Avatud taotlusvooru "Integreeritud tugiteenused koolist väljalangevuse ennetamiseks" hindamiskomisjoni otsused

EEA and Norway Grants 2014-2021 Programme: Local Development and Poverty Reduction Selection Committee meeting April 20, 2022  Open Call for Proposals „Integrated services provision to prevent early school leaving“ Overview Project max duration: 24 months Call amount: € 1,742,870 Project grant size: € 200,000 – 400,000 Project grant rate: 100% Eligible applicants: an Estonian local government or a local government association. Open call is financed from the EEA Grants FM  Eligible activities of the call for proposals: The supported activities include: a) development of co-operation models at the local level for the provision of local-level integrated services for the prevention of early school leaving and adequate intervention; b) training of professional staff involved in service provision, including the development of a training programme, study tours, preparing learning materials; c) piloting innovative local level services and programmes developed to enhance transitions of disadvantaged children and youth across school levels and from education to labour market.  Targets (cumulative for the open call):  at least at least 15 locally defined models for integrated services provision developed;  at least 150 professional staff trained;  at least 15 innovative local level service programmes designed for the target groups;  at least 75 learners from vulnerable or disadvantaged backgrounds supported. Number Expected programme Indicator Baseline Baseline Target results value year value Share of educational institutions involved in Outcome 1 Enhanced wellbeing of programme activities N/A N/A 70% children and youth reporting increased coordination of local level integrated support services Evaluation criteria of the open call No Criterion Max score % 1 Project goal and relevance 24 30,00% The effect the activities on the achievement of the project goal 8 Project contribution into the achievement of the open call goal 4 Project contribution into the achievement of the output target indicators 8 Alignment with strategies and development plans 4 2 Project justification and involvement of partners 24 30,00% Conformity with the problems and to the needs of the target groups 8 Selection of the target group and its reasoning 6 Commitment to partnership and to cooperation between different fields 8 Involvement of partners and experts from donor countries into the project 2 3 Project feasibility and cost-efficiency 20 25,00% Feasibility and relevance of the action plan of the project 6 The capacity of the applicant and a partner to implement the project 4 Project risk analysis 2 Project cost-efficiency 8 4 Project sustainability 12 15,00% Impact on horizontal issues 4 Sustainability of project activities 8 TOTAL 80  Projects received within deadline:  Altogether 11 project proposals were submitted by deadline  Total grant amount applied for is approx. 3,59 MEUR, exceeding the total grant available by approx 1,65 MEUR  Donor partners included: Lääne-Viru (Agder fylkeskommune, Norway); Haapsalu (More og Romsdal fylkeskommune, Norway); Võrumaa (Ms Eygló Rúnarsdóttir, youth work lecturer at the University of Iceland); Tartu (Rekstad Consulting, Norway) Evaluation of independent experts  Evaluator 1: Ms Häli Tarum, former head of the Social Welfare Department, Ministry of Social Affairs, current refugee crisis adviser to the Government Office;  Evaluator 2: Ms Marge Hindriks, Adviser to the Department of Children and Families, Ministry of Social Affairs;  Evaluator 3: Ms Piret Sapp, Adviser in the area of Educational Leadership and Teachers' Policy, Ministry of Education and Research (Local Municipalities and School Network).  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 Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Diff. in Average Applicant appplied score score score score score Lääne-Viru County Local 281 160,00 1 Government Association 80 - 68 15,00% 74,0 Haapsalu City Government 233 617,00 2 65 76 - 14,47% 70,5 3Viljandi City Government 399 523,28 62 78 - 20,51% 70,0 Võru County Local 376 602,90 4 Government Association 78 - 60 23,08% 69,0 5Tartu City Government 349 795,40 60 78 44 23,08% 69,0 Raasiku Municipal 244 807,00 6 Government 66 - 62 6,06% 64,0 Saaremaa Municipal 356 436,00 7 Government 39 60 60 0,00% 60,0 Harku Municipal Government 391 407,00 8 - 63 50 20,63% 56,5 Põltsamaa Municipal 391 521,23 9 Government - 60 44 26,67% 52,0 Rae Municipal Government 368 278,40 10 38 - 42 9,52% 40,0 Kehtna Municipal 200 000,00 11 Government 20 46 29 31,03% 24,5 Selection Committee members Voting members Ms Gerttu Aavik – project manager in the area of inclusive education, Ministry of Education and Research; Ms Piret Liba – adviser in the area of inclusive education, Ministry of Education and Research; Ms Hille Ilves – adviser on education and youth work issues, Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities 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])   EEA and Norway Grants 2014-2021 Programme “Local Development and Poverty Reduction” Selection Committee meeting Date and time: April 20, 2022 from 14:00 to 16:00 (Estonian time) Venue: Ministry of Education and Research (Tõnismägi 5a, Tallinn), meeting room Eisen and via video conference HTM VIDEO-MULTIPOINT 6 – htm.multipoint6  Open call for proposals „Integrated services provision to prevent early school leaving“ Selection Committee voting members:  Ms Gerttu Aavik – project manager in the area of inclusive education, Ministry of Education and Research;  Ms Piret Liba – adviser in the area of inclusive education, Ministry of Education and Research;  Ms Hille Ilves – adviser on education and youth work issues, Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities Observers:  Mr Steinar Ingi Matthiasson – Financial Mechanism Office, Country and Bilateral Cooperation Department, Country Officer of Estonia, Greece and Slovenia; also representing the Financial Mechanism Committee;  Ms Gudrun Gudmundsdottir - Financial Mechanism Office, Senior Officer Health, Children and Youth, EEA and Norway Grants;  Ms Laura Pikkoja – 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 projects and explained the tasks of the Selection Committee. For more, please see Annex 1 (PO presentation). Altogether 11 project applications were received within the deadline (January 17, 2022 at 17:00 o’clock local time) set for the call. Total grant amount applied for is approx. 3,59 MEUR, exceeding the total grant available by approx 1,65 MEUR. Programme Operator Implementing Agency (State Shared Service Centre) has carried out the assessment of the project applications to the eligibility and administrative criteria set in the call text. The projects met the administrative and eligibility criteria and were forwarded for evaluation by two impartial, independent and reliable experts. These experts were:  Evaluator 1: Ms Häli Tarum, former head of the Social Welfare Department, Ministry of Social Affairs, current refugee crisis adviser to the Government Office;  Evaluator 2: Ms Marge Hindriks, Adviser to the Department of Children and Families, Ministry of Social Affairs;   Evaluator 3: Ms Piret Sapp, Adviser in the area of Educational Leadership and Teachers' Policy, Ministry of Education and Research (Local Municipalities and School Network).  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 (by Kehtna Municipal Government), and therefore has already received a negative decision (point 20.6). Please see also Annex 2 (Ranking list of experts). Discussion The impartial evaluators have concluded a ranking list of project proposals and – mathematically – in case project are to be supported in full amount approx. 5,5 projects can be supported. Overall impression: Ms Gerttu Aavik opened the discussion by stating that some of the projects had done their fieldwork more thoroughly than others, some had integrated the principles of the national reform regarding the support system for children with special needs in their activities. The cooperation of partners in different projects includes partners from different sectors and is really good. On the other hand, the involvement of children (final beneficiaries) is weak and not ambitious in almost all projects. Ms Hille Ilves agreed with Ms Aavik and added that children and their families as final beneficiaries are out of focus in many project proposals. Inclusive education practices have been in implementation for some time, therefore the mapping activities proposed are a little bit surprising as why haven’t this been done already. And also, sustainability issues are always a essential and could have been described more clearly in several projects. Ms Piret Liba admitted that it was nice to see the local government associations that had taken the lead in many projects, large partnerships are appreciated, and it was important to see that integrated services in regard to school leaving were composed on a larger scale than solely integrating education and social services. Still, the contribution to output targets (learners supported, professionals trained, models developed) remained questionable in many project proposals. The Selection Committee decided unanimously to discuss in more length only about projects ranked No 1-8 as the applications by Põltsamaa Municipal Government (No 9) and Rae Municipal Government (No 10) were evaluated as quite poor by the independent evaluators and due to the fixed amount of the grant to be distributed those projects cannot reach to the level needed for financing. Discussion of projects in detail:  Lääne-Viru County Local Government Association application “Developing an integrated service model to prevent early school leaving in Lääne-Viru county”; in partnership with all 8 municipalities of Lääne-Viru county (Viru-Nigula, Tapa, Vinni, Haljala, Väike-Maarja, Kadrina, Rakvere town and Rakvere municipality) as well as Social Insurance Board, Police and Border Guard Board, LEEVI LIPPASAAR Ltd and Agder fylkeskommune (NOR) Ms Gerttu Aavik recognized this project as one of the best. The only complaint would be the small number of children to be involved – only 30 from amongst 8 municipalities. Ms Piret Liba agreed that this project can be accepted for financing and believed that engaging 30 children could be a number only for the piloting phase. Ms Hille Ilves was also in favour of supporting the project proposal and indicated that considering the size of the target group in Lääne-Virumaa, then starting with a smaller amount is ok, but they should definitely boost it up afterwards and aim for higher outreach numbers.  Haapsalu City Government application “Haapsalu Integrated Support Services (HISS)”; in partnership with Lääne-Nigula municipality and More og Romsdal fylkeskokommune (NOR) Ms Gerttu Aavik said that overall, the project proposal can be considered a good one, but the time-frame (3 months) for developing an evaluation tool is too little. Ms Hille Ilves had a good overall impression of the project. Still, she was surprised that the situation mapping has still not been done, and the target numbers for teachers and students are low – only 16 teachers to be trained. Ms Piret Liba was on the same opinion that the project has set relatively low target expectations, but praised the project for engaging different target groups – not only SEN children – as the problem of early school leaving is much more wider than only amongst SEN children. The project is well thought through and has a Norwegian partner. Ms Ilves complemented that as a good indicator the project intends to deal with also talented children and children with migrant backgrounds. But still, the engagement at specialist level has to be raised.  Viljandi City Government application “Creation of a service model competence centre for children with special educational needs in Viljandi county”; in partnership with municipalities of Mulgi, Põhja-Sakala and Viljandi Gerttu Aavik pointed out that a Viljandi proposal includes aspects of developing a similar structure already in place (Rajaleidja) and being financed by state level. A lot of the budget is directed at hiring and financing specialists for a similar purpose. Therefore, the proposed budget of the project is also disproportionate. Ms Hille Ilves affirmed that two similar competence centres in one county would not be reasonable. Also, she was confused why the project did not include any piloting phase, when the region has approx. 4 300 pupils there. Ms Piret Liba has also spotted that the team of specialists to be compiled would duplicate state level structures in place already. Additionally, the focus of the project is narrowed to SEN children (sic! early school leaving cannot attributed only to SEN children) and the involvement of the children as final target groups is practically missing.  Võru County Local Government Association application “Integrated services to prevent early school leaving in Võru county”; in partnership with Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund, University of Tartu, Tallinn University, Education and Youth Board and all 5 municipalities of the Võru county (Antsla, Rõuge, Setomaa, Võru town and Võru municipality) & Ms Eygló Rúnarsdóttir from the University of Iceland Ms Gerttu Aavik was satisfied that the project proposal was well explained and had included science-based arguments, the transition phases in education and from education to labour market were well described. But again, the amount of students to be supported during the project activities, is lowish (25). Ms Hille Ilves was happy that the project is lead by the local government association of the county, that will inject more strength into it. Also – the project has gathered very good partners around it. Nevertheless, she was sad that the situation mapping activity had still not been carried out and is now a part of the project. Ms Piret Liba saw it a good project worthy of financing. It has a clear description, different target groups and very good cooperation partnerships.  Tartu City Government application “Creation and piloting of Tartu county welfare programme application model”; in partnership with Tartu County Association of Local Governments and the municipalities and all municipalities of the Tartu county (Elva, Kambja, Kastre, Luunja, Nõo, Peipsiääre and Tartu) as well as Rekstad Consulting (NOR) and Tampere Estonian Club Ms Gerttu Aavik had many concerning points in regard to this project proposal. Although the project has included a lot of partners, then the description of activities does not indicate to wide partnership rather than to a Tartu city-based approach. The activity budgeted for the development of a prevention programme for parents and families should not be supported as this cannot be seen as a prevention programme dealing with early school leaving issues. Additionally, it seems that within 8 municipalities the project strives for only 8 cases to be managed. Ms Hille Ilves disappointed in the quality of this project. All local governments of the county have been included, 200 specialists would be trained, but the support to children itself seems to be missing. The content of the prevention programme for parents and families is unclear and the sustainability of activities is not certain (an agreement of good will is nothing more than just good will). Ms Piret Liba said that the cooperation model activity meets the goal of the call, but is quite general in its description. On the other hand, the prevention programme activity does not deal with early school leaving. The project could be supported, but only partly.   Raasiku Municipal Government application “Developing a cooperation model in Ida- Harju region to prevent and intervene in early school leaving”; in partnership with municipalities of Anija, Jõelähtme, Kose, Kuusalu and Loksa city as well as Foundation Bullying-Free School, School Health Care Ltd, Kehra Health Centre Ltd and Papaver Services Ltd Ms Gerttu Aavik liked the project proposal. Here the applicant has rightly understood the concept behind preventing early school leaving. Portugal as a study trip destination is a good choice as it has been practicing inclusive education with good results. The budget of the project is well thought through. Ms Hille Ilves again was sceptical why the situation mapping activity has not been carried out by today and pondered whether highlighting politicians as means for maintaining sustainability is a good choice. But the project’s target is on supporting children (at least 150) and that is quite positive. Ms Piret Liba mentioned this project also as one of her favourites. Different fields of intervention are being integrated (social welfare, education, police, victim support) and target indicator is solid.  Saaremaa Municipal Government application “Developing integrated services to prevent early school leaving for the children of Saaremaa and Muhu islands”; in partnership with Muhu municipality Ms Gerttu Aavik explained that Saaremaa is asking project grant support mainly for a system of assistant teachers that should be a local government standard service. Therefore, this project cannot be supported. Ms Piret Liba agreed that the main budgetary focus is then salaries of assistant teachers, but this should be a regular service offered by the municipality itself. Ms Hille Ilves added that a few years ago a centre for education was launched already in Saaremaa and the teachers should receive support from the there (local government). The project cannot finance local government’s operational costs.  Harku Municipal Government application “Strong network in Lääne-Harju region”; in partnership with Lääne-Harju municipality Ms Gerttu Aavik admitted that the activities proposed are seen as very local level activities. The points of inclusive education are there and the number of specialists to be trained (85) is ok as well. A very large amount of budget is set on service design element. Ms Hille Ilves mentioned that the activities can be seen as sustainable with development plans and financing in place. A full-scale purchase of service design takes up a big deal of the finances, but maybe it can be reduced by the municipality’s own bigger input. Considering the amount of children in the region, then reaching only 20 people is quite low. Ms Piret Liba saw a positive side that a wider target group has been chosen. And agreed, that the service design budget seems to be overestimated. Selection Committee decisions 1. Approve a project grant to the following project proposals: 1.1 support Lääne-Viru County Local Government Association application “Developing an integrated service model to prevent early school leaving in Lääne-Viru county” in the amount of 281 160,00 euros with the suggestion that taking into account the size of the target group, the project should definitely aim for higher outreach numbers than the original 30 students / learners to be supported. 1.2 support Haapsalu City Government application “Haapsalu Integrated Support Services (HISS)” in the amount 233 617,00 euros with the conditionality that the number of specialists to be trained should be raised to at least 20 people. The project should also consider allocation more time than 3 months for the development of an evaluation tool. 1.3 support Viljandi City Government application “Creation of a service model competence centre for children with special educational needs in Viljandi county” partly in the amount of 203 640,00 euros with the condition that the budget lines 4.1 and 4.2 are not to be financed (195 883,28 euros in total; conflicting with Rajaleidja structure). Transportation costs in the budget lines 4.3 and 4.4 in the sum of 230 euros can be used to offer the piloted service. The indirect costs planned for activities 4.1 and 4.2 in the sum of 29 382 euros can be reallocated to activities which give an input to project target indicators (professionals to be trained, children to be supported). 1.4 support Võru County Local Government Association application “Integrated services to prevent early school leaving in Võru county” in the amount of 376 602,90 euros with the suggestion to aim for a higher number of students to be supported during the project (in regard to original target of 25). 1.5 support Tartu City Government application “Creation and piloting of Tartu county welfare programme application model”’ partly in the amount of 201 675,00 euros with the following conditions to be followed by the project promoter:  Activity 3 (creating a prevention programme) of the project is not financed at all (80 120 euros); the indirect costs planned for Activity 3 in the sum of 4 743 euros can be transferred to Activities 1 and 2;  The budgeting in Management costs, Activity 1 and Activity 2 has to be reduced in total by 63 257 euros as the budget is not in line with proposed activities, for instance service design budgeting seems exaggerated.  A study trip to Norway cannot be discarded from the project as it is of high relevance to the grants overall objective of enhancing bi-lateral relations. 1.6 support Raasiku Municipal Government application “Developing a cooperation model in Ida-Harju region to prevent and intervene in early school leaving” in the amount of 244 807,00 euros. 2. Offer Harku Municipal Government application “Strong network in Lääne-Harju region” a grant in the amount of 201 368,00 euros with the condition that the project is able to provide some kind of an integral result and that the target indicators set (at least 85 trained specialists and at least 20 children supported) remain intact. This grant sum is left over from the grant decisions made in points 1.1-1.6. Therefore, the Selection Committee proposes Harku Municipal Government a maximum grant available and asks the applicant to consider whether it is feasible with this grant amount to execute and achieve a functional result. The applicant may – in case not feasible – also reject the proposal. 3. Reject a project grant application to the following project proposals: 3.1 Saaremaa Municipal Government application “Developing integrated services to prevent early school leaving for the children of Saaremaa and Muhu islands” 3.2 Põltsamaa Municipal Government application “Developing integrated services to prevent early school leaving for the children of Põltsamaa and Järva municipalities” 3.3 Rae Municipal Government application “Developing a cooperation network for support specialists and integrated service model in Rae municipality” Ms Gerttu Aavik thanked everybody for their input and closed the meeting. Meeting chaired by (digitally signed) minutes taken by Gerttu Aavik (digitally signed) Ülar Vaadumäe Martin Karro Riigi Tugiteenuste Keskus [email protected] Meie 29.04.2022 nr 2-6.3/1600-1 Avatud taotlusvooru "Integreeritud tugiteenused koolist väljalangevuse ennetamiseks" hindamiskomisjoni otsused 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 avatud taotlusvooru „Integreeritud tugiteenused koolist väljalangevuse ennetamiseks“ raames laekunud projektitaotluste suhtes, mille on kinnitanud 20. aprillil 2022. aastal kohtunud taotlusvooru hindamiskomisjon. Palun rakendusüksusel võtta rahastusotsuste langetamisel võtta arvesse, et taotlejad uuendaks oma projektikirjeldusi ja eelarveid vastavalt hindamiskomisjoni viidatud tingimustele, mis kajastuvad täpsemalt hindamiskomisjoni protokollis (lisatud). Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Kristiina Hunt nutika arengu toetamise osakonna juhataja Lisa: Minutes of the SC meeting (April 20 2022)_FINAL Lisaadressaat: Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium Ülar Vaadumäe 626 9249 [email protected] Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / 626 9301 / [email protected] / www.sm.ee / registrikood 70001952