Criticism of the Corona Aid Fund: Lack of clarity and questionable funding!

Transparenz: Redaktionell erstellt und geprüft.
Veröffentlicht am

State Councilor Luisser provides information about the Corona aid fund in St. Pölten: review, successes and future prospects.

Criticism of the Corona Aid Fund: Lack of clarity and questionable funding!

State Councilor Christoph Luisser held a press conference in St. Pölten today in which he provided information about the Corona aid fund. This fund, with a total budget of 31.3 million euros, had received 8,719 applications worth around seven million euros by March 11th. So far, 6,394 of these applications have been approved, resulting in a disbursement of 4.14 million euros. What is particularly striking is that almost half of the applications were made for psychological and psychological damage to children and young people. The application deadline for the Corona relief fund ended at the end of February, but processing of open applications is still ongoing. Luisser also explained that there would be an independent evaluation commission to increase transparency and take a comprehensive assessment of how ots.at reported.

Criticism of the Corona aid fund

The Federal Audit Office recently criticized the Corona fund in Lower Austria in a report. According to the report, there was no “overall, comprehensible needs assessment” for the funds provided. The funding conditions, which allow a wide scope for interpretation and led to legal concerns, were also criticized. A central concern of the report was the reimbursement of administrative penalties, which is seen as problematic as it could jeopardize confidence in future legislation. Luisser defended the measures and described the repayments as a necessary step to “make up for injustice” and help the people affected get their rights. He emphasized that the fund represents a response to the penalties declared unconstitutional during the corona pandemic, such as oe24.at reported.

This step has caused a heated debate in Lower Austria, and criticism of the guidelines and their implementation remains. The evaluation of the funding guidelines and decision-making processes is considered necessary to clarify future misunderstandings and legal questions, while ongoing work is being done to process the open applications.