Väikeprojektide avatud taotlusvooru "Taastava õiguse arendamine Eestis II" hindamiskomisjoni otsused ja rahastamiseks kinnitatud projektitaotlused

EEA and Norway Grants 2014-2021 Programme “Local Development and Poverty Reduction” Selection Committee meeting Date and time: June 28, 2022 from 13:00 to 15:30 (Estonian time) Venue: Cisco Meet web platform & MoSA, 3rd floor, room Uluots (Suur-Ameerika 1, Tallinn)  Small Grant Scheme „Developing restorative justice measures in Estonia II“ Selection Committee voting members:  Ms Laidi Surva – adviser, Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of Justice;  Ms Anu Leps – adviser, Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of Justice;  Ms Triin Mäger – case manager at the Child Protection Services of Pärnu city government. Observers:  Ms Gudrun Gudmundsdottir – Financial Mechanism Office, Senior Sector Officer, Health, Children and Youth, also representing the Financial Mechanism Committee  Ms Margit Aus – representative of the National Focal Point; State Shared Service Centre;  Ms Piret Marvet – representative of the donors, Royal Norwegian Embassy in Tallinn.  Ms Kelly Poopuu – representative of the PO Implementing Agency, State Shared Service Centre.  Mr Ülar Vaadumäe – Ministry of Social Affairs, Smart Development Department, chief specialist, PO. Minutes of the meeting Mr Ülar Vaadumäe gave an overview of the goals, targets and criteria of the call for proposals. Also, Mr Vaadumäe introduced the submitted project and explained the tasks of the Selection Committee. For more, please see Annex 1 (PO presentation). Altogether 7 project applications were received within the deadline (March 21, 2022 at 17:00 o’clock local time) set for the call.  As a result, the overall total grant amount applied for is approx. 452 000 EUR, exceeding the total grant available by approx. 43 265 euros. Programme Operator Implementing Agency (State Shared Service Centre) has carried out the assessment of project application to the eligibility and administrative criteria set in the call text. The project met the administrative and eligibility criteria and was forwarded for evaluation by two impartial, independent and reliable experts. These experts were:  Evaluator 1: Ms Jana Laht-Ventmann, consultant, Department for Juvenile Crimes and Crimes of Violence Committed in Close Relationships, Northern District Prosecutor's Office;  Evaluator 2: Ms Kadri-Ann Lee, Civitta Ltd consultant (previously an adviser, Public Order and Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of the Interior);  Evaluator 3: Ms Helika Saar, manager, Children’s' Rights Programme, Estonian Union for Child Welfare  There were 3 project applications where the difference between the scores given by the two experts was over 30%, therefore a third evaluation was necessary (point 20.5)   There was 1 project proposal receiving less than 50% of the total score, and therefore will receive automatically a negative decision (point 20.6). Please see also Annex 2 (Ranking list of experts). Discussion Mr Vaadumäe opened with a remark that according to the evaluators’ average score points the six projects could be grouped in couples – 1-2 leading, 3-4 in the middle and 5-6 a little bit behind. He admitted that in some cases the comments of evaluators and their respective scores seemed not to be in line. Mr Vaadumäe also admitted that for three projects out of six an additional evaluation was needed. Ms Laidi Surva brought out that the applications by Development Centre for the Unique School (1) and the Office for the Commissioner for Gender Equality and Equal Treatment (2) really stand out as forward looking and with practical focus. The applications by Rapla Municipal Government (3) and Muhu Municipal Government are (4) oriented to local community building that is also one of the main goals of the call. The applications by NGO Home of Oskar Allik (5) and Tartu City Government (6) are less thought through. Ms Triin Mäger really liked the project by Rapla Municipal Government with community-based approach and involving very many local partners. For her, it was good that the projects varied in their activities and target groups, Tartu City Government being a little bit too general / vague in its description. Ms Anu Leps said that for her the projects applied by local governments (Rapla and Muhu) were the best in regard to the core idea of the call. The Office for the Commissioner for Gender Equality and Equal Treatment strives to deal with the topic nationwide, but the communities’ activities deal at the grass-roots level with the target groups and build in this aspect stronger resilient communities. Rapla Municipal Government has done its research and has engaged impressive amount of partners; at the same time Muhu is a small and compact island where all inhabitants could be reached, i.e. parents and children. Although the Muhu elementary school has not been included as an official partner, the school itself is governed by the applicant. Awareness raising activities on restorative justice issues are relevant for such a mixed, but at the same time coherent community. NGO The Home of Oskar Allik brings added value into incorporating restorative justice measures in the area of dealing with young people with disabilities or trauma experience. Tartu City Government has taken up an important target group (child protection workers) on board, but the outreach depth and size of target group has not been elaborated. -------------------------------------------- The Selection Committee members were on the opinion that in general, the committee could accept financing all 6 projects, but some adjustments in budgeting and additional clarifications are in order. 1. Foundation Development Centre for the Unique School project proposal “Application of restorative justice measures in school environment” in partnership with Foundation Werrone, Pärnu-Jaagupi elementary school, Tartu Hansa school.  Project is reasonable and achievable and no adjustment comments were made by the Selection Committee members. 2. Office for the Commissioner for Gender Equality and Equal Treatment project proposal “Restorative justice study materials in the frames of the national curricula (TÕÕRÕR)” in partnership with the Office for the Chancellor of Justice and the University of Tartu Project has an ambitious goal with a very large target group (approx. 25 000 schoolchildren) but the link to reaching the target group is weak (passive). The materials produced need to be also taken into use in real life, uploading the materials for everyone to use might end up with nobody using them. The project has indicated that the goal is to include the restorative justice topics into national school curricula, but no elaboration has been presented how this can be achieved. The partnerships do not include the Ministry of Education and Research in charge of national curricula, as well as teachers’ association or the Education and Youth Board. The applicant should envisage how the materials could be taken up in real life activities. The budgeting of the project activities has also been quite luxurious and should be decreased. The following remarks were made: - because the Office for the Commissioner for Gender Equality and Equal Treatment has a functioning website, it was proposed that there is no need for an additional website and instead, project-related activities can be added to this website and possibly to the websites of project partners, thus decreasing the budget by 18 000 EUR; - For the project opening and closing event, a total of 11 000 EUR should be allocated, thus decreasing the budget by 6 500 EUR. 3. Rapla Municipal Government project proposal “Developing restorative justice measures in Rapla municipality” in partnership with Police And Border Guard Board, Alu school, Hagudi elementary school, Juuru Eduard Vilde school, Kabala kindergarten & elementary School, Kaiu kindergarten "Triinutare", Kaiu elementary school, kindergarten "Sinilill", Raikküla school, Rapla City Centre school, Rapla kindergarten "Kelluke", Rapla kindergarten "Naksitrallid", Rapla kindergarten "Päkapikk", open youth centre of Rapla municipality, Rapla Vesiroosi shool. Project is very well thought through and targets the core objectives set for the call. No adjustment comments were made by the Selection Committee members. 4. Muhu Municipal Government project proposal “Applying restorative justice measures in Muhu community” Muhu has included a trainer (Mr Jaanus Kangur) who is an inspirational speaker but who has very little – if at all – practical implementation experience in the area of restorative justice. The Selection Committee suggests Muhu to include for at least for one 6-day training cycle a person with practical restorative justice experience / qualifications. The list of suggested trainers can be found here https://sotsiaalkindlustusamet.ee/et/ohvriabi-ennetustoo/taastav- oigus. 5. NGO Home of Oskar Allik project proposal “Application of restorative justice measures in milieu therapy” The project has a specified focus on the personnel of the NGO, although the children are seen as the final beneficiaries, then the activities deal with the capacity raising of the treatment workers. Mixing therapeutic action with restorative justice measures is a good idea to test. The project has budgeted very many administrative people. Although the workload of them is not very high, then some of the described activities are purely the duties of the project manager and the assistant (compiling reimbursement requests and reporting, signing contracts, communication with the donors). Therefore, the procurement of “project administrative leader” in the sum of 4 750 euros is not considered necessary. Additionally, the 25% workload of the communication expert is overrated and uploading information and materials to the web-page in the sum of 1 200 euros is directly the job of the communication expert. Unfortunately, the travel costs in the sum of 5 880 euros at the restorative justice conference in Sassari, Italy on June 22-June 26, 2022 could not be considered eligible any more, as the event has already taken place. 6. Tartu City Government project proposal “Developing restorative justice measures in Tartu city” The project lacks in the description of the size and grasp of the target group (child protection workers). The applicant should elaborate in what size the target group is included into the activities (target levels; interest in engaging the activities; only Tartu or incl. child protection workers also from bordering municipalities of the county?) as well as give more insight into what the case management model consists of and how it would be connected with restorative justice measures (what is the output?). The role of parents and the engagement of parents should be clarified as well. The applicant should also describe the risk of personnel changes and how the project could mitigate the risk of project accomplishments to overcome this. Selection Committee decisions Selection Committee decisions are guided by the desire to finance six (6) projects from this round. Approve a project grant to the following project applications as requested: 1. Foundation Development Centre for the Unique School project proposal “Application of restorative justice measures in school environment”  award a grant in the amount requested, i.e., 109 710,00 euros. 2. Rapla Municipal Government project proposal “Developing restorative justice measures in Rapla municipality”  award a grant in the amount requested, i.e., 49 858,00 euros.  Approve a project grant to the following project applications with conditions: 3. Office for the Commissioner for Gender Equality and Equal Treatment project proposal “Restorative justice study materials in the frames of the national curricula (TÕÕRÕR)”  award a grant of 77 655 euros in maximum (request decreased in minimum by 24 500 euros), taking into account the following (NB! The current grant sum is pending a potential decrease after the salary rates will be overseen and adjusted by the applicant):  The project has indicated that the goal is to include the restorative justice topics into national school curricula, but no elaboration has been presented how this can be achieved. The partnerships do not include the Ministry of Education and Research in charge of national curricula, as well as teachers’ association or the Education and Youth Board. The applicant should envisage how the materials could be taken up in real life activities and also to describe how the cooperation with suggested organisations is done for implementing the project.  The project does not need a separate web-page in the amount of 18 000 euros. The project information can be presented at the applicant’s web-page as well as the deliverables (materials) of the project can be uploaded there and to the page of the project partner Office for the Chancellor of Justice and eSchoolbag web environment. Yet another new website that would after the project supplement the “graveyard of websites” is not seen as justifiable.  The sums foreseen for the opening and final event have been overbudgeted, the maximum sum seen sufficient for both events combined is 11 000 euros (decrease in the sum of 6 500 euros).  The salaries foreseen for experts do not seem – at least for some of the experts – as usual remuneration for their job. A rate of 209 euros per day (incl. all social security contributions), converts to a monthly gross salary of 3 280 euros and the corresponding net salary of 2 529 euros. Although this salary level could be seen as normal for some higher-ranking experts (e.g. Ms Liisa Pakosta, Ms Ülle Madise, Mr Andres Aru, Ms Anna Markina), then for some other lower level experts it seems to be too high. The applicant should oversee usual salary rate for each line of work and lower the rates per day correspondingly. The applicant should additionally provide a confirmation letter that the (adjusted) salary rates are in line with salary rates customary for the same job in the same region. 4. Muhu Municipal Government project proposal “Applying restorative justice measures in Muhu community”  award a grant in the amount of 54 739,00 euros (request decreased by 3 924 euros), taking into account the following:  The applicant should include for at least for one 6-day training cycle a person with practical restorative justice qualifications. The list of trainers can be seen here https://sotsiaalkindlustusamet.ee/et/ohvriabi-ennetustoo/taastav-oigus. The salary rates for the restorative justice trainers are lower (i.e. 500-550 euros in gross per day) than of the expert (Mr Jaanus Kangur) provided by the applicant itself. 5. NGO Home of Oskar Allik project proposal “Application of restorative justice measures in milieu therapy”  award a grant in the amount of 62 884,63 euros (request decreased by 13 945 euros), taking into account the following:  procurement of “project administrative leader” in the sum of 4 750 euros is not considered necessary as they fall under the duties of the project manager and the assistant (compiling reimbursement requests and reporting, signing contracts, communication with the donors).   the workload of the communication expert (25% during whole of the lifespan of the project overrated and could be limited to 20%. Additionally, 270,00 euros should be deducted from indirect costs.  uploading information and materials to the web-page in the sum of 1 200 euros is directly the job of the communication expert, so the expense is not justified.  The salaries of Activity No 2 and Activity No 3 coordinators cannot be considered as “Staff costs” because the experts are not the assigned staff of the applicant. As a result, no indirect costs can be calculated from these costs (deduction of 1 593,75 euros).  participation costs (travel in the sum of 5 880 euros) for the restorative justice conference in Sassari, Italy on June 22-June 26, 2022 could not be considered eligible any more, as the event has already taken place. 6. Offer Tartu City Government project proposal “Developing restorative justice measures in Tartu city”  award a grant in the amount of 53 900,00 euros (request decreased by 900 euros) with the following condition:  Prior to the official grant awarding decision by the Implementing Agency (State Shared Service Centre), the applicant must elaborate in what size the target group is included into the activities (target levels; interest in engaging the activities; only Tartu or incl. child protection workers also from bordering municipalities of the county?). In addition, more insight is needed to understand what the case management model consists of and how it would be connected with restorative justice measures (what is the output?). The role of parents and the engagement of parents should be clarified as well. The applicant should also describe the risk of personnel changes and how the project could mitigate the risk of project accomplishments to overcome this. This grant sum is left over from the grant decisions made in points 1-5. Therefore, the Selection Committee proposes Tartu City Government a maximum grant available from previous decisions. The applicant may – in case not feasible – also reject the proposal. Mr Ülar Vaadumäe thanked everybody for their input and closed the meeting. Meeting chaired by (digitally signed) minutes taken by Laidi Surva (digitally signed) Ülar Vaadumäe  EEA and Norway Grants 2014-2021 Programme: Local Development and Poverty Reduction Selection Committee meeting June 28, 2022  Small Grant Scheme „ Developing restorative justice measures in Estonia II“  Overview Project max duration: 22 months Call amount: € 408,750 Project grant size: € 30,000 – 150,000 Project grant rate: 85%-100% Eligible applicants: all entities established as a legal person in Estonia or an international organisation acting in Estonia. SGS is financed from the NOR Grants FM  Eligible activities of the small grant scheme (1): The supported activities include: a) piloting new methods based on restorative justice in working with juvenile and young offenders; b) testing the approaches and methods based on restorative justice in various environments, including institutions for children and youth, social, child protection and youth work, the police, the prosecutor’s office, courts, probation services, and closed institutions, including prison; c) awareness-raising activities, including information days, information materials, printed matter, video and audio recordings, etc.;  Eligible activities of the small grant scheme (2): d) activities for the inclusion of community in raising awareness and improving knowledge and skills regarding restorative justice; e) training activities, including training courses, seminars, workshops, exchange of practices, training courses for future trainers, etc.; f) pilot projects with the aim of creating a community based on restorative justice, e.g. restorative school, workplace, city, etc.; g) production of study materials, guidelines, instructions, etc.; compilation, design, printing etc.; h) other supporting activities that help to expand the use of restorative justice.  Targets (cumulative for the SGS): Grant will be awarded to a project proposal that contributes to at least one of the following three output indicators:  implementing an awareness campaign on the topic of restorative justice (2 campaigns in total);  piloting restorative justice initiatives in the criminal justice system, school or the community (3 initiatives in total);  training of trainers in the field of restorative justice (10 trainers in total). Number Expected programme Indicator Baseline Baseline Target results value year value National prevalence of Enhanced wellbeing of juvenile offending (self- Outcome 1 children and youth 18% 2014 16% reported) children's abnormal behaviour survey results Evaluation criteria of the SGS No Criterion Points % Justification of the project, incl. project objective and suitability of 1 activities for achieving the stated goals 7 10,00% Activity plan of the project, consideration and involvement of target 2 groups 17 24,29% Background, competence and involvement of team members in project activities and involvement of partners, incl. partners from 3 donor countries 19 27,14% 4 Communication 5 7,14% 5 Sustainability and innovation of the project 10 14,29% 6 Economic efficiency and co-financing of the project 9 12,86% 7 Risk factors 3 4,29% TOTAL 70  Projects received within deadline:  Altogether 7 project proposals were submitted by deadline  Total grant amount applied for is approx. 452 000 EUR, exceeding the total grant available by 43 265 euros  No donor partners were included in any project proposals Evaluation of independent experts  Evaluator 1: Ms Jana Laht-Ventmann, consultant, Department for Juvenile Crimes and Crimes of Violence Committed in Close Relationships, Northern District Prosecutor's Office  Evaluator 2: Kadri-Ann Lee, Civitta Ltd consultant (previously an adviser, Public Order and Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of the Interior)  Evaluator 3: Ms Helika Saar, manager, Children’s Rights Programme, Estonian Union for Child Welfare  There were 3 project applications where the difference between the scores given by the two experts was over 30%, therefore a third evaluation was necessary (point 20.5)  There was 1 project proposal receiving less than 50% of the total score, and therefore will receive automatically a negative decision (point 20.6).  Ranking list of experts Grant Average Project name Duration Project Promoter Grant % Diff. No applied score Application of Foundation Development restorative justice 01.06.2022 - Centre for the Unique 109 710,00 90,00% 65,00 8,82% measures in school 31.03.2024 School 1 environment Restorative justice Office for the study materials in the 01.07.2022 - Commissioner for Equal 102 155,00 100,00% 61,50 4,76% frames of the national 30.04.2024 Opportunities 2 curricula (TÕÕRÕR) Developing restorative 16.05.2022 - Rapla Municipal justice measures in 49 858,00 100,00% 48,25 1,03% 15.03.2024 Government 3 Rapla municipality Applying restorative 01.07.2022 - Muhu Municipal justice measures in 58 663,00 100,00% 45,50 10,42% 01.04.2024 Government 4 Muhu community Application of restorative justice 01.06.2022 - NGO Home of Oskar Allik 76 829,63 90,00% 39,00 9,76% measures in milieu 31.12.2023 5 therapy Developing restorative 01.08.2022 - justice measures in Tartu City Government 54 800,00 100,00% 38,50 25,00% 31.05.2023 6 Tartu city Developing base materials for 01.06.2022 - NGO Restorative Justice 32 305,50 90,00% 31,50 9,09% restorative justice 31.07.2023 Research Center 7 measures Selection Committee members Voting members Ms Laidi Surva – project manager, Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of Justice; Ms Anu Leps – adviser to the Criminal Policy Department, Ministry of Justice; Ms Triin Mäger – case manager at the Child Protection Services of Pärnu city government Observers The representatives of the National Focal Point and Programme Operator Implementing Agency (both State Shared Service Centre) as well as the donor states (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Financial Mechanism Committee) shall be invited to participate as observers. Selection Committee tasks The goal to confirm the list of project applications suggested to be financed and the list of project applications not to be financed and forward its decision to the Programme Operator Implementing Agency (i.e. State Shared Service Centre) for formal decision making. The tasks  review the ranking list of project applications resulting from the mathematical average of individual expert evaluation scores;  confirm the list of project applications suggested to be financed and the list of project applications not to be financed;  modify the ranking list of the project applications or propose only partial financing of projects in justified cases based on transparent criteria recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting. After the Selection Committee  Chairman of the Selection Committee and the PO will sign the minutes of the meeting, where decisions are laid down in a transparent and accountable manner describing which project proposals shall be awarded a grant and which proposals will be rejected.  PO Implementing Agency will cast a decision to award a grant or decline awarding a grant based on the written recommendation of the Selection Committee. Discussion and decisions  Aitäh! Takk! Ülar Vaadumäe ([email protected])  Riigi Tugiteenuste Keskus [email protected] Meie 07.07.2022 nr 2-6.3/2368-1 Väikeprojektide avatud taotlusvooru "Taastava õiguse arendamine Eestis II" hindamiskomisjoni otsused ja rahastamiseks kinnitatud projektitaotlused Lugupeetud Martin Karro Palume Riigi Tugiteenuste Keskusel kui Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna ja Norra toetuste 2014– 2021 programmi „Kohalik areng ja vaesuse vähendamine“ rakendusüksusel langetada toetuse rahuldamise otsused väikeprojektide avatud taotlusvooru „Taastava õiguse arendamine Eestis II“ raames laekunud projektitaotluste suhtes, mille on kinnitanud 28. juunil 2022. aastal kohtunud taotlusvooru hindamiskomisjon. Palun rakendusüksusel võtta rahastusotsuse langetamisel arvesse, et taotlejad täiendaksid eelnevalt oma projektikirjeldusi ja eelarveid hindamiskomisjoni viidatud tingimustel, mis kajastuvad täpsemalt hindamiskomisjoni protokollis (lisatud). Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Maris Mälzer strateegilise planeerimise juht nutika arengu osakonna juhata ülesannetes Lisaadressaat: Justiitsministeerium Lisa: Minutes of the SC meeting (June 28 2022)_FINAL Ülar Vaadumäe 6269 249 [email protected] Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / 626 9301 / [email protected] / www.sm.ee / registrikood 70001952