In Zagreb, EU funding helps keep essential social services running, from support for homeless people to care for older residents and young people without family support.
Much of this work depends on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), which allows the city to test new approaches and reach people who might otherwise fall through the gaps.
But while cities like Zagreb are responsible for delivering these services, they have very little say in how the funding is designed.
As Croatia’s capital, Zagreb concentrates some of the country’s most complex social needs. Yet it operates within a highly centralised system, where decisions about ESF+ priorities are largely taken at national level. This mismatch shapes how projects are funded, what they can achieve, and how well they respond to local realities.
Despite these constraints, Zagreb has made extensive use of ESF+ to support vulnerable groups and strengthen local services. Its experience shows both what the fund makes possible at city level, and what is lost when cities are not involved in shaping it.
ESF+ as an irreplaceable instrument for social innovation at city level
For Zagreb, ESF+ is far more than a funding source. It is a crucial tool for developing new models of social services, employment support and social inclusion that go beyond what national or municipal budgets alone can deliver.
“ESF+ is not only a source of funding, but a key instrument for the development of models that often exceed the capabilities of national and local budgets,” say representatives of the City of Zagreb.
Through ESF+ and its predecessor, Zagreb has supported programmes for people facing multiple challenges: homelessness, long-term unemployment, disability, migration, or violence. The funding allows the city to combine employment support with social services, expand care provision, and pilot new ways of working.
This is particularly important for preventive services and long-term, personalised support, areas that are often hardest to fund, but which can make the biggest difference over time. It also helps connect different sectors, linking social support with education, employment and health.
Without ESF+, many of these services would either not exist or would reach far fewer people.
When cities don’t get a say
Zagreb’s experience shows a clear gap: cities are responsible for delivering services, but have little influence over how ESF+ programmes are shaped.
During the preparation of Croatia’s 2021–2027 funding programmes, the City of Zagreb was not directly involved in setting priorities. Although thematic working groups were set up, city representation was limited and indirect.
In practice, Croatian cities were represented by a single organisation, with just one seat among dozens of members. Decision-making remained firmly at national level.
“The real decision-making and programming power is concentrated at national government level,” a city representative explains. “This leaves cities with very limited influence over priorities that directly affect their communities.”
The imbalance continues in monitoring structures. Of 54 members in the national Monitoring Committee for ESF+, 34 represent national authorities. Only three represent local and regional governments, and even these do so indirectly.
For cities, this means working within systems they did not help design, even when the outcomes directly affect their residents.
Making it work anyway
Despite this limited role in programme design, Zagreb has built strong experience in delivering ESF+ projects.
City departments apply directly to national calls, while the Development Agency Zagreb takes part as a project partner, particularly in education and culture. This gives the city a clear view of how the system works in practice, and where it falls short.
“Direct involvement in ESF+ projects gives us first-hand experience of what works locally, and where centrally defined indicators or targets do not reflect the situation on the ground,” say representatives from the Development Agency Zagreb.
One example is the Zaželi – Phase 1 project, funded under the previous ESF programme. It combined jobs for long-term unemployed women with home support for older and dependent people.
The project showed how funding can link employment and social support in a meaningful way. But it also revealed weaknesses, including complex administration and delays in payments, which affected the continuity of services.
The capital city paradox
Zagreb also faces a challenge common to many large cities: high levels of need, but limited access to funding.
Some ESF+ calls use a national development index to allocate funds. This tends to favour less developed regions, placing capital cities like Zagreb at a disadvantage.
The problem is that these indicators rely on averages. They miss the concentration of poverty, housing pressure and social vulnerability that often exists in large urban areas.
“The development index ignores the fact that it is precisely in large cities that the most pronounced forms of social vulnerability are concentrated,” city representatives note.
As a result, Zagreb competes for limited funding while dealing with complex and growing demand for services.
When design doesn’t match reality
The lack of meaningful city involvement in programme design has practical consequences.
In Zagreb, this has led to gaps between what is funded and what is actually needed. Some calls rely on outdated data or indicators that do not reflect current social trends, making targets either unrealistic or less useful.
Rigid structures can also make it harder for different departments and partners to work together, increasing administrative effort and slowing down delivery.
A broader example is the reform of vocational education and training. Although ESF support began during the 2014-2020 period and new curricula were rolled out in 2025, there have still been no calls to support local implementation.
For cities, this means missed opportunities to turn reform into real change on the ground.
Why ESF+ cannot be replaced
Zagreb’s experience makes one thing clear: ESF+ fills gaps that other funding cannot.
Without it, the city would struggle to maintain long-term support for people facing the most difficult situations, from young people at risk to migrants, people with disabilities, and those needing ongoing care. It would also be harder to run employment schemes or test new approaches to social services.
“National budgets do not sufficiently recognise the importance of preventive and integration programmes,” city representatives explain. “Without ESF+, there would be a real reduction in services for the most vulnerable groups and a slowdown in social innovation.”
This is why the future of ESF+ matters so much at local level. If the fund were diluted or absorbed into broader funding structures, cities would feel the impact quickly, and so would the people who rely on these services.
What needs to change
Zagreb’s experience points to a few practical changes that could make ESF+ work better for cities across Europe:
- Give cities a real role in programme design. Cities have direct knowledge of local needs and should be involved from the start, not consulted after decisions are made.
- Ensure direct representation. Indirect or ‘proxy’ representation does not reflect the diversity of cities or the scale of their responsibilities.
- Make funding easier to use. Simpler rules, faster payments and a stronger focus on results would help ensure services run without disruption.
- Reflect urban realities in funding criteria. Allocation methods should take into account the concentration of social challenges in large cities.
Looking ahead to the post‑2027 period, Zagreb calls for more meaningful city involvement across the full funding cycle, from design to delivery and evaluation, alongside more flexible and accessible funding options. This could include stronger regional approaches and, where relevant, direct EU‑level funding for cities.
Strengthening ESF+, and the role of cities within it, will be essential if EU social objectives are to be translated into real change for people and communities across Europe.
