Restart Meeting Oslo
Day 1
19th May 2011
In attendance:
Possibilities NI:
Anne Sweeney
Possibilities NI:
Karen McCann
DEL NI:
John Mallon
NET:
Mirna Fusaro
NET:
Sabrina Emilio
INDEX:
Yiouli Taki
WSINF:
Anna Ziemecka-Porteraj
WSINF:
Elżbieta Strzelecka
NOVA:
Elisabeth Backe- Hansen
NOVA:
Aina Winsvold
NOVA:
Margaret Ford
NOVA:
Charlotte Koren
CONECT:
Jim Anderson
9.00 am partners met in hotel foyer and walked to Nova where meeting was held.
10.00am Anne Sweeney introduced herself and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
She thanked the Norweigan partners Nova for hosting the meeting in Oslo before
inviting everyone in attendance to introduce themselves. After introductions the agenda
and aims of the meeting were presented.
Project progress to date was reviewed (see powerpoint presentations). This was then
followed by a discussion in which partners raised points for discussion and clarification.
The project logo is now in use and all partners are happy with it. Pop up banners and
pens are currently being produced but unfortunately were not ready in time to bring to
this meeting. Whitney is working on the website and will contact Jim’s colleague in
Anniesland College (Joe) for assistance with this task.
Possibilities has now appointed Jane Turnbull as an external evaluator who has sent a
baseline questionnaire out to all partners to get the evaluation underway - the
completed baseline report will be circulated to partners following this meeting.
A copy of the Quality Management Plan was then given to partners for discussion.
Yiouli asked for clarification with regards to how to we could integrate quality
management into our work? Anne responded that the partners needs to agree how we
do this and what we are aiming at in terms of quality as we undertake each piece of
work but in general we are aiming to ensure high quality in all products, processes,
outcomes and outputs. She then outlined some practical examples.
Yiouli also asked Anne to clarify what was meant by the professional or economic
sectors – is this the stakeholder forum? Anne confirmed that yes, this it was the
stakeholder forum.
With regards to financial administration Yiouli asked for a copy of the final approved
version of the application which gives a breakdown of the budget allocated to each work
package. It was agreed that this would be sent.
Anna mentioned that some issues with Gingerbread’s server led to some reports not
being received on time. Yiouli said some hadn’t gone through from Index but she
brought hard copies. Anne advised partners that Gingerbread also needs copies of the
contracts of employment for staff working on the project and, if they had not already
done so, to send Rachel (in English) the expenses policy for their organisation. Jim
asked if the Conect policy had been received as yet. Anne confirmed that it had not yet
been received.
Elzbieta (WSINF) asked if we could discuss the evaluation of the piloting WP. Anne
explained that the proposal from the evaluator outlines the entire evaluation process so
that partners can see clearly how this will be handled and advised that we would be
looking at evaluation in more detail on day 2.
In terms of management & monitoring: Anne emphasised that all evaluation reports
should be returned on time and that partners should be honest in their evaluation. This
is very important because the UK NA is very vigilant and if outputs aren’t achieved there
will be serious consequences for the project, for example they can withhold funding.
11.10 Presentation of research findings
Demographics paper presented first: Charlotte went through the report highlighting
difficulties with common definition of lone parenthood, finding statistics and the resulting
problems comparing data across countries. There was some discussion around how to
get around these issues.
Yiouli expressed concern that the information presented in figure 5.7 from Cyprus is not
reliable because the data provided was based on Cypriot census information is 10 yrs
old. Yiouli suggested using indicators which suggest trends rather than presenting
actual statistics. Anne recommended a robust methodology to contextualise the
problem with definitions and gathering data.
During the discussion Anne requested that the information contained in the report about
routes into lone parenthood should be based on evidence and not anecdotal
information. Elzbieta felt new trends and new models of lone parenthood should be
included for example in her view people who live in towns in Poland prefer to have a
child and live alone due to the labour market.
Anne emphasised what is important is the scope of the research and how this relates to
the project. Rather than focus on causes of lone parenthood we should instead deal
with symptoms and consequences of lone parenthood. Elizabeth (Nova) added that it
should relate to support required by lone parents. Karen stressed that the research is
intended to support the adpatation of the training pack so it must keep a practical focus
to support this in each country.
Anne advised that the statistics relating to teenage pregnancies should be treated with
caution as we do not want the research to drift into other issues.
Elzbieta (Poland) felt that the research should show real effects of poverty etc. While
identifying with this point Anne stressed the need to remain focused on the project.
Yiouli also identified with the points raised by Elzbieta but felt that this would require a
much wider research and social policy project.
Charlotte reiterated that international comparisons are difficult. In terms of ethnic
background data the information needed is not available from partners apart from UK.
Charlotte felt should this be left out – partners agreed.
12.15 Research Part 2
Charlotte presented the second part of the research. There followed a lengthy
discussion which covered most aspects of the material presented including information
which was missing and which needed to be sent to Charlotte. Anne mentioned that the
links between disability, health and employment are relevant when looking at lone
parents and work. Anne explained that lone parents are likley to have poorer health
than other women of the same age or other parents. It may be possible for partners to
find general info about this.
Maintenance information is required from all countries as this is currently missing. We
need to know what income do lone parents actually have? How do they fare compared
with 2 parent households? Yiouli waiting on a response from permanent secretary of the
Cypriot Labour Department with regards to this information. Social services are now
dealing with it and they have been given a named contact. Charlotte advised that
income statistics based on taxes for different households should be available from
census.
Information missing from Italy relating to the barriers faced by lone parents going back
to work – lack of transport, childcare, training etc. Yiouli suggested this information can
be found in reports relating to family life. Anne suggested that if the information is not
available then they can prepare something based on their experience eg lack of public
finances for lone parents going back to work.
At the end of the session the following arrangements were agreed:

The report needs clearer structure and methodology

An introduction to each country is required as were case studies although
partners were advised to be careful not to over emphasise anecdotal opinions.

Charlotte will make the amendments agreed during the discussion and then send
the updated report to Possibilities who will input into the structure and
methodology before returning the report to Nova by June 3rd.

Nova will circulate the updated report to the partners to fill in any information
missing by June 10th.

Possibilities will approve the final report and return to Nova by 24th June.

Possibilities willl forward the designed front cover to Nova by 24 th June.

Report printed by 30th June
Afternoon session
WP3: Arrangements for the Adaptation of the training pack and planning for
meeting in Cyprus (INDEX)
Anne presented an overview of the activities for this work package explaining how
Possibilities had envisaged it in the application and Yiouli (INDEX) confirmed that she
clear about their role.
A discussion followed during which it emerged that there were issues related to
accreditation for vocational courses in Cyprus. INDEX have written to the Minister for
Labour for advice on options related to this. The partners also considered how
stakeholders would contribute to the adapation process and following questions were
raised during the discussion:
The practical difficulties of reconciling work and parenting responsibilities and the
impact this may have on delivery? Is accreditation essential for the delivery of the
programme? Could the pilot be delivered on a non accredited basis while at the same
time exploring the accreditation options?
It was agreed that we need to realistic. We can aim for accreditation but acknowledge
that this may not be feasible at this stage but the situation will become clearer once
INDEX have completed the adapation exercise. Anne advised that the first stage of
accreditation is at local level but the 2nd stage is ECVET. We will need to investigate
the European systems further.
Yiouli proposed that INDEX prepare a questionnaire and circulate this to the partners.
They will prepare a diagnostic but each partner will be responsible for supplying the
relevant information.
Mirna asked for clarification as to what was meant by accreditation in the context of the
project as it can have different connotations in different countries. Anne explained that
when we refer to an accredited course, we mean one that leads to a recognised
qualification, is delivered at an agreed level and within guidelines set out by an
Awarding body for that level and type of qualification. For instance, in the UK the Open
College Network (OCN) is an Awarding Body which recognises courses delivered in the
community to build essential skills such as literacy, numeracy and IT as well as
confidence etc.
Polish partners explained that they intend to incorporate the course into the science
faculty, accredit at a higher level and use with other groups. Anne commented that this
could form part of the commercialisation strategy and as such is to be encouraged. She
suggested that this could be discussed further at the steering group meeting.
Yiouli asked if DEL’s role was in original Restart project could be discussed as this
would be useful for the stakeholder forum meeting. John explained that he had
represented Programme Management and Development Branch at the Department for
Employment and Learning on the EQUAL development partnership that had developed
Restart. Initially, his role had involved using his knowledge and expertise about
mainstream employability programmes to input into the design and delivery of the pilot
phase of Restart.
Subsequently, he promoted the pilot programme within Job Centres to staff working
directly with lone parents, encouraging Personal Advisers to refer lone parent
participants to the programme. He also consulted directlyu with lone parents to develop
new information materials (leaflets etc) about mainstream programmes which would be
posted out to lone parents from the Job Centres to explain about various training
opportunities available to them.
Yiouli asked if the EQUAL DP was written up and Karen confirmed that a report was
available and could be downloaded from Gingerbread’s website. She agreed to send
the link to partners as this would be useful for stakeholder forums.
A discussion followed around work programmes, training provision and employment
programmes such as Marks and Start which is delivered by Possibilities in partnership
with Marks and Spencers. Yiouli mentioned that Cyprus has Marks and Spencer stores
and was interested in finding out more this programme. Anne advised that we could
follow this up with Yiouli.
Elzbieta – asked about mode of delivery and content variations during the adaptation
phase of Restart. Anne responded that delivery could be flexible but with regards to
content partners would need to provide an explanation of why the change was needed
as we need to protect the integrity of the product.
The 3rd project meeting is scheduled to take place 22nd and 23rd September which
means the adaptation needs to be completed before this date.
Yiouli proposed that the Adaptation questionnaire is developed by INDEX after their
stakeholder meeting and circulated to partners by 7th of June at the latest. It will
include: a profile of lone parents, accreditation, mainstreaming options and delivery
mode. Return date by partners to INDEX: 20th July at latest
INDEX will quality assure completed questionnaires and will also send to Possibilities to
review before returning to partners by July 27th. Partners will then adapt the programme
based on the report and are advised not to include information or details that is not
included in the report. The adaptations must be complete before the meeting in Cyprus.
The questionnaires will be processed in the following order 1st Italy: end of June, 2nd
Norway: end of June, 3rd: Poland and 4th: Cyprus
It was agreed that partners will present their adaptations during the meeting in Cyprus.
The meeting will open with Yiouli’s report followed by the partner presentations. Yiouli
will produce a template for this.
Elisabeth pointed out that since Restart has been successfully tested it makes sense to
keep it in tact. Anne advised partners that, although changes are possible where
necessary for cultural or practical reasone, partners need to have a strong rationale for
making changes and need to document these.
Yiouli asked if the work placement was voluntary or paid. In NI it was voluntary but there
may be an opportunity to have this paid in Cyprus. This was welcomed by Anne and
Karen who suggested it could be a model of best practice?
WP 4: Advance planning for translation (NET)
Anne presented overview of key activities for this work package.
Elisabeth (Nova) explained they will complete the translations in house as it be too
expensive to pay for an external translator. Anne advised that they can’t use sub-
contractor costs if they are using staff they must use their staff budget. They need to put
this in writing to Rachel and copy her in to the email.
Anna (WSINF) said they had already used staff costs for translation. She asked if subcontractor costs could be used for another purpose. Anne again advised she put the
requested change in writing to Rachel and copy her into the email.
With regards to the website it was agreed that the homepage and partner information
would be translated and after January dissemination materials such as leaflets etc.
Mirna could start translating elements of the website. A timeline needs to be agreed to
help Mirna plan for translations.
Review of establishment of Stakeholder Forums in each partner country
Anne presented an overview of the purpose of the stakeholder forums and then each
partner gave an update of their progress in this area.
Nova (NORWAY): Elisabeth explained they had had their first meeting last week; it
went very well and they are very pleased. In addition to two researchers from NOVA,
the stakeholders are: Cecilia Dinardi, director of a lone parent organisation; Karen
Pedersen, Head of Department at Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration
(NAV);Kato Wollseth, Manager of a work training centre (OMA); and Solveig Sørdal
from Oppegård Qualification Centre for the unemployed (especially immigrants).
INDEX (CYPRUS) are holding their 1st meeting Wednesday 25TH May. An employers
organisation, Human Resource Development Agency, a lone parent, Director of a lone
parent association, Director of single guardian association, a trainer, equality research
centre, social services, 2 trade unions and the Minister for Justice have confirmed their
attendance and Yiouli asked for some support with what should go on the agenda.
NET (ITALY): Mirna explained that elections are going on in Italy at present so they had
to push back the date of their meeting to the end of June. They have invited Politicans,
social policy councillors for training, 3rd sector networks (exclusion and poverty),
European Anti Povety Network (EAPN), 2 associations dealing with lone parents.
Mirna advised that the training will be delivered by a co-operative in Florence who work
with long term unemployed and migrants.
WSINF (Poland) They held their 1st meeting last week and it was attended by lone
mothers, trainers, 3 NGO’s, municapal welfare officer, psychologists. They discussed
quality of life for lone parents, transport, education, support from municapal office and
what are the main problems they face.
Karen reminded partners that it is important to equality proof the stakeholder forums so
that the lone parent participants are empowered and able to contribute on an equal
basis. Anna (WSINF) had brought a copy of the minutes of the meeting in Polish which
she agreed to translate and send to Anne.
Anne asked partners to organise some publicity in their country perhaps a press release
to promote the stakeholder forums.
Elzbieta (WSINF) asked if they could include a new module into Restart which would be
aimed at the children of lone parents. Anne thanked Elizbieta for her suggestion but
explained that it would not be appropriate to do so as Restart is a return to work
programme for lone parents and partners need to focus on this. It could perhaps form
the basis of a different course or project at some time in the future.
Meeting closed at 5pm
Restart meeting Oslo
Day 2
20th May 2011
In attendance:
Possibilities NI/Gingerbread:
Anne Sweeney
Possibilities NI/Gingerbread:
Karen McCann
DEL NI:
John Mallon
NET:
Mirna Fusaro
NET:
Sabrina Emilio
INDEX:
Yiouli Taki
WSINF:
Anna Ziemecka-Porteraj
WSINF:
Elżbieta Strzelecka
CONECT:
Jim Anderson
NOVA:
Elisabeth backe-Hansen
NOVA:
Aina Winsvold
NOVA:
Margaret Ford
Oppegård Migo-ogArbeidstreiys Senbu:
Kato Wollseth
Nava Oppegard:
Solveig Sørdal
9.30am Meeting with Norweigan Stakeholder Forum
Two members of the Norweigan stakeholder forum attended the meeeting. Opening the
meeting Anne invited all partners to introduce themselves and say a bit about their role
in the project. Following introductions the Stakeholders spoke about the programmes
they deliver to support lone parents and the unemployed including a work programme
where participants receive a wage and the rate into employment is 60%. John Mallon
spoke about the mainstream programmes available from DEL in Northern Ireland
including Steps to Work which offers work experience opportunities and qualifications.
Anne gave some background information to Restart – how it had come about and the
role of the stakeholder forum within the original project.
Yiouli asked the stakeholders to what extent their agency engages with NGO’s working
within the social sector. They replied that the private sector was more likely to provide
placement opportunities locally.
Anne asked how do they envisage delivering the training pilot? Aina (Nova) explained
that Nova will recruit a co-ordinator and she will train them. The costs will be shared
between their two organisations. Recruitment will be from clients that the organisation
has access to and Nova will evaluate the pilot and maintain statistics on employment
outcomes to see if the training improves their employment outcomes.
The unemployment rate in Oslo is 1.7% Norway overall has very low unemployment so
those who do not have a job really do need help. They will aim to recruit lone parents
from migrant communities to participate in the programme. NOVA explained that the
work ethic is very important in Norway and there are many rules for those in work.
People from other countries need to become familiar with these rules and learn the
basic skills needed for work. They are confident that there are enough immigrant lone
parents from Somalia,Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan to recruit the cohort.
The programme will be delivered in area 20 minutes outside Oslo by train. The types of
work placements envisaged are kindergardens, retail, care homes etc. Municipal
childcare provision will be available a few minutes walk from the training venue. They do
not anticipate problems finding a placements. Minimum wage is 16/17 Euros per hour.
Anne thanked Kato and Solveig for joining us and inputting to the meeting. They both
enjoyed the session very much and asked if they could also sit in on the piloting
session. They were welcomed to do so.
Break
WP5: Advance planning for piloting (WSINF)
Anne presented an overview of activities for this work package and advised that Jane
the external evaluator would provide guidance for beneficary evaluations. Elizbieta
(WSINF) asked for more specific clarification on their role within the work package.
Anne explained that WSINF’s first task will be drawing up guidelines and advice for
partners around the recruitment of beneficiaries to the programme. This should be
based on their own experience of recruiting lone parents and should also include
relevant timescales for delivery. The rest of their tasks are as outlined in the
presentation (see attached).
As NOVA had already explained their proposals for delivery, the other partners were
then invited to outine how they intend to deliver the pilot.
INDEX: Yiouli explained that she needed a response to a finance question she has
forwarded to Rachel as the response will impact on the delivery of the training pilot.The
Municipality of Nicosia may be an option but it depends on room hire costs. If this goes
ahead then they will recruit within this area. They have approached two trainers who
they believe fit with what the group would need and discussions will be taking place
over the next few days to agree the trainer combination but the premises issue needs to
be addressed. They would prefer to use the municaplity. Anne assured Yiouli that this
point had been noted and will be mentioned to Rachel.
In terms of recruitment, social services could refer to the programme in Cyprus. Other
stakeholders may be able to help with this. Yiouli added that she found the input from
the Norweigan stakeholders very useful particularly as her meeting is planned for next
week.
NET: Sabrina has identified single parents who are migrants. The venue for the pilot will
be CAT which is an area of high social deprivation 2km’s outside Florence, It will be
delivered with the support of social security and onsite childcare will be provided.
Sabrina aims to include an introduction to the support aqvailable from social services,
advice about benefits, better off calcualtions etc. Mirna added that many lone parents in
Italy work unoffically. Anne explained that one of the aims of the project is to promote
social inclusion so that they can gain a job which is official and receive the security that
comes with this type of emeployment. Anne asked will it be difficult to recruit lone
parents? Mirna felt that it wouldn’t be easy. Karen asked if immigrants are the target
group would they also have other barriers such as language and would they need basic
skills support if so this will need to be considered during adaptation. Mirna agreed that
this support may also be needed. This may have an impact on the type and quality of
placements for the trainees.
Anne asked what involvement social services will have. Mirna said that they woud
assess individuals skills which means they will have a portfolio of skills for the Tuscany
area. They cannot recruit directly to the pilot as individuals have to first be identified by
the employment service.
WSINF: They aim to target students/graduates who are unemployed. It may be financed
by the labour office. The stakeholder forum will help with recruitment. Anne asked what
is the rationale for targeting this group what particular barriers are they likley to have?
Social isolation , childcare, lack of work experience? Eli said that they are only targeting
lone parents in Lodz because transport is a problem and getting to the training on time
would be too difficult. Elzbieta (WSINF) asked for example of the type of individual
support needed to be provided by the tutor and Anne gave a couple of exam[ples based
on delivery in NI. She also told her all the relevant information was contained in the
course outline.
Work Package 6: Evaluation and monitoring activities
Karen gave each partner a copy of the successful tender document for the external
evaluator (Jane Turnbull) and highlighted a few relevant aspects such as the evaluation
strategy, methodology and timeframe.
Partners were also given an overview of the evaluation process including information to
be gathered, by whom and how often and the number and type of reports to be
produced.
Jane will attend the 3rd meeting in Cyprus in advance of the interim report.
Karen stressed the importance of the evaluation as it will inform the progress and
success of the work of the partnership as we are going along and in this way avoid
problems further down the line. Using this approach it is envisaged that all project
objectives will be met in full and any difficulties can be highlighted and addressed as
they arise. Partners were encouraged to engage with the process and be honest in
their feedback.
Afternoon session
WP7: Dissemination Activities
Anne welcomed all back and presented the dissemination activities which will be led by
Conect and handed over to Jim to present Conect’s dissemination strategy. He outlined
stages of dissemination – who among own organisations - Boards of Directors, Senior
Management Team’s etc. He outlines some dissemination activities already undertaken
with CONECT and also within the Glasgow area.
Jim also advised using other events as a platform for dissemination. Suggestions for
activities included launching the project locally – invite local government , lone parents
and other players. Take lots of photos, use posters etc. Make links between your
website and the Restart website and UK national agency.
The Restart project has been invited by Ecorys to attend formal dissemination event
called ‘Your Story’ in Birmingham on 29th June. This is a great opportunity to
disseminate information about the project so we have accepted the invitation and will let
partners know how we egt on.
WSINF have already produced a leaflet and Anna agreed to ask her graphic designer to
adapt it for use by the other partners. Once leaflets are prepared and available they will
give a copy to us and Jim as dissemination evidence.
Valorisation - There was some discussion with regards to adapting the programme into
an elearning product. WSINF could perhaps prepare a sample and make
recomendations for future use.
Whitney is responsible for the website and she will work with Jim’s colleague Joe in this
regard. Translation is also important with regards to the content – this needs further
discussion and an agreed time line.
Conect network can be used to exploit project. The project is currently on Conect
website and this will be maintained. We need to make sure website address is on
leaflets materials etc. Jim asked if we want to create a facebook page? Mirna explained
how this would work. Some discussion about the pro’s and con’s and we agreed to
leave this for time being and revisit it later.
Jim emphasised the need for action to make the most of available time an gave an
overview of dissemination methods for example using websites to maximum advantage
etc. Anne added that we will contacting partners to get their dissemination ideas. Karen
added that dissemination activities will form part of the evaluation and will be included at
the end of the meeting evaluation forms. But partners can feed through dissemination
information at any time.
Following a discussion about the newsletter it was agreed that although originally
allocated to Poland they have a heavy work load that this needed to reviewed. Mirna
offered to forward a template from a previous project to Joe at Anniesland. It was
agreed that host partner is responsible for all content submitted to Conect – partners will
send articles etc to the host who will then forward to Joe. The first newsletter will contain
general information about the project, the partners and the meeting in Oslo, news about
project, focus of meeting, stakeholder forums, dissemination materials, leaflets and
photos.
Pens and pop ups will be available by the next meeting in Cyprus.
Final event in Brussels. Final event in Brussels: discussion about the location of the
event for 50 people. Jim proposed a venue but it would cost approx 3000 Euros and
Mirna proposed the Conect offices which should be free of charge and are quite big.
Mirna also proposed a Conect meeting could be held in Brussels at the same time as
well. Partners agreed to wait to see how another launch in Conect offices will turn out
on July 7th works out. Magda and Sabrina will attend this event. Anna will let us know if
the premises are suitable. Also need to consider what day the half day event is held.
The timing of the event was also considered. Anne suggested the meeting takes place
in Sept 2012 to allow maximum time to complete the products.
We will set a date for the final event at the meeting in Cyprus.
Meeting closed at 4.15pm
Action points from Restart project meeting on 19th and 20th May
Finance

All requests relating to budgets to be made to Rachel by email and copy to Anne

Partners to send a copy of their expenses policy (in English) to Rachel,
Gingerbread

Karen to send copy of the final application with agreed budget for each work
package to all partners

Partners to forward contracts of employment to Rachel at Gingerbread with
relevant section translated into English

Karen to send partners the link to the EQUAL project report
Research

Charlotte will make the amendments agreed during the discussion and then send
the updated report to Anne

Possibilities will input into the structure and methodology and return the report to
Nova by June 3rd.

Nova will circulate the updated report to the partners to fill in any information
missing by June 10th.

Possibilities will approve the final report and return to Nova by 24th June.

Possibilities willl forward the designed front cover to Nova by 24 th June.

Report printed by 30th June
Adaptation

Adaptation questionnaire circulated by INDEX to partners by June 7 th and
returned to INDEX by 20th July

INDEX to quality assure completed questionnaires with Possibilities input and
return to partners by July 27th.

Partners to adapt Restart based on the report and are must be completed before
the meeting in Cyprus.

Partners to present adaptaions at meeting in Cyprus
Translation

Translation timeline for website, project materials etc to be prepared for NET

Partners to translate minutes of stakeholder forum meetings and forward to Anne

Partners to arrange some publicity for stakeholder forums – press release etc.
Steering Group Meeting Norway - Minutes
20th May 2011 @ 4pm
Present: Anna, Anne, Elizabeth, Jim, Karen, Mirna and Yiouli
1. Reminder of Terms of Reference for the steering group (see attached)
2. Review of PCA
Anne asked how did people found the financial return’s process.
Yiouli said that 2 issues had been raised by Index - co-financing & cost of film.
Yiouli mentioned that the issue of the film costs was raised a while ago but still
needs to be addressed. Anne said that she would mention this to Rachel.
Anne reminded partners that Gingerbread need contracts of employment for staff
working on the project to accompany financial return data. These can be in
national language with a short translated summary of main duties, pay etc.
Poland translates the following elements of the contract: Role, main tasks, staff
category, amount, number of hours allocated to the project. A cover letter is
needed to show that an allocated number of hours is dedicated to the project
attached to original contract of employment.
Jim asked do partners know that materials must be retained for 5 years. Yes
partners are aware.
Yiouli raised the issue of the low administration fee or indirect costs. Anne
explained that Gingerbread was proposing to wait until later in the project and
then make proposal to the NA to increase these if possible. Up to 10% variation
is allowed within budget before we need to discuss this with them, although we
need to check if this also applies to indirect costs.
A discussion followed relating to costs such as childcare costs, venue,
refreshments which are included under other costs. Anne told partners for these
and any other costs they needed to supply invoices with full details. She
advocated being cautious so that costs are approved and partners are not out of
pocket.
Conflict resolution policy was updated as per the discussion in Belfast and copies
will be sent out after meeting.
Rachel needs to have an up to date contact list for the steering group members
and Anne will speak to her about this and also names of partner oganisations.
Discussion around travel and subsistence rates for Norway and travel costs. It
was explained that travel by taxi can only be allowed if it’s cheaper than other
forms of travel or if you arrive very late or very early in a country.
Also the NA have confirmed that they will take account of the additional costs
associated with the bad weather disruptions to travel after the Belfast meeting in
November but partners need to provide a full explanation to Rachel when
submitting their returns.
Commercialisation:
There was a discussion about the strategy and how this will be taken forwrad
within the project. We are committed to this and aim to get support from NA and
our Board of Directors interested in this outcome for our social enterprise,
Possibilities, which generates income for the charity, Gingerbread which owns
the social enterprise.
Anna told the partners that WSINF has ideas selling Restart to labour market
agencies within Poland and are very keen to achieve this. Jim suggested
developing a pack for Restart eg with a CD which might be linked in with the elearning. Mirna raised the issue of accreditation in italy explaining that there are
advantages and disadvantages. If a course is accredited, it becomes publically
owned if accredited and financed. While this may have advantages for the client
group, it would be a barrier to commercialisation. Mirna agreed to look at this
further to get more information for the adaptation exercise.
Nova suggested that the research report could perhaps also be commercialised
with anacademic audience. She also suggested that Nav in Norway could
persuade other agencies to deliver Restart as well and use their newsletter andf
webpage to disseminate more actively.
It was agreed to look at all of these ideas as the project develops and also to look
at other contexts within and beyond Europe, to ensure sustainablity and
mainstreaming.
There was some discussion about the timing of the delivery of the training pilot. It
was agreed that this needed to follow on from the adaptation and the translation
work packages but that there could be some flexibility depending upon the
practical requirements of partners. This discussion will be continued in Cyprus
where we will confirm the delivery schedules in each partner country.
The dates for the Italy and Poland meetings were agreed as follows:
2nd and 3rd Feb 2012: Florence, Italy
14th and 15th June 2012: Lodz, Poland
18th September 2012: Brussels, Belgium
Yiuoli proposed that the Cyprus meeting take place in Nicosia and this was
agreed by the Steering Committee. Yiouli suggested the Classic Hotel as a
possible venue and agreed to send links to hotel websites so people can chose
where to stay.
There was a brief reminder of the duties of the host organisations: agreeing an
agenda with Possibilities, organising any site visits proposed, ensuring minutes
are taken, preparing content of the enewsletter and sending to Conect, preparing
an agenda for the stakeholder meeting to take place during the visit and sending
to Anne in advance together with the minutes from any stakeholder meetings
held already. If the meeting takes place while Restart training is running, to
arrange for us to meet beneficaries.
Action Points from Steering Group Meeting:

Gingerbread will contact the National agency to confirm exactly what
evidence do partners need to supply with regards to the contract.

Partners will forward relevant contracts of employment with required
elements translated.

Nova will forward the two quarterly returns asap.

Gingerbread will check if we can increase indirect costs if flexibility
exists within the budget.

Anne will speak to Rachel about outstanding finance queries

Karen will forward the application final version with wp amounts
included.