DAPHNE nevlèdnó organizace ji™ od jeho vzniku.
This explains the key role played by NGOs in Daphne since its origin.
Cóle DAPHNE byly de«novènyobecnｸ,tak™emohouplatitpromnohorヮzn̅chtypヮnèsiló.Zdeje þest cólヮ DAPHNE:
The Daphne objectives were d e « n e d i n g e n e r a l t e r m s s o t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e v a l i d f o r m a n y d i . e r e n t tffy p e s o f v i o l e n c e . T h e r e a r e s i x D a p h n e o b j e c t i v e s :
Proto™e cóle nezèvisó na oblastech nèsiló, kter̅mi se zab̅vajó, nejsou ovlivnｸny ka™doroｲnｸ stanovenou nalïhavostó aspektヮ nèsiló.
By being independent from the areas of violence covered, these objectives are not in‹uencedby priorities set annually on aspects of violence.
Kromｸ toho jsou tyto cóle spóþe nèstrojem ne™ cólem v u™þóm slova smyslu.
In addition, these objectives are instruments rather than objectives, stricto sensu.
Ve skuteｲnosti vóce pﾖispóvajó k obecnｸjþóm meta-cólヮm, kterï program podporujó nepﾖómo, tj. k reakci Evropy na nèsiló pomocó sótｸ spoluprèce a v̅mｸny sprèvn̅ch postupヮ, prevenci proti nèsiló a ochranｸ obｸtó a rostoucómu uvｸdomｸnó (viz graf 2 nó™e).
In fact, they contribute to the more general meta-objec-tives that implicitly underpin the programme, i.e. European response to violence through networking and exchange of best practice, prevention and protection of victims, increased awareness (see Graph 2 below).
Skuteｲnost, ™e tyto cóle zヮstèvajó zèva™nï v prヮbｸhu let, je zﾖejmè vｸtþinｸ dotazovan̅ch po-dólnókヮ.
The fact that these objectives remained relevant over the years is evident to a majority of stakeholders interviewed.
Pro nｸkterï z nich pﾖedstavuje program zlepþenó iniciativy v tom smyslu, ™e se cóle ｲèsteｲnｸ pﾖesouvajó od rostoucóho uvｸdomｸnó pﾖes informovènó ke zmｸnｸ chovènó, co™ je nejzèva™nｸjþó dopad.
For some of them, the programme represented an improvement on the initiative in this respect, as the objectives partly moved from awareness-raising through informing, to changing behaviours, which is the most crucial impact.
Rostoucó uvｸdomｸnó ve skuteｲnosti ¶pﾖirozenｸƒ nevyvolèvè zmｸny v chovènó, tyto zmｸny vy™adujó ｲas, zdroje, organizaｲnó promｸnlivost atd.
In fact, raising awareness does not `naturally' provoke changes in behaviour; those changes require time, resources, organisational variation, etc.
Nｸkteﾖó «nanｲnópodólnócitakïpﾖedpoklèdajó,™ebyvestﾖednｸdlouhïdobｸmｸlavzrヮstdヮ-le™itost prevence v porovnènó s ochranou obｸtó.
Some stakeholders also envisage that, in the medium term, prevention should increase in importance relative to the protection of victims.
Nｸkolik podólnókヮ poukazuje na kritickou dヮle™itost zachèzenó s delikventy jako na prostﾖedek prevence proti dalþómu nèsiló.
Several stakeholders point to the critical im-portance of the treatment of o.endersasameansofpreventingfurtherviolence.
Zèva™nost cólヮ Daphne a jejich stèlost prokazuje takï rヮst «nanｲnóchprostﾖedkヮ,kterïnavr-hovatelï po™adovali mezi roky 1997 a 2002, co™ ukazuje, jak jsou po™adavky a potﾖeby dヮle-™itï a budou takovï i nadèle.
The relevance of the Daphne objectives and their permanence are also evidenced by the growth of the funds requested by proposers between 1997 and 2002, indicating how impor-tant the demand and the needs are and remain.
à ｲ i n n o s t àｲinnost programu Daphne se posuzuje podle rozsahu, jak̅m v̅stupy a dopady pﾖispóvajó k dosa™enó cólヮ Daphne.
The e . e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe i s a s s e s s e d b y t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e o u tp uijt s a n d impacts contribute to the achievement of the Daphne objectives.
U vþech projektヮ se vytvoﾖilo propojenó mezi jejich v̅stupy a cóly Daphne, kterï tóm doklèda-jó.
For each project, a link was made between its outputs and the Daphne objectives they support.
Ze 699 v̅stupヮ jich cóle Daphne doklèdè silnｸ nebo velmi silnｸ 601, jak je uvedeno nó™e:
Out of 699 outputs, 601 strongly or very strongly support the Daphne objectives as follows:
V̅mｸna sprèvn̅ch postupヮ
Exchange of good practice
Rozpoznèvènó """a upozorﾏovènó na nèsiló""
Recognition"""and reportingon violence""
Zdroje informacó""
Information sources"""
N = 601 v̅stupヮ s vysokou nebo velmi vysokou podporou: Konference, seminèﾖe, workshopy i; Studie, zprèvy & knihy i; Informaｲnó materièly i ; Nèvody, þkolicó sady, manuèly i ; Webovï strènky, CD & CD-ROM i 3 1
N = 601 outputs with high or very high contribution: iconferences, seminars, workshops; istudies, reports and books; i"information materials; i"guidelines, training packages, manuals; iwebsites, CDs and CD-ROMs
Hlavnó dopady
Main impacts
V̅mｸna sprèvn̅ch postupヮ
Support for multidisciplinary networks
Reakce Evropy na nèsiló prostﾖednictvóm spoluprèce v sóti, v̅mｸny sprèvn̅ch postupヮ a studió
Exchange of good practices
Pﾖijetó sprèvn̅ch postupヮ, 66 %
Adoption of good practices66 %
Studie, v̅zkum nebo sbｸr dat
European response to issues of violence through networking, exchange of good practices and studies
Zlepþenï odbornï znalosti, 64 %
Improved expertise64 %
Prevence /ochrana proti nèsiló
Studies, research or data collection
Zlepþenï prostﾖedky a/nebo pﾖóstup k pomoci, 57 %
Improved means and/oraccess to assistance 57 %
Zdroje informacó
Prevention / protectionfrom violence
Zlepþenï uvｸdomｸnó si otèzek nèsiló a situace koncov̅ch pﾖójemcヮ, 76 %
Improved awareness of issues of violence and of end bene«ciaries' situation: 76 %
Rostoucó uvｸdomｸnó si otèzek nèsiló
Increased awareness of issues of violence
Zviditelnｸnó/diskuze o nèsiló, 67 %
Visibility / discussion of violence 67 %
Rozpoznèvènó a upozorﾏovènó na nèsiló
Recognition and reporting of violence
Otevﾖenost zkuþenostem z jin̅ch zemó, 52 %
Openness to experiencefrom other countries: 52 %
(% v rèmeｲcóch ¶Hlavnóch dopadヮƒ jsou ｲetnosti projektヮ, u kter̅ch byl tento dopad zaznamenèn).
Note: Percentages in the `Main impacts' boxes are the frequencies of projects having recorded such an impact.
Kvヮli snadnï ｲitelnosti jsou zobrazeny pouze nejdヮle™itｸjþó dopady (nad 45 % ｲetnosti) a jsou ukèzèny pouze hlavnó vztahy k cólヮm.
Only the most important impacts (above 45 % of frequencies) are displayed and only the main relations with objectives are shown, in the interests of readability.
Nenó ™èdn̅m pﾖekvapenóm, ™e podól v̅stupヮ, kterï podporujó dan̅ cól, je soumｸﾖiteln̅ s po-ｲtem projektヮ, kterï se tómto cólem zab̅vajó.
It is no surprise that the proportion of outputs supporting a given objective is commensurate with the number of projects tackling that objective.
Ukazuje to a) dヮle™itost tohoto cóle pro ÿｲastnóky a b) reèlnou pﾖidanou hodnotu programu DAPHNE pﾖi pﾖenosu znalostó z jednï zemｸ do druhï a z jednï organizace do orga-nizacó po celï Evropｸ.
This shows (a) the importance of that objective for the participants and (b) the real added value of the Daphne programme in transferring knowledge from coun-try to country and from organisation to organisation throughout Europe.
Na druhï stranｸ cól ¶Zdroje informacóƒ je ponｸkud opomójen.
On the other hand, the objective `information sources' is more neglected.
Tomuto aspektu by proto mｸla b̅t v rèmci DAPHNE II vｸnovèna zvlèþtnó pozornost.
Special attention should therefore be devoted to this aspect in Daphne II.
Podóvème-li se na diagram jinak, zdè se, ™e povzbuzovènó lidó ke spoleｲnï prèci (pomocó ¶Kon-ferencó, seminèﾖヮ a workshopヮƒ) je v̅stup, kter̅ pﾖispóvè k dosa™enó vｸtþiny cólヮ a vþem na-pomèhè.
Looking at the diagram the other way round, it appears that encouraging people to work together (by `Conference, seminars and workshops') is the output that contributes most to the objectives and promotes all of them.
V̅stup ¶Studie, zprèvy a knihyƒ takï v̅znamnｸ pﾖispóvè k dosa™enó vþech cólヮ.
The output `Studies, reports and books' also signi«-cantly contributes to all the objectives.
Je zajómavï si povþimnout, ™e ¶Þkolicó sady a manuèlyƒ mè vliv na tﾖi cóle, co™ potvrzuje potﾖe-bu udr™ovat v programu vysokou odbornou pﾖópravu.
It is also interesting to note that `Training packages and manuals' has an in‹uenceonthreeobjectives, con«rmingtheneedtokeeptraininghighontheagenda.
Kromｸ toho neexistuje ™èdn̅ v̅znamn̅ rozdól mezi kvalitou v̅stupヮ z jednoho cóle do jinïho. Navóc je ka™d̅ cól programu podporovèn takï dopadem a pヮsobenóm.
Moreover, there is no signi«cantdi.erenceinthequalityoftheoutputsfromoneobjectiveto the other.
Hlavnó dopady podporujó jeden nebo vóce cólヮ programu a dopady projektヮ podporujó vþech-ny cóle programu.
The main impacts support one or more programme objectives and all programme objectives are supported by impacts.
Z anal̅zy vypl̅vajó mnohè doporuｲenó, jak udr™et ÿｲinnost projektヮ:
The e . e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe i s t hffu s e n s u r e d b y t h e cffo n t r i bu t i o n s o f bo t h t h e o u tp uijt s and the impacts.
‡ podporujte hmatatelnï v̅stupy, jako jsou videa nebo þkolicó moduly, kterï se dajó snadno replikovat nebo pﾖizpヮsobit potﾖebèm v jin̅ch oblastech nebo jin̅m profesionèlヮm pra-cujócóm s koncov̅mi pﾖójemci;
‡ encourage tangible outputs, such as videos or training modules, that are easy to replicate or to adapt in other areas or with other professionals working with end-bene«ciaries;
‡ v rostoucó móﾖe zapojujte cólovï skupiny, koncovï pﾖójemce v̅hod a klóｲovï podólnóky ji™ ve stèdiu nèvrhu projektu.
‡ increasingly involve target groups, end-bene«ciariesandkeystakeholdersasearlyasthedesign stage of the project.
Efektivnost programu mｸﾖó vztah mezi vstupy na jednï stranｸ a v̅stupy a dopady na stranｸ druhï, a to pﾖiﾖazenóm u™itnï hodnoty k cenｸ.
The programme e/ciencymeasurestherelationbetweeninputsononehandandoutputsand impacts on the other hand, with a view to assessing the value for money.
Program, jak̅m je DAPHNE, vþak nenó v̅robnó jednotkou, jejó™ nèklady a v̅nosy mヮ™eme pomocó penｸ™nóch termónヮ pﾖesnｸ urｲit.
A programme like Daphne is, however, not a production unit, the costs and bene«tsofwhichcan be precisely estimated in monetary terms.
I kdy™ vｸtþinu vstupヮ znème › v jednotkèch penｸ™-nóch prostﾖedkヮ › nemè smysl pou™óvat penｸ™nó hodnoty pro v̅stupy nebo dopady: napﾖ. hodnotu toho, ™e umo™nóme dｸtem a ™enèm lïpe se chrènit a zabrènóme nèsiló, nemヮ™eme vyjèdﾖit v obchodnóch termónech.
Although most of the inputs are known ̌ in terms of funds ̌ it is meaningless to put a monetary value on the outputs or impacts: for example, the value of enabling children and women to protect themselves better and prevent violence cannot be expressed in commercial terms.
Mヮ™eme vþak zóskat indikaci o prospｸþnosti programu, jeho v̅stupヮ a dopadヮ.
We can, however, gain indications of the usefulness of the programme, its outputs and impacts.
Jin̅m teoreticky mo™n̅m pﾖóstupem k urｲenó efektivnosti by bylo porovnèvat vstupy a v̅stu-py/dopady DAPHNE souvisejócó s programem s jin̅mi srovnateln̅mi v̅stupy a dopady.
Another theoretically feasible approach to assessing e/ciencywouldbetobenchmarktheinputs and outputs/impacts of Daphne in relation to a programme with comparable outputs and impacts.
Avþak podle naþich poznatkヮ i podle dotazovan̅ch podólnókヮ je DAPHNE unikètnó a neexistujó ™èdnï srovnatelnï programy, i kdy™ existujó nèrodnó iniciativy, kterï nｸkterï z oblastó DAPHNE po-kr̅vajó.
However, to our knowledge and according to the stakeholders interviewed, Daphne is unique, and no comparable programme exists, although there are national initia-tives that cover some of the Daphne areas.
My jsme efektivnost posuzovali podle nèsledujócóho pragmatickïho postupu, kdy jsme co nejlïpe vyu™óvali rヮznï druhy dostupn̅ch informacó a zamｸﾖili se na pou™itelnost programu.
We have assessed e/ciencybyfollowinga p r a g m a t i c a p p r o a c h , m a k i n g t h e b e s tffu s e o f t h e d i . e r e n t k i n d s o f i nfo r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e a n d f o c u s i n g o n t h e uijt i l i tffy o f t h e p r o g r a m mffe .
Reprezentaｲnó vzorek 148 dokonｲen̅ch analyzovan̅ch projektヮ mヮ™eme charakterizovat nè-sledujócómi zèkladnómi fakty a ÿdaji:
T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of 148 completed projects analysed can be characterised by the fol-lowing basic facts and «gures.
‡ Vzorek pﾖedstavuje celkov̅ rozpoｲet tïmｸﾖ 20 milionヮ ゎ (a™ do r. 2001), tj. asi 133 000 ゎ na projekt a 23 500 ゎ na ÿｲastnóka.
‡ The sample represents a total budget of nearly EUR 20 million (up to 2001), i.e. about EUR 133 000 per project and EUR 23 500 per participant.
‡ Fondy EU pﾖedstavujó asi 75 % tohoto rozpoｲtu, tj. asi 17 600 ゎ na ÿｲastnóka.
‡ The EU funding represents some 75 % of these budgets, i.e. some EUR 17 600 per partici-pant.
V prヮmｸru to znamenè, ™e EU v ka™dïm projektu «nancuje2ekvivalentynormèlnópracovnódoby(FTE)po dobu jednoho roku nebo 0,35 FTE na ÿｲastnickou organizaci.
On average this means the EU is funding two full-time equivalents (FTE) for each project for one year or 0.35 FTE per participating organisation.
Znamenè to takï, ™e DAPHNE prヮmｸrnｸ podporuje 0,8 % pracovnókヮ ÿｲastnick̅ch organizacó (13) po dobu jed-noho roku.
This also means that, on average, Daphne supports 0.8 % of the personnel of the participating organisations (13) for one year.
‡ Zb̅vajócóch 25 % rozpoｲtu pokr̅vajó ve dvou tﾖetinèch projektヮ pouze internó zdroje. Pou-ze deset procent projektヮ mè pﾖóstup k externóm «nanｲnómzdrojヮmajedenprojektzeｲtyﾖvykazuje smｸs internóch a externóch «nanｲnóchzdrojヮ.Tatoｲóslaodrè™ejózvlèþtｸobtó™n̅pﾖóstup k externóm «nanｲnómzdrojヮm,buｵproto,™etoto«nancovènójevzècnï,nebopro-to, ™e nenó snadnï je zajistit.
‡ For two thirds of the projects, the remaining 25 % of the budget is covered by internal funds only.
Financovènó je ｲasto doplnｸno vedlejþó pracó ÿｲastnócóch se nevlèdnóch organizacó a takï dobrovolnókヮ.
The funding is often complemented by extra work from the participating NGOs as well as by volunteers.
Je zﾖejmï, ™e objem tohoto ÿsiló se obtó™nｸ vy-hodnocuje.
The volume of this e.ortisobviouslydi/cultto evaluate.
) Za p┼edpokladu pr╉m┞rnþch 42 ekvivalent╉ normâlnî pracovnî doby v ú┘astnickê organizaci zam┞stnâvajîcî mên┞ n e Š 1000 osob.
) Assuming an average of 42 full-time equivalents in the participating organisations employing less than 1 000 persons.
98 % projektヮ rozþóﾖilo velice v̅znamn̅ objem materièlヮ a 90 % z nich organizovalo rヮznï akce: 27 projektヮ napﾖ. rozþóﾖilo 228 000 plakètヮ a 297 000 bro™ur; byly zorganizovèny rヮznï akce, kterï navþtóvilo celkem 40 000 lidó. V̅stupy a jejich
A very impressive volume of material was dissemi-nated by 98 % of the projects and events were organised by 90 % of them: e.g. 27 projects disseminated 228 000 posters and 297 000 brochures; various events were organised, at-
Tyto ÿspｸchy proto pﾖedstavujó podstatnou hodnotu, zvlèþtｸ z hlediska omezenïho «nanco-vènó poskytovanïho Komisó.
These achievements therefore represent substantial value, particularly in view of the limited funding provided by the Commission.
Hodnocenó kontrolovalo, zda existovala nｸjakè v̅znamnè sou-vislost mezi velikostó rozpoｲtu na jednï stranｸ a povahou a ｲetnostó v̅stupヮ a dopadヮ na stranｸ druhï, a dospｸlo k zèvｸru, ™e ™èdnï relace neexistujó.
The evaluation did check whether there was any sig-ni«cantrelationshipbetweenthebudgetsize,ontheonehand,andthenatureandfrequen-cy of outputs and impacts on the other, and came to the conclusion that there was none.
Pèsteｲnｸ je tomu tak dóky sku-teｲnosti, ™e vｸtþina ÿｲastnókヮ projektu DAPHNE pova™ovala rozpoｲet za nèstroj.
This is, at least partly, due to the fact that most participants in Daphne consider the budget as a tool.
Dobrovolnｸ investovali ÿsiló a v̅sledkヮm projektu pﾖisuzovali vysokou hodnotu.
They invest voluntary e.ortandattributehighvaluetotheprojectresults.
Pomｸr u™itnï hodnoty k cenｸ lze dolo™it takï nèsledujócómi prvky:
Value for money is also evidenced by the following elements:
‡ Dosa™enó hornó ÿrovnｸ cóle: Vytvèﾖenó obecn̅ch de«nicneboobecn̅chpﾖóstupヮkotèzkèmt̅kajócóm se nèsiló.
‡ achievement of a high-level objective: generation of common de«nitionsoracommonapproach to a violence-related issue;
‡ Kvalita v̅stupヮ: Nｸkterï v̅stupy jsou po skonｲenó projetu stèle po™adovèny nebo mohou b̅t snadno replikovèny.
‡ quality of the outputs: some outputs are still demanded after the project's end or can be easily replicated;
‡ Udr™itelnost projektu: Projekt po skonｲenó smlouvy stèle existuje nebo polo™il zèklady na-vazujócóm projektヮm.
‡ project sustainability: the project still exists after the end of the contract, or it laid the foun-dations for follow-up projects.
Jin̅m potvrzenóm pomｸru u™itnï hodnoty k cenｸ je zpｸtnï vyhodnocenó jednoho projektu po druhïm, kterï jmïnem DAPHNE provedli nezèvisló odbornóci.
Another con«rmationofthevalueformoneycomesfromthe ex-post evaluations, carried out by independent experts on behalf of Daphne, project by project.
Ze 76 projektヮ vyhodnoce-n̅ch tómto zpヮsobem mezi roky 1998 a 2000 jich bylo 79 % ohodnoceno jako projekty, kterï poskytujó dobrou nebo vynikajócó u™itnou hodnotu vzhledem k cenｸ.
Out of 76 projects evaluated in this way between 1998 and 2000, 79 % were assessed as providing good or excellent value for money.
V neposlednó ﾖadｸ vｸtþina dotazovan̅ch podólnókヮ › kteﾖó nejsou minul̅mi nebo souｲasn̅mi koordinètory projektヮ › mysló, ™e program DAPHNE mè dvojnèsobnou u™itkovou hodnotu:
Last but not least, most stakeholders interviewed ̌ who are not past or present project co-ordinators ̌ consider that Daphne has a dual utility:
‡ Je jedineｲn̅ v tom, jak se integrovan̅m zpヮsobem chèpe otèzek t̅kajócóch se nèsiló vヮｲi ™enèm, mlède™i a dｸtem (tj. uva™uje vþechny rozmｸry nèsiló) v evropskïm mｸﾖótku;
‡ it is unique in addressing the issues of violence against women, young people and children in an integrated way (i.e. considering all the dimensions of violence) and on a European scale;
‡ Pﾖinèþó pozitivnó zmｸny ve zpヮsobu, jak̅m je nèsiló vnómèno a jak je provèdｸna prevence a ochrana proti nｸmu.
‡ it brings about positive changes in the way violence is perceived and addressed in terms of prevention and protection.
Na zèkladｸ v̅þe uvedenïho mヮ™eme prohlèsit, ™e program je efektivnó, tj. s omezenou pod-porou ze strany EU dosèhl v̅znamn̅ch ÿspｸchヮ a dopadヮ. Toto ohodnocenó mヮ™e b̅t mo-dulovèno dvｸma ÿvahami:
From the evidence above, we can state that the programme is e / c i e n t , i . e . w i t h l i m i t e d E U s up po r t , signi«cantachievementsandimpactswererealised.Thisassessmentcanbetem-pered by two considerations:
‡ Existovaly dodateｲnï «nanｲnóvstupyveformｸpﾖóspｸvkヮaprècedobrovolnókヮ,kterïne-byly systematicky zakalkulovèny.
‡ there have been additional inputs in the form of contributions in kind and the work of vol-unteers that have not been systematically calculated.
Tyto vstupy takï pﾖispｸly k v̅stupヮm a dopadヮm, ale nejsou nezbytnｸ dolo™itelnï;
These inputs have also contributed to outputs and impacts, but are not necessarily sustainable;
‡ Jen mal̅ poｲet partnerヮ ze socièlnóho sektoru mè dobrou odbornou kvali«kacivﾖózenózdrojヮ, de«novènópracovnóchplènヮatd.,co™napomèhèoptimèlnómuvyu™itóomezen̅chzdrojヮ a zabraﾏuje jejich vyｲerpènó.
‡ among the partners from the social sector, only a small number have sound expertise in resource management, de«nitionofworkplans,etc.,thatfacilitatesoptimaluseofthelimited resources available and prevents exhaustion setting in.