Impact & Reports

Evidence, cost discipline, and field reporting published in one place.

This archive brings together annual reporting, program-level metrics, beneficiary reach, and financial visibility so partners can assess what changed, how funds moved, and where corrective action is still required.

Download 2025 Report Browse Archive

Report Archive

Three reporting cycles, each grounded in field verification and board review.

Every report combines delivery volume, expenditure allocation, case-level observations, and operational risks carried into the next cycle.

2025

Annual Impact Report

Year-end delivery totals, audited financial notes, board resolutions, and program performance by region.

Open report

2024

Scale and Stabilization Review

Expansion of learning hubs, household stabilization metrics, and the first full-year safeguarding compliance review.

Board summary available on request

2023

Baseline and Systems Report

Initial operating model, partner mapping, target geographies, and the controls framework used for later growth.

Program abstract

Method

How Measurement Works

Outputs are matched with beneficiary verification, cost coding, and partner sign-off before publication.

Review methodology

2025 Year In Review

The reporting year focused on reach, retention, and documented follow-through.

Operational growth remained tied to proof: repeat attendance, household stabilization, completed legal navigation cases, and full documentation for restricted funds.

Reporting Period: January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 Published: February 14, 2026 Coverage: Novi Pazar, Belgrade, Nis, Southern Serbia

1,480

Direct beneficiary contacts documented across education, family support, and legal navigation.

312

Case files closed with written outcome verification and partner confirmation.

92%

Of active participants returned for a second intervention or follow-up review within the cycle.

Program Evidence

What the numbers represent in practice.

The strongest metrics were tied to repeat engagement, transparent disbursement, and local verification from partners closest to delivery.

Attendance, tutoring retention, and caregiver participation all improved after the program shifted from one-off sessions to weekly cohort tracking.

148 students retained

Completed at least eight structured support sessions over the reporting period.

67 caregiver consultations

Converted into documented follow-up plans around attendance, transport, and literacy support.

Emergency support was kept intentionally narrow: rent, utilities, school access, and urgent household stability costs with documented receipt checks.

72 households stabilized

Received time-bound support packages linked to a formal case review.

96% receipt reconciliation

Exceptions were escalated to the board finance committee and resolved in the same quarter.

Site conditions varied sharply by municipality, so reports now track transport friction, documentation delays, and partner response times alongside direct outputs.

This shift made the reports more useful for donors deciding whether a funding gap reflects delivery weakness or public-system barriers outside the organization’s control.

Financial Readout

The cost structure is disclosed so performance can be judged with context.

FY2025 operating budget: EUR 842,000. Reporting separates direct service, stabilization grants, monitoring, and compliance instead of collapsing them into a single program total.

Programs

46%

Family Fund

19%

Legal Support

14%

Monitoring

11%

Admin

10%

EUR 0.82

Of each euro flowed to mission delivery, direct beneficiary support, and case resolution work.

34 days

Average interval from restricted grant approval to first documented disbursement.

100%

Board review coverage for grants above the internal materiality threshold.

Field Observations

Reports now include what slowed delivery, not just what was delivered.

Access barriers

Transport cost and incomplete documentation remained the two most common causes of delayed engagement.

Operational response

Teams shifted toward smaller local cohorts, earlier intake verification, and faster referral escalation with municipal partners.

Reporting implication

The archive records friction points explicitly so stakeholders can distinguish systemic barriers from internal execution issues.

Visual Evidence

Scenes from the programs behind the reporting.

Images are used as contextual records of place and participation, not as substitutes for documented outcomes.

Community sessions are documented alongside attendance logs and partner notes to connect observed activity with reported outputs.

Learning support reporting emphasizes retention, caregiver engagement, and verified follow-up rather than one-day participation counts.

Field imagery complements case records by showing delivery environments, travel realities, and the scale of local partner coordination.

Next Steps

Use the reports to audit, partner, or fund with clearer assumptions.

The archive is meant to reduce guesswork for donors, municipal partners, and reviewers evaluating discipline as much as mission.