COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 06.02.1998 
COM(1998) 52 final 
Youth for Europe 
Interim evaluation report 
(presented by the Commission) 

YOUTH FOU EUROPE 
INTERIM EVALUA I ION REPORT 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Introduction 
The Youth lor Europe Programme 
• Developments in Community action on youth-related matters 
• Specific features and objectives 
Implementation 
Preliminary results of implementation 
A fresh stage in Community cooperation on youth-related matters 
• Political cooperation on youth-related matters at the heart of Community action 
• Management: a way of operating closer to the citizen 
• A three-pronged Community programme 
( inclusions 
Annexes 
Statistics 
II 
YOUTH FOR EUROPE 
INTERIM EVALUATION REPORT 
INTRODUCTION 
The decision of 14 March 1995 of the European Parliament and the Council establishing 
Youth for Europe III stipulates that during the third year of the programme the 
Commission must present to the European Parliament and the Council an interim 
evaluation report covering the first two years of programme implementation and which 
will be used to redefine and possibly adjust the programme. 
The implementation of the Youth for Europe (hereinafter referred to as YFE) programme 
has been examined on the basis of a cross-analysis of the final reports of the projects 
supported, the activity reports from the national agencies and also the results of the 
various thematic seminars and working parties organised by the Commission and the 
national agencies. The findings of an external evaluation have also helped to pinpoint 
certain achievements, strong points and developments, and also avenues for the future. 
Youth for Europe Programme 
YIT! targets young people aged 15-25 resident in the 15 Member States of the EU, as 
well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is a five-year programme (1995-99) and 
in 1995 and 1996 respectively received a budget of ECU 24 million. The participation of 
the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe and of Cyprus is due to start at the 
end of 1997. 
Five main actions are proposed: 
=> Intra-Community actions involving young people (Action A) 
=> Youth workers (Action B) 
=> Cooperation between Member States' structures(Action C) 
=> Exchanges with non-Community countries (Action I)) 
=> Information for young people and youth research (Action E) 
HI 
© Developments in Community action on youth-related matters 
The adoption in 1988 of YFE to support mobility actions for young people was a first 
stage in Community action outside the formal education framework. Following the 
presentation of the memorandum "Young people in the European Community"1 in 1990 
and the European Parliament's report on "Community policies and their impact on young 
people"2 in 1991, the first formal "Youth" Council was held that same year. The 
ministers responsible for youth affairs then adopted a Council resolution on priority 
actions in the field of youth. Lastly, at the end of 1991, the European Parliament 
introduced a budget heading for the implementation of these priority actions the title of 
which was to be changed to "Youth policy"3 in 1993, thus embracing the Youth for 
Europe programme and the priority actions. 
With its proposal for Youth for Europe III, adopted by the Council and the European 
Parliament on 14 March 1995, the Commission introduced a policy of cooperation in the 
field of youth at the Community level, taking as its basis Article 126 of the EC Treaty. 
This third phase grouped the various actions previously pursued in the first two phases of 
YFE, in the priority actions in the field of youth and, partly, in the Petra (Youth initiative 
projects) and Tempus (Youth activities) programmes. 
This move enhanced the impact and complementarity between actions and at the same 
lime provided a consistent framework for non-formal education activities targeting young 
people. The pilot action "European voluntary service for young people", launched in 
1996, further enhanced the scope of Community action on cooperation in the field of 
youth. 
• Specific features and objectives 
YFE is a forum of social experimentation and provides a way of creating awareness and 
familiarity among young people as to European and transnational activities. It acts as a 
catalyst and provides a cascade effect for the development of similar concepts and actions 
in the Member States by facilitating exchange of experience and good practice. 
The framework and the objectives of the cooperation policy in the field of youth are 
defined in the first article of the YFE programme. Taking tangible experiences, it seeks to 
cover the full range of learning processes and intellectual, moral and civic knowledge a 
person should acquire in order to become an active and responsible citizen. Its primary 
aim is the active participation and the integration of young people in society. This 
education is based on the involvement of the young people themselves and uses by way 
of preference the instruments used by the voluntary sector in the broad sense. 
The YFE Programme has cut a path towards strengthened partnerships at all levels: 
between the Commission and the Member States, between public authorities, national 
agencies responsible for implementing the programme in the Member States or within 
group work to prepare and carry out projects. As soon as the programme was launched in 
1 COM(90) 469 final 
2 Rapporteur: Mr L Vecchi, 24 May 1991 (A3-0142/9I) 
3 B3-1011 
I()88, Ihe Commission introduced mechanisms for cooperation with the Member Slates 
and these mechanisms have grown and strengthened over the years. 
YFE has since its inception defined a level of effective participation for disadvantaged 
young people and introduced positive measures for this purpose. The third phase of the 
programme continues and builds on the specific consideration of this target group. 
• Implementation 
The Commission is responsible for the implementation of the programme and is assisted 
in this task by a joint committee comprising two representatives per Member State. The 
national agencies are responsible for operational implementation of the programme 
nationally. These agencies are linked to the Commission by an annual contract based on a 
detailed plan of work and receive a subsidy which can cover 50% of operating costs. In 
order to improve cooperation between all the players concerned, the Commission has 
introduced a real lime communication network known as NET Y and the YOUTIILINK 
management and monitoring instrument between the Commission, the national agencies 
and the technical assistance offices. 
Management of Actions AI (Exchange of young people and mobility) and Bl (Youth 
workers - support for action A) is decentralised. In conjunction with the programme 
Committee, the Commission has deemed it preferable to maintain the management of the 
other actions at central level, at least for the launch period of the programme. The 
Commission is now considering complete or part decentralisation of certain actions for 
the final two years of the programme. Moreover, central management of all these actions 
is done in close conjunction with the Member States and the youth organisations. 
In the months ahead, the Commission will conduct an operational analysis of these 
agencies, so this document will not analyse how they are run. Nevertheless, some 
observations can already be made. It needs first of all to be stressed that the decision­
making, administrative and legal structures of the national agencies vary from country to 
country. There are two major categories of agencies: those part of a public or state 
organisation (e.g. ministry) and those part of private organisations (youth associations, 
etc.) linked to the public authority by service contracts or some other form of 
subordination (subsidies, etc.). This link with the state also means 50-75% colinancing of 
the budget of the agencies. The fact that an agency is or not part of a state or of a private 
structure is also important particularly with regard to their accessibility and to the rules 
applied to the processing of dossiers. Lastly, at decision-making level only a minority of 
national agencies have total autonomy. In most cases decisions are taken by selection 
committees on which youth organisations generally sit. 
The national agencies are at the heart of the process of decentralisation of the 
programme. They act as part of a genuine network which has built up over the years in 
conjunction with the Commission. Although this network has been gradually 
consolidated, there are still some outstanding problems due in particular to the fact that 
the network has continually expanded to take in new participating countries. It is not 
simply a matter of settling administrative problems but also preserving the Community 
dimension and the integrated approach of the programme. This presupposes consulting 
and agreeing on the contents, guidelines and quality of the projects and actions while 
facing up to socio-economic and cultural situations and traditions which are very 
2 
different. The problem is to keep up without interruption the communication and 
interaction between the agencies and the 18 participating countries and with the 
Commission. 
Experience shows that the involvement of the national agencies in all the actions depends 
on their involvement in decision-making and thus on the decentralisation of resources 
linked lo the different actions, (ireater decentralisation also means a higher degree of 
control and monitoring, and implies greater transparency in procedures and a better How 
of information. This in turn presupposes substantial investment by the Commission, 
which should be further stepped up in the coming years. 
• Preliminary results of implementation 
The players concerned agree that YFE is important to young people in that it is an open 
programme which has brought significant added value to non-formal education both 
in the Member States and at European level. They also feel that its educational character 
sets YFE apart from other activities intended to occupy young people's leisure time. 
Traditions differ when it comes to youth work in general and particularly at international 
level, but no country has a programme which is comparable in structure or content. 
Moreover, solid results have been achieved in developing and broadening out 
international youth work, which was hitherto frequently confined within the opportunities 
existing through bilateral agreements between Member Stales. A European dimension 
has now been added. Against this background, the arrangements lor continuing 
cooperation established with (he Member States have made it possible lo consolidate 
action in the area of youth in the Member Stales and have helped along the emergence of 
fresh local initiatives. The programme has also introduced quality demands for national 
and European actions. It has prompted investment in training and research. 
The programme objectives are consistent with the national youth policy objectives and 
comply with the education principles shared by all the Member States, e.g. the 
development of democracy, tolerance and the active integration of young people in 
society. 
Trends and achievements of the various actions 
1995-96 enabled all the players involved in the programme (young people, associations, 
national agencies, Committee members and the Commission) to familiarise themselves 
with a programme which includes a range of actions which dovetail around a common 
objective. The first Iwo years of implementation have solidly anchored the new actions in 
this framework while developing the exchanges of young people which existed before 
YFE III. Artistic and cultural expression, raising European awareness and living 
conditions feature among the main themes of the activities supported. 
It should also be stressed that the analysis of budget figures shows that recipients benefit 
directly from the money spent. However, the procedures and arrangements for 
transferring subsidies at decentralised and central levels are often judged to be 
excessively cumbersome and ill-adapted to the situation in the field. This is a very 
complex issue which can only be resolved by reconciling the need for nearness to the 
citizen and the constraints inherent in the sound management of public money. This issue 
is compounded by the need not to jeopardise the participation of partners having very 
limited financial capacity, while at the same time pursuing a quality-orientated policy for 
the projects supported. 
The programme envisages positive actions to facilitate access by disadvantaged young 
people to all its actions. This is a major objective which raises several problems with 
regard to its implementation in the field. It is an approach which makes dialogue 
necessary and ongoing consultation between Member States in order to properly target 
the steps to be taken. In 1995-96, the Member States earmarked 37% of their budget for 
action AI to support projects involving disadvantaged young people. Figures 
notwithstanding, it is important to stress that the nature of the actions, the pedagogical 
and methodological openness encouraged by the programme, make it an instrument 
which is particularly adapted to the participation of those who are experiencing 
difficulties and are possibly least inclined to lake part in other Community actions. 
Nevertheless, the efforts made in this field should be continued and stepped up, 
particularly for the training of youth workers responsible for this target public and 
cooperation between Member States" structures in order to generate new partnerships. 
Lastly, cooperation between the Commission and the Member States is a concrete 
and productive example of the application of the principle of subsidiarily. The national 
agencies, for their part, have had to step up a gear in relation to the first two phases of the 
programme which were more limited in scope. After two years there are still certain 
shortcomings or unclear aspects. Action therefore needs to be taken to address this and to 
encourage agencies to make greater use of the opportunities given to them by the 
programme and the contract which links them to the Commission (training of personnel, 
information and counselling instruments, more effective results from thematic seminars, 
etc.). There will also be a need for more dynamism in the work of the agencies as part of 
a network. 
Action A Intra-Comrounity activities directly involving young people 
Exchanges of young people (action AI) the only activity of the programme during the 
first two phases form its backbone. They have since 1995 been supplemented by 
actions to promote initiative, crealiveness and solidarity of young people in the EU 
(actions AM.l and AI 1.2). 
Action AI Exchanges and mobility of young people 
Over 100 000 young people benefited from this action in 1995-96. Thanks to the first two 
phases of the programme exchanges are henceforth associated with YFE in the minds of 
young people. This reputation of the exchange activities compared with the other actions 
of the programmes is also explained by the priority given by most of the national 
agencies to this type of activities in their information and counselling work and by 
specialisation by certain organisations in this area. 
Management of Action AI is decentralised, apart from the multilateral activities of 
European NGOs which are managed directly by the Commission. The projects submitted 
under this action are thus sent directly to the national agencies which are also responsible 
for their selection, drafting of contracts, their funding and their monitoring. As this is a 
long -standing action, the national agencies are now well-versed in the various aspects of 
management. However, generally speaking, there is a case for closer consideration of 
new types of exchanges, interaction with other actions within the programme and gradual 
opening up to multilateral activities. From the point of view of Community cooperation, 
there should also be an effort to strengthen interaction among the national agencies 
themselves and to establish greater transparency in project selection and follow-up. The 
new communication systems - Nety and Youthlink - introduced by the Commission 
should help the agencies with this. 
For many young people a YFE exchange project is the very first multicultural experience 
and one with which they are very satisfied. It has given many of them ideas for future 
activities and has often prompted them to seek a greater degree of mobility. 
A group oj(young people from Germany/lÛMmMurg, the UK and the Netherlands have 
prepared a street show about anti-racism. This show has been performed in Luxembourg, 
Rotterdam, Sheffield and Berlin in environments in which the populations originating 
from different countries live daily side-hy~side. 
$**********$%**#********$ 
25 physically and mentally handicapped young people took part In an exchange which 
took place in the Netherlands. These young people from Finland, Spain, Portugal and 
Austria were taken in hand by young Dutch people also suffering from handicaps, in 
order to find ways of achieving better mobility for handicapped persons. The young 
people can thus assess innovatory experiments and help adjust them to their local 
environment This first experience is to be followed by another exchange, this time hosted 
by the countries of southern Europe. 
The European dimension of exchanges, as in the case of the Youth Initiatives, is often 
more implicit than explicit. Many participants say they have not learned much about the 
YX) during their exchange activity and that they are not interested in the European 
themes. I lowever, they attach great importance to the themes of exchanges - most of 
which relate to problems common to all the countries of the EU such as solidarity, 
racism, the environment and the building of Europe. They also feel that working together 
with young people from different countries is an important component of the programme. 
There is therefore a need to carry on examining how the European character of this action 
can be approached, utilised and disseminated, including in the forms for applying for 
subsidies and in the final reports. Moreover, those participating in a YFE exchange 
activity - or any other action within the programme - all too often discover by chance 
that they are taking part in an action which is part of an EC programme. The Commission 
and the national agencies must therefore continue their efforts to strengthen the visibility 
of the programme and its European character. 
It is indeed observed that the young people Ihemselves are the prime standard-bearers of 
the programme. When an exchange proves successful, the young people involved wanl to 
bring in others and continue making exchanges (moving up from hi- to tri- and even 
5 
multi-lateral, for instance, or opening them up to other countries), to themselves become 
organisers or to follow training. 
Lastly, over the years, the type of association benefiting from the programme has also 
changed. Small, oflen local, associations have opened up to exchanges and they include 
groups or associations which had received the opportunity of undertaking a first 
experience under the priority actions in the field of youth and which organise an 
exchange of young people in the hope of finding partners lo set up a network. The 
statistics show a new influx of organisations in over 50% in 1996. 
An analysis of the activities supported in 1995-96 show that in many exchanges those 
taking part test new methods of working and communicating which permit exchange of 
experience and practice which transcends simply 'meeting up'. 
This trend should be monitored and analysed between now and the end of the 
programme, and support should be provided for certain pilot projects which make it 
possible to try out new types of exchange. There should also be an in-depth analysis of 
the follow-up to the exchange in educational terms and in terms of impact, and new 
arrangements for making further progress should be investigated. 
With the support for its approach from the members of the Programme Committee, the 
Commission has wanted to use this third phase of the programme to encourage trilateral 
and multilateral exchange programmes as a means of testing European diversity even 
better/1 At this stage, however, bilateral exchanges are still the norm, apart from projects 
undertaken by European N(i()s. This situation stems largely from the lack of experience 
of the main players and the higher cost of this type of activity. The associations and 
youth leaders involved readily admit that multicultural activities arc more difficult to 
implement both from the pedagogical point of view and from the organisational and 
financial point of view. This points to an urgent need for specific training and this will be 
addressed subsequently under Action B. Moreover, the Commission is considering 
adjusting the procedures currently in force in order to endeavour to overcome the 
obstacle represented by the cost of these activities. It must also be added that the national 
agencies, the organisers of exchanges and youth workers feel that bilateral exchanges are 
a good way of facilitating access and participation by disadvantaged young people and 
for associations which wish to organise an exchange of young people for the first time. 
The vast majority of the members of the programme Committee, who have been 
interviewed in the framework of the interim evaluation of the programme, have 
maintained their priority for multilateral activities, for they feel that such activities 
represent the genuine Community value added in the field of youth exchanges. A more 
detailed analysis should be carried out on the problem of bi/tri-multi-lateral during the 
next two years, particularly in view of the resolve to open up the programme to all young 
people. 
In this context, the bilateral exchanges undertaken every year by a given country with one of its 
partners may not in principle exceed 30% of its total exchanges and may not receive more than 20% of 
the appropriations allocated to it for this activity. 
Action AH Spirit of initiative» creativity and solidarity among young people 
Action AIL I Youth initiatives 
Y IT, would like to get through to young people without restriction. Il needs to go to them 
where they are and enable them lo develop their spirit of initiative and creativity in a 
European context. This is why the programme supports the Youth Initiatives, which are 
projects instigated and managed by the young people themselves within a firm local 
community basis and directly linked to their needs and interests. These initiatives, with a 
European theme or part of networks which establish a link between their local 
community and Europe, should enable young people to develop their awareness of and 
belonging to the EU and to become involved at their level as players in the building of 
Europe. 
A local group of unemployed young persons met up through an ecological association. 
This group hopes to set up a hotel managed on a wholly ecological basis and which 
should show how it is possible to live in fitll respect of the environment, recycling 
materials and reducing the consumption of electricity and water. The hotel would be a 
model for those who wish to undertake an experience of ecological life and could also 
receive guests from similar European projects. The material and information on the 
other projects will he collected and presented at the hotel. 
A group of young people from a disadvantaged area is taking part in creating a sculpture 
in their neighbourhood and a play area for the young people of the district These 
achievements are designed to create an environment to advocate tolerance in a 
particularly difficult context of exclusion and violence. 
The Youth Initiatives Action is managed centrally by the Commission. Project selection 
is carried out by a selection committee comprising representatives of the Commission, 
the national agencies and the Youth Forum. The national agencies are expected to 
provide the Commission with input on all their country's projects. They should also have 
advisers to support potential projects and act as a link between the young people and the 
national agency concerned. 
Action AIM is part of the new actions of the programme. It meant a running-in period 
which is only just starting to produce results as this report goes lo press. In 1995-96, this 
action enabled almost 500 youth initiatives to be started up. On the basis of the results to 
dale, it can be stated that the impact of the Community action is already visible. It is clear 
that the support for Youth Initiatives has permitted the creation or strengthening of this 
type of activity in the Member States. 
Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that the Youth Initiatives are among the actions 
which have suffered most from the late adoption of the programme. This delay has had at 
least two major consequences. Firstly, the rate of project acceptance in 1995-96 is below 
the average, for the concept of Youth Initiative has not always been perceived in the 
same way in the various Member Stales. Two European seminars held in 1995 
undoubtedly helped bring a clearer definition and a heller .understanding of (he selection 
criteria, but experience shows that there is still a case for stepping up support measures 
for the Youth Initiatives in order to better define their identity and advance towards a 
common approach via the training of advisers. The Commission look certain steps in this 
direction in 1997. 
Lastly, many initiatives are still all too often limited to the local level and a European 
dimension is sometimes difficult to see. This situation stems primarily from the fact that 
it takes time and money to instigate the creation and consolidation of local initiatives. 
The same requirements apply if they are to move forward within a European framework, 
given that it was not possible to provide financial support for these networks of initiatives 
under the procedures in force. The Community character of the youth initiatives and the 
importance of action in which the young people themselves are the main players, is 
insufficiently highlighted. There is also a need to stress that through this action the 
European Union gels closer to the daily situation of young people. The latter moreover 
adamant that they would never have been able to fulfil their project without support from 
the Community. Lastly, this action provides a contribution to social cohesion and 
provides a rallying point for the population groups benefiting therefrom. Over a third of 
the youth initiatives have opened on to a new association. Around 60 jobs have been 
created following a project organised and managed by young people. An analysis of the 
projects supported during these first two years also shows that many beneficiaries are 
taking part for the first time in a European programme. Community aid locally has made 
it possible to open up the programme to another type of public and has rallied young 
people and associations who would otherwise never have been able to take part in a 
European programme. Most of the players/instigators of these projects are young people 
in a situation of growing precarity in an urban or rural area and, significantly, while the 
themes around which initiatives are developing are very diversified (social sphere, 
cultural, environment, heritage, etc.), virtually all these initiatives primarily target the 
reconstruction of society. Lastly, there is evidence that young people taking part in a 
youth initiative feel the benefits in terms of self-esteem and are encouraged to undertake 
fresh projects. 
Against this background, it is necessary between now and the end of the programme to 
lake better advantage of the synergy which arises naturally between the youth initiatives, 
exchanges and voluntary service activities. 
Indeed, the Commission feels the management of this action should be decentralised in 
order to strengthen the on-the-spot assistance the young people need and to make the 
national agencies more responsible for this action of the programme. This will allow the 
Commission to devote more attention to networking and the creation of partnerships. 
Action AIL2 Voluntary service periods 
Action A.II.2 is managed centrally by the same arrangements as action A.II.l. Voluntary 
service activities allow young people to put into practice their spirit of solidarity in a 
country other than their own, but within the territory of the Member Slates. 
The very nature of the action means thai voluntarily service is not solely focused on the 
-opportunities for learning by the young participants. It is an action which also brings 
benefits to the host organisations and communities. Voluntary service is a source of 
enrichment for the young volunteers and contributes to community endeavour. The 
budget earmarked for this action is comparatively limited. Nevertheless, in 1995-96, over 
200 people were able to undertake a period of voluntary service in another Member State. 
Action A.11.2 has mainly allowed the development of short and medium-term voluntary 
service activities and supplementary activities (studies, seminars, etc.). An analysis of the 
projects shows that while the countries which have a tradition of voluntary service are 
always well represented, the other countries are showing increasing interest in this type 
of action. 
The range of activities supported since 1992 and the discussions and exchanges of 
experience they have given rise to with the Member States have produced familiarity 
with and awareness of the potential and importance of this type of activity on a European 
scale. 
More generally, the inclusion of an action of the voluntary service type in a programme 
which concerns policy on cooperation on youth-related matters has given this policy 
added drive: voluntary service has introduced the dimension of individual participation. It 
has unshackled youth policy from the concept of leisure time and established a clear link 
with the socio-economic world. 
As this document is drafted, the timetable of negotiations for the future European 
voluntary service programme for young people envisages adoption in the first half of 
1998, although there are no certainties in this area given the unpredictability of the 
codecision procedure. The Commission therefore envisages the maintenance of action 
AH.2 "Voluntary service periods" under YFE until the "European voluntary service for 
young people" programme is adopted. 
Action B Youth workers 
YFE recognises the fundamental role of youth workers, the natural interfaces with and 
for young people. Action H of the programme is designed to improve the quality of all 
ihe activities under action A, through study visits, feasibility visits and training actions 
for youth workers. It also intends to set up or consolidate networks of youth workers 
across the Member Slates (Action HI) and will endeavour to encourage European 
cooperation between organisations and structures responsible for providing such training 
(Action HII). In addition, as part of positive action for disadvantaged young people, the 
programme encourages specific training for those working with this target group. Action 
HI is managed largely on a decentralised basis by the national agencies, while 
management of action BII is done centrally by the Commission. 
37 young youth workers from seven European Union countries have received training 
which should enable them to enhance their capacity to relate to and act with 
disadvantaged young people and working-class environments. Personal development and 
intercultural learning form an important part of this training. 
•••iV*:*:*:^*:*;T^^V'V:V:*:*:-W:^:^;H^V:fP:fP. " 
Training of 15 youth workers permitting the pooling and analysis of action concerning 
local work in five countries. The purpose of the project is the acquisition by the 
participants of knowhow for undertaking projects and setting up a network of young 
players to spearhead rural projects in various European countries. 
All the partners concerned (national agencies, members of the programme Committee, 
youth workers) recommend thai greater emphasis be laid on training, maintaining that 
these activities represent the heart of the programme in terms of quality and potential for 
dissemination. It is a fact thai little exists in the way of national training targeting 
transnational and European activities, while trainers and youth workers are eager to 
acquire certain qualifications in this area. Moreover, all the project promoters who have 
been supported so far stress the importance of this in organising transnational cooperation 
in this field. 
In 1995-96, over 3 000 youth workers and 35 European cooperation projects on training 
- including two major pilot projects - benefited from this action. Training of youth 
workers and short-term study visits continue to dominate. However, action BI is under­
utilised when it comes to diversifying exchanges, the youth initiatives and voluntary 
service periods. The themes of the short-term study visits remain too general and the 
training periods should be focused to a greater degree on the actions of the programme. 
There is also a need to examine in greater depth the impact of the support for European 
cooperation and training on action BI and the use of youth workers trained by this action. 
I he Commission in mid-1996 organised a seminar on the theme "Involving youth 
workers in the Youth for Europe Programme". This effort will be pursued refocusing 
study visils on the investigation of the potential for setting up projects for exchanges, 
voluntary service periods and partnerships under the Youth Initiatives. The training of 
"Youth Initiative" advisers should also be stepped up and made systematic. 
The Member States acknowledge the value of this action if it is clearly situated at 
European level and sets out to instigate and support cooperation between training 
establishments and trainers. It should also strengthen the dialogue between the various 
levels and organisations involved in initial and continuing training of youth leaders in the 
EU. They accordingly recognise the Commission's right of initiative while at the same 
time stressing the principle of subsidiarity given that the training of youth workers as 
such is a matter for the Member States. Care is therefore needed to ensure that the 
activities supported under YFE supplement arrangements which already exist nationally. 
Over and above the recognition earned by this action and the setting up of pilot projects 
and networks of trainers, there is a need to better disseminate the products of training 
which are more closely concerned with practice as part of an overall strategy for 
Community cooperation. The Commission has already taken one step in this direction by 
promoting the development of training programmes at European level targeting the needs 
of the YFE mobility activities. 
The Commission also hopes to pursue the cooperation which already exists with the 
Council of Europe in this field. 
Action C Cooperation between the structures of the Member States 
Youth-related matters involve a wide range of players. Action C is intended to facilitate 
their cooperation at European level. 47 projects received support in 1995 and 1996. 
10 
While momentum is being built up as regards projects, this does not obviate the 
geographical imbalance observed. No projects, for instance, have come from the 
structures ol Portugal, (ireece, Finland, Iceland and Ireland and very few from Italy and 
Spain. A drive is in progress lo raise awareness and secure greater involvement by these 
countries. 
Despile a comparatively small volume, this action has already allowed 100 or so local 
structures to form a network thanks to the selling up of a European confederation of 
youth centres. But potential beneficiaries are still insufficiently familiar with action C 
and this obstacle to its full development can only be removed by strong involvement of 
the national agencies and local representatives. The Commission is therefore considering 
decentralising its implementation. 
Action D Exchanges with non~Community countries 
The activities envisaged under action D are designed to encourage the transfer to the 
government and non-government structures responsible in the countries concerned, of 
expertise in knowhow with regard to youth work, and to contribute to the development of 
the voluntary sector and civic society in non-Community countries. It also seeks to bring 
a response to the relentlessly growing demand from young people themselves who are 
eager lo develop cooperation with young people outside the EU. 
I he launch phase (1995-97) allowed the foundation to be laid for developing exchanges 
of young people with non-Community countries, fostering balanced access for all 
Member Stales and focusing efforts on the quality of projects and durable partnerships. It 
also encouraged gradual diversification of the traditional flows of exchanges. The action 
envisages for this purpose not only projects for exchanges of young people, but also 
preparatory activities as a necessary condition for securing the quality of these 
exchanges. Experience shows how important the concern for quality of projects and 
partners was, as well as the continuity of the context in which they operate, and this 
concern should continue to apply during the consolidation phase. 
Training seminar in the West Bank bringing together 32 young youth workers of the 
European Community, Jordan and the West Bank. The aims are to contribute to the 
peace process on the basis of a youth education project targeting the acquisition of skills 
in social and educational work enabling the participants to undertake youth actions in 
the West Bank and Jordan. The activity also purports to be the platform for future 
exchanges in which the young people would be in a position to develop initiatives 
themselves. 
Project organised by an association whose aim is to create a European network of non­
professionals rock groups and associations which nurture rock culture, in order to 
promote cultural exchanges between young people from different countries. The project 
is taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to encourage the renaissance of the rock 
. scene in this region. The project will he extended by a durable cultural exchange between 
! this country and three other participating countries. The organisers hope through this 
Î exchange to encourage the development of musical and voluntary activities of young 
< Bosniacs and meet their aspirations for opening up to Europe and their eagerness to 
m jet others hv establishing a network between the four partner countries. 
r gnmp of youth wrkù"v from the two Cypriot communities undertook a study visit to | 
Northern Ireland on the theme of cooperation between divided communities. The Cyprhi \ 
YEE agency prepared this activity by making available to the (wo communities all • 
Community information available. In the wake of this study visit an exchange of young 
people is planned for 199<V. 
Over 5 000 young people took part in action I) in 1995-96. 1996 was the year in which 
action I) took off once again in terms of participation after some degree of decline caused 
by the delay in implementing the third phase of the programme in 1995. The most 
significant increase was in cooperation with the Mediterranean countries, particularly as 
part of the peace process between Israel and Palestine. On the achievement/impact side, it 
has to be stressed thai the northern countries of the EU arc involved in many projects 
with these countries. I here is, by contrast, some degree of stagnation as regards the 
republics of the (MS because of the technical and economic difficulties, and a marked 
slowdown with the countries of Central and liastem Europe following budget restrictions. 
It has to be said that the Council Declaration of June 1994 requesting that ECU 3.5 
million of the Tempus-Phare appropriations be set aside each year up until 1999 for 
youth activities with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, has received little 
follow up since in 1996 a mere ECU 660 000 was available for such activities. During 
these first two years of the programme, the Commission also assisted the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus in setting up national agencies and in 
familiarising them with the working methods of the agencies which already exist. In 
addition, a special effort has been made to disseminate information to these countries. Be 
that as it may, geographical imbalances continue and arc particularly the result of the 
tendency countries have to concentrate on areas which arc traditionally and culturally 
close. I lowever, the beneficiaries of these non-Community countries stress that Action D, 
particularly thanks lo the criteria which calls fora minimum participation of two Member 
States and two eligible countries, has made it possible lo start up regional cooperation at 
their level without overlooking and indeed strengthening the European dimension of the 
action. Lastly, it is interesting lo note that action I) is also starting lo have knock-on 
effects on the beneficiaries of the EU. 
It is essential to strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe in this field. 
Action E Information of young people and youth-related studies 
If it is to be effective and operational the whole of the structure envisaged in YFE needs a 
supply of reliable, accessible and user-friendly information, this being primarily up to the 
Commission. As for action E, it provides the framework for developing cooperation 
between youth information structures, public and private alike, and cooperation on 
studies on the situations and needs of young people in the Member States. 
A ction E. I Information of young people 
Promoting the participation of young people also means enabling them to be heard. 
Action E.I provides tangible means of direct dialogue between young people and the 
different levels of responsibility for youth-related matters in the Community. 
12 
This Action is an incentive to improve the information of young people by taking their 
points of view into account. It makes it possible to generate and disseminate this 
information along two lines: the European projects and the Eurodesk network. 
EURODESK provides information and guidance to young people - at the European level 
on everything that concerns Community and national actions and programmes in which 
they can participate. EURODESK. at present consists of a coordination unit the Brussels 
Link and IX partners in each country. The role of the Brussels Link is to seek oui and 
constantly update information (there is a database of publications concerning the youth 
field and descriptions and addresses of youth organisations) and the day-to-day 
management and dissemination of information to partners through a telecommunications 
network. The partners - in certain cases through national youth information networks -
provide information services to a young public: phone-in facilities, publications and 
direct assistance to people in their premises. E>ach partner is obliged to provide input to 
the common database, including information on national programmes likely to interest 
young people. The partners are responsible for everything concerning the management 
and development of the network. 
In 1995-96, 91 projects were supported under action EI. The projects and networks 
supported emerge either around a specific issue (young immigrants, excluded population 
groups, minority groups, etc.), or around a medium (video, radio, Internet, guide, 
magazine, etc.). All I he projects selected generally feature a sound balance between 
projects focusing on exchange of experience and those whose purpose is to generate 
information. One of Ihe strong points of action EI is to allow associations to try out 
innovatory modes of information. It has made it possible to establish a culture of 
European cooperation in this field opening on to tangible action of benefit to young 
people. The experience with Action EI shows it is necessary to bring greater clarity to the 
objectives and arrangements for the implementation of this action. With this is mind, the 
Eurodesk project will remain at the centre of the Commission's priority when it comes to 
information for young people. 
There is also a need to step up counselling upstream targeting the promoters of projects, 
to encourage and to assist small-scale projects in the setting up of genuine partnerships 
and the organisation of European-scale projects. 
Action E.II Studies in the field of youth 
Action E.II was launched with the purpose of supplementing research which could be 
supported as pari of the specific targeted socio-economic research programme. After two 
years of implementation, it has made it possible to have detailed information on certain 
aspects concerning young people and to assemble the knowhow of research groups on 
this theme. It has also permitted a specific survey on youth in Europe - "Eurobarometer" 
- and which it is envisaged to make a regular feature. 
The productive cooperation with the Council of Europe will be continued. 
13 
A new stage in Community cooperation on youth-related matters 
• Policy for cooperation on youth 
The implementation of a policy of cooperation on youth at the Community level is an 
important achievement which has opened up new forums of debate and policy definition 
for this sector. It has also brought a boost to cooperation on non-formal education, 
mobility and support for youth initiatives. The two Communications 'Agenda 2000" and 
'Towards a Europe of knowledge', which were adopted by the Commission in 1997, 
must also be taken into account in considering the next stage of Community action in this 
field. 
The Commission Communication "Agenda 2000" which sets out the broad framework 
lor Community action in the years ahead, includes among the EU"s internal policy 
priorities, the development of exchanges of young people and European voluntary service 
(EVS). Similarly, the recently adopted Commission Communication "Towards a Europe 
of knowledge", puts the policy on cooperation on youth at the heart of knowledge 
policies as a driving force of non-formal education within the European education area. 
The new stage which is opening up for Community action on youth matters fits into this 
patterns of events. The actions of the YFE programme and those of EVS are part of a 
process to promote different types of non-formal education for all young people. 
The guidelines set out in the Communication "Towards a Europe of knowledge", 
pinpoint the specific contribution of non-formal education, the importance of which is 
increasing in the move to promote access to different types of skills throughout life. In 
addition, this document opens up tangible possibilities for synergy between the policies 
for cooperation in education, vocational training and youlh-rclalcd matters. 
An integrated youth programme based on the types of action identified in the 
Communication "Towards a liurope of knowledge" will naturally provide several bridges 
with Community programmes in the related sectors of educational and vocational 
training and will thus make this synergy all the easier to achieve. It will thus be possible 
to work in conjunction with the Leonardo da Vinci programme on projects to train youth 
workers. Similarly, there should be joint projects in schools and youth centres, 
particularly in the information sector. 
The potential synergy with Community programmes of cooperation with non-
Community countries should also be examined. 
Lastly, sport and culture together constitute an area in which young people spontaneously 
become involved. The recent Eurobarometer survey shows that nearly 30% of young 
Europeans belong to a sports organisation. There is therefore a case for opening up to a 
greater extent than in the past activities targeting young people to sectors which are 
invaluable contexts of non-formal education and acquisition of citizen skills. 
• Management: a way of operating closer to the citizen 
The YFE programme is comparatively well known by its various potential beneficiaries. 
Opening it up to all young people in an unrestricted way makes it a unique action at the 
14 
Community level. This capacity to make young people take charge of their projects and 
minimise implementation cosls are a way of gelling through to a large number of young 
people. These successes must not conceal the shortcomings mentioned earlier, bul they 
do argue in favour of an expanded and strengthened decentralised management for a big 
portion of the actions of the integrated youth programme which should emerge in the 
year 2000. 
The experience gained in implementing YFE and the decentralisation of European 
voluntary service actions provide a solid basis for further developing genuine 
management partnership, as stressed in the Communication "Towards a Europe of 
knowledge". Significant progress has been made in this direction and has made it 
possible to now be in a position to use arrangements which provide immediate and 
smooth communication. Thus the 'Youthlink' computerised management and 
communication system is proving to be a very efficient monitoring instrument allowing 
for real-time management of projects involving several national agencies. This is a 
platform for further development of the European dimension of youth exchanges and 
making them more frequently trilateral or multilateral. Similarly, the Nely network will 
make joint organisation of projects based on several cooperation programmes easier. A 
requirement of this improved management partnership is to have partners trained in 
administrative, advisory and organisational tasks. It is therefore essential for the 
structures responsible for managing the programmes nationally or locally to have the 
appropriate resources whereby they can make full use of the potential and synergy 
between action programmes in education, training and youth to be implemented 
simultaneously. 
The Commission, for its part, will make an increased effort with regard to 
communication and cutting down on red tape, thus highlighting the capacity of 
cooperation actions to make Europe more real for its citizens. 
• A three-pronged Community programme 
The achievements of the cooperation programmes illustrates the areas in which added 
European value is at its highest and in which the Community level plays its role as 
catalyst for and complement to national action. 
These areas include the promotion of mobility, youth initiatives and follow-up measures, 
based in particular on the organisation of networks. 
A.- Mobility 
Exchanges of young people as supported via the YFE programme have a clear-cut 
educational objective. Past experience proves that they are irreplaceable instruments for 
acquiring social and personal skills. Indeed, mobility is the most tangible way of 
experiencing Europe. 75% of the young people interviewed during the Eurobarometer 
survey associated the EU with freedom of movement and hoped to be able to take 
advantage of it. The educational potential of youth exchanges can only be fully tapped if 
these exchanges take account of the varying requirements of young people. A flexible 
approach is therefore called for whereby young people can be the prime movers and take 
15 
charge of their projects. This sometimes means specific preparation so that the young 
people experiencing the greatest difficulties can also lake part in all forms of mobility. 
Just as under present action A.I of YFE, physical mobility will come in the form of 
group mobility and also in the form of individual mobility by the young volunteer. It is a 
fact that group exchanges seem to suit young people particularly well. Nearly half the 
participants arc aged 17 and under. These exchanges provide a first experience of 
mobility and meeting other people in a comparatively reassuring framework. Voluntary 
service on the other hand is an experience requiring a full-time commitment which 
certain young people would be unable to envisage straight away. 
Exchanges with non-Community countries cater for a constant demand from young 
people who want to experience Europe's solidarity and openness to the rest of the world. 
This action has already borne fruit under agreements with the associated countries, 
particularly by allowing a contribution to be made to the development of civic society in 
these countries. It is important to strengthen links with these countries which are 
geographically orculturally close to Europe. 
Voluntary service is a unique experience of perspective in relation to the young person's 
environment and of profound contact with another culture. These periods provide a 
fantastic opportunity to bring together different social contexts, putting young people in 
touch with disadvantaged groups and enabling young people from these groups to get out 
of their normal environment and make themselves useful to others. 
B.- Youth initiatives 
Community cooperation in the field of youth has succeeded in assembling new partners 
and has prompted young people outside organised youth structures to take part in 
Community actions. Its impact has thus filtered down to the local level. In addition, these 
actions generate an unprecedented European opening for most organisations benefiting 
from the YFE programme. Nearly half the organisations receiving Community support 
under this framework are different every year, extending the scope of the programme to 
levels which would not spontaneously have thought of starting up a Community-
supported activity. 
This aspect stems from the experience amassed through the implementation of youth 
initiatives. It will enhance the capacity of its initiatives to become genuine sources of 
jobs, for nearly a third of them have created jobs in the last two years. Youth initiatives 
will thus make it possible to propose a tangible opening to those volunteers who, upon 
completion of their period of voluntary work, may wish to conduct a project beneficial to 
the community at large or of an entrepreneurial nature. These actions are also 
opportunities to create new partnerships in the public and private voluntary sectors. 
Fostering the creativity of young people is particularly appropriate in the area of social 
integration and the life of the community at large. It explores new ways of active 
integration of young people. The approach should henceforth be to use the results 
obtained via these initiatives as a basis and strengthen their capacity to implement 
innovatory practices to integrate young people and ensure that such practices are 
disseminated. 
16 
Young promoters of initiatives will be encouraged to use the potential of new 
technologies to communicate between partners and make it easier to subsequently set up 
a Community-level network of initiatives having shared objectives. The European value 
added of such initiatives will be strengthened if they are networked. 
( . Steps to monitor and support quality 
Community policy on youth has opened up to the types of action and working 
arrangements of a sector more accustomed to local or national activity. It is important to 
build on this and pursue exchanges of information and good practice between promoters 
of youth-related actions and all players, particularly those not originating in this sector of 
activity but who wish to become involved. Particular care needs to be taken to improve 
organisers' capacity to support young people taking part in projects with a European 
dimension. Similarly, the targeted training of youth workers should be pursued in terms 
of multicultural aspects and support for the participation of the most disadvantaged. 
Information is often mentioned as the key to the capacity of EC programmes to act as a 
fulcrum despite the ambitious level of the target. Certain efficient instruments such as the 
Eurodesk network already provide tangible perspectives for effective dissemination of 
information to young people. The Commission intends to continue providing targeted 
information for young people in order to get them to take part in EC actions. This is 
particularly crucial when it comes to involving disadvantaged young people for whom 
the lack of information is frequently the first hurdle to their advancement. Close 
cooperation with the Member States and the players in the field will be a decisive factor 
in the effectiveness of these measures. 
Following up projects promoted by the cooperation programmes will be one of the 
priorities for the youth programme. The networks are an appropriate instrument in 
stabilising cooperation between different players assembled for the purposes of projects 
targeting young people. They are also a good way of providing solid openings for 
voluntary activities which young persons might wish to convert into a lasting project. 
Action C of YFE has brought invaluable lessons as to the potential of networking players 
in the field of youth. In the same way as the experimental networks developed under the 
EVS pilot action it provides a starling point which should be built on with a view to 
diversifying partners. 
As stressed in the Communication "Towards a Europe of knowledge", targeted studies 
should be continued in order to gain greater familiarity with certain aspects of European 
youth and to push forward more effective approaches to cater for their needs. Community 
actions targeting young people without restrictions on qualification have shown that 
young people are eager to take part. It gives them the opportunity to emerge from the 
shell into which they withdrew from certain social spheres such as formal education or 
the labour market. This trend should be studied in order to better allow youth actions to 
play the role of fulcrum for the participation of all young people. This aspect will also 
make it possible to analyse trends in these new individual pathways which cut across the 
fields of education and training. 
17 
( '«inclusions 
Community cooperation on youth is opening up to new developments and is benefiting 
from the acknowledgements for its specific contribution and from a renewed interest by 
players traditionally less involved in this sector. The growth of the third sector multiplies 
the scope for action and support from which youth-targeted actions can benefit. 
This promising trend and the positive response received by Community cooperation 
actions in the field of youth together provide a solid basis for future developments in this 
context. Despite the shortcomings observed and which are more to do with operational 
procedure, Community cooperation has played a locomotive role which it is important to 
sustain. 
18 
ANNEXES 
NUMBER OF PROJECTS (submitted and approved) 1995.1996 
DECENTRALISED AND CENTRALISED 
1995 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved APPROVED 
% 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved APPROVED 
% 1995 + 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved APPROVED 
% 
DECENTRALISED 
Subtotal (decentr.) 
% of totals 
CENTRALISED 
Subtotal (centr.) 
% of totals 3795 
79,2 
996 
20,8 2480 
82,7 
518 
17,3 65,3 
52,0 3632 
69.5 
1596 
30.5 2459 
77,5 
713 
22,5 67,7 
44,7 7427 
74,1 
2592 
25,9 4939 
80.0 
1231 
20.0 66.5 
47,5 
TOTALS 
% 4791 
100 2998 
100 62,6 5228 
100 3172 
100 60,7 10019 
100 6170 
100 61,6 
e*-» 
C PRELIMINARY DATA 
NUMBER OF PROJECTS (submitted and approved) 1995.1996 
DECENTRALISED 
A.I 
B.I 
TOTAL 1995 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved APPROVED 
% 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved 
3379 
416 
3795 2246 
234 
2480 66,5 
56,3 
65,3 3128 
504 
3632 2168 
291 
2459 APPROVED 
% 1995+ 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved APPROVED 
% 
69,3 
57,7 
67,7 6507 
920 
7427 4414 
525 
4939 67,8 
57,1 
66,5 
^ PRELIMINARY DATA 
NUMBER OF GRANTED PROJECTS 1995/1996 (DECENTRALISED) 
AT 
BEDE 
BEFL 
BEFR 
DE 
DK 
ES 
Fl 
FR 
GB 
GR 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LU 
NL 
NO 
PT 
SE 
TOTAL A. I 
1995 
61 
2 
34 
19 
273 
40 
188 
102 
192 
575 
78 
85 
23 
212 
24 
76 
60 
125 
77 
2246 1996 
60 
3 
45 
30 
268 
76 
268 
72 
203 
460 
125 
81 
20 
169 
19 
70 
37 
94 
68 
2168 B.I 
1995 
13 
4 
13 
8 
65 
31 
9 
4 
20 
4 
7 
48 
8 
234 1996 
14 
3 
10 
10 
52 
42 
11 
2 
5 
27 
62 
3 
8 
38 
4 
291 
PRELIMINARY DATA 
NUMBER Gf GRANTED PROJECTS 95/96 
(DHCENTRALISED) 
COUNTRIES 
PRELIMINARY DATA 
NUMBER OF PROJECTS (submitted and approved) 1995.1996 
CENTRALISED 
A.I 
A.II.1 
A.II.2 
B.I 
B.ll 
C 
D 
E.I 
E.ll 
TOTAL 1995 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved 
70 
384 
84 
16 
21 
20 
342 
59 
996 51 
163 
53 
16 
15 
15 
162 
43 
518 APPROVED 
% 
72,9 
42,4 
63,1 
100,0 
71,4 
75,0 
47,4 
72,9 
52,0 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved 
67 
709 
76 
12 
31 
48 
451 
128 
74 
1596 39 
313 
32 
8 
17 
32 
205 
48 
19 
713 APPROVED 
% 1995+ 1996 
Projects 
submitted Projects 
approved 
58.2 
44,1 
42,1 
66,7 
54,8 
66,7 
45,5 
37,5 
25,7 
44,7 137 
1093 
160 
28 
52 
68 
793 
187 
74 
2592 90 
476 
85 
24 
32 
47 
367 
91 
19 
1231 APPROVED 
% 
65.7 
43.5 
53.1 
85.7 
61.5 
69.1 
46.3 
48.7 
25.7 
47.5 
PRELIMINARY DATA 
^o 
PARTICIPANTS. BREAKDOWN BY AGE AND GENDER (DECENTRALISED) 
A.I 
B.I 1995 
1996 
1995 
1996 % 
<15 
2.1 
2.8 
0,1 
0.0 % 
15-17 
44,5 
43,9 
4,0 
2,4 % 
18-20 
30,0 
28,7 
6,3 
9,6 % 
21-23 
14,3 
15,6 
24,7 
19,0 % 
24-25 
6,0 
5,9 
21,1 
19,7 % 
>25 
3.1 
3.2 
43,7 
49.2 % 
MALE 
48,4 
47,5 
53,2 
50,9 % 
FEMALE 
51,6 
52,5 
46,8 
49,1 
PRELIMINARY DATA 
THEMES OF THE PROJECTS (DECENTRALISED) 
A.I B.I 
1995 
% 1996 
% 1995 
% 1996 
% 
Active citizenship 3,0 2,9 8,1 8,5 
Cultural and artistic expression 35,1 31,5 12,2 7,6 
Environmental issues 6,1 7,2 2,0 4,9 
Equal Opportunities 2,6 2,8 0,5 2,2 
European awareness 12,5 21,8 7,6 8,0 
Health (drugs, AIDS.alchoolism) 1,0 2,2 0,4 
Life conditions 9,0 8,0 1,5 2,2 
Measures against crime 0,4 0,4 1,0 1,3 
Measures against exclusion 2,7 2,9 4,6 5,4 
Measures against racism 2,8 2,8 1,0 0,9 
Mobility 1,6 0,6 40,6 30,8 
New technologies 0,2 0,4 0,4 
Protection and Promotion of the 
local heritage 2,8 3,0 1,0 0,9 
Social Integration 4,3 6,6 2,0 5,8 
Youth Information 7,5 3,4 14,2 12,9 
Youth leisure time activities 7,9 3,3 2,5 6,7| 
Theme missing 0,3 0,3 1,0 0,9 
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 
Based on preliminary data from national YouthLink databases Oct/97, 
final and application (DK, ES, FR, NL, PT) level 
GR, IT datafiles missing 
PRELIMINARY DATA 
U 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 52 Una 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 01 06 13 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-054-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-30754-8 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
H