MC Newsletter Special Issue about the Brussels meeting
Dear MC Member, as you know, on March 12th & 13th we had a meeting in Brussels, focused on working on the deliverables of this first year of our Action.
In this newletter we send you a summary of the content of this meeting, so you will be able to follow the work and participate in the deliverables of each group.
Stay safe and at home!

WGP – Working Groups Picture
Which are the WG current tasks and next actions
In this section you will find information about the current tasks of our working groups and what are the next actions we will have to develop.

During the meeting in Brussels, the WG1 editorial team went through the methodological manual for the National Reports and the Transnational Comparison Report on rural NEETs.

The members discussed in detail:
– Different chapters of the manual and its context,
–  Different steps that need to be taken to prepare the National Reports and the Transnational Comparison Report (the content/responsibilities/timeline).

This discussion was made in connection with the following expected meetings, the first in Prague (July, 2020) and the second in Lisbon (October, 2020).

The WG1 members involved in the editorial team discussed the challenges connected to data of EUROSTAT. Fortunately, most of the required data is public and available, so work can start ASAP. Some discussions were also held regarding the dissemination plan as well.

Till the end of March, the Editorial Team is preparing a revised methodological guide, with a template for the National Report, a template for the transnational report, a full list of indicators to be analysed with links to access data and a timeline. Moreover, a webinar for all of those responsible for the national reports will be delivered in April.

During the meeting it was decided to extend the area of intervention practices aimed at vulnerable and socially excluded rural youth because it will be hard to find interventions focused only on rural NEETs.
In the first session, Carla Sofia Silva (University of Lisbon) presented a methodology for mapping and assessing best-practices: types of intervention that can be assessed, the definition of best practice intervention, PICOS strategy (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design) used in mapping and assessment activities, priority criteria, data resources for document the best practices,  elements for assessing an intervention (coding framework). All these issues can be find in Carla’s presentation and in the other resources that she shared with us.
The second session was dedicated to the presentation of various national best practice intervention. These presentations aim to understand better what kind of interventions for socially excluded rural youth are available at national level. Interventions from 4 countries were presented (Slovenia, Romania, Greece and Portugal) in various area (social economy, rural development, environmental sustainability, education and labour market). Also, DIESIS described a series of interventions of social economy organisations from two main areas: creative industries and food system.
The third section was intended to debate: type of interventions on rural vulnerable & socially excluded youth that exist at the national and EU level, area of interventions on rural vulnerable & socially excluded youth that exist at the national and EU level, dimensions to be included on a best practice intervention on rural vulnerable & socially excluded youth, indicators that should be used for each dimension of best practice intervention and sources for identifying the best practice interventions on rural vulnerable & socially excluded youth at national and European level.
During the discussion, it was proposed to have a stakeholder’s analysis in order to better understand the diversity of interventions that address the vulnerable and socially excluded rural youth and to develop the criteria and codes that will be used in the best-practices mapping and assessment activity.