The content of this publication represents the views of the author only and is her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains. G UFOVA LOBBYING TOOL Karin Schönpflug The G UFOVA Lobbying Tool i s based on the funding model developed in the GUFOVA project Where the funding model is based on technical research and quantitative data , the lobbying tool is wh ere the figures are put to work to provide a macro and m icro economic context for investing in children ’ s serv ices On th e ma cro side and based on the literature review and two rounds of expert interviews , t he first part of the funding model shows the societal costs as well as the costs per child . Numbers for effected population are based on demographics (Eurostat 2019; 2012 for Bosnia and Herzegowina). The prevalence is based on estimations of occurrence by Habetha 2012 (14,5%) and are only based on the f urther estimation of extreme cases: 21%. The costs per child are then again based on Habetha (2012). Purchasing power parities (Eurostat 2019) are used for cross country comparison. The tool shows the results in local currencies (exchange rates: January 20 21) for each country. The tool allow s yearly corrections for inflation to keep these numbers up to date. The second part of the tool looks at the micro side and works with the identifie d beneficial factors for intervention programs, that were deducted from a second set of literature. Those have then be en evaluated and weighted via expert estimations which is reflected in an estimation formula based on indexation which runs in the background of the tool. The efficiency of programs especially for kids in shelters is especially considere d in those estimations. The second part of the funding model therefore connects the societal costs with benefits of intervention programs. The lobbying tool at work: In order to utilize the funding model for lobbying purposes users need to first input the country they are operating in. Secondly , they need to input their estimated program costs and the number of children reached in the program. Program characteristics can then be chosen which will result in estimating the effectiveness of the program. Results are displayed as monetary costs in national currencies as well as percentages of GDP fo r comparison. Benefits are displayed as monetary estimates and in numbers of children that will not experience adverse long - run effects. There is an option to add program costs per child reached, or simply total program costs. The lobbyin g tool is avail able online at the gufova webpage in the three project langu ages German, En glish and Danish, and it works for five countries : Austr ia, Bosni a and Herzegowina, Denma rk, Germany and the UK . I t can be downloaded and is immediately fully functional. H e re is an example for the application. Assume, you are a practitioner working in a wom en ’ s shelter in Germany that also house s 65 children. You want to implement a program for children in your instit ution th at will cost 300 0 Euros per child You r project has only three ( for this example randomly chosen ) features : You are plan ning to monitor the program ’ s effectiveness, you are intending to train mothers , the program aims to protect childre n from sexual violence. By adding that information into the Lobbying Tool you will get the following results: You will be able to tell policy makers : a) the cost of abuse per child in Germany is nearly 7.000 Euros yearly. This means, yo ur 3.000 Euro project off - balances not even half of what child abuse and neglect costs on average per child per year. b) On a n aggregate level yearly national costs of child abuse and neglect in Germany are 16 billion Euros or 0,5% of German GDP , which is a lot! c ) Your specific program will cost 3.000 Euro ; times 65 children ( 19 5 000 Euros in total ) d) T he benefits per child are estimated to equal 20.000 Euros (nearly 7 times the input) and will prevent national costs of an estimated 1,3 Million Euros , or the costs for 185 childre n for that year. The numbers are based on up - to date scientific research and the estimates are on the conservative side, which mean s that in real life the benefits will even be higher tha n has been calculated here. This should h elp convince policy makers that investing in children who are/were victims of domestic violence is not only the right ethical but also the economically efficient choice