.tStAlki 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 20.01.1998 
COM(1998) 15 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
ON THE EVALUATION OF THE THIRD COMMUNITY ACTION 
PROGRAMME TO ASSIST DISABLED PEOPLE (HELIOS II) 
1993-1996 

Contents 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1. INTRODUCTION 
3. 
4. OVERVIEW OF THE HELIOS II PROGRAMME 
2.1 Objectives 
2.2 Measures 
2.3 Funding 
2.4 Management structure of the programme 
2.5 Overview of the participants in the programme 
EVALUATION OFTHE PROGRAMME 
3.1. HELIOS II as a laboratory 
3.2 Evaluation of the programme processes 
3.2.1 Participation of disabled people in HELIOS II 
3.2.2 Effectiveness of the management structures 
3.2.3 Structural links between different Community initiatives I-II 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
3 
4 
4 
4 
5 
6 
6 
1.3 Evaluation of the impact of the programme 7 
3.3.1 Transferof learning 7 
3.3.2 Contribution to the development and support of nelworks 9 
3.3.3 Contribution to the development of synergies between Community and 
national policies 10 
LESSONS TO BE DRAWN 
4.1 Added value 
4.2 Limitations of the programme 
4.3 Implications for future action 12 
12 
13 13 
U) 
4.3.1 Steps to promote a rights based approach in the field of disability 14 
4.3.2 Steps to enhance the dialogue with Member States 14 
4.3.3 Steps to ensure the full representation of disabled people and 15 
organisations in mainstream actions 
4.3.4 Steps to ensure a real civil dialogue with Non-Governmental 16 
Organisations 
5. THE WAY FORWARD 16 
C(0 
1, INTRODL'CTION 
The Third Community Action Programme to assist disabled people, known as the "HELIOS II 
programme", was established by Council Decision 9 
covered the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1996. programme", was established by Council Decision 93/136/EEC of 25 February 19931. It 
Article 11(3) of the above-mentioned Decision establishes that the Commission must submit, 
beibre 1 July 1997 a full report to the Luropean Parliament, the Council and the Economic and 
Social Committee on the implementation and the results of HELIOS II. 
In accordance with Articie 11 (4) of the Decision of 25 February 1993 and with section 1.2 of 
thc Annex to the Decision, the report is essentially based on the outcome of an independent and 
objectivc evaluation of all the measures adopted under HELIOS II . It seeks to give an overview 
of the flndings of the independent evaluation, and its implications for future actions in the 
field of disability. 
2. OVERVIEW OF THE HELIOS II PROGRAMME 
2.1 Objectives 
The HELIOS II programme was set up with the aim of promoting equal opportunities for and 
integration of disabled people. Underlying these aims are four key objectives: 
1. to develop and improve exchange and information activities with Member States 
and non governmental organisations; 
2. to promote effective approaches and measures in order to achieve increascd 
effectiveness and better co-ordination of actions; 
3. to promote the development of a policy at Community lcvel of co-operation with 
the Member States and the organisations and associations concerned with 
integration, based on the best innovative and effective experience and practice in 
Member States; 
4. to continue co-operation with European NGOs and NGOs which are regarded as 
representative in the respective Member States, through national disability councils. 
2.2 Mcasures 
The main measures designed to promote these objectives were as follows : 
OJ 1,56/30 of 9.3.93. 
l;or this rcason, thc cvaluation was entrusted by the Commission, following an invitation to tcnder, to the 
Tavistock lnstitute (United Kingdom) in co-operation with three other research institutes: Nexus (Ireland), 
liCWS (Netherlands) and Prisma (Greece). The report is available as a working document of the services of 
the Commission (in English only). 
1. Activities relating to exchange and information between the Member States : consisting of 
conferences, seminars, exchange of information, study visits and training courses organised 
in the areas of functional rehabilitation, educational integration, economic integration and 
social integration for people with disabilities. Participants in such activities were appointed 
by the Member States. 
2. Collection, exchange and dissemination of information gathered in the Member States 
through the development of the computerised information and documentation system 
HANDYNET 
3. Co-operation with NGOs through the funding of conference, study visits, training courses 
and other European-scale co-operative activities, the provision of information for NGOs on 
actions undertaken at Community level and advice from the NGOs to the Commission on 
specific issues 
4. Information and awareness-raising aimed at public opinion through the award o\' nnnunt 
prizes for model projects in the various fields relating to integration of disabled people aiui 
through media activities 
2.3 Funding 
The amount of funds estimated to be necessary for the implementation of the programme was 
37 million ECU. The budget allocation was 40.16 MECU and the amount effectively spent 
was 39.74 MECU. 
The breakdown of funding per year was as follows (in million ECU): 
Year Budget Execution 
1993 5.60 " 5.40 
1994 1O06 1O04 
1995 1L81 1_L78 
1996 I 12.69 I 12.52 
2.4 Management structure of the programme 
The central management of the programmc was undertaken by the Commission with the 
support o( an external technical assistance office (the HELIOS Team of Lxperts) and a 
numbcr of consultative committees including: 
• Advisory Committec: made up of Member State government represcntativcs; 
© European Disability Forum: made up o\" National Disability Counciis and 
Luropean NGOs; 
• Liaison Group: made up of representatives from the other two committees, set up 
to provide an interface between them. 
At national level, the consultative mechanisms of the programme required a national co-
ordinating body represented on the advisory committee, and a national disability council 
represented on the European Disability Forum. The national co-ordinating body was 
responsible for the selection of participants for Information and Exchange activities, and 
provision of support for, and evaluation of, HELIOS II activities at national and local level. 
An important part of this task was the organisation of national information days, usually on an 
annual basis. The variations in co-ordinating structures from country to country meant that 
these provided rather varied opportunities for co-ordination and information exchange. 
At local level, information and exchange activities were co-ordinated by lead members among 
the participants themselves. The HELIOS Team of Experts had a major role in providing 
support to the co-ordinators of activities at a local level. 
2.5 Overview of the participants in the programme 
The activities of HELIOS II provided opportunities for a large number of organisations 
involved in the field of disability at local, national and European levels, to become involved in 
discussions and exchange with similar organisations from other Member States. This 
included around 1150 core participants, who had a continuing involvement in programme 
activities throughout the three years, and around 30,000 peripheral participants vvhose 
involvement was more limited. 
Corc 11EL10S II participants 
Members of Consultative Number of Characteristics 
Structures Organisations 
Advisory committee 34 National government officials 
European Disability Forum 17 National Disability Councils 
13 European NGOs 
2 Social partners 
Working groups 84 Government officials, NGOs and 
professional experts 
Participants in local 
activities 
Participants in Information 832 Mainly organisations providing 
and Exchange activities services to disabled people and 
education institutes 
Participants in I1ANDYNLT 142 Lxperts and service providers, 
centres 
hese included represenU'tives from Norway and Iceland 
Peripheral participants included organisations and individuals involved in the NGO exchange 
activities , the members of the NGOs represented on the consultative committees of the 
programme (856 National and European NGOs) and applicants in the annual HELIOS II 
competitions (around 200 a year). Beyond this, there were also the participants in National 
Information Days organised by individual Member States (no consistent data available on 
numbers involved), other members of the organisations that participated in HELIOS II 
activities, and the readers of its various outputs. Potentially, the last of these included a very 
broad spectrum of disability organisations across Europe: the mailing list for HELIOSCOPE 
and Flash was over 30,000. 
3. EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAMME 
The main findings of the external evaluation are developed below. 
3.1 HELIOS II as a laboratory 
HELIOS II incorporated a number of innovative aspects which took forward Community 
approaches to disability policy in three important ways: 
1. Where earlier action programmes tended to emphasise a 'welfare' orientation 
towards disability, HELIOS II focused more on issues of equal opportunitics 
and integration. 
2. Rather than promoting change via support for pilot actions or demonstration 
projects, HELIOS II operated within a social learning model of change, based 
on local exchange, combined with a more policy-led model of action, the latter 
being pursued through the dissemination of learning derived from local 
exchanges and the provision of a structure for co-operation between 
organisations at national and European levels. 
3. HELIOS II was the first action programme in which a formal structure was 
established for consultation with disabled people and their organisations. 
The innovative aspects of HELIOS II gave a strong experimental element to the whole 
programme which, combined with its emphasis on exchange and learning, suggested that the 
programme could be seen in some respects as a 'laboratory' in which issues related to 
disability, equal opportunities and integration could be examined, new understandings forged. 
and new solutions tested before being disseminated to a wider audience. In this respect. it was 
important for the evaluation to pay close attention not only to the outcomes of the programme, 
but also the processes by which these outcomes were achieved. 
3.2 Evaluation of the programme processes 
Three processes are examined undcr this heading: the involvemenl in the programme of 
disabled peopie, the management of the programme, and the synergy of the programme with 
other actions taking place in the field of disability. 
Extrapolating from a sample of annual sector reports estimated at around 24.000 a year. 
3,2,1 Participation of disabled people ia HELIOS II 5 
Although major steps were taken to encourage a high level of representation of disabled 
people and their organisations in some of the consultative structures of the programme, there 
ware areas of the programme in which disabled people remained underrepresented. 
This was particularly true of activities in the information and exchange programme. The 
choice of participants in these activities was mainly the result of Member States' strategies for 
nominating participants and their strategy for disseminating information about the upcoming 
programme. However, a number of structural problems remained which also inhibited the 
ability of disabled people, and disability organisations, from participating in the programme 
on an equal basis to professionals and professional service organisations. These included: 
• Availability of resources and suitable facilities: organisers of exchange activities 
ofteh failed to take into account the need for fully accessible facilities, and 
timetables appropriate to the needs of disabled participants. Part-funding of 
activities and the late reimbursement of expenditure presented financial difficulties. 
• Accessibility of information: too much information and the late arrival of 
information prior to meetings presented problems, particularly for participants in 
the consultative structures who needed to consult with their members. 
• The level of involvement was a particular problem with information and exchange 
activities, where local organisations were invited to encourage a higher proportion 
of disabled participants, but made it difficult to maintain continuity of involvement. 
• The quality of the discussion that took place: a tendency remained, in some 
activities, for some professionals to regard disabled people as lacking the necessary 
expertise to take part in discussions on an equal basis, and disabled participants 
sometimes feit that professionals and service providers vvere more interested in 
maintaining the status quo than in change. 
!n resionse io widespread concern, expressed at the under representalion of disabled peoplc in 
pro^rdmnw activities in the early stages of the programmc, efforts wcre made by the 
Commission to increase their involvement. These efforts had a positive impact, particularly in 
1'VJSJ secinrs where involvemen! of disabled people is not part of thc traditional approach. 
Purticipution in the sector on social integration was from the start reasonably high (around 
50%); in ihe sectors of functional rehabilitation and education the proportion of disabled 
participants moved up to 20%; and in economic integration the proportion doubled from 
appraximately 20% to 40% by the end of the programme. 
Although a primary focus of the evaluation activities was on the participation of disabled people in 
programme activities, it should be noteci that concern was also expressed at the under-representation of 
other groups. For example, in activities v/ithin the economic integration sector, the lack of involvement 
of employers was noticeable and in some NGO exchange activities, there were very few national and 
Europsan reprssentatives with a policy remit. 
Partly as a result of these efforts, many of the exchange activities did represent a major step 
forward in encouraging a dialogue between service providers and disabled people. This 
appears to be having repercussions in terms of changing attitudes in the organisations to 
which participants returned and wider national policies. 
3.2.2 Effectiveness of the rjianagement structures 
Concerns were raised at the start of HELIOS II regarding the complexity of the programme 
structures, which led to the tbcusing of evaluation activities on this element of the 
programme. 
Overall, there was broad agreement that the support provided by the Commission and the 
HELIOS Team of Experts was effective, and welcomed, particularly by the participants in 
programme activities at a local level. However, the evaluation highlights that considerable 
resources are required, particularly m encouraging a high level of partieipation of disabled 
people in the programme. The resources requirement needed to take inlo accouni both the 
overall manpower requirements and the kind of expertise required, which included gcncral 
experience of the disabiiity fîeld and issues reiated to effective integration and partieipation 
by disabled people. 
Other areas of difficulty that were identified reiated to the consultative structures of the 
programme, and the level of communication that took place between the Commission and 
national govemment departments, and in some cases, between different ministries at a 
national level. One of the central diffîculties in the consultative structures was the different 
lines of development which took place between the two main consultative bodies (the 
Advisory Committee and the European Disabiiity Forum) and the fact that the Liaison group 
was insufficient.lv robust to deai with the differences between the two committees. 
3.2.3 Struetural links between different Co-mmunity initiatives 
The struetural links between HELIOS II and other programmes and initiatives at Community 
level were maintained by the Commission via an mterserviec group. and through the 
oonsultative structures of the programme. ïmportant changes took place tn some of the other 
programmes and initiatives rclating to disabiiity, which can be seen to be direclly reiated to 
the links estahlidied by the Commission at this level (see section 3.3.3.) 
At national level, struetural links between different Community programmes and initiatives 
reiated to disabiiity were estahlished in around half the Member States. However, it must be 
noied that in larger Member States, responsibility fcr different Community programmes and 
initiatives often falls within difTerent ministries, which Iimits the extent of co-operation and 
co-ordination between officials at this level. A fevv countrîes adopted a consciou-s poliey of 
encouraging participants in HELIOS II to apply for cther programmes or initiatives, and some 
favoured participants in other Community activities in thcir selection of HHLIOS !i 
purticipunts. This led to considerable overlap at a local level between programme 
participants, with around 60% the local participants în the HELIOS 11 programme cithcr 
involved in, or having applied for funding under, other Community programmes or initiatives. 
HORIZON was the most frequently mentioned initiative. Many participants indicated that 
taking part in HELIOS II had made a significant contribution to their ability to gain access to 
other Community activities through provision of information, opportunities to find partners. 
and through gaining experience of working at European level. 
This highlights the distinctive nature of the HELIOS II programme, which did not in itself 
provide resources for demonstration or practical projects. However, the function it provided 
was very complementary to those that did, through providing opportunities to exchange 
information, develop ideas for new activities, and to gain experience. 
3.3 EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME 
The impact of HELIOS II has been examined in relation to three elements: 
• the extent to which it promoted the transfer of learning related to 'effective 
approaches and measures' between participants at a local level; 
• its contribution to networking and co-operation between disability organisations; 
• and its contribution to synergy and policy development at national and European 
levels. 
3.3.1 Transfer of learning 
The transfcr of lcarning within a programme such as HELIOS II can take placc at a numbcr of 
lcvels. It is helpful to distinguish between transfer as process (i.c. the exchange of 
information) versus transfer as outcome: (i.e. the adoption of new practicc) and inlernul 
transfer (between member of the programme) versus external transfer (dissemination of 
lcarning to a wider audience). 
A. Exchange between participants within the programme 
The level of exchange that took place between participants within the programme itself was 
widely reported as one of the most effective elements of the programme. Almost 
overwhelmingly, participants reported that they had derived value from their exchange 
cxpcricnces. For three quarters of respondents in the survey, this had led to a better conccpt of 
good practice, and ideas on how they could improve their services. The enhaneed sense of 
solidarity (90%) and support they received from other participants (75%) were also valued. 
Learning was more often conceived of in terms of cultural shift, rathcr than speeilie 
information: a new orientation towards disability issues or an increased openness to new 
ideas. Experience at this level highlighted some conditions which best promoted effeclive 
cross cultural, cross disability, and cross professional exchange. 
B. Dissemination of learning to others, outside the programme 
Information and learning derived firom programme activities were shared with a wider 
audience either: 
• through the efforts of the participants themselves, when they returned to their own 
location (horizontal transfer) or 
• through the written reports and publications of the programme (vertical transfer) 
Horizontal Transfer 
Most programme participants appear to have made considerable efforts to share the 
knowledge that they had derived from the programme with others. Typically, this took place 
through discussions with colleagues (97%), reports sent to members of their organisations 
(73%), or through articles sent to newsletters (57%), or disability journals (39%). Many 
organisations (75%) were also successful in obtaining some kind of mcdia covcragc, 
although they were usually morc successful at local ncwspaper or radio coveragc than either 
national, or lelevision covcrage and morc successful with the spccialisl disability. ralher than 
public, media. 
The lack of resources was the main obstacle to sharing their experience with a wider 
population. HELIOS II did not fimd wider dissemination activities (apart from national 
information days) and for organisations where staffing and resources were limited, this could 
present problems. 
The role of national co-ordinating bodies was particularly important in ensuring the wider 
dissemination of the learning that arose from programme activities. 80% of participants in 
information and exchange activities reported having shared their experience of exchange 
activities with others at HELIOS II conferences and national information days. 
Vertical Dissemination 
In addition to the dissemination of information via this horizonlal exchange, a substantial 
number of information documents has been prepared to support the programme objectives.. 
Dissemination of materials was mostly through mailing to programme participants, or 
distribution by participants themselves. National representatives varied in their plans for any 
further dissemination; a few planned to send copies of materials to all local and regional 
authorities, while others had no clear plans for dissemination at all. This does raise the wider 
issue of the nced for a clear dissemination strategy for materials generated by a programme o\' 
this kind. Wide dissemination of the learning derived from programme activities is an 
important prerequisite for the wide-scalc debate of the issues. 
I1ANDYNET was also criticiscd because it was more aligned to the needs of profcssionals 
than to the needs of disabled pcople themselves, although steps were taken part way through 
the programme, in response to the interim evaluation report, to involve disabled pcople and 
their organisations morc actively in the development of the database. 
C. Application of learning by participants in the programme 
Although many participants (53% information and exchange and 56% NGO survey 
respondents) indicated that they had been able to adopt innovative practices in their 
organisations as a result of the programme activities, at or above their expectations, for many 
participants, translating ideas into practice was a long-term project. Some indicated that a 
process of change had begun, and attitudes within the organisations in which they worked had 
ehanged - an essential prelude to change. However, translating ideas into action often rcquired 
resources. In this respect, they indicated that the programme had supported them in two ways: 
• it reinforced the convictions that participants already had about new approaches, 
sometimes providing additional material with which to convince colleagues and 
obtain local funding; 
• the programme had also helped many to gain access to another Community 
programme which did provide the resources for new projects. 
D. Contribution of the programme to wider developments in policy and practice 
Survcys of programme participants indicated that nearly half believed that they had had some 
inlluence on policy development at local (48%) or national (43%) level, although this was 
rarely as much as they would have liked to have achieved. However, many organisations felt 
that their pubiic profile had been enhanced by the programme, which it was hoped would 
contribute to their ability to influence policy in the future. This element was also closcly 
linked to the contribution that the programme had made towards networking and enhancing 
the lobbying capacity of disability organisations, which is discussed in the next section 
3.3.2 Contribution to the development and support of networks 
Disability networks had an important role to play in the achievement of the main programme 
objectives. The extent, for example, to which HELIOS II was able to contribute to the 
transfer of learning across Europe was largely dependent on the capacities of organisations 
involved in exchange activities to disseminate information to a wider audience, which in turn 
was dependent on their networking capacities. Therc was also a view held by some 
participants that the most effective long-term contribution that the programme could makc, 
towards promoting of equal opportunities and integration for disabled pcoplc, was through 
providing opportunities for disability organisations to build an effective platform, or lobby, 
irom which to press for change at national and European levels. 
There was considcrablc cvidcnce to suggest the consultative structures of the HELIOS 11 
progrumme, together with its funded activities, have made an important contribution to the 
lcvel of networking taking place between organisations involved in disability issues, through 
fostering new networks, strengthening existing networks or encouraging networking between 
new groups of participants. 
At European level, HELIOS II has greatly strengthened and enhanced the level of co-
opsration between European NGOs and between these and national NGOs, sometimes 
increasing the contact and level of consultation between these and national governments and 
local organisations. There appears to be a higher level of co-operation now around broad 
issues (sueh as promoting equal opportunities policies), ralher than around individual 
disability, or sector-specific issues. This in turn enables cross-disability / cross-sectoral 
dialogue to take place. 
There is some evidence that co-operation between professional agencies and organisations 
representing disabled people have also been enhanced, and that participative structures have 
been aiso been strengthened, both within individual organisations and at national and 
Luropean levels. 
3.3.3 Contribution to the development of synergies between Community and national 
policies 
There does appear to have been a considerable shift towards increased synergy in the last few 
years, both between different Community programmes operating in the field of disability, in 
particular the Structural Funds, and between disability policies at a national level. The exact 
contribution of HELIOS II itself to this change is not easy to estimate at a time when many 
different forces are operating to shape social policies at all levels. However. it was apparent 
that the programme has provided important opportunities for dialogue between different 
parties, and the activities and structures of the programme have underlined and supported 
developments taking place elsewhere. In this respect, it has provided an important 
complementary function to Community action programmes and initiatives operating in the 
field of disability. 
A. Contribution to policy development at Community levei 
The Communication of 30 July 1996 on Equality of Opportunity for People vvilh Disabilitics -
A New Community Disability Strategy \the Resolution of 20 Deeember 1996 of the Councii 
and Government representatives meeting within the Councii on Equality of Opportunity of 
n 
People with Disabilities as well as the Resoiution of the European Parliament of 13 
December 1996 on the Rights of Disabled peopie represent important steps forward in the 
dcveloprnent of equality of opportunity of people with disabilities at EU Ievei. Debates taking 
place within the context of HELIOS II have provided an important input into the deveiopment 
of this policy. 
One important source of influence has been the European Disability Forum, which as part of 
the consultative structure of the HELIOS II programme, has piayed an important role in 
raising awareness of issues which lie within the competencc of the Union, and which have a 
direct bcaring on the quality of life of disabled people. This has eneouraged greater diaiogue, 
holh between different parts of the Commission, and betwcen the Conimission and disability 
organisations, on thcsc issucs. 
Effeclive intcrventions and visible steps to consider thc needs of disabled people in othcr 
Europeun programmes have been taken during the last two years, when thc "sccond 
generalion" of Commimity Initiatives was introduccd. This may bc taken as an indication of 
the contribution of HELIOS II towards thc achievemcnt of synergy regarding disability-
related policics at European level. Changes in the Community Initiatives and in EU 
COM (406) final. 
OJ noC 12 of 13.01.97. 
OJ no C 20 of 20.01.97. 
10 
programmes to cater for the needs of persons with disability were identified for examplc in 
SOCRATES, YOUTH FOR EUROPE, LEONARDO and TIDE. Strong links have been 
established with HORIZON at national level, with considerable overlap between participants 
in the two programmes. A number of new actions have also been initiated after the end of 
HELIOS II, by other Commission Directorates-General, which represent an important step 
toward the mainstreaming of disability issues; such as the working groups sport and lourism, 
the setting-up by the Danish Government of an European Agency for Development in Special 
Education and the distribution of material generated by the cxehange aetivities within the 
cducation sector. 
B. Infiuence on policy development at national and local level 
During the course of the HELIOS II programme, many Member States were involved in a 
process of implementing, or considering, major policy changes which would have an impact 
on the quality of life of disabled people. How far the HELIOS II programme had any 
infiuence on this was hard to assess. Changes in socio-economic conditions and in welfare 
systems were often more decisive; for example, in issues related to finaneial provisions and 
services for disabled people. 
However, national representatives in a number of Member States indieated that HELIOS II 
had an infiuence on thc development of national policy in the following ways: 
• Providing background information and modcls of practicc; 
• Indicating areas in which national policy ncedcd to bc dcvclopcd; 
• Providing a forum in which different parties came together to discuss policy; 
• Creating the necessary conditions for a change in policy (clear policies at a 
European level was indicated as relevant here); 
• Reinforcing policy directions which were already under discussion; 
• Enhancing support and solidarity between disability organisations. and 
strengthening their capacity to lobby for change. 
Areas of policy infiuence includcd policies on anti-discriminalion, equal opportunities, new 
technologics, training, pathways cotmselling and job coaching and thc setting up of nevv 
inlcideparlmcnlal commitlecs and commissions. Thc prioritics for change varied in each 
coimtry; in many countries legislative changes are cither in hantl, or being considcicd in 
nceordance with the philosophy of cqual opportunilies, but employment policies were also a 
high priority in a inimbcr of Member States, particnlarly linding the righl balance between 
sheltered workshops, proleeted and supported employment initiatives. Other issues 
considered were accessibility (transport, buildings), education and training, support for 
parents and families, and care facilities for the most severely disabled peoplc. 
11 
4. LESSONS TO BE DRAWN 
HELIOS II represented an innovative approach to Community intervention in an important 
field of social policy. The evaluation indicates that in spite of its limitations, the programme 
has made an important contribution to certain developments in the disability field, although 
many of these developments may take some time to come to fruition. The main lessons to be 
drawn from the evaluation of the programme are drawn under three broad headings: 
• the addedvalueof HELIOS II 
• the weaknesses of the programme 
• the implications for future action 
4.1 Added value 
At European level, the programme provided added value through 
• the establishment of a common pool of knowledge concerning policy contexts and 
innovative practices; 
• increased communication, mainly between professionals from different counlries, 
which enabled them to assess their performance, promote self-evaluation and put 
their practices into context; 
• building support and solidarity between disability organisations, and enabling many 
of these to acquire experience which has enabled them to participate more 
effectively in structures and programmes at European level; 
At national level, the main added value of the programme has been the: 
• stimulation of interest and creativity in the disability field, through participants 
being confronted with alternative solutions and new approaches to familiar 
problems; 
• strengthening of solidarity, support and communication between participants 
themselves, both within and between different Member States. This has contributcd 
to the breaking down of isolation of disabled persons, informal carers and 
professionals in the field; 
• the promotion of solidarity in more or less politicised forms of action. This has 
givcn a feeling of cmpowerment to and assisted organisations of disabled people, to 
lobby by providing argumentation, incrcasing pcrsuasiveness and upgrading the 
prolilc oflobbying associations; 
• the knowledge and self-awareness of both users and professionals vvere enhanecd 
since in several cases, they were brought together for the lirst time; 
• the dcvelopmcnt oi^ a better concept of good practicc, particuiarly related to the 
activc partieipation of disabled people in scrvicc provision and policy developnient. 
12 
The actual implementation of these processes, however, must be seen in a long-term 
perspective. 
4.2 Limitations of the programme 
The most obvious limitations of HELIOS II lie within the conccplion of the programme itsclf: 
focused primarily on exchangc, with limiled resourccs, it remained vcry dcpendent on 
participants at a national and local level for its capacity to bring about lreaF changc (in 
services and policy for disabled people), rather than merely stimulating debate and enhancing 
awareness of issues. 
It also remained very dependent on local and national participants for its capacity to bring 
about real participation and consultation for disabled people. One consequence of this was 
that the programme tended to replicate within itself difficulties directly involving of disabled 
people which are encountered throughout the field of disability policy and practice. Despite 
its best efforts, these limitations were never fully overcome. This refiects the uneven 
acccptance of a philosophy of action which sees disabled people themselves as essential actors 
in the proccss of changc and development, and an underestimation of the level of additional 
resources requircd to support the direct involvement of disabled people. 
More might also havc bccn made of thc opportunities provided by the programme to 
disscminatc its lcarning to a wider audiencc through a elearer disscniination strategy. 
particularly for thc matcrials devcloped towards the end of thc programme. 
A more strategic approach might have been taken, and more resources put into. the lield of 
public awareness. Media involvement in activities related to disability is hard to achieve, 
and in spite of some successes in this area, the programme mainly addressed itself to those 
already involved in the disability field. 
The development of solidarity and co-operation at European level related to issues of 
disability appears to have been less effective at the level of national govemments, in part 
because the consultation processes of the programme encouraged bilateral communication 
with the Commission, rather than effective collaboration between national reprcsentativcs. 
4.3 Implientions for f'uturc action 
These implications should be seen in the contexl of the new Comnumity Disability Slmtcgy 
presentcd in the Commission Communication of 30 July 1996, the Council Rcsolution of 20 
Deccmbcr 1996 and the Resolulion of the European Parliament of 11 April 1997. 
The evaluation of HELIOS II provides some useful information with regard to the steps to be 
taken for the implementation of the new strategy. 
13 
4.3.1 Steps to promote a rights based approach in the field of disability 
The new disability policy framework based on the principles of citizenship and equality calls 
for further research and analysis of the structural nature of disadvantage and discrimination 
experieneed by disabled people. This need is highlighted by the evaluation. Strategics are also 
needed to ensure that information collected centrally is widely disserninated. 
Furthermore, the activc co-operation of Member States will be requircd for such strategics to 
be effectivcly implemented. This is the reason why, within the framework of the lligh Level 
Group on Disability, the Commission has initiated a debatc on the appropriate ways to pool 
research findings and expcrience in the field of disability. 
It is also clear that support for and dissemination of innovative practice could also play a role 
in the development of the new approach. The evaluation suggests that targeted and 
experimental actions towards equal rights, consumer-driven, support-oriented and personal 
planning approach. These actions would not overlap with any other existing Community 
programme or initiatives and couid constitute appropriate tools to achieve the goais of the 
Union. Building on the knowledge derived from HELIOS II, on the exchanges as well as on 
the principles set out in the New Community Disability Strategy, the Commission launehed 
on 8 April 1997 a call for proposals for pilot projects of non govcrnmcntal organisations and 
associations formed by people with disabilities . 
t* l'ollowing this call, more than 100 pilot projects and exchangc activities represenlinj. 
innovative ways of cmpowering people with disabilities have been sclectcd by the 
Commission and are currently being implemented across the European Union. 
4.3.2 Steps to enhance the dialogue with Member States 
The primary aim of the Commission is to pursue an integrated and coherent approach to 
disability, as expressed in the Council Resolution on Equality of Opportunity of People with 
Disabilities. Such an approach also requires integrated structures. 
The evaluation underlines that structures established in the framework of the follow-up to the 
Communication of 30 July 1996 and of the Resolution of 20 December 1996, such as the 
lligh-level Group and the European Disability Forum represcnl signilicanl cfforts towards the 
formalisalion of communication channels. llowevcr, it cmphasiscd that these structures 
should become truly participative in order to avoid distancing themselves from uscrs or 
becoming a 'closed' policy-making network at Community level, whieh has low visibility to 
disabled people, professionals and administrators at local level. It is also important that 
similarly participative structures are established at Member State level, to operatc as 
"antennas" of the Community structures. 
OJNoC 109/18 of 8.4.97. 
14 
Co-ordination also implies the establishment of effective communication channels between 
the public authorities (European, national) and the other interest groups and the promotion of 
synergies among Community programmes and initiatives. 
The further development of strategic and executive capacities within the Commission is also a 
prerequisite to promote strategic planning and cross-departmental co-ordination at policy and 
executive levels. The evaluation highlights the need for a structure which could advance 
thinking on issues that pertain to disability, propose strategic directions to the Commission to 
accommodate these issues and liaise actively with various Directorates to promote disability 
policies, and ensure synergy between sectoral programmes that include provisions for disabled 
people. 
The new High Level Group and European Disability Forum all represent important 
developments in terms of ensuring that debate and discussion continucs at Community level 
but which require considerable efforts of the Commission itself to respond to initiatives 
arising from these, to develop effective links between the many areas of work which relate 
directly to the interests of disabled people, and co-ordinate policy. 
A section has been deleted here. 
4.3.3 Steps to ensurc thc full representation of disablcd pcople and organisations in 
mainstrcam actions 
An important basic issue developed in the framework of the new disability strategy is thc 
principle of mainstreaming which entails the formulation of the overall Communily policy, 
taking into account the needs, the interest and the participation of disabled people. The 
importance of this principle has been reinforced by the results of the Intergovernmental 
Conference. Article 6a of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides that kthe Council acting 
unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European 
Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation'. The declaration linked to 
Article 100a provides that 'in drawing measures under Article 100a, the institutions o( the 
Community shall take account of the needs of people with a disability*. Lessons dravvn from 
HELIOS II indicate also that the interests of disabled people cannot be ensured within 
mainstream activities without the existence of suitable measures to promote their full 
participation. These include: 
• appropriate resources: which are particularly needed becausc the organisations 
that represent disabled people often operate on very limited budgets, and rely 
heavily on voluntary input; 
• enhanced accessibility: the experience of HELIOS II suggests that there is still 
widespread lack of understanding of the access requirements of people with 
physical, sensory and mental disabilities. Access issues include the availability and 
presentation of information about activities, accessibilily of buildings, transport, 
and the timing and limc-tabling of activities. It also extends to the attitude of other 
participants in activities; 
15 
• monitoring: the accessibility of mainstream actions can only be assessed if the 
participation of disabled people is adequately monitored. This includes 
consideration of the extent to which disabled people are active participants in the 
organisations funded under Community initiatives and programmes; 
* availability of expertise and training: the role of expert advice in strengthening 
the capacities and enhancing the potential of disabled people to intervene and 
influence changes in policies that affect them, has been shown to be crucial. 
Suitable training should be considered for those unfamiliar with the disability field 
to make them aware of the implications for disabled people of the activities fcr 
which they are responsible. 
4.3.4 Steps to ensure a real civil dialogue with Non-Governmental Organisations 
Ensuring adequate representation of disability issues in all mainstream activities also requires 
suitable mechanisms for disability organisations to advocate for appropriate actions. 
I1ELIOS II has contributed substantially to this end by establishing dircct eommunication 
channcls bctween the Commission and NGOs, and among NGOs, by providing information 
and technieal support and rcsources. Ilowcver, many of the relevant organisations remain 
very dependcnt on Community funding to maintain this level of activity, and their eapacily to 
continue to operatc depcnds largely on further action in this area. For this reason, in 
accordance with the budgetary provisions laid down in 1997, the Commission has already 
taken the necessary steps in order to give an adequate financial support to the work 
programme of the European Disability Forum and of the European NGOs of co-ordination. 
5. The way forward 
HELIOS II has opened many doors, identified many options, and begun important processes 
of promoting a European dialogue on disability. As the conclusions of the evaluation indicate, 
the need now is to continue the process of dialogue, formalise what has been achieved, and 
carry forward the more promising directions identified within the programme. 
The main steps to carry this policy forward have already been identified by the Commission 
and also incorporated in its New Disability Strategy. Howcvcr, the linal evaluation also 
provides invaluable information on some prerequisites for succcss of the strategy, the way to 
furlher implemenl it as well MS some warnings on its possiblc limitalions or shortfalls. 
The Commission will build on the expericncc gained from MELIOS II by focusing on the 
following: 
a) ensuring thc full implementation of the new disability strategy as outlined in the 
Communication of 30 July 1996 on Equality of Opportunity for People with 
Disabilities and the Council Resolution of 20 December 1996, in particular as far as 
the principle of mainstreaming disability issues in all relevant Community actions 
and programmes and the co-operation with the Member States and NGOs are 
concerned; 
b) incorporating in the new European Community Disability Strategy some elements 
which were not identified prcviously, in particular with regard to the necd to 
conduct structural research on exclusion experienced by people with disabilities; 
c) examining the feasibility of underpinning the new disability strategy and taking 
stock of the experience gained under HELIOS II ; studying the possibility of 
presenting a new legislative proposal to the Council, taking into account the first 
results of the pilot projects and preparatory actions undertaken in 1997 and the 
Amsterdam Treaty when it is ratified. 
17 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 15 fmal 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 04 05 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-013-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-30125-6 
Offiee for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
18