Reasonable Hopes and Little Progress!

Abstract

In this article, we aim to describe how the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People (POAD), part of the European Fund for the Most Disadvantaged People (FEAD), has contributed to reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Romania. We highlight the role of the auxiliary measures that accompanied the food support programme, as well as the added-value element of the implementation of the programme in Romania, emphasising the introduction of electronic social vouchers for hot meals for the eligible target group and electronic social vouchers to provide educational support for disadvantaged children. The research methodology used considered combinations of quantitative and qualitative methods, combining multiple data sources to reflect the perspectives of all stakeholders and relating quantitative data to representative samples using a participatory approach. Macro-level data on risk-of-poverty and social exclusion indicators, as well as information from sectoral analyses (social transfers), show an improvement in the situation of people in the POAD target group and a decrease in the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. However, progress is limited, and it is difficult to determine the degree to which this is due to the POAD. Romania still ranks lowest in the European Union in terms of indicators measuring the risk of poverty and social exclusion. The provision and monitoring of accompanying programmes are an area where the potential of POAD could be further exploited. The need to strengthen the accompanying measures is extraordinarily strong and emerges from the analysis of information provided by final beneficiaries and public authorities responsible for the implementation of the programme. The distribution of social vouchers enables final beneficiaries to choose the goods they need. Purchases with social vouchers are less affected by the risks of financial corrections, final beneficiaries can monitor the consumption of the support received in real time, the number of supporting documents is reduced, and reimbursement is issued only for the amounts used by final beneficiaries.

1. Introduction

Since its pre-accession to the European Union (EU), Romania has faced continuous challenges (Tomescu and Stănescu 2009; Cace et al. 2010) due to the dynamics of change at the national level. In addition to this, it has also been compelled to adapt to a wider European context. The European Union, through European funds, has helped Romania to increase its absorption capacity and, at the same time, to develop a comprehensive and continuously improving national social protection system (Arpinte and Baboi 2009).

With modest results in the pre-accession years (Cace et al. 2009, 2011) and in the first programming period (2007–2013), caused by rigidity in the management, allocation, and spending of funds, Romania learned a number of lessons for the second programming cycle (2014–2020).

The FEAD contributes to alleviating the worst forms of poverty in EU Member States, such as food insecurity, child poverty and homelessness. The FEAD allocated a total amount of €3.8 billion for the period 2014–2020. The EU provided up to 85% of the funding, which was combined with Member States’ own resources. This brought the total value of the fund to around €4.5 billion (Official Journal of the European Union 2014). The EAADF is the successor to the first European Union food distribution programme for the most deprived persons (MDP), which ran from 1987–2013 (Knudsen 2009; Garzon 2006; Greer 2005).

Member States use the allocated resources in two ways:

-

For an OP for food aid and/or basic material assistance (OP I).

-

For an OP to promote social inclusion (OP II).

Food aid and/or basic material assistance were complemented by ancillary measures, such as educational activities to promote healthy eating and provide advice on food preparation and storage, facilitating access to health care, psychological and therapeutic support, skill development programmes, advice on family budget management, social and leisure activities, and the provision of legal services.

The FEAD is in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan (which aims to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 15 million by the end of 2030) as it aims to promote social inclusion and social protection. It complements other EU funds, notably the European Social Fund and the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AFMI), by targeting other groups or providing complementary measures.

Although it possesses a limited budget, the FEAD has proved to be a useful tool in complementing national efforts to tackle material deprivation and combat poverty and social exclusion.

The social situation in which the FEAD operated in 2020 was characterised by increased challenges in terms of poverty and social exclusion in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (COM (2022) 340 final).

The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU was estimated to stand at 96.5 million in 2020, or 21.9% of the total population. These figures marked an increase, with around 900,000 more people than in 2019. Around 6.3 million people faced all three situations of poverty and social exclusion at the same time (being at risk of income poverty, being severely materially and socially disadvantaged, and living in a very-low-income labour-intensive household). In 2020, 38 million people in the EU could not afford a quality meal every second day, and food assistance continues to be essential for part of the population in numerous Member States today.

In 2020, the FEAD supported almost 15 million people with access to food (up from 12.2 million in 2019), around 1.96 million people with material assistance (up from 800,000 in 2019), and 30,000 people with social inclusion assistance, the same quantity as in 2019.

Romania significantly reduced (from 44.5% to 34.4%) the share of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion over the period 2015–2022. However, in 2022, Romania still ranked first in the EU in terms of the share of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion (Eurostat 2023).

POAD 2014–2020 contributed to strengthening social cohesion and reducing extreme poverty through the distribution of basic food (in the form of food parcels and prepared meals), school supplies for children, kits for new-borns, and clothing, footwear, and hygiene products to the most disadvantaged people. In addition to this type of assistance, partner organisations also provided ancillary measures aimed at encouraging the social integration of these people. National schemes targeting people in extreme poverty complemented European aid delivered through the POAD. POAD was approved by the European Commission in November 2014 by Decision C (2014) 9102. Subsequently, it underwent a number of amendments to better respond to the challenges faced by disadvantaged groups, the latest amendment being in C (2023) 4312 on 21 June 2023. The financial allocation was €574,838,876, of which €497,013,044 was a contribution from the European Fund for the Most Deprived Persons (FEAD) and €77,825,832 was national co-financing. Operations foreseen in the programme included the following: P1—food deprivation (lack of basic food); P2—basic material deprivation: P2.1—basic material deprivation (lack of school materials); P2.2—basic material deprivation (lack of new-born kits); P2.3—basic material deprivation (lack of clothing and footwear, sleeping bags, etc.); and P2.4—basic material deprivation (lack of hygiene products).

The institutional system for the implementation of the programme consists of the following key bodies: the Ministry of Investment and European Projects, as the beneficiary responsible for the initiation and implementation of operations, except for school materials; and the Ministry of National Education, as the beneficiary responsible for the initiation and implementation of operations concerning school materials (MIPE 2022).

Partner organisations are defined as organisations, public bodies and/or non-profit organisations that distribute food and/or basic material assistance and also provide ancillary measures directly or through other partner organisations.

The management system includes the following aspects: the Ministry of Investments and European Projects, as the managing authority responsible for managing the operational programme in accordance with the principle of sound financial management; the Certification and Payment Authority (CPA) of the Ministry of Finance, as the certifying authority for the programme; and the Audit Authority of the Court of Accounts of Romania, as the audit authority for the programme.

Relatively few studies have been carried out to demonstrate the progress in implementing EAFRD from several perspectives and for several components of this programme.

A comparative analysis of the implementation of the FEAD in Belgium, Finland, Hungary, and Spain shows that allocations do not make objective differences in relation to the needs of the countries compared, in the sense that some countries receive more resources in relation to their actual needs (Hermans and Cantillon 2023).

In a study on the evaluation of the POAD in Romania (unpublished material) conducted in 2023, a theory-based approach was used to cover EU effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, relevance, and added value. The evaluation was conducted from a multi-level perspective, using complementary methodologies that allowed results to be obtained for the whole picture and for any relevant social actors (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

The mid-term evaluation of the FEAD provided for in Article 17(1) of the FEAD regulation is structured according to evaluation questions in the terms of reference and mainly follows a theory-based approach covering effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, European added value, and relevance (Metis GmbH 2018).

The monitoring indicators used during the implementation of FEAD were analysed to assess the data collection and monitoring systems of the FEAD programmes at the national level and to identify good practices for both Operational Programmes I and II, implemented in the period 2014–2020 in all participating Member States (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 2022).

It is good practice to highlight the ways in which Member States have advanced in terms of accompanying measures and the provision of support through social vouchers (Different approaches to supporting Europe’s most disadvantaged people—FEAD 2018 case studies (FEAD 2018); FEAD 2019 case studies (FEAD 2019); FEAD 2021 case studies (FEAD 2021)).

Other studies have considered the FEAD’s effectiveness in meeting the right to food and promoting social inclusion in the region of Murcia, Spain (García-Navarro and García-Gómez 2018); the political and institutional dynamics behind its adoption in 2014 and its shift from a food surplus programme to a social inclusion programme (Caraher 2015; Madama 2016; Silvasti 2015); its objective of establishing direct links between the supra-national level and the social and civic grassroots (Ferrera 2014); its governance structure (Carimentrand et al. 2016); and the relationship between food aid and agricultural policies in terms of sustainable food supply (Lambie-Mumford and Silvasti 2020).

More recently, other authors showed that the FEAD contributes to poverty reduction in the short term but plays little role in increasing social inclusion. Authors such as Lambie-Mumford and Silvasti (2020) and others have expressed concern that food aid could transfer responsibility for people experiencing poverty and social exclusion from the state to civil society (Greiss et al. 2021; Greiss and Schoneville 2023).

In this article, we aim to describe how (POAD) has contributed to reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Romania by highlighting the role of ancillary measures that accompanied the food support programme, as well as an added-value element of the programme implementation in Romania, namely, the introduction of electronic social vouchers for hot meals for the eligible target group and electronic social vouchers for the educational support of disadvantaged children.

2. Materials and Methods

The approach focused on a multi-layered perspective (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

The micro level explored the final beneficiary level for each of the 5 categories of operation under the programme evaluated. The approach at this level was conducted through opinion surveys and focus groups.

The meso-level explored the direct beneficiaries of the POAD. For each of the 5 operations of the POAD evaluated, representative institutions were chosen to provide an understanding of the nature of the processes that supported implementation. The methodological approach at this level was carried out through semi-structured interviews.

The macro-level investigated the level of management structures through semi-structured interviews.

The evaluation methodology had a number of advantages, such as using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods and combining multiple data sources to reflect the perspectives of all stakeholders. Other important aspects were the reporting of quantitative data to representative samples, the use of a participatory approach, and the collection of data for the specific purpose of evaluation. The participation of all stakeholders was a principle of the evaluation, in the sense that the perspectives of all actors involved in running a programme were considered during the evaluation process.

2.1. Data Collection

Relevant theoretical studies were investigated. Desk research included the identification of secondary data provided by various institutions, working groups, documents produced within the programme, etc. Primary data were collected using opinion surveys distributed among the final beneficiaries; semi-structured interviews conducted on direct beneficiaries and programme managers; and focus groups featuring final beneficiaries.

Desk research was the first step in gathering information in order to understand the context of the programme. Thus, relevant programmatic documents, previously conducted evaluation reports, monitoring reports, annual implementation reports, internal procedures related to the implementation system, and other relevant studies were included. Data were obtained from various institutions: Eurostat, the National Institute of Statistics (INS), the POAD Management Authority (AM POAD), the Ministry of Investment and European Projects (MIPE), the Ministry of National Education (MEN), the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (MMPS), prefectures, local authorities, and partner organisations.

The literature review had the following objectives: to define the possible medium- and long-term effects of the implementation of programme interventions; to define the factors of influence, negative or positive, on the production of effects; to determine the most appropriate aspects, dimensions, and phenomena to be evaluated within each priority; and to substantiate the proposed evaluation model, i.e., the combination of data collection and analysis methods for evaluation.

The survey measured the impact of the POAD on the final beneficiaries. The sample of 1803 final beneficiaries had a margin of error of 2.31% at a 95% confidence level (

Table 1. Distribution of allocated questionnaires by category of beneficiaries.

Beneficiary Categories	Number of Questionnaires
1. P1.A: lack of food	639
2. P1.B: food insecurity (hot meals through social vouchers)	306
3. Q2.4: material precariousness (lack of hygiene products)	639
4. P2.1 Basic material precariousness (lack of school materials)	168
5. P2.2 Basic material precariousness (lack of new-born kits)	51
Total	1.803

). The sample was stratified with probability in several stages, with a territorially balanced distribution, and with sampling points randomly selected from the 8 regions of the country. Similarly, the random selection of direct beneficiaries was conducted at each sampling point (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

In the way the sample was designed, we included all the operations of the POAD, thus obtaining the perceptions and opinions of all final beneficiaries.

We used a data collection method involving semi-structured interviews among direct beneficiaries and POAD programme managers to collect qualitative information and the opinions of individuals among these groups.

In total, 37 interviews were conducted with direct beneficiaries and POAD managers (MIPE, MEN, MMPS, POAD working groups in prefectures, General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC), town halls, and other partner organisations) and 8 interviews were conducted with persons responsible for POAD management (MIPE).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify success or failure factors from the direct beneficiaries in terms of POAD implementation; receive feedback on all aspects of the programme; identify dysfunctions in project implementation; and assess how POAD objectives were achieved in relation to the final beneficiaries of the programme.

Focus groups conducted among final beneficiaries of the POAD had the following objectives: description of the situation on the ground; implementation of the hypothesis for future research (traceability); identification of stakeholders’ points of view; validation and verification of the premises established by the programme description; analysis of the progress achieved in the targeted sectors and groups in relation to the specific objectives; and the identification of processes generating changes.

We conducted 12 focus groups among the final beneficiaries, performing 2 or 3 FGs for each of the 5 categories of final beneficiaries corresponding to the 2 operations of the POAD and addressed in the opinion survey: 3 FGs for P1.A food insecurity (lack of basic food)—food packages; 2 FGs for P1.B food insecurity (lack of basic food)—food and hot meals provided through social vouchers; 3 FG for P 2.4 material deprivation (lack of hygiene products); 2 FG for P2.1 basic material deprivation (lack of school materials); and 2 FG for P2.2 basic material deprivation (lack of kits for new-borns).

Table 2. Research methods and data collection tool.

Type of Data	Data Collection Tool	Number of
Quantitative	Questionnaires among final beneficiaries.	1803 questionnaires
Qualitative	Semi-structured interviews with persons responsible for the management of POAD.	8 interviews
Qualitative	Semi-structured interviews among direct beneficiaries of POAD.	37 interviews
Qualitative	Focus groups with final beneficiaries.	12 focus groups

centralises all data collection tools.

The comprehensive approach led to results provided by all social actors involved in the POAD. The complementarity of quantitative and qualitative data allowed a good validation of the results.

2.2. Data Analysis

We performed quantitative data analysis. Following data collection and data entry into the database, the primary data were described and analysed. These data included material obtained from the research, graphical representations of the answers to the questionnaire questions, and correlations on the studied topic. (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

Analyses were developed for each evaluation question, searching for patterns identified in several observations that supported the different variables and cases studied. The processing, analysis, and interpretation of the qualitative material constituted a process of pronounced reverse linkage (feedback), in which distinct sequences were studied in turn, as follows: reading and annotating the material; classifying and categorising the data; corroborating the data; and writing the final text, known as the research report.

The descriptions and analyses factored in secondary information that was validated through primary information sources, which allowed the analytical data to be placed in the proper context for accurate interpretation. In addition, cross-validation of the primary information sources (quantitative and qualitative) allowed the identification and correction, where necessary, of the resulting perception errors.

3. Results

3.1. Current Progress since the Adoption of Interventions (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023)

The progress made in the period 2014–2022 in the field of poverty and social exclusion risk reduction is presented through the analysis of POAD programme indicators and via investigations based on the information collected, using research tools to examine progress at the level of relevant actors and final beneficiaries.

3.1.1. Analysis of POAD Programme Indicators and Implementation

The distribution of the POAD budget for the period 2014–2020 shows an allocation of about 78% for food deprivation (lack of basic food) and about 17.5% for basic material deprivation, of which 7.65% was spent on a lack of school materials, 6.68% on a lack of hygiene products, 1.3% on a lack of new-born kits and lack of clothing and shoes, sleeping bags, etc., with the remaining 4.5% spent on technical assistance.

There were some difficulties in the implementation of the programme, leading to a temporary interruption. Thus, food parcels were distributed in 2014–2016, following which there was a 3-year interruption (no food parcels were distributed in 2017, 2018, and 2019). The EC included this issue in the Report COM (2021) 494 final, published on 30 August 2021 (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023; COM (2021) 494 final).

The distribution of food parcels resumed in 2020. According to the information in the report on the implementation of POAD (RAI) 2020 (June 2021), published by the POAD MA, out of the total of six tranches overseen until the end of the OP implementation for the food aid parcels, the first two tranches were distributed as follows: tranche I—in the period from 22 June 2020 to 10 August 2020; and tranche II—in the period from 1 February 2021 to 26 March 2021.

Problems with public procurement stalled the implementation of this type of aid until mid-2020: “In 2019, Romania has not yet managed to solve its implementation problems and delays in public procurement due to several complaints filed by rejected bidders. In addition, the Romanian Ministry of Education has not submitted any applications for funding for school supplies. This has resulted in no food or material aid being distributed for the third consecutive year”. (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023; COM (2021) 494 final). Furthermore, “Despite close monitoring by the Commission, RO did not provide assistance in 2019 due to institutional changes and persistent procurement problems”. (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023; COM (2021) 494 final).

The programme had implementation dysfunctions and support did not systematically reach the final beneficiaries.

Two measures regarding basic material deprivation were delayed: distribution of hygiene products started in 2019 and was implemented in four tranches from 3 December 2019 to 31 August 2021; distribution of school materials’ social vouchers on electronic media for educational support for disadvantaged children was started only in the school year of 2021–2022.

There is also a long delay in the implementation of P2.3, defined as measures to address basic material deprivation (lack of clothing and shoes, sleeping bags, etc.), which was launched only in August 2023.

In the 6 years in which the measure has been in place, an average of around 1,890,000 people have received assistance annually. It should be noted that we are not discussing here single beneficiaries, as a large proportion of final beneficiaries are in fact multiple beneficiaries of POAD assistance measures, as shown by the distribution resulting from the analysis of the survey data among final beneficiaries.

Most of the respondents in the final beneficiary category said they had received food packages—91%, meals—67%, and hygiene items—65%. 45% had received school supplies or vouchers for their purchase, with a similar proportion, 43%, saying they had received school bags or vouchers. At the same time, 5% received children’s kits and clothing, 2% received sleeping bags, blankets or sports equipment, and 1% received kitchen items and household linen. In addition, 3% mention that they would have benefited from other categories of goods (

Table 3. Distribution of multiple beneficiaries of the POAD based on self-declarations.

	Categories Benefit
	P1A Lack of Food	P1.B Food Insecurity (Hot Meals Through Social Vouchers)	P2.4 Material Precariousness (Lack of Hygiene Products)	P2.1 Basic Material Precariousness (Lack of School Materials)	P2.2 Basic Material Precariousness (Lack of Kits for New-Borns)
(Food packages)	91%
(Meals (through social vouchers)—EVEN IN THE FORM OF CARD TICKETS)		67%
(Trusou (children’s essentials))					5%
(Backpacks or vouchers for their purchase, EVEN IN THE FORM OF TICKETS ON CARD)				43%
(School supplies for pupils or vouchers for their purchase, INCLUDING IN THE FORM OF TICKETS ON CARD—stationery, notebooks, pens, painting supplies and other items needed in schools (non-invasive))				45%
(Hygiene items (first aid kits, soaps, toothbrushes, disposable razors, etc.))			65%

).

3.1.2. Analyses Based on the Information Collected Using Research Tools on the Progress Observed at the Level of Relevant Actors

The information collected through semi-structured interviews indicates a significant short-term improvement in the situation of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion due to the benefits of POAD measures. A significant proportion of stakeholders involved in the management or implementation of the programme interventions confirmed an improvement in the situation of people in the target group and a real decrease in the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. However, to date, the programme has not succeeded in producing major changes in the living standards of the population. In order to exert a major impact in terms of alleviating the risk of poverty and social exclusion and improving living conditions at individual and household levels, continuous integrated interventions are needed over a longer period of time. This finding is fully validated by all actors involved in the implementation of the POAD.

3.2. Impact of Ancillary Measures on Final Beneficiaries

To provide an integrated picture of the ways in which the accompanying measures achieved their objectives, we describe and analyse how they were designed, reported, and progressively included in the POAD annual reports.

The impact at individual and family levels is presented through the analysis of successive versions of the POAD; POAD progress reports; and results of the two structured studies carried out during the implementation of the programme. Additionally, we present an investigation based on the information collected through research tools on the impact of the ancillary measures on poor individuals and families (final beneficiaries).

The POAD 2014–2020 programme, in addition to having a reduced financial allocation, brought added value by introducing ancillary social inclusion measures for disadvantaged people. It added measures to encourage school attendance through the introduction of aid in the form of school supplies, leading to the better social inclusion of children.

To complement food aid, ancillary measures were used to lay the foundations for the social inclusion of vulnerable people.

Measures contributing to social inclusion comprised education on personal hygiene and housing; facilitating access to health services; guidance to social services by the social services staff of the municipalities; and support for professional integration and in seeking employment.

In addition, other measures funded from the state budget included facilitating access to legal advice provided by town hall employees; culinary recommendations; and advice on nutritional balance.

The partner organisations responsible for providing food directly developed the ancillary measures, either individually or in cooperation with other organisations. Ancillary measures were provided according to the individual needs of the vulnerable group and considered the dignity of the beneficiary person.

Ancillary measures were diverse but had no common indicators for their delivery and no indicators for the measurement of their outcomes. Information on the achievement of the measures was included in the annual national implementation reports. However, the information was predominantly descriptive and could not be aggregated. The monitoring of quantified data on the number of final beneficiaries of the POAD has since been improved, but their contribution to poverty reduction has not been established.

Despite these efforts to improve reporting, the situation accompanying measures remains asymmetric over time. As long as no benchmarks or target values have been defined and information, where available, remains essentially qualitative, it is impossible to assess their impact on poverty reduction.

• Evaluation studies on the satisfaction of the final beneficiaries of the POAD

According to two evaluation studies on the satisfaction of the final beneficiaries of the POAD for the period 2014–2016, conducted in 2018 and 2022, the final beneficiaries positively evaluated the ancillary measures.

In addition to receiving food parcels, some final beneficiaries reported that they also received advice or various recommendations on food preparation and storage, personal hygiene, or referrals to services competent in solving certain social problems (POAD 2018).

In terms of the topics covered by the ancillary measures received by the final recipients, the highest percentage was for advice on personal hygiene, followed by recommendations on food preparation and storage. Regardless of the ancillary measures received, they had a rather positive impact, with a majority of respondents finding them useful (POAD 2022).

The POAD was considered beneficial by the majority of respondents in both surveys. Areas for improvement included the addition of ancillary measures in the category of counselling services and the expansion of the types of counselling offered to respondents by partner organisations.

The findings on the beneficial effect of ancillary measures were also confirmed by the results of the focus groups and the opinion survey among direct beneficiaries.

The highest proportion of respondents said that the support they currently or previously received through the organisation constituted a form of psychological or therapeutic help—53%. This was followed by advice on food preparation and storage, cooking workshops, educational activities promoting healthy eating, or advice on reducing food waste—the form of assistance received by 39% of beneficiaries. At the same time, 17% of recipients of additional assistance say they received advice on personal hygiene, referrals to relevant services, and personal training. Simultaneously, 9% say they also received advice on managing the family budget. (Figure 1).

The majority of beneficiaries of accompanying measures considered the advice or guidance they received to be very useful—87%—with 13% saying it was partly useful.

According to POAD partner organisations, 62% of final beneficiaries benefited from accompanying measures in the previous year.

Personal hygiene counselling and referral to relevant services (e.g., social/administrative) are the most frequently mentioned accompanying measures of FEAD assistance by respondents. These two categories of measures are followed in frequency by advice on food preparation and storage, cooking workshops, educational activities to promote healthy eating or advice on how to reduce food waste, while other measures, such as individual coaching and workshops or psychological or therapeutic help, are mentioned to a lesser extent.

• Qualitative assessment

On the one hand, the impact of the ancillary measures was assessed as being positive due to the fact that the beneficiaries, disadvantaged people, were also considered for other forms of social support through the social surveys carried out.

Conversely, there were also views that, although these ancillary measures were specified in the funding programme, the impact could not be assessed by the grantee.

Ancillary measures, although mandatory, were defined and designed in an indicative way. They were provided in addition to the distribution of food and/or basic material assistance, with the aim of alleviating social exclusion and addressing social emergencies in a more responsible and sustainable way. Accompanying measures were financed from national funds, an option provided for in EAFRD basic regulations.

The programme focused on groups with greater proximity to the labour market and provided more targeted support for active socio-economic inclusion. Accompanying measures are highly relevant, as food or material support alone does not address the root causes of poverty.

There appears to be a clear correlation between the provision of accompanying measures and beneficiaries’ overall satisfaction with the programme. It can be said that, where accompanying measures are provided effectively, overall satisfaction with POAD support is higher, which in turn suggests a significant role for accompanying measures in terms of programme effectiveness.

The evaluation results also indicate the limited complementarity between POAD and European Social Fund (ESF) measures, as few people in the programme were integrated into ESF actions, as evidenced by the separate reporting systems for each programme.

3.3. The Role of Vouchers/Social Cards in Reducing Poverty for the Most Disadvantaged and How They Have Contributed to Achieving the Objectives of the POAD (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023)

The answer to this question aims to describe and analyse the role that social vouchers have played in reducing poverty for final beneficiaries and their contributions to the achievement of POAD objectives.

For the description and analysis of the implementation, we factor into account the analysis of successive versions of the POAD, the POAD progress reports, and the results of the second structured survey (2022) carried out during the implementation of the programme. Additionally, we include an investigation based on the information collected, using research tools, on the impact on final beneficiaries.

In 2020, the POAD was amended twice. The main changes in POAD version 5.1 concern the introduction of electronic social vouchers for hot meals for eligible persons in the target group, as well as electronic social vouchers to further educational support for disadvantaged children (POAD 2022).

In 2020, three normative acts were approved regarding the implementation of the POAD: emergency ordinance no. 84/2020 for the establishment of certain measures necessary for the implementation of the POAD, repealing Government Decision no. 784/2018 on similar measures necessary to introduce the POAD; emergency ordinance no. 115/2020 on some measures to support the most disadvantaged categories of people receiving hot meals on the basis of electronic social vouchers granted from non-reimbursable external funds, as well as some measures for their distribution; and emergency ordinance no. 133/2020 on a variety of measures to support the most disadvantaged categories of pupils receiving educational support on the basis of electronic social vouchers granted from non-reimbursable external funds, as well as some measures for their distribution (POAD 2022).

As for the aid granted to disadvantaged pupils, it consists in granting electronic social vouchers to provide educational support for the purchase of school supplies and school bags necessary for attendance by the most disadvantaged children in pre-school, primary, and secondary state education. The measure was implemented in 2023.

In 2022, on the basis of the final Decision C(2022) 6638 of 13 September 2022, we sought to make the POAD’s (version 8.0) implementation mechanisms more flexible and to facilitate the access of target groups to aid via the following measures: granting electronic social vouchers for both food and prepared food; extension of the eligibility criteria of final beneficiaries to include vulnerable people over 65 years of age (for food aid); modification of the target group for the delivery of new-born kits by including foreign citizens or stateless persons from the zone of armed conflict in Ukraine; and extension of the use of electronic social vouchers to cover the purchase of food aid, as well as basic material assistance for homeless people.

GEO No 113/2022 provides financial support in the form of a voucher worth 2000 lei for each mother and set of new parents for the purchase of products necessary for the care of the new-born. The electronic social vouchers for new-borns granted to final beneficiaries are financed by the POAD and are settled, within the limit of the budget available for this measure, in accordance with eligibility rules.

Analyses based on information collected using research tools on the impact on poor people and families (final beneficiaries).

Respondents at the central level considered that the social vouchers provided under the POAD support measures contributed to the achievement of the programme’s objectives, but more to poverty reduction than its eradication. An indicator of the usefulness of these social vouchers was the prompt reaction of beneficiaries to delays in loading social vouchers.

4. Discussion

In 2022, the proportion of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Romania was very high. More than one in three Romanians (34.4%) were at risk of poverty and social exclusion in 2022, compared to more than one in five at the EU level (21.6%) (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

The POAD produced robust results but encountered several obstacles in implementation caused by legal difficulties, primarily related to public procurement in the provision of support.

For the 6 years that the programme was implemented, the average number of beneficiaries was 1,890,000, although it should be noted that this figure does not represent single beneficiaries but multiples.

Qualitative data collected through the research tools show a short-term improvement in the situation of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion who have benefited from POAD measures.

Macro-level data on the risk of poverty and social exclusion indicators, as well as data from sectoral analyses (social transfers), show an improvement in the situation of people in the POAD target group and a real decrease in the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in recent years. However, this progress is limited, and Romania is still, in most cases, at the bottom of the EU ranking in terms of indicators measuring the risk of poverty and social exclusion.

The POAD has made major progress in terms of the evolution of the number of final beneficiaries, but with interruptions in the provision of support to several beneficiaries. Although it has largely achieved its objectives in terms of intervention results, the POAD has so far failed to produce major singular changes in the living standards of the population.

Information on ancillary measures in annual reports is in most cases descriptive and cannot be aggregated. Methods for monitoring using quantifiable data, in terms of the number of final beneficiaries of the POAD, have been improved, but their contribution to poverty reduction is difficult to establish.

The highest proportion of respondents said that the support they currently or previously received through the organisation constituted a form of psychological or therapeutic help—53%. This was followed by advice on food preparation and storage, cooking workshops, educational activities promoting healthy eating, or advice on reducing food waste—the form of assistance received by 39% of beneficiaries. At the same time, 17% of recipients of additional assistance say they received advice on personal hygiene, referrals to relevant services, and personal training. Simultaneously, 9% say they also received advice on managing the family budget.

The majority of beneficiaries of accompanying measures consider that the advice or guidance they received was very useful—87%—and 13% say it was partly useful.

Accompanying measures, such as hygiene education and school or career guidance, have been tailored to meet the specific needs of beneficiaries.

The programme included counselling components for beneficiaries, offering advice on cooking, personal hygiene, and legal advice, which added value and improved the impact of the assistance received.

The POAD met basic needs and provided social inclusion support to the most disadvantaged, reaching target groups that would otherwise not have been covered by national or local measures and providing assistance that would otherwise not have been offered.

The provision and monitoring of ancillary measures is an area where the potential of the POAD could be further exploited. The need to strengthen the accompanying measures is high and results from our survey, with final beneficiaries and public authorities responsible for the implementation of the programme.

The final beneficiaries describe ancillary measures as being very useful, the most frequently mentioned of which are psychological or therapeutic help, advice on food preparation and storage, cooking workshops, educational activities promoting healthy eating, or advice on reducing food waste. The least widely used measures were advice on personal hygiene, referrals to relevant services, personal training, and advice on managing the household budget.

Ancillary measures exert significant effects in the medium-to-long term if they are provided systematically and over a longer period.

All the relevant social actors in the implementation of POAD considered that the cards, granted under POAD 2014–2020 support measures, contributed to the achievement of the programme’s objectives, but to poverty reduction rather than poverty eradication.

The use of social vouchers has been an effective tool. Delivering the cards to final beneficiaries proved to be faster, cheaper and less complicated than the traditional form of support: no storage costs were involved, and no large purchases of products were necessary.

The distribution of social vouchers allowed final beneficiaries to choose the goods they needed. Purchases with social vouchers were less affected by the risks of financial corrections; final beneficiaries could monitor the consumption of the support received in real time; and the number of supporting documents was reduced and reimbursement was made only for the amounts used by final beneficiaries.

The innovative measures, involving the use of cards, have made the implementation of the programme more efficient and have contributed to achieving the objectives of promoting social cohesion, encouraging social inclusion and reducing poverty by supporting the most disadvantaged.

Comparative analysis between Romania and Central and Eastern European countries, as well as Western European countries can give a better picture of the results of the POAD.

Although the methodology of the study entailed a comprehensive approach, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn about the contribution of the POAD to poverty reduction in Romania.

Future research directions must therefore take this into account.

In addition, complementary studies can be carried out to quantify ancillary measures in monetary terms.

5. Conclusions

The primary recommendations on the implementation of food support programmes are as follows: (Evaluation of the Operational Programme for the Support of Disadvantaged People, 2014–2020 2023).

• At the level of social policies in the social assistance sector/field, it is important to allocate financial resources to cover identified needs and provide the human resources necessary to continue and expand the provision of material and food support (Zamfir and Cace 2020).

In particular, the following issues are important: the continuation of food and material assistance interventions through complementarity with other national intervention programmes or non-reimbursable external funds, which have the direct or secondary effect of improving the situation and reducing the risk of poverty and social exclusion; better management of the food and material assistance programme, without interruptions in continuity, and the optimisation of assistance in relation to single beneficiaries; strengthening the forms of material assistance established as essential support for final beneficiaries, combined with a more precise determination of needs through food support programmes among potential beneficiaries, complementing and redistributing food support measures according to identified needs; and allocating additional resources to organisations involved in the distribution of food support assistance at local level.

2.

Future programmes must target funding and provide support to the poorest groups but must be adaptable in order to expand in line with the changing needs of low-income demographics.

It is important to maintain and strengthen the flexibility of food support programmes by adapting them to new needs identified by the beneficiaries and to plan food delivery with a frequency adapted to the beneficiaries’ expectations.

3.

It is necessary to increase administrative capacity in the implementation of food and material assistance through better communication between responsible institutions and partner organisations, foster better communication with final beneficiaries, and provide the necessary staff to local authorities/partner organisations for specific operations.

Capacity building should focus on correcting shortcomings in the organisation and the management of material and human resources to ensure timely delivery of food and material assistance; better organisation of procurement procedures so that the timing of food and material support distribution is not affected; increasing operational capacity for delivering food and material support, coupled with better planning of support distribution; and optimising the delivery of food and material support by reducing bureaucracy, linked to the digitisation of communication in terms of the provision of the documents required to be registered as an eligible beneficiary.

4.

We must simultaneously provide ancillary measures along with the provision of aid and link them to local social, health, education, and employment services, etc., depending on the specific target groups identified.

The focus should be on the possibility of generalising food and material assistance through the social voucher system to ensure that assistance is tailored to individual needs; extending support measures for final beneficiaries, in particular those relating to personal hygiene, referral to relevant services, but also personal training, counselling and family budget management; strengthening psychological or therapeutic support and advice on food preparation and storage, cooking workshops, and educational activities to promote healthy eating or advice on how to reduce food waste; and continuing and extending support through vouchers and cards and other support measures, with adequate justification of the content, quantity and quality of the aid provided, accompanied by ancillary measures adapted to the type of aid and the target groups concerned.

5.

There is a need to develop an integrated institutional mechanism to identify vulnerable people eligible for food and material support (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 2022).

6.

We must promote robust practices and lessons learned on several levels, including mechanisms for identifying vulnerable groups; techniques to strengthen cooperation between relevant actors in the implementation of the programme; and permanent monitoring mechanisms and evaluation tools for the positive implications of support measures.