natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The programme e/ciencymeasurestherelationbetweeninputsononehandandoutputsand impacts on the other hand, with a view to assessing the value for money.
à ｲ i n n o s ﾝ àｲinnosﾝ programu zèvisó od vzﾝahu medzi vkladmi na jednej strane a v̅stupmi a vplyvmi na strane druhej, na ÿｲely stanovenia peﾏa™nej hodnoty.
A programme like Daphne is, however, not a production unit, the costs and bene«tsofwhichcan be precisely estimated in monetary terms.
Programy ako Daphne vþak nie sÿ produkｲn̅mi jednotkami, ktor̅ch nèklady a zisky mo™no presne vyｲósliﾝ v peniazoch.
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.
Hoci je znèma peﾏa™nè hodnota vêｲþiny vkladov, nemè v̅znam urｲovaﾝ peﾏa™nÿ hodnotu v̅stupov a vplyvov: napr. akè hodnota mè umo™niﾝ deﾝom a ™enèm lepþiu ochranu ｲi predchèdzaﾝ nèsiliu. Tieto javy nemo™no vyjadriﾝ v obchodn̅ch podmien-kach.
We can, however, gain indications of the usefulness of the programme, its outputs and impacts.
Mú™eme vþak zóskaﾝ ÿdaje o u™itoｲnosti programu, jeho v̅stupoch a vplyvoch.
Another theoretically feasible approach to assessing e/ciencywouldbetobenchmarktheinputs and outputs/impacts of Daphne in relation to a programme with comparable outputs and impacts.
Salþó teoreticky mo™n̅ próstup k hodnoteniu v̅konnosti je zhodnotiﾝ vklady a v̅stupy/vply-vy programu Daphne v porovnanó s programom s próbuzn̅mi v̅stupmi a vplyvmi.
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.
Avþak z na-þich informèció a rozhovorov so zèujmov̅mi skupinami vypl̅va, ™e Daphne je jedineｲn̅ program a ™iadny in̅ program tohto typu neexistuje, hoci existujÿ nèrodnï iniciatóvy, ktorï zastreþujÿ niektorï z oblastó, ktor̅mi sa Daphne zaoberè.
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 .
àｲinnosﾝ sme posÿdili pragmaticky, priｲom sme sa sna™ili ｲo najlepþie vyu™iﾝ rúzne typy do-stupn̅ch informèció a zamerali sme sa hlavne na u™itoｲnosﾝ programu.
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.
Reprezentatóvnu vzor-ku 148 zrealizovan̅ch projektov, ktorï boli analyzovanï, mú™eme charakterizovaﾝ nasledov-ne:
‡ 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.
‒ Celkov̅ rozpoｲet vzorky predstavuje takmer 20 miliùnov EUR (do roku 2001), t. j. pribli™ne 133 000 EUR na jeden projekt a 23 500 EUR na jednïho ÿｲastnóka.
‡ The EU funding represents some 75 % of these budgets, i.e. some EUR 17 600 per partici-pant.
‒ Financovanie Eà predstavuje asi 75 % tohto rozpoｲtu, t. j. pribli™ne 17 600 EUR na ÿｲastnó-ka.
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.
V priemere to znamenè, ™e Eà «nancujeroｲneprika™domprojekte2ekvivalentyza-mestnancov na pln̅ ÿvêzok (FTE › full time equivalent) alebo 0,35 FTE na zÿｲastnenÿ or-ganizèciu. Znamenè to tie™, ™e Daphne roｲne «nancujevpriemere0,8%personèluÿｲast-nóckych organizèció13.
‡ For two thirds of the projects, the remaining 25 % of the budget is covered by internal funds only.
‒ Dve tretiny projektov vykr̅vajÿ zvyþn̅ch 25 % rozpoｲtu v̅luｲne intern̅mi zdrojmi.
Ten per cent of the projects only have access to external funding and one project out of four declares a mix of internal and external funds. In particular, these «guresre‹ectthedi/cultaccesstoexternalfunding,eitherbecausethisfundingisscarceorbecausesecur-ing it is not easy.
Len desaﾝ percent projektov mè próstup k externïmu «nancovaniuajedenprojektzoþtyrochje «nancovan̅takzintern̅ch,akoajzextern̅chzdrojov.Tietoｲóslapoukazujÿnanepró-stupnosﾝ extern̅ch zdrojov; «nancovanietohtotypujebuｵobmedzenï,alebojenèroｲnïjeho zabezpeｲenie.
The funding is often complemented by extra work from the participating NGOs as well as by volunteers.
Pasto sa vyva™uje ｵalþou prècou zÿｲastnen̅ch MVO, ako aj prècou dobrovoﾋnókov.
The volume of this e.ortisobviouslydi/cultto evaluate.
Mno™stvo tejto prèce je spravidla veﾋmi ﾝa™kï ohodnotiﾝ.
) Assuming an average of 42 full-time equivalents in the participating organisations employing less than 1 000 persons.
Za predpokladu, Še ide v priemere o 42 ekvivalentov zamestnancov na plnþ úväzok v zú┘astnenþch organizâciâch s po┘tom zamestnancov menej n e Š tisîc.
‡ On average, each project generated «veoutputsthatcontributedsigni«cantlytoachievingthe six main programme objectives.
‒ Z ka™dïho projektu vziþlo v priemere 5 v̅stupov, ktorï v̅znamnou mierou prispeli k do-siahnutiu þiestich hlavn̅ch cieﾋov programu.
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-
Pri 98 % projektoch sa distribuovalo ohromnï mno™stvo materièlov a 90 % z nich zorganizovalo rúzne akcie: napr. 27 projektov distribu-ovalo 228 000 plagètov a 297 000 bro™ÿr; zorganizovali sa rúzne akcie, ktor̅ch sa spolu zÿｲastnilo 40 000 ﾋudó.
These achievements therefore represent substantial value, particularly in view of the limited funding provided by the Commission.
Tieto v̅sledky majÿ veﾋkÿ hodnotu, hlavne z hﾋadiska obmedzen̅ch « n a n c i ó p o s k y t o v a n ̅ c h K o m i s i o u .
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.
Pri hodnotenó sa overovalo, ｲi bol nejak̅ v̅znamn̅ vzﾝah medzi veﾋkosﾝou rozpoｲ-tu a povahou a frekvenciou v̅stupov a zistilo sa, ™e tak̅to vzﾝah neexistuje.
This is, at least partly, due to the fact that most participants in Daphne consider the budget as a tool. They invest voluntary e.ortandattributehighvaluetotheprojectresults.
Je to aspoﾏ sｲas-ti zapróｲinenï t̅m, ™e vêｲþina ÿｲastnókov programu vnóma rozpoｲet ako nèstroj, dobrovoﾋne vynakladè svoje sily a pripisuje v̅sledkom projektu vysok̅ v̅znam.
‡ achievement of a high-level objective: generation of common de«nitionsoracommonapproach to a violence-related issue;
‡ Dosiahnutie cieﾋa vysokej ÿrovne: Vytvorenie vþeobecn̅ch de«nócióalebopostupovvotèz-kach nèsilia.
‡ quality of the outputs: some outputs are still demanded after the project's end or can be easily replicated;
‡ Kvalita v̅stupov: Niektorï v̅stupy sÿ ™iadanï i po skonｲenó projektu alebo ich mo™no ﾋah-ko kopórovaﾝ.
‡ project sustainability: the project still exists after the end of the contract, or it laid the foun-dations for follow-up projects.
‡ Udr™ateﾋnosﾝ projektu: Projekt existuje i po skonｲenó zmluvy, própadne je vzorom pre ｵalþie projekty.
Another con«rmationofthevalueformoneycomesfromthe ex-post evaluations, carried out by independent experts on behalf of Daphne, project by project.
Peﾏa™nÿ hodnotu projektov potvrdzujÿ i ex-post hodnotenia ka™dïho projektu, ktorï pre Daph-ne vykonali nezèvisló odbornóci.
Out of 76 projects evaluated in this way between 1998 and 2000, 79 % were assessed as providing good or excellent value for money.
Zo 76 hodnoten̅ch projektov v rokoch 1998 a™ 2000, bola u 79 % peﾏa™nè hodnota vyhodnotenè ako dobrè alebo vynikajÿca.
Last but not least, most stakeholders interviewed ̌ who are not past or present project co-ordinators ̌ consider that Daphne has a dual utility:
No a v neposlednom rade, vêｲþina op̅tan̅ch predstaviteﾋov zèujmov̅ch skupón › ｲo nie sÿ koordinètori prebiehajÿcich ｲi skonｲen̅ch projektov › si mysló, ™e Daphne mè dve funkcie:
‡ 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;
‒ Je to jedin̅ program, ktor̅ rieþi otèzky nèsilia voｲi ™enèm, mlad̅m ﾋuｵom a deﾝom integ-rovan̅m spúsobom (t. j. berie do ÿvahy vþetky dimenzie nèsilia) v eurùpskom meradle;
‡ it brings about positive changes in the way violence is perceived and addressed in terms of prevention and protection.
‒ Pozitóvne menó spúsob vnómania a rieþenia problematiky nèsilia z hﾋadiska prevencie a ochrany.
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:
Na zèklade vyþþie uveden̅ch faktov mú™eme program pova™ovaﾝ za ÿｲinn̅ › za pomoci limi-tovan̅ch zdrojov Eà sa dosiahli v̅znamnï v̅sledky. Toto hodnotenie mierne zatieﾏujÿ na-sledovnï dve skutoｲnosti:
‡ there have been additional inputs in the form of contributions in kind and the work of vol-unteers that have not been systematically calculated.
‒ Objavili sa i ｵalþie vklady vo forme materièlnych próspevkov a prèce dobrovoﾋnókov, ktorï neboli systematicky vyｲóslenï.
These inputs have also contributed to outputs and impacts, but are not necessarily sustainable;
Hoci tie™ prispeli k vytvoreniu v̅stupov a vplyvov, nemusia byﾝ trvalïho charakteru;
‡ 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.
‒ Spomedzi partnerov zo socièlneho sektoru mè len mal̅ poｲet vedomosti o riadenó zdrojov, tvorenó pracovn̅ch plènov a pod., priｲom tieto prvky napomèhajÿ optimèlnemu vyu™itiu limitovan̅ch zdrojov a zabraﾏujÿ ich ÿplnïmu vyｲerpaniu.
Results typology
Typolùgia v̅sledkov
In the case of Daphne projects, outputs consist of all the activities developed by the partners during the project in order to support the objectives of the Daphne programme and to ensure the dissemination of the project results.
V própade projektov Daphne sa v̅sledky skla-dajÿ zo vþetk̅ch partnermi vyvójan̅ch ｲinnostó poｲas projektu na ÿｲely podpory dosiahnutia cieﾋov programu Daphne a zaistenia rozþirovania v̅sledkov projektu.
This section concerns thus the 148 completed projects funded from 1997 to 2001 and that were analysed (the other 74 did not answer or were no longer reachable: bank-rupt, disappeared, etc.).
Tèto sekcia sa teda t̅ka 148 projektov ukonｲen̅ch od roku 1997 do roku 2001, ktorï boli analyzovanï (ｵalþóch 74 ne-odpovedalo alebo neboli dosa™iteﾋnó: bankrot, zmiznutie atｵ.).
The 699 outputs identi«edaredistributedasfollows:
699 identi«kovan̅chv̅sledkovbolorozdelen̅chnasledovne:
Guidelines, training packages, manuals
Sprievodcovia, þkoliace balóky, manuèly
Direct action/«eld interventions, helplines
Priama ｲinnosﾝ/intervencia v terrene linky pomoci
Outputs achieved within the project (699 outputs)
V̅sledky dosiahnutï v rèmci projektu (699 v̅sledkov)
Presented di.erently,thepercentageofprojectshavinggeneratedoutputsareasfollows:
Inak prezentovanï, percento projektov, ktorï vyprodukovali v̅sledky, je nasledovnï:
Guidelines, training packages, manuals
Smernice, þkolenia, nèvody
Direct action/«eld interventions, helplines
Priama akcia/zèsah v terïne, telef. podpora
Distribution of projects according to the outputs achieved (148 projects, up to three choices per project)
Oddelenie projektov podﾋa dosiahnut̅ch v̅sledkov (148 projektov, maximèlne tri mo™nosti na jeden projekt)
The outputs `conferences/seminars', `information materials' and `audiovisual products' are those that contribute best to the raising of awareness. The extent to which they produce a change of mentality and behaviour is not known precisely.
V̅sledky z praxe Daphne produkovali þkoliace balóky a manuèly ukèzali vêｲþó vplyv ako inï (pozri tie™ kapitoly 4.4 o vplyve):
On the other side, outputs such as `training packages', `studies' and `direct actions' are those that impact directly on the target groups and on the end-bene«ciaries.Infact,theprojectsthat produced training packages and manuals show a higher impact than the others (see also point 4.4 on impacts) in terms of:
‡ ¶Zmena sprèvania cieﾋov̅ch skupón t̅kajÿca sa prevencie voｲi nèsiliuƒ (53 % z t̅chto pro-jektov v porovnanó so 40 % v rèmci celkovej vzorky)
‡ `changed behaviour of target groups regarding prevention of violence' (53 % of these projects compared with 40 % for the entire sample);‡ `improved means for end-bene«ciariestotackletheirsituation'(70%oftheseprojectscompared with 55 % for the entire sample).
‡ ¶Zdokonalenie prostriedkov pre vyu™itie koncov̅mi prójemcami na prekonanie ich situècieƒ (70 % z t̅chto projektov v porovnanó s 55 % v rèmci celkovej vzorky).
The above two points, con«rmedbytheopinionofsomestakeholders,tendtoshowthatinformation campaigns are useful for actually preventing violence.
Horeuvedenï dva body potvrdili nèzor niektor̅ch zÿｲastnen̅ch t̅m, ™e poukèzali na to, ™e informaｲnï kampane sÿ u™itoｲnï pre skutoｲnÿ prevenciu nèsilia.
However, in order to im-prove the situation of the e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s t h e m s e l v e s , d i r e c t a d v o c a c y w i t h a n d s up po r t t offe n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s a r e m o r e i m po r t a n t t h a n g e n e r a l i nfo r m a t i o n a n d a w a r e n e s s - r a i s i n g .
Avþak na to, aby sa zlepþila situècia koncov̅ch u™óvateﾋov samotn̅ch, je dúle™itejþia ich priama obhajoba a podpora ne™ vþeobecnï informècie a zvyþovanie povedomia.
Of the completed projects, 97 % implemented dissemination activities along the following categories:
97 % ukonｲen̅ch projektov uplatﾏovali rozþirovacie aktivity v nasledujÿcich kategùrièch
38 % i"Distribution of materiali"Organisation of events i"Distribution of materials and organisation of events i"Distribution of materials and close contacts i"Distribution of materials, organisa-tion of events and close contacts
38 % i"Distribÿcia materièlovi"Organizovanie podujatói"Dist. materièlov a org. podujatói"Dist. materièlov a ÿzke kontakty i"Dist. materièlov, org. podujató a ÿzke kontakty
By considering each way separately, it appears that 98 % of the projects have distributed materials, 90 % have organised events and 42 % have had close contacts.
Ak berieme do ÿvahy ka™d̅ spúsob samostatne, zdè sa, ™e 98 % projektov mè distribuovanï materièly, 90 % mè organizovanï sprievodnï podujatia a 42 % mè ÿzke kontakty.
Considering their actual dissemination, a large majority of projects performed better than planned: most of the projects had equal or better performance regarding dissemination ex-penditures (89 % of projects), timing of dissemination (80 %), audience (96 %) and dissemina-tion activities (98 %).
Ak berieme do ÿvahy ich momentèlne rozþórenie, veﾋkè vêｲþina projektov si poｲónala lepþie, ako bolo plènovanï: vêｲþina projektov dosiahla plènovanï alebo lepþie v̅sledky v ｲerpanó nèkladov t̅kajÿcich sa rozþirovania (89 % projektov), jeho naｲasovania (80 %), publika (96 %) a aktivót rozþirovania (98 %).
The latter produced the following materials:
Tie druhï pripravili nasledujÿce materièly:
Manuals/guidelines/training packs
Manuèly/smernice/balóky þkolenó
Distribution of projects according to their production of materials for dissemination (144 projects)
Rozlo™enie projektov podﾋa própravy materièlov pre rozþirovanie (144 projektov)
Considering that most of the projects had a duration of one year, we can evidently state that partners have produced a lot of material over a short period, as indicated below:
Ak berieme do ÿvahy, ™e vêｲþina projektov trvala jeden rok, mú™eme jednoznaｲne povedaﾝ, ™e partneri vyprodukovali za krètke obdobie mno™stvo materièlov, ako je to znèzornenï dolu:
227 966 posters by 27 projects 13 556 newsletters by 9 projects 297 160 brochures by 27 projects 77 272 reports by 46 projects 64 600 manuals by 7 projects 27 700 books by 19 projects 370 t-shirts by 2 projects 731 456 lea‹etsby36projects 21 553 articles by 14 projects 2 000 directories by 2 projects 1 770 videos by 5 projects 5 000 stickers by 2 projects 6 000 postcards by 4 projects 16 152 CD-ROMs by 12 projects 2 000 business cards by 2 projects 2 000 colour cartoons by 1 project 500 protocols by 1 project 200 pins by 1 project.
227 966 plagètov v rèmci 27 projektov 13 556 letèkov v rèmci 9 projektov 297 160 bro™ÿr v rèmci 27 projektov 77 272 sprèv v rèmci 46 projektov 64,600 manuèlov v rèmci 7 projektov 27 700 knóh v rèmci 19 projektov 370 triｲiek v rèmci 2 projektov 731 456 letèkov v rèmci 36 projektov 21 553 ｲlènkov v rèmci 14 projektov 2 000 zoznamov v rèmci 2 projektov 1 770 videonahrèvok v rèmci 5 projektov 5 000 nèlepiek v rèmci 2 projektov 6 000 pohﾋadnóc v rèmci 4 projektov 16 152 CD-ROMov v rèmci 12 projektov 2 000 navþtóveniek v rèmci 2 projektov 2 000 farebn̅ch karikatÿr v rèmci 1 projektu 500 protokolov v rèmci 1 projektu 200 odznakov v rèmci 1 projektu
From the survey, the following «gureshavebeenextractedonthenumbersofeventsorgan-ised and their attendees:
Z prieskumu boli zóskanï nasledujÿce ｲósla t̅kajÿce sa poｲtov organizovan̅ch sprievodn̅ch podujató a ich ÿｲastnókov.
71 meetings organised for 19 projects, totalling 880 attendees 51 participations in conferences, for 6 projects, totalling 3 620 attendees 94 conferences organised for 62 projects, totalling 16 793 attendees 389 seminars organised for 64 projects, totalling 11 334 attendees245 workshops organised for 36 projects, totalling 4 356 attendees 56 project presentations organised for 6 projects, totalling 3 160 attendees 2 press conferences organised for 1 project, totalling 40 attendees 70 implementation meetings organised for 1 project and involving 546 persons.
245 workshopov organizovan̅ch v rèmci 36 projektov, spolu 4 356 ÿｲastnókov 56 prezentèció projektov organizovan̅ch v rèmci 6 projektov, spolu 3 160 ÿｲastnókov 2 tlaｲovï konferencie organizovanï v rèmci jednïho projektu, spolu 40 ÿｲastnókov 70 implementaｲn̅ch mótingov organizovan̅ch v rèmci 1 projektu s 546 zaanga™ovan̅mi osobami.
Conferences, seminars and workshops are strong instruments for networking.
Konferencie, seminère a workshopy sÿ siln̅m nèstrojom spoluprèce.
Their added value for dissemination and generation of impact is, however, more questionable.
Ich pridanè hodnota pri rozþirovanó a vplyve je vþak otèzna:
‡ The resources required to organise such events are substantial, compared with other dis-semination activities such as dissemination through a website.‡ Dissemination mainly concerns the people attending.
‡ Zdroje potrebnï na organizovanie tak̅chto sprievodn̅ch akció sÿ podstatnï v porovnanó s in̅mi aktivitami rozþirovania, ako je þórenie cez webovï strènky.
Conferences, seminars and work-shops are useful on condition that they reach target group members and end-bene«ciariesbeyond those directly targeted by the project or that they reach key political people and thus better position the results to have a larger impact.‡ Most of the time, conferences are one-shot events: once they are «nished,thereisoftennofollow-up action with the aim of making things change.
‡ Rozþirovanie sa t̅ka hlavne zÿｲastnen̅ch ﾋudó. Konferencie, seminère a workshopy sÿ u™i-toｲnï za podmienok, ™e zasiahnu cieﾋovÿ skupinu a prójemcov nad rèmec t̅ch, ktor̅ch sa projekt priamo dot̅ka, alebo ak zasiahnu politicky ｲinn̅ch ﾋudó, a t̅m zlepþia postavenie pre zv̅þenie vplyvu v̅sledkov.
They therefore conclude the project activities instead of being a link in the dissemination and impact chain.‡ They often take place at the end of the project, which is probably too late to have an impact.
‡ Konferencie sÿ vêｲþinou jednorazovï akcie: po ich skonｲenó sa len mèlokedy konajÿ nad-vêzujÿce aktivity s cieﾋom zmeniﾝ urｲitï veci. Z tohto dúvodu projekty uzatvèrajÿ namiesto toho, aby prispeli k ich þóreniu a zlepþovali vplyv.
In fact, having an impact on target groups, end-bene«ciariesandpublicauthoritiesimpliesengaging them earlier in the project.
V skutoｲnosti na to, aby mali vplyv na cieﾋovï skupiny koncov̅ch prijómateﾋov musia byﾝ verejnï orgèny zaｲlenenï v skorþej fèze projektu.
Nevertheless, conferences, seminars and workshops allow contact with a larger audience than through «eldactionsorspeci«ctraining.Toreinforcetheconferencesasinstrumentsforfur-ther dissemination and impacts, it is suggested to:
Napriek tomu konferencie, seminère a workshopy umo™ﾏujÿ kontakt so þirþóm publikom ne™ akcie v terïne alebo þpeci«ck̅trïning.Prezv̅þenievplyvukonferencióakonèstrojovpreþó-renie a ovplyvﾏovanie sa doporuｲuje:
‡ make sure key decision-makers and policy-makers are invited and do attend;
‡ Uistite sa, ™e sÿ pozvanï osoby zodpovednï za rozhodnutia a tvorcovia politiky a ich ÿｲasti;
‡ carry out follow-up actions after the conference to keep the issue in the minds of the at-tendees.
‡ Po konferencièch pripravte nadvêzujÿce aktivity, aby ÿｲastnókom zostali v mysliach prero-kovanï zèle™itosti.
Some projects were successful in reaching key people through events, as illustrated below.
Niektor̅m projektom sa podarilo prostrednóctvom sprievodn̅ch akció osloviﾝ kﾋÿｲov̅ch ﾋudó, ako je to znèzornenï dole:
An expert meeting was organised at month 11 of the project.
V 11. mesiaci projektu bolo zorganizovanï þpecializovanï stretnutie.
It brought together 50 European FGM stakeholders.
Stretlo sa spolu 50 odbor-nókov na FGM (mrzaｲenie ™ensk̅ch pohlavn̅ch orgènov).
The project succeeded in bringing together relevant partners in the «eldacross Europe and establishing the «rstexpertnetworkinthisimportant«eld.Thechangesbrought about in European treatment of responses to FGM can largely be traced back from this initial project and the commonality across Europe of those responses to FGM is due almost en-tirely to this project and its subsequent chapters.
Projektu sa podarilo daﾝ dokopy relevantn̅ch partnerov v danej oblasti z celej Eurùpy a vytvoriﾝ prvÿ sieﾝ odbornókov v tejto dú-le™itej oblasti. Zmeny, ktorï priniesla zmena v rieþenó ohlasov na FGM v Eurùpe, mú™eme pozo-rovaﾝ od prvïho projektu a vþeobecn̅ trend v tejto oblasti v Eurùpe vｵaｲó takmer v̅hradne to-muto projektu a jeho nèsledn̅m kapitolèm.
[It fostered the] development of a di.erentiatedandintegratedtrainingsystemaddressingplay-ers in a multi-disciplinary approach: social intervention bodies both from the public and the non-pro«tsector,law-enforcementagenciesandthejudicialsystem,playersinthelabourmar-ket, local political representatives.
V̅voj v diferencovanom a integrovanom systïme trïningov zameranom na ¶hrèｲovƒ s multi-disciplinèrnym próstupom: orgèny socièlnej intervencie z verejnïho aj neziskovïho sektoru, agentÿry na podporu zèkonnosti a sÿdne systïmy, ｲinovnóci na trhu prèce, miestni politici.
Such a di.erentiatedandintegratedtrainingsystemimprovedthe expertise of the di.erentplayersandde«nedgoodnetworkingstrategiesandpractices.
Ta-k̅to diferencovan̅ a integrovan̅ systïm trïningov zlepþil odbornosﾝ rúznych ｲinovnókov a de-«novaldobrÿstratïgiuspoluprècev̅menupraktók.
In addition to the distribution of materials and the organisation of events, 60 projects had close contacts with target groups and/or end-bene«ciaries.Suchcontactshavemainlybeenvisits and discussions with the members of target groups working with the end-bene«ciaries,with the e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s t h e m s e l v e s a n d a l s o w i t h t a r g e t g r o up s nffo t w o r k i n g d i r e c t l y w i t h e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s s u c h a s n a t i o n a l a uijt h o r i t i e s , ju d i c i a l s t a . a n d Mffe m b e r s o f t h e E u r op e a n P a r l i a mffe n t .
Okrem distribÿcie materièlov a organizovania sprievodn̅ch akció 60 projektov nadviazalo blóz-ky kontakt s cieﾋov̅mi skupinami a/alebo koncov̅mi prójemcami. Kontakty boli realizovanï najmê formou nèvþtev, diskusió s ｲlenmi cieﾋov̅ch skupón, pracujÿcich s koncov̅mi prójemca-mi, s koncov̅mi prójemcami samotn̅mi a tie™ s cieﾋov̅mi skupinami nepracujÿcimi priamo
The results of the Daphne experience
V̅sledky z praxe Daphne s koncov̅mi prójemcami, ako sÿ nèrodnï orgèny, justiｲn̅ personèl a ｲlenovia Eurùpskeho parlamentu.