What made it work, and what got in the way
Italy, Estonia and Hungary use EU and national funds to finance or track support for children in very different ways. Each met obstacles along the way, and each found ways to overcome them. This activity looks at what made the three practices work, what got in the way, and which of their strategies can be transferred to other contexts.
"The Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Italian experiences demonstrate that structured coordination mechanisms linking National Action Plan steering with ESF+ programme management are essential for translating funding availability into coherent, child-focused action."
Three practices. The same four questions.
Each practice works on a different part of the financing chain. Next you will open each one, question by question. All three answer the same four questions, so you can compare them directly.
What it does, what made it work, what got in the way, how it was overcome
Open each question. It opens on all three practices at once, so you can compare directly.
Different practices, the same four obstacles
The three practices finance or track different things, in different countries. Yet the obstacles they met fall into four groups: fragmentation between actors, incomplete or inconsistent data, administrative complexity, and difficulty reaching the most excluded children. The strategies that worked also converge: roles fixed in a formal framework, dedicated support for those who implement, common definitions and guidelines, and trusted intermediaries.
- Delays and administrative complexity
- Weak relations between public administrations and Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities
- Keeping 31 territories consistent
- Fragmented services
- Fragmented services
- Reaching young people not in education, employment or training
- Maintaining quality over time
- Limited and late disaggregated data, for example on Roma children
- Inconsistent indicators across policy areas
- Many data providers to coordinate
Four obstacles, four strategies
Each obstacle below appeared in more than one practice. Open each one to see the strategy that overcame it, where it was used, and the condition it depends on.
Strategy: fix roles in a formal framework. Estonia's cooperation agreement defines who does what in each municipality and is also the basis for allocating funding. Italy's Managing Authority designated the territorial areas by decree and supports them with national guidelines. Hungary coordinates its data providers through regular consultation forums.
It depends on
a body with the mandate to convene the actors involved.
Strategy: agree common definitions and combine data sources. Hungary developed unified indicator definitions and combined administrative data with improved sample surveys. Estonia generates monitoring lists from national registers twice a year.
It depends on
data-sharing agreements between institutions and a statistical office with a formal role.
Strategy: provide dedicated support to those who implement. In Italy, expert teams provide technical support, tutoring and supervision to the territorial areas. In Estonia, national agencies provide coordination, guidance, data tools and capacity-building to municipalities.
It depends on
a budget for technical assistance from the start, not once delays appear.
Strategy: work through trusted intermediaries and reach out proactively. Italy employs facilitators from the Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities. Estonia combines monitoring lists with mobile youth work. Hungary uses sample surveys to make Roma children visible in the data.
It depends on
dedicated resources and time to build trust.
"Italy's RSC Project shows that reaching the most structurally excluded child populations requires a combination of dedicated ESF+ resources, community-based trust-building mechanisms, involvement of community members themselves as facilitators, and integration into wider national inclusion strategies."
Which strategy would you transfer first?
Each situation is illustrative and set outside the documented countries. Select up to two strategies you would transfer, then confirm. The feedback shows the strategy most relevant to the situation and the condition it needs.
Scenario 1 · The programme no one can see whole
A national programme against child poverty is co-financed by an EU instrument. Five ministries and two agencies each run part of it. Each reports to its own line ministry, and no one can say what the programme as a whole has achieved.
The obstacle is fragmentation. As in Estonia and Italy, a formal framework that fixes roles and links them to funding gives the programme one shape; common definitions then make the parts add up. The condition is a body with the mandate to convene. The Council Recommendation asks Member States to "nominate a national Child Guarantee Coordinator, equipped with adequate resources and mandate enabling the effective coordination and monitoring of the implementation of this Recommendation" (Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004, point 11(a)).
Scenario 2 · The municipality that starts late
A municipality receives funds to support families with young children. Its small team spends most of its time on procurement rules and reporting templates, and the services start six months late.
The obstacle is administrative complexity. As in Italy, technical support, tutoring and supervision by expert teams helped territorial units manage the requirements. Clear roles between national and local level reduce duplication. The condition is a budget for technical assistance from the start.
Scenario 3 · Enrolled, but not attending
A programme for Roma children reports high school enrolment. Attendance data are not broken down by group, and community representatives say that many families do not trust the school.
The obstacle is reaching the most excluded children. As in Italy, facilitators from the community can rebuild trust between families and schools; as in Hungary, combining administrative data with surveys makes the children visible in the data. The condition is dedicated resources and time.
Strategies transfer; conditions have to be built
In each situation, the strategy itself can be transferred: a formal framework, dedicated support, common definitions, trusted intermediaries. What does not transfer automatically is the condition beneath it: a mandate, a budget for technical assistance, data-sharing agreements, time to build trust. The documented practices built these conditions deliberately, often on the basis of earlier programmes.
"Administrative data can transform service delivery from reactive provision to preventive, personalized, and data-driven intervention, but only when digital infrastructure and inter-agency data-sharing arrangements are in place."
Three things the evidence shows
Different practices meet the same obstacles.
Fragmentation, data gaps, administrative complexity and the difficulty of reaching the most excluded children recur across financing and tracking practices alike.
The strategies that work are structural.
Formal roles, dedicated support, common definitions and trusted intermediaries keep working when individuals change.
Strategies transfer; conditions have to be built.
A mandate, a budget for technical assistance, data-sharing agreements and time to build trust come first.
Apply this to your context
If you work at national level
- Which of the four obstacles is most visible in your programmes today?
- Who has the mandate to convene the ministries and agencies involved?
- Is technical assistance for local implementers budgeted from the start?
If you work at municipal or service level
- Where does most of your team's time go: delivering services or meeting administrative requirements?
- Which children are you not reaching, and who could help you reach them?
- What support would you need from national level?
Take this to your team: four obstacles, four strategies
Practices that finance or track support for children differ widely from one country to another. Yet the obstacles they meet are often the same: fragmentation between actors, incomplete data, administrative complexity, and the difficulty of reaching the most excluded children. The strategies that overcame these obstacles in Italy, Estonia and Hungary can be transferred, provided the conditions beneath them are built.
Three things the evidence shows
- Different practices meet the same obstacles: fragmentation, data gaps, administrative complexity and the difficulty of reaching the most excluded children.
- The strategies that work are structural: formal roles, dedicated support, common definitions and trusted intermediaries.
- Strategies transfer; conditions have to be built. A mandate, a budget for technical assistance, data-sharing agreements and time to build trust come first.
Questions to use with your team
- Which of the four obstacles is most visible in our programmes today?
- Who has the mandate to convene the ministries, agencies and municipalities involved, and is that mandate written down?
- Do our implementers, at national and local level, have technical support from the start?
- Do we use the same definitions and indicators across institutions, and can we share data lawfully?
- Which children are we not reaching, and which trusted intermediaries could help us reach them?
The point of this card is to move from what worked elsewhere to what your system needs first. Bring it to a working group or a team meeting and start with the first question.