Whether EU funds achieve Child Guarantee objectives depends not only on the allocation, but on how the funds are tracked, coordinated and aligned with national systems. The documented Member States built a traceable chain from the financing instrument to the child. Italy channels €40 million of ESF+ through 31 territorial social areas, with several layers of monitoring; Estonia blends ESF+, national and municipal funds to pay for permanent local roles and identifies young people from national registers; Hungary finances a national outcome-monitoring framework for the Child Guarantee from the national budget, with the EU Technical Support Instrument. Across the documented practices, results are mostly reported at output level and rarely at outcome level, and most direct services still depend on EU funds.
Follow the money to the child
Three applied activities from the same evidence base: follow the four links from allocation to the child and place eight documented approaches on the chain, compare how Italy, Estonia and Hungary overcame the same four obstacles, and lead one programme through six years of decisions towards a national budget line.
Every plan names its funding. Few can trace it to the child.
Across countries, ESF+ financing sits inside complex governance arrangements that involve several sectors, several levels of administration and several delivery mechanisms. The ECG Recommendation and the National Action Plans provide the policy framework, but there is limited evidence on how Member States actually operationalise ESF+ resources for child-related measures. Three structural challenges persist.
Allocation is mistaken for delivery. Member States whose child poverty rate is above the EU average must earmark at least 5% of their ESF+ allocation; all others must earmark an appropriate amount. Meeting the threshold says nothing about which instruments reached which children.
Financing and monitoring are built by different institutions. Managing authorities track expenditure for audit, while Child Guarantee coordinators track child outcomes, and the two systems rarely meet. The documented practices report outputs with precision, but outcome-level evidence remains scarce.
Project funding has an end date. Governance and monitoring can survive on institutional mandates. Direct services depend on moving from EU project funding to a national budget line, which most practices have not yet secured.
The rest of this brief follows the financing chain that can show, at any time, how much reached which children, and what makes measures and results last.
“The strongest practices are those that combine clear ESF+ financing instruments with structured governance and monitoring architectures, creating a traceable chain from EU-level policy commitment through national programme design to local-level service delivery and beneficiary outcomes.”
Four links, from allocation to the child
The documented practices differ widely in scale, type of intervention and sector. The analysis identified the links that made interventions stronger. The first link is the instrument: the rule by which EU money is paid out. Cyprus pays its childcare subsidy as a unit cost per child per month, capped at 80% of actual costs or €350, with eligibility pre-filtered through the Child Benefit system. The second link is fund management. Italy designates 31 territorial social areas as fund managers, each coordinating schools, social services and third-sector organisations. The third link is tracking that follows children as well as funds. Estonia generates twice-yearly lists of young people at risk from national registers and checks outcomes every six months; Hungary updates a national outcome framework annually, using data supplied under a standing contract with the Central Statistical Office. The fourth link is transition and sustainability. Austria’s voucher scheme is legally anchored until 2029, with an ESF+ budget of €18.6 million for 2021 to 2027 plus a national top-up of up to €7.5 million a year, and Hungary funds its monitoring framework from the national budget.
Three practices show the chain at work, each strongest on a different link.
EU funding channelled through 31 territorial social areas
The clearest documented route from a national envelope to named children, tracked every quarter.
Each of the 31 territorial areas manages its share of the €40 million ESF+ budget and coordinates schools, social and health services and third-sector organisations, with methodological support and training from the Istituto degli Innocenti. The project addresses persistent and severe social exclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti (RSC) children and adolescents by enrolling them alongside non-RSC classmates, which reduces segregation. Monitoring tracks procedure, finances and physical outputs in the Multifondo system, updated quarterly.
What transfers: one national envelope with territorial units as fund managers; a modular design with a mandatory core; monitoring that links expenditure to children; community facilitators as a funded role.
The catch: ESF+ is the only funding source, and continuation beyond the programming period is still being assessed by the Ministry and the Managing Authority. Rebuilding trust with communities takes time that a project timeline does not always allow.
Blended EU, national and municipal funding for permanent local roles
Uses EU funds to pay for a system rather than a project, and finds young people not in education, employment or training through national registers and local knowledge.
A formal cooperation agreement defines roles and processes for every local actor and is also the basis for allocating and accessing funding. Municipalities appoint a network lead and youth case managers, and adapt services such as youth centres and mobile youth work. The Ministry of Education and Research, the Education and Youth Board (HARNO) and the Social Insurance Board (SKA) provide coordination, data tools and training. The model is expected to continue with external funding and integration into national reforms.
What transfers: a cooperation agreement that also governs funding, which keeps the approach integrated; mixed funding from EU, national and municipal sources; targeting of the at-risk population through combined data and local knowledge.
The catch: it needs strong governance and coordination mechanisms, data systems for identification and monitoring, and the data-sharing agreements that register-based targeting requires, which many administrations do not yet have.
A nationally funded framework that tracks outcomes as well as funds
Tracking anchored in the national budget, with EU technical support.
The framework integrates statistical and administrative data from education, health and social services into one indicator system, aligned with Child Guarantee and ESF+ requirements and covering outputs, outcomes and impacts. The Central Statistical Office supplies data under an annually renewed contract, and the framework allows disaggregated analysis across seven thematic areas. Where data on target groups such as Roma children were thin, administrative sources were combined with improved sample surveys. Common indicator definitions and regular expert forums keep the data providers consistent.
What transfers: a cooperation agreement with the statistics office; common definitions agreed across institutions; outcome indicators designed in from the start; domestic funding for operation, with external support for design.
The catch: the national and international data sources available decide how much scrutiny is possible. The Technical Support Instrument is open to Member States only; for candidate and potential candidate countries the nearest equivalents are TAIEX and Twinning.
“It is of paramount importance to make the monitoring system a ‘living system’: using digital and analytical tools that are not only suitable for data collection, but also for real-time support of policy decision-making.”
What makes adoption work
- Establish adequate fund management channels. Italy’s territorial social areas and Estonia’s municipalities were designated as fund managers and integrators before delivery started. Without such mechanisms, ESF+ resources risk being dispersed across uncoordinated interventions.
- Link payments to what reaches children. Cyprus uses Financing Not Linked to Costs (FNLC) for its free-breakfast programme: reaching at least 49,854 recipients unlocks an EU contribution of €8.3 million, with delivery recorded monthly in the educational management system.
- Build tracking with the instrument. Multifondo, Cyprus’s educational management system and Estonia’s monitoring lists were set up alongside the funding. Hungary designed outcome indicators from the outset, rather than adding them once outputs had been reported.
- Plan the national budget line from the first year. Austria’s voucher scheme is legally anchored until 2029 with a national top-up. Cyprus’s subsidy sits inside the permanent Child Benefit system, and Hungary’s framework runs on the national budget.
What gets in the way
- Sustainability beyond the current ESF+ programming. Italy’s project is funded entirely from ESF+, and Estonia’s continuation depends on external funding. The synthesis describes sustainability beyond the programming period as a systemic challenge for all financing practices.
- Cross-sectoral coordination in domains that are traditionally siloed. Bulgaria’s experience shows that continuous effort is needed for the Child Guarantee to be recognised as a cross-sectoral initiative rather than a purely social-sector policy.
- Spending is tracked; children are not. Audit systems follow euros and procedures. Outcome evidence remains scarce, and where an outcome framework exists, as in Hungary, its data may not be open to scrutiny.
- Data-sharing barriers between institutions. Insufficient data limit monitoring and early identification. Estonia’s targeting works only because registers are linked; Hungary had to supplement thin data on Roma children with sample surveys.
- Administrative load and procurement delays. Public procurement delayed material support in Bulgaria. Italy needed expert technical support to overcome administrative complexity. Unit costs and results-based payment are a partial remedy, but only where outputs can be defined in advance.
What transfers
Effective coordination must precede funding. Structured links between Child Guarantee steering and funding management turn available financial resources into coherent, child-focused action. Without coordination, resources are scattered across unconnected interventions.
Digital delivery of material support makes implementation easier. Digital administration of benefits and vouchers cuts administrative load, reduces the stigma of accessing benefits and brings support closer to families.
Administrative data can support proactive identification. Interconnected data systems allow children and young people at risk to be identified early and supported individually. This works only where digital infrastructure and data-sharing agreements between institutions are in place.
Funding is most effective when connected to services and communities. Material support adds most value when designed as an entry point to wider family support. Reaching the most excluded children requires dedicated resources, trust-building, and community members working as facilitators.
Sustainability is designed from the start. Practices built into permanent structures such as benefit systems, schools and national strategies have stronger prospects than those added on later.
Transferability tags
Sources and depth
- Documenting experiences of the European Child Guarantee: ESF+ Financing and Tracking Synthesis ReportEN