natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In fact, among 41 projects funded in 2000 or 2001 and coordinated by an NGO, 71 % were not satis«edwiththepromptnessofthepaymentpro-cedures compared with 32 % for 19 projects funded in the same years and not coordinated by an NGO (see also point 4.5 on implementation and delivery mechanisms).
V s k u t o ｲ n o s t i z o 4 1 p r o j e k t o v «nancovan̅chvrokoch2000a2001,ktorïbolikoordinovanïnevlèdnymiorgani-zèciami, bola v 71 % própadoch prejavenè nespokojnosﾝ s promptnosﾝou platieb v porovnanó s 32 % z 19 projektov « n a n c o v a n ̅ c h v t o m i s t o m ｲ a s e , k t o r ï n eb o l i k o o r d i n o v a n ï M V O ( p o z r i t i e ™ bod 4.5, ktor̅ sa zaoberè mechanizmami implementècie a zavèdzania).
NGOs are key players in Daphne projects.
Nevlèdne organizècie sÿ pre projekt Daphne kﾋÿｲovï.
The analysis shows that, among the 25 «nishedprojects with close contacts with e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s , 2 2 w e r e cffo o r d i n a t e d b y a n N G O . T h i s
Anal̅za poukazuje na fakt, ™e z 25 ukonｲen̅ch projektov, ktorï mali blózky kontakt s adresètmi, 22 koordinovali nevlèdne orga-nizècie.
Charitable institutions
Verejnï inþtitÿcie
Categories of partners and coordinators (1 212 partners i, 218 coordinatorsi) was taken into account in the proposal of the Commission to establish the Daphne II pro- gramme (2004›08) (12
Kategùrie partnerov a koordinètorov (1 212 partnerov ̈, 218 koordinètorov ̈)
), stating that `organisations responsible for assistance to victims are still the best relay to reach and help the bene«ciariesoftheseactions'.
, v ktorom sa hovoró, ™e ¶Organizècièm zodpovedn̅m za pomoc obetiam sa stèle najlepþie daró oslovovaﾝ ﾋudó, ktoró sÿ predmetom tohto konania a pomèhaﾝ imƒ.
(f) Above all, the projects target the intermediaries working directly with the end-bene«ciar-ies such as social workers, educational sta.,medicalsta.andthepolice.Publicauthoritiesare also targeted.
f) Projekty sa predovþetk̅m zameriavajÿ na medziｲlènky, ktorï sÿ priamo v styku s ﾋuｵmi, pre ktor̅ch sÿ projekty urｲenï, napr. socièlni pracovnóci, vychovèvatelia, zdravotnócky per-sonèl a polócia, rovnako aj verejnï orgèny.
Out of 218 projects, 92 % involve target groups and 75 % show their ac-tive involvement as adviser and/or executor in the design, running and promotion of the project.
Z 218 projektov zahﾕﾏa 92 % cieﾋovï skupiny a v 75 % projektov sÿ ich predstavitelia aktóvnymi ÿｲastnókmi ako poradcovia a/alebo exe-kÿtori pri próprave, realizècii a propagècii projektov.
This active involvement is a very important factor in the impact of the projects as described in more detail in point 4.4 below.
Tèto ich aktóvna ÿｲasﾝ je veﾋmi dúle™i-t̅m faktorom pri vplyve projektov, ｲomu sa bli™þie venuje ｲasﾝ 4.4 ni™þie.
(g) The areas of violence tackled by the selected projects are split as follows:
g) Sfïry nèsilia, na ktorï sa vybranï projekty zamerali, sÿ nasledovnï:
(N = 218 projects, up to two choices per project)
(N = 218 projektov, maximèlne dve mo™nosti na jeden projekt)
) Document COM(2003) 54 # n a l ( t h e D a p h n e I I p r o g r a m mffe ) , p. 4.
Dokument COM (2003) 54 kone┘nê vydanie (Program DAPHNE II), s. 4.
(h) A vast majority of the partners have a long experience of violence prevention or protection „
V̅sledky z praxe Daphne h) Veﾋkè vêｲþina partnerov mè dlhodobï skÿsenosti s prevenciou ｲi ochranou pred nèsi-lóm„
29 % i > 0 and < = 5 yearsi > 5 and < = 10i > 10 and < = 20i > 20 40 %
29 % i > 0 a < = 5 rokovi > 5 a < = 10i > 10 a < = 20i > 20 40 %
„ and that experience is used in the projects: there is a great correspondence between their area of expertise and the area tackled by the project, as can be seen from the follow-ing diagram:
„a svoje skÿsenosti v projektoch vyu™óvajÿ: ako mo™no vidieﾝ na nasledovnom diagrame, ich sfïra púsobnosti a oblasﾝ, ktorou sa projekt zaoberè, majÿ k sebe veﾋmi blózko:
7 % i Areas of the project are in the `core activities' of the coordinator
7 % i Oblasti projektu patria medzi ¶kﾋÿｲovï ｲinnostiƒ koordinètora i"Jedna oblasﾝ projektu je ¶kﾋÿｲovou aktivitouƒ koordinètora
39 % i"One area of the project is in the `core activities' of the coordinator
39 % i"Oblasti projektu nepatria do ¶kﾋÿｲov̅ch aktivótƒ koordinètora
54 % i"Areas of the project are out of the `core activities' of the coordinator
54 % i) Medzi predchèdzajÿcimi a prebiehajÿcimi projektmi sa vytvorilo spojenie: ako sa zdúraz-ﾏovalo pri v̅zve na predkladanie nèvrhov, mno™stvo projektov stavalo na skÿsenostiach in̅ch alebo vytvorilo synergiu s in̅mi prebiehajÿcimi projektmi, a to nasledovn̅m spúso-bom:
104 (50 %) of projects have a link with a previous project:
104 (50 %) projektov sÿviselo s predchèdzajÿcim projektom:
‡ for 80 of these, this was with a Daphne project.
‒ V 80 própadoch to bola sÿvislosﾝ s Daphne projektom. Jeden z nich mal spojitosﾝ i s miest-nym projektom a jeden s projektom « n a n c o v a n ̅ m G R V z d e l è v a n i e a k u l t ÿ r a ( ¶ E d u c a t i o n a n d Culture Directorate Generalƒ);
‡ nine projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‒ 9 projektov bolo «nancovan̅chmiestnymi/regionèlnymi/þtètnymiorgènmi/organizè-ciami;
‡ two projects were funded by the EQUAL programme (`Poverty eradication and social exclusion' and `NOW initiative');
‒ 2 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï p r o g r a m o m E Q U A L ( ¶ P o v e r t y E r a d i c a t i o n a n d s o c i a l e x c l u - s i o n ƒ a ¶iniciatóva NOWƒ);
‡ one project was funded by the National Council of Researchers.
‒ 1 projekt je «nancovan̅Nèrodn̅mv̅skumn̅mv̅borom.
Type of link with previous project
Druh spojenia s predchèdzajÿcim projektom
Previous project gave the idea of the project
Predchèdzajÿci projekt poskytol nèmet projektu
Project uses results of previous project
Projekt vyu™óva v̅sledky predchèdzajÿceho projektu
Project reinforces/extends results of previous project
Projekt upevﾏuje/rozþiruje v̅sledky predchèdzajÿceho projektu
Project disseminates results of previous project
Projekt þóri v̅sledky predchèdzajÿceho projektu
Project replicates results to other target groups/bene«ciaries
Projekt kopóruje v̅sledky vo vzﾝahu k in̅m cieﾋov̅m skupinèm/adresètom
Project replicates results to other areas of violence
Projekt kopóruje v̅sledky vo vzﾝahu k inej lokalite
Project replicates results to another location
Projekt kopóruje v̅sledky vo vzﾝahu k in̅m sfïram nèsilia
‡ three projects were funded by other EC programmes (RURIS, Prisma, STOP) (one project each);
Projekty, ktorï vytvorili synergiu s in̅mi prebiehajÿcimi projektmi
‡ three projects of networks of associations;‡ one project was funded by the Catholic Overseas Development Fund;‡ one project had contacts with the European Observatory on Violence.
61 projektov (29 %) mè synergiu s in̅m prebiehajÿcim projektom:‒ V 7 própadoch iþlo o Daphne projekty, z ktor̅ch 1 vytvoril synergiu i s nèrodn̅mi pro-jektmi;‒ 29 projektov bolo «nancovan̅chmiestnymi/regionèlnymi/þtètnymiorgènmi/organizècia-mi;‒ 4 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï p r o g r a m o m E Q U A L ( r e s pe k t ó v e i n i c i a t ó v a m i N O W a E m p l o y - m e n t (1 projekt ka™dè), ako aj Social Exclusion (2 projekty));‒ 2 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï G R Z a m e s t n a n o s ﾝ a s o c i è l n e z è l e ™ i t o s t i ; ‒ 2 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï p r o g r a m o m E U R Ù P A p r o t i A I D S , z t o h o 1 v y t v o r i l s y n e r g i u i s nèrodn̅mi projektmi;‒ 2 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï p r o g r a m o m L e o n a r d o d a V i n c i ; ‒ 3 projekty boli « n a n c o v a n ï i n ̅ m i p r o g r a m a m i E à ( R U R I S , P R I S M A , S T O P ) ( k a ™ d ̅ p r o g r a m 1 projekt);‒ 3 projekty siete asocièció;‒ 1 projekt bol « n a n c o v a n ̅ M e d z i n è r o d n ̅ m k a t o l ó c k y m r o z v o j o v ̅ m f o n d o m ( C a t h o l i c O v e r - s e a s Development Fund);‒ 1 projekt spolupracoval s Eurùpskym observatùriom nèsilia (European Observatory on vio-lence).
Type of links with the other running project
Druh spojenia s in̅m prebiehajÿcim projektom
Project replicates results to other areas of violence
Projekt kopóruje v̅sledky vo vzﾝahu k in̅m sfïram nèsilia
Project replicates results to another location
Projekt kopóruje v̅sledky vo vzﾝahu k inej lokalite
Exchange of information/experience between both projects
V̅mena informèció/skÿsenostó medzi oboma projektami
(k) If we consider the Daphne objectives (as de«nedinthedecisionandrecalledinthetextsof the calls for proposals), the following split and evolution were detected:
V̅sledky z praxe Daphne k) Ak preskÿmame ciele programu Daphne (de«novanïvrozhodnutóaspomónanïvov̅zvachna predkladanie projektov), odhalóme nasledovnï rozdelenie a v̅voj:
Support to multidisciplinary networks
Podpora multidisciplinèrnych sietó
Studies, research or data collection
Þtÿdie, v̅skum a zhroma™ｵovanie informèció
Recognition and reporting of violence
Rozpoznanie a oznamovanie própadov
Daphne objectives of the projects: i1997›99 , i65 projects 2000›01 andi70 projects 2002›03
Daphne ciele projektov : i1997 › 99 , i65 projektov v rokoch 2000 › 2001 a i 70 projektov v rokoch 2002 › 2003
The objective of 65 % (on average) of the projects is the exchange of good practices and this is increasingly so when looking at the evolution of the projects' generations.
Cieﾋom 65 % (v priemere) projektov je v̅mena skÿsenostó, priｲom tento cieﾋ sa v projektoch objavuje ｲoraz ｲastejþie.
This illustrates the true added value of Daphne, i.e. the transfer of good practices within and between transnational partnerships.
To demonþtruje skutoｲnÿ pridanÿ hodnotu Daphne, t. j. vymieﾏaﾝ si skÿsenosti formou uzatvèrania medzinèrodn̅ch partnerstiev.
On the contrary, the building of information sources is still not greatly tackled.
Budovanie informaｲn̅ch zdrojov zostèva na druhej strane v ÿzadó.
An interesting evolution that emerges from the diagram is the decrease of the `informa-tion campaigns' and of the `recognition and reporting of violence' categories, in favour of more `studies, research or data collection' and `exchange of good practices'.
Z diagramu vypl̅va zaujómav̅ v̅voj, a t̅m je vêｲþie mno™stvo þtÿdió a intenzóvnejþia v̅me-na skÿsenostó na ÿkor ni™þieho poｲtu informaｲn̅ch kampanó, rozpoznania a hlèsenia jednot-liv̅ch kategùrió nèsilia.
Obviously, after the «rstfewyearswhentheneedforsuchcampaignswasobvious,theorganisationsinvolved in the «ghtagainstviolencestartedtorelylessonthisapproachandtofocusmore on other objectives.
Je zrejmï, ™e po ÿvodn̅ch rokoch, kedy bola potreba tak̅chto kam-panó evidentnè, upustili organizècie, ktor̅ch ÿlohou je bojovaﾝ proti nèsiliu, od tohto pró-stupu a zaｲali sa viac zameriavaﾝ na inï ciele.
When analysing in more detail the nature of the projects' objec-tives, the following categories appear:
Na zèklade detailnejþieho analyzovania po-vahy cieﾋov projektov boli zistenï nasledovnï kategùrie:
Improved understanding of violence
Zdokonalenï chèpanie nèsilia
Prevention of violence
Predchèdzanie nèsiliu
Detection of violence
Detekcia nèsilia
Protection from violence
Ochrana pred nèsilóm
Psychological support to victims
Psychologickè podpora obetiam
Support to families
Podpora rodinèm
Treatment of o.enders
Zaobch. s pèchateﾋmi
For the purpose of this report, an evaluation of the seven years of Daphne activities (1997›2003) was carried out.
Na ÿｲely tejto sprèvy bolo vykonanï ohodnotenie sedemroｲnej ｲinnosti Daphne (1997 › 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.
Hlavnou charakteristikou tejto þtÿdie je to, ™e je vyｲerpèvajÿca: boli analyzovanï vþetky pro-jekty (303) iniciatóvy (1997 › 1999) a programu (2000 › 2003).
`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.
V̅sledky boli nasledovnï: ƒ C i e l e iniciatóvy a programu boli a naｵalej zostèvajÿ relevantnï k púvodn̅m potrebèm, to zname-nè ochrana detó, mlède™e a ™ien pred nèsilóm a jej prevencia.
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.
Ako v̅sledky tak i vplyv prispeli k dosiahnutiu vþetk̅ch cieﾋov programu Daphne, a teda potvrdili jeho ÿｲinnosﾝ. àｲinnosﾝ progra-mu dokazujÿ impozantnï v̅sledky a vplyv v porovnanó s pridelen̅mi skromn̅mi zdrojmi.
Their sustainability once the projects have ended is rather weak, because of insu/cientlyplannedandtargeteddisseminationanddi/cultieswith post-project funding.'
Ich udr-™ateﾋnosﾝ po skonｲenó projektov je dosﾝ slabè kvúli nedostatoｲne plènovanïmu a cielenïmu roz-þóreniu a problïmu s «nancovanóm po ukonｲenó projektu.ƒ
The «ndingscanbesummarisedasfollows:
Zistenia mú™eme sumarizovaﾝ nasledovne:
Violence against children,
Nèsilie voｲi deﾝom,
E.ectiveness: good for both outputs and impacts
Relevantnosﾝ :vhodnï àｲinnosﾝ: pozitóvna vo vzﾝahu k v̅stupom a vplyvom
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.
V̅znam programu Daphne sa posudzuje podﾋa toho, do akej miery sÿ a zostanÿ ciele vhodnï pre dan̅ kontext, t. j. pre socièlne potreby, ktorï mè program uspokojiﾝ.
Relevance of the Daphne objectives to the social needs
V̅znam cieﾋov programu Daphne pre socièlne potreby
The «ghtagainstviolencecombinesalargenumberofinitiativesandactions.Daphnedoesnot aim to directly reduce the number of victims of violence.
V boji proti nèsiliu sa stretèva veﾋkï mno™stvo iniciatóv a postupov. Cieﾋom Daphne nie je pria-mo znó™iﾝ poｲet obetó nèsilia.
Instead, the programme aims to support organisations whose actions contribute to protecting against violence, preventing it and assisting victims.
Program sa sna™ó podporiﾝ organizècie, ktorï sa zameriavajÿ na ochranu pred nèsilóm, jeho prevenciu a pomoc obetiam.
This explains the key role played by NGOs in Daphne since its origin.
To vysvetﾋuje, preｲo majÿ nevlèd-ne organizècie v rèmci programu od jeho vzniku kﾋÿｲovï postavenie.
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 .
Ciele programu Daphne boli de«novanïvþeobecne,apretosÿplatnïvovzﾝahukrúznymformèm nèsilia.
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 :
Existuje þesﾝ cieﾋov programu Daphne:
‡ support to multidisciplinary networks;‡ exchange of good practice;
Podpora multidisciplinèrnych sietó;
A brief history of Daphne
Þtÿdie, v̅skum a zhroma™ｵovanie informèció;
‡ studies, research and data collection;‡ information campaigns;‡ information sources;‡ recognition and reporting of violence.
Rozpoznanie a oznamovanie própadov nèsilia.
By being independent from the areas of violence covered, these objectives are not in‹uencedby priorities set annually on aspects of violence.
Bez ohﾋadu na jednotlivï formy nèsilia zastreþenï v programe, ciele nie sÿ ovplyvnenï ka™do-roｲne stanovovan̅mi prioritami v oblasti nèsilia.
In addition, these objectives are instruments rather than objectives, stricto sensu.
Navyþe, sÿ skúr nèstrojmi ne™ cieﾋmi, stricto sensu.
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).
Prispievajÿ vlastne k vþeobecnejþóm meta-cieﾋom, ktorï sÿ v programe implicitne pod-chytenï, t. j. reakcie Eurùpanov na otèzky nèsilia prostrednóctvom siete, v̅meny skÿsenostó, prevencie, ochrany obetó, zv̅þenè informovanosﾝ (pozri graf ｲ. 2 dole).
Continuing relevance
Pretrvèvajÿci v̅znam
The fact that these objectives remained relevant over the years is evident to a majority of stakeholders interviewed.
Fakt, ™e tieto ciele ostèvajÿ relevantnï dlhï obdobie, je zrejm̅ vêｲþine op̅tan̅ch zèujmov̅ch skupón.
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.
Niektoró z nich program vnómali ako zdokonalenie iniciatóvy v tomto ohﾋade, keｵ™e ciele sa sｲasti zmenili › predt̅m sa dúraz klèdol na zvyþovanie povedomia ﾋudó prostrednóc-tvom informovania, v sÿｲasnosti sÿ dúle™itï zmeny sprèvania, ktorï sÿ kﾋÿｲov̅m v̅sledkom.
In fact, raising awareness does not `naturally' provoke changes in behaviour; those changes require time, resources, organisational variation, etc.
Zvyþovanie povedomia toti™ ¶automatickyƒ nezmenó sprèvanie ﾋudó; tieto zmeny si vy™adujÿ ｲas, zdroje, rúzne organizaｲnï formy atｵ.
Some stakeholders also envisage that, in the medium term, prevention should increase in importance relative to the protection of victims.
Podﾋa niektor̅ch zèujmov̅ch skupón by prevencia v strednodobom ｲasovom horizonte mala zv̅þiﾝ dúle™itosﾝ ochrany obetó.
Several stakeholders point to the critical im-portance of the treatment of o.endersasameansofpreventingfurtherviolence.
Niektorï z nich poukazujÿ na to, ™e v zèujme predchèdzania ｵalþiemu nèsiliu je dúle™itï venovaﾝ sa i ÿtoｲnókom.
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.
V̅znam a nadｲasovosﾝ cieﾋov programu Daphne dokazuje aj nèrast poｲtu ™iadateﾋov o «nanｲ-nÿ podporu v rokoch 1997 a™ 2002, ｲo svedｲó o evidentnom zèujme o tieto ciele, ako aj o ich potrebe.
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.
Efektóvnosﾝ programu Daphne sa hodnotó podﾋa toho, do akej miery v̅stupy a v̅sledky pri-spievajÿ k dosiahnutiu cieﾋov programu.
For each project, a link was made between its outputs and the Daphne objectives they support.
Pri ka™dom projekte sa spojili v̅stupy a ciele programu Daphne, ktorï tieto v̅stupy podpo-rujÿ.
Out of 699 outputs, 601 strongly or very strongly support the Daphne objectives as follows:
Zo 699 v̅stupov, 601 v̅znamne alebo veﾋmi v̅znamne podporuje ciele Daphne:
Studies, research or"""data collection"""
Þtÿdie, v̅skum alebo zhroma™ｵovanie """informèció"""
Support to
Podpora
Information campaigns"""
Rozpoznanie a oznamovanie própadov """
Graph 1: Support of outputs to programme's objectives
Graf ｲ. 1 : Ako v̅stupy podporujÿ ciele programu
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
N = 601 v̅stupov s v̅znamn̅m alebo veﾋmi v̅znamn̅m prónosom: Konferencie, seminère, workshopy i; Þtÿdie, sprèvy a knihy i; Informaｲnï materièly i ; Smernice, v̅ukovï sady, próruｲky i ; Webovï strènky, CD a CD-ROM y i
Graph 1 should be interpreted as follows: 15 % of the outputs contribute to the objective `sup-port to multi-disciplinary networks', and they are composed of 38 % of `conferences, seminars and workshops', 16 % of `studies, reports and books' and 11 % of `information materials'.
Vyþþie uveden̅ graf treba interpretovaﾝ nasledovne: 15 % v̅stupov prispieva k cieﾋu ¶Podpo-ra multidisciplinèrnych sietóƒ, a z 38 % ich tvoria ¶Konferencie, seminère a workshopyƒ, zo 16 % ¶þtÿdie, sprèvy a knihyƒ a z 11 % ¶Informaｲnï materièlyƒ.
Exchange of good practices
Reakcie Eurùpanov na otèzky nèsilia prostrednóctvom siete, v̅meny skÿsenostó a þtÿdió
European response to issues of violence through networking, exchange of good practices and studies
Þtÿdie, v̅skum alebo zhroma™ｵovanie informèció
Improved expertise64 %
Zv̅þenie odbornosti 64 %
Studies, research or data collection
Prevencia/ ochrana pred nèsilóm
Improved means and/oraccess to assistance 57 %
Zlepþenie prostriedkov a/alebo dostupnosti asistenｲn̅ch slu™ieb 57 %
Improved awareness of issues of violence and of end bene«ciaries' situation: 76 %
Zv̅þenie povedomia o otèzkach sÿvisiacich s nèsilóm a situèciou koneｲn̅ch prójemcov: 76 %
Visibility / discussion of violence 67 %
Zjavnosﾝ/diskusie o nèsiló 67 %
Recognition and reporting of violence
Rozpoznanie a oznamovanie própadov nèsilia
Graph 2: Contribution of impacts to programme's objectives
Graf ｲ. 2 : Prispenie vplyvov k splneniu cieﾋov programu
Note: Percentages in the `Main impacts' boxes are the frequencies of projects having recorded such an impact.
( % v rèmｲekoch pod ¶Hlavn̅mi vplyvmiƒ predstavujÿ frekvenciu projektov, u ktor̅ch bol vplyv zaznamenan̅).
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.
Kvúli prehﾋadnosti sÿ zobrazenï len najdúle™itejþie vplyvy (vyþe 45 % própadov) a hlavnï sÿvislosti s cieﾋmi.
It is no surprise that the proportion of outputs supporting a given objective is commensurate with the number of projects tackling that objective.
Nie je prekvapujÿce, ™e podiel v̅stupov podporujÿcich dan̅ cieﾋ je priamo ÿmern̅ poｲtu projektov, ktorï sa nóm zaoberajÿ.
The striking «gurehereisthattheobjective`exchangeofgoodpractice'issupportedbymorethan a third of the outputs.
Pozoruhodnï je, ™e cieﾋ ¶v̅mena skÿsenostóƒ podporuje viac ne™ tretina v̅stupov.
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.
Poukazuje to na: a) dúle™itosﾝ tohto cieﾋa pre ÿｲastnókov a b) skutoｲnÿ pridanÿ hodnotu programu Da-phne vo v̅mene poznatkov medzi jednotliv̅mi krajinami a organizèciami v rèmci Eurùpy.
Special attention should therefore be devoted to this aspect in Daphne II.
Preto by sa mala tomuto aspektu venovaﾝ v programe Daphne II veﾋkè pozornosﾝ.
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.
Ak sa na diagram pozrieme opaｲne, zistóme, ™e podnecovanie ﾋudó k vzèjomnej spoluprèci (prostrednóctvom ¶konferenció, seminèrov a workshopovƒ) je v̅stup, ktor̅ najviac prispieva k dosahovaniu cieﾋov a podporuje vþetky z nich.
The output `Studies, reports and books' also signi«-cantly contributes to all the objectives.
V̅stup ¶þtÿdie, sprèvy a knihyƒ mè na dosa-hovanó cieﾋov tie™ znaｲn̅ podiel.
It is also interesting to note that `Training packages and manuals' has an in‹uenceonthreeobjectives, con«rmingtheneedtokeeptraininghighontheagenda.
Je zaujómavï, ™e ¶v̅ukovï sady a próruｲkyƒ sÿ dúle™itï pre tri ciele, ｲo dokazuje, ™e þkolenia by mali byﾝ tie™ prioritou.
Moreover, there is no signi«cantdi.erenceinthequalityoftheoutputsfromoneobjectiveto the other.
Navyþe, pri jednotliv̅ch cieﾋoch nie sÿ v̅znamnï odch̅lky v kvalite v̅stupov. Ka™d̅ cieﾋ programu je naviac podporen̅ vplyvmi.
The analysis produced a number of recommendations for sustaining that e.ectiveness:
Z anal̅zy vziþlo niekoﾋko odporÿｲanó v zèujme udr™ania efektivity:
‡ 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;
‒ Podporovaﾝ tvorbu hmatateﾋn̅ch v̅stupov, ak̅mi sÿ videonahrèvky ｲi vzdelèvacie modu-ly, ktorï mo™no ﾋahko kopórovaﾝ a adaptovaﾝ v in̅ch oblastiach a ktorï mú™u pou™iﾝ aj ｵal-þó profesionèli pracujÿci s koneｲn̅mi prójemcami;
‡ increase dissemination activities so that project results get more visibility with decision-makers;
‒ Klèsﾝ vêｲþó dúraz na propagèciu, aby si v̅sledky projektu vþimli verejnó ｲinitelia;
‡ increasingly involve target groups, end-bene«ciariesandkeystakeholdersasearlyasthedesign stage of the project.
‒ U™ v própravnej fèze projektu viac zaanga™ovaﾝ cieﾋovï skupiny, koneｲn̅ch prójemcov a hlavnï zèujmovï skupiny.