COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - Interim evaluation reprot on the HELIOS II programme
Date: 1996-01-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, disabled person, social integration, social participation, social policy

COMMISSION OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  23.01.1996 
COM(96)8 final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE COMMISSION 

TO THE EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE COUNCIL, 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
AND  THE COMMITTEE  OF THE REGIONS 

Interim  evaluation  reprot  on the  HELIOS  II  programme 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 

Interim  evaluation  report  on  the  Helios  II  programme 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

The  third  Community  action  programme  for  disabled  people,  known  as the  "Helios  II 
programme",  was established  by Council Decision  93/136/EEC of 25 February  19931. It 
covers the  period  1 January  1993 - 31 December  1996. 

Article  11(2)  of  the  above-mentioned  Decision  lays  down  that  the  Commission  must 
submit,  by 31 December  1995 at the latest,  an interim  evaluation  report to the European 
Parliament,  the Council  and the Economic  and  Social  Committee on the  implementation 
of Helios  II  together,  where  appropriate,  with  a proposal  for  a Decision  revising  Helios 
II. 

[n  accordance  with  item  1.2  of  the  Annex  to  the  Decision  of  25  February  1993,  the 
evaluation  of  each  measure  adopted  under  Helios  II  is  carried  out  independently  and 
objectively.  For  this  reason  the evaluation  was  entrusted  by  the Commission,  following 
an  invitation  to tender,  to the Tavistock  Institute  (United  Kingdom)  in cooperation  with 
three other research institutes: Nexus (Ireland), ECWS (Netherlands) and Prisma (Greece). 

The conclusions of the interim  report produced by the independent evaluator are annexed 
in  full  to this  Communication.  The  report  is based  on  observations  gathered  during  the 
first  18 months of work and provides a series of initial conclusions and recommendations. 
It  also  deals  with  certain  avenues  to  be  explored  in greater  detail  in  the  latter  phase of 
the research. It is therefore  not an evaluation of all programme  activities, nor a complete 
analysis  of the  data gathered  so  far. 

2 

SUMMARY  AND  COMMENTS  ON THE  REPORT 

2.1 

The  innovative  aspects  of  the  Helios  EI programme 

According  to  the  evaluation,  the  Helios  II  programme  offers  innovations  in  three areas: 

OJL  56, 9.3.1993,  pp. 30-36. 

I 

/. The programme  is based primarily on  an approach recognising the equal rights of 
disabled people  as  opposed to being based on  assistance 

The  report  points  out  that  the  objectives  of  the  Helios  II  programme,  which  are  to 
promote equal  opportunities and integration  for the disabled, form  part of an approach to 
policy  on  the  disabled  in  terms  of  human  rights  as  opposed  to  a  "social  welfare" 
approach.  As  such,  the  programme  correctly  reflects  changes  relating  to  the  subject  of 
disability  in  contemporary  European  society. 

The  evaluator  points  out,  however,  that  at  different  levels  there  are  differing  and 
sometimes contradictory views of this approach, with the result that certain aspects of the 
programme  conceal  unresolved  tensions  which  are  likely  to  give  rise  to  ambiguities, 
misunderstandings  or  confusion. 

For the  evaluator,  this  is particularly  apparent  in: 

the  lack  of  a  precise  definition  of  key  terms  such  as  "equal  opportunities", 
"integration",  "independent  living"  and  "best  practice"; 

- 

the wide  diversity  in  the type  of programme  participants  and  in  their  outlook; 

differing  views  on  the  most  appropriate  action,  intervention  and  development 
models  for  the  programme; 

- 

- 

segmentation  in  terms  of  participation  in  the programme; 

a certain  scepticism  with  regard  to the impact of the programme on the disabled. 

The  Commission  notes with  interest  the  evaluator's  analysis  on this  point  and  considers 
that  it  may  have  a degree  of relevance. 

It  is  important  to  point  out,  however,  that  the  promotion  of  an  approach  based  on  the 
principles  of  equal  opportunities  has  always  been  the  basis  for  Community  action, 
including  in  previous  programmes,  although  in  this  respect  Helios  II  represents  a  step 
forward. 

For  a number  of reasons, the Commission  cannot,  however,  avoid the programme partly 
reflecting 
the  contradictions  inherent  in  all  policies  concerning  the  disabled  as 
implemented  in the Member  States, and in particular  the tensions between  the "medical" 
and  "social"  concepts  of  disability". 

It  is  worthwhile  recalling  the  distinction  between  these: 

- 

the  first,  and  perhaps  still  the  most  widespread  in  practice,  referred  to  as  medical,  sees 
disability  essentially  as  a  medical  problem  and  stresses  the  functional  limitations  of  the 

2> 

Observation  of  policies  carried  out in all  Member  States  shows that this tension  is  present 
at  all  levels,  as  is  a  gradual  development  favouring  a  social  approach  to  disability.  It  is 
also  important  to  note  that  this  development  is  not  proceeding  at  the  same  rate,  nor  has 
it  reached  the  same  level  in  the  various  Member  States. 

this  development  and 
Community  action  has  the  clear  objective  of  encouraging 
convergence  of  policies,  in  particular  by  encouraging  the  exchange  of  information  and 
experience  at  different  levels  on  a  Union-wide  basis,  while  respecting  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  Such  action  thus  reflects  at  different 
levels  the  variety  of  approaches 
encountered  in  practice  in  the Member  States,  and  this  is all  the  more  inevitable  since  the 
latter  are  largely  responsible  for  structuring  the  programme  and  for  the  choice  of  those 
taking  part  in  activities. 

In other respects,  however,  as the evaluator  points  out,  the fact  that the programme,  which 
is based  entirely  on  dialogue,  enables  differing  standpoints  to  meet  but  not  clash  may  be 
considered  one  of  its  major  strengths.  Many  practical  examples  from  the  programme  do 
in  fact  show  that  this  peaceful  confrontation  between  different  models  and  cultures 
relating  to disability  may  give  rise to the most  appropriate  types  of  consensus with  a view 
to  promoting  the  concepts  of  equal  opportunities  and  full  participation. 

A  particular  illustration  of  this  view  is  the  working  methods  used  in  the  four  sectors  of 
exchange  activities;  participants  are  invited  to  develop  for  themselves,  in  the  context  o{ 
priorities  established  by  wide-ranging  consultations,  the  principles  they  consider  most 
appropriate  by  means  of  meetings,  dialogue  and  the  contrasting  of  their  respective 
practices.  It  is  from  this  work  in  particular  that  the  guides  to  good  practice,  based  on  a 
consensus  between  differing  approaches,  will  be  drawn  up  at  the  end  of  the  programme. 

individual.  This  concept  implies  that  the  disability  is  inherent  to  the  individual  and  that  it  is 
the  task  of  professionals  in  the  rehabilitation  sector  to  improve  the  individual's  functional 
capacity  as  much  as  possible.  In  this  context,  little  or  no  reference  is  made  to  the  disability 
and  its  environment; 

- 

the second,  social, approach  stresses  the environment ahead of the individual. Disability  is not 
seen  primarily  as  an  individual  characteristic  but  as  the  product  of  a  disabling  society. 
According  to  this  approach, resources  should  First  be allocated  to changing  the  environment. 
The social approach considers  the disabled  as one group among others  in society, whose  main 
problem  is not  linked to  functional  limitations  but to a physical  or mental  characteristic  which 
serves  as  a  pretext  for  diseriminatoiy  attitudes  in  the  rest  of  the  population.  This  approach 
consequently  sees  disability  in tenus  of  an  effort  to obtain  equal  lights  and  not  as an  attempt 
to  overcome  functional  limitations. 

For  example,  in the  context  of  unemployment  among  the  disabled,  a medical  approach  highlights  the 
characteristics,  personal  history  and  residual  productive  capacity  of  the  individuals  while  the  social 
approach  looks  in  particular  at  the  sociological  context,  economic  policy,  the  economic  situation, 
provisions  with  regard  to  social  rights  and  the  attitudes  of  employers  and  of  the  population. 

These  two  concepts  are  complementary,  and  clearly  overlap  in  that  they  take  account  of  social  and 
individual  factors,  but  their  implicit  priorities  are  diametrically  opposed. 

k 

In general  terms, the  Commission  also intends  to encourage a European  debate  on the  key 
concepts  of  policy  for  the  disabled  and  to  clarify  such  concepts.  Organising  a  European 
conference  on  the  disabled,  on  fundamental  subjects  such  as  the  definition  of  disability 
or  non-discrimination,  enabled  true  exchanges  and  a  better  understanding  of  these 
concepts  to  be  achieved.  Moreover,  publications  such  as  "Helioscope",  which  appears  in 
the  11  official  languages  of  the  Union,  have  made  it  possible  to  tackle  from  different 
points  of  view  key  questions  such.as  the  equalisation  of  opportunities  or  an  independent 
way  of  life. 

Nevertheless,  in  the  light  of  the  report,  the  Commission  considers  that  it  might  be 
worthwhile  in  the  future  to  establish  more  firmly  a  common  frame  of  reference  for 
measures  to  encourage  equal  opportunities  for  the  disabled,  and  which  might  serve  as  a 
guide  for  the  introduction  and  evaluation  of  activities  under  any  new  programme.  With 
this  particularly  in  mind,  the  Commission  is  intending  to  propose  to  the  Council  and 
European  Parliament  the  adoption  of  a  Recommendation  in  1996  on  the  principles  of 
equalising  opportunities  for  the  disabled. 

2. 
The  programme  allows  the  coexistence  of  an  approach  based  on  the  exchange 
of  experiences  between  those  taking  part  in  activities  and  on  the  dissemination  of  these 
experiences  on  a  wider  scale 

The  evaluation  highlights  the  fact  that  the  programme's  aims  are,  simultaneously: 

- 

innovation,  the  exchange  of  ideas  and  experience  and  the  transfer  of  know-how 
between  the  various  participants; 

identification  and  evaluation  of  innovative  measures  implemented  in  practice  at 
local  level,  in  order  to  disseminate  them  on  a  broader  scale. 

The  report  points  out  that  participants  are confused  by  these two approaches  and  that  this 
may  give  rise  to appreciable  differences  in  the  measures  undertaken  and  in  the  evaluation 
of  those  measures. 

This  dual  aspect  to  the  programme  is  given  clear  expression,  however,  in  the  Helios  II 
Decision  and  in  the  various  mechanisms  and  structures  introduced  by  the  programme.  It 
is  also  a  complementary  and  non-confrontational  approach.  The  Helios  II  programme  is 
based  on  key  concepts  such  as  mutual  learning,  innovation  and  dissemination.  Measures 
such  as  exchange  activities  or  the NGOs1  "Europrogrammes"  are  the  approaches  adopted 
to  begin  these  interdependent  processes  of  learning  and  dissemination. 

The  aim  is  therefore  to  encourage  and  seek  out  good  practices  among  participating 
networks  and  to  disseminate  the  results  outside  these  networks  in  order  to  act  as  a  source 
of  changes  on  a  much  larger  scale. 

r 

Though,  as  the  report  emphasises,  it  seems  clear  that  the  programme  is  full  of  specific 
the 
examples  of  direct  advantages  for  the  participants,  evaluating  the  impact  of 
programme  on  a  much  wider  scale  appears  more  complex.  The  mechanisms  for 
transferring  and  disseminating  results  are  certainly  more  difficult  to  implement,  by  the 
participants  themselves  as  well  as  at  national  level. 

Independently  of  the  conclusions,  which  the  evaluator  will  only  put  forward  in  his  final 
evaluation  report  in  1997,  the  Commission  has  already  implemented  a  number  of 
initiatives  in  order  to  stress  the  dissemination  of  experience  at  different  levels: 

those  taking  part  in  exchange  activities  have  been  encouraged  to  promote  the 
transfer  of  experience  on  the  basis  of  the  most  appropriate  mechanisms  for  this  purpose; 

- 
the  Member  States  have  been  invited,  in  the  context  of  national  information 
meetings,  to  implement  mechanisms  at  national  level  for  the  dissemination  of  experience 
acquired  by  the  participants; 

- 
in  parallel  with  the  presentation  of  the  Helios  II  awards,  the  Commission  has 
encouraged  the  publication  of the guides  of  "best  practice",  drawn  from  the most  relevant 
experiences  of  the  programme. 

3. 

Active  participation  by  the  disabled  people 

The  evaluation  stresses  the  efforts  made  in  the  programme  to  fully  involve  the  disabled 
as  operators  in  the  programme. 

For  the  Commission,  such  participation  is  also  a consequence  of  a model  based  on  equal 
opportunities. 

The  disabled  participate  in  the  programme  mainly  in  one  of  two  ways: 

through  consultation  of  disabled  people  via  the  European  Disability  Forum; 

through  "Europrogrammes"  enabling  disabled  peoples'  organisations  to  hold  pan-

- 
European  events  to  exchange  information. 

In  addition,  as  the  report  points  out,  significant  efforts  have  been  made  to  increase  the 
involvement  of  the  disabled  in  all  other  sections  of  the  programme:  exchange  activities 
(although  the  Commission  is  limited  as  nominations  are  made  by  Member  States),  the 
Handynet  network  and  activities  to  inform  public  opinion  and  increase  public  awareness. 

Encouraged  by  the  positive  experience  provided  by  the  European  Disability  Forum,  the 
Commission  has  decided  to  provide  its  new  social  action  programme  95-97,  which  is  to 
follow-on  from  the  Helios  II  programme,  with  a  permanent  advisory  body  with  a  remit 
extending  to  cover  the  whole  range  of  Community  competence.  The  Commission  shares 

6 

the  evaluator's  opinion  of  the  essential  nature  of  this  achievement  by  the  current 
programme and  of those arising from  cooperation  between  disabled  people's  organisations 
at  trans-European 
in  particular  by  the  organisation  of  European 
conferences  on  the  disabled. 

level,  illustrated 

2.2 

The  main  constraints 

Apart  from  the  points  already  mentioned,  the  report  points  out  that  the  programme 
encounters  the  following  major  obstacles: 

Excessive  expectations  given  the  size  of  the  programme  and  the  European 

1. 
Community's 

competence 

The  report  reveals  that  there  is  disappointment  arising  from  excessive  expectations  in 
relation  to  the  objectives  of  the  programme.  As  the  evaluator  points  out,  the  Helios  II 
to  the  exchange  of  experience  and 
is  limited 
programme,  while  very  ambitious, 
information.  It  is  not  intended  to  make  good  any  shortcomings  in  policies  for  which  the 
Member  States have  sole responsibility.  This  aspect  is also given  formal  expression  in  the 
recitals  to  the  Decision. 

Nor  does  the  programme  pursue  the  same  objectives  as  the  Horizon  strand  of  the 
Employment  initiative  which,  while  providing  resources  for  the  joint  financing  of 
initiatives,  is  limited  to  the  employment  sector.  Horizon  does  not  seek  to  establish  a 
global  vision  of  the  question  of  disability,  nor  to  stimulate  a  political  discussion  on  the 
subject.  There  is therefore  no relevance in  comparing the budgets of the two  programmes. 

It  is  true  to  say  that  this  confusion  surrounding  the  programme  has  a  negative  effect  in 
so  far  as  it  reflects  on  the  motivations  of  participants  and  the  meaning  of  their  activity, 
as  well  as  giving  rise  to  an  unfair  evaluation  of  the  programme.  The  Commission  will 
therefore  ensure  that  this  aspect  is  clarified. 

2. 

Excessive  fragmentation  of  the  programme 

The  evaluator  highlights  the  fact  that  the  various  measures  in  the  programme  tend  to  be 
independent  of  each  other,  and  that  this  detracts  from  an  overall,  coherent  view  of  the 
programme. 

The  Commission  can  only  admit  that  there  is  a  degree  of  fragmentation  of  the 
programme.  This  is,  certainly  to  some  extent,  the  result  of  shared  visions  of  policy  for 
the  disabled  and  of  the  Commission's  obligation  to  take  account  of  the  different  points 
of  view.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  has  taken  a  whole  series  of  initiatives  intended 
to  make  the  various  parts  of  the  programme  interdependent.  In  particular,  these  include: 

Y 

organising  joint  seminars  between  the  various  sectors  of  exchange  activities  and 

- 
the  NGOs; 

setting  up  joint  meetings  between  the  Handynet  centres  and  organisations  of 

- 
disabled  people; 

the  synergy  established  between  the  Helios  prize  awarding  process  and  exchange 

activities; 

national  information  meetings  enabling  all  participants  (in  all  the  programme's 

measures)  in  each  Member  State  to  meet  and  share  their  experiences. 

The  very  structure  of  the  Helios  II  Decision  makes  it  impossible  to  go  beyond  these 
initiatives.  However,  the  Commission's  opinion  is  that  this  point  will  have  to  be  dealt 
with  when  discussing  any  new  Community  measure. 

3. 

The  role  of  advisory  structures 

The  report  stresses  the  importance  of  the  role  of  the  advisory  structures  established  by 
the programme,  namely  the  Advisory  Committee,  the European  Disability  Forum  and  the 
Liaison  Group. 

As  referred  to  above,  the  positive  experience  of  the  Forum  has  led  the  Commission  to 
make  provision  for  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  internal  advisory  structure  v/ithin 
the  Commission  to  issue  opinions  on  all  aspects  of  Community  policy. 

Despite  the  efforts  made,  the  Commission  recognises  a  number  of  problems  hampering 
the  most  fruitful  dialogue  possible  in  the  context  of  meetings  of  all  of  these  bodies.  In 
addition  to  the material  obstacles  relating  to  the  limited  number  of  possible  meetings,  the 
size  of  the  bodies  and  the  need  to  provide  documents  in  good  time  and  in  all  languages 
(significant  improvements  have  been  made  here),  there  is  still  a  case  for  drawing 
attention,  once  again,  to  the  absence  of  a  common  vision  on  the  part  of  the  members 
concerned. 

Nevertheless,  by  making  use  of  more  informal  working  parties  and  more  flexible 
procedures  for  discussing  documents,  the  Commission  considers  that  it  has  been  able  to 
begin  a  true  debate  and  dialogue  with  these  structures.  These  efforts  will  need  to  be 
continued.  In  particular,  the  Advisory  Committee  and  the Forum  have  been  invited  to  put 
forward  their  own  content  and  structure  for  future  meetings  of  the  Liaison  Group. 

4. 

Coordination  at  national  level 

Coordinating  activities  at  national  level  is  a  key  to  success  in  the  dissemination  of 
activities  undertaken  within  the  programme.  In  this  regard,  a large  share  of  responsibility 

% 

within the current programme rests on the Member  States, who receive useful  assistance 
from  the Commission  through  the national  information  days. 

The  report  reveals  a  great  diversity  of  approach  and  great  differences  in  dynamism 
between the various Member  States in this regard. Whatever the situation, the evaluation 
points  out  that  Community  action  has  often  represented  a  step  forward,  facilitating 
coordination between the officials  in charge and disabled people's associations at national 
level. Adding depth to coordination structures and machinery at national level should also 
be  on the  agenda  for  any  new  Community  initiative. 

5. 

Coordination at  Community  level 

The  political  approach  to  the  programme  involves  giving  priority  to  promoting  an 
awareness of the interests and needs of the disabled  in structures and programmes  aimed 
at the mainstream  population. 

In  addition,  one  of  the  main  tasks  of  the  "Integration  of  the Disabled"  Unit  within  the 
Commission  is  to  ensure  that  such  interests  and  needs  are taken  into  account.  For  this 
reason,  when  the  programme  was  adopted  on  9 October  1991 the  Commission  decided 
to  establish,  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Unit,  an  interdepartmental  working  party  to 
ensure  the  internal  coordination  of  various  Community  programmes,  measures  and 
initiatives  relating  to the  disabled. 

There  is  obviously  no  denying  that,  as with  the internal  policies  of Member  States, this 
objective  of  inclusion  also  comes up  against  a number  of obstacles  at  Community  level 
as a result  of widespread  prejudices. 

Nevertheless, as the report points out, very substantial  progress has been made during the 
programme,  as  shown  by  the  close  links  established  between  programmes  such  as 
Horizon, Tide, Socrates, Leonardo and Eures. These contacts have often  gone beyond the 
exchange  of  information  and joint  discussion  and  have  made  it  possible  to  develop  an 
integrated  approach  to the disabled  outside  the Helios  II programme. 

The  establishment  of  a permanent  advisory  body  for  disabled  people  should  also  make 
it  possible  to  reinforce  this integrated  policy  in  the  future. 

3 

CONCLUSION 

Although  these  are only  preliminary  conclusions,  the interim  evaluation  report  provides 
valuable indications of the constraints  and  the achievements of the Helios II programme. 

As the  evaluator  points  out,  the  Commission  has  already  taken  a series  of  initiatives  to 
improve  certain  aspects  of the  programme.  These  are intended  in  particular  to: 

improve  integration  between  th« various  measures  of the programme; 

<* 

encourage  complementarity  between  the  programme  and  other  Community 
initiatives; 

improve  the  dissemination  of  experience  and  results; 

increase  participation  by  the  disabled  in  all  the  various  measures  in  the 
programme; 

improve administrative procedures such as the reimbursement of meeting expenses 
and  the  dissemination  of documents. 

These efforts  will continue. In addition, in the light of the interim  report, the Commission 
will,  during  the final  year  of the  programme,  ensure  that: 

the concepts and the policy objective pursued by the programme are made clearer; 

- 

participants  are given  a clearer  picture  of  the  programme's  development  models 

and  institutional  limits; 

the transfer  of  successful  results  is  developed; 

media  coverage  of the  programme  is  improved. 

_ 
The  Commission  does  not  consider  it  appropriate  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the 
Helios  II Decision  to correct  all  the points  raised  by the  evaluator.  There  are,  however, 
problems which could only be properly resolved by a new programme. The interim report 
provides  valuable  guidelines  in this  respect. 

AP 

ANNEX 

Extract  from  the Interim  Report 

Evaluation  of  HELIOS II 

(October  1995) 

THE  CONCLUSIONS 

M 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

An  ambitious 
agenda 

HELIOS  II  is  attempting  to  implement  an  ambitious  agenda,  combining 
on  the  one  hand  a  social  welfare  and  an  equal  opportunities  orientation 
and  on  the  other  a  policy  development  (top-down)  and  social  learning 
(bottom-up)  model  or  action. 

Lack of consensus 
and broad support 

into 

invited 

furthermore  has 

the  programme  and  established 
It 
mechanisms  for  incorporating  very  diverse  participants,  including  NGOs, 
disabled  people  and  policy  actors.  Unsurprisingly  the  programme  is 
easily  criticised  given the  lack  of  prior  consensus  within  the  disability  field 
and  among  programme  participants.  Yet  there  is  also  broad  support  for 
the  intentions  of  HELIOS  II even  among  those  who  criticise  it. 

The need for a 
framework for 
emerging 
consensus 

The  programme's  broad  aims,  resourcing  that  is  not  commensurate  with 
these  aims,  lack  of  definition  of  key  terms,  and  differences  of  interest 
among  programme  participants  and  stakeholders  contribute  both  towards 
the  programme's  strengths  and  account  for  criticisms  and  (sometimes) 
conflicts.  The  programme  appears  to  be  having  some  success  providing 
a  framework  in  which  new  forms  of  consensus  can  be  developed.  This 
fulfils  an  important  need. 

From  an  evaluation  standpoint  however 
II 
accommodates  divergent  and  sometimes  contradictory  models  and 
approaches  to  disability,  and  aims  that  are  broad  and  sometimes  unclear 
or  ambiguous  poses  special  problems.  Criteria  for  'success'  are  not 
straightforward. 

that  HELIOS 

fact 

the 

Different  criteria 
for success and 
failure 

Different  stakeholders  favour  different  criteria,  whilst  what  in  terms  of  a 
policy  of  top-down  approach  might  be  considered  a  'failure'  (e.g.  lack  of 
consensus  among  actors)  might  be considered  a success  from  a bottom-
up,  social  learning  perspective  (e.g.  encouraging  those  with  different 
interests  and  models  to  exchange  and  potentially  learn  from  each  other). 

Addressing issues 
of uncertainty 

Whilst  much  of  the  above  is  unavoidable  in  the  field  of  disability  policy 
and  practice  there  are  particular  sources  of  uncertainty  and  unclarity  that 
are  avoidable  and. should  be  addressed.  For  example  the  role  of  the 
programme's  consultative  structures  in  influencing  programme  policy. 
Potentially  the  Forum  represents  one  of  the  most  powerful  'activities'  of 
the  programme  in  relation  to  identifying  areas  of  European  policy  which 
directly  impinge  on  the  life  of  disabled  people,  which  the  programme 
might  address,  and  in encouraging  the  active  cooperation  between  some 
very  diverse  organisations  involved  in  the  field  of  disability. 

sit 

Confusion 
between  the  top-
down  and  bottom-
up  models 

Paraîtel rather 
than integrated 
activity 

There  is  also  confusion  concerning  the  role  of  information  and  exchange 
activities  both  between  partners  selected  by  national  governments,  and 
within  the  NGO  Europrogramme.  It is  unclear  how far these  are  intended 
as  instrumental  activities,  designed  to  identify  and  clarify  criteria  related 
good  practice  and  innovation,  which  might  then  be  promoted  at  a 
European  level  through  other  means,  or  whether  these  are  designed  to 
promote  good  practice  and  innovation  in  themselves.  The  diversity  of 
practices  among  member  states  in  the  selection  of  partners  may  have 
made  the  former  aim  difficult  to  achieve,  the  resource,  and  policy 
constraints  on  local  agencies  may  make  the  latter  to  difficult  to  fulfil. 
Nevertheless,  there  is  considerable  evidence  to  suggest  that  many 
participants  have 
identifying  new 
approaches  to  integration  and  equal  opportunities.  They  have  also  led to 
the  first  stage  in  the  development  of  a  set  of  guides  to  good  practice, 
which  will  be  further  developed  and  disseminated  in  1996. 

these  activities  useful 

found 

in 

II  there 

integrated  whole. 

is  some  evidence  that 
Under  pressure  to  set  up  HELIOS 
programme  elements  and  activities  have  been  pursued  in  parallel  rather 
is 
than  as  an 
the 
This 
'segregation'  of  programme  participants: 
i.e.  groups  involved  in one  part 
of  the  programme  are  generally  not  the  same  as  those  involved  in  other 
parts. 
It  is  likely  that  'external'  (public  and  policy)  assessments  of 
HELIOS  II will  be  enhanced  if the  programme  is judged  as  a whole.  This 
has  implications  for  HELIOS  II  management.  Whilst  it  is  fair  to  say  that 
synergy  between  parts  of  the  programme  is  beginning  to  be  seen  as  a 
management  issue,  it  needs  to  be  taken  further. 

reinforced  by 

further 

At  this  interim  stage  in  the  evaluation  we  would  highlight  the  following 
particular  recommendations. 

The  programme  would  benefit  from: 

Further  focus and 
clarification  of 
links  between 
aims  and activities 
required 

continuing  efforts  to  increase  the focus  of  its  aims  and  objectives; 

clearer  statements  of  its  activities  and  how  these  relate  to  one 
another  in  order  to  enhance  programme  integration; 

clarifying  the  link between  activities,  aims  and  objectives  and  being 
more  explicit  about  the  model(s)  of  intervention  being  used; 

greater  clarity  about  the  programmes 
different  partners  can  understand; 

limitations  in  terms  that 

in  the  area  of  public  awareness,  especially 

greater  work 
in 
'relation'  to  the  general  (wider)  public  complementing  links  with 
implicated  professionals  and  disabled  people  themselves; 

Aï 

stronger,  and  more  structured  links  with  other  programmes,  and 
other  DGs  that  emphasise  that  disability  is  not  only the  province  of 
DGV.  This  is  part  of  a  limiting  paradigm  of  disability  that  needs  to 
be  challenged  at  every  opportunity. 

Directions  for 
further policy 
development 

Finally,  the  evaluation  team  recognise  that  there  are  limits  to  how  far 
these  recommendations  can  be  fully  acted  upon  within  this  HELIOS 

They  also  begin 

programme. 
for  policy 
development  that  might  usefully  be  taken  further  in  future  Commission 
initiatives  and  programmes  intended  to  enhance  integration  and  equal 
opportunities  for  Europe's  disabled  citizens 

to  highlight  directions 

M 

BSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 8  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

05 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-012-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-99558-0 

Office for Officiai Publications of the European Commimities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

AS'