European Parliament
|[pic] |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |
| |DIRECTORATE-GENERAL HOME AFFAIRS |
| | |
| |Directorate A : Internal Security |
PREVENTION OF AND FIGHT AGAINST CRIME PROGRAMME
ACTION GRANTS 2011
GENERAL CALL FOR PROPOSALS
NON AWARDED APPLICATIONS
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002455 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |STICHTING DR. HILDA VERWEY-JONKER INSTITUTE, RESEARCH INTO SOCIAL ISSUES |
|Project title: |Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime: A European Comparative Study |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Universitaet Hamburg DE; |
| |National Research Institute of Legal Policy FI; |
| |Birkbeck College UK; |
| |Université de Liège BE; |
| |Universiteit Gent BE; |
| |Vitosha Research EOOD BG; |
| |University of Cyprus CY; |
| |Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta CZ; University of Tartu EE; |
| |Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique FR; National Institute of |
| |Criminology HU; |
| |University of Florence, Anatomy, Histology and Legal |
| |Medicine Department IT; |
| |Università degli Studi di Genova – University of Genoa IT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime: A European Comparative Study has been designed to help city-level youth justice managers articulate |
|principles for explaining and tackling youth crime. The project (a) charts levels and trends in youth offending and victimization (b) |
|identifies variations between 21 EU-countries and cities and (c) tests key theories about the causes of youth crime and victimization. UPYC |
|will survey a large representative sample of teenagers in schools across Europe and elsewhere about their experiences of crime as victims and |
|as offenders, their lifestyle and routine activities, their home life and relationships with parents, their use of drugs and alcohol, their |
|school and neighbourhood, and their sense of well-being. The project focuses on city level because crime prevention needs a local emphasis. In|
|many cities, UPYC is able to describe trends because it builds innovatively on the strengths of the International Self-Report Delinquency |
|network. |
| |
|Aims and objectives |
|UPYC is designed to support local partnerships in tackling youth offending and victimization. Its overall aim is to help equip partnerships |
|with a set of principles for tackling youth crime, which will support work in mounting city-level audits, and in developing and implementing |
|local strategies. Its objectives are: |
|• To provide estimates of the prevalence of offending |
|• To provide estimates of victimization |
|• To develop an integrated theoretical framework for explaining youth offending. |
|• To study the role of substance use in offending |
|• To study youth involvement in hate crime and their sense of procedural justice |
|• To develop prevention strategies toward delinquency and victimization |
|These objectives will be achieved through a regionally comparative framework (i.e. Northern, Southern, Western and Central European |
|countries). A project that achieves these objectives within a broad, comparative perspective will be of significant value to youth |
|partnerships across Europe. |
| |
|Activities |
|The core activity of UPYC is the design and execution of a self-report survey of school-children in 21 European countries. The questionnaire |
|for the survey has already been designed. Each partner will use a sampling strategy to yield a minimum achieved sample of 1,800 schoolchildren|
|drawn from two cities. Each country will analyse its own data, but will also submit its dataset to the central coordinating team, which will |
|mount cross-national comparative analysis. |
|We aim to test the cross-cultural evidence for well-known perspectives such as social bonding/control theory, self-control theory, routine |
|activities theory, social disorganisation theory, as well as newer theoretical perspectives such as situational action theory, institutional |
|anomie theory and procedural justice theory. |
|This theoretical work will be carried out in close dialogue with city-level youth justice managers, so that it is properly grounded in the |
|day-to-day problems they tackle and it speaks directly to their concerns. Youth justice managers need to understand whether youth crime and |
|victimization is rising or falling, and what the drivers of these trends are. They need to shape their preventive strategies in ways that |
|respond to the most realistic points of intervention. In order to build this dialogue with managers, each national partner will identify key |
|youth justice managers in each city, and carry out a series of interviews with each about their perceptions of the problems, their perception |
|of effective and non-effective strategies. |
|In addition to surveys among adolescents and interviews with local youth justice managers, the UPYC project collects structural indicators at |
|the national as well as the local level. The UPYC project will suggest that a selected number of these indicators will become part of the |
|audit tools for local youth managers. These indicators will be modeled on the Urban Audit. |
| |
|Participants |
|UPYC has 23 partners across Europe. The survey will cover between 50,000 and 60,000 teenagers aged 12-16, spread across 50-60 cities. Partners|
|additionally will each interview up to 20 youth justice professionals in their country. |
| |
|Duration |
|The project will take 36 months to complete. We are prepared to start in Autumn 2012, with fieldwork in 2013. The dataset will be analysed in |
|2014; in-depth interviews with youth justice managers will be conducted in 2013/14. Reports will be prepared and published in 2014/15. |
| |
|Dissemination |
|There will be 21 country-level reports, aimed at practitioners; the central coordinating team will prepare comparative reports designed for |
|policy and practitioner audiences. These will be short and accessible documents, but they will be supported by full academic publications. We |
|aim to develop an interactive web site, permitting users to interrogate our database to compare patterns of youth crime and youth justice |
|across Europe. We also will organize a European conference for youth managers to exchange local prevention practices. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 2.776.117,80) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 2.498.491,80) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 47 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The proposal aims at delivering a European comparative study in understanding and preventing youth crime in 21 member states. The project aims |
|at collecting data on youth victimisation and crime in 21 MS. In this context surveys are planned with around 50.000 teenagers. The promoter |
|intends to develop crime prevention strategies in the participating countries. It will deliver an academic analysis and is weak in terms of |
|operational added value, budget and risk management. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The main strengths of the proposal are the technical academic competence of the applicants, the large geographical scope (21 MS) and the |
|subject: prevention of youth crime. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|The proposal suffers from a very large number of weaknesses. Due to its academic nature it is not considered to be in line with the objectives |
|of the programme and the proposal does not demonstrate any awareness of previous EU-projects in this area as listed in the catalogue of projects|
|since 2003. Its conception is weak in terms of delivering an added value for practitioners and its target audience is mainly academic Also, the |
|expected results are not measurable other than in publications. Finally, the budget is not considered cost-effective and the continuity of the |
|project is only ensured in terms of sharing the project results and data but not in terms of actions aimed at preventing youth crime. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|There is an extremely high budget (2.7 billion €) required for the implementation of the project, as described with a weak conception. The |
|project is not considered cost efficient as it fails to demonstrate the need for such a large amount of staff in relation with the description |
|of the actions and not all actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget. Also, another type of intervention could have reached the promised |
|output at lower costs, for instance having fewer workshops with the partners. Also, although the applicant states in the application form that |
|no subcontracting is foreseen, the budget does include such costs under budget heading E. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002458 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |ECIP FOUNDATION |
|Project title: |JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION THROGH INTERINSTITUTIONAL CO-OPERATION AND |
| |COMMUNITY WORK |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |BG |
|Duration of the project (months): |18 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |NGO Expect support BG; |
| |Svishtov Municipality BG; |
| |"Dose of love" Association BG; |
| |Serdica District, Sofia Municipality BG; |
| |Momchilgrad Municipality BG. |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The project objectives are to affect juvenile delinquency in the municipalities of Sofia, Burgas, Svishtov and Momchilgrad by improving the |
|interaction between local authorities, educational and social institutions, social service, law enforcement authorities, community and |
|families locally, by a model of inter-institutional cooperation and coordination to increase the capacity of institutions and bodies in the |
|field and through promotion of resources for children / youth, family and community to address the problem of "juvenile delinquency". |
| |
|The total project duration is 18 months. The main activities include: |
|1. Management and coordination of the project- start up of the project - coordination, communication and financial management of the project, |
|steering committee meetings, monitoring, supervision. |
|2. Researches - international, national and local legislation, institutions, coordination, practices pertinent to juvenile justice. |
|3. Preparation of a detailed report for the problem juvenile crime on the national level. |
|4.Conducting one-day seminars with wide participation in each of the pilot municipalities in order to present and discuss the survey results. |
|5. Mapping of institution and services working on the prevention of juvenile crime on the local level. working on issues of juvenile justice |
|in Sofia, Burgas, Svishtov and Momchilgrad (emphasis on interlinks); |
|6. Design programs for the prevention of juvenile delinquency at the local level; |
|7. Trainings for local authorities, institutions, providers of social services, specialist; |
|8. Implementation the pilot programs in the partner municipalities; |
|9.Conducting one-day seminars with wide participation in each of the pilot municipalities in order to present and discuss results from |
|implementation of the programs. |
|10. Mainstreaming and dissemination - good practice collection, manual for specialist, manual for parents,, information materials, newsletter,|
|website, conference, exebition. |
| |
|Number and type of participants: |
|- 80 children with antisocial behavior |
|- 100 families at risk |
|- 20 representatives of local authorities - Commission on youth activities |
|- 8 representatives of local Committees on child protection |
|- 80 representatives of educational institutions - principals, teachers, psychologists |
|- 40 representatives of social service for children and families at risk - social workers, psychologists, |
|special educators; |
|- 15 representatives of Directorate "Social Assistance" department and "Child Protection" |
|- 15 representatives of the police |
|- 12 representatives of BKBPPMN |
|- 8 representatives of the Children's Centre and |
|- 8 representatives of the probation services |
|- 8 representatives of health institutions - doctors, nurses, social workers in hospitals. |
|- 300 children from the community |
|- 40 representatives of NGOs |
| |
|Methodology |
|Attached our methodology for the selection of target locations to ensure objectivity project activities. We have been selected 4 |
|municipalities with different characteristics-Svishtov,a town with low crime,but an increasing number of children with problem behavior; |
|Momchilgrad-mixed population with increased prevalence of children of roma and turkish origin and specific acts of juvenile delinquency,Burgas|
|- economic and tourist center with a tendency to increase in juvenile delinquency,Sofia - the capital |
|- children whose parents migrated from other cities, reduced parental control, adverse effects of city.Systematic approach – we consider the |
|problem with juvenile crime prevention as a system of cause and effect relations, human factors and beneficiaries. |
|The change in one of the system components influences the other components, which will be taken into consideration when managing the process. |
|Participation of and cooperation with stakeholders - we will coordinate the project activities and will cooperate with the main structure and |
|community at local level. All the materials developed during the project implementation will be coordinated with the contract |
|authority.Elaboration and execution of a training programme - In this project proposal the training of CSO and local authorities |
|representatives is defined as a main tool for the development of the organizational and institutional capacity trainings that will be |
|conducted are interactive and practically orientated without compromising the theoretical fundament and the knowledge already accumulated.Good|
|management and transparency and a holistic approach. |
|Respect the rights of the child at the center of our work are children and young people and tyahnotopravo decent and safe life. |
| |
|Expected results:improved coordination in the activities of local authorities, educational and social institutions and providers of prevention|
|services address the problem of juvenile crime, reducing the number of children with criminal behavior, reduced number of children dropping |
|out of school due to problem behavior, driven resources to families at risk, increased competence of professionals for prevention |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 287.161,53) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 258.411,53) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 48,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|Project is perhaps attractive at the national level, but does not offer a real EU added value. There is no link with existing networks such as |
|EUCPN. Target audience does not include the judicial authorities, and involves police bodies to a quite limited extend. The project aims at |
|developing cooperation and coordination among the local authorities in 5 cities in Bulgaria and other stakeholders such as law enforcement, |
|social and educational organisations, families, schools etc. Tangible results should be produced at the end of the project such as manuals for |
|parents and teachers, seminars, trainings. The project should also contribute to the implementation of the training sessions at the local level |
|for providers of social services. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The project proposed has a well-thought methodology. There is a great experience of the beneficiaries. Concrete actions are being proposed. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|Lack of connection with similar earlier or existing projects or networks, absence of EU relevance, no dissemination foreseen outside Bulgaria. |
|There is no innovation and no transferability. The sustainability of the project proposed is rather uncertain. The main European platform for |
|exchanging best practices and knowledge in the field and finding partners is not associated. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The project proposed does not explain the basis for the unit rate for staff (all seconded), which is quite low. Experts are included in the |
|staff (2.2.6.5.), but remunerated by daily allowance, travel expenses under Heading E of budget. The number of meetings is adequate (interviews |
|in research phase, training, dissemination seminars, etc.) in view of emphasis on local impact. The budget is fragmented but seems to be |
|reasonable. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002482 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT |
|Project title: |STOP SOCIAL NETWORK POISONING: a EU network for the awareness raising on |
| |young people’s data protection online |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Asociatia Grupul de Inteligenta Preventiva RO; |
| |Institute for Sociology, Institute for Social Sciences, |
| |Hungarian Academy of Sciences HU; |
| |Gender Education, Research and Technologies |
| |Foundation BG; |
| |Mikolo Romerio Universitetas LT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA INTERNET PROVIDER IT; METER ONLUS IT |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|STOP SOCIAL NETWORK POISONING (SSNP) will aim to prevent and combat social networking poisoning to protect young people privacy and reputation|
|online and to promote/develop best practices for the protection of crime victims. Children, young people, their parents and educators have to |
|be informed about the risks occurring while surfing the web especially when exposing personal data. |
|The project will have a duration of 24 months. |
|SSNP activities will be: Project Management, Dissemination, Evaluation, Organisation of a cycle of seminars in schools to explore young |
|people's understanding of risk, to interview them, teachers and parents about the use of social network and their risks; to give information |
|and advice about online safety to the target group and organisation of an international conference for IT Providers, policy makers, industry, |
|NGOs and law enforcement authorities to present the main findings of the project and to |
|discuss about how governments, educators, NGOs and industry better support young people in Social Networking Services and combat and prevent |
|the “illegal use of Internet”. |
|The target groups for the cycle of seminars in schools will be: children, parents and teachers (100 participants in 10 schools for a total of |
|10 schools, 2 for each country). In particular, seminars will address children 9-13 yr in Elementary High Schools and teenagers 14-16 yr in |
|Secondary High Schools. The target groups of the international conference will be: IT Providers, policy makers, NGOs and law enforcement |
|authorities working in the field tackled by the project. The conference will be joined by around 50 delegates from the participating countries|
|selected according a common procedure defined during the kick off. The beneficiaries will be: teachers and seminars speakers that will be |
|able, thanks to the acquire knowledge, to replicate the activities. |
|The Project Management will ensure achievement of objectives within the stated time and resource limits, establishment of quantifiable |
|measurement criteria of progress and implementation of high-quality monitoring procedures. A system of continuous evaluation will be developed|
|consisting in a follow-up every 6 months. The seminars will be structured as interactive moments while the international conference will be |
|organized to present the main findings of the project and to discuss about how better support young people in Social Networking Services. |
|The project will be aimed to provide 20 hours of seminars in each participating countries; to involve at least 1000 students, teachers and |
|families in the seminars (100 participants in each school for a total of 10 schools, 2 for each participating countries) and 50 IT Providers, |
|policy makers, NGOs and law enforcement authorities working in the field tackled by the project of the participating countries in the |
|international conference and to have at least 1.000.000 hints on the project website and requests for information. |
|Dissemination actions will start at the beginning of the project’s lifecycle. All the project deliverables will be available also in a digital|
|format in order to be always at disposal on the project website (that will be in English) for the target groups and beneficiaries. The project|
|website will be also advertised on ISES and all other partners websites in order to reach the possible widest audience. All the project |
|partners will create a list of contacts of collaborating partners, at national, regional and local level who will be informed about the |
|project activities. Then, a list of relevant stakeholders will be prepared in order to share suggestions for further development in the field |
|tackled by the project. Additionally, a brochure in English with some basic information about the project will be produced to be sent to the |
|most relevant stakeholders in order to encourage them to participate in the project. Seminars materials will be available in the partners |
|languages, while conference presentations will be in English. Finally, to advertise the international conference, each project partner will |
|publish a press release on a national newspaper to inform the general public about the project. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 299.322,90) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 266.322,90) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 88,98%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 62.5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project focuses mainly on raising awareness as preventive action against the fairly recent phenomenon of social network poisoning on child |
|social networks, with other actions including data collection through interviews with children and a conference. While it is innovative insofar |
|as this phenomenon has not been thoroughly explored so far, its impact and risks are overstated, in comparison to other hands-on crimes against |
|children. On the other hand, there are important shortcomings to the project. The activities concerning interviews of children do not serve a |
|clearly explained purpose as research or as part of the awareness raising, the involvement of schools participating is not clear. The likely |
|benefits will probably be less than as presented, and the risks may be more important. Those risks overweight the potential benefits. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Innovative concept |
|- Interesting field of action |
|- Stakeholders involvement |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Unclear methodology and tasks distribution among partners |
|- Risks not adequately identified |
|- Impact overstated |
|- High costs |
|- Lack of evaluation strategy |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|A close look at the budget sheets reveals some items, which should be questioned. In particular the dissemination strategy with its costs for |
|press releases is doubtful. The staff costs are relatively high, probably because all staff foreseen shall be seconded or specifically employed |
|for the project. The overall number of staff seems to be adequate, as well as the number of working days. |
|The overall number of seminars and conferences is realistic and adequate. Nevertheless it has to be asked if 10 participants from each partner |
|country should attend the conference. Such a number seems to be quite high. Besides, the costs for the evaluation of the questionnaires are a |
|bit doubtful (altogether round about 20.000€). The work should be done by the project staff a part of their responsibilities. Also the costs for|
|the trainers of the seminar speakers could be questioned. Why have the speakers to be trained and why isn't the project staff able to carry out |
|this task (to train the speakers or to act as speaker without a preliminary training)? |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002485 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |STICHTING DR. HILDA VERWEY-JONKER INSTITUTE, RESEARCH INTO SOCIAL ISSUES |
|Project title: |IDEAS: Prevention of trafficking in human beings for sexual exploitation, |
| |towards a cross border barrier model. |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Willem Pompe Institute, Utrecht University NL; |
| |Ecrime: ICT, Law & Criminology, University of Trento IT; Teesside University|
| |UK; |
| |Brottsförebyggande Rådet (BRÅ) SE; |
| |University of Tartu EE; |
| |Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD), Sofia BG |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|‘IDEAS’ aims at expanding the existing (nationally orientated) barrier model to a transnational application, to do justice to the |
|transnational character of the phenomenon of sex trafficking. It aims at identifying barriers in the whole process of trafficking, not just in|
|the part of it that takes place in destination countries. The project departs from the idea that these barriers should be identified |
|bottom-up, from the perspectives of local partners, who are able to take national differences and local conditions into account. In that way, |
|the knife will cut both ways: on the one hand local law enforcers and NGO’s are in the best position to |
|detect facilitators and facilitating mechanisms for trafficking; on the other hand working bottom up provides basis for intended working with|
|the barrier model 2.0. What will result is a preliminary assessed, pragmatic barrier model that pays due attention to the transnational |
|character of sex trafficking. As such it will be more efficient to fight sex trafficking within Europe and it will enable participating |
|countries to cooperate more effectively. The project takes 24 months to complete. We are prepared to start in January 2013. IDEAS has 6 |
|partners: in The Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Estonia and Bulgaria. Each partner will work at municipality level with law |
|enforcement agencies and a NGO. The activities are: |
|1. Kick-off: All partner countries attend a kick-off meeting. During the (two days) meeting the main steps in the project will be discussed. |
|Dutch law enforcement institutions which have experience in working with the barrier model, will distribute their knowledge and experience. |
|Local partners will elaborate on the barriers they have proposed to work on locally and obstacles will be discussed. Results: 1) working |
|paper, as preparation for the kick-off meeting by the applicant organization; 2) interim report of |
|the kick-off meeting. |
| |
|2. Investigating local context: In each country the local situation of sex trafficking will be investigated by university partners, with the |
|help of ngo’s and law enforcement agencies. Partners assemble data focusing primarily on the position as a country of origin, transit or |
|destination, local conditions of sex trafficking in the city under study, obstacles in combating local trafficking networks and/or in giving |
|victim support. Results: 1) first local expert meeting to enhance local cooperation; 2) local report of the |
|situation of sex trafficking in the participant city; 3) second local expert meeting to discuss the findings of the local investigation; 4) |
|overall project report on the findings and experiences of all participant countries. |
| |
|3. Development of barrier model 2.0: A concept transnational barrier model 2.0 is developed on the basis of the findings in phase 2, by VJI |
|(applicant) and WP. The overall project report is the main input. Result: a concept transnational barrier model 2.0 |
| |
|4. Exchange & Dissemination: The draft barrier model 2.0 is the basis for a first working conference for all project partners. Aim is to |
|establish if the concept model contains all necessary elements and takes national differences into account, as well as to assess and discuss |
|the practicability of applying this model on a transnational scale. In the second day of the conference, we discuss local results in elevating|
|the chosen barriers and the transnational impact. Result: first working conference |
| |
|5. Application of the transnational barrier model: All participating cities (law enforcers, ngo’s involved in the project) apply the barrier |
|model by elevating a local barrier and exchange their findings with other project partners. Verwey-Jonker will organize video conferencing |
|with all participants if problems arise and for the exchange of good practices. Results: 1) blog for swift transnational communication and |
|exchange of best practices; 2) video-conferencing for the same goal. |
| |
|6. Synthesis and preliminary assessment |
|The preliminary assessments of the scientific partners will be presented as well as the final and updated Transnational Barrier Model 2.0. All|
|experiences and good practices will be disseminated. Aim is to inform partner countries and all other interested countries about transnational|
|barriers in the light of preventing sex trafficking. Results: 1) preliminary assessment by university partners; 2) powerpoint presentation of|
|the assessment; 3) dissemination conference; 4) scientific article by VJI and WP. |
| |
| |
|Dissemination |
|A blog on the project will be kept to which all project partners give input regularly. Local reports of all participating countries, and an |
|overall project report will present the findings of this project. The overall report will be published widely. A conference will be held at |
|the end of the project to disseminate the findings and results beyond the partipant group. A scientific article will further add to the |
|dissemination of the project findings. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 518.901,85 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 467.008,85 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 62 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The applicant has submitted an interesting project, which intends to prevent trafficking of human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation |
|by erecting barriers. The project is based on a Dutch project. Due to this fact it would have been helpful, if the applicant had provided some |
|more details on that project, and - in particular - on its results and success. At the moment the project seems to be quite theoretical. This |
|appraisal is partly caused by the fact, that obviously only research institutes are taking part in the project as direct partners. The expertise|
|of the law enforcement authorities is clearly missing. |
|All proposed activities are pretty clear and represent high professional niveau. However, there is a lack of clear and concrete mention of |
|results, deliverables and outputs almost in all activities within the technical annex. |
|The project is quite expensive and the Barrier model seems to be very "Netherlands related" and it is not sure if it is transferable to other EU|
|MS. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Addresses one of the main challenges for law enforcement agencies as well as public administration authorities within the European Union. |
|- The proposed methodology is professional and might be a right platform for achieving foreseen results. |
|- All activities are designed in connection with project and programme objectives and their content and extent is coherent with general |
|strategy. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- High risk not to reach objectives if the transfer of to the results into the "real world" of law enforcement and public administration fails. |
|- Unclear strategy on how the authorities involved should improve their cooperation on the international level |
|- Focus on the Netherlands – difficult to transfer to other EU Member States. |
|- No sufficient description and quantification of outputs and deliverables within the Application Form and technical annex. |
|- The risk, assumptions and mitigation strategies are not sufficiently set-up within the application form and technical annex. |
|- High budget |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Budget estimate is not complete. Some requested information within Guide for applicants is missing, for example the names of the experts, |
|supporting documents and offers explaining the calculation of the prices etc. |
|The number of staff and the number of working days are a bit exaggerated. |
|It would be necessary to better explain the tasks of all involved experts that have not been yet preselected. In any case, it would be needed to|
|clarify the reason why the rate for some experts is over 450 EUR per day. |
|Some of the foresee costs under Heading E must be clarified. For ex.: conference costs – 6.000 EUR , weblog construction – 10.000 EUR, data |
|collection – 2000 EUR (several times). It would be necessary to clarify the number of participants, number of days of the conference, the offers|
|for weblog and technical specification (software, web technology, etc.), how many hours or man/days for data collection, etc.. This is the |
|important information that is missing. Idem for brochures (technical specification missing – number of pages, etc.). |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002487 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES |
|Project title: |Improving the operational capacities of CID/Hellenic Police for forgery |
| |crimes |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |EL |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Ministry of Citizen Protection, European and Development |
| |Programmes Division EL |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The present proposal addresses the development of an integrated solution that will aid the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division to |
|perform advanced forensic activities in crime scene environments with counterfeiting and money laundering. To this end the proposal foresees :|
|i. To improve forensic analysis in money laundering, and extortion and racketeering crimes |
|ii. Specifically train the personnel to develop advanced knowledge specific issues and responsibilities. |
|iii. Produce a specific manual on evaluating training of personnel that could be transferred to EU MS. |
|iv. Enhance the operational capacity of HP/CID to detect a vast array of false documents & counterfeit currency materials |
|v. Perform training of the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division personnel to fully exploit the advanced capabilities of the |
|proposed solutions and |
|vi. Provide an EU added value to the project, through a series of specific activities including focused workshops and targeted visits to |
|exchange know-how and expertise to related EU Laboratories |
|The completed outcome of the proposed action will contribute to the capacity building of the Hellenic Police Criminal Investigation Division |
|through the enhancement of forensic analysis whilst at the same time reducing the uncertainties in the analysis. |
|The participating entities of this action are the MoCP's Center for Security Studies and the Crime Investigation Division of Hellenic Police |
|which by constitutional law is responsible for conducting forensic investigation in Greece. |
| |
|The implementation of the proposal will be implemented through a following set of activities focused on the following phases: |
|Phase 1: Management (M1-M24) |
|• Contact with EU authorities |
|• Reporting |
|• Financial Auditing |
|Phase 2: Preparatory Activities (M1-M6) |
|• Operational requirements and infrastructure specifications |
|• Contact with EU Law enforcement agencies |
|Phase 3: Acquisition of infrastructure (M6-M12) |
|• Acquisition of infrastructure |
|• Installation |
|• Acceptance tests |
|Phase 4: Training Activities (M11-M18) |
|• Training activities |
|• Focused Workshops |
|Phase 5: Certification process and Legal issues (M12-M24) |
|• Certification process |
|• Legal and data privacy issues |
|Phase 6: Dissemination (M6-M24) |
|• Web-site section in the Hellenic Police CID web-site |
|• Targeted visits to EU Law enforcement agencies |
|• Brochures / CD with referenced material |
|• Publications on Manuals on forensic analysis |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 799.519) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 719.519) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 53,5 points
|REASONS: |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project is in line with the general ISEC programme priorities and specific Call target in the field on the fight against money laundering |
|and counterfeiting focusing in the forensic side of these crimes. The main target of the project is to renew equipment for the forensic |
|laboratory and to train specific staff for this purpose. A better preparedness to fight these types of crimes is clearly in line with the ISS |
|priorities. The proposal does not explain in depth how the objectives and the results will be achieved. It seems to be following general |
|principles of project planning but it is not giving further details on some practical details which could allow the evaluator to assess it. |
|Results and outputs are concrete but methodology, list of activities, monitoring and evaluation procedures are not sufficiently explained. This |
|does not allow the evaluator to assess whether this project represents the most efficient solution or the best value for money. Risk |
|identification and mitigation strategies are too generally mentioned. Project management and team show previous experience on project planning |
|and EU funding projects. Distribution of tasks among them is clearly described and reflected in the budget. List of activities are not well |
|reflected in the budget. There are some inconsistencies in the planned trips, international conference and trips to international conferences. |
|Costs for the seminar are incomplete. Subcontracting is well justified. The impact of the project should be considered low in terms of ISEC |
|programme priorities but the multiplication and dissemination strategies are clear despite the fact they are not well described by the |
|applicant. The equipment and training obtained through this project will be producing effects on medium term and will allow the project to have |
|an international impact on other MS updating their forensic capacities. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The strengths of the project proposal are: |
|- Its technological capacity development methodology |
|- Its equipment acquisition methodology |
|- Attention paid to the trainings |
|- Attention paid to data protection issues (even if it is only stated) |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|The weaknesses of the project proposal is the non-ability to: contextualize the topic with regard to the needs of the Greek Police in the field |
|of “corruption”, demonstrate how it will contribute to the implementation of EU directives, communications and plans regarding the different |
|topics of corruption, present clearly the EU LEAs involved in the project, address the specific features of the equipment it aims at acquiring |
|and how they will contribute to cooperate with EU LEAs, justify the costs of the equipment in the budget, allocate a strong project management |
|staff for the life cycle of the project, demonstrate the transferability of the outcomes to other EU MS, to demonstrate solid management |
|capabilities and operational capacities from the side of the partners. |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|There are some inconsistencies between the list of activities and the reflected actions in the budget form as far as trip and workshops are |
|concerned. It is also not mentioned in the activity list that training will be supported by an external expert, but this action is budgeted. |
|Activities 10 and 12 are mixed up; they are not well reflected in the budget. As mentioned before there is a lack of relevant information about |
|the methodology and the development of certain activities which makes difficult to assess if this is the most economic and efficient solution to|
|reach the goals, but the applicant has tried to reduce costs at maximum. As the project goal is to renew forensic laboratory equipment, this is|
|the bigger cost in the budget. The applicant has not referred to any multiplier effect; it is only assuming this new equipment will imply a cost|
|reduction for the Ministry budget in future and an increase of the forensic laboratory capacity. The innovative side of the project has not |
|been really described by the applicant but this new equipment will be the most advanced equipment in the country. The budget does not include |
|precise and detailed information for all activities; it is difficult to see the relationship between the list of activities, the methodology and|
|the budget. Subcontracting is justified in order to produce best quality dissemination material and to proceed with the certification of the |
|new equipment. Staff costs are kept at minimum. Equipment comprises basically microscopes, spectrometry, digital voice and sound analyser etc. |
|However, the prices are quite high and it is difficult to assess their relative value and see if they present best value for money as there is |
|no comparison of prices provided by different suppliers and no information from the market. Also the link between these equipment and fight |
|against corruption is not clear. Overall the project doesn’t present great innovations, it is even difficult to assess if the required equipment|
|presents a state of the art solution to the problem. |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002488 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |CITY OF TRECATE |
|Project title: |Futureal: fighting urban crime - a project of social integration |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |28 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Libera - associazioni nomi e numeri contro le mafie IT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The main objective of the project is that of giving a chance of social integration to people under social distress, border line or finding |
|themselves in very difficult economic conditions, offering them an alternative to crime. Giving individuals who are objectively at risk a |
|positive chance of integration would help them to reacquire their own self-esteem and trust in the others, thus driving them away from |
|criminal activities and a prospective future in jail. Specific objectives of the project are: integrating the individuals who are at risk of |
|committing crime into a new social and professional context, curbing the episodes of vandalism, fostering a civic sense of responsibility, |
|fostering a civic sense of responsibility, creating new jobs, trying to offer these people professional qualification leading to employment. |
|Project start on September 2012 for 28 months. The activities the beneficiaries of the project would be engaged in are specifically the |
|following: keeping and maintenance of public sites, care and maintenance of green areas and parks (for ex., fixing or painting children’s |
|games and benches, preventing vandalism…),cleaning and |
|sanitization of run down urban areas (tunnels, pathways…),repairs and renovation works of public buildings. The activities above will be |
|coordinated by municipal personnel (Local Police Officers, Social Services, Public Works Officers) and by one or more Btype social |
|cooperatives operating in the area, with the aim of providing the educational support that is needed for a successful long-term result and a |
|real psychological and social relief of the subjects involved in the project. Thanks to the partnership with |
|“Libera,: associazioni, nomi e numeri contro le mafie” we also plan these activities: promotion of legality and justice with students of the |
|local schools, promotion of legality and justice in open meetings and conferences for all the citizens interested in; educational activity in |
|juvenile aggregation center in Trecate (Spazio Giovani), Street educational activity for children who are generally deprived of their right to|
|education and have little or no access to the formal educational system. For each of the subjects involved a specific educational plan will be|
|drawn, containing realistic, clearly verifiable objectives. The Job Assistance Office at the URP (Office for Public Relationships) of the |
|city of Trecate will give maximum support to each one of the individuals involved and will help them write their own CVs and balance of |
|competences. As an instrument of monitoring the planned activities, periodical reports will be written (one every six month for the three |
|years during which the project will be effective and a final one at the end of it). Every single case will be examined and analyzed together |
|with the solutions adopted and a report |
|will be written for each. Periodical meetings with the partners of the project and the responsible of the various actions will be held in the |
|course of the three years. The city of Trecate, leader of the project, will be free to modify any of the activities suggested in the project |
|if any difficulties should arise or the situation change since the adoption of the plan. Getting educational tutoring and finding a job which |
|allows them to make a decent living – these would be the starting points of a new life plan for individuals at risk, which wouldn’t give them |
|any more excuses for committing crime. They will be involved in renovation works in run down urban areas, refurbishment of public buildings or|
|maintenance of green areas – all of which will help them build up a sense of belonging in the local community. Jobs of this kind are fit for |
|people who would normally hardly find one because of lack of specific qualifications and situations of long time distress. Involving also very|
|young people (not only student, but also street children) we wish to prevent social disease, discouraging to act crimes and involving them in |
|something constructive for |
|their lives. We'll supply to write an exhaustive report about activities and issues of the project. Estimated total number of participants: 70|
|subject for juvenile aggregation center, 50 for street education; 30 for working integration; 100 for opened meetings; students of 3 local |
|schools for school meetings. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested €195.600) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested €165.600) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 84,66%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 38,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|This national proposal aims at crime prevention through work integration and educational activities. The proposal does not demonstrate a |
|thorough knowledge of the policy field. The activities are insufficiently elaborated, the time frame is unrealistic the Technical Annex and |
|Budget Estimate Form are not consistent and are lacking information. The Proposal does not have a discernible added EU value. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Tackles an important problem in many countries at local level. |
|- Applicant's dedication. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- The proposal does not show any awareness of crime prevention and intervention strategy theory and context. |
|- The proposed methodology is inadequately elaborated and is unlikely to have any impact beyond the direct participants; |
|- The proposal does not demonstrate sufficient expertise of substantial relevance; |
|- The budget is insufficiently prepared and does not show value for money; |
|- There is no European added value or relation with EU existing networks |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget lacks clear links to the activities as defined in the Technical Annex |
|The budgeted costs seem randomly selected, also with regards to price and number of units. |
|There are no justification and price offers/quotes for certain elements in the Budget Estimate Form. For instance the number of days and amounts|
|are not justified (for example,, 520 euro per day for a local police officer seems highly exaggerated; while 88 hours of project management for |
|a 28 months project does not seem enough). |
|A total of 30.000 euro is allocated for "gardening articles, painting, plants". Apparently (it cannot be for sure as there is no link with an |
|activity provided in the budget), this is for the work integration activity. It is not explained what these costs add to the objectives of the |
|project, nor how these costs are calculated. |
|36.000 euro are allocated to ‘voucher’; however it remains nebulous what this is about as there is no explanation in the application, nor in the|
|Technical Annex. |
|It is clear that certain costs will have to be made to achieve the goals, but the Applicant fails to make clear and justify the costs for the |
|selected activities. |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002490 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |ASSOCIATION METER ONLUS |
|Project title: |A new European network to support prevention and fight of on-line sexual |
| |exploitation and abuse of children |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |ASOCIATIA GRUPUL DE INTELIGENTA PREVENTIVA (PREVENTIVE INTELLIGENCE GROUP) |
| |RO; |
| |Bulgarian Family Planning and Sexual Health Association (BFPA) BG; |
| |Associazione ISES IT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|CYBER WOLF project objectives have been conceived in order to contribute and implement at best the Specific Programme on the "Prevention of |
|and Fight against Crime. In particular, the project will aim to: |
|(a) identify and exchange “European best practices” in the fight against the illegal use of Internet and use the collected and analyses |
|information, knowledge and experience in the CYBER WOLF participating Member States; |
|(b) develop a “new cooperation model” between relevant security stakeholders and provide them with strategies, techniques and instruments to |
|improve their performance in preventing and fighting crime. This model will be adapted to the local needs and problems of the different local |
|contexts participating in the project; |
|c) organise a European pilot action based on informative sessions, training actions and distribution of informative material in the schools |
|participating in the projects. In these events the parents will be involved also to train them “how to protect their children”. The project |
|will have a duration of 36 months during which two groups of activities will be implemented. The first group will be the “horizontal |
|activities”: project management, dissemination and evaluation that will last all the timeline of the project. In particular: |
|• Project Management: set up of a Steering Committee, communication via Skype and clear definition of the administrative role and tasks of |
|each partner. |
|• Project Dissemination: web-site, press release, information material and project events. |
|• Project Evaluation: questionnaires, interviews and Skype conferences. |
|Then, the second group of activities are the “vertical” ones, and in particular: |
|• Analysis of the local context: analytical, qualitative and qualitative methods. |
|• Identification of the Best Practices: definition of indicators and identification of the best practices. |
|• EU Pilot action: informative sessions, training actions and distribution of informative material in participating schools. Parents as well |
|will be involved to train them on “how to protect their children”. |
|• Workshop on EU policies: external experts dealing with the project issues. |
|• European information and awareness campaign: “action in traditional field” and digital field. |
| |
|By implementing these activities, CYBER WOLF will aim to reach: |
|1. 250 Children and Young people (10 – 17 years old) living in the participating areas in the project; |
|2. 50 Parents of the children and young people involved in the project. |
|3. 5 National authorities dealing with the management of children and young people victims of sexual exploitation by Internet or policy-making|
|on this theme. |
|4. 20 NGOs in charge to implement prevention activities against Illegal use of internet and Child pornography and paedophilia. |
|But, in line with its general objective to prevent illegal use of Internet, in order to guarantee a safe environment for Internet users, to |
|protect children and respect the privacy of citizens, CYBER WOLF final beneficiary will be civil society, as a whole. |
| |
|The project expected results are to analyse the local contexts of the participating countries to investigate the situation of illegal use of |
|internet, to identify best practices in the issues tackled by CYBER WOLF, to implement a European Pilot Action involving schools and parents |
|to make them aware on how to protect children from the illegal use of internet; to involve European stakeholders in workshops to discuss |
|future policies in the field and finally, to reach the widest audience possible and inform it thanks to the information and awareness |
|campaign. |
|In order to achieve all its objectives and to achieve its target groups and final beneficiaries, CYBER WOLF will set up a dissemination |
|strategy. In particular, dissemination actions will start at the beginning of CYBER WOLF’s lifecycle and will follow two lines. On the one |
|hand, dissemination actions on the project activities and its results will be included in all the CYBER WOLF meetings and actions and on the |
|other hand, there will be a traditional approach of setting up an Internet presence. These lines of actions will be complemented by material |
|on the project and for the European information and awareness campaign, n.2 articles on national newspapers to inform the local community |
|about the project, its purposes and results. Finally, aiming at the full exploitation of all the possible directions for dissemination, |
|project partners will also explore the possibility to join events at national, European and international level focused on CYBER WOLF theme |
|domain. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 291.887,44 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 261.887,44 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,72%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 62 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project aims to create and disseminate good practice on prevention and fight against sexual exploitation and abuse of children via the |
|internet, and to organize campaign for children increasing their awareness. Cooperation between the relevant stakeholders is also to be |
|promoted. Generally the subject is important but the project does not seem innovative. Besides the partnership is without law enforcement, which|
|raises doubts as to the practical impact of the project. In addition to that the goals and in particular the measures to fulfil the intentions |
|remain quite unclear. The project contains therefore a considerable risk to fail. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The project is in line with the priorities of the European Union, as the fight against "sexual exploitation of children and illegal use of |
|Internet" has a high priority. It has to be welcomed that the project partners intend to bring all stakeholders in charge together to improve |
|the interdisciplinary collaboration on the local, regional, national and international level. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|Unfortunately the aim of the applicant and the partners involved are a bit unclear. In particular it has to be stated that the application form |
|contains no proper description of the planned measures. No law enforcement agencies are involved as direct partners. Therefore the project risks|
|that the outcomes will not be recognized within the circle of the law enforcement community. Due to the missing expertise of the law enforcement|
|side, the outcomes might be imbalanced or even contain errors. Besides the expectations related to the prospective transfer of the results on |
|the European level are quite unrealistic. |
|In addition to that the project is not innovative and the number of children which are to take part in the pilot programme is low. Moreover the |
|applicant is not aware of other actions and achievements in the area. |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The value-for-money-ratio of the project is quite low, as the applicant is not able to explain the real impact of the planned measures and how |
|the possible findings should be used to reach the announced goals. The staff costs encompass nearly 65% of the total budget. As the application |
|form is offering no detailed overview on the planned measures, it is nearly impossible to assess the appropriateness of the number of staff |
|involved. |
|The costs for travels of project staff are in general proportional to the number of project staff. It has only to be mentioned that some flights|
|are declared with 500€, i.e. 100€ more than the normal rate for flights within Europe. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002494 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |PROVINCIAL POLICE HEADQUARTERS IN SZCZECIN |
|Project title: |Prevention and action against illegal migration, terrorism, slave labour and|
| |trafficking in Human Beings |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PL |
|Duration of the project (months): |16 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The subject of the project will be to implement activities focused on preventing and fighting against crime related to illegal migration, |
|terrorism, slave labour and human trafficking. The project will contribute to strengthening the partnership network of cooperation between |
|authorities and organizations authorized to provide assistance to victims and to protect witnesses of organized crime and terrorism.The |
|Project goals are the followings: |
|-Supporting the coordination and organization of preventive activities aimed at increasing efficiency in combating against the crime related |
|to illegal migration, slave labour, terrorism and human trafficking |
|-Strengthening the cooperation of the institutions responsible for combating and preventing the crime related to illegal migration, slave |
|labour, terrorism and human trafficking |
|-Increasing the awareness and reducing the risks of the crime related to illegal migration, slave labour, terrorism and human trafficking |
|-Exchanging, disseminating and using of information, knowledge and experience of the experts on law enforcement activities in the area of |
|organized crime, trafficking and terrorism |
|-Analysis of the flow of funds generated from trafficking and use them in terrorist activities. |
| |
|The above-mentioned goals will be reached through the implementation of the following activities: |
| |
|1. The organization of the three-day conference (March 2013) with the participation of the experts of the PPH in Szczecin and external |
|experts. The conference plan: |
|1. Day: presentation of the problems the crime experts of illegal migration, terrorism, forced labour and trafficking have and the areas they |
|lack of experience. |
|2. Day: works in groups. The participants will be divided into two groups dealing with the issues related to human trafficking and forced |
|labour and issues related to illegal migration and criminal activities of foreigners (organized crime). |
|3. Day: The presentation of the results of the works in groups |
|Results: develop new solutions to combat the crime: Rule of Conduct for the victims / witnesses of a crime in the process of identification, |
|assistance and international solutions in target field. |
|The conference participants are the representatives of the institutions responsible for combating and preventing crime (50 people). |
| |
|2. Educational-informational campaign with the title „Stop human trafficking, illegal migration and slave Labour. |
|The goals of the activity: |
|- Reach a wide audience |
|- Drow attention to the problem of crime related with illegal migration, forced labour and trafficking |
|- Provide information on the existence of the above mentioned issues, the potential hazard and risk, and increase the awareness and |
|sensitivity of the society. |
|Tools: |
|- Placing billboards with the information on the potential risks related to pursuing paid works. |
|- Placing posters and leaflets in schools, railway stations, and pubs with a key information on the potential risks, and how and where to seek|
|a support |
|- Preparing and broadcasting an advertising spot on TV |
|The implementation period is from May-September 2013. |
| |
|3. The Survey which will be conducted among approximately one thousand people who experienced criminal cases related to illegal migration, |
|forced labour and trafficking. The topic of the survey will be the scale of the phenomena, the directions of migration, social and legal |
|aspects of those issues, the ways to prevent them and "get out" from a criminal situation. The result of the survey will be the development of|
|a report. The timeline for the implementation of this activity is in October 2013-April 2014. |
| |
|4. Project's promotion and dissemination: those activities include a campaign on disseminating the project information and the project |
|results. The planned activities include a conference, promotional materials, newspaper advertisements. Duration: February 2013-May 2014 |
| |
|5. The Project Management: it includes the activities aimed at the proper fulfilment of the project tasks and the administrative activities |
|related to the project settlement and the implementation of the requirements of ISEC guidelines. A project team will be formed to accomplish |
|these tasks. Duration: February 2013-May 2014. |
| |
|The result of the project will be the development of efficient forms of cooperation between the institutions, an ability for rapid and proper |
|response and strengthening the operational and prevention cooperation. The project will also contribute to the development of legal |
|instruments/tools to facilitate the creation of Joint Investigation Team - JIT. Also, so called an Access Path will be worked out - to |
|facilitate and accelerate the mutual and joint action in the implementation of international legal assistance. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 145.012,50 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested €130.511,25 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 38 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project aims to implement activities focused on preventing and fighting against crime related to illegal migration, terrorism, slave labor |
|and human trafficking by organizing a conference, an educational-informational campaign and a survey. This is however a rather wide focus and |
|the interconnections are not demonstrated in the proposal. Further, the proposal fails to convince that the applied methodology will indeed lead|
|to the desired results. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The awareness of the fact that Poland has become a transit country for illicit trafficking and therefore it needs another approach to fight this|
|type of crime. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- the project does not match up to the selected measures; |
|- the methodology is not innovative and not appropriate to reach the objectives; |
|- the proposal does not clearly explain how the objectives will be reached through the proposed actions; |
|- there is little impact to be expected given the way the actions are defined; |
|- the added value at the European level is not demonstrated. |
| |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget is detailed and links to the actions as defined in the technical annex. Some remarks can be made on the costs efficiency of some |
|actions. The value for money for the defined deliverables (conference, campaign and survey) is, however, not particularly high because it |
|remains nebulous how these deliverables add to the objectives. |
|The project management assistance is outsourced for more than 10% of the budget (17.000 euro), which is remarkable as the project is not that |
|complex. These costs should be better justified. Furthermore the survey is outsourced for about 20.000 euro without any information on who will |
|implement this action. Two times 200 euro is budgeted for newspaper advertisements which seems unrealistic for any advertisement with any impact|
|(regardless of the question whether newspaper advertisements are an appropriate methodology to reach the desired objectives) |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002498 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |Y&H PEOPLE UNITED AGAINST CRIME |
|Project title: |Cyber Security Training for Law Enforcement Officers |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |UK |
|Duration of the project (months): |30 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |University College Dublin (UCD) IE; |
| |European Institute Foundation (EI) BG; |
| |Czech Technical University (CTU) CZ; |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |West Yorkshire Police UK; |
| |Academy of the Ministry of Interior of Bulgaria BG; Cumbria Constabulary UK;|
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|CySecT is a partnership incorporating LEA training bodies, universities, LEA cybercrime units and NGO’s. The aim is to develop a common |
|curriculum to bridge the gap between highly specialised cybercrime investigators and non-specialist police personnel who may receive initial |
|reports of cybercrime and who are called on to advise on cybercrime prevention in order to enhance the safety of internet users and businesses|
|in Member States (MS). |
| |
|CySecT is a 30 month project. A minimum of 900 LEA personnel will receive the training during the life of the project |
| |
|Participants will include LEA training personnel who will develop and deliver the train the trainer programme. Additionally specialist |
|cybercrime units will contribute to content, particularly covering the latest threats and modus operandi. The ultimate beneficiaries of the |
|training will be LEA non-specialist personnel who will be able to offer cybercrime prevention advice and be better positioned to respond to |
|the needs of the public regarding ICT security. |
| |
|Objectives |
|• Develop training programme on cybercrime prevention/reduction/evidence preservation for non-specialist officers in line with the Convention |
|on Cybercrime (ETS185) |
|• Improve LEA responses to cybercrime by raising knowledge / skill levels of general personnel |
|• Increase LEA transnational collaboration to develop a common approach to training non-specialist personnel on cybercrime prevention |
|• Develop cyber security training capable of transferring to all MS |
|• Support national & transnational cybercrime reporting platforms |
|• Enable LEA crime prevention officers and other non-specialists to offer accurate and timely advice on cyber security |
| |
|Activities |
|• Conduct a training needs analysis (TNA) to establish current cybercrime prevention training in participating LEAs |
|• Develop a training programme for non-specialist LEA personnel to improve responses to cybercrime |
|• Develop 2 different approaches to the training to ensure maximum accessibility for LEAs |
|• Collaborate with Cybercrime Centre of Excellence (University College Dublin) to develop e-learning platform |
|• Ensure compatibility of training with LEA processes & protocols |
|• Establish partnership protocols & data sharing agreements |
|• Develop a website with capacity & security for LEAs |
| |
|Methodology |
|• Conduct a TNA to audit current non-specialist LEA cybercrime training |
|• Develop cyber security training materials for LEA crime prevention officers and non-specialist staff |
|• Develop a secure website linked to a virtual learning environment |
|• Ensure the training programme is standardised & compliant with other systems/platforms |
|• Test & evaluate the training programme |
|• Develop systems to ensure CySecT is capable of expansion to other MS LEA’s |
|• Organise awareness raising events |
| |
|Results |
|• Cyber security training for LEAs delivered by interactive e-learning methods |
|• Train the trainer package for introduction into LEAs training bodies |
|• Improved awareness & skills regarding cybercrime prevention for non-specialist LEA officers |
|• Improved transnational LEA collaboration, sharing good practice and common approaches |
|• Training programme capable of expansion to other EU MS |
|• A narrowing of the knowledge / skills gap between non-specialist & cybercrime specialist LEA officers |
|• Systems compliant with developing national & transnational cybercrime platforms |
|Dissemination strategy |
| |
|Aims: |
|• Establish CySecT’s credentials and launch the project to all audiences including LEA training bodies, related EU projects, EU |
|decision makers, related stakeholders |
|• Communicate CySecT’s results and outcomes from launch to completion |
|• Conclude with a summary of CySecT’s impact and plans for the roll-out to other end users |
| |
|Target audience: |
|• LEA training bodies |
|• LEA and cybercrime prevention agencies |
|• Further and higher education bodies |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 642.483,11 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 578.234,79) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90% ) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 58,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project proposes training of LE officers in the field of cybercrime. The subject is important for the EU. However, many similar initiatives |
|already exist, also financed by the EU; therefore the project is not innovative. In addition to that, the approach to cybercrime is too general|
|and therefore the expected output of the project shows weaknesses. It is doubtful if this project has a European added value and the project |
|costs are quite high. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|Awareness on cybercrime. |
|Detailed and clearly presented concept of the project. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
| |
|The project is not innovative. |
|The costs, especially staff costs, are high. |
|The deliverables are not concrete enough, difficult to follow and monitor. |
|The EU added value is doubtful. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in budget. The budget contains detailed and precise information and costs are generally |
|relevant. |
|However the staff costs are very high and it seems that the number of persons involved may be unreasonable. On the other hand salaries are |
|generally relevant. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002500 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |CITY OF TRENCIN |
|Project title: |New Approaches in Urban, Juvenile and Environmental Crime Reduction |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |SK |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Ville de Nice FR; |
| |City of Uherské Hradište CZ; |
| |City of Bratislava SK; City of Žilina SK; |
| |City of Banská Bystrica SK; |
| |City of Prešov SK; |
| |City of Martin SK; |
| |An Garda Síochána - Ireland's National Police IE. |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Environmental Security Institut SK |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The main project objective is to stimulate efficient horizontal mechanisms of preventing and combating crime as well as ensuring public order |
|in the EU cities, and to prevent possible incidents of a CBRN nature. |
|The project scope also tries to create efficient tools for multi-sectorial cooperation and coordination among the local authorities, NGOs and |
|national Police Forces of the EU member states in combating urban, juvenile and environmental crime. Individual project activities can meet |
|the programme objective in crime prevention and securing safety and public order. The objectives of the project activities are clearly linked |
|to the objectives of the Annual Work Programme, on the basis of which we intend to create a Good Practices Manual for applying horizontal |
|methods of crime prevention, establish networks of cooperation at European level and efficient tools and techniques of crime prevention in |
|urban areas. Interconnection of Objective b) of the Annual Work Programme and expected outputs of Programme a), b), e) with the activities is |
|obvious, since we are to test, within our project, innovative methods, training and tuition assisted by national Police Forces units as well |
|as Municipal Police units. |
|The outputs are transferrable to other EU countries as part of dissemination and can be multiplicated within regular town twining co-operation|
|among a wide number of EU cities in touch with project partners. Duration of the project is assumed to be 36 months. The main activities are: |
|1) Testing innovative education of Municipal Police officers, 2) Direct exchange of good practices through international internships and |
|seminar, 3) Creating a Good Practices Manual, 4) Horizontal prevention in cities |
|– public exercises of cooperation between Municipal and State Police forces in the presence of the general public, 5) Closing dissemination |
|conference and dissemination seminars, 6) Publicity, 7) Management, monitoring and evaluation of the project. |
|The 349 participants in the activities will be mainly members of Municipal and State Police forces from Slovakia, the Czech Republic, France, |
|Ireland and other EU countries. In addition to them, the activities will be joined by 50 participants from other authorities interacting in |
|ensuring the health and property of citizens. The project target groups include the general public and NGOs. The activities will be attended |
|by 40 representatives of NGOs and 2800 children and young people and at least 700 adult people form general public. |
|The basic approach in the implementation of the project will be a democratic partner dialogue and a qualified management. |
|Expected results of the project are: |
|Result 1 - increased efficiency of municipal police in crime prevention, increased awareness and skills of officers, and tested innovative |
|approaches to prevention of UJE crime |
|Output 1.1: - a created model of innovative education; |
|Deliverable 1.1.1: printed 400 pc of the model of innovative education in 4 languages (100 x 4) |
|Deliverable 1.1.2: - photo of purchased instruments and equipment -20 types; |
|Output 1.2 - 349 police officers involved in the education, 8 training and 2 internships, and 50 persons from other public bodies; |
|Deliverable 1.2.1 - 1155 handed-out certificates of education and 115 of internships; |
|Deliverable 1.2.2 – created methodology for inter-city police co-operation and methodology for co-operation between municipal police and law |
|enforcement agencies |
|Result 2 - established efficient cooperation among municipal and national police forces and good practices disseminated among all partners and|
|participants of final conference |
|Output 2.1 – participation: 46 persons from 23 EU countries and 5 persons from candidate states at closing conference + 26 persons (partners –|
|4 EU countries) |
|Output 2.2 – created and distributed Good Practices Manual |
|Deliverable 2.2.1 – printed 400 pc in 4 languages (100 x 4) |
|Result 3 - raised awareness of citizens on shared responsibility for combating crime. |
|Output 3.1 – participation: 40 represent. of NGOs and at least 700 people at public exercises |
|Output 3.2 – participation: at least 2800 children and young people at public exercises in the school environment |
|Deliverable 3.1: 2 crime prevention advertisements in Slovak nation-wide press, 7 advertisements in regional press, printed 7000 posters, 7000|
|brochures, 7000 leaflets, 7000 pens, 3000 caps for children. |
|More details in Extra Annex X. |
|Good practices and all acquired experiences from the project will be disseminated at EU evel during national seminars and final conference. As|
|an added value, all results will be in any case disseminated during the project implementation and ex-post phase also through existing |
|twinning cooperation established by all project partner´s Cities in different EU countries. Each project partner - City is in permanent |
|connection with at least 5 other EU cities, or thus this is a great opportunity how to spread |
|out and multiplicate all project results and outputs. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 899.673,12 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 809.678,98) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 53 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project-proposal is not very clear and touches upon a series of different issues reaching from juvenile crime, to environmental crimes and |
|eventually response to CBRN-threats. Such a combination is quite unique and poses therefore the question, if the applicant will be able to |
|combine the different methods necessary to reach the goals related with the different topics. The structure and the actual contents of this |
|project proposal are not very clearly explained. The application form leaves instead plenty of question open how the project should be developed|
|in detail. Even if application contains plenty of details on the planned measures like internships and seminars, nearly no precise information |
|on the content and the prospective outcome is provided. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The proposal has a potentially strong European dimension. The project would furthermore contribute to a better understanding of the organisation|
|of public administration in other countries and the work of the staff involved. Sharing of best practice and lessons learned would surely one of|
|the main benefits of the project. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The project-proposal pursues too many different objectives and is therefore unclear and confusing |
|The project costs are oversized. It is therefore offering not the best value-for-money-ratio. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The costs for the project are inadequate and oversized. The project offers therefore only a poor value-for-money-ratio. |
|According to the budget form, 102 staff members are foreseen for a payment by the EU which seems quite too much. In addition to that a huge |
|number of staff shall be "specifically employed" for their project contribution, working mainly only two or three days. Such a procedure would |
|be very unusual. |
|Budgeted travels are only partly needed for the fulfilment of the project. |
|The final "European Conference" seems to be oversized, as the number of participants is likely unrealistic and the costs for the dissemination |
|seem to be oversized, too. |
|The budget forms contain 56.000€ for a language training. It has to be asked for the purpose for such a measure. The expenditure would be |
|unnecessary, as we are talking about a project for staff acting on the local level, not directly involved in international cooperation. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002501 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY |
|Project title: |Analysis of Genetic profile from Traces left at Crime scene |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |FI |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Centro Scienze Forensi IT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Currently, DNA evidence is almost exclusively used in criminal investigations in a comparative manner: a DNA trace found at the crime scene is|
|compared to DNA samples in a DNA register (in countries where such registers exist) or to a DNA sample of a suspect. In investigations where |
|no matches with registered samples are found or in which there are no known suspects, such an approach is not useful. However, scientific |
|literature suggests the possibility of predicting a number of physical characteristics of the perpetrator directly from a DNA trace left at |
|the crime scene (i.e. genetic profiling). These characteristics include the sex of the person, colour (especially red hair) of their hair and |
|eyes as well as the colour of their skin and their ethnic origin. It may also be possible to predict the length and the age of a person based |
|on such traces. When it comes to the state of affairs within the EU, there is no review of how often and how successfully genetic profiling is|
|used by the forensic services in the member countries. Also, there is no review of the current case law and legal regulations regarding |
|genetic profiling in the EU (only the Netherlands have specialised legislation) nor have the ethical issues been comprehensively discussed. |
|Further, there is no comprehensive exposition of the scientific literature on the topic with emphasis on the requirements on the quantity of |
|the DNA trace required for the different types of analyses together with a review of the reliability (i.e. potential error rate) and |
|generalisability of the scientific base for making a particular genetic profiling prediction. The potential of using genetic profiling is |
|immense in terms of making criminal investigations more effective. The general objective of the two-year project is to increase the legally |
|permissible and scientifically based use of genetic profiling with the EU with the consequent result of increasing the effectiveness of |
|criminal investigations. The project relates to OBJECTIVES 4 AND 10 and to expected results 1, 2 and 4 of the call. |
|Review of CURRENT USE of genetic profiling in EU members states. A survey will be sent to all of the EU member states' forensic services to |
|assess the services' past use of genetic profiling techniques, the usefulness of the techniques when they have been used as well as the |
|services' knowledge of the current scientific literature of genetic profiling and their capability of conducting the different analyses |
|described in the literature. |
|Review of the current CASE LAW AND LEGAL REGULATIONS relevant to genetic profiling in EU member states together with an assessment of relevant|
|ethical issues. The relevant legislation and case law will be searched from legal databases, by contacts to faculties of law in the different |
|EU member countries and through contacts with the forensic services in the different countries. |
|Assessment of the POTENTIAL of genetic profiling through retrospective review of solved serious crime cases. A comprehensive review of a |
|sample serious crime cases from the Reparto Investigazioni Scientifici from the Parma section of the Carabinieri will be conducted in order to|
|identify which methods of genetic profiling could have been used considering the traces left at any crime scenes and how much investigative |
|time would have been saved had suspects not fitting a potential genetic profile been excluded from the investigation at the outset. |
|A review of the current SCIENTIFIC findings on genetic profiling and their APPLICABILITY to criminal investigations. The scientific literature|
|on genetic profiling will be summarised per physical characteristic to be predicted (e.g. skin colour, hair colour, age). The reliability of |
|the research will be assessed for each characteristic with special emphasis on the error rates of the prediction and their generalisability to|
|different population contexts. Also, the required DNA traces, the methods of analyses and the costs of the analyses will be described. |
|A SEMINAR allowing the results of the project to be distributed to EU forensic services will be organised in Rome during month 24 of the |
|project. The forensic services will be invited to send a delegate to a seminar that concludes the project. |
|Target group includes the personnel involved in management and planning decisions in EU countries' forensic services. The beneficiaries |
|include victims of crime whose case is solved more efficiently through to genetic profiling and individuals who do not become victims of crime|
|as serial offenders are apprehended before they have the chance to commit new offences. The end products of the project consist of articles in|
|scientific journals and a manual. The project is relevant for all law enforcement |
|agencies with the EU. It will distribute the best practices and promote the use of genetic profiling. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 416.260) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 374.634 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 49,5 points
| |
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The proposal does target the use of genetic profiling by law enforcement of the member states. Although the subject is relevant, the proposal |
|fails to clarify the current initiatives in the EU on this area, does not link to the ENFSI network and runs the risk to duplicate existing |
|efforts. |
|Risks have been not well explained and envisaged by the applicant; hence a realistic risk mitigation strategy is missing. The methodology has |
|not really been described, just generally announced, both in the application form and technical annex. Without a further description of the |
|purpose and way to carry out the activities it is not possible to assess whether this is an adequate methodology to achieve results. Monitoring |
|and evaluation strategy is poorly described, almost non-existent. This is a transnational project in terms of the target groups to be approached|
|in order to come to the publishing of main products of the project. Number of MS involved in the real implementation of the project should have |
|been enlarged in order to have a more international scope. In theory, the project should be easily transferred to other MS at least in terms of |
|sharing conclusions of the project but it is unclear whether on short term DNA profiling as presented by applicant will be possible to be used. |
|Only one MS seems to be active in this area, which is NL. Being so, this country should have been involved in the project as partner or |
|associate partner. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|The strength of the proposal is the sound technical capacity of the applicants. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- unclear methodology |
|- non-awareness of on-going initiatives (applicant fails to describe the state-of-art in the field) |
|- high costs for low number of products |
|- poor conception of the project |
|- unrealistic budget |
|- unclear impact (no indicators) |
|- no long term sustainability |
|- ENFSI and other MS involvement is missing |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget and detailed information is given. Apparently the applicant has tried to meet best|
|value for money reducing staff costs to 3 experts who will be working extra hours during 24 months and will earn almost 100.000 euros. It is |
|however impossible to assess whether they are going work only 2 extra hours per day. |
|In addition to that, only the staff costs of the university are budgeted and not the ones of the involved law enforcement agency, leading to |
|question their involvement in the project and availability. |
|Final conference costs are balanced and coherent to the activity description. But the two trips to ENFS should be revised as 5 members of the |
|staff will be attending to both international meetings. This is not justified, the number should be reduced. Being members of the staff this |
|cost should be placed under heading B in opinion of the evaluator. In addition to that, the number of days for the interim meetings is excessive|
|(i.e. 5 days). |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002502 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |GENERAL INSPECTORATE OF ROMANIAN POLICE |
|Project title: |Virtual Partner |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |RO |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Criminal Intelligence Service Austria (Bundeskriminalamt Osterreich) AT |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Objective: |
|Development of a mechanism which will support the fusion of police owned information and data extracted from open sources at the level of |
|intelligence analysis units of the Romanian Police, in order to provide analytical products to support the general effort of preventing and |
|combating crime. |
|Duration: 36 months |
|Activities: |
|• Starting and Final Conference of the Project (22 Romanian police officers, 3 Austrian representatives) |
|• Study visit in Austria (3days x4Romanian police officers) |
|• Study visit in Romania (3 days x 3 Austrian experts) in order to identify system's functional specifications (Analysis) |
|• Tender dossier |
|• Launching call of tender for selecting the providers for the necessary equipment |
|• Contracting |
|• Providing and delivering hardware for intelligence analysis units |
|• Development and internal testing of the solution at the level of intelligence analysis units |
|• Trainings in Romania (location to be established): |
|(2 trainings x 3 days x12 Romanian analysts/ 1 PIU / 2 strategic analysis Austrian experts ) |
|(1 training x 3 days x 12 Romanian analysts / 1 PIU / 2 OSINT Austrian experts ) |
|• Workshops for elaborating Manuals (training, administration, user) |
|Methodology: |
|I. Starting and Final Conference of the Project (1 day) |
|Presenting the Project's objectives, activities and results and also ensuring the visibility of the EC financing. |
|II. Study visit in Austria (3 days) |
|The aim of the study visit is to identify best practices, exchange experience, to see live dedicated systems and understand how are trained |
|analysts of the Austrian Police. |
|III. Study visit in Romania (3 days) |
|IV. Trainings in Romania (of 3 days/session/12 persons/ 1 PIO) |
|This will be organized for the representatives of the structures involved in the Project in order to learn to operate the new system and share|
|good practices with the partner’s experts. The PIU will make all necessary arrangements for the proper organization of the trainings. The |
|trainings will also be focused on strategic analysis using open source informations. Austrian experts will be invited to participate at the |
|training session. |
|V. Analysis, development, testing and implementation of the solution at intelligence analysis units level. |
|VI. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the project |
|The monitoring of activities will be done permanently. |
|The project manager will make sure that all the activities are accomplished in time and according to the schedule. |
|Decision makers will be permanently informed in order to ensure a smooth implementation, as well as its further sustain ability. |
|Project team: |
|1. Project manager from the applicant (GIRP) - Mihai Manolescu, UCAI, with over 10 years of experience in the field. |
|2. Assistant manager – providing support to the project manager - TBA |
|3. Each partner shall appoint a representative as project coordinator(s). This will respond for coordination of the project. |
|4. Project accountant – responsible for the financial management of the project - TBA |
|5. Project implementation officer - Mihai Bobescu - PIU - vast experience in running grant projects |
|6. Logistic officer - responsible for the logistic activities - in charge with public procurement procedures - TBA |
|7. Analysts - (3 officers within UCAI) |
|8. Jurist – from Juridical Office - signs off for legality all acquisition contracts, |
|9. Spokesperson – from Press Office - drafts press releases/ ensures the visibility of the project. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 282.917 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 253.917) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,75%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 60 points
| |
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The applicant has submitted a proposal which is dedicated to the development of a mechanism which shall support the fusion of police owned |
|information and data extracted from open sources at the level of intelligence analysis units of the Romanian Police. |
|The project is not innovative, as such mechanisms already exist: The Dutch police, to cite just one example, have developed software to do so |
|that they would be willing to share with other MS' law enforcement authorities, and Europol has also developed technologies that serve the same |
|purpose. Therefore, the added value at EU level of having yet another solution being developed is limited. |
|Risks and mitigation strategies are too generally described. |
|Actions reflected in technical annex are showed in the budget, but some activities such as trainings are not concrete enough in technical annex |
|which is leading to difficulties to assess if the number of trainings is adequate for the project goals. The procurement of 75 computers raises |
|some doubts. |
|The project is identified by the applicant as transnational but in fact it seems to be a national project supported by AT partner in very |
|concrete activities such as trainings and study visits. Introducing new technologies to improve LEAs capacities to prevent and tackle organised |
|crime is a high priority in Stockholm Programme and ISS but making profit of open sources intelligence as such should be considered a supporting|
|measure which could help to obtain useful intelligence but not key intelligence. Sustainability of the project is based on the updating and |
|upgrading of the tool but there is no information about how this will be financed. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|- Conformity with ISEC programme and Call, |
|- Coherent planning |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- No real transnationality |
|- Not innovative |
|- The budget foresees high costs in equipment which raises many doubts |
| |
|- Poor risk mitigation strategy |
|- Poor monitoring and evaluation strategies |
|- Poor sustainability |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Budget includes detailed information on functions of the staff and units for the calculations adjusted to RO standards. Depreciation of |
|equipment has been reflected. The costs are calculated following Applicants guide. |
|Some equipment should be further justified in order to assess whether these are going to be used for the purposes of the project. |
|The planned procurement of 75 computers has to be questioned. Only 24 police officers from the Romanian police will take part in the project. |
|Therefore 75 computers don't seem to be needed for the purposes of the project. |
|Conferences costs are well reflected; however one of the conferences could be removed without affecting the general performance of the project. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002508 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |NOBODY'S CHILDREN FOUNDATION |
|Project title: |Safe Childhood - protecting children against sexual abuse and exploitation |
| |and its consequences |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PL |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Children Support Center LT; |
| |Center Against Abuse "Dardedze" LV |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Warsaw City Hall, Department of Social Policy PL; |
| |Civic Rights Ombudsman PL; |
| |Polish Ministry of Justice, Department of |
| |Human Rights PL; |
| |The State Inspectorat for Protection of Children's Rights LV; |
| |Institution of Ombudsperson for Children's Rights of the |
| |Republic of Lithuania LT; |
| |State Child Protection and Adoption Services under the |
| |Ministry of Social Security and Labour LT. |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The key objective of the project is to protect children and adolescents against sexual abuse and to provide child-victims of sexual abuse and |
|their families with professional support. With this goal in mind, entities executing the project will attempt to: 1) further develop and |
|strengthen the existing network of organizations supporting sexually abused children on a national and European level; 2) advance skills and |
|knowledge of professionals working with children and their families; 3) diagnose the problem of sexual abuse from the point of view of |
|professional attitudes, experiences of children and adolescents, as well as |
|legal regulations safeguarding children against abuse; 4) enhance safety of children in residential care and intervention facilities; 5) |
|educate children and adolescents so as to reduce the risk of them being sexually abused and to minimize the consequences of abuse. Project |
|implementation will take 36 months. Activities: 1. Evaluation meetings of project coordinators. 4 two-day meetings bringing together 10 |
|national project coordinators. The meetings are to serve the purpose of monitoring activities in partner countries and performing project |
|evaluation. 2.Council of Experts on Protecting Children-Victims of Crime. Council members – representing institutions and organizations |
|supporting sexually abused children – develop a diagnosis of the situation of child-victims of sexual abuse and propose systemic solutions to |
|improve their circumstances. They will also have their share in project monitoring by issuing opinions on undertaken activities. In the |
|duration of the project, 9 three-hour meetings will be held in each of the 3 countries, 10 experts participating in each. In total: 27 |
|meetings, 81 hours, 30 experts. 3. Direct psychological, social, medical and legal support to sexually abused children, their caregivers and |
|professionals suspecting child abuse. Throughout the project, 2800 psychological consultations will be offered, 1400 legal consults, and 700 |
|medical consults.4. Research on the attitudes and experiences of professionals working with children, as well as children themselves. Studies |
|are to include approx. 2900 children and adolescents, as well as 600 professionals. Obtained data will help diagnose the situation, it will |
|contribute to the development of "Bad touch" campaign, as well as planning of training courses for |
|professionals. Repeating the studies towards the end of the project will make it possible to evaluate project activities. 5. "Bad touch" |
|educational campaign targeting children and adolescents. Campaign will feature: a poster, educational spots, publications and fanpages on |
|networking sites. Young people exposed to campaign message will learn about the threat of sexual abuse and where to find help, should it |
|happen to them. In total, there will be three language versions of the poster, 9 educational spots and 6 publications for children and youth. |
|6. Network of Assistance to Sexually Abused Children. Networks of |
|organizations offering professional support to sexually abused children will be created/strengthened in the course of the project. |
|Involved organizations will have a chance to exchange good practices and - owing to training and supervision envisaged under the project - to |
|increase the quality of psychological help they offer. The Networks are also to develop online databases. In total, 12 two-day training |
|courses will be held, with international experts and 240 participants, as well as 54 3-hour-long seminars on therapeutic work with abused |
|children (intended for 810 participants), 32 supervisions, and 3 internet knowledge bases created. |
|7. We Protect Children. Implementation of strategic approach to child protection and to prevention of violence against children in care |
|institutions and intervention facilities is a program to be carried out in Poland. Institutions volunteering for program participation will |
|implement child protection standards; their employees and children in their care will be educated on the problem of sexual abuse. In the |
|future, the same program is to be implemented by partner organizations, its methodology will be explained in the course of project meetings. A|
|manual on safe organization will be created in 2 language versions (PL, EN), there will be 8 training cycles (20 hours and 160 participants |
|each), 40 institutions will seek to obtain a certificate confirming that they meet said standards. |
|8. International conference "Helping children – victims of crime” in 2015. Two days of lectures and workshops will give 600 professionals a |
|chance to advance their skills and to network with colleagues.9. Developing potential of partner organizations. In the framework of the |
|project, 10 employees of organizations involved in project execution will participate in a 4-day ISPCAN conference devoted to the topic of |
|child abuse; 10 individuals will go for a study visit to a Swedish organization offering therapy |
|to sexually abused children. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 655.295,82) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 589.766,24) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90% ) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 58 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project offers a combination of direct assistance, research, social campaign and education for professional with the aim to combat and |
|prevent child abuse in three member states. These activities are however already existing and apart from some transnational cooperation and a |
|different approach the project is not really innovative but more a continuation of already existing activities. The applicant does not seem to |
|be aware of on-going initiatives. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The proposal is properly written and applies appropriate methodology |
|- The applicant and partners have considerable experience in the particular field |
|- The topic dealt with is very relevant. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Unsure impact on other Member States |
|- Lack of monitoring strategy |
|- Lack of innovative elements |
|- Undemonstrated added value at EU level |
|-Low value for money (As the project is in fact a continuation of activities that the applicant (and partner organisations) already undertake |
|within their normal tasks). |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget is sufficiently detailed and links to the planned activities. However some specific remarks are made below: |
|1) Almost 50% of the proposed budget is allocated to staff costs and in particular for activities that are already part of the applicant and |
|partners usual work. |
|2) The visit to Sweden for capacity building is not justified. It is not mentioned at all in the application and only briefly without |
|explanation in the technical annex. It is not demonstrated that the costs are being spend within the objective of the project. |
|3) It is not justified why 10 employees of the project organizations should participate in a 4-day ISPCAN conference devoted to the topic of |
|child abuse instead of 1 person per organization who would then report back. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002510 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |CNCA |
|Project title: |New threats and challenges - developments in training and improving |
| |co-operation anti-trafficking strategies |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |A.S.G.I Associazione Studi Giuridici sull'immigrazione (IT) |
| |Muicipality of Hernissos (EL) |
| |Tampep (IT) |
| |Aretusa (BG) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The goals of the project are: |
|the definition of policies to fight human trafficking and to provide assistance on a national and transnational level, adopted and sustained |
|by governmental institutions the programming and realization of a countering and approaching strategy shared on a horizontal level between |
|institutes of different competency and nature the improvement of the expertise of operators of different competency and nature |
|The project will last 36 months |
|The main activities of the project are: |
|research action to point out new elements through which the phenomenon of trafficking occurs in its different implications; the research will |
|interactively investigate in partnership the aspects into which the phenomenon has evolved and changed, duration of the action: 12 months |
|training and exchange of sound practices for the updating of the models of intervention and exchange of the standard procedures: realization |
|of 3 training workshops for each country involved and realization of 1 residential seminary of 4 days each, in every country involved: |
|duration of the action: 16 months the build-up and establishment of national and transnational platforms to support the realization of |
|national anti-trafficking plans and to promote partnered national and local policies. Stable implementation of national and regional tables |
|for the programming of actions and their coordination, with filing and issuance of operational multi-agency protocols: duration of the action:|
|24 months |
|Transversal actions: |
|Project governance (coordination, administrative and accounting management, evaluation) : 36 months |
|Communication, dissemination, and mainstreaming: 36 months |
|Actors of different background and training will participate in the realization: |
|Representatives of governmental institutes, of public administrations, of social-private institutes, policy makers, law enforcement, |
|magistrates, other professionals |
|1) research: It is foreseen that 350 operators will be involved through the research, acting as privileged witnesses |
|2) Training and exchanges: 250 operators |
|3) National platforms: 600 persons |
|4) Dissemination and communication: diffusion of the research: 2500 persons |
|Social platform: 3,000 addresses |
|Mainistreaming through the Aretusa network: 1.000 contacts |
|Final seminary: 200 persons |
|The project is supported by a partnered methodology, aimed at promoting the greatest number of resources and at acquainting and aggregating |
|the greatest number of forces around the promotion of policies to fight human trafficking, with an incremental structure in the quality and |
|quantity related aspects. The study and the analysis of the data represent the know-how basis through which the policies are to be |
|re-organised |
|The expected results are the adoption or the reassessment of national anti-trafficking plans jointly formed in shared manner, and adopted on a|
|national and regional level, the improvement of the effectiveness of the countering policies and the review of receptive systems in relation |
|to the different needs of the victims |
|a more competent approach in the realization of the interventions and in the approach to policies |
|The dissemination activity is founded on the combined adoption of several tools: |
|1) The realization of specific media of diffusion, such as the integrate research report, which will be prepared in English, and the |
|realization of a research abstract in the original language for each of the participating countries, to ensure a widespread diffusion |
|2) The adoption of web tools linked to existent sites of the partners and of the project associates |
|3) The involvement of a wide number of stakeholders through the realization of six exchange seminaries and of the final seminary |
|4) The use of the Press Office of the CNCA (National Coordination of Shelter Communities) to amplify the project's resonance |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 486.232) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 437.599,80) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 54 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project proposal is in the line with priorities of the call for proposal and the Internal security strategy. The main objectives of the |
|project, even though they are not completely clear, are in conformity with objectives of ISEC program. Expected results from general point of |
|view are appropriately designed and follow up the recent European initiatives; however they have only limited impact on south EU territory. |
|Selected target groups are in conformity with ISEC strategy; however it is not clear how they will take part to the project. |
|Generally speaking, the actions are well selected, however the details are not provided clearly within the technical annex. The evaluation |
|strategy is sufficiently described. |
|The project proposal doesn’t represent a special innovative way of anti-trafficking approach. |
|The project idea could be a useful tool with strong impact on ISEC, under the condition of reviewing some important parts: Activities |
|innovation, Result, outputs and deliverables specification and budget break-down. If submitting reviewed project proposal in the future, it is |
|strongly recommended to set up quantitative and qualitative indicators of results, outputs and deliverables based on how the impact will be |
|concretely evaluated at target groups' and beneficiaries´ level. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The topic is within the priorities. |
|- Relevant risks identified and relevant mitigation strategy |
|- Project team is experienced |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|- The description is often general, therefore there are doubts concerning the results and methodology. |
|- The project is not innovative |
|- The number of participants is confusing therefore it is very difficult to understand and to compare the numbers with budget and impacts. |
|- There is insufficient definition of the objectives within the application form and technical annex: all activities’ aims are insufficiently |
|set-up and are not comprehensible |
|- The outputs and deliverables are not clear and the quantification is missing |
|- Best value for money is not demonstrated. The number of days in total /experts/ related to project tasks is too high. |
|- No direct impact to large scale of EU territory. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Most of the costs are allocated to project staff. There are too many project coordinators (local coordinators and local project officers) or |
|they have been attributed together too many days for fulfilment of the project tasks. |
|All meetings proposed by applicants are important in order to implement planned activities. DSA and flight costs are appropriately proposed |
|according to guide for applicants. |
|Information about the number of training days is missing which makes it difficult to calculate the real expenses. |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002517 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |TILBURG UNIVERSITY |
|Project title: |Facilitating Corporate Social Responsibility in the field of Human |
| |Trafficking |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |16 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Gabinet d'Estudes Sociales ES; |
| |Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, University Vienna (BIM) AT; |
| |Centre for equal opportunities and against racism, Belgium (CGGK) BE; |
| |Danish Centre Against Human Trafficking DK; University Liverpool (United |
| |Kingdom) UK; |
| |University Ca'Foscari Venice IT. |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|So far Prevention of human trafficking (THB) for labour exploitation has been significantly underexposed in research, as opposed to |
|Prosecution of perpetrators and Protection of victims (3 P's). The proposed research seeks to prevent human trafficking by translating the UN |
|Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the UNGP) in the field of THB in three sectors (agriculture, construction and tourism/hotel).|
|These guiding principles are built on the following three pillars: i) state duty to protect against human rights abuses ii) corporate |
|responsibility to respect human rights iii) access by victims to effective remedy. The main focus of this 16 months project is on the second |
|pillar, which means a company's responsibility to avoid causing or contributing to THB through its own activities or activities in the supply |
|chain, and to address such impacts when they occur. To that aim the guiding principles will be translated and operationalized in sector |
|specific guides which are tailor made for the seven countries. Although the focus is on the second pillar of framework, it links to the |
|obligations to Prosecute and Protect, and elaborates on the first pillar of the state duty to protect against human rights abuses (first |
|pillar: the state duty to protect). |
| |
|Central research question |
|How can the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the guiding principles for businesses to respect human rights be translated |
|to prevent THB in certain business sectors, building upon best practices already adopted by companies operating in those sectors? |
| |
|Methodology |
|Three phases: |
|1. Framing corporate responsibility to respect human rights for the prevention of THB |
|The guiding principles (especially 17-21) are further defined and adapted to the context of THB in general and to prevention of THB in |
|particular. A desk research is conducted of policy documents, human rights standards, relevant publications of scholars, and policy documents |
|of relevant corporations. The ius cogens character of the prohibition of slavery(-like) practices and the state duty to protect are taken into|
|account when examining corporate responsibility as a vehicle to prevent THB. Results will be published in an article. |
|2. Operationalization in three sectors (agriculture, construction, tourism/hotels) |
|This will be the main part or the research. The UNGP underline the need for a sector-specific approach. Based on the article, a mapping of the|
|sectors, relevant achievements and experiences as well as interviews with stakeholders, parameters for collecting data and key issues for |
|effective preventing policies by corporations in these sectors are defined. These will be integrated and translated in a practical sector |
|specific guide. The guide will be designed to facilitate corporations in the selected sectors in discharge of their responsibility to respect.|
|In each of the seven participating states one sector will be analyzed meaning that a sector is analyzed in at least two states. This enables |
|the researchers to compare results and to support each other in the research. Before the final guide will be drafted it will be discussed with|
|all the stakeholders in the country in that specific sector. |
|3. Implementation and application |
|Based on the stakeholders meeting the guide is further refined and developed. The final guide including the parameters and key issues is |
|presented during a workshop with the relevant companies in the sector. During this workshop possibilities for implementation are discussed and|
|concrete agreements are made. In a follow-up meeting the researcher explores to what extent the guide was implemented in the particular |
|company, what problems were encountered, and what the positive experiences are. In this follow-up, it is measured to what extent the |
|corporations in a particular sector have sought to prevent THB in the production and distribution of their products and/or services. |
| |
|Results |
|- (Scientific) article on operationalization of the UNGP in the field of THB published in well known and broadly read journal |
|- Seven documents with the analysis and mapping of one of the three sectors in a participating country |
|- Awareness raising for THB sensitive policy and network building among stakeholders in a specific sector |
|-- Guide including parameters and key issues as well as practical guidelines for corporations to conduct THB preventive policy |
| |
|Dissemination: |
|The results per sector will be made public through publications in specialist journals, including the names of the relevant corporations. We |
|consider a ranking of the participating corporations including an award for the corporation that is performing best. |
| |
|Participants: |
|The project consists of 7 partners, specialists in the field of CSR, labour migration and THB both at practical and academic level. |
|The consortium includes all relevant expertise and through three project meetings this expertise will be shared to achieve the maximal result.|
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 425.633,21) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 383.069,99) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: N/A
|REASONS: |
| |
|Already awarded under Call for proposals THB 2011 – project 1962 |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002526 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |REGIONAL INSPECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION |
|Project title: |Preventing and combating international crime in the area of waste management|
| |and pollution |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PL |
|Duration of the project (months): |16 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The subject of the project is the implementation of activities related to preventing and fighting crime in the illegal activities of |
|environmental and strengthening the partnership networks between authorities and organizations authorized to detect and counteract the effects|
|of environmental crime. |
|Project objectives: supporting coordinated and organizational preventive measures aimed at increasing efficiency in the fight against |
|environmental crime; combating the gray market in and cross-border movement of waste, electronic waste management, combating the effects of |
|illegal disposal of sewage and waste into the waters and lakes, exchange, promotion and use of information, knowledge and experience of |
|experts in the activities of the institutions responsible for environmental protection and detection of crime related to it. |
|Activities: |
|1. Specialized one-day trainings (April 2013-June 2014). Series of nine different courses are planned to be conducted on the following topics:|
|• fighting the gray market in the dismantling of end of life vehicles - 11 editions/series, |
|• fighting the gray market in the area of transboundary movements of wastes - 2 editions/series, |
|• combating the effects of illegal disposal of sewage and waste into the waters and lakes - 6 editions/series, |
|• fighting the gray market in the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment - 10 editions/series, |
|• monitoring and control activity of air pollution - 2 editions/series, |
|• significant environmental pollution (water, earth and air), including in connection with the events of a major accident – 5 editions/series,|
|• preventing pollution of waste, elimination of illegal dumping, 8 editions/series, |
|• preventing and fighting illegal activities in the processing and management of waste products from the meat industry – 1 editions/series, |
|• reducing the environmental pollution associated with improper handling of waste and liquid impurities - 10 editions/series, |
| |
|The target group includes representatives from the private sector and environmental authorities and departments working with them. Totally |
|1360 people. Place: Poznan, Konin, Kalisz, Leszno, Pila. The aim of training is to work out a common code of conduct and operating model, to |
|define responsibilities for various services and to work out the mechanisms of informing each other about any irregularities. The trainings |
|will give an opportunity to exchange knowledge and share experience in preventing and combating illegal activities in the matter of |
|international shipments of waste and environmentally hazardous materials. In addition, the effect of the publication will be to develop the |
|cooperation of entities responsible for the environment protection. |
|2. Five trainings (11 series/editions), connected with terrain and laboratory exercises for employees of RIEP. Scope of trainings: |
|• identification of the composition of unknown chemical pollutants in ground and water, |
|• Determination of hazardous substances in the water system, |
|• sources of funding legal vehicles dismantling station and facilities for electronic wastes processing, |
|• legal conditions of the gray market functioning, |
|• Limitation of the environmental impact of gray market. |
|The aim is to improve professional qualifications of RIEP Laboratory employees, monitoring department, department of inspections that will |
|result in increase the effectiveness of environmental crime detection (300 people). Place: Poznan. |
|Completion date: September 2013-May 2014. |
|3. Project's promotion and dissemination: those activities include a campaign on disseminating the project information and the project |
|results. The planned activities include the organization of conference, promotional materials, newspaper advertisements, translation and |
|distribution publication to EU countries. At the end of the project there will be organized a conference summarizing the project. Duration: |
|April 2013–July 2014. |
|4.The Project Management: it includes the activities aimed at the proper fulfillment of the project tasks and the administrative activities |
|related to the project settlement and the implementation of the requirements of ISEC guidelines. A project team will be formed to accomplish |
|these tasks. Duration: April 2013-July 2014. |
|The result of the project will be the development of efficient forms of cooperation between the institutions, an ability for rapid and proper |
|response and strengthening the operational and prevention cooperation. The project will also contribute to the development of procedures to |
|facilitate the creation of joint investigation team. |
|Scheduled activities will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities in the matter of entities that violate the regulations |
|on environmental protection, and thus increase safety in the region. Results of the project will be disseminated among domestic and foreign |
|institutions. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 155.745,30 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 140.170,77 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 60 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The proposal targets environmental crime in a specific area in Poland and is as such relevant and important. |
|However it should increase awareness, identify respective responsibilities of public and private bodies, enhance capacity to detect criminal |
|activities in the field and prepare for improved cooperation. Because of its weak technical coherence it is not deemed to achieve its results |
|and have any added-value in terms of EU member states and policies. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Topicality of subject |
|- Sustainability of project |
|- Development of public-private partnerships |
|- Delivery of hands-on actions (e.g. trainings) |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|The weaknesses of the proposal are mainly its lack of quantified problem analysis in the targeted area, lacking indicators in terms of, for |
|instance, increased environmental crime investigations and lack of involvement of relevant EU networks such as the IMPEL-network. The project is|
|not expected to deliver a result that can be transferred at EU level. The importance of subcontracting also raises some issues. |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget, however not all costs are the most economical solution (e.g. buying projectors |
|and microphones instead of renting them and hiring a consultant to assist project management are not value for money). |
|The staff costs are reasonable although the used units are not always that clear (e.g. months, package and tasks are used). In addition to |
|that, the number of persons involved in coordination and administrative team is perhaps oversized. |
|A consultant is hired to assist project management - this is not justified as a cost as the applicant has this type of know-how inside the |
|organisation and could hire staff for the same price. There is a risk that subcontracting covers a large part of core activities. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002528 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |RECREATIONAL&CULTURAL ITALIAN ASSOCIAT. |
|Project title: |TRAC-T - Training and Awareness-raising Campaign to fight Trafficking |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |18 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |CDIE Bulgaria (BG) |
| |Fondazione Parada (RO) |
| |Ligue de l'Ensignement (FR) |
| |Inizjamed (MT) |
| |Libera - Associazioni, nomi e numeri contro le mafie (IT) |
| |Flare Network (IT) |
| |C.d.I.e. Centro di Iniziativa Europea (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Astra (Serbia) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Objectives: |
|• To raise public awareness and to increase the attention to the phenomena of trafficking for sexual and labor exploitation, with respect to |
|the fight against the stigmatization of the victims; |
|• To identify best practices for the recognizing, monitoring, prevention and fight against human trafficking in order to propose policies, |
|programs and strategies to the attention of national and European policy makers; |
|• To establish an international network to facilitate the exchange of experiences, knowledge and best practices among the project partners, |
|other public and private organizations and stakeholders on trafficking in human-beings; |
|• To provide ad hoc training to social workers who come into contact with victims or potential victims of trafficking improving the quality of|
|their methodology, tools and practices of protection and social inclusion (particularly of woman and children), with respect to: trafficking |
|for prostitution; trafficking for labor exploitation in agriculture, seasonal work, construction, tourism; trafficking for child exploitation;|
|trafficking for domestic labor and care exploitation; |
| |
|Duration: 18 months. |
| |
|Activities: |
|1. Guidelines elaboration in fight against the phenomena of human trafficking, victim protection and inclusion in all countries involved in |
|the project |
|2. Anti-trafficking Caravan |
|2.1. Public event: presentation of Guidelines handbook, policies and strategy against the trafficking (Italy) |
|2.2. Workshop on trafficking for labor exploitation in agriculture, seasonal work, construction (France) |
|2.3. Workshop on trafficking for child exploitation (Romania) |
|2.4. Workshop on trafficking for prostitution exploitation (Bulgaria) |
|2.5. Italian Antitrafficking Caravan (6 events) |
|2.6. International Conference in Cecina (during the Antiracist Meeting) |
|2.7. Workshop on trafficking for domestic labor and care exploitation (Italy - Puglia) |
|2.8. Workshop on trafficking for labor exploitation in tourism sector (Malta) |
|3. Working Camp (15 Days) |
|4. Final Conference in Bruxelles |
|5. Communication and dissemination |
| |
|Nr. of partecipants: 225 directly involved (partners network) plus stakeholders/ Type of partecipants: Project partners Staff, Potential |
|victims of trafficking, migrants, women, youth, public administrators, legislators, politicians, trade union, social workers, media |
|professionals, entrepreneurs, teachers, policy makers. About 1000 participants to the public events realized during antitrafficking caravan. |
| |
|Methodology: innovative methods for awareness raising, advocacy tools and empowerment, participatory techniques, peer-to peer education and |
|"learning by doing" for the workcamp activity. |
| |
|Expected results per activity: |
|1. Results: involvement of 20 partecipants at least among project partners |
|Outputs: handbook on best practices and dissemination contents |
|2. Results: involvement of at least 1.300 participants |
|Outputs; informative materials, posters, video on the caravan, didactic materials |
|3. Results: involvement of at least 20 participants |
|Outputs: final report and 1 multimedial support (videoreport) |
|4. Results: involvement of at least 30 participants |
|Outputs: informative materials |
|5. Results: at least 50 articles on media, at least 100 access to project website page weekly. |
|Outputs: communication plan, project web pages on partners websites, project brochures, reports, informative materials |
| |
|Dissemination |
|Partners disseminate project results through their communication channels, their websites, press conferences, public international |
|conferences, anti-trafficking caravan, networking opportunities, partners participation to external events/ conferences on the topics. The |
|activity targets an estimated nr. of 5.000 persons. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 487.921,80) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 438.803,30) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,93%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 61,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project is to organize awareness campaign on THB and to prepare a handbook concerning the problem. A conference is also to be organized. The|
|topic is a priority for the EU but some deliverables and outputs were described only in general terms. The planned measures could be more |
|concrete. In spite of the involvement of different EU countries, the project doesn't have a clear European dimension. |
|The costs are quite high as for a project like this and in addition to that, the project offers furthermore a poor value-for-money ratio. |
|Additionally it has to be stated, that the expectations of the applicant in relation to the participation of law enforcement agencies, might not|
|come true as the authorities are not directly involved as project partners. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Clearly presented idea. |
|- Topic is within the priorities. |
|- The project proposal shows its original innovative basis in different aspects (anti-trafficking caravan, working camp, etc.). |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Poor value-for-money-ratio (too many staff members / too high travel costs) |
|- Scope of the project is too wide and outputs not concrete enough |
|- Confusion between outputs/deliverables and results in the Application and in the Technical Annex |
|- Lack of clear and concrete mention of measureable indicators of the results |
|- No law enforcement/public bodies involvement |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The whole budget calculation is not clearly and precisely developed. Some parts of the budget form are not consistent with the Technical Annex -|
|for example: conference package in Brussels for 50 participants (in technical annex = 30 participants). In addition to that, there is a |
|discrepancy in the numeration of the activities between the budget estimate form and technical annex. |
|The staff costs are very high as the number of people involved is too high, especially from the Applicant/Coordinator's side. Because of this, |
|also the costs budgeted for travels are excessive and, in addition to that, not duly motivated. The value-for-money ratio is quite poor. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002529 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |FACULTY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LISBON |
|Project title: |Chemical Traceability System of Explosives and Precursors |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Portuguese Judiciary Police (PJ) (PT) |
| |Portuguese Public Security Police (PSP) (PT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The illegal acquisition and use of explosives, particularly for terrorist acts, presents a serious risk to the European population. |
|Since this threat is now more present and eminent than ever, new strategies and tools to fight these crimes must be developed. |
|The relevance in identifying the origin of explosives used in crimes with the limitations and drawbacks of the available tools, suggests that |
|further developments are needed in this area. The marking of products, mandatory by Directive 2008/43/EC, can be destroyed in an explosion, |
|erased or circumvented by criminals. The addition of identification taggants to explosives, in use by some countries outside EU, increases |
|production costs and can change the explosive’s performance and safety. Reliable explosive identification tools are particularly useful for |
|bomb attack investigations, as well as monitoring the explosive trade market. They are essential to fight black market trade of these |
|substances. |
|This project proposes a complementary tool to explosives marking, imposed by Directive 2008/43/EC. This tool will allow the identification of |
|such products by a characteristic chemical fingerprint obtained from forensic analysis. This tool can be used to identify the explosive's |
|origin from pre and post blast scenarios. A database will be developed and updated with imagiological and chemical characteristics of |
|explosives and precursors before and after blast. Identification of the characteristic chemical pattern of all items will be stored in this |
|database. This innovative database will be developed with explosives and precursors |
|traded in Portugal, namely, all explosive products under the scope of directive 93/15/EEC, exception made for ammunitions and in site |
|manufactured products, pyrotechnic articles mentioned in the last line of table 2.2.1.1.7.5 of the ADR 2011 (European Agreement concerning the|
|International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road), ammonium nitrate based fertilizers and improvised explosive devices (IED’s). |
|Public Security Police (PSP), national regulator of explosive production and commerce, assisted by Judiciary Police (PJ), will collect samples|
|and take imagiological records of explosives and precursors on site. Samples will be transported to the Scientific Police Laboratory (LPC-PJ) |
|where they will be prepared for subsequent chemical characterisation in LPC- PJ and FCUL laboratories. All explosives and precursors will be |
|characterised by complementary analytical techniques. The collected data will be stored in a database managed by PJ and PSP to guarantee |
|commercial product information confidentiality. A time span of 36 months is foreseen for project completion. |
|The Team Project, composed by seven members (5 FCUL, 1 PJ and 1 PSP), is particularly suited to accomplishing the project’s objectives. The |
|PSP’s experience in regulating the explosive sector (trade and use) and the PJ know-how in the chemical identification of these substances are|
|complemented with FCUL competence in assessing analytical evaluations reliability. |
|Recent successful collaboration between FCUL and PJ in explosive analysis, arson detection and self-defence weapons assessment of compliance |
|with legislation guarantees the success of the analytical part of the work. This project will further strengthen the collaboration between the|
|three members (PSP, PJ and FCUL) with clear benefits in the fight against crime. At the end of this work, the developed database for |
|identifying the origin of explosives and precursors traded in Portugal will be finalized and ready to be used, at a national level, by PJ and |
|PSP. At this stage, both law enforcement bodies will be autonomous and have the resources needed for using and updating the database with new |
|materials. A database user’s course for the PJ and PSP staff will be organised. |
|This project meets the strategic objectives and provisions at EU level, specifically those contained in the EU Action Plan on Enhancing the |
|Security of Explosives, adopted by the Council on 18 April 2008. In particular, they will be strengthened, by the Blast-IED.pt database, the |
|Action Plan measures 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.4.2 and 1.2.2 which, respectively, establish an Early Warning System, a European Bomb Data System, and a |
|System for the Identification and Traceability of Explosives for Civil Uses, and also proposes research on Improvised Explosive Devices and |
|their properties. |
|The dissemination, at an international level, of the experience in developing and managing the database will be performed in an international |
|workshop to be organised in the third year of the project. The database will be readily made available to Europol through official channels. |
|The developed strategy for building a database with characteristic chemical fingerprints of explosives and precursors will also be presented |
|to foreign expert partners. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 473.894,91) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 426.505,41 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 46,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The proposal is scientific of nature, researching an alternative approach to determine the origin of explosives whose markers are destroyed in a|
|blast and aiming to share it with Member States. It is unclear what its added value is at European level as the project fails to describe the |
|state of art in the area, the size of the problem in the targeted area (i.e. how often are the markers destroyed during a blast) and does not |
|involve the member states sufficiently in terms of disseminating the results and allowing to transfer them. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Implementation of the EU Action Plan on Explosives |
|- Partnership is relevant in terms of the ISEC-programme as it includes law enforcement |
|- Strong technical capacity of the applicant. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Weak conception and methodology |
|- Equipment driven budget |
|- Insufficient dissemination and continuation strategy. |
|- Doubtful EU added value |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Not all actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget. The main part of the budget goes to equipment and consumables (around 70%), but no |
|justification is given on why this is the most cost efficient solution. (For example, a quote for renting the equipment is included, but it does|
|not allow verifying whether this is the most cost-efficient solution as the price of buying the equipment is not mentioned.) |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002533 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |FAIRWORK |
|Project title: |3-Way Empowerment Project: sexual health, male victims of sexual |
| |exploitation and religion |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Stichting Humanitas Rotterdam, Prostitutie Maatschappelijk Werk (NL) |
| |Jade Zorggroep (NL) |
| |Vieja-Utrecht (NL) |
| |Fier Fryslan (NL) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The main objective of our project is to develop innovative methods in the field of sexual health, male victims and religion, in order to |
|contribute to the empowerment of trafficking victims. By involving professionals who work with trafficked persons and documenting the |
|experience in methodologies, tools and training designs, a multiplier effect at the national and European level will be prepared. The duration|
|of the project is 24 months, in which for each issue the following methodology will be implemented: further research, development of a method,|
|experimentation in the field, evaluation, definition and documentation |
|of best practices and elaboration of a training design. |
|Sexual health Objective: improving sexual health of victims of human trafficking bydeveloping a method to work on both sex education and |
|sexual assertiveness Activities: together with three social assistance organisations from three different regions in the Netherlands develop |
|and experiment with a series of methods for sex education and sexual assertiveness, in order to determine the most suitable method to address |
|this issue with the target group. Existing materials will be adapted to the needs and backgrounds of trafficked persons, after evaluation good|
|practices will be identified and a training design for professionals on the issue of sexuality and sexual health will be developed. |
|Participants: in total a number of at least 100 trafficked persons will participate directly in the project, as well as approximately 25 |
|professionals, mainly social workers. |
|Expected results: improvement of sexual health of the direct participants; good practices documented in a manual to address the issue of |
|sexual health with trafficked persons; a training design for professionals on the issue; Dissemination: manual and training design to other |
|professionals in the Netherlands; translation into English in order to spread within Europe through the GAATW network. |
|Male victims of sexual exploitation Objective: understanding the needs of male victims of sexual exploitation, developing a method to work |
|with this group focussed on their empowerment. |
|Activities: together with two social assistance organisations in two different regions, carrying out research among the target group and |
|professionals working with them, by conducting interviews, analysing case studies and files. The results will be written down in a short |
|report on the issue, |
|Participants: at least 15 male victims, 10 professionals and 25 indirect participants through desk research on their cases. |
|Expected results: report on demands and needs of male trafficked persons; a training design for professionals and a policy paper for advocacy |
|purposes. |
|Dissemination: media attention on the issue, advocacy towards national policymakers, training of professionals, and translation of the |
|material in English to be spread within Europe among our network partners and through EU. |
|Religious beliefs and backgrounds Objective: increase the level of empowerment of trafficked persons by taking into account their religious |
|beliefs and background and improve the contact between trafficked person and professionals working with them Activities: Research on the |
|different religious beliefs of trafficked persons (voodoo, orthodox, Chinese religions and others) and how these influence their trafficking |
|experiences and their empowerment process afterwards, interviews with both trafficking victims and professionals. Issues such as prostitution,|
|gender, sexuality, abuse, destiny, family role and personal agency will be addressed. The results will be written down in a short report, with|
|concrete tools for professionals to address the issue with the target group Participants: researchers from university, 10 trafficking victims,|
|10 professionals and 15 indirect participants through desk research of their cases. |
|Expected results: research report with cultural-religious information on at least six countries of origin of trafficking victims, leaflet on |
|the issue for professionals and a training design for professionals Dissemination: media attention, leaflet to be spread among professionals |
|in the Netherlands and in other European countries, By addressing these three issues we work on the prevention of tertiairy victimisation, |
|promote contact between victims and professionals an improve the protection provided to trafficking victims. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 308.807 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 277.926) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 64,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project proposal presents a very interesting and important idea with innovative context to be implemented, however the project content and |
|main objective are not in all parts completely in line with ISEC programme or is not clearly explained by applicant. For example, the specific |
|expected result “improvement of sexual health of victims of trafficking” cannot be considered an eligible result as it doesn’t match with ISEC |
|priorities and ISEC expected outcomes. The support to victims of THB must correlate with Directive of the EP and of the Council 2010/0065. If |
|this is the case of foreseen activities of the project, it should have been clearly mentioned in the technical annex. |
|In general, some activities are well drowned-up and some are not clear. Evaluation is mentioned by applicant, but monitoring is not a part of |
|the methodology described in the Application Form. Budget break-down is well set-up. If submitting reviewed project proposal in the future, it |
|is strongly recommended to set up the quantitative indicators of results, outputs and deliverables based on what the applicant will be able |
|concretely evaluate the project impact at target groups and beneficiaries´ level. |
|It has to be noted that the content of this Application is very similar to already funded actions (as well as Application 2536 submitted by the |
|same Applicant) therefore the risk of duplication would be high. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The idea is clearly presented. |
|- The topic is within the priorities. |
|- There is a potential of transferability at EU level. |
|- The Applicant refers to its own experiences from the field and from previous project supported by different national and international donors |
|(EC included – DAPHNE, Equal, etc.). |
|- The applicant is quite well experienced. |
|- Concerning the risks and mitigation strategies, the applicant take into the consideration the main potential risks and set-up the relevant |
|mitigation strategies. |
|- Sustainability of the project from organizational/tools and financial point of view is quite well developed. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- The expected results from the Application form do not fit with expected results from the technical annex. |
|- The specific (SMART) objectives set-up under the section 2.2.2 are not the objectives but outputs. |
|- The content and concept of activities are not clear. |
|- Deliverables are missing almost in all technical annex, especially in the frame of the trainings. Almost all deliverables described by |
|applicant in the section of the 2.2.1 of the Application Form are not deliverables but outputs and results. |
|- The staff costs are relatively high. The number of victims is relatively low which may have impact on the quality of results. |
|- Weak dissemination strategy at the international level - “after the project we hope to spread results to European partners as well“ |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in budget which contains detailed and precise information. The budget break-down is well |
|set-up; however the market research for subcontracting is missing. |
|Only one offer per expense is submitted and although the service provider offer foresees 300 EUR per day, the applicant has foreseen 1000 EUR |
|per day within the budget form. No offers have been submitted for financial management and accounting. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002536 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |FAIRWORK |
|Project title: |Enough! Modern slavery still exists |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Objectives: |
|Raise awareness among young people (18-25 years) about modern day slavery. To increase their ability to identify of (potential) victims and to|
|report the signs of human trafficking. To create a movement that addresses employers (including employers' organisations) on their |
|responsibilities of good working conditions. This way more victims can be supported and protected. |
|Duration: 36 months |
|Activities: |
|The campaign will have a basic communications part consisting of a website, the use of social media and an opinion poll every year. Every |
|three months we will organize an activity, event or small campaign as part of a longer term series. A social media approach in combination |
|with long term activities and free publicity has proven to be the best way to reach young adults (most efficient and effective). For each |
|activity a media strategy will be elaborated, in order to achieve free publicity through media attention in both written press and radio/TV. |
|Before implementing them, they will be pre-tested to evaluate the impact and adjustments if necessary. Afterwards the effect of each activity |
|will be measured and evaluated. Where possible, young adults, mainly students, will be stimulated to participate in the organization of the |
|activities. Campaign activities to be carried out are: |
|• Viral or/and online game: generates impact and is triggering. The target group will interact and spread the viral or game through social |
|media. The young adult will be stimulated to visit the campaign website. |
|• Advertisement campaign: specific targeting (ads and/or banners) in new media (internet, smart phones, tablets, applications) . This will |
|raise awareness, increase interaction on social media, will provide a direct link to the campaign website. Feedback of the young adults on the|
|internet, use of applications as well as the hits on the sites can be measured. |
|- Ad campaign with Marktplaats (Dutch Ebay): 60% of all Dutch between 20 and 49 years are on Marktplaats |
|- Ad campaign with Facebook and/or Hyves (Dutch Facebook): 4.6 mln Dutch are on Facebook, 9 mln Dutch are on Hyves. |
|• Campaign day/week with a youth radio or TV station (3Fm, MTV, radio538, FunX, BNN): topic related subjects will be discussed by the target |
|group. This will start a discussion on social media and generates free publicity. |
|• Promoteam at events (concerts, festivals): draw attention with guerrilla campaign (already developed), lead target group to the information |
|stand, provide QR code and icons with direct link to the campaign site and social media. The promoteam can talk face-to-face to the target |
|group and this will instant increase the knowledge and awareness about human trafficking. In the stand you will find all kind of tools for the|
|young adults to interact on the topic with new media. |
|• Slave auction: Draws attention on modern slavery in The Netherlands, “modern slaves” (actors) will be placed on a special stage, and offered|
|to the public. This creates a shock effect, awareness and free publicity. |
|• Set record: longest painting in the world with theme Human Trafficking. Made by students in college/university surroundings. |
|Raise awareness, free publicity, interaction on social media. |
|• Set record: longest human chain against modern slavery. Made by students. Raise awareness, free publicity, interaction on social media. |
|• Guerrilla campaign: Morph suites. 3 actors in morph suites (are anonymous modern slaves) attached to each other with a rope, pulled by human|
|trafficker (actor). Shock effect, QR code direct link to campaign site, raise awareness, interaction on social media. |
|- Gadget/Free cards |
|Number and type of participants: |
|1. target group: young adults: 18-25 years, over 1.6 million in The Netherlands ( 55% are student) |
|2. beneficiaries: potential victims and victims of human trafficking in The Netherlands (1.000 registered cases a year, total amount unknown) |
|Methodology: |
|Setting up and starting an awareness campaign, which contains activities and resources that fit in with the experience and interest of young |
|adults. After every activity we will evaluate, these results are summarized in the campaign guide. This guide can be a guideline for other EU |
|countries. |
|Expected results: |
|1. Concrete deliverables: Campaign guide and measurement tool (will be of use for other EU countries). |
|2. Increase of awareness and knowledge amongst young adults from 0% to 10% within 3 years. |
|Dissemination strategy: |
|Young adults are very active on social and new media. An interesting and triggering activity/event or guerrilla campaign will be shared under |
|their peers by social and new media (creates a multiplier effect). When the target group pays attention to the topic, other media (like |
|newspapers, radio, tv) will see this as news worthy and will create free publicity. We shall also send, before every activity/action, a press |
|release. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 479.908) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 431.917) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 64,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project proposal is optimally designed and is in line with ISEC objectives and the Internal Security Strategy. All presented results are |
|clear and relevant for ISEC programme objectives. However, there is no mention about how the assessment of achieved results will be provided and|
|what tools will be used. |
|The total number of participants is not completely clear as different numbers were provided in the Application Form and in the annexes. All |
|activities are well and clearly set-up. However, it would be suitable to better define the aims of activities, results, measurable outputs and |
|deliverables in order to be easily evaluated. The applicant is conscious of all potential real risks that can occur during activities |
|implementation. Project staff is qualified in PR field and able to carry out all duties related to project implementation. A very weak point of |
|the project is budget breakdown - value for money is not well demonstrated. |
|The dissemination strategy is set-up and addresses a wide scale of beneficiaries and professionals but only at national level. It would be |
|suitable to extend the dissemination to other EU MS via the international event or concrete networks. EU transferability is very weakly |
|explained. It would be suitable to better underline what could be transferable, in which extent and by which way to the other EU MS. The project|
|doesn’t prepare any international action. Sustainability of the project from organizational/tools point of view is sufficiently developed by |
|applicant with special accent of using the social media. The financial sustainability is not mentioned. |
|It has to be noted that the content of this Application is very similar to already funded actions (as well as Application 2533 submitted by the |
|same Applicant) therefore the risk of duplication would be high. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The proposed methodology is professional and the idea is clearly presented. |
|- All activities are designed in connection with project and programme objectives |
|- The time frame is realistic and logically and hierarchically set-up in accordance with all project organizational structure. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- The risks and mitigation strategies are missing in some parts of the technical annex (For ex.: act. 0, 5). |
|- Value for money is not well demonstrated, even though all activities match with relevant budget lines. |
|- Staff costs are high |
|- The project has not a big direct impact to large scale of EU and the added value on EU level is not demonstrated. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Value for money is not well demonstrated, even though all activities match with relevant budget lines. |
|The total project costs do not represents the relevance in connection to expected results and impacts. Even though the prices per unit are |
|reasonable in all lines, the number of units for some budget lines is too high (for ex.: involvement of Mr. Winsemius to all activities by 406 |
|days is too high. It represents 154.128 EUR for salary of Mr. Winsemius from the budget 479.908 EUR – 32%. |
|Subcontracting is mentioned, but offers and/or market research are missing (ex.: Act. 19 – evaluation of campaign activity, etc.). |
|Some experts are not already appointed (no name, no CV) and are under Heading E, so it means they must to be subcontracted or it must to be |
|clearly mentioned, that they will employed through Labour act (employment relationship). |
|The missing technical specification for printing and typesetting of the report, documents, guides, all campaign materials is another negative |
|aspect of the project budget. |
|Other budget lines are relevant and appropriate. |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002537 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |COOP. FIGHT AGAINST EXCLUSION |
|Project title: |EX-PO- LAB |
| |New European tools to face EXploitation for forced LABour rooted in Poverty |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |30 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Municipality of Milano (IT) |
| |Nova Onlus Consorzio per l'innovazione sociale (IT) |
| |Aretusa (BE) |
| |Accem - (ES) |
| |CNCA Coordinamento Nazionale COmunità di |
| |Accolgienza (IT) |
| |Fundatia Centrul PArtneriat pentru Egalitate (RO) |
| |Consorzio Aaster srl (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|EX-PO LAB will contribute to enhance the capacity to prevent and fight THB-FL and to fully protect its victims. Project partners Lotta contro |
|l’Emarginazione (Coord.), CNCA, City of Milan, Aretusa, Nova, Aaster, CPE, ACCEM OBJ.s Increase knowledge on the legal, economic and social |
|components of THB-FL in the partner countries Test innovative multi-agency strategies and tools to prevent THB-FL, detect, identify, support |
|victims at the local/national/EU level Improve the detection and identification skills of professionals who may come into contact with |
|potential/presumed victims Enlarge the anti-THB networks by involving (new) key actors, e.g. professional associations; labour inspectorates; |
|trade unions; |
|labour and fiscal intelligence agencies; health services; municipal checks offices Develop recommendations to prevent and address THB-FL, also|
|improving labour, migration, social laws and policies Broadly disseminate good practices to prevent THBFL, detect, identify, assist victims |
|ACT. 1: Research-action To gather in-depth knowledge on distinct aspects of THB-FL and related laws/policies/tools to prevent/ fight the crime|
|and to protect potential/actual victims. The study will carry out:Analysis of the main push/pull factors and processes of THB-FL concerning |
|victims in the partner countries Review of anti-THB, migration, labour laws and policies of partner countries Analysis of the implementation |
|of the anti-THB framework from the viewpoints of law enforcement agencies, judiciary, labour inspectorates Economic analysis of THB-FL from |
|the viewpoints of policy makers, professional associations, trade unions, other labour market actorsSocial analysis of THB-FL from the |
|viewpoints of local authorities, NGOs, and citizens Method: desk review; semi-structured interviews and workshops with stakeholders and |
|potential/presumed victims Expected results: Law and policy proposals to enhance the current anti-THB-FL frameworks Guidelines to effectively |
|detect, identify, and protect potential/actual victims Recommendations on strategies and policies to prevent THB-FL Identification of |
|transferrable good practices Identification of stakeholders to involve in the pilot-actions testing Time (T): mos 2-12 |
|ACT. 2: Development of pilot-actions (PAs) formats and tools Based on the research findings, the formats and tools of the PAs will be |
|designed. Method: analysis of the gaps and needs identified; analysis of existing practices and tools; participatory and multi-disciplinary |
|approach Expected results: Guidelines and tools to prevent THB cases; to detect, identify and support victims Working plan for the testing |
|phase T: mos 1-4 ACT. 3: Testing of innovative PAs in selected areas The project will implement 8 PAs for the prevention and detection of |
|THBFL. |
|Based on the research findings, each partner will identify the economic sector and place where to run the testing involving a local |
|multi-agency network. In Milan, the testing will target the EXPO 2015. The PAs results will be used to draft tailored practices. Method: |
|trainings on working methods/tools; regular meetings and updates; PAs regular monitoring and assessment Expected results: |
|Set-up of local multi-agency networks involving a wide range of stakeholders Finalisation and adoption of operational guidelines and tools to |
|prevent the crime, detect, identify, assist victims in the selected areas Increase of identified and referred THB-FL victims Compilation of |
|innovative good practices Recommendations to improve the legal and policy frameworks on THB-FL and related issues in the countries involved T:|
|mos 5-28 ACT 4: Training A workshop per partner country will be held to exchange the good practices tested and the strategies developed. The |
|trainees will represent multi-disciplinary and multi-level groups of stakeholders, whose participation will encourage the project |
|mainstreaming at the local/national/EU level Method: presentations and discussion; working groups; case studies; participatory approach |
|Expected results: Improved know-how of the local networks/stakeholders to prevent, detect, identify victims Feedbacks to finalise the project |
|products Use of shared procedures/tools Testing of developed practices in other areas T: 24 mos ACT. 5: Mainstreaming All partners will |
|mainstream the project products at the local/national/EU level Expected results: Improved know-how to prevent, detect and identify victims |
|Involvement of new stakeholders in future anti-THB activities Adoption of multi-agency MoUs Law and policy recommendations widely discussed |
|and eventually adopted at different levels Method: the project outcomes will be widely disseminated through press releases; publications; pen |
|drivers; CD-ROMs; |
|workshops; conferences; websites; social networks T: 1-30 mos Overall participants involved 200 Law enforcement officials + prosecutors 30 |
|Professional associations members 200 Trade unionists 800 NGOs workers 200 Labour inspectors 500 Local authorities reps 250 Victims |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 489.560) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 439.560) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,78%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 59 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The overall project idea matches ISEC priorities and the Internal Security Strategy. The objectives of the project are in accordance with the |
|priorities set up within the Call for proposals. Selected target groups represent large spectrum of important players in anti-trafficking |
|policy, so it is a good base for wide partnership establishment. |
|However, the risks, assumption and mitigations strategies are not sufficiently described in the technical annex and some activities like |
|training could be little bit extended: 1 month for implementation of the training is not enough (it comprises all stage of implementation: |
|preparatory work, implementation, evaluation). |
|The innovative aspect of the project is not sufficiently demonstrated: almost all arguments set-up in the Application Form under section |
|(2.2.7.3) are very general and already used in other already implemented projects. |
|The budget in its totality is not adequately balanced. It would be suitable to submit the offers or market research regarding the costs for |
|subcontracting. The number of daily units seems to be too high without clear explanation of involvement. |
|The dissemination strategy is relevant, but no budget is foreseen except the salaries and the production of one report. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The objectives of the project matches the Call for Proposals' priorities |
|- The project and the financial manager are qualified |
|- At least 4 different partners from EU countries are involved in planned activities |
|- The sustainability of the project activities is well explained in the application form. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Project concept is not clearly developed. |
|- The description and quantifications of the activities, results, outputs and deliverables is not sufficient. So it would be quite difficult to |
|evaluate the efficiency of the project results. |
|- The applicant didn’t demonstrate the necessity of the implementation of all foreseen activities due the lack of the information about the |
|concrete concept. |
|- Selected methodology is not at all clear. |
|- Selected activities are relevant but not clear and there is a lack of important information (quantification, etc.). |
|- Value for money is not at all demonstrated by applicant. |
|- The budget is in some parts exorbitant and not well balanced or is not well explained. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget is in some parts too high and not well balanced. It includes too many working days in connection to the concept and content of |
|described activities by the applicant. For example, Activity n. 1: Research. The amount 114.000 EUR (salaries) is foreseen for this activity |
|comprising 345 days of activity. It has not been deeply explained what does the applicant expects to implement within this activity with this |
|enormous budget and enormous daily units. Activity n. 2 –This activity should represent 250.000, EUR and 1333 working days totally. As it is not|
|explained in details and if quantification is not provided, it seems to be exorbitant budget calculation. |
|Some salaries are too high (500, 650, 800 EUR) in connection to guidelines; names, salary slips and CVs of experts are missing as well as the |
|strategy of selection (requirements for the experts). |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002539 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |EUROPEAN CENTER OF THEATRE IN PRISON |
|Project title: |Hermes Project |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |31 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore (IT) |
| |Opera Liquida (IT) |
| |Puntozero (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |PRAP - Provveditorato Regionale Amministrazione |
| |Penitenziaria (IT) |
| |NABA - Nuova Accademia Belle Arti (IT) |
| |Centro di Giustizia Minorile (IT) |
| |Comune di Milano (IT) |
| |Municipality of Brescia (IT) |
| |Ecclesiastical Authority Civilly Recognized Parrocchia di |
| |San Giovanni Evangelista (IT) |
| |ARCI Milano (IT) |
| |Sistema Bibliotecario MIlano Est Comune di Melzo (IT) |
| |Coordinamento Nazionale Teatro e Carcere (IT) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|HERMES PROJECT- PERFORMANCE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME it’s a project supported by a network of a range of organizations which deal with |
|juvenile crime on different levels, both in terms of crime rehab prevention (that works on criminal behavior relapses) and social prevention |
|on the territory (through educational, cultural, training and research actions to support and develop local networks and new methodologies of |
|intervention). |
|The major goal of this project is juvenile crime prevention in urban areas, especially in the most neglected areas of the cities, through the |
|development of agencies and partnerships between governmental organizations, private companies, associations, NGOs, universities and training |
|centers and by putting special emphasis on the development of operative projects, guidelines and training opportunities as well as the |
|exchange of good practices. |
|Main objectives are: |
|- To promote and support regional and local networks that work on crime rehab prevention and social prevention of criminality in order to |
|favor knowledge exchanges and methodologies comparison; the implementation of strongly effective actions; the use and re-use of resources; the|
|use of a variety of resources already effective in the communities. All of these activities are new to European crime prevention standards. |
|- To locally involve both youth and public/private organizations – of social, cultural and educational areas – to support different actions of|
|the project and to gradually bring them into the planning, implementation and developing phases of some new actions. |
|- To prevent crime relapses from the crime rehab prevention perspective within the correctional centers and to prevent criminal actions |
|through working directly on the territory. Pairing off these prevention actions will lead to a virtuous circle that will promote interaction |
|between detention centers and the territory through actions of social prevention by means of crime rehab prevention processes. |
|- To scientifically support these projects by means of researches, monitoring and training activities sponsored by academic partners that |
|works in conjunction with multidisciplinary teams. |
|The project duration will cover 31 months, starting from September 2012 (m1) to March 2015 (m31), the advisable period for properly fulfill |
|the project and carry out its evaluation and outcomes dissemination. The range of the actions planned is quite wide for they divide into local|
|activities and transverse activities and include theatre workshops, video making, activities on the different languages/codes used while |
|performing inside the detention centers and in urban areas at-risk, theatre performances and talk shows, movie screenings, courses at |
|university level, refresher courses for network operators, seminars, conferences at regional level, scientific and popular papers, network and|
|community development activities and quality/quantity surveys on the enforced actions. Players involved in the projects vary from performers |
|and social-aware artists, professors, prevention operators, school teachers, educators and entertainers, university students, primary and |
|secondary school students, incarcerated youth and residents of halfway houses or young on probation, teaching fellows, prison administrators, |
|law enforcement officers, lawyers and judges, local government operators (informagiovani, CFP, courses of Italian language), prevention |
|services voluntary workers, young citizens (male and female) and general public for an expected total amount of approx. 8,000 people involved.|
|The project methodology employs performative artistic actions to perform multilayer network prevention processes and to develop community |
|spirit so to involve a variety of people on the territory, first the youth, fostering the creation of an active and creative role in the |
|planning/fulfillment of successful actions of urban juvenile crime prevention. The evaluation research phase is part of the method and aims to|
|supervise and gradually enforce practices, relationships and operational processes already in progress. The expected main results are the |
|strengthen of network and social cohesion in relation to crime prevention processes, the development of new wider forms of involvement and |
|collaboration of local operators as well as the eradication of those prejudices that often hamper the effectiveness of crime rehab prevention |
|triggering recidivism. |
|Dissemination is part of the performative processes and will be carried out through performances, screenings, parties, performative events, |
|talk shows and the organization and/or attendance at festivals, local or national seasons, scientific lectures, the HERMES website. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 612.015,12 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 550.491,12 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89.94%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
|TOTAL SCORE: 49,5 points |
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The overall project idea is a very interesting base for some potential international project in the future. However, the project conception and |
|methodology is not completely clear in connexion to expected results and budget break-down. The major part of presented project results in the |
|application form are clear, however the specific part related to research is not clearly designed (to what the research will serve in connection|
|to other activities and results?). The total number of participants is not clear. There is a disproportion in number of participants between the|
|section 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2. It is not even clear from the technical annex and budget break-down how many participants will attend different |
|activities. How the judicial authorities and law-enforcement agencies will be involved to the project? How the applicant will involve such big |
|number of participants to the project? Not clear explanation is mentioned. |
|In addition to the above, the indicators for measuring the outputs and deliverables are not well defined and the dissemination strategy is not |
|completely set-up as there is a lack of information concerning to whom the dissemination will be addressed. |
|This project proposal complies with at least one point mentioned in the Call for proposal, but covers only a very small EU territory or it is |
|not clear how the applicant expect to follow-up the project in the future on a large scale of EU territory. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Project proposal is in line with ISEC objectives, Call for proposals and Internal Security Strategy. |
|- Activities are interesting - very detailed activity overview |
|- The project tasks are well distributed. Project staff is qualified and able to carry out all duties related to project implementation. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Knowledge on recent developments or on existing EU legislation is not demonstrated by applicant. |
|- The project activities are little bit chaotically set-up and not clearly linked between each other. |
|- Results, outputs and deliverables are not well defined and neither are evaluation indicators. |
|- Value for money is not well demonstrated within the all budget break-down especially regarding the project management. |
|- The applicant foreseen to involved to the project activities different target groups from several EU MS, but there is no demonstrated |
|potential how the results could be transferred to this countries (lack of the information how the prisoners or students participating in the |
|project from different MS in Italian prisons could be been some support for dissemination abroad). |
|- The target group is defined very broadly therefore loosing relevance for the objectives of this Call; |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget estimate is not fully filled in and much important information is missing (tasks of the experts, employment status in all columns, |
|etc.). |
|The total of 1912 days dedicated to project management (administration, project management, etc.) in 31 months it too high. |
|The lump sum (15.000 EUR) for legal and taxes consulting services under Heading A should have been in Heading E as subcontracting; in addition |
|to that, related price offers should have been submitted. |
| |
|Almost all foreseen expert/days within the budget calculation are not appropriate, among the others: |
| |
|Activity 0.10 – 150 days of expert´s tasks performing in connection to dissemination without clear description is too big number. |
|Activity 1.2.1 – 69 days is too big number of days related to this activity, which is not at all clear – what will be done under this action. |
|Activity 1.2.3 - 333 expert days is too big number. |
| |
|There is a lack of information related to travel under Heading B – no place of departure and no destination is mentioned. |
|The costs of equipment under Heading C seem to be high. No market research or offers are provided by applicant. |
|Some costs within Heading E have are not clear enough. For ex.: the amount 600 EUR for video consultant seems to be high. In addition to that, |
|if this is subcontracting, the applicant has to explain how this (and other) expert will be selected and employed. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002545 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |STATE POLICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA |
|Project title: |Cooperation between Latvian and Lithuanian police institutions in the |
| |illegal drug trade reducing |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |LV |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Head police commissariat of the region of Utena (LT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N /A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
| |
|Analyzing statistical data on the number of drug users and structure in Latvia and Lithuania similar problems are found: each year police |
|officers recorded the increasing both the offence and the number of persons held in connection with the drug trafficking. Each year, the |
|number of drug users and the number of criminal offences, made by persons in drug affection or to obtain the material benefits for drug |
|purchases are enormously increasing. From 2008 to 2011 crime rates increased for 91%. |
|The objectives of the project are following: |
|- to establish partnership and horizontal methods and tools among law enforcement authorities in Latvia and in Lithuania to promote |
|cooperation to prevent drug trafficking; |
|- to improve Latvian and Lithuanian police results in drug trafficking reducing; |
|- to develop Latvian and Lithuanian police officers` professional skills to combat against drug trafficking. |
|The duration of the project is planned 3 years (36 months). |
|The are foreseen 2 target groups: |
|1-st group - Latvian and Lithuanian state police officers, whose main duty is combating against drug trafficking 2nd group - Latvian and |
|Lithuanian school students, who will participate in trainings about drugs and their using consequences and sport activities with police |
|officers |
|Activities and expected results: |
|-Joint conference about drug trafficking at the border area. Will take part 14 Latvians and 12 Lithuanians. At the conference participants |
|will discuss common problems, and will offer problems' solutions about drug illegal trading. About conference results will issue informative |
|material. |
|- One opening meeting where Project Coordination group will be established (responsible for the planning of next half-year activities and |
|evaluating past half-year activities), the meetings of the Project coordination group will be once a half-year (all together - 7) and 1 |
|closing seminar. |
|-3 English trainings for Latvian and Lithuanian police officers, two trainings will last 30 days and one training will last 20 days. |
|Each 30-days training will take place 12 police officers. ( one training: 7 from Latvia and 5 from Lithuania and another training - 12 from |
|Latvia). 20-days training will take place 10 police officers (5 from Latvia and 5 from Lithuania). It will be prepared special programme and |
|materials for trainings; |
|- 15 Latvian police officers experience exchange visit to Lithuania (Utena and Vilnius) and 15 Lithuanian police officers experience exchange |
|visit to Latvia (Daugavpils and Riga). Visits will help introduce new technologies and achieve colleagues experience in illicit drug trading |
|reducing; |
|Preventive activities: |
|-In Latvian schools will be organized 80 studies about drug nuisance for juveniles. Trainings will be chaired by police officers and |
|practitioner narcologist. |
|- During the project will be organized four joint patrols in Latvia and four joint patrols in Lithuania. The patrols main objectives will be |
|prevention of drug trafficking and experience exchange in such patrol organizing and managing. Each patrol will take place 12 police officers,|
|whose main duty is combat against illegal drug trading; |
|- preparing of the booklets about legal effects of drug trafficking and consequences of drug addiction, distributing information on the |
|project activities and results via internet and WEB sites of Applicant and Partner organizations; |
|- Two sport trainings (one in Latvia and one in Lithuania), in each sport training will take place 12 police officers and 12 pupils from |
|boarding schools and two sport trainings between 12 Latvian and 12 Lithuanian police officers |
| |
|The results will be disseminated via EUCPN, EU Council WP, web sites. The Applicant and Partners will be responsible for the dissemination and|
|publicity along all project implementation time. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 281.162) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 253.045,80) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 56 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The project is not described in depth thus resulting vague and does not state concrete problems that should be tackled. Nice project at local |
|level, likely to be continued, concrete activities, good involvement of both partners, but some actions not relevant in view of objectives. EU |
|dimension limited, dissemination not under control. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The objectives of the project are its strength. Dedication of partners, topicality of subject, linked to EU Action PLan |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The methodology is a weak point. The project generally does not seem to have much added value in the EU dimension. Part of the activities is |
|outside of the purpose of the project. There is a weak dissemination strategy. |
| |
|Some project activities and results are not completely clear and could be more explained in the technical annex. There is a lack of information |
|regarding deliverables and outputs in some activities within the technical annex: ex.: Activity N. 28 – Conference: the aim of activity is well |
|define but the results are not. Deliverables and outputs are missing in other activities as well: trainings (number of days – sport training,), |
|etc. There is no real multiplication strategy set-up within the application form. Total number of days dedicated to project management and |
|financial management is too high (648 days) and not well balanced. |
| |
|The impact to a large number of EU member states and their involvement to the project (at least – dissemination) was not demonstrated and is |
|very weak. Sustainability of the project is not sufficiently developed by applicant. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|Cost very modest: each post strictly calculated. Subcontracting indicated for EN lessons (3 quotes in LT, but courses provided in both MS), but |
|also narcologist training in schools is under subcontract). Doubts about need for EN training, therefore subcontracting questionable too. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002549 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |EVERIS SPAIN S.L.U |
|Project title: |Development oF a Europena compreheNsive plan to promote the eradiCation of |
| |trafficking, prostitution and other sExual exploitation in Bulgaria, Italy, |
| |Romania and Spain |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |ES |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |ASOCIATIA CARITAS BUCURESTI (RO) |
| |Center for Study of Democracy (BG) |
| |Sevilla Council (ES) |
| |Fundation Tecnalia Research & Innovation (ES) |
| |Molise Region (IT) |
| |Italian Red Cross (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): The objective of DEFENCE is to DEvelopment oF a European compreheNsive plan to promote the eradiCation |
|of trafficking, prostitution and other forms of sExual exploitation in Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and Spain. More specifically, the objective is|
|to use |
|the knowledge of the social environment in which the recruitment for the traffic happens in the origin countries, and also the conditions and |
|the social response in the destination countries, in order to build support networks for prevention, help leaving, protection, and the |
|beginning of a new life for the victims of the trafficking. Methodolgy and activities: WP0 Project management activities will serve as a |
|facilitator through the Project Management Plan, Financial Reports and Technical reports. WP1 Research, the research will be centred on the |
|following objectives:1. Mapping the main routes and flows of trafficked women from Romania and Bulgaria to Spain and Italy broken down to |
|specific regions, 2. |
|Profiling of the victims by sex, age, ethnicity, social background, ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors, 3. Profiling the traffickers, their preferred |
|modus operandi and assessing the involvement of organised crime groups in the process, 4. Attempting to quantify the extent of the problem and|
|5. Outlining suitable ecommendations regarding the raising awareness, prevention and training activities based on the evidence collected. WP2 |
|Prevention and training will model an information service and network to facilitate the participation of people from the origin and |
|destination countries to generate a support community for the deterrence and prevention of trafficking in human beings. Adaptation of the |
|characteristics of the service to the particular circumstances of the participating countries (language, culture, organizational capacity). |
|Promote prevention and early detection specified by the institutions and programs of municipalities. WP3 Awareness will do a recruitment and |
|promotion of measures in education development and sensitize to European citizens about problem of trafficking, prostitution and other forms |
|of sexual exploitation. |
|WP4 will be focused on integral assistance an protection of victims and finally WP5 Dissemination activities will lead to a wide broadcast of |
|the result to increase the European impact on the project following a dissemination strategy developed in the project. |
|Duration: 24 months |
|Partnership: EVERIS (coordinator), partners: CSD, Charitas Bucarest, Italian Red Cross, Molise Region, Seville Council and Tecnalia. Target |
|groups: The data collection for the research will start with desktop research and collecting of official data and statistics by the |
|institutions assigned as National Rapporteurs on Trafficking in Persons or other relevant national or international organisations (e.g. IOM) |
|both in destination and source countries in order to map the major routes and flows. At the next step interviews will be carried out with |
|representatives of the institutions and organisations involved in the anti-trafficking response at local level in the affected destination and|
|source regions. 50 interviews with experts from local institutions and organisations in each of the participating countries are foreseen to |
|total up to 200 interviews for all 4 countries. In Romania, and Bulgaria will additionally be conducted focus groups with women with |
|experience as commercial sex workers in Experts from the following institutions in destination and source countries will be interviewed: |
|• Law enforcement (i.e. border authorities, anti-trafficking units, prostitution police, immigration; etc.), |
|• Prosecutor’s office |
|• Local government institutions (i.e. social services, health sector, labour department, embassies/consulates, etc.), |
|• Local Roma organisations, |
|• Anti-trafficking NGOs (shelters, assistance programmes, help lines, outreach programmes, etc |
|Deliverables: |
|1. Report which contain the map of the routes and flows of trafficked women in the countries where the study will be made. |
|2. Report about the different victims profiles. |
|3. Report about the different traffickers profiles. |
|4. A set of recommendations for the creation of sites for community support against human trafficking.Tips on long-term operational, including|
|education and raising awareness.Training materials for managers of the community network. |
|5. Educative and social sensitization campaign. |
|6. Social assistance program. |
|7. Grants programs |
|8. Communication plan report |
|9. Dissemination plan |
|Dissemination strategy: The dissemination will be both a collective activity managed by entire consortium and an individual set of actions |
|handled by a specific partner at the local level. The dissemination activities will be detailed and planned in the dissemination plan. The |
|most important of these activities are described in the following workshops personalised modular reports, policy briefs, support report, |
|promotional material, website, conferences, publications and existing dissemination channels. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 763.486,40) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 674.280,4 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 88,32 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
|TOTAL SCORE: 45,5 pointsREASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The project is focussing on Call for proposals selected measure to combat and prevent trafficking in human beings. This priority is high |
|priority in EU agenda, especially in Stockholm Programme and also ISS ad hoc chapters. Nevertheless measures and expected results as presented |
|by applicant do not provide with an innovative approach to this issue. The proposal is not clearly explained and the deliverables and outputs |
|are described in terms of numbers and type. Methodology is not really explained. 5 activity groups have been planned with some sub-activities to|
|be developed. The whole set of activities are announced more than explained, with no clear indications on how the promised reports will be done,|
|how interviews or researches will be undertaken and who will be the target groups. Target groups are too generally mentioned. Distribution of |
|tasks among partners is balanced and takes into account their area of expertise. Monitoring and evaluation strategy is sufficiently described |
|and it will be based in several criteria but mainly feedback from target groups. Some activities have not been reflected properly in the |
|Technical Annex but they are reflected in the budget. A number of unknown activities are budgeted. Staff costs are really high and some staff |
|trips aren't duly justified, as for ex. KoM and review meetings among partners. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|Selected target groups represent large spectrum of important players in anti-trafficking policy, so it is a good base for wide partnership |
|establishment. Concerning the risks and mitigation strategies, the applicant took into consideration different aspects that may influence the |
|project implementation and proposed the way how to avoid different risks. Time frame is well done. The choice of partners is adequate in |
|relation to the topic and policy area. There is a high potential and expertise for successful implementation of the project in terms of policy |
|area. The applicant set up the methodology based on common shared responsibilities among all partners. The main responsibility, as we can see in|
|project chart, is under the hands of project manager. The project manager is qualified person for implementing the project. The same for |
|financial management. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The project will cover 4 EU member states by its activities. It is not completely clear whether the other EU MS will be directly involved or |
|not, because the budget break-down foreseen to cover the expenses related to travel and accommodation for 25 representatives from EU MS (no |
|countries names) during first workshop. However, the applicant didn’t stated in the application form (2.2.4.2), that other EU countries excepted|
|IT, ES, BG, RO will participate on activities. Totally: 200 participants will be involved to the project, which is not sufficient according the |
|proposed budget break-down. Law enforcement agencies are supposed to be involved to the project, but they are not incorporated among the |
|participants within the section 2.2.4.1 of the AF. Project concept is not sufficiently and clearly developed. Furthermore, the project proposal |
|is not in the line with the Project cycle management (European Commission Guide) so, there is not sufficient and clear description and |
|especially quantifications of the activities, results, outputs and deliverables. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|This is a very expensive project, especially as far as staff costs are concerned in comparison with the expected results and number of targets |
|to be reached. It is also difficult to assess if these staff costs are balanced to the type of activities and methodology to follow as the |
|latter have not been really well described by the applicant. Activities are not adequately linked with the budget and content of some activities|
|is not appropriate and is not realistic. Selected activities are relevant but not clear and there is a lack of important information |
|(quantification, etc.). |
|Value for money is not at all demonstrated by applicant. The budget in its totality is exorbitant and not well balanced. Too many working days |
|in connection to the concept and content of described activities by the applicant. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002555 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR - POLICE PRESIDIUM OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC |
|Project title: |Implementation of inovating methods into the criminalistic practise |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |CZ |
|Duration of the project (months): |15 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The proposed project fulfils one of the most significant conditions of the successful fight against criminality, i.e. the use of innovation |
|methods and means if scientific branches regarding the fight against criminality and their implementation into criminalistic practice. |
|Offenders of the most serious violent and sexually motivated crimes could move over the whole Schengen territory, they can commit serial |
|crimes, however different approaches of different states to the searching, data holding and evaluation of information concerning modus |
|operandi could be the reason of "blindness" of the police during the catching and proving guilty of perpetrators. The different level of |
|information and training in the sphere of the behavioral analysis seems to be an obstacle for the more effective nternational cooperation. |
|Within Europe there are three groups of states: |
|- firstly states using the behavioral analysis in the criminalistic practice, they have educated and trained police specialists gathered in |
|the behavioral units, (e.g. Germany, Great Britain, Holland) |
|- secondly states having educated and trained police specialists, however they are not gathered in the special units (e.g. Austria, Czech |
|Republic), |
|- thirdly states which have no educated and trained police specialists in the area of the behavioral analysis. |
|Experiences resulting from the implementation of the behavioral analysis into the criminalistic practice in the Police of the Czech Republic |
|has produced several problems, which should be solved within this project: |
|Police officers are wiling to change the traditional procedures only in case they are convinced about the new method as the useful one, they |
|need to see results of their possible increased effort. |
|- Therefore we are going to establish the methodology of the implementation of the behavioral analysis into the criminalistic practice, which |
|will be properly explained and trained. |
|- The proposal of the education of police officers and police specialists will be elaborated for the area of the behavioral analysis and its |
|implementation into the educational system. |
|- Prosecutors and teachers of police schools will be acquainted with the methodology and the system of education. |
|- To conclude the project the international conference will be organised for all EU members, where the ethodology, system of education and |
|best criminalistic practices in this area will be presented, lectors from EU as well as from Canada and FBI USA will be present. |
|Methodology will be published as a special booklet in Czech and English languages. |
|Planned duration of this project is 14 months in the cooperation with police specialists (members of EVUBAG – European ViCLAS users and |
|behavioral analysts group) and police officers from the Slovak Republic. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 211.940 €) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 190.746 €) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 57,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The proposal targets specific police skills and is being submitted by a relevant organisation in terms of ISEC - i.e. the CZ Ministry of |
|Interior - Police Presidium. However, its benefits for EU-police cooperation are only indirect and long term and that the participation of other|
|EU Member States is limited to attending a final conferences and delivering lectors for national trainings. In addition, the methodology and |
|description of the actions/expected results is weak, lacking with measurable outputs in terms of police operations. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The proposal it's an innovative way of dealing with several types of crime: creation of a methodology of behavioural analysis and its |
|implementation into criminalistics practice. It's |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|Despite of a very good topic the project is worked out poorly. Risks are not mitigated. The topic would have been better addressed if the |
|complexity would have been tackled by several EU member states. By doing so the strategy would have been better and most likely the outcomes of |
|the project would be much more adaptable. Due to the poor proposal it's not possible to award the project positive as, in view of the topic, it |
|should be. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|The proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget. For the software that will be acquired, details are missing. Not all costs |
|represent a most economic and efficient solution – the added value of the costs of inviting 52 EU-participants to the final conference is |
|limited compared to the benefits as no input is expected, apart from receiving a booklet and limited networking |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002561 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |OLT COUNTY POLICE INSPECTORATE |
|Project title: |Enhancing the capacity of prevention of juvenile and urban crime prevention |
| |at Olt County Police Inspectorate and at Pleven Police |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |RO |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Regional Police Directorate Pleven (BG) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The objectives of the project and the methodology will be as follows: |
|The general objective of the project is to enhance the capacity of prevention of juvenile and urban crime prevention at Olt County Police |
|Inspectorate and at Pleven Police. |
|The specific objectives are the following: |
|Objective 1– The stimulation, promotion and development of methods, techniques and tools to prevent the juvenile and urban crime by the police|
|officers from Olt County Police Inspectorate: |
|O.1.1. The organization and unfolding the seminar on juvenile and urban crime trends in the XXI century, in a conference room arranged within |
|the project. |
|O.1.2. The acquisition of modern equipment, used for the effective prevention of juvenile and urban crime. |
|O.1.3. The creation of prevention and information centers in each city and town police, at the main and secondary headquarter of Olt County |
|Police Inspectorate. |
|Objective 2 - The development and promoting of common training materials (flyers, brochures, best practices guide) for the prevention of |
|juvenile and urban crime in Romania (Olt County) and in Bulgaria (Pleven). |
|O.2.1. The development of materials (flyers, brochures) for the awareness campaign, in Romania (Olt County) and in Bulgaria (Pleven), which |
|will include prevention advice, how to react in order not to become a victim. |
|O.2.2. The organization of an awareness campaign of the population that will prepare the citizens not to become victims of criminals in |
|Romania (Olt County) and in Bulgaria (Pleven). |
|O.2.3. The development of a best practices guide of prevention for professionals |
|O.2.4.The promotion of the project: we'll organize a press conference to launch the PREVENTED project, development of materials and press |
|releases regarding the evolution of the project, updating of the site. We'll organize a press conference to present the results of the |
|project. |
|Objective 3 – The improvement of the professional training of police officers in preventing juvenile and urban crime |
|O.3.1. –The organization of training courses for the police officers in the filed of crime prevention. |
|Methodology of the project will comply with the national and European laws, and the project will be implemented according to the terms |
|provided. The management of the project will consider compliance with the proposed schedule, the estimated costs and the aims and objectives |
|and will be conducted by officers with experience within O.C.P.I.. |
|Project duration: 36 months, the expected results are: 2 press conferences made, 1 seminar organized, 10.000 flyers, 10.000 brochures, 10.000 |
|pens, 10.000 key chains, 10.000 posters disseminated to the population, the display of the flyer and brochure on the site, 1 site updated, 7 |
|press releases, display of the press releases on the site, 80 officers trained in the field, 1500 best practices guides developed, 10 |
|prevention centers created, a conference room equipped. |
|The seminar will benefit from the contribution and presence of co-beneficiary partner, the Bulgarian Police – Pleven Directorate, but there |
|will be also other guests such as police officers from neighboring counties and representatives of the Olt County School Inspectorate, Olt |
|Court - Probation Service, Olt Center for Prevention, Assessment and Anti drug Counselling, Olt County Directorate for the Child Protection |
|and Welfare, Olt County Directorate for Youth and Sports, Olt County Inspectorate of Gendarmes, NGO's with responsibilities in the field. |
|The target group is represented by police officers from Olt County - Romania and Pleven District - Bulgaria, and the beneficiaries are: Olt |
|county population– Romania and the population from Pleven District - Bulgaria, the potential victim of a crime and who has a high risk of |
|victimization. The dissemination strategy will cover all project participants, the target groups and beneficiaries, whom will be presented the|
|results of the PREVENTED project. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 299.179,3) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 269.229,3) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,9%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 25,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|Project limited to install modern equipment in RO county and training RO police officers. Experience of BG partner involved in conception of |
|products not substantiated; budget not correct; poor dissemination method. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|Good awareness of local problems. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|Lack of potential European dimension, flaws in budget presentation, unsupported sustainability. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|The value for money of this project, in which eventually less than 100 police officers are trained, is minimal. |
|Equipment amounts to 75% of budget, and is not included under appropriate heading. No offers indicated, but applicant says more will be sought. |
|Interpretation to/from EN (besides BG/RO) for workshops (e.g. activities 13 and 14) not justified. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002562 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |SIBIU DOG TRAINING CENTRE |
|Project title: |Prevention and fight against terrorism using canine team |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |RO |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |EU MS 2 (FR) |
| |National Police Corps of Spain (ES) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The general objective of this project is to strengthen the European Union eastern border security from terrorist threats with the help of |
|canine teams. The specific objective of the project is the proper selection, use and training of an efficient human and canine resource in |
|order to fight against terrorism. This specific objective will focus on elaborating common practices regarding specialized training in |
|explosive detection for dogs and on developing common standards in obedience training of explosives detection dogs. |
|The expected results and activities related to the objective are the following: |
|Result 1. Setting up methods for the selection of dog handlers and training |
|A.1.1 developing common practices regarding the selection of dog handlers/exchange of experience in the field |
|A.1.2. developing common practices regarding the selection of dogs/exchange of experience in the field |
|A.1.3. exchange of experience and knowledge on the training equipment used for dog training in each MS |
|A.1.4. Working group in France - developing common practices regarding the obedience training /exchange of experience in this field A.1.5. |
|Working group in Spain - "Obedience training" - developing common practices regarding the obedience training / exchange of experience in this |
|field |
|A.1.6. Working group in Romania - "Obedience training" - developing common practices regarding the obedience training / exchange of experience|
|in this field |
|A.1.7. debates on common standards regarding the obedience training |
|A.1.8.Seminar - "Developing common standards in obedience training of explosives detection dogs" |
|Result 2. Creating new methods for the selection of dogs and dog training in the field of explosive detection A.2.1. developing common |
|practices regarding the selection of dogs/exchange of experience in the field A.2.2. exchange of experience and knowledge on the training |
|equipment used for dog training in each MS A.2.3. developing common practices regarding the specialized training /exchange of experience in |
|the field of explosive detection working group in Romania |
|A.2.4. developing common practices regarding the specialized training /exchange of experience in the field of explosive detection working |
|group in France |
|A.2.5. developing common practices regarding the specialized training /exchange of experience in the field of explosive detection working |
|group in Spain Result.3.Developing the “Manual of best common practices concerning the use of service dogs in order to prevent terrorism” |
|A.3.1. Drawing up the manual |
|A.3.2. Develop common practices and standards for dog training |
|A.3.3.Translating the Manual in Spanish, French and Romanian |
|A.3.4.Disemination of the Manual in all MS |
|The project will be developed on a period of 24 months and will include activities such as working visits and exchanges of experience between |
|project partners, providing working materials, organizing a seminar on emerging explosives, organizing joint training with canine teams |
|belonging to partner law enforcement agencies and working groups for the developing of common best practices."Dr. Aurel Greblea" Sibiu |
|Cynological Centre will have two partner countries: the National French Gendarmerie and the Spanish Police. The target group consists of dog |
|handlers specialized in explosives detection, employs of European counter-terrorism forces. |
|The expected outcome of the project is a more efficient intervention with specialized service dogs for the prevention of terrorist attacks in |
|Europe. The outcome will be the foundation of common standards Manual for the training of explosives detection canine teams. The Manual will |
|be handed out and disseminated to interested law enforcement agencies in partner countries and other European countries. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 540.368,75 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 485.388,75 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,82 %) ) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 57 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The proposal aims to develop best practices for the use of canine dogs in the fight against terrorism and will deliver training and a manual. It|
|is compliant with the priority training and other exchanges among law enforcement officers of the call for proposals. The target groups and |
|beneficiaries are relevant in terms of ISEC. No specific EU strategy or action is calling for the action proposed in the project. The proposed |
|methodology for developing best practices at EU level is weak as it involves only one other identified member state (Spain). The other foreseen |
|member state (France) did pull out at the last moment. No other contacts are mentioned with other member states canine units. It is unclear |
|whether other member states will participate in the project and whether they want EU-guidelines to be developed in this area. Therefore, the |
|choice of partners is inadequate to reach the mentioned results. The distribution of tasks is also unclear as one partner (France) is not |
|anymore participating in the project and the role of the other partner (Spain) is limited to participating in actions (not organising). The |
|canine expertise is present but it is not evident that the expertise to develop European guidelines that are accepted by member states is |
|present - this is a different set of skills. No monitoring or evaluation strategy is mentioned.. The impact on the ISEC programmes objectives is|
|limited as this is a niche area of which it is unclear what the European added value is in terms of fight against terrorism and the minimal |
|involvement of the member states will affect the overall acceptance of the guidelines. The project fails to quantify its impact and the |
|dissemination strategy is very passive (distributing guidelines). The indicators to measure the projects' output are minimal and only refer to |
|the projects activities and not the outputs (added value of training in terms of objectives etc). |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The proposal aims to develop best practices for the use of canine dogs in the fight against terrorism and will deliver training and a manual. It|
|is compliant with the priority training and other exchanges among law enforcement officers of the call for proposals. The target groups and |
|beneficiaries are relevant in terms of ISEC. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|The proposed methodology for developing best practices at EU level is weak as it involves only one other identified member state (Spain). The |
|other foreseen member state (France) did pull out at the last moment. No other contacts are mentioned with other member states canine units. It |
|is unclear whether other member states will participate in the project and whether they want EU-guidelines to be developed in this area. |
|Therefore, the choice of partners is inadequate to reach the mentioned results. The distribution of tasks is also unclear as one partner |
|(France) is not anymore participating in the project and the role of the other partner (Spain) is limited to participating in actions (not |
|organising). The canine expertise is present but it is not evident that the expertise to develop European guidelines that are accepted by member|
|states is present - this is a different set of skills. No monitoring or evaluation strategy is mentioned. The proposed budget is not considered |
|value for money as not always the most efficient solution is sought in terms of spending (e.g. lot of staff travel where skype-conference calls |
|bring about the same results). This project fails to identify a real need at European level and lacks a sound gap analysis. Only one member |
|state is currently involved as the other one withdrew its involvement. The project fails to span across the EU in terms of both partnership and |
|EU-networks, which will seriously affects its aim to deliver guidelines that will be accepted by other member states. Therefore, its impact will|
|not be transnational and will not affect a majority of the member states. Moreover, the sustainability of the project will only affect the two |
|partners. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|The proposed budget is not considered value for money as not always the most efficient solution is sought in terms of spending (e.g. lot of |
|staff travel where skype-conference calls bring about the same results). |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002563 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |IASI BORDER POLICE TERRITORIAL INSPECTORATE |
|Project title: |Training and Development in order to Increase Professional Competency and |
| |Implement Comparable Standards in |
| |European Union External Border Controls |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |RO |
|Duration of the project (months): |20 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Slovenian Police (SI) |
| |German Federal Police (DE) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
| Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
| |
|SCOPE: The generic goal is to promote and develop professional coordination, competency and cooperation within Territorial Inspectorate of |
|Border Police Iasi, Romania and reach modern and European standards |
|OBJECTIVE: The specific aim is related to providing a series of learning opportunities and exchanging experience to all designated |
|professionals from Moldova region with support of working partners from Slovenia and Germany within a period of 20 months; this is in order to|
|harmonize best European border control practice and further prepare East European Union External Border to modern standards and join Schengen |
|space |
|DURATION: From 3rd September 2012 onwards 20 consecutive months |
|ACTIVITIES |
|A1) Preparation for commencing and implementing CUZA Project A1.2) Completion of the initial workshop |
|A2) Conceive, edit and print advertising and disseminating informative materials in order to contribute to project’s visibility locally, |
|nationally and internationally A2.1) Conceive, edit and print advertising and informative materials A2.2) Disseminating informative projects |
|materials |
|A3) Organizing three workshops with project partners on: Forged and Falsified Documents; Detecting a Stolen Car and Middle Management Issues |
|(preparation) A3.1) Workshop on Forged and Falsified Documents A3.2) Workshop on Detecting a Stolen Car A3.3) Workshop on Middle Management |
|Issues |
|A4) Writing agenda, support courses, handouts and questionnaires and preparing the training sessions on agreed 3 themes |
|A5) Creating a data base for selection and recruiting the target group |
|A6) Selecting the target group |
|A7) Launching the project (initial press conference) |
|A8) Delivering training: organizing multiple training sessions on the above specified themes and as shown in timetable (preparation) A8.1) |
|Delivering 18 training sessions on Forged and Falsified Documents Issues A8.2) Delivering 14 training sessions on Detecting a Stolen Car |
|Issues A8.3) Delivering 9 training sessions on Middle Management Issues |
|A9) Experience exchange Romania-Slovenia |
|A10) Experience exchange Romania-Germany |
|A11) Organizing a final press conference |
|A12) Monitoring and evaluation A12.1) Interim evaluation and reporting interim outcomes A12.2) Final evaluation and reporting final outcomes |
|A13) Financial and procurement tasks A14) Legal adviser tasks. |
|The type of participants is identified as being branch professionals in need of training and exchange experience. They are Police Officers |
|Level I and Level II from all territorial offices. Level I refers to Police Officers working in front line of BCPs – control, traffic control.|
|Level II refers to Police Officers from second line control and Police officers from BPUs. |
|An accurate number of participants will be ascertained after creating the project’s data base; based on internal statistics, it is estimated a|
|number of 427 participants. |
|METHODOLOGY |
|The methodology behind implementation is to fit the activities planned. It is based on direct and electronic communication, workshops, |
|training and meetings, travelling to exchange experience etc and aims creating working tools and procedures. The methodology will be in |
|accordance to project management framework. |
|EXPECTED RESULTS |
|Qualitative results: |
|- Training attendees will improve their awareness regarding their skills, knowledge, abilities and strengthen their capacity to fight against |
|crime - Professionals will incorporate into their routine others best practice and Know-How |
|- Professionals will develop a better sense of integration in European Union supporting their inner professional pattern and making them |
|deliver a competent service and become role models within their community Quantitative results:- 427 professionals trained, - 2 press |
|conferences held- 3 workshops held on three main professional themes |
|- 1000 leaflets conceived and disseminated - 200 posters conceived and disseminated - 27 training sessions held - 2 European and international|
|partners involved- 1 out of 5 Romanian territorial area benefits of this input- 1 Romanian territorial Inspectorate becomes role model for the|
|rest of the country- 1 pool data base created- 12 experienced foreign trainers used – 427 questionnaires administrated- 3 types of training |
|developed and delivered. |
|Dissemination strategy completes the project methodology in order to serve an achievable and timed scope of work. It is planned that |
|systematically information is distributed therefore achieving awareness and recognition. The information distributed is orientated towards the|
|user’s needs, incorporating types and levels relayed into the forms and the language preferred. Various methods are to be used including |
|written information, electronic media; direct contact etc .There will also be included quality control mechanisms to check the information’s |
|accuracy, relevance and representativeness. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 449.716 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 404.716) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 53 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The proposal aims to develop professional competences with a specific region of Romanian border police, supported by German and Slovenian |
|police. It is a capacity building project that has no ambition or potential for transferability and is not well thought through. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The main strength of the proposal is that it fits in the context of the Schengen Action Plan and wants to address the identified deficiencies. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The project has many weaknesses. It fails to describe the current deficit of the target audience and its relevance in terms of the |
|ISEC-programme. Moreover, it does not specify in detail how the actions will help to solve the identified problem and does not address |
|different, more cost efficient approaches such as 'train the trainers' programmes and embedding it in national training structures. The expected|
|outputs are described vaguely (e.g. specific information is gathered) and not in terms of number of people trained, better operational results |
|(e.g. more forged documents identified). The projects' impact is not transnational but national and has no actions foreseen to transfer the |
|lessons learned to other countries. Finally, the applicant fails to define a clear long term sustainability strategy, with own funding sources. |
|The project is not expected to lead to any EU-wide recommendations. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget |
| |
|All proposed actions are sufficiently reflected in the budget. Nevertheless the Applicant fails to explain why the costs represent the most |
|economic and efficient solution and how this relates to other national regular funded training programmes of border police officers etc. The |
|project also does not explain its economies of scale, which is a serious omission as one could wonder whether a 'train the trainers programme' |
|would be more effective in reaching the goals. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002565 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |MINISTRY OF INTERIOR OF THE SR |
|Project title: |Prevention of trafficking in human beings and related negative phenomena |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |SK |
|Duration of the project (months): |11 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Given that the figures in statistics of child crime are alarming memento of failures, we thought it necessary to create a project that would |
|be aimed at two target groups - children who are the actors in this crime, as well as parents who are responsible for the upbringing of their |
|children. Youth who have access to alcohol and drugs unwittingly creates a predisposition to become even a victim of human trafficking. |
|Responsibility of parents for child development and direction of individual sections of his life can not be anybody else’s responsibility. The|
|project entitled Prevention of Trafficking in Human Beings and Related Negative Phenomena will have a nationwide impact. Activities that will |
|accompany it should commence on 1 January 2015 and gradually they should gain the whole society dimension. Duration of the project is |
|estimated at 12 months. The project aim is to raise public awareness of the state of child and youth crime, to familiarise the public with its|
|causes and risk factors, as well as psychological symptoms of starting problems, such as behavioural changes, impaired school performance and |
|school attendance, lying, running away from home, gangs, selling possessions or petty thefts, and also to point out the possibility of |
|assistance. Another goal is prevention work within the target group, interesting parents and children in shared leisure, as well as creating a|
|mechanism of cooperation and coordination between cooperating entities. PROJECT OUTPUTS: An animation about human trafficking for children, |
|film festivals, increasing public awareness. Project outcomes will be distributed through the implementation of particular project activities |
|directly to the participants and indirectly through their publication on the website of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 119530,5) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 107577,45) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 45 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The project is too one-sided in accordance to the topic and therefore not effective enough. |
|Reaching youth and their parents by festivals is a phenomenon which was carried out earlier by UN. If results of this project had been achieved,|
|nothing had been said about this. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The readiness to communicate the developed methods with other MS and the awareness to human trafficking. One of the proposals is to change the |
|curricula of schools so youngsters will be informed. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The reason of choosing festivals for this activity hadn't been said; the involved professional public on neither this during UN action, nor the |
|number of parents or youth reached. Human trafficking is a typical phenomenon which cannot be solved by one member state but needs an integral |
|coordinated approach from several member states. The project should be executed by working out a better strategy and coordinated through several|
|member states. So by executing this project only by Slovak republic the impact will be less successful |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget |
| |
|The level of costs for travel in the budget indicates lots of activity that is not explained as such. |
|Dissemination is only effective in Slovak |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002570 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |LAW INSTITUTE OF LITHUANIA |
|Project title: |Building security networks for municipalities |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |LT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |European Forum for Urban Security (FR) |
| |Union of Baltic Cities (PL) |
| |Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Vilnius City Municipality (LT) |
| |Gdansk Municipality (PL) |
| |Riga Municipal Police (LV) |
| |Vilnius County Police Headquarters (LT) |
|Characteristics of the Project : | |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Project objectives are: 1) Development of new model of safety management in the cities based on community needs, views and institutional |
|capacities; 2) Building social communication and cooperation tools and networks between communities, police and municipalities in the cities; |
|3) Creating tools and instructions (handbooks) for local actors: community, police and municipality. |
|Duration: 36 months. |
|Participants: 4 academic, network, practitioner partners - 10 participants; 4 associated partners (municipalities and police) -around 12 |
|participants. |
|Activities: |
|1. Community surveys in the cities: feelings of insecurity, efficiency of police and municipality work ensuring security, satisfaction with |
|their work, major problems, what can be improved. surveys in Associated partners cities; (academic partners) |
|2. Analysis of police and municipality functions and activities, capacities in public safety area. Purpose: developed model will work |
|effective only if it fits structures, functions and capacities of institutions; (academic partners – questionnaire, network partners – |
|dissemination of questionnaire, collection of results through networks). |
|3. Development of new model of safety management in the cities based on community needs, views and institutional capacities (all partners) and|
|handbooks for crime prevention actors. |
|4. Creation of cooperation web portal with different tools (TI in cooperation with other partners): |
|4.1. Communication tool for local actors – community, municipality, police. Purpose: 1) avoid bureaucracy routines, encourage people join |
|communication, discussions, reporting issues, 2) involve local police inspectors into communication with local citizens, problem solving, |
|information exchange, 3) involve municipality representatives into communication with local citizens, problem solving, information exchange, |
|4) solve inner community problems, organisation, communication between community members, solve alienation problems in community. |
|4.2. Problem reporting tool. Mapping tool for different kinds of issues reporting connected to appropriate services (police, municipal). |
|5. Piloting the model: associated partners will implement created models and will install web portals.(Associated partners) 6. Project |
|implementation control and evaluation. Project work group meetings in model implementing cities (associated partners) for project evaluation |
|and model improvement. (All partners) |
|7. Dissemination |
|7.1. Project web portal with discussions, project materials, project activities description and reporting, project events information |
|(academic and practitioner partners). |
|7.2. EFUS and UBC annual conferences (network partners) |
|8. Management |
|Methodology: |
|Forces of multidisciplinary academic researchers, practitioners of municipalities, police officers representing law enforcement will work |
|together to develop new model of safety management in the cities based on community needs, views and institutional capacities. |
|1. For creation effective model situation assessment, evaluation of actors needs and capacities is needed. Community social surveys in |
|associate partners cities and analysis of police and municipality functions and activities, capacities in public safety area will be |
|conducted. |
|2. Later development of safety management model, production of handbooks and Creation of cooperation web portal will be started |
|simultaneously. |
|3. After development of model and tools, piloting of model, testing of web cooperation and reporting tools will begin. |
|4. For developing effective and efficient tools testing results, feedbacks of municipalities will be collected during work group visits to |
|piloting cities. Model amended after assessment of result, web tools bugs fixed, final versions developed. |
|5. At the end of the project evaluation survey will be conducted. |
|6. All project materials, surveys results, articles, findings will be published on project web portal for dissemination purposes. For better |
|dissemination project results and deliverables will be presented on UBC and EFUS conferences. |
|7. 6 project work/ evaluation meetings will take place during the project for fluent project implementation. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 246.493) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 221.843) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 63,25 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|Project insufficiently documented, both as to the concrete expected content of a new safety management model, and from the financial perspective|
|(for subcontracting and purchase). |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|It's an innovative proposal. Develop a tool to strengthen collaboration between police forces and municipality and citizens. Communication is an|
|important tool to improve and upgrade the working process of organizations. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|Concept of project not totally rigorous, attractiveness of deliverables not certain, dissemination not proactive enough |
| |
|4. Comments on budget |
| |
|Under TA, public survey is in charge of researchers, but 2.2.6.2 and 2.2.7.1. explain that tendering public survey is needed and public |
|procurement will be conducted, and budgeted for 15000€, while no offer is joined. Application announces satisfaction survey at the end of the |
|project, which is not reflected in TA, nor in budget. Same for final conference, which is presented as separate from the UBC and EFUS |
|conferences (2.2.4.1.), but is not mirrored in TA or in budget. Number of meetings far from excessive. Travel expenses limited as much as |
|possible for most visits, but accommodation and DSA are accounted separately, and for FR, total exceeds the maximum of the applicant's guide. |
|Number of participants misleading: includes participants to conferences of Union of Baltic City and European for Urban Security, though those |
|events are not part of the project themselves. |
|Budget for publishing, translating is missing. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002577 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |DIAPASON SOCIAL COOPERATIVE LIMITED RESPONSABILITY ONLUS |
|Project title: |Community reGENERATION |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |1. FONDAZIONE AQUILONE Onlus |
| |2. Contatto ASSOCIAZIONE CONTATTO ONLUS per la Promozione delle Reti Sociali|
| |Naturali |
| |3. La Fabbrica di Olinda |
| |4. Azienda Nazionale Locale -ASL –Milano |
| |5. Centro di Iniziativa europea Soc. Coop. |
| |6. Regione Emilia Romagna |
| |7. Fondazione Scuola Interregionale di Polizia Locale |
| |8. Comune della Spezia |
| |9. Associazione Me.Dia.Re. Mediazione Dialogo Relazione |
| | |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |1. Provincia di Milano |
| | |
| |2. Comune di Milano |
| | |
| |3. Comune di Bologna |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
| |
| |
|OBJECTIVES: Community reGENERATION aims at increasing the capacity and skills in the in the use of communication, interpretation and |
|relationship codes by all social users which are part of local communities in the target neighbourhoods, through actions of proximity, |
|training and research, in order to export experiences and good practices in other territories with similar situation. At the same time the |
|project intends to promote and sustain the participation of young people and more in general of |
|citizens to active citizenship paths. These tracks will go in the direction of incrementing social cohesion and of contrasting those phenomena|
|like exclusion and marginalization which favour external forms of individualism and the diffusion of criminal and violent cultures. |
|DURATION: 24 months |
|ACTIVITIES: |
|1. Project management and coordination |
|2. Monitoring and evaluation of the project |
|3. Communication and dissemination: 3 public seminars to comunicate the results of the research and analyse the development |
|of the local experimentation. The research report will be disseminated through the pubblication in the magazine" Quaderni di |
|città sicure", edited by RER. Institutional communication actions to partner and to the local community; Final conference which will be |
|supported by collateral events. |
|4. Research, analyses and communicate of best practices |
|5. Training activities: based on three training programs in "Preventing Youth Crime", to be developed according to the research |
|findings and carried out for Local Police operators of Milan, Bologna and La Spezia; Education and training given to Urban Agents and Actions |
|to empower vulnerable families (Strengthening Families Program and Training course for vigilantes who operate in the neighbourhood); Training |
|about a common model approach related to youth deviance and training organized for |
|an operational group inside the neighbourhood Umbertino in La Spezia in the realization of preventive activity about youth deviance; Training |
|“Dialog between educator and Local police” in Milan; Training “capacity to aspire” in Milan. |
|6. Experimentation of models of prevention: “Educators on the street” in Milano, Bologna and La Spezia; "Integrated aggregation of social |
|cohesion and local security " - aggregation social and cultural path for young people in Milan; Tutoring linked to aggregation Centres and |
|spaces in Milan; "Integrated aggregation of social cohesion and local security " - aggregation social and cultural path for young people in |
|Milan; “Mediation Centre” in La Spezia; NR. AND PROFILE OF PARTECIPANTS: young people: 1425 – police officers: 125 – inhabitants: 1830 |
|METHODOLOGY: The project foresees collaboration between public and private organizations active in the social field and operating in the |
|identified neighbourhoods. The exchange between institutions will be continuous and will be implemented on different levels: between public |
|and private authorities which operates in the same territory; between bodies operating in different territories which perform the same type of|
|activity from the point of view of the objectives and/or users and/or strategies; between bodies which have different models to transform |
|social realities (training, pedagogy, research, administration, social care). The experimentation on the territories will have common and |
|peculiar aspects; the approach to the crime problem will have interdisciplinary models. The approach linked to youth crime prevention which |
|contributes to the security of the neighbourhoods will be integrated with the socio-educational approach finalized to give support to the |
|growth path of young people. |
|EXPECTED RESULTS: |
|Increase of the knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of the youth criminality in the territory which are target of the research and |
|analysis , not only from institutions and from the educational agencies, but also from the side of the citizenship (young people in |
|particular) (1 data set; 1 final report; articles); realization of training paths (16 training paths) which target local police officers , |
|educators, citizens who in their daily activities meet young people; the efficiency in the intervention of crime |
|prevention (in particular offences, occasional crimes ) , implementation of innovative and experimental projects (7 in total) to increase |
|social cohesion in the territories and social participation and, in general, skill life, young people who are exposed at risk of entering in |
|criminal and deviance environments (Roma, unemployed, drugs consumers, young people who live in contests characterized by mafia culture). 430 |
|= 30% total involved young people). DISSEMINATION: at least 10 articles on media, at least 300 access to the website monthly. Participation, |
|as project testimonials, to national meetings organized by CNCA and other actors. Outputs: communication plan, project website, brochures, |
|reports, informative materials, 1 regional magazine. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 657.317,02) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 577.317,02) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 87,82 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 48 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The applicant has submitted a project, which is dedicated to the prevention of crimes committed by juveniles and - in general - the avoidance of|
|anti-social behaviour. Following the content of the application form, a main part of the project will be research work, elaborated on the local |
|level. However, the coherence between these three parts of the methodology is not clearly demonstrated and the focus is rather broad. As a |
|result it is not likely that these actions will produce (measurable) results. Additionally, the proposal does not discuss any transnational |
|follow-up or dissemination of the results beyond the national borders. The findings shall be communicated and disseminated afterwards via public|
|seminars and different training activities. As participants of these measures 1.425 young people, 125 police officers and 1.830 inhabitants are |
|foreseen. The total of the project would be round about 657.000€. We have to consider, that the project is a national, maybe only a local one. |
|Against this background it is not offering the best value-for-money-ratio and has therefore to be appraised as too expensive. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|Crimes committed by juveniles and anti-social behaviour in general are challenges the communities all over Europe are facing. Therefore all |
|efforts have to be undertaken to overcome the obvious development. In the light of this background the idea of the project has to be welcomed. |
|The applicant has also recognized that the local authorities and other stakeholders in charge are the ideal target group to tackle juvenile |
|crime. The project combines different types of intervention. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The project is a pure national one. Even if the applicant claims that planned measures will prepare transnational projects and/or European Union|
|actions, the application form is offering no hints that such an expectation will fulfil. The project has therefore no European value. Besides |
|has to be criticized, that a main part of the project would be research work. Here must be said, that the mechanisms of juvenile crime are |
|already well known. This project part seems therefore to be redundant. What we have to do instead is to develop new strategies, like bringing |
|all authorities in charge together (e.g on a round table). The applicant expects that he will be able to involve at least police officers. But |
|even here the project is at risk to fail. It would have been better of involve the police, the justice side and the local public administration |
|as direct partners. Such an approach would have promised a more sustainable impact. |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget |
| |
|It is a national project that aims prepare transnational projects by developing new guidelines and innovative methodologies for preventing youth|
|crime will be defined and a standardized risk factors analysis model will be proposed for replication in other contexts. This appraisal is |
|mainly caused by the fact, that the budget forms contain mainly staff costs (536.052 € from 657.317 € total costs). The project gives therefore |
|the impression, that the EU might finance in the first line the staff of the organisations involved. As such it could be a preparatory project |
|for a transnational project or for EU action and in theory the results could have potential for juvenile crime prevention in other cities. |
|However, as discussed above, the lack of coherence between research, training and experimental activities results in unclear final results. |
|Additionally, the proposal does not discuss how the results of the project will be disseminated to other EU MS to the EU level and/or EU |
|institutions or networks such as the EUCPN (just holding a final conference does not count as a ‘dissemination strategy’). Nor does it discuss |
|any follow up measures to make it really preparatory for a transnational project. The dissemination also does not foresee academic publications |
|through which the knowledge and experiences can be shared, nor is the final report translated in other languages. |
| |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002584 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |SOCIETY OF CITIZENS ASSISTING MIGRANTS |
|Project title: |Red light to trafficking |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |CZ |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |ARCA Romanian Forum for Refugees and Migrants (RO) |
| |Institute for African Studies (SI) |
| |Future Worlds Center (CY) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The project was designed in order to tackle three main issues:a) a lack of routine good practise of administrative bodies in combating THB, b)|
|Eventual inadequacies in current THB methodology and definitions used in combating THB, c) lack of victims ´ proper access to full scope of |
|their legal rights granted by national and EU legal order. Those issues represent obstruction to effective combat with THB and thus affect the|
|stakeholders and broad EU public interest of achieving and safeguarding the existence of area of justice, freedom and security as stated in |
|Stockholm Programme. Such negative situation makes it as well easier for traffickers to further exploit THB victims. |
|The project firstly aims at improving the situation of victims of human trafficking, in particular by providing free legal advice and free |
|social and psychological assistance. Since trafficked persons often fear deportation and expulsion, they wish not to cooperate with the police|
|and not to identify the perpetrators. By informing them about legal possibilities and protection which they can receive in conformity with |
|Directive 2011/36/ES (hereinafter as “Directive”), we can contribute to the improvement of their situation. |
|The project also aims to gain know-how and experience from the field and to ensure the materialization of the Directive. It will create a |
|possibility to suggest improvements in the field of protection of victims of human trafficking and identify the good and bad practises in |
|different MS of EU. Final Guidelines will contribute to more precise and accurate knowledge on human trafficking in EU and to a better |
|methodology in the access to information and will raise knowledge about these issues and ensure multiplier effect and wider impact on all the |
|relevant stakeholders. |
|The project shall last 24 months. Activities will consists of providing direct legal, social and psychological counselling to THB victims, |
|organization of international conference, preparation of Monitoring Report, field trip to Ukraine and dissemination of Final Guidelines to all|
|relevant stakeholders. We will build on our long-term experience and established platform of contacts among the target group. We will also |
|cooperate with other stakeholders, such as government officials and police officers, who will be asked to inform target group about the |
|existence of the project and share their experience in this field during international |
|conference in Prague. |
|Participating subjects shall be NGOs working in the field of THB and having vast experience in this matter: a) SOZE, Czech Republic, b) ARCA, |
|Romania c) Future World Center, Cyprus d) Institute for African Studies,Slovenia. |
|In regard to methodology, both descriptive and explanatory research design will be applied. The descriptive research shall consist of theory |
|building style applying leading question: “What is a correlation among availability of quality counselling and willingness of THB victims to |
|identify themselves as victims and to cooperate with stakeholders?” Descriptive research design shall be case study, using methods: |
|application of questionnaires, observation and analysis of documents. |
|Results will consist of one Monitoring Report by all partners on achieving above mentioned objectives, one international conference with |
|participants from 4 different member states, 400 THB victims provided with assistance and creation of special Guidelines on best practise and |
|suggested improvements in fight against THB in Romania, Cyprus, Slovenia and Czech Republic.Gained know-how will allow us to evaluate the |
|proper implementation of Directive and propose improvements de lege ferenda. |
|Dissemination strategy: All stakeholders will be addressed with brief project summary. Information shall be also published on applicant ´s and|
|partners ´ websites. The target group will be informed about the project during provided assistance and counselling. The stakeholders shall be|
|invited to conference. Guidelines will be disseminated directly through the stakeholders, shall be published on applicant ´s and partners´ |
|websites as well as on official website of EC. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 362.428,26) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 326.185,43) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 55 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project proposal is in line with ISEC programme, is interesting and concerns and important topic. |
|However the proposal does not explains sufficiently which objectives and results should be achieved and how. |
|Deliverables and outputs are concrete. The applicant seems to be experienced in managing international project, but further explanation on the |
|methodology would help to assess whether it is likely the outcomes will be achieved. Risk identification is sufficiently explained and |
|mitigation strategy is adequate. |
|Selected partners from SL, CY and RO are appropriate and with relevant experiences however, the tasks are not distributed in optimal way in the |
|connection with the activities and budget (all budget lines are given to the applicant). |
|Proposed actions are not properly reflected in the budget, in terms of number of participants and costs to be undertaken. |
|The project is transnational in terms of the partners involved and number of countries to be active in the project; however the real |
|transnational impact of the deliverables and products to be achieved remains unclear. The Application does not explain whether the outcomes of |
|the project could be transferred to other MS or if the information will be accessible in the applicant and partners web sites. |
|The project proposal could be a useful tool with strong impact on ISEC, under the condition of reviewing the concept and methodology of the |
|project (content of activities, result, outputs and deliverables) and budget that are not completely clear and in some parts are on border line |
|with eligibility within ISEC. If submitting reviewed project proposal in the future, it is strongly recommended to set up the quantitative |
|indicators of results, outputs and deliverables. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Conformity with ISEC programme priorities |
|- Innovative content |
|- Experienced partnership |
|- Multiplication effect |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Methodology and conception are poorly described |
|- Number of targets and beneficiaries are unbalanced |
|- Unrealistic budget, with no costs for co-beneficiaries |
|- Weak dissemination strategy |
|- Unclear impact and transnational nature |
|- Missing deliverables |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget break-down is not at all redistributed among the partners. |
|Staff costs seem to be very high in comparison with the number of beneficiaries of the guidelines, monitoring report and conference |
|participants. 22 members of the staff will be in fact the participants to the Final conference. In the evaluator´s opinion this is not balanced |
|or coherent and it is also limiting the dissemination and impact of project chances. |
|Regarding the travel expenses, the applicant has to change the DSA and travel monthly units to DSA and travel daily units for counselling. DSA |
|are not eligible in the home town where the project tasks are supposed to be fulfilled. Otherwise, it can be considered as routine organization |
|running costs, which is not eligible within ISEC programme. It must be specified how many travels will be performed for each activity. DSA for |
|Ukraine must to be calculated accordingly with Guide for applicants (2 full days of tasks performing – cannot be 3 DSA units). |
|No market research or offers are provided by applicant for Guidelines printing and no technical specification. |
|Selected names of experts are missing as well as information related to selection process of the expert. |
|The market research for subcontracting is missing. No offers per expense are submitted. The monthly units for subcontracting are crafty. 24 |
|months for each country related to activities 3 and 5 is completely unrealistic. It is not possible in reality to spend so much time for the |
|tasks in connection to these activities. |
|Conference costs are not well reflected in terms of interpretation costs. For example, the working languages have not been reflected, nor for |
|the conference or for the publications. Number of participants in the Conference is very low and it seems that only applicant and partners are |
|attending to the international conference. |
|Trips and conferences costs are reduced to its maximum taking profit of videoconferences, but nevertheless some of them are not sufficiently |
|well detailed. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002585 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS |
|Project title: |Towards a Pan-European Monitoring System on Trafficking in Human Beings |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PT |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Cyprus (CY) |
| |Federal Ministry of the Interior of Austria / Department for |
| |International Affairs (AT) |
| |National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human |
| |Beings (BG) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP) (AT) |
| |European Law Enforcement Agency (EUROPOL) (NL) |
| |Organization for the Security and |
| |Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (AT) |
| |International Organization for Migration (Lisbon) (PT) |
| |International Centre for Migration Policy Development (AT) |
| |Ministry of Justice of Brazil, National Secretariat of Justice (Brazil) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The main objective of the project is to provide countries with an THB efficient Monitoring System (MoSy) in the framework of Best Practices |
|regarding the harmonization of procedures for the collection, treatment, analysis and sharing of information. This MoSy is based on a reliable|
|collaboration network platform (web based) for the collection and dissemination of information and knowledge on THB allowing users to define |
|what to share between them, with minimum cost. To accomplish this goal there are 4 secondary (operational) objectives: a) to deliver |
|customized technical solutions to collect and analyse THB data; b) to promote a collaborative network environment by adapting the different |
|national systems and networks of data providers; c) to develop a common system to support all the partners to analyze data at a transnational |
|level, and share geo-statistical data using the same indicators; d)to extend the project to other relevant countries of origin, transit and |
|destination in the EU and neighboring countries by presenting its outputs as Good Practices to be adopted. Project duration: 24 months. |
|Activity 1- Kick-off: Steering Committee meeting; Activity 2 - Assessment Phase; Activity 3 - Steering Committee meeting on the development |
|and systems implementation; Activity 4 - Data Collection Management System and GIS Platform; Activity 5- 1st Mid-term Evaluation Report; |
|Activity 6 - Manuals on database and web mapping usage; Activity 7 - Training of national stakeholders and beneficiaries; Activity 8 - Data |
|Collection Management System and GIS Platform - Test Phase; Activity 9 - Platform final adaptations; Activity 10- Final Project Steering |
|Committee meeting; Activity 11- Final Evaluation – Report; Activity |
|12 - Elaboration of Project Handbook; Activity 13 - Sharing results – Final Conference. |
|The participants are representatives of national Ministries responsible for data collection and support decision/policy making. |
|Methodology: Creation of a Best Practice Community through a twin-track approach. Enhancement of data collection processes by promoting the |
|cooperation with different data sources at a national, regional and transnational level. Data collection and analyzes must be structured as a |
|dynamic process, supported by a strong proactive network of data and information providers and in full accordance with the national and |
|European legislation on data protection. Only by ensuring the continued active cooperation of the main sources of information it is possible |
|to guarantee that the data collection process will continue on the |
|long-run and that collected data will be meaningful and pertinent both at national and transnational level. Special attention will be given to|
|the enhancement of national coordination of a THB fighting and prevention network supported by the Monitoring System, by a small steering |
|committee. Training of stakeholders is essential to improve commitment on data collection and system resilience, and help to understand how |
|collaborative networks can provide a solution to overcome interoperability problems. Expected results are the creation and wide use of |
|national Monitoring System using a common technological platform in 4 countries; creation of a European focal point for gathering automatic |
|generated THB reports; technological and analytical empowerment (training and handbook) of stakeholders and practitioners in particular. |
|Analytical empowerment can greatly be improved by simple geo-statistical reports generated by the system, showing phenomena distribution at |
|multiple territorial levels, such as Eurostat´s NUT areas. The work carried out will continue after the end of the EC funding as the project |
|tools will be used by the participant countries after the end of the project. Its value increases with the information stored and disseminated|
|at local, national, regional and European level. This will be achieved by Mobility Partnerships between partners (political and institutional |
|commitment). Synergies with the European Commission Anti-Trafficking Portal will be promoted as well as with Eurostat and other European |
|Institutions. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 299.099,16) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 264.099,16) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 88,29%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: N/A
|REASONS: |
|Already awarded under Call for Proposals THB 2011, project 2251 |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002587 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |SINT LUCAS-DE EINDHOVENSESCHOOL, CONTRACTONDERWIJS THE ACADEMY |
|Project title: |Project for the development of Awareness and Expertise regarding identity |
| |and related issues. |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |12 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (NL) |
| |BeNeLux University Centre (BE) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Objectives : |
|1.) To create an increasing level of awareness regarding identity issues and creating a common EU definition and approach on identity, |
|identity issuing, identity management and forms of identity abuse, subsequently to create a higher level of recognition of risk moments in the|
|identity chain or identity process by launching an Identity Awareness and Expertise program. |
|2.) To emphasis the situation of the victims of identity abuse and avoiding treating these as (possible) suspects. |
|3.) To set up and maintain an European multidisciplinary network of identity specialists |
|4.) To design, set up and implement an operational web portal facilitating the exchange of scientific data, factual data, news and information|
|as a supporting tool for the above mentioned objectives. |
|The project duration is 12 months for part 1. The next step will be in 2012 or 2013 and will contain a proposal for having meetings in the |
|regional EU areas. In the in the third year each Member State and Accession State will be asked to have implemented the outcome of the 2 |
|meetings in 2012 and 2013 and having taken a national approach regarding the identity subject. |
|This year the project starts with designing and implementing the web portal. |
|This portal will contain 4 expert areas: a.) document information and support, b.) information and support regarding physical persons, c.) |
|legal and administration subjects, d. communications and information exchange. |
|Access will be granted to the Member States and Accession States and relevant stakeholders. |
|In the first year the 27 Member States, the Accession States and other stakeholders such as Europol, Interpol, Frontex and Olaf will meet in |
|Eindhoven for a meeting, seminar or congress. |
|Each MS is represented by a delegation of 15 persons, originating from administration/ministry, university/scientific organisation and law |
|enforcement organisations. The aim of the meeting is to create a common mind-set on identity and the combat of identity abuse. The |
|multidisciplinary chain approach and responsibility will be delivered, promoted and supported. |
|Outcome / Results: The delegates will be asked to carry out a scan on the national procedures, to make a risk analyses and start implementing |
|the multidisciplinary and chain approach and give feedback to the expertise platform and network. |
|After the meeting in the Member States is an increased level of awareness regarding identity and identity abuse and some relevant steps are |
|taken to prevent and combat identity abuse and stop the quickest increasing criminal activities of identity abuse such as id- theft and id. |
|fraud. |
|The web portal is a supporting tool and communication line for the network of experts in the field of identity related investigations. |
|Moreover the project's aim is to decrease friction in the different national departments regarding the responsibilities in combating identity |
|abuse in general and identity theft and identity fraud in particular as in these forms of criminality victims are involved. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 995.176) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 895.658,40) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) ) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 47 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1.Overall conclusion: |
|This is a poor project which fails to address a sound problem on identity issues and base it on a solid and well demonstrated argumentation |
|process. Its overall objective is to design and implement a web portal in order to create an increasing level of awareness on identity issues in|
|the 27 EU countries plus 5 candidate countries, Norway and Switzerland. The problem of identity is one of the crucial issues which have been |
|tackled by the Commission, the Council of Europe (Strasbourg) and ENISA among others, but the project doesn’t make use of any of these |
|developments regarding the topic nor does it refer to the state-of-the art both in the technological and juridical fields. Its call for creating|
|a high level of awareness on identity issues is not original as this call has been launched years ago and intensive work has been done. The main|
|activities are an international meeting and a webportal, but the methodology lacks a robust workstream structure and is based on the full |
|delegation of the essential work to the attendance (representatives of 27 EU MS, 5 candidate states, Norway and Switzerland). It is unclear how |
|the partnership will arrive to make every participant do the primary work in their countries by starting the necessary legal actions, developing|
|a national strategy and feed the web portal with information from their respective countries. There is no plan, no workflow, no structure and no|
|information on how the partnership will monitor such an attendance of 450 participants and assure and securitize the involvement of all the |
|targets. The partnership doesn’t seem too robust and the experience of the applicant in the fields covered by ISEC as well as its management |
|skills is not proven. The budget is exorbitant and totally unjustified. In sum the proposal doesn’t present any real impact on the Programme and|
|any European added value. |
|. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The importance of the topic |
|- The aim of bringing together representatives of the 27 EUMS with those of candidate states and Norway and Switzerland can be seen as valuable,|
|but definitely not a strength as the project doesn’t present any sound structure and organization to realize it. |
| |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Its poor conception |
|-Its unawareness of the recent developments of the issues related to Id management and fraud |
|-Its lack of the state of the art both on technological and juridical levels |
|-Its failure to propose a sound solution/methodology/tool |
|-Its lack of enough operational capabilities |
|-The lack of expertise of the applicant in the fields covered by ISEC (even if it organized trainings for Europol and Eurojust, its expertise is|
|not fully demonstrated) |
|- The lack of a robust partnership |
|- Its failure to impact the ISEC priorities and present an European added value |
|- Its exorbitant budget |
|- Its Poor and unclear results. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The budget is exorbitant as it requests 895.658 Eur for a project which fails to address a relevant issue and found it on a robust structure. |
|Moreover, it’s badly framed and fails to comply with the requirements of the Guide for Applicants. |
|Staff costs are not detailed and presented with all the required information regarding the name of the personnel and the tasks to fulfil (other |
|than the generic “starting the project and preparation of the portal”. The daily rate required is 550 Eur for a period of 200 days (total of |
|110.000E). This rate is definitely unjustified and doesn’t comply with the Guide for Applicants. |
|The other direct costs are the biggest portion of the budget. The highest costs concern the train and flight costs of EU MS representatives |
|(152.000 Eur) and the DSAs of 410 persons during 3, 5 days which amounts to 377.405 Eur. Moreover the speaker fees are also very high as they |
|cost 1000 Eur/speaker and reach 10.000 Eur for the 10 speakers involved. This rate needs to be lowered to the level of interpretation fees, ie |
|max 750 Eur/day and the names and functions of the speakers be listed with the attachment of their CV. |
|There are two subcontractings. The first one concerns the financial manager at a rate of 700 Eur per day for a 150 days duration (105.000 Eur) |
|which is very uncommon and totally unjustified. The second one is for logistic support at 19150 Eur. But there is no indication of the service |
|provider and no pricing document attached. Even if it is not mentioned the web portal design at 60.000 Eur is probably part of subcontracting |
|package. Here too, there is no proper information and justification of the rate |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002588 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGAL MEDICINE, PI |
|Project title: |Genetic identification of degraded and low-template DNA (LT-DNA) samples |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The main objective of this project is the establishment of a laboratory specialized in the analysis of biological samples with limit amount of|
|DNA, allowing the enlargement of the DNA profiles database with genetic profiles of biological samples, bodies or body parts collected at |
|crime scenes, enabling the establishment of the highest possible standard of cooperation, especially by means of improved exchange of |
|information, particularly in combating terrorism, cross border crime and illegal migration, traffic of human beings, while leaving |
|participation in such cooperation open to all other Member States (MS) of the European Union, and organs such as Europol and Interpol. |
|The duration of the project is 24 months. |
|The activities of our project are: |
|- Carrying out the entire infrastructure needed for the analysis of biological samples with low amount of DNA and/or degraded DNA. |
|- Create the lab capacity to perform exams to determine DNA profiles to be included at the DNA database (pre and post-PCR) |
|- Enlargement of the national database of DNA profiles of samples collected from dead bodies, body parts. And other crime scene samples |
|- Optimization of degraded and LT-DNA samples’ analysis cooperation with other countries by exchange of knowledge and collaboration in |
|cross-border criminal investigation cases |
|The project will be coordinated by the President of the NILM, Prof. Dr. Duarte Nuno Vieira, the Director of the Central Delegation of the |
|NILM, Prof. Dr. Francisco Corte Real, the Director of the Forensic Service of NILM Centre Branch, Dra Maria João Anjos Porto |
|Other participants include: |
|- 5 Genetic and Forensic experts |
|It was recently attributed to the NILM a renewed area of 212 m2, with 9 chambers, separated from the main Forensic Genetic lab, independently |
|accessible. This project have the purpose of implement, at that area, the first Portuguese DNA lab for degraded and LT-DNA samples´ analysis. |
|As a result of this project we'll have an effective cooperation between Member States in combating terrorism, cross border crime and illegal |
|migration, traffic of human beings in particular in matters of DNA profiles, in cases of difficult criminal cases. |
|Genetic information will be exchanged with other EU countries within the 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA decisions. |
|The optimization of methodologies will be present in international scientific meetings (namely at the European DNA Profiling group – in which |
|the Genetic Forensic Service is the Portuguese representative) and published at scientific journals. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 490.685,47) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 440.685,47) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,81%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 62 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project aims at improvement of DNA analysis quality by creation of technical basis of genetic identification of degraded and low-template |
|DNA samples. The Applicant has clear vision of how to solve this problem and activities to reach the defined results. Even though the problem |
|raised by the Applicant is topical, the project seeks to solve this only in one EU MS. In addition to that, the project almost only foresees |
|equipment costs and does not prepare transnational projects and/or Union actions ("starter measures"), nor complement transnational projects |
|("complementary measures"), nor has any potential for transferability. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Clear vision of objective and results to be reached |
|- Professional capacity of the Applicant |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- The forecast budget includes almost only equipment costs |
|- No actual "activities" foreseen |
|- No potential for transferability |
|- The Application form, the Forecast budget form and other documents could be elaborated more precisely and in more detail |
|- No partnership foreseen and limited added value to the EU level policy solutions. |
| |
|4. Comments on the budget: |
|The applicant has foreseen in total 3 (three) days for the staff to implement the project. The rest of the budget relates to equipment and to |
|some travel costs. |
|Concerning travels, the Applicant does not explicitly explain the necessity for the planned two staff travels, especially to Australia to |
|advertise the results of the project. The number of representatives for travelling is not mentioned in the Forecast budget form. The web |
|conference and other forms of communication would be advisable. |
|Concerning equipment costs, the Applicant in general terms has explained and justified the equipment foreseen to purchase within the project |
|although there is no clear explanation as regards the specific functions of the "multifunctional machine". The offers for the equipment are |
|attached, however the share of the budget dedicated to equipment is too high. |
| |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002590 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |STATE POLICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA |
|Project title: |Safety of Seniors |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |LV |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Ventspils City council Social service (LV) |
| |Pensioners' Association of Talsi (LV) |
| |Municipal police of Liepaja city (LV) |
| |Liepajas City council Social service (LV) |
| |Liepaja's district hospital (LV) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |N/A |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The object of the project is based on the governmental statement in Latvia - prevention as a priority. |
|According to the recent sociological surveys (in 2010) count of Latvia's pensioners was 475.9 thousand, that means 21.5% of the total |
|population of the country (2,208,400 inhabitants). In 2011, the middle rate was 261 per 1000 inhabitants retired, which means 26.1% of the |
|total population. Comparing to these two last years we can surely say account of pensioners is increasing. |
|Whereas the objectives of the project are: |
|- To train elderly people to respond and act in different situations, how to recognize a potential crime and different forms of violence, how |
|to protect themselves, build up confidence and promote cooperation with police and other organizations/institutions; |
|- To train police officers to work with seniors, emphasizing the physics and the mentally ill elderly people, contributing to staff knowledge |
|of the age period characteristics. |
|To achieve the goal, we plan to carry out the following tasks: |
|- involve elderly people in learning self-defense techniques; |
|- recommend how to protect all types of property (movable and immovable property, all types of payment instruments, pension funds and other |
|money fraud prevention); |
|- inform how to proceed in case of an offense; |
|- contribute to senior awareness of themselves as full-fledged road users; |
|- raise the issues of cyber security; |
|- protect of any form of violence (especially - domestic violence); |
|- present opportunities of seniors how to get involved in police work: |
|The trainings will be implemented by interactive, practical and theoretical methods with attendance of invited specialists: |
|- lectures, courses, seminars, discussion, tests, questionnaires; |
|- work on seniors/ public reports based on their suggestions and needs |
|- case studies; |
|- role playing games; |
|- situation/ simulation games; |
|- teamwork; |
|- learning by doing, teaching others. |
|- experience exchange visit to Sweden; |
|- publishing preventive materials; |
|- project evaluation conference and feedback report |
|After completion of the project we plan to find a sustainable cooperation with seniors, seniors associations. |
|Obtained information during the project as well as conclusions, theoretical and material resources will be updated based on the particular |
|public and social activities in our country. |
|The project is planned in collaboration with colleagues from Sweden, to get to know best experiences from abroad with a purpose to adapt best |
|practise in Latvia as well as to share our good practises. |
|At the end of each off - site seminar with gotten information and experience we plan to create an information-prevention handout brochure that|
|will be helpful to any individual, make practically applicable materials useful as reflectors hand alarms for daily use. After each quarter |
|finish line we plan to make suggestion folder to police officer in better communication and action based on community policing/ work with |
|seniors. Also carry out innovative approach to crime prevention among seniors. |
|Conclusion of the project is to make real pocket book/ brochure with added DVD about senior prevention with recommendations and suggestions. |
|This final material is planned to distribute to senior associations, for partner organizations (social services, hospitals, municipalities |
|etc.) Also this material will be sent to Police college as a innovative task to be taught and implement as part of education subject. We will |
|share our ides and innovative methods built during the project to colleges from abroad (Sweden, Italy, Czech, Belgium, Lithuania etc.) So it |
|will reach other EU countries too. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 275.373,06) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 247.835,75) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,99%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 58 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The project aims at the prevention of crime against the elderly by training them, informing them and by training police officers. It is a |
|national project with the aim to develop methods and techniques that could be transferred to other MS. However, while the project is clear on |
|the actions that will be implemented in Latvia, the choice of actions is not sufficiently underpinned. Additionally, the proposal does not |
|demonstrate how methods will be developed to transfer the results to the European level and as such does not comply with the conditions for |
|national projects. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- The proposal is well written |
|- The actions are very straightforward |
|- The Applicant demonstrate awareness of a changing society |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- The proposal does not demonstrate on what the choices for particular trainings are based |
|- The added value of a 3 day conference and a study visit is not explained. |
|- The project does not comply with the conditions for a national project; |
|- The European added value is not demonstrated |
|- Many assumptions in the Application cannot be monitored |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|A mass media expert is retained for 4 days a month during the project, while meetings with the mass media are foreseen only 1 day a month. |
|Retaining a mass media expert for more than 1 day a month should be justified. The same applies to retaining a financial director and an |
|accountant both 4 days a month. The financial side of the project is not that complex that is could not be done by the accountant alone with |
|only quarterly involvement of the financial director. |
|The need for 8 persons travelling to Sweden for a three day study visit is not justified in the proposal. A justification is needed, especially |
|as the Swedish expert also is scheduled for some visits to Latvia. |
|47.000 euro are allocated to a three-day final conference, including payment of accommodation for the participants and for accommodation and |
|flights for invited representative form other member states. The proposal does not justify the necessity of a 3 day conference. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002593 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |UNIVERSITY OF CAGLIARI |
|Project title: |BUSTER of ILLegal internet activities spread by fast flux service networks |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |28 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |FORTH - FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (EL) |
| |FUNCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD (UK) |
| |TISCALI ITALIA SPA (IT) |
| |WEST-MIDLANDS POLICE (UK) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA |
| |COMPARTIMENTO POLIZIA POSTALE E |
| |COMUNICAZIONI PER LA SARDEGNA - CAGLIARI (IT) |
| |HTLAW FIRM (IT) |
| |STUDIO LEGALE CATALANO PENALISTI ASSOCIATI (IT) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The goal of the ILL-Buster project is to provide a unified platform for the detection of illegal activities on the internet network. The |
|ILL-Buster project proposes to achieve this goal by first implementing a platform for detecting networks of computers infected by malicious |
|software (usually known as “botnets”). While doing this, a particular attention will be paid to Fast-Flux networks. |
|Second, the project proposes to implement a set of services for the detection and analysis of the malicious contents hosted and (illegally) |
|delivered through these networks. This goal will be achieved through the implementation of a platform that includes: |
|- A main-service, responsible of detecting and blacklisting fast-flux networks. |
|- A set of three peripheral-services that will inspect the fast-flux domains (black)listed by the main-service in order to assess if they host|
|and deliver illegal or malicious contents. The content analysis services implemented will be: |
|- A Copyright Violation Detection service, that will assess if the fast-flux network delivers copyrighted multimedia material |
|- A Child-Pornography Detection service,that will assess if the fast-flux network delivers child-pornographic contents. |
|- A Cybercrime Detection service, that will assess if the fast-flux network delivers malwares (within both .exe files and PDF documents). |
|A browser plugin will be also implemented that by using the informations collected by the platform will prevent users from accessing malicious|
|and illegal contents. |
|The ILL-Buster project will have a whole duration of 28 months, of which: |
|- Months from 1 to 22 will be used to implements develop, integrate and test all the components (both hardware and software) required to |
|implement the ILL-Buster platform |
|- Months from 23 to 28 will be dedicated to a piloting phase, where the platform will be used by LEAs during their normal investigation |
|activity. The piloting phase will allow to concretely evaluate the benefits deriving from using this tool during the investigation activity |
|and to enforce cooperation among Law Enforcement Agencies. |
|The activities related to the implementation of the ILL-Buster platform will be organized in nine different workpackages. |
|The project will be implemented through a consortium consisting of 2 Universities, 1 Research Institute, 2 Companies, 1 Center for Security |
|Studies, 3 Law Enforcement Agencies, and 2 Law Firms that will act as consultants. A brief description of the partners involved follows. |
|- University of Cagliari (UNICA). Project Coordinator. The Pattern Recognition and Applications group has a strong background in Pattern |
|Recognition, and is strongly experienced in applications concerning computer security, computer vision, and text classification. |
|- FORTH Institute of Computer Science (FORTH). European-wide leader for Computer Security research. |
|- Functional Technologies (FTL). A research performing company with strong expertise in multimedia forensics and security. |
|- Tiscali S.p.a (TISCALI). An italian Internet Service Provider which counts for more than 500,000 ADSL customers and about 9 milions page |
|views per day. |
|- Center for Security Studies (KEMEA). A scientific, consulting and research agency, whose purpose is to conduct theoretical and applied |
|research and to produce studies on issues concerning security policies. |
|- West-Midlands Police (WMP). The second largest force in the UK and is recognised as a national leader in the Investigation of Internet crime|
|and criminals. |
|In addition, the project will involve the following associate partners: |
|- University of Georgia, U.S. (UGA). The research group leaded by Prof. Roberto Perdisci has a strong expertise in computer security and holds|
|advanced skills in DNS traffic analysis. |
|- Postal Police (POLPOSTA). It will act as advisor in the ILL-Buster project and will contribute to the piloting phase. |
|- HTLaw Firm. HTLaw has a strong focus on criminal law relating to new technology; he acts for a number of leading national and international |
|companies in the IT sector. It will act as advisor in the ILL-Buster project. |
|- Studio Legale Catalano Penalisti Associati (CATALANO). A law firm which deals with criminal law cases, with special reference to |
|professional liabilities, crimes involved with IT and new technologies, defense of privacy and personal data. It will act as advisor in the |
|ILL-Buster project. |
|At the end of the ILL-Buster project we will deliver: |
|- A service that will detect malicious computer networks mainly (but not exclusively) focused on fast-flux networks. |
|- Three different services that will detect illegal and malicious contents delivered through fast-flux networks. |
|- A browser plugin that connecting to the four services described above will allow users' safe browsing. |
|- At least one report that will provide an in-depth analysis of the results achieved during the piloting phase of the ILLBuster project. |
|- A daily updated public list of malicious domains, available on the web |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 1.104.848,16 ) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 994.363,16 ) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 64 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The applicant has submitted an interesting proposal which is dedicated to the detection of malicious computer networks. The main goal of the |
|project is the elaboration, respectively the creation of a specific tool which enables public authorities to detect illegal activities within |
|the internet. However the proposal gives the impression of a general research project instead of a specific instrument, helpful for law |
|enforcement authorities. Concerning the core element of the project, the already mentioned tool, the content of the application form is bit |
|superficial. In the end the project raises some doubts, if the applicant will be able to reach this central goal. Besides has to be stated, that|
|the intended way forward would produce some serious problems related with legal questions (e.g. data protection issues and some fundamental |
|rights). |
|In addition to the above, the project budget forms should be elaborated in more detail and should contain descriptions of concrete activities |
|and concrete purchases. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Relevance of the problem |
|- Innovative element |
|- Professional capacity of applicant and partners |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Superficial budget forecast and high staff costs |
|- Risk to fail (no monitoring or evaluation strategy) |
|- Dissemination strategy not convincing |
|- Not clear transferability |
|- Underestimation of the risks related to legal issues (data protection and others) |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|Although the nature of the project and the expected result call for serious and high qualified experts work, the necessity of involvement of all|
|the people mentioned could be described in more detail by the applicant. The applicant has foreseen 141 months and 1727 days for the project |
|staff to implement the project. The salary levels are relevant. Staff costs constitute almost 90% of the budget |
|In addition to that, it has to be criticized that the costs for the staff of the partner "West Midlands Police" are foreseen for a |
|reimbursement. That's quite unique, as it is normally not possible to replace trained police officers (specialists) by specifically employed new|
|staff members. The costs are therefore doubtful. |
| |
|The budget forecast contains some mistakes: The costs for the task leader of UNICA are shown on the basis of 56 month. As the project has the |
|duration of 28 month the costs should be halved. |
| |
|Concerning travel costs, the information provided is quite superficial: various budget lines lack description. In addition to that, the specific|
|necessity for the travelling could be described in more detail by the applicant. |
|There is no justification for various budget figures, including the purchase of equipment for West Midlands Police. There are no offers of |
|service providers attached in the last version of the application. |
|The equipment is only shown as lump sums without any specification. That's an inappropriate way, even if the total amount is only 29.000€. |
|The budget sheets contain only imprecise seminar costs like "registration fees" or "conference" without providing further details. |
|The applicant has foreseen the creation of projects web page and various dissemination activities though they are not appropriately reflected in|
|the budget form. |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002599 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |LA STRADA INTERNATIONAL |
|Project title: |Strengthening Partnerships - European Action Pact for Compensation for |
| |Trafficked Persons |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |NL |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Anti-Slavery International (UK) |
| |LEFO-IBF (AT) |
| |Animus Association (BG) |
| |La Strada Czech Republic (CZ) |
| |Bundesweiter Koordinierungskreis gegen Frauenhandel |
| |und Gewalt an Frauen im Migrationsprozess, KOK e.V.(DE) |
| |La Strada Foundation against Trafficking in Persons and |
| |Slavery (PL) |
| |Women's Link Worldwide (ES) |
| |Coordinatiecentrum Mensenhandel (CoMensha) (NL) |
| |On the Road (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |Gender Perspectives/La Strada Belarus (BG) |
| |Open Gate/La Strada Macedonia (MT) |
| |International Women's Rights Protection and |
| |Promotion Center La Strada Moldova (DE) |
| |International Women's Rights Center La Strada Ukraine (UK) |
| |ASTRA - Anti Trafficking Action (Akcija protiv trgovine |
| |ljudima) (RO) |
| |Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented |
| |Migrants (PICUM)(BE) |
| |Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) (BE) |
| |Hogan Lovells International LLP (UK) |
| |OSCE / ODIHR (PL) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|This 36 month project aims to improve responses to trafficking in human beings by removing the barriers preventing victims from claiming |
|compensation and improving the knowledge and skills of professionals to better equip them to assist victims in obtaining compensation. |
|The project will achieve four specific objectives: |
|1. To increase participation of trafficked persons in proceedings against traffickers and empower them to claim compensation |
|2. To ensure that service providers, law enforcement, lawyers, judiciary and relevant institutions possess the skills and knowledge to engage |
|in seeking compensation for victims and removing criminal assets from traffickers |
|3. To foster transnational operational cooperation by building links and strengthening partnerships between NGOs (incl. networks) and legal |
|practitioners in countries of origin and destination 4. Enhance the use of tools and good practices on compensation and adapt these for new |
|countries and contexts This project builds on the extant results of the work of the COMP.ACT network, established in 2010. It will further |
|deepen the work and expand new areas. The evidence gathered by COMP.ACT shows that: few examples of successful compensation claims exist; only|
|a handful of individual professionals posses the knowledge to advance a compensation claim; compensation is often absent from policy and |
|referral systems. Consequently, the response by either the authorities or by civil society has been fragmented. The project will address these|
|gaps by combining good practice dissemination with capacity building; by taking cases and developing innovative transnational strategies, |
|including public-private partnerships. |
|Activities will be implemented on two levels: |
|Nationally, the project partners will partner with relevant (governmental) actors to remove the identified obstacles in access to |
|compensation. They will run test cases, engage strategic litigation and foster partnerships with international law firms. In-depth case |
|analyses will be carried out to increase knowledge on routes of redress and to disseminate good practices. They will provide capacity building|
|for relevant practitioners on supporting clients through the compensation claim process and linking compensation into relevant existing |
|trainings. Successful compensation claims will be promoted. |
|Internationally, the project will work with institutions, such as Europol and Eurojust, to build the capacity of law enforcement and judiciary|
|on victims’ rights, compensation, financial investigations and asset recovery. It will promote the use confiscation legislation across Europe |
|and explore ways of using seized assets to compensate victims. It will promote public-private partnership and advance collaboration with |
|international law firms to promote pro-bono assistance to trafficked persons and capacity building for lawyers. It will develop a body of |
|research on portable justice and engage in advocacy, based on collected |
|data and evidence. It will enhance networking between civil society, lawyers and law enforcement facilitating transnational compensation |
|claims for returned trafficked persons. |
|Beneficiaries of the project will be directly the trafficked persons. Front-line service providers, legal professionals, police, prosecutors |
|and judges will be both the beneficiaries and the target groups of the project. A secondary target group are decision and policy-makers |
|nationally and at EU level. |
|Methodology utilised in the project will include capacity building, training, strategic litigation, research, case analysis and knowledge |
|transfer. |
|The expected results: |
|1. Raised awareness and operational knowledge on asset recovery and compensation for trafficked people; on tools for transnational cooperation|
|and applicable EU legal and policy frameworks |
|2. Practitioners (incl. lawyers) in 13 European countries are trained on claiming compensation |
|3. Cross-EU partnerships between actors in countries of origin and destination, creating improved channels for strategies for compensation |
|seeking |
|4. Body of case evidence and in-depth case analysis collected, informing policy development |
|5. Increased jurisprudence on compensation for trafficked persons and better awareness of international legislation, including the EC |
|Directive 2011/36/EU Enabling stakeholders to exchange and share knowledge and to increase their capacity to claim compensation will ensure |
|that information is disseminated among relevant actors. The body of knowledge produced and results achieved will be disseminated through |
|relevant networks and contacts. Some of the project’s main partners are networks with broad constituencies that will be able to reach an |
|increased number of stakeholders. Results and information will also be disseminated to relevant professionals and the general public through |
|electronic channels, websites and on-line resources. The broad dissemination of knowledge and learning envisaged by the project will |
|contribute to its future sustainability |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested € 516.979) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested € 464.723) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,89%) |
CONCLUSION: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD
TOTAL SCORE: 64 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
|The Applicant has raised the very topical issue of awareness-raising of the victims of trafficking in human beings as well as of the public and |
|non-governmental institutions on the compensation claims from the traffickers in human beings. |
|The whole proposal is in accordance with the objectives and priorities of the Call for proposals and the Internal Security Strategy. All results|
|defined within the application form as the effects of foreseen activities are comprehensible and tangible and match the ISEC priorities. |
|However, the methodology and conceptualisation of the proposed project are not precise. The results of activities within the technical annex and|
|their content in connection to budget break-down are in some cases not clear. |
|Information is missing on which are the new countries where the project expands to (as mentioned in the call, ten countries will be addressed). |
|It is not explained how the countries will be chosen and how relevant stakeholders in those countries will both input actively and be directly |
|involved. |
|The innovative aspects of this project are not explained. |
|The applicant has adequately defined the main indicators in the application form. However they could set-up also another category of the |
|indicators related to training, seminars, etc. |
|The budget is arguable. |
|The success of the project very much depends on the risk mitigation actions and of the quality of the involvement of all the necessary parties. |
|Finally, it is crucial to wait for the outcome of the COM.PACT EUROPE (a project on the very same subject and predominantly the same partners) |
|before justifying financial commitment to such a project without risking repetitions and duplications. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
|- Relevance of the topic |
|- Partners experience in EU projects |
|- Impact on ISEC objectives is well described |
|- Clear vision on how to reach the defined results and good dissemination strategy. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
|- Unclear methodology: There is a lack of clear and concrete mention of the methods for activities´ implementation, measureable indicators of |
|the results: deliverables and outputs almost in all activities within the technical annex. |
|- Lack of clarity on the countries where the project will be conducted, how the choice will be made and how the stakeholders will be involved |
|- Lack of innovative element and risk of duplication with project COM.PACT EUROPE |
|- High budget, not clearly justified |
|- Lack of details on partners involved and on allocation of tasks among partners |
| |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget: |
|The value for money is not demonstrated in totality of the budget break-down due the lack of information related to inputs of the number of |
|persons, days, etc. The whole budget calculation is not clearly and precisely developed. It would be necessary to better explain the tasks of |
|all involved experts that have not been yet preselected. Some costs related to staff are over the line set-up by Guidelines for applicants and |
|they are not duly justified. Offers and market research are missing for justifying the costs of trainings, seminars, dissemination materials. |
|For example, activity 18 does not include the number of persons, of days, offers or market research. Idem for awareness material. There are no |
|details about the type of material, no numbers, no technical specifications –pages, paper quality, binding etc., no offers or market research |
|submitted. In addition to that some experts are foreseen but no supporting documents are attached to application form. (Requirements, selection |
|process, offers, etc.). |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002602 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION |
|Project title: |S.O.S CRIME |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |IT |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Chamber of Commerce of Treviso (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |National |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Through the years the Province of Treviso has carried out various initiatives against crime, all of them characterized by both the objective |
|of making the Province a secure and liveable territory and the sharing of a methodological approach. The issue of security cannot be demanded |
|only to the police as the institutional subject in charge of ensure this objective. Civil society as a whole must contribute to this |
|objective, everyone according to his/her competences. The current crisis has emphasized that enterprises and citizens that are in |
|economic/financial difficulties can be potential victims of crimes that are relatively new for our territory.The project aims to support, |
|through prevention strategies, actions to contrast and repress usury, racket, mafia penetration into civil society and enterprises, as the |
|police are already doing.For this reason it is necessary to set up a barrier against usury as soon as possible by setting up counter measures |
|in order to avoid that entrepreneurs become victims of crime. |
|According to the Public Prosecutor of the anti-mafia National Directorate (DNA), Veneto is not free from mafia penetration, above all in its |
|economic fabric. The adopted methodology consists in a form of shared governance with the local stakeholders implemented through a “network to|
|support workers in difficulty” that can make available, in an organized and coordinated way, the resources on hand by intervening quickly and |
|specifically.Thus, it is necessary to catalyse the resources towards a framework project that can: • test a “fast alert system” enabling to |
|help companies that are temporarily in difficulty, though still vital, by offering them advice, assistance and economic support. • Identify |
|pathways to overcome temporary difficulties, to reposition one’s company, to restructure it or to assist it in its liquidation/bankruptcy also|
|by promoting interventions for “the second chance”.The project will articulate into three stages (total duration: 36 months): |
|1 – Survey of what has already been implemented by the different local stakeholders, |
|2 – Setting up of a support network and identification of a task force,3 – Start of the activities |
|1 – Survey of what has already been implemented by the different local stakeholders: |
|- counselling service, Freephones, psychological support, - collection of the significant data to understand the phenomena and specific |
|surveys - Setting up of a data collection centre about companies in difficulty, with the collaboration of the law court, INPS, trade unions, |
|revenue office etc. |
|2 – Setting up of the support network and identification of a task force:- identification of the network subjects, of the resources and of the|
|priority actions, - spreading of the information functional to facilitate the access to services – dissemination - Activation of a single |
|freephone to enhance and support already existing experiences, setting up of a help-desk for entrepreneurs, - Setting up of a task force to |
|draw up and speed up the procedures for enterprises in difficulty, with the presence of INPS, revenue office, trade unions, trade |
|associations, banks and law court. |
|3 – Starting of the activities |
|- Freephone, counselling service and first guidance service: analysis of the needs, help-desk activation, specialized advising services,- |
|Psychological advice and guidance, support, remotivation, reguidance, requalification and assistance services, - Support to microcredit and |
|credit access, specific advice to entrepreneurs - Definition of a coaching service for entrepreneurs that want to try again.Indirect |
|beneficiaries: the police, social operators, trade associations, public bodies, credit system. Direct beneficiaries: potential victims, forty |
|people (we think to contact about 400 potentially interested subjects and to start testing support pathways for about 40 subjects/victims or |
|potential victims).The expected result is the definition of a model of intervention to support cases of usury and enterprises at risk of being|
|penetrated by criminal organizations; a model that can be replicable and that can be tested in other Italian and European realities. The |
|dissemination of the project outcomes will be carried out during the project activities in order to achieve the widest possible dissemination |
|of information to the relevant stakeholders and policy makers. The coordinator aims to stimulate: - a debate on crime prevention policy issues|
|raised by the SOS Crime project by ensuring the dissemination of the project objectives and outputs, and obtaining feedback from a broad set |
|of stakeholders. - wider public interest in this policy issues raised by the project by placing those issues on the policy agendas at local, |
|regional, national and European levels. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 147.700) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 132.700) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,94 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 50,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|This is a poor project which fails to demonstrate the relevance of its subject matter and justify its activities. Even if it aims at developing |
|good practices for the prevention and the protection of the victims of crimes such as usury and attempts of organized crime penetration in the |
|fabric of small and medium enterprises, its key strategic directions, methodology and outcomes are not clearly framed. The solutions offered are|
|not soundly addressed as well as the methodology to implement them. Basically they concern the counselling and coaching service for |
|entrepreneurs and the activation of a fast alert system. But the project fails to demonstrate the relevance of these solutions within a sound |
|and convincing argumentation process. The activities are not streamlined, it is unclear how and by whom the surveys will be conducted and the |
|stakeholders be involved in the activities. Actually the project lacks a sound background preparation as there is no reference study or research|
|on which it bases its assumptions. Moreover, It doesn’t make use of the recent European developments as well. The partnership composed of 2 |
|Italian partners doesn’t reflect sound expertise of the topic as well as solid project execution capabilities. The amount of financing is |
|correct but the budget is not well designed. Overall the project is unlikely to impact the priorities of ISEC programme, generate a transferable|
|solution and present an European value. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The attention given to the mafia intrusion in local enterprises is an interesting topic. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|Its poor conception and lack of background study: absence of sound argumentation process and a well framed activity plan. The solutions such as |
|coaching and alerting aren't substantiated. There is a lack of a sound methodology both on conceptual level and on the level of management. |
|Clear directions for surveys and the assessment of survey results aren't present. Lack of use of the recent European developments, plans, |
|strategies. The expertise and management skills of the partnership are not supported. The impact on ISEC programme is not supported. There is no|
|transferability and European added-value |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget |
| |
|The requested financing from the EU is 132.700 € distributed between staff costs and other direct costs. Even if this amount is overall |
|reasonable, it doesn’t justify the funding of this project for this latter lacks a relevant problematic and fails to propose a sound methodology|
|and implement efficient actions. As such, it is not cost-effective and doesn’t present any multiplier effect or economies of scale. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002603 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES |
|Project title: |Private Internet Parties And trans-border gathering of Data by Law |
| |Enforcement |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |BE |
|Duration of the project (months): |36 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE) |
| |King's College London (UK) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: |European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) (NL) |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|Online safety, security and reliability of the Internet depend upon early detection of criminal activity and gathering of digital evidence. |
|Due to the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, the storage and transfer of electronic data are cross-border by definition. |
|Law enforcement agencies are challenged by the transnational dimension of the Internet where harmful and illegal content and activities cross |
|borders and affect citizens. Supranational cooperation among law enforcement authorities is intrinsically necessary to investigate and |
|prosecute crime by securing digital evidence from public or private entities located in another country. |
|Modern uses of information and communications technology and progress in EU police and criminal justice cooperation have placed the obtaining |
|of digital evidence for crime fighting in trans-border situations high on EU policy-making, in particular the Internal Security Strategy. |
|Still, challenges affecting law enforcement cooperation with private entities and judges require common standards, exchange of knowledge and |
|training strategies. What is PIPAD? |
|The PIPAD project (Private Internet Parties And trans-border gathering of Data by Law Enforcement) aims at contributing to the development of |
|common EU standards and legal principles for trans-border law enforcement cooperation, with particular attention to the gathering and use of |
|digital data from private IT firms in the prevention and fight against crime in the EU. The project will identify best practices and areas for|
|improvement in European cooperation on the basis of experiences and knowledge of representatives of law enforcement, private sector and the |
|judiciary in the fight against cross-border crime. |
|PIPAD will promote mutual trust between law enforcement authorities and foster their cooperation with private IT firms and the judiciary by |
|building a structured dialogue on challenges and opportunities to further improve cross-border cooperation without compromising security, |
|legal certainty and fundamental rights; and developing an innovative training dimension for law enforcement authorities. |
|The assumption of the project is that the different modalities of gathering digital evidence in the EU call for reinforced exchanges of |
|knowledge and training on common standards and principles. Policy-makers and law enforcement need to work closely with the Internet industry |
|as well as with the judiciary to develop a trust-based framework for cooperation in this rapidly-changing environment. What are PIPAD’s |
|objectives? |
|*To study gaps of knowledge and outstanding issues in European cooperation in crime fighting and prevention in the context of obtaining data |
|by law enforcement from the Internet industry |
|*To explore and address the main challenges of legal and practical nature for law enforcement cooperation at EU level in the gathering and use|
|of digital evidence in cross-border cases and to develop an updated model of cooperation between law enforcement agencies and private |
|operators |
|*To foster mutual understanding and transfer experiences by identifying best practices in transnational cooperation in crime fighting on the |
|basis of the sharing of knowledge and expertise between practitioners from law enforcement, private sector and the judiciary |
|*To elaborate general principles and common standards to guide and improve cooperation at EU level as regards cross-border electronic evidence|
|between law enforcement, judges and private actors |
|*To engage these sectors in an EU-wide debate and develop bridges between them through the use of innovative participatory Methodologies |
|*To organise a dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, including EU policy makers, on outstanding issues at European level and reflect on |
|specific policy recommendations for the Union |
|*To develop an innovative training dimension composed of a handbook and a training module on best practices, as well as a training session for|
|law enforcement actors; and to foster cooperation with relevant EU agencies Who are the partners? |
|PIPAD creates a new consortium combining an experienced think tank, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) as main coordinator, and two|
|key universities, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and King’s College London (KCL). The European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)|
|will be a key associated partner. Strong links with private actors will be ensured thanks to existing fora of cooperation in the context of |
|the project. EUROPOL and the European Police College (CEPOL) have agreed to participate as informal collaborators during the project. An |
|Advisory Committee of key experts in PIPAD’s topics will be set up to carry out peer review of the findings. What is PIPAD’s added-value? |
|The project will promote the exchange of knowledge of promising practices between law enforcement agencies, the development of common |
|standards and legal principles for cooperation and a strong training and dissemination strategy with results which will outlive its lifetime. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 475.700) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 428.130) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 90 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 62,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The project addresses a real/actual need at European level in the area of the fight against internet crime by building a model of public/private|
|partnerships between law enforcement and private internet companies, facilitating the flow of information between both. However the project is |
|rather theoretical. The applicant is not aware of developments in the area, including other projects financed by the EU. In this context the |
|project would probably double some earlier activities. The content of the handbook is unclear. There is also lack of formal practical input from|
|Law Enforcement or judicial authorities. Informal cooperation mentioned several times in the project is rather uncertain. |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The main strengths of the proposal are its relevance, sound methodology and output that can be used by all member states also after the end of |
|the project |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The main weaknesses of the proposal are its partnership which is only academic and fails to include law enforcement and private internet |
|companies. This will affect its credibility at operational level and delivery of results which are more than academic analysis. In addition, the|
|engagement of the law enforcement community depends on one specific subcontractor. Moreover, the project lacks an evaluation strategy and |
|indicators to measure its impact. |
| |
|4. Comments on Budget: |
| |
|The budget is not considered value for money in terms of staff an travel costs as not always the most cost effective solution has been chosen: |
|for instance, for action 17 (training session) 7 staff members will be present, without explaining their added value and who is going to be a |
|trainer (e.g. what is the added value of the PhD student attendance). In addition, travel costs are budgeted for a CEPS staff member who |
|apparently is not Brussels based but lives in London. Also, a number of project meetings are budgeted and the proposal does not clarify why |
|other methods such as web conferencing have not been used. |
| |
Please note that the project Summary was provided by the Applicant in the Application Form
SUMMARY DATA
|Registration number of the Application: |HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/4000002606 |
|Name of the applicant organisation: |YOUTH FOUNDATION |
|Project title: |MULTI-PREV: Multi-Agency Approach on the Prevention of Youth Risk Behavior |
| |Identified with Juvenile Crime |
|Member State where the applicant organisation is registered: |PT |
|Duration of the project (months): |24 |
|Co beneficiaries of the grant: |CHILDREN SUPPORT CENTER (LT) |
| |CRIME PREVENTION FUND (BG) |
| |INSTITUTO DE APOIO Á CRIANÇA (PT) |
| |ASSOCIAÇÃO DE APOIO A VITIMA (PT) |
| |FORMEZ (IT) |
|Associate partners/not co-beneficiaries of the grant: | |
|Characteristics of the Project : |Transnational |
|Summary (REF APPLICATION FORM: 2.1.9): |
|The Youth Foundation aims, such as the program advocates, to promote a multi-agency approach between the NGO sector and public entities (law |
|enforcement agents, teachers and other social agents that have direct contact with youngsters at risk of committing crime) regarding the |
|prevention of youth risk behavior identified with juvenile crime. |
|Initially, it is intended that the involved NGOs make an accurate analysis of best practices at the European level on the issue in question, |
|especially on the level of the diagnosis and prevention of the deviant behavior from the perspective of the cooperation between the public |
|entities, represented by schools and the law enforcement officers, and the NGO sector. |
|Based on these reports on best practices, and on the assessment of need and expectation of the involved Member States in terms of training in |
|this subject, the working group shall produce a handbook which will include all information collected in the first phase along with a training|
|tool based on the best practices that are carried out at the European level. |
|As a final goal, the project aims to present the training program in a European seminar and to promote specific training sessions both locally|
|as well as virtually providing a digital platform for the dissemination made at European level. |
|Total eligible costs of the project (EUR) |NA (requested 221.526,10) |
|Max. grant awarded (EUR) |NA (requested 199.326,10) |
|Max. % of EU co-financing |NA (requested 89,98 %) |
CONCLUSION: NOT AWARDED
TOTAL SCORE: 50,5 points
|REASONS: |
| |
|1. Overall conclusion: |
| |
|The applicant has submitted a proposal which is dedicated to the prevention of and the fight against juvenile crime. This crime phenomenon is a |
|serious problem, in some countries even a remarkable threat, as it affects the whole society. The applicant and the partners involved intend to |
|foster the collaboration between the relevant stakeholders. The idea has to be welcomed in general. The project inheres nonetheless a severe |
|lack: On the one hand guidelines and training tools for the target group of police and public administration authorities shall be elaborated. On|
|the other hand no representative from the law enforcement, respectively from public administration, is directly involved. The project inheres |
|therefore a remarkable risk, that the target group might not be interested in the outcomes. Furthermore the quality of the outcomes might be |
|inadequate. The testing method is not robust enough; the dissemination is limited and does not take advantage of existing EU channels on |
|prevention matters. |
| |
| |
|2. What are the strengths of the proposal: |
| |
|The approach of the applicant in the form of bringing all stakeholders in charge for the topic "juvenile crime" together is surely an |
|appropriate way to foster a better understanding, to improve the collaboration and to reach some positive effects for the target group of |
|juveniles and the effected society. Also the idea to share best practice, to learn from each other and to create new and sustainable networks |
|can be assessed as means of choice. |
| |
|3. What are the weaknesses of the proposal: |
| |
|The proposal inheres a severe lack related to the choice of partners directly involved. As the applicant intends to elaborate guidelines and |
|training tools for public administration and police agencies, the expertise of these authorities in charge should be used. Otherwise the |
|outcomes will show a lack in quality or will not be accepted by the target group. Besides has to be said, that the mechanisms of juvenile crime |
|and the strategies to prevent and fight against this crime phenomenon are already well known. The wheel hasn't to be reinvented again in this |
|crime area. Therefore some core elements of the project like the creation of a handbook seem to be redundant. |
| |
|4. Comments on the Budget |
| |
|The applicant and the partners involved have mainly declared considerable costs for their own organisations (staff costs, travel costs). Besides|
|the budget forms contain in particular costs for the hosting of several conferences and the fulfilment of the dissemination strategy. Costs for |
|the actual target groups of the planned measures are not foreseen. On the one hand positive, as the project is cheaper then. On the other hand |
|has to be asked, why all costs of the applicant and the partners should be covered, while the beneficiaries should attend on the basis of their |
|own budget. As some core elements of the project like the handbook and the training tool are doubtful, partly even unnecessary, the project |
|itself is not offering the best value-for-money-ratio. |
| |
| |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- european winter solstice greeting cards
- european history online course
- european journal of philosophy
- european journal of experimental biology
- european dividend aristocrats etf
- european pharmacies shipping to usa
- modern european history topics
- european credit cards for americans
- european financial management
- west european people
- european journal of dentistry
- european people art