Youth for Europe - Interim evaluation report
Date: 1998-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, EU programme, cooperation policy, project evaluation, young person

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  Commission.  Although 

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 
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. 

results  have  been  achieved 

Moreover,  solid 
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 
lor  continuing 
this  background, 
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  arrangements 

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. 

to  support  projects 

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 
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 
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. 

is  particularly  adapted 

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 

the  only  activity  of  the  programme  during  the 
Exchanges  of  young  people  (action  AI) 
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, 
in  which  the  populations  originating 
Rotterdam,  Sheffield  and  Berlin  in  environments 
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 
in 
Austria  were  taken  in  hand  by  young  Dutch  people  also  suffering  from  handicaps, 
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  1995 
in  the  various  Member  Stales.  Two  European  seminars  held 
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. 

Youth  workers 

Action  B 
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 
largely  on  a  decentralised  basis  by  the  national  agencies,  while 
HI  is  managed 
management  of action  BII is done centrally  by the  Commission. 

37  young  youth  workers  from  seven  European  Union  countries  have  received 
training 
to  and  act  with 
which  should  enable 
disadvantaged  young  people  and  working-class  environments.  Personal  development  and 
intercultural  learning form  an  important  part  of this  training. 

them  to  enhance 

their  capacity 

to  relate 

•••iV*:*:*:^*:*;T^^V'V:V:*:*:-W:^:^;H^V:fP:fP. " 

Training  of  15 youth  workers  permitting  the pooling  and  analysis  of  action  concerning 
is  the  acquisition  by  the 
local  work  in  five  countries.  The  purpose  of  the  project 
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 

imbalance  observed.  No  projects,  for  instance,  have  come  from 

is  being  built  up  as  regards  projects,  this  does  not  obviate  the 
While  momentum 
geographical 
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. 

Exchanges with non~Community  countries 

Action  D 
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 
future 
the  West  Bank  and  Jordan.  The  activity  also  purports 
exchanges 
initiatives 
themselves. 

in  which  the  young  people  would  be  in  a  position  to  develop 

to  be  the  platform  for 

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 
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. 

this  activity  by  making  available 

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 
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. 

in  setting  up  national  agencies  and 

It is essential  to strengthen  cooperation  with the Council  of Europe  in this  field. 

Information of young people and youth-related studies 
Action E 
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. 

Information  of young  people 

A ction  E. I 
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 
the  Brussels 
they  can  participate.  EURODESK. at present  consists of a coordination  unit 
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. 

the 

integrated  youth  programme  based  on 

An 
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. 

types  of  action 

identified 

in 

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 

'Youthlink'  computerised  management 

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 
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 
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 
implemented 
simultaneously. 

in  education,  training  and  youth  to  be 

tasks.  It  is  therefore  essential  for 

The  Commission, 
communication  and  cutting  down  on  red  tape,  thus  highlighting 
cooperation  actions to make Europe more real  for  its citizens. 

its  part,  will  make  an 

for 

increased  effort  with 

regard 

to 
the  capacity  of 

•  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 

initiatives  will  be  encouraged 

Young  promoters  of 
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 
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. 

is  frequently 

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 

1996 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

1995 + 1996 
Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

DECENTRALISED 

Subtotal (decentr.) 
% of totals 

CENTRALISED 

Subtotal (centr.) 
% of totals 

TOTALS 
% 

3795 
79,2 

2480 
82,7 

65,3 

3632 
69.5 

2459 
77,5 

67,7 

7427 
74,1 

4939 
80.0 

996 
20,8 

4791 
100 

518 
17,3 

2998 
100 

52,0 

62,6 

1596 
30.5 

5228 
100 

713 
22,5 

3172 
100 

44,7 

60,7 

2592 
25,9 

10019 
100 

1231 
20.0 

6170 
100 

66.5 

47,5 

61,6 

PRELIMINARY DATA 

e*-» 
C 

NUMBER OF PROJECTS (submitted and approved) 1995.1996 

DECENTRALISED 

1995 

1996 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

1995+ 1996 
Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

A.I 
B.I 

3379 
416 

2246 
234 

66,5 
56,3 

3128 
504 

2168 
291 

69,3 
57,7 

6507 
920 

4414 
525 

TOTAL 

3795 

2480 

65,3 

3632 

2459 

67,7 

7427 

4939 

67,8 
57,1 

66,5 

^ 

PRELIMINARY DATA 

NUMBER OF GRANTED PROJECTS 1995/1996  (DECENTRALISED) 

A. I 

1995 
61 
2 
34 
19 
273 
40 
188 
102 
192 
575 
78 
85 
23 
212 
24 
76 
60 
125 
77 

1996 
60 
3 
45 
30 
268 
76 
268 
72 
203 
460 
125 
81 
20 
169 
19 
70 
37 
94 
68 

B.I 

1995 
13 
4 

1996 
14 
3 

13 
8 

65 
31 
9 

4 
20 

4 

7 
48 
8 

10 
10 

52 
42 
11 
2 
5 
27 

62 

3 
8 
38 
4 

AT 
BEDE 
BEFL 
BEFR 
DE 
DK 
ES 
Fl 
FR 
GB 
GR 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LU 
NL 
NO 
PT 
SE 

TOTAL 

2246 

2168 

234 

291 

PRELIMINARY DATA 

NUMBER Gf  GRANTED PROJECTS 95/96 
(DHCENTRALISED) 

COUNTRIES 

PRELIMINARY DATA 

NUMBER OF PROJECTS (submitted and approved) 1995.1996 

CENTRALISED 

1995 

1996 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

1995+ 1996 
Projects 
submitted 

Projects 
approved 

APPROVED 
% 

A.I 
A.II.1 
A.II.2 
B.I 
B.ll 
C 
D 
E.I 
E.ll 

70 
384 
84 
16 
21 
20 
342 
59 

51 
163 
53 
16 
15 
15 
162 
43 

72,9 
42,4 
63,1 
100,0 
71,4 
75,0 
47,4 
72,9 

67 
709 
76 
12 
31 
48 
451 
128 
74 

39 
313 
32 
8 
17 
32 
205 
48 
19 

58.2 
44,1 
42,1 
66,7 
54,8 
66,7 
45,5 
37,5 
25,7 

137 
1093 
160 
28 
52 
68 
793 
187 
74 

90 
476 
85 
24 
32 
47 
367 
91 
19 

TOTAL 

996 

518 

52,0 

1596 

713 

44,7 

2592 

1231 

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) 

% 
<15 

% 
15-17 

% 
18-20 

% 
21-23 

% 
24-25 

% 
>25 

% 
MALE 

% 
FEMALE 

A.I 

1995 

2.1 

44,5 

30,0 

14,3 

6,0 

3.1 

48,4 

51,6 

1996 

2.8 

43,9 

28,7 

15,6 

5,9 

3.2 

47,5 

52,5 

B.I 

1995 

0,1 

4,0 

6,3 

24,7 

21,1 

43,7 

53,2 

46,8 

1996 

0.0 

2,4 

9,6 

19,0 

19,7 

49.2 

50,9 

49,1 

PRELIMINARY DATA 

THEMES OF THE PROJECTS  (DECENTRALISED) 

A.I 

B.I 

1995 

1996 

% 

% 

1995 

1996 

% 

% 

Active citizenship 

3,0 

2,9 

Cultural and artistic expression 

35,1 

31,5 

Environmental issues 

Equal Opportunities 

6,1 

2,6 

7,2 

2,8 

European awareness 

12,5 

21,8 

Health (drugs, AIDS.alchoolism) 

Life conditions 

Measures against crime 

Measures against exclusion 

Measures against racism 

Mobility 

New technologies 

Protection and Promotion of the 
local heritage 

Social Integration 

Youth Information 

Youth leisure time activities 

Theme missing 

1,0 

9,0 

0,4 

2,7 

2,8 

1,6 

0,2 

2,8 

4,3 

7,5 

7,9 

0,3 

2,2 

8,0 

0,4 

2,9 

2,8 

0,6 

0,4 

3,0 

6,6 

3,4 

3,3 

0,3 

8,1 

12,2 

2,0 

0,5 

7,6 

1,5 

1,0 

4,6 

1,0 

8,5 

7,6 

4,9 

2,2 

8,0 

0,4 

2,2 

1,3 

5,4 

0,9 

40,6 

30,8 

0,4 

0,9 

1,0 

2,0 

5,8 

14,2 

12,9 

2,5 

1,0 

6,7| 

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