Report from the Commission - Interim evaluation of the Youth Programme 2000-2006 (covering the period 2000-2003)
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, report, young person, youth policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 08.03.2004 
COM(2004) 158 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Interim evaluation of the Youth Programme 2000-2006 
(covering the period 2000-2003) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 
1.1. 
Reasons for the evaluation ........................................................................................ 4 
Aim of the report........................................................................................................ 4 
1.2. 
1.3.  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4 
1.3.1.  Information sources.......................................................................................... 4 
1.3.2.  The key evaluation issues................................................................................. 5 

2. 
2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 

3. 
3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

OVERALL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROGRAMME ........................................................... 6 
Background................................................................................................................. 6 
Aims............................................................................................................................. 7 
Developments in the youth field since 2000 ............................................................. 7 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME....................................................... 8 
Overall preliminary considerations.......................................................................... 8 
3.1.1.  General and specific aims ................................................................................ 8 
3.1.2.  The operational aims ........................................................................................ 8 
Consistency between the programme and the overall situation ............................ 9 
3.2.1.  Relevance of the aims to the problems addressed............................................ 9 
3.2.2.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 10 
Operational aspects of the Youth programme ...................................................... 10 
3.3.1.  The descriptive elements................................................................................ 10 
3.3.2.  Summary of positive experiences and problems............................................ 10 
3.3.3.  Assessments of the operational aspects.......................................................... 12 
3.3.4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 13 
Action 1 - Youth for Europe.................................................................................... 13 
3.4.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 13 
3.4.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 14 
3.4.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action ............................. 15 
3.4.4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 16 
Action 2 - European Voluntary Service ................................................................. 17 
3.5.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 17 
3.5.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 18 
3.5.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action ............................. 18 
3.5.4.  Conclusions concerning Action 2 .................................................................. 20 
Action 3 - Youth initiatives...................................................................................... 22 
3.6.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 22 
3.6.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 22 
3.6.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action ............................. 23 
3.6.4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 25 
Action 4 - Joint actions ............................................................................................ 26 
3.7.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 26 
3.7.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 26 
3.7.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action ............................. 27 
3.7.4.  Conclusions with regard to Action 4 – Joint actions...................................... 28 
Action 5 ..................................................................................................................... 28 
3.8.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 28 
3.8.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 28 
3.8.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action ............................. 30 
3.8.4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 31 

2 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.9. 

4. 

5. 
5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

Actions with third countries.................................................................................... 33 
3.9.1.  Framework ..................................................................................................... 33 
3.9.2.  Implementation............................................................................................... 33 
3.9.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions ........................... 35 
3.9.4.  Conclusions concerning actions with third countries..................................... 36 

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAMME.......................................................... 38 

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 40 
Recommendations .................................................................................................... 41 
5.1.1.  Recommendations covering all the actions.................................................... 41 
5.1.2.  Recommendations concerning action 1.......................................................... 45 
5.1.3.  Recommendations concerning action 2.......................................................... 45 
5.1.4.  Recommendations concerning action 3.......................................................... 47 
5.1.5.  Recommendations concerning action 4.......................................................... 48 
5.1.6.  Recommendations concerning action 5.......................................................... 49 
5.1.7.  Recommendations concerning the Partnership Programme between the 
Council of Europe and the European Commission on European Youth Worker 
Training ...................................................................................................................... 51 
5.1.8.  Recommendations concerning actions with third countries........................... 51 
Summary of recommendations ............................................................................... 54 

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 54 

ANNEX 1................................................................................................................................. 56 
ANNEX 2................................................................................................................................. 57 
ANNEX 3................................................................................................................................. 64 

3 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Reasons for the evaluation 

This report meets the requirement, under Article 13 of  Decision 1031/2000/EC1, to monitor 
and evaluate the Youth programme. It was brought forward by a year with the agreement of 
the Member States so that its conclusions and recommendations could be taken into account 
by the Commission when preparing to present a draft legal basis for the future generation of 
programmes in the field of youth. 

In order to ensure that the evaluation is as exhaustive as possible, this report incorporates the 
impact  studies  presented  by  the  Member  States  and  the  countries  participating  in  the 
programme,  the  external  evaluations  carried  out  and  the  results  of  seminars  and  thematic 
working parties organised by the Commission to make an overall mid-term assessment of the 
programme. 

1.2. 

Aim of the report 

The  outcome  of  the  report  can  be  used  to  fine-tune  the  current  Youth  programme  and  as  a 
reference for preparing the future programme in the field of youth. 

1.3.  Methodology 

1.3.1. 

Information sources 

This  report  incorporates  information  from  various  sources.  It  was  compiled  by  the 
Commission from various contributions made over the last six months and in accordance with 
meta-evaluation principles. 

The  impact  studies  (see  Annex  1)  presented  by  the  Member  States  and  the  countries 
participating in the programme are in line with the Commission’s methodological guide (see 
Annex 2). These studies were prepared under the responsibility of the national authorities by 
external experts with the support of the national agencies. 

The impact studies were backed up by a series of specific studies to assess the programme as 
fully as possible and make operational recommendations.  

The information sources are as follows: 

– 

– 

In  the  main,  the  reports  prepared  by  the  Member  States  and  the  countries 
participating in the programme on the impact of Actions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Youth 
programme 

Evaluation of the national agency provisions in 2002 

Analysis of the implementation of the provisions relating to the responsibilities of the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  concerning  the  national  agencies  for  the 
Socrates, Leonardo and Youth programmes 

1 

OJ L 117, 18.5.2000, p. 1. 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
– 

Seminar on “Evaluation of procedures” for the Youth programme in March 2003 

The  seminar  was  attended  by  representatives  from  a  cross-section  of  beneficiary 
organisations (46 from 21 programme countries) and external experts, to discuss and 
assess the current procedures and tools of the programme. 

– 

Meeting of experts on Action 3 in February 2003 

This meeting was held with the national experts and the national agencies to assess 
the effectiveness of Action 3 of the programme, which is new (initiative projects). 

– 

Inter-Committee Group on Action 4, July 2003 

This group finalised the evaluation of this action, which enables joint activities to be 
carried out with the Socrates and Leonardo programmes. 

– 

Working party on Action 5, May 2003 

Action 5 comprises support measures and required more searching analysis in view 
of its variety. 

The  Action  5  evaluation  workshop  was  attended  by  20  external  experts  (including 
youth  workers,  representatives  of  NGOs  and  beneficiaries  of  large-scale  projects) 
who,  in  workshops  with  representatives  from  the  COM,  the  National  Agencies, 
SALTO  and  the  Technical  Assistance  Office,  assessed  the  current  Action  5  and 
developed proposals for the development of Action 5 in the short and medium term 
and its possible role in the future programme in the field of youth. 

– 

Evaluation of the third-country cooperation strand 

An external evaluation of the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Programme was carried out 
between  June  and  September  2001.  Third-country  cooperation  (except  Euro-Med) 
was the subject of an external evaluation carried out between March and September 
2003  and  an  evaluation  seminar  with  beneficiaries  and  National  Agencies  held  in 
February 2003. 

– 

External  evaluation  of  the  Partnership  Programme  between  the  Council  of  Europe 
and the Commission on European Youth Worker Training.  

1.3.2.  The key evaluation issues 

The evaluation focused mainly on: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the internal and external relevance of the programme; 

the impact of the programme on the immediate beneficiaries; 

the impact on systems (national administrations, legislation and policies); 

operational mechanisms; 

performance in respect of each action. 

5 

 
 
  
 
2. 

OVERALL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROGRAMME 

2.1. 

Background 

The Youth Community action programme was established by Decision No 1031/2000/EC of 
the European Parliament and the Council on 13 April 2000. 

It  pursues  the  activities  developed  by  the  three  generations  of  the  “Youth  for  Europe” 
programme since 1988 and the “European Voluntary Service for Young People” since 1998. 

Towards the end of the 1980s, development of the first youth activities at Community level 
was  focused  on  “youth  exchange  schemes”  aimed  at  making  young  people  aware  of  the 
realities of European life through a non-formal educational approach. 

One of the benefits of the “Youth for Europe” programme when it was launched in 1988 was 
its contribution to implementing the policy of dismantling obstacles to the free movement of 
persons  and  promoting  European  citizenship.  These  initiatives  coincided  with  the  added 
momentum  the  Single  European  Act  gave  to  the  European  project,  the  conclusion  of  the 
single market and the desire to create a genuine awareness of being European. 

There was a qualitative change in the programme in the mid-1990s when Voluntary Service, 
which  became  European  Voluntary  Service  in  1998,  was  introduced.  This  enabled  young 
people to acquire skills at European level in a non-formal environment and to make a direct 
contribution to society. 

The introduction  of European Voluntary Service also had a direct impact on  the systems of 
support for youth activities, both on networking at European level for the NGOs looking after 
young volunteers and on the Member States, which were adjusting to the advent of this new 
activity. 

This  new  initiative  came  at  a  time  when  Europe  was  launching  its  strategy  to  combat 
unemployment,  in  which  lifelong  education  and  training  played  a  fundamental  part.  It  was 
also a time when many Member States were turning their thoughts towards voluntary service, 
since compulsory military service was gradually giving way to professional armies. 

Another significant change came in the 1990s with the gradual opening up of the programme 
to countries outside the EU, especially acceding countries, EFTA countries and the countries 
of  the  Mediterranean  basin.  Here  too,  the  programme  evolved  in  keeping  with  major 
developments in international policy. 

is 

Youth  cooperation  with  third  countries  under  the  YOUTH  programme  and  Euro-
Mediterranean  Youth  Programme 
continuation  of  previous  Community 
a 
programmes/actions  which  have  been  in  place  since  1992.  Starting  with  the  countries  of 
central and eastern Europe, the CIS, the Maghreb countries and Latin America, cooperation 
was extended in 1995 to all 12 partner countries of the southern Mediterranean basin, some 
countries  of south-eastern Europe, and  to Africa on a  pilot basis. A  specific programme for 
the  Mediterranean  partner  countries  with  substantial  co-funding  from  the  MEDA  budget 
heading was launched in 1999. 

As  one  can  see,  the  development  of  Community  youth  initiatives  has  kept  pace  with  the 
process of European integration since 1988. 

6 

 
 
  
 
2.2. 

Aims 

The Youth programme, which is being implemented under Decision 1031/2000/EC, continues 
along the same lines as and with the same goals as the two previous programmes “Youth for 
Europe”  and  “European  Voluntary  Service”.  It  has  four  main  aims  in  supporting  informal 
education activities. 

In order to meet these aims, the programme has been allocated 520 million euros for 2000 to 
2006. It is also open to acceding countries and EFTA countries that are members of the EEA. 

2.3. 

Developments in the youth field since 2000  

It was the adoption by the Commission  in  2001  of the White Paper on “A new impetus for 
European youth” that enabled cooperation  on youth to really get off the ground. The White 
Paper  was  the  product  of  wide  consultation  at  European  and  national  level  of  governments, 
public authorities, researchers, people active in this field and young people themselves, which 
enabled arrangements for cooperation in the youth field to be structured. 

The  process  led  the  Council  to  adopt  the  framework  for  European  cooperation  on  youth  in 
May  2002  which  defined  specific  priorities  (participation,  information,  voluntary  activities, 
greater  understanding  and  knowledge  of  youth)  upon  which  the  Member  States  decided  to 
develop an open method of coordination. 

The work to promote European cooperation on youth has created a framework for activities in 
this  field  and,  as  a  result,  is  leaving  its  mark  more  and  more  clearly  on  the  financial 
instrument. 

Implementation  of  the  open  method  of  coordination  led,  in  November  2003,  to  the  Council 
adopting2 common objectives on participation and information which are as follows: 

Common objectives on participation 

– 

– 

Participation by young people in civic life 

Greater  participation  by  young  people  in  the  machinery  of  representative 
democracy 

– 

Support for various forms of learning on how to participate. 

Common objectives on information 

– 

– 

– 

Access for young people to information services 

Quality information 

Participation by young people in the shaping and dissemination of information  

2 

OJ C 295, 5.12.2003, p .6. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME 

3.1. 

Overall preliminary considerations 

3.1.1.  General and specific aims 

The general aims of the programme are derived from the legal basis for the programme, i.e. 
Article 149 of the Treaty on education, training and youth and specifically paragraph 2, which 
provides  that  action  by  the  Community  shall  be  aimed  at  “encouraging  the  development  of 
youth exchanges and exchanges of socio-educational instructors”. 

The four specific aims of the programme are given in Decision No 1031/2000/EC: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

to promote an active contribution by young people to the building of Europe through 
their  participation  in  transnational  exchanges  within  the  Community  or  with  third 
countries so as to develop an understanding of the cultural diversity of Europe and its 
fundamental common values, thus helping to promote respect for human rights and 
combat racism, antisemitism and xenophobia; 

to strengthen their sense of solidarity through more extensive participation by young 
people in transnational community service activities within the Community or with 
third  countries,  in  particular  those  with  which  the  Community  has  concluded 
cooperation agreements; 

to encourage young people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity so that they may take 
an active role in society and, at the same time, to stimulate recognition and the value 
of informal education acquired within a European context; 

to  reinforce  cooperation  in  the  field  of  youth  by  fostering  the  exchange  of  good 
practice,  the  training  of  youth  workers/leaders  and  the  development  of  innovative 
actions at Community level. 

3.1.2.  The operational aims 

In order to meet the specific aims the programme is broken down into five different activities: 

– 

Action 1 – Youth for Europe 

– 

– 

1.1 – intra-Community exchanges of young people 

1.2 – exchanges of young people with third countries 

– 

Action 2 – European Voluntary Service 

– 

– 

2.1 – intra-Community European Voluntary Service 

2.2 – European Voluntary Service with third countries 

– 

– 

Action 3 – Youth initiatives 

Action 4 – Joint activities 

8 

 
 
  
 
– 

Action 5 – Support measures 

– 

– 

– 

– 

5.1 – Training and cooperation of those involved in youth policy  

5.2 – Information for young people and studies on young people 

5.3 – Information on and visibility of measures 

5.4 – Support measures 

The programme’s operational aims are clarified by describing the measures to implement the 
specific aims set out in Decision No 1031/2000/EC as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

support for the transnational mobility of young people; 

support  for  the  use  of  information  and  communication  technologies  in  the  field  of 
youth; 

support  for  the  development  of  cooperation  networks  at  European  level  permitting 
mutual exchange of experience and good practice; 

support  for  transnational  projects  to  promote  citizenship  of  the  Union  and  the 
commitment of young people to the development of the Union; 

promotion of language skills and understanding of different cultures; 

support  for  pilot  projects  based  on  transnational  partnerships  designed  to  develop 
innovation and quality in the youth field; 

development  at  European  level  of  methods  of  analysis  and  follow-up  of  youth 
policies  and  their  evolution  (e.g.  databases,  key  figures,  mutual  knowledge  of 
“systems”) and of methods of disseminating good practice. 

3.2. 

Consistency between the programme and the overall situation 

3.2.1.  Relevance of the aims to the problems addressed 

As regards the programme’s internal consistency, the various levels of aims, overall, specific 
and  operational  are  structured  harmoniously,  except  for  the  two  operational  objectives: 
“support  for  use  of  information  and  communication  technology  in  the  field  of  youth”  and 
“promotion  of  language  skills  and  understanding  of  various  cultures”,  which  are  specific 
rather than operational aims.  

As  regards  the  programme’s  coherence  within  the  global  context,  one  can  say  that  it  is 
partially  geared  to  current  reality,  especially  since  the  setting  up  of  the  framework  for 
European  cooperation  on  youth.  Since  the  first  generation  of  the  Youth  programme,  it  has 
developed  gradually  to  meet  specific  needs  which  have  arisen.  Adopting  the  framework  for 
European  cooperation  makes  youth  an  independent  and  structured  strand  of  policy.  The 
general aims of this new framework should therefore take priority in the programme and in 
particular should take account of new priorities such as participation, information and greater 
understanding of youth, and also innovative aspects of voluntary service which have emerged 
since the draft Constitutional Treaty was adopted. 

9 

 
 
  
 
In  general,  the  internal  consistency  of  the  programme  is  satisfactory.  Within  the  global 
context, however, it does not entirely meet the real needs of the present. This does not mean 
that  the  programme  is  inconsistent  with  the  situation  but  that  it  does  not  factor  in  new 
elements which have emerged as a result of cooperation in the field of youth. 

3.2.2.  Conclusions 

The  programme’s  aims  are  established  by  the  legislature  in  the  Decision.  Within  this 
framework, some leeway must therefore be sought to adapt the programme to changes in the 
situation.  The  future  programme  will  be  able  to  take  into  account  the  framework  for 
cooperation on youth more easily. The new legal basis should also be sufficiently flexible to 
enable gradual adjustments to be made to accommodate future developments in cooperation 
on youth. 

3.3. 

Operational aspects of the Youth programme 

3.3.1.  The descriptive elements 

The  management  of  the  Youth  programme,  largely  decentralised  to  National  Agencies,  is 
based on standard administrative procedures which are, in principle, adhered to by National 
Agencies  within  all  Programme  countries.  As  part  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the 
Programme, a questionnaire on Procedures was sent to all beneficiary organisations, through 
the  network  of  NAs.  The  aim  was  to  receive  beneficiaries’  feedback  on  whether  or  not  the 
current  procedures  and  tools  applied  in  the  overall  administration  of  the  Programme  were 
sufficiently  transparent  and  efficient  to  facilitate  access  to  the  Programme.  The  questions 
focused  on  access  to  the  Programme,  the  application,  decision-making  and  reporting 
processes, and the grant financial rules. 

3.3.2. 

Summary of positive experiences and problems 

The following key messages emerged as a result of the consultation process: 

Programme’s image (information and publicity): The quality of information on the YOUTH 
programme, through documentation, national and regional events as well as the internet, has 
greatly  improved  and  has  become  more  young  people-friendly  over  the  last  few  years. 
However, the User’s Guide lacks clarity and should be produced in a more user-friendly style 
and format and not be amended on an annual basis.  

The lack of visibility exists mainly at political level. 

Access  to  the  Programme:  A  majority  of  organisations  have  easy  access  to  their  National 
Agency.  However,  lack  of  proximity  to  National  Agencies  does  hamper  access  to  the 
Programme for small and local organisations, especially those based in remote urban and rural 
areas.  Those  National  Agencies,  however,  which  have  a  network  of  regional  and/or  local 
information  points  are  more  accessible  to,  and  therefore  supportive  of,  smaller  and  more 
isolated organisations.  

Coherence in implementation of the Programme: Applications are treated fairly by National 
Agencies  and  there  is  satisfaction  with  the  rate  of  approved  projects.  However,  divergent 
decisions  taken  by  National  Agencies  do  cause  problems  for  the  applicant  partner 
organisations. This problem especially occurs in the case of split-funding projects, where each 
leg of a project is assessed by a different National Agency, and there is no prior inter-agency 

10 

 
 
  
 
consultation.  Therefore  there  is  a  need  for  a  more  transparent,  coherent  and  consistent 
selection and decision-making system throughout the Programme countries. 

Application  process:  The  current  schedule  of  five  application  deadlines  (three  deadlines  for 
third country cooperation projects) meets the needs of most beneficiaries.  

The application forms are designed for use by expert youth leaders and youth workers but are 
not suitable to all categories of young people. Some of the questions require too many details 
for projects which are in the stage of preparation. 

Within  this  context  the  application  process  for  micro-projects  (bilateral/trilateral  projects  = 
split-funding)  versus  macro-projects  (multilateral  projects  with  at  least  four  partner 
organisations  =  single  application  to  NA  usually  in  host  country)  was  discussed.  Both 
application  procedures  had  their  supporters:  smaller  organisations  were  mainly  in  favour  of 
micro-projects, whilst larger organisations favoured macro-projects. 

Euro-wide  youth  NGOs  also  recommended  simplifying  the  application  process  to  allow 
application  for  a  series  of  projects  within  the  framework  of  various  Actions  rather  than  for 
single short-term projects.  

In cases of rejected projects, reasons for rejection should be outlined in detail to facilitate and 
encourage re-application.  

Financial rules: The system of flat rates and fixed amounts is a fair grant-awarding system 
and more user-friendly than the former percentage-based funding. However, it does not allow 
for flexibility in the case of very disadvantaged groups, such as marginalised groups of young 
people who find it difficult to attract co-funding.  

Payment of grants: In principle, selection decisions and the advance payment of grants (75%) 
should  reach  beneficiaries  at  least  a  month  prior to  the  project  start  date.  However,  the  late 
arrival  of  selection  decisions  and  payment  of  advance  grants  in  some  of  the  Programme 
countries  and  from  the  Commission  for  projects  assessed  and  selected  centrally,  result  in 
some  cases  in  projects  being  either  cancelled  or  postponed  or  in  a  change  of  partners  and 
participants, which cause serious problems for the project organisers and their partners. 

Evaluation process: Beneficiaries are expected to submit the final report within two months 
of the end of the project period. The National Agencies and the Commission (in the case of 
centralised  projects)  evaluate  content  and  achievements  and  assess  the  financial  statement 
prior  to  processing  final  payment  of  the  grant.  However,  feedback  and  comments  on  the 
outcomes of projects are not usually communicated to beneficiaries. Follow-up meetings and 
evaluation  and  dissemination  of  good  practices  are  an  essential  part  of  the  development  of 
youth work and structures. 

National  Agency  Provisions:  an  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  National  Agencies’ 
provisions  conducted  in  2002,  the  results  of  which  were  approved  by  the  Programme 
Committee, shows that the operational mechanisms and the framework of responsibilities they 
establish  largely  functioned  satisfactorily.  Although  applying  them  in  practice  posed 
something  of  a  problem  in  some  cases,  albeit  very  few,  the  experience  gained  has  certainly 
shown that they have, by and large, worked well. As a result, the current version of the text 
will remain in force for the entire period of validity of the programme’s legal basis. 

11 

 
 
  
 
3.3.3.  Assessments of the operational aspects 

The outcomes of the procedures seminar can be assessed as follows: 

Programme’s  image:  The  User’s  Guide  outlines  the  YOUTH  programme’s  aims  and 
objectives, the eligibility criteria as well as the application process in all the major languages 
of  the  Programme  countries.  Most  of  the  National  Agencies  produce  user-friendly  and 
colourful  documents,  usually  on  each  Action,  which  address  a  young  audience  and  thus 
provide  the  relevant  information  in  a  simple  and  easily  understandable  way.  Some  of  the 
websites are also interactive and adapted to a young audience. All NAs should be encouraged 
to produce documentation and information tools which appeal to and attract the attention and 
motivation of young people. 

However,  the  Programme’s  aims  are  not  always  disseminated  to  relevant  governmental 
authorities, especially at regional and local level. Therefore such a lack of information makes 
access to co-funding and to local authority support difficult and often impossible.  

The National Authorities, National Agencies and the Commission have an important role to 
play  in  raising  the  Programme’s  profile  at  political  level.  This  process  could  be  facilitated 
through  the  promotion  of  partnerships  with  and  among  local  authorities.  Events  such  as 
‘European  Youth  Weeks’  also  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  raising  awareness  of  the 
Programme at national and local level. 

Access  to  the  Programme:  Accessibility  and  proximity  to  beneficiaries  at  national,  regional 
and  local  level  are  important  aspects  of  the  Programme.  Following  the  example  of  the 
regional arrangements which exist in some, and are piloted in other, countries could facilitate 
reaching, as well as making the Programme more accessible to, all young people. 

Coherence in implementation of the Programme: Despite the standard system of procedures, 
some  National  Agencies  have  to  adapt  them  to  their  national  requirements  and/or  available 
resources.  A  certain  lack  of  transparency  arises  especially  in  the  case  of  grant  decision-
making  when  national  priorities  are  taken  into  consideration  in  addition  to,  or  instead  of, 
European  priorities.  To  keep  a  certain  amount  of  flexibility,  it  is  important  therefore  that 
National Agencies ensure a coherent balance between both European and national priorities, 
as well as maintaining an ongoing dialogue and consultation with partner National Agencies. 

Some of the NAs are in favour of keeping the split-funding process as it helps them assess the 
volume  of  activity  on  the  basis  of  applications  received  whilst  in  the  case  of  multilateral 
projects,  if  not  informed,  they  are  not  aware  of  the  number  of  organisations  involved  as 
partners  in  projects  hosted  in  other  countries.  However,  inter-agency  consultation  should 
become compulsory in the case of split-funding decisions. 

Funding  of  projects:  Applications  for  multi-action  long-term  projects  could  result  in  the 
simplification of the application process and thus minimise payment delays. Through such a 
system of application, youth organisations could apply for a series of actions rather than for 
each individual project. Longer-term projects could raise awareness of the Programme as well 
as motivation at local level and could thus attract additional funding. 

However,  the  limitations  of  smaller  organisations  and  disadvantaged  groups  must  not  be 
overlooked; in these cases, micro-projects play a major role.  

12 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation  process:  It  is  essential  for  beneficiaries  to receive  an  assessment  of  their  project 
not only at the time of application but after completion of the activity. Sharing of experiences 
and good practices should be facilitated by the National Agencies as well as the Commission. 
Project  outcomes  should  influence  the  Programme  and  have  an  impact  on  national  youth 
policies and structures. Resources should be made available to facilitate evaluation seminars 
at national as well as European level. 

3.3.4.  Conclusions 

In summary, the following is a list of recommendations which resulted from the evaluation of 
the current Programme procedures: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

An enhanced political visibility for the Programme. 

Regional  and  local  information  relays  or  contact  points  to  increase  proximity  to 
beneficiaries.  To  provide  a  supportive  approach,  during  the  promotion,  application 
and  evaluation  processes  of  the  Programme,  especially  in  the  case  of  marginalised 
young people. 

A simpler and administratively less cumbersome application process. Promoting and 
supporting multi-action projects, but without dismissing small-scale projects. 

More  transparent  criteria  and  decision-making  process  as  well  as  a  more  coherent 
and balanced implementation of the European and national priorities throughout the 
Programme countries. 

Facilitate access to the Programme for the disadvantaged, and for young people from 
third countries, by introducing a more flexible grant-awarding mechanism. 

Annual evaluation meetings for beneficiaries at national and European level as well 
as within regional clusters of countries. 

3.4. 

Action 1 - Youth for Europe 

3.4.1.  Framework 

The specific aims of Action 1 are defined in the annex to Decision 1031/2000/EC establishing 
the Youth programme as follows: 

“The Community will support mobility activities for young people provided that the activities 
in  question  last  at  least  one  week,  are  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  joint  projects  within  the 
Community and involve groups of young people aged in principle between 15 and 25 years 
and legally resident in a Member State or a third country (for exchanges with third countries, 
the mobility activities will involve at least two Member States).” 

These activities, based on transnational partnerships between groups of young people, involve 
their  active  participation  and  are  designed  to  make  it  possible  for  them  to  discover  and 
become aware of different social and cultural realities and to encourage them to participate in, 
or  initiate,  other  activities  at  European  level.  Particular  attention  is  paid  to  participation  by 
young  people  for  whom  it  is  their  first  European  activity,  by  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities or by small or local groups without experience at European level.  

13 

 
 
  
 
Bilateral group mobility receives funding if this is justified in terms of the target group or a 
specific pedagogical approach and only for exchanges between Programme countries. 

Activities  designed  to  strengthen  the  active  involvement  of  young  people  in  group  mobility 
projects  may  receive  funding  under  this  action,  particularly  in  the  case  of  activities  which 
provide  young  people  in  question  with  linguistic  and  intercultural  preparation  prior  to  their 
departure. 

3.4.2. 

Implementation 

a) 

Overall assessment 

Action 1 contributes to the education process of young people, mainly through exchanges, by 
encouraging  them  to  become  aware  of  the  diversity  of  cultures,  equal  opportunities,  and 
combating exclusion, racism and xenophobia.  

It  encourages  stronger  partnerships  at  all  levels  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States, at the level of the National Agencies responsible for implementing the Action and at 
the level of the groups of young people who must prepare, and be involved in, the projects. 

Action 1 contributes to the informal education of young people, making them aware that they 
are actively involved in the construction of Europe and thus fostering a better understanding 
of European diversity. 

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

Bilateral  exchanges  are  a  suitable  instrument  for  a  first  experience  of  Europe  for  a  youth 
organisation or for groups of young people with fewer opportunities. For the latter, it would 
be better to reduce the length and the content of projects to tailor them more closely to their 
needs.  

Multilateral  exchanges  have  a  real  European  intercultural  dimension.  However,  finding 
partners  for  exchanges  is  a  problem.  The  partnership  is  essential  but  the  role  of  the  various 
partners is not always clear, especially with regard to sharing the financial and organisational 
responsibilities. It is important for the young people to be properly supervised and for them to 
play an active part throughout the project. On this issue, the Member States said it might be 
possible, if the programme permitted it, to reduce the age of access to give 13 or 12-year olds 
the opportunity of participating if they were mature enough. 

In general, participating in an exchange scheme motivates young people to take advantage of 
other opportunities offered by the Youth programme or other European programmes, such as 
Socrates or Leonardo. Bridges between the programmes are beneficial. 

The impact study shows that there is a demand for recognition of the value of the action and 
that participants should be given a certificate of participation in the exchange scheme. 

As regards implementation of the exchange projects, the Member States mention that it would 
make sense if the length of the projects was extended to cover the time devoted to preparation 
and evaluation of projects. 

14 

 
 
  
 
3.4.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action 

79.1 million Euros were allocated to Action 1 for exchange schemes between 2000-2002 in 
the  Youth  budget.  167 298  young  people  participated  in  the  8 467  projects  financed  by  the 
Commission. The proportion of multilateral projects was 30% in 2000 and went up to 40% at 
the end of the year 2002, in keeping with the aim the Commission had set itself. 

Impact on young people 

The impact study showed that, for the acceding countries, Action l offered young people an 
opportunity to visit European countries which had not been open to them before. 

As regards bilateral exchanges, the impact study stressed that they were particularly useful for 
young people with fewer opportunities, such as young people from Roma minorities or living 
in  isolated  geographical  areas  as  well  as  for  youth  organisations  experiencing  their  first 
encounter with Europe. 

For  other  young  people,  the  programme  is  focused  on  multilateral  exchange  schemes. 
Conducting  an  international  experiment  is  an  experience  which  is  rewarding  but  which 
requires  proper  supervision.  Exchanges  of  young  people  also  contribute  to  practising  other 
languages  and  to  intercultural  learning.  Finally,  they  are  a  way  of  developing  tolerance  and 
mutual respect, of opening minds and encouraging communication. 

Another advantage of mobility is that it gives young people a greater awareness of their role 
as  European  citizens.  This  awareness  is  a  valuable  attribute  which  young  people  can  use  to 
good  effect  in  the  labour  market.  However,  it  should be noted  that  whilst this  form  of non-
formal  education  is  not  a  problem  for  young  people  with  high-school  and/or  university 
educational  backgrounds,  sound  preparation  is  required  for  disadvantaged  young  people 
before the exchange takes place. 

As regards multicultural learning and personal development, young people who have been on 
an exchange scheme are often keen to organise an exchange scheme themselves or to turn to 
more  individual  projects  which  offer  scope  for  creativity.  Moreover,  the  majority  show 
greater involvement in local community activities. 

Finally,  access  to  the  programme  for  young  people  from  disadvantaged  environments  is 
particularly beneficial as the bilateral exchanges offer them their first European experience. It 
should also be noted that the programme, and especially exchange schemes, can have a very 
positive effect on physically and mentally disabled young people. 

Impact on the socio-educational players, organisations and local communities 

As far as the impact of Action 1 on youth workers is concerned, one can say that this action 
has demonstrated the importance of high standards on their part, the need for specific training 
for 
the  usefulness  of  networking  competent 
organisations  in  the  field  of  youth  and  of  exchanging  good  practice,  and  the  importance  of 
language skills. 

intercultural  exchanges, 

international 

As regards youth organisations, it can be said that, in general, they adopt the annual priorities 
set  by  the  Commission  and  the  National  Agencies  but  that  they  make  a  special  effort  in 
respect to the quality of the projects and their regional character. 

15 

 
 
  
 
As  youth  workers  involved  in  multilateral  exchanges  have  learned  the  ropes  by  practical 
experience,  demand  has  emerged  for  good  practice  to  be  disseminated,  which  requires  a 
greater effort to be made on this front. Youth organisations are overworked, especially with 
their  activities  being  concentrated  on  the  school  holidays.  In  some  Member  States,  the 
municipalities resort to their networks of twinned towns to develop exchanges. 

A structured system for partner-finding, networking of youth organisations and decentralised 
structures able to offer young people the opportunity of setting up exchange projects, do have 
an impact on this action of the programme. 

Within Action 1 (Youth for Europe exchanges) of the Programme it is recommended that in 
the  case  of  organisations  with  international  experience,  priority  be  given  to  multilateral 
projects  (involving  at  least  four  Programme  countries).  Therefore,  restricting  bilateral 
exchange  projects  to  new  and  less  experienced  or  disadvantaged  youth  groups  does  not 
motivate local youth groups and organisations with a constant turnover of membership. The 
organisation might not be new to the experience but it is a new experience for the participants. 
For  smaller  organisations  working  with  disadvantaged  groups, 
the  administration, 
organisation and management of projects with multiple partners is considered too demanding.  

The  multiplier  effect  of  exchange  projects  on  local  and  regional  communities  has  been 
striking,  increasing  interest  in  Europe  and  encouraging  the  setting  up  of  new  youth 
organisations. 

Impact on policy, legislation and institutions 

The Youth programme is an inspiration for the Member States, which often support identical 
projects  outside  the  programme.  Moreover,  decentralisation  of  the  programme,  which  is 
becoming  increasingly  widespread  in  national  agencies,  is  having  a  multiplier  effect  and  is 
making the programme more accessible to all young people. 

As  regards  the  acceding  countries,  the  experience  of  youth  exchange  schemes  is  relatively 
new as previously there was no real opportunity to participate in international exchanges. 

The Commission’s annual priorities are complied with and often tally with national priorities. 
However,  it  would  be  advisable  not  to  set  too  many  priorities,  nor  should  any  national 
priorities  be  set  which  are  either  mutually  incompatible  or  incompatible  with  European 
priorities. 

3.4.4.  Conclusions 

Exchanges of young people offer young people of various nationalities the opportunity to get 
to know each other easily in an environment enabling them to explore common themes and 
discover various cultures. 

The fact that this action is almost entirely decentralised in the Agencies has helped to make 
the programme more accessible and more appealing to young people. 

The quality of the projects is constantly improving as a result of more in-depth work at the 
level of the organisations, other partners and project promoters. 

The  Agencies  provide  information  and  training  for  project  promoters  and  organise 
information and training seminars. 

16 

 
 
  
 
Nevertheless, improvements could be made, specifically: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A  greater  effort  should  be  made  to  establish  quality  partnerships,  especially  for 
multilateral projects. The National Agencies should play a more important role here. 

The  National  Agencies  should  work  more  closely  with  each  other  to  offer  a  better 
service  to  partners,  which  is  all  the  more  important  for  bilateral  projects  whose 
funding depends on several National Agencies. 

It  should  be  possible  to  shorten  projects  for  groups  of  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities. 

The minimum age for participating in an exchange could, in some cases, be reduced 
to 12-13. 

Young  people  who  have  participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  should  be  given  a 
certificate of participation in a European activity. 

Exchange  projects  should  be  extended  to  include  time  for  preparing  the  project, 
running it and making an evaluation of the lessons the participants learned from it. 

It  should  be  possible  to  build  bridges  between  actions  by  means  of  longer  “relay” 
projects. 

3.5. 

Action 2 - European Voluntary Service 

3.5.1.  Framework 

The Annex to Decision 1031/2000/EC establishing the Youth programme sets out the specific 
objectives of European Voluntary Service; in particular it is stated that EVS is open to young 
people  aged  in  principle  between  18  and  25  years.  Young  volunteers  will  undertake  an 
activity based on solidarity, with the view to acquiring social and personal abilities and skills, 
while at the same time contributing to society. To this end, young volunteers will participate, 
in  a  Member  State  other  than  the  one  in  which  they  reside,  or  in  a  third  country,  in  a  non-
profit-making and unpaid activity of importance to the community and of a limited duration 
(12  months  maximum).  European  voluntary  service  is  based  on  a  partnership  and  shared 
responsibilities  between  the  young  volunteers,  the  sending  organisation  and  the  host 
organisation.  The  Commission attests with a certificate the participation of young  people in 
European voluntary service. 

With regard to Action 2.1, intra-community European Voluntary Service, the same annex to 
the legal basis stipulates: “The Community will support transnational projects (for a limited 
period  ranging  in  principle  from  three  weeks  to  one  year)  which  involve  young  people, 
actively  and  personally,  in  activities  designed  to  help  meet  the  needs  of  society  in  a  wide 
range of fields which constitute at the same time an experience of informal education with a 
view to acquiring social and cultural skills. These projects are designed to bring young people 
into contact with other cultures and other languages and to experience new ideas and projects 
in a multicultural civil society…” 

Several priorities have been introduced: the development of the short-term strand in order to 
facilitate access for young volunteers with fewer opportunities and to ensure their tailor-made 
support;  the  introduction  of  voluntary  activities  as  a  new  element  in  existing  partnerships 
and/or the creation of new partnerships; the involvement of organisations which have not yet 

17 

 
 
  
 
participated in EVS; the inclusion of new areas and innovation; and the contribution to local 
development. 

3.5.2. 

Implementation 

a) 

Overall assessment 

European Voluntary Service (EVS), first set up as a pilot programme in 1996, is part of the 
Youth programme (2000-2006) and is allocated approximately 25 million euro per year. It is 
thus  one  of  the  major  Actions  of  the  Youth  programme.  Each  year  it  allows  around  3  500 
young people from the participating countries to spend between 6 and 12 months abroad. A 
short-term EVS strand has been introduced specifically for the target group of young people 
with  fewer  opportunities.  But  EVS  also  funds  larger  projects  with  up  to  60  volunteers  in 
different  host  placements,  and  in  2002  a  concept  of  collective  voluntary  service  has  been 
developed to allow the deployment of even larger numbers of volunteers on the occasion of 
major events, e.g. in the area of sports.  

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

The  large  majority  of  EVS  projects  are  managed  by  the  National  Agencies.  This  concerns 
mainly individual long-term EVS projects (so-called one-to-one projects with one volunteer), 
but  also  individual  and  group  short-term  projects  for  young  volunteers  with  fewer 
opportunities,  which  might  last  between  3  weeks  and  6  months.  At  centralised  level,  two 
project formats are managed: Europe-wide projects, involving many partner organisations and 
volunteers in different host placements, and individual placements in secretariats of European 
Youth  non-governmental  organisations.  A  procedure  for  the  accreditation  of  EVS  host 
projects  in  programme  countries  has  been  established  on  the  basis  of  Host  Expressions  of 
Interest (HEIs). This accreditation is required prior to the introduction of a grant application 
and shall ensure transparency and quality of the host projects. Furthermore, an SOS Volunteer 
Helpdesk at the Technical Assistance Office is at the disposal of interested people, volunteers, 
organisations and National Agencies and carries out communication and advisory tasks.  

3.5.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action 

Between 2000 and 2002, the total grant amount under EVS was 66.5 million euro (2000: 20.7 
million  euro;  2001:  23.9  million  euro;  2002:  21.9  million  euro).  The  number  of  submitted 
projects has grown steadily since 2000 (by 15% from 2000 to 2001, and by 21% from 2001 to 
2002).  17 703  EVS  hosting  and  sending  projects  were  financed  (2000:  5 423;  2001:  5 754; 
2002:  6 526).  The  total  number  of  EVS  volunteers  was  almost  10 000  over  these  first  three 
years  (2000:  2 798;  2001:  3 430,  2002:  3 432)  with  growth  peaking  at  23%  from  2000  to 
2001. Their number seems to remain stable now at around 3 500 volunteers per year. In this 
context,  it  is  worth  noting  that  around  6 000  approved  host  placements  for  individual 
volunteers in programme countries are available in the EVS online database. 

Impact on young people 

European Voluntary Service is a decisive step in the lives of the young volunteers: the active 
involvement in the project and the decision to live, learn and work for up to 12 months in a 
foreign  country.  Due  to  its  predominantly  individual  and  long-term  nature,  EVS  generally 
produces an impetus in personal development and a considerable gain in self-confidence. 

18 

 
 
  
 
Very often the impact is also reflected in changed personal educational or professional aims. 
Back home, former EVS volunteers often think and act in a more open, tolerant and helpful 
way.  Another  important  multiplier  effect  is  that  former  volunteers  are  more  likely  to 
participate in other non-formal education activities or to encourage peers to do the same. 

EVS clearly allows young people to acquire new personal, social, intercultural and technical 
skills,  which  can  help  to  increase  their  employability.  The  well-established  and  smooth-
running  system  of  certification  is  seen  as  very  important  in  this  regard.  The  overall 
satisfaction of volunteers with EVS is generally high.  

Impact on youth workers, organisations and local communities 

New  and  inexperienced  organisations  have  systematically  been  involved  and  were  able  to 
create  new  transnational  and  local  partnerships.  Their  regular  voluntary  or  youth  activities 
mostly 
innovation  and 
internationalisation. Many organisations confirmed that without the YOUTH programme they 
would have to reduce considerably their international youth work.  

terms  of  quality  development, 

reap  major  benefits 

in 

As local authorities are considered as eligible hosting or sending organisations, the YOUTH 
programme  is  often  a  leverage  for  starting  international  activities  in  municipalities  or 
complementing existing activities through a transnational volunteer project.  

In  some  programme  countries,  the  role  of  strong,  experienced  networks  or  coordinating 
organisations  is  remarkable.  On  the  one  hand,  these  organisations  and  networks  can  make 
available  considerable  experience  and  expertise  to  the  benefit  of  the  other  partners.  On  the 
other hand, there might be fewer incentives for an active involvement of all partners, and in a 
few cases the added value and profile of EVS is hard to recognise.  

Some  organisations  commented  that  the  funding  level  for  EVS  volunteers  has  put 
considerable strain on them and that their usual volunteering programmes can hardly compete 
with that.  

Youth  workers  involved  in  the  management  of  EVS  projects  acquire  new  skills  and 
competences. Most quoted are organisational skills, solidarity, creativity, a stronger sense of 
responsibility,  strengthened  international  experience  and  intercultural  competence,  fund-
raising and entrepreneurial skills.  

With  regard  to  local  multiplier  effects,  an  interesting  simulation  was  done  in  the  United 
Kingdom: EVS hosting and sending organisations maintained that each volunteer impacts on 
average on 600 people, meaning that in the UK alone, where 700 volunteers are sent abroad 
and hosted, EVS reaches out to 420 000 persons. Other countries refer to sectoral multiplier 
effects;  for  example  when  a  few  orphanages  in  one  country  start  hosting  volunteers,  many 
more orphanages will feel motivated to do the same. 

Impact on policy, legislation and institutions 

The impact of EVS on policy, legislation and institutions is difficult to trace in terms of cause 
and effect. It cannot be determined precisely whether it was the YOUTH programme which 
caused changes in national policy, legislation and institutions. However, it is clear that there is 
an important cross-fertilisation between national developments on the one hand and impulses 
resulting from the YOUTH programme and the White Paper on the other hand.  

19 

 
 
  
 
In countries where there is no national youth policy, or a lack of voluntary service traditions, 
the  YOUTH  programme’s  influence  on  the  development  of  national  youth  policy  and 
voluntary service is particularly strong.  

Some countries described recent changes in the systemic environment, such as an increased 
awareness  of  EVS  in  national  administrations  and  certain  legislative  adaptations  in  order  to 
increase  the  compatibility  and  European/international  dimension  of  national  voluntary 
services.  In  those  countries  which  have  chosen  to  regionalise  the  administration  of  the 
YOUTH  programme  or  to  set  up  regional  multiplier  or  advisory  networks,  there  is  a  strong 
institutional  impact:  regional  authorities  and  bodies  have  been  created  and  assist  in 
monitoring,  information  and  advisory  tasks  or  even  in  selection  procedures.  However,  it 
remains  to  be  seen  to  what  extent  effective  implementation  and  common  criteria  of  the 
programme are ensured in these cases. 

Even though the legal basis of the present YOUTH programme encourages Member States to 
reduce mobility obstacles, many problems linked to the legal, fiscal and social protection of 
volunteers, visa-related questions, the recognition of non-formal learning, etc. persist. A legal 
status for volunteers exists in only a few countries.  

The  certification  of  the  non-formal  learning  experience  under  EVS  by  means  of  an  EVS 
certificate, signed by the responsible Commissioner, is valued positively. The same is true for 
the recent streamlining of the certificate procedure. EVS is the only Action under the YOUTH 
programme where such certification is provided for. However, the existence of this certificate 
does not yet lead to a systematic recognition of competences and skills. 

European  Voluntary  Service  has  also  contributed  to  increased  national  awareness  of  the 
situation in other European countries and at European level. The First European Conference 
on  Civic  Service  and  Youth,  held  on  28/29  November  2003  in  Rome,  was  the  first  step  in 
exchanging  information  and  best  practice  between  national  civic  services  and  youth  policy 
departments at European level, and the intention is to continue this process in 2004. 

Finally  some  countries  highlight  a  certain  disproportion  between  the  relatively  high  cost 
related to EVS and the rather low numbers of EVS volunteers per year. In addition, the mostly 
individual nature of EVS limits its impact and visibility. 

3.5.4.  Conclusions concerning Action 2 

There  is  no  doubt  that  European  Voluntary  Service  should  be  maintained  as  a  crucial  and 
recognisable  Action  under  the  future  programme.  Systematic  further  development  is 
recommended  in  order  to  increase  its  accessibility,  user-friendliness,  impact,  visibility, 
effectiveness and efficiency.  

– 

– 

It is recommended that longer or more intensive preparatory measures  (preparatory 
visits, training, language courses) be introduced.  

More emphasis should be put on a strong partnership, including the involvement of 
the  volunteer.  Additional  support  or  systematic  involvement  of  other  partners,  e.g. 
mentors or ex-volunteer associations, might be helpful for quality development and 
achieve higher sustainability.  

More user-friendly EVS – instruments, procedures, formats 

– 

EVS needs to be lighter in terms of procedure and formal requirements.  

20 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The period from project idea to implementation needs to be shortened.  

A  more  intense  follow-up  and/or  evaluation  phase  could  become  part  of  an  EVS 
project and possibly also integrate what has been “Future Capital”so far. 

Decentralisation of the “host expression of interest” procedure and a generally faster 
and less cumbersome accreditation and application procedure are recommended.  

The  establishment  of  minimum  quality  standards  for  host  projects,  which  is 
independent  of  Community  funding,  could  be  a  decisive  step  towards  promoting 
EVS as a quality label and role model for transnational volunteering.  

Whereas  EVS  should  remain  decentralised,  it  is  recommended  that  certain 
complementary  project  formats would need to  be  maintained  at  centralised  level  in 
order  to  allow  for  innovative,  multilateral,  collective,  cross-action  or  multiannual 
activities. 

Accessibility 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

It is recommended that the accessibility of EVS should be improved. 

It should be examined whether, how and when EVS could reach an annual number of 
10 000 young Europeans.  

Young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  should  remain  the  main  target  group  and 
EVS needs to be developed further in order to accommodate their needs. 

It is suggested that an 18-30 age limit be introduced, while allowing this limit to be 
lowered in exceptional cases, although there is no general consensus on this issue.  

It  is  also  recommended  that  EVS  remains  open  to  small,  inexperienced  and  local 
organisations, which might need special support and training too. 

Funding 

The mutual financial interdependence created by the split-funding system is starting to put the 
smooth running of EVS at risk.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Any  alternative  to  split-funding  should  be  considered,  but  this  should  not  result  in 
abandoning the joint responsibility of the project partners and National Agencies. 

Sponsoring  of  EVS  projects,  zero-grants,  a  labelling  system  without  Community 
funding, shorter project duration and reduced funding levels per participant are also 
suggested. 

Some  NGOs  proposed  that  the  introduction  of  a  flat-rate-like  mobility  voucher  for 
volunteers, students and trainings be examined.  

Preparatory and evaluation/follow-up activities should receive stronger support.  

The principles of flat rates, fixed amounts and cofunding in EVS are seen as positive 
and should be maintained. 

21 

 
 
  
 
Recognition 

– 

It is recommended that continued EVS certification should go hand in hand with an 
increased recognition of EVS as a non-formal learning experience at all levels, e.g. 
through  legislation,  voluntary  agreements,  stronger  links  with  the  Europass  or  a 
bonus system, which facilitates access to formal education and employment.  

Legal framework 

Important  impulses  are  expected  from  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  in  the  field  of 
voluntary activity by young people. EVS is expected to help achieve some of the objectives of 
the “youth voluntary activity” priority of the White Paper.  

– 

– 

Special attention will therefore need to be focused on removing mobility obstacles in 
Member States.  

In the majority of European countries there is no specific legislation, status or policy 
concerning volunteers. This is generally considered a major mobility obstacle, as it 
leads to the treatment of volunteers as paid workers, students or trainees and to the 
taxation of their pocket money, the loss of social security benefits or difficulties in 
obtaining residence permits. 

3.6. 

Action 3 - Youth initiatives 

3.6.1.  Framework 

The  specific  aims  of  Action  3  are  defined  in  the  Annex  to  Decision  1031/2000/EC 
establishing the Youth programme as follows: 

“In  order  to  encourage  initiative  and  creativity  amongst  young  people,  the  Community  will 
support  projects  in  which  young  people  actively  and  directly  participate  in  innovative  and 
creative schemes and in schemes which focus on the social commitment of young people at 
local, regional, national or European level. These projects will allow young people to develop 
their initiative and to put into practice activities of their own devising in which they play the 
key role. The Community will support initiatives designed to help young volunteers to make 
the  best  possible  use  of  the  experience  they  have  gained  during  their  period  of  voluntary 
service and to encourage their active integration into society. Those initiatives taken by young 
people  after  completing  their  European  Voluntary  Service  will  allow  them  to  launch  and 
promote activities of a social, cultural, socio-cultural and economic nature and/or aim at their 
personal  development.  Priority  access  will  be  given  to  those  young  people  most  in  need. 
Support  will  aim  at  encouraging  extension  of  these  projects  to  include  similar  initiatives 
conducted in other Member States in order to strengthen their transnational nature and greatly 
expand exchanges of experience and cooperation between young people. This aid may include 
organising  meetings  of  young  promoters  of  Europe-wide  initiatives.  Financial  aid  may  be 
granted towards the effective establishment of stable, transnational partnerships between such 
projects”. 

3.6.2. 

Implementation 

a) 

Overall assessment 

Action 3, the most recent action of the Youth programme, experienced some teething troubles 
when  the  programme  got  under  way.  Both  the  users  and  the  National  Agencies  found  the 

22 

 
 
  
 
action,  with  its  three  strands  (youth  initiatives,  networking  projects  and  Future  Capital, 
difficult  to  implement.  Despite  the  efforts  made  to  harmonise  the  rules  through  the  User’s 
Guide,  it  was  interpreted  and  developed  differently  in  the  various  countries  involved  in  the 
programme  up  to  2002.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission  organised  seminars  to  discuss  and 
evaluate Action 3 in 2002 and 2003. 

The impact studies and the two evaluation seminars showed that, overall, the initiatives were 
developing well in most of the programme countries. They had opened up the programme to a 
larger public and often to groups to disadvantaged young people. 

However, the concept of the networking projects was obviously not clear enough. In 2003, the 
Commission  clarified  the  criteria  in  the  User’s  Guide  and  increased  the  lump  sums.  It  also 
opened up access to all interested young people, whereas up to 2002 it had been reserved for 
previous beneficiaries of group initiative projects.  

Future  Capital  enables  young  people  who  have  carried  out  European  Voluntary  Service  to 
organise  a  project  on  their  own  as  an  extension  of  their  voluntary  service.  This  part  of  the 
programme, which differs from group initiatives and networking projects, appears to be out of 
place in Action 3, and so far the opportunities it offers have largely been neglected by young 
people.  

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

The  impact  study  showed  that  the  lump-sum  system  had  proved  itself  to  be  effective  and 
should  be  maintained  in  the  future.  In  order  to  facilitate  access  to  Action  3  for  all  young 
people, several countries asked for the grant application forms and reporting arrangements to 
be simplified further. 

Decentralising  the  management  of  Action  3  was  beneficial,  particularly  in  respect  of 
increasing  flexibility  and  the  support  mechanism  for  young  people  who  were  launching  or 
running  a  project.  Some  countries  proposed  going  one  step  further  and  devolving  project 
management. 

Some  countries  said  that  the  accompanying  measures  under  Action  5  should  be  used  more 
systematically to support Action 3. 

In the same vein, several countries wanted the role of the intermediate and relay organisations 
supporting  young  people  preparing  an  Action  3  project  to  be  reinforced.  The  quality  of 
projects  was  shown  to  improve  if  guidance  for  young  people  and  sound  supervisory 
arrangements for the projects were in place. 

3.6.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action 

19.4 million euro were allocated to Action 3 for Young People’s Initiatives and Future Capital 
between 2000 and 2002 under the Youth budget. 58 954 young people took part in the 3 314 
projects financed by the Commission. 

Impact on young people 

The impact study showed that Action 3 contributes to meeting the general and specific aims 
of  the  Youth  programme.  It  enables  young  people  not  only  to  design  their  own  project  in 
accordance  with  their  ideas  and  convictions  and  in  line  with  their  own  aims,  but  also  to 
implement it themselves. In this way, they embark on a process of informal and non-formal 

23 

 
 
  
 
learning  which  teaches  them  to  take  decisions,  assume  responsibilities,  plan  a  project  and 
bring it to fruition. This is a collective learning process for the group initiative and networking 
project strands, whilst in Future Capital it is an individual learning process. It is particularly in 
the group initiative and networking project contexts that young people develop projects which 
promote participation and active commitment in society. In assuming an active role in running 
the  project,  they  are  made  aware  of  the  values  of  democracy,  tolerance,  solidarity,  cultural 
diversity and the dangers of social exclusion, racism and xenophobia. 

At  a  more  individual  level,  carrying  out  Action  3  projects  enables  young  people  to  acquire 
skills  which  are  allied  to  occupational  skills,  such  as  communication,  negotiation  and 
argumentation,  project  management  and  financial  management,  computer  skills  and 
knowledge  of  languages.  At  the  same  time,  they  acquire  more  self-confidence  and  learn  to 
work in a team to plan a project, solve problems and develop skills which are more social in 
nature. 

Another  question  which  arises  is  change  in  the  age  limit.  Developing  group  initiatives  or 
networking projects is a very complex activity and difficult for people aged between 15 and 
20 to carry out. In general, it is young people of around 25 who present Action 3 projects. 

The  impact  study  showed  that  this  experience  of  non-formal  learning  is  not  recognised  or 
validated at regional and national level, which detracts from part of the programme impact. 

One  of  the  strengths  of  Action  3  and  its  group  initiative  strand  is  its  accessibility  to  young 
people “in difficulties”. It has proved a valuable instrument in a strategy of social inclusion to 
promote access to such young people. 

Group  initiatives  and  networking  projects  form  gateways  to  other  actions  in  the  Youth 
programme. The majority of projects are proposed by new groups which hitherto have never 
participated  in  the  programme.  For  many  young  people,  the  local  project  is  the  first  stage 
before  going  on  to  a  “more  sophisticated”  activity  involving  cooperation  with  foreign 
partners. In this respect, Action 3 enables young people to be integrated in the programme and 
the public to be diversified. 

We  have  been  told  that  the  number  of  young  people  involved  in  the  “Foundation  for  the 
Future” strand is very small. In many countries, none of the appropriations allocated for this 
action have been used. It is also expensive in per capita terms without having produced any 
really convincing results so far. 

Impact on youth workers and organisations 

As  regards  the  impact  of  Action  3  on  youth  workers,  the  Youth  programme  in  general  and 
Action  3  in  particular  enhance  the  quality  of  their  work  and  give  a  European  or  even 
international dimension to youth work. Social and youth workers must acquire international 
cooperation  skills  and  find  networks  of  partners  abroad  to  be  able  to  supervise  Youth 
programme projects. However, we should bear in mind the fact that Action 3 has less of an 
impact  on  youth  workers  than  the  other  actions  of  the  programme  because  the  group 
initiatives  are  devised  by  young  people  themselves.  However,  the  quality  of  the  project 
improves when young people are guided and counselled by youth workers. Unfortunately, the 
multiplier effect is not always ideal, since not all the youth workers who have participated in a 
project really use this experience for the benefit of future projects. 

24 

 
 
  
 
Impact on policies, legislation and public administrations 

Group  initiatives  and  networking  projects  are,  in  general,  projects  which  do  have  a  certain 
profile and give an opportunity to municipalities to get to know young people and to become 
aware of their concerns and aspirations. In this respect, they contribute to the feeling of being 
part of Europe at local authority level. 

On a more general level, the Youth programme has contributed to making not only political 
decision-makers  but  also  public  opinion  more  aware  of  themes  relating  to  European  youth 
policy at national, regional and local level. The White Paper on youth played a key role in this 
respect  but  Youth  programme  projects  have  also  helped  to  give  visibility  to  the  ‘Europe  of 
Youth’. This is particularly true of group initiatives which often have a high local profile. 

This action has had such an impact that some countries contribute their own funds to support 
a larger number of projects. 

3.6.4.  Conclusions 

In  conclusion,  one  can  say  that  the  aims  of  Action  3  are  mainly  met  thanks  to  group 
initiatives.  Their  impact  on  young  people  can  clearly  be  seen  in  terms  of  personal 
development,  sense  of  identity  (self-confidence,  flexibility,  independence,  initiative  and 
responsibility) and an open-minded political stance (practical approach to Europe, a feeling of 
belonging to Europe). This strand of Action 3 should keep its place in the future programme. 

The  networking  projects  give  a  European  and  intercultural  learning  dimension  to  group 
initiative projects. In this respect, they may be seen as more ambitious than group initiative 
projects.  After  a  difficult  start,  they  increased  in  number  and  quality  in  2003  thanks  to  the 
support measures instituted for this action by the Commission and the National Agencies. 

These  two  types  of  action  should  keep  their  place  in  the  programme:  the  group  initiatives 
because  they  largely  promote  social  integration  and  the  networking  projects  because  they 
reinforce the European dimension of Action 3. 

The group initiatives and networking projects can make a genuine contribution to reinforcing 
the  non-formal  and  informal  educational  dimension  of  the  Youth  programme.  They  can 
constitute  a  valuable  tool  for  implementing  the  top  priorities  of  the  White  Paper  on  Youth, 
namely active participation, independence, information, social integration and employability. 

As  regards  the  Future  Capital  strand,  the  results  are  less  conclusive.  The  small  number  of 
projects conducted so far has not had enough impact to justify upholding this strand in Action 
3. 

As regards the future development of the action, the national authorities consider that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  action  should  be  developed  along  the  lines  of  active  participation  of  young 
people, non-formal and informal learning and social inclusion; 

the target group should basically be young people with fewer opportunities; 

bridges should be created between all the actions to meet young people’s needs; 

bridges  should  be  created  between  non-formal  and  informal  education  and  vice 
versa; 

25 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

the  Youth  programme  should  complement  the  Socrates  and  Leonardo  da  Vinci 
programmes and other policies, in particular culture, sport and employment policies; 

the  achievements  of  non-formal  and  informal  education  need  to  be  recognised 
(certification  of  skills  at  the  end  of  the  project  as  with  the  Europass  experiment 
(Leonardo da Vinci programme) or the pilot personal record of achievement tested 
by the UK National Agency; 

it should be possible to extend the age limit for Action 3 to 30; 

support  for  Action  3.1  (group  initiatives  and  networking  projects)  should  be 
reinforced,  particularly  by  using  Action  5  to  offer  contact  seminars  to  prepare 
networking projects. 

3.7. 

Action 4 - Joint actions 

3.7.1.  Framework 

The  specific  aims  of  Action  4  are  defined  in  the  Annex  to  Decision  1031/2000/EC 
establishing the Youth programme as follows: 

“Having  regard  to  the  need  for  a  flexible  and  creative  approach  as  a  precondition  for 
cooperation  between  sectors,  Community  aid  may  be  granted  for  the  actions  referred  to  in 
Article  6  of  the  Decision  and  for  activities  to  be  undertaken  jointly  with  other  Community 
schemes  relating  to  the  Europe  of  knowledge,  in  particular  Community  programmes  in  the 
field of education and vocational training.  

(…)  Those  projects  will  cover  a  range  of  schemes  from  a  number  of  different  sectors 
including youth. They may be funded in a complementary manner by a number of different 
Community programmes and may be implemented by means of calls for joint projects. 

Appropriate  measures  may  be  adopted  to  promote,  at  regional  and  local  level,  contact  and 
interaction  between  those  participating  in  this  programme  and  in  programmes  dealing  with 
vocational  training  and  education.  In  this  context,  activities  increasing  awareness  of  the 
opportunities provided by the Community to young people may be supported.” 

Given  this  rather  vague  and  abstract  legal  basis,  the  Commission  has  so  far  opted  to 
implement joint actions through calls for proposals.  

3.7.2. 

Implementation  

a) 

Overall assessment 

Joint  actions  are  mainly  implemented  by  calls  for  proposals  under  the  three  programmes 
Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth. The first call for proposals was organised in 2001, 
which is why the Commission now only has very few projects which could be evaluated. Six 
projects  were  selected  in  2001  with  contracts  being  signed  in  March  2002.  Three  of  these 
projects  are  on  “Creating  qualification  gateways:  a  system  for  transferring  lifelong  training 
credits”,  two  projects  on  “Counselling  and  guidance  services”  and  a  single  project  on 
“Multidisciplinary  and  e-learning  centres”.  In  2002,  fifteen  projects  were  selected  with 
contracts  being  signed  for  fourteen  of  them  in  March  2003  using  deferred  appropriations. 
Three of the projects are aimed at developing the theme of guidance and counselling at local 
level ("Local guidance networks"), six projects deal with "Social integration of target groups" 

26 

 
 
  
 
and five with "Active citizenship for young people". In 2003, sixteen projects were selected in 
July and contracts will be signed before the end of the year. These projects are on the themes 
of "Active citizenship for young people" and introduce the topics "Integration of the disabled" 
and "Validation of non-formal and informal education". 

Given the fact that the 2002 projects have just started up, there are only six projects which can 
currently be subjected to in-depth qualified assessment. Critical mass has not yet been reached 
and it is therefore too early to say anything meaningful about their results.  

However,  we  can  already  take  stock  of  the  experience  of  joint  actions  in  terms  of 
organisation.  This  new  action  had  some  teething  troubles  but  has  the  merit  of  having  made 
programmes  open  themselves  up  more  to  other  programmes,  to  engage  in  a  process  of 
discussion  on  common  themes  and  to  cooperate  and  coordinate  with  one  another.  In 
administrative  and  financial  terms,  despite  the  harmonisation  problems,  rules,  common 
procedures and models of standard contracts have been developed.  

Finally,  joint  actions  have  allowed  the  Commission  to  test  a  new  system  for  monitoring 
projects.  Even  though  projects  are  managed  by  the  lead  Directorates  for  a  given  theme,  the 
contact  partners  of  other  Directorates  were  associated  for  the  first  time  with  the  thematic 
monitoring  of  the  project.  This  new  approach  certainly  contributed  to  a  certain  amount  of 
openness  and  innovation  in  the  projects  and  has  created  new  networks  amongst  the  project 
promoters. 

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

After the first three years of implementation of joint actions, the administrative and financial 
procedures adopted have proved to be cumbersome and complex, particularly with regard to 
the decision-making procedure. An inter-committee group on joint actions was formed, made 
up  of  18  representatives  of  the  three  programmes  without  decision-making  powers.  This 
group meets once or twice a year but only lays down guidelines. For a decision to be made on 
Action 4, the matter has to be brought before the programme committees (Youth, Leonardo 
and  Socrates)  by  a  written  or  oral  procedure  and  the  European  Parliament  must  exercise  its 
powers of scrutiny.  

3.7.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action 

According to the opinion of the inter-committee group on joint actions, their current aims are 
realistic  and  meet  a  genuine  need.  Large-scale  pilot  or  “laboratory”  projects  can  enable 
ambitious  aims  to  be  achieved.  However,  it  is  questionable  whether  the  action  should  be 
restricted to these major projects and whether it would not be more useful to enable smaller 
projects  to  be  funded  within  the  framework  of  joint  actions  in  order  to  involve  the  youth 
sector. This would also enable the total number of co-funded projects to be increased.  

In  their  present  form,  joint  actions  appear  a  little  too  inflexible.  The  selection  criteria  are 
relatively stringent and leave little scope for very high-quality projects whose only weakness 
is  not  entirely  meeting  the  criterion  of  transsectoral  cooperation  between  education, 
occupational  training  and  youth.  Experience  has  shown  that  applicants  for  joint  action 
projects  often  resort  to  somewhat  artificial  means  in  an  effort  to  prove  that  there  is 
cooperation  between  the  three  sectors.  It  might  be  more  useful  to  limit  the  requirements  to 
partnerships  involving  two  sectors  and  to  be  more  demanding  with  regard  to  the  criteria  of 
innovation, methodology and impact. 

27 

 
 
  
 
Another option suggested would be to give promoters more freedom to choose the theme for a 
joint action project. Several members of the inter-committee group asked for the theme to be 
left  completely  open  to  allow  project  promoters  to  realise  their  own  ideas  as  long  as  they 
contributed to achieving the action’s aims.  

A  greater  effort  will  need  to  be  made  to  validate  joint  activities  and  to  ensure  they  are  still 
visible alongside major programmes.  

The  final  question  is  whether  a  call  for  proposals  is  the  best  way  of  implementing  joint 
actions. At this stage it is too early to say anything conclusive. However, calls for proposals 
might usefully be complemented by other types of activities such as studies, partnerships at 
various  levels  and  actions  to  disseminate  good  practice,  raise  awareness  or  promote 
communication. 

3.7.4.  Conclusions with regard to Action 4 – Joint actions 

Action 4 got off to a difficult start and the main recommendations are as follows:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Procedures should be simplified. 

The  inter-committee  group  should  have  a  more  specific  mandate  and  decision-
making powers.  

The  selection  criteria  should  be  made  more  flexible  so  that  any  activity  which  is 
deemed to contribute to achieving the action’s aims can be financed.  

A  strategy  for  communication,  information  and  validation  of  results  needs  to  be 
developed to give joint activities a high profile.  

The existing website and the compendium of projects funded could be improved. 

3.8. 

Action 5 

3.8.1.  Framework 

The objectives of the Action are defined in the Annex to Decision No 1031/2000/EC on the 
Youth programme. This action focuses mainly on: 

– 

– 

– 

training of and cooperation with those involved in youth policy; 

information for young people and youth studies; 

information and visibility of measures. 

3.8.2. 

Implementation 

a) 

Overall assessment 

Action  5  offers  beneficiaries  and  National  Agencies  a  variety  of  forms  of  training  and  co-
operation activities with the aim of assisting the development of the other Youth Actions and 
strengthening European youth policy. 

Evaluators within the framework of the impact study and the 'Action 5 evaluation workshop' 
with youth workers in 2003 perceive the Action as improving the access of young people to 

28 

 
 
  
 
the other Actions  especially by developing youth workers' skills, by creating and sustaining 
partnerships  and  networks  and  by  increasing  the  self-confidence  and  motivation  of 
participants. The Action is seen as a very valuable tool for informing young people about the 
Youth programme priorities. 

In many countries, Action 5 is a major instrument for developing national youth policy in its 
international  context  with  a  direct  impact  on the  quality  of national  youth  work.  By  linking 
the  local  and  regional  to  the  European  level,  Action  5  introduces  innovative  elements  into 
youth work on the spot with considerable potential for multiplier effects. 

While  there  is  general  agreement  about  the  Action's  strong  role  in  fostering  tolerance  and 
cultural  diversity,  its  impact  on  inclusion  is  reported  but  should  be  further  strengthened. 
Further  action  is  needed,  with  regard  to  very  disadvantaged  young  people  and  especially  in 
the case of young people living in remote and rural areas. 

Beyond Action 5 as specified in the User's Guide, a yearly call for large scale projects within 
Action 5 enables beneficiaries to work on main Youth priorities like inclusion and anti-racism 
within the framework of long-term projects focusing on innovation in training, co-operation 
and information. Outcomes of large-scale projects receive positive feedback. The main issue 
for reinforcement with regard to large-scale projects and the Action in general is the visibility 
of projects and the dissemination of best practices. 

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

Evaluators state that Action 5, compared to its aims, is an effective instrument with its main 
strengths in training effects, networking, motivation and “youth empowerment”. 

With three different strands - programme countries, third countries, National Agency Training 
and Co-operation Plan -  and nine activities, “Support Measures” is  one of the programme’s 
more  complex  actions.  Its  complexity  is  seen  both  as  a  productive  element  in  stimulating 
project ideas as well as rigid in limiting room for manoeuvre at application level. 

Although beneficiaries find it easier to handle the shorter-duration Action 5 activities, which 
last several days or weeks, they emphasise the need to also have long-term activities of up to 
one year to initiate and sustain projects and networks in the field of training. 

Evaluators mention that Action 5, which had its main focus on supporting Actions 1 and 2, 
should also be used for Action 3. They underline that greater emphasis should be put on the 
quantitative evaluation of Action 5 follow-up projects. 

Programme  countries  tend  to  welcome  steps  taken  to  decentralise  the  Action  inside  the 
country.  Several  of  them  underline  the  fact  that  decentralisation  leads  to  more  transparency 
and proximity. Especially for young people with fewer opportunities and, more specifically, 
those living in remote rural areas, the availability of contact persons in their region is crucial. 

The  introduction  of  the  flat-rate  system  for  most  Action  5  activities  received  unanimous 
approval  from  beneficiaries,  who  find  it  easier  now  to  estimate  and  budget  for  the  costs  of 
their  projects.  The  change  allowed  beneficiaries  to  focus  more  strongly  on  the  content. 
Nevertheless, a number of beneficiaries ask for a 100% refund of travel costs, especially for 
third country projects and projects involving a larger number of participants from candidate 
countries. 

29 

 
 
  
 
3.8.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the action 

In the period 2000-2002, 32.3 million € were committed for Action 5.1. projects. The 4 031 
projects  funded  involved  a  total  of  91  610  participants  -  youth  workers,  young  people  and 
representatives of NGOs. 

Out  of  the  174  applications  submitted  for  the  first  three  calls  for  large-scale  Action  5  co-
operation,  training  and  information  projects,  34  large-scale  projects  have  been  selected  and 
implemented. 

Training, quality, networking, innovation, access 

Access,  training,  quality,  networking  and  innovation  are  described  as  strongly  interlinked 
elements. 

Action  5  'training'  allows  for  a  "personal  quality  development  process"  of  participants  who 
acquire  skills  and  competencies  in  international  youth  work  especially  in  the  areas  of 
tolerance, inclusion and participation. In several countries, Youth training  is one of the rare 
possibilities  for  youth  workers  to  receive  training.  Peer  education  is  seen  as  an  essential 
element of Youth training. 

Trained  youth  workers  are  enabled  to  create,  contribute  to  and  sustain  'networks',  which 
themselves lead to a continuous exchange of experiences, possible innovation and the creation 
of new projects. Effective networking is seen as indispensable for bringing innovation to the 
operational level. A wider and efficient use of IT, publishing best practice projects and other 
websites is seen as a possibility for overcoming the communication gap regarding innovation. 

The role of Action 5 in giving access to the programme and its openness to all young people 
are very much appreciated. The wide range of different activities is perceived as being well 
designed  to  prepare  and  improve  the  quality  of  projects  within  Actions  1-3.  Former 
participants in Action 1-3 projects often come back to Action 5 and, in such a way, multiply 
their experience. 

While  the  contribution  of  Action  5  training  measures  to  the  other  Actions  is  nearly 
unanimously acknowledged, reports deplore the fact that the quantitative evaluation of Action 
5 follow-up projects in the form of youth exchanges or EVS projects is rare. 

Impact on young people 

The impact of Action 5 on the personal development of young people is widely discussed and 
appreciated. The Action helps young people to develop their creativity and own initiatives, to 
get the skills and self-confidence to set up projects and to be financially responsible for them. 
Action 5 is said to improve motivation, language and communication skills, competencies in 
group dynamics and conflict management, and to contribute to a European consciousness. 

Involvement of young people in the planning, preparation and implementation of the project 
is  important,  as  this  creates  ownership  of  the  project  by  young  people.  Training  and  peer-
education are seen as essential tools for ensuring this involvement. 

Impact on youth workers, organisations and local communities 

The Action has a considerable impact on youth workers with regard to "quality awareness" 
and "expertise" in the Youth programme's priorities. Qualification measures lead to a further 

30 

 
 
  
 
professionalisation. As youth work differs a great deal from country to country, the setting of 
international standards is seen as an important step to continuously improved quality. 

Beyond developing capacities concerning horizontal Youth priorities, Action 5 is reported as 
being  specifically  effective  in  improving  practical  youth  work  skills  such  as  team  building, 
awareness  of  different  pedagogical  approaches,  working  methods  and  presentation 
techniques.  Contributions  highlight  the  Action's  role  in  motivating  youth  workers  and  in 
helping  them  to  understand  the  relevance  of  their  own  work.  Through  comparison  at 
international level, Action 5 also leads to a "healthy competition among peers". 

With regard to organisations, the important role of Action 5 in establishing new partnerships 
and  extending  existing  ones  is  underlined.  Bilateral  relations  become  tri-  and  multilateral, 
partnerships  become  more  balanced  and  less  dominated  by  one  organisation  and  they  often 
continue outside the Youth programme. For many organisations, Action 5 introduces for the 
first  time  "network  thinking"  into  youth  work.  For  smaller  organisations  in  particular,  it  is 
important to widen their range of contacts. 

Action  5  contributes  to  the  professionalisation  of  youth  organisations  and  encourages 
comparison  between  organisations  themselves  not only with  regard to  different nationalities 
or  cultures  but  also  types  of  organisation  and  working  styles.  The  Youth  programme  and 
Action  5  bring  "continuity,  predictability  and  structure  to  transnational  co-operation  and 
introduce grass-roots level work into it". 

The impact of Action 5 on local communities happens at several different levels: 

– 

– 

Youth  organisations  -  municipality:  "Establishing  closer  contacts  with  people 
employed  in  the  municipality  could  promote  the  clubs'  and  organisations' 
development  and  result  in  a  larger  political  and  economical  spillover  effect." 
Participating groups and organisations often strengthen their co-operation with local 
authorities, stabilise their co-operation with the municipal youth affairs departments 
and put more focus on international activities in general. 

Participating  organisations  can  motivate  youth  organisations  from  the  same 
community to start international youth work themselves.  

Impact on policy, legislation and institutions 

Although  the  impact  of  Action  5  on  national,  regional  and  local  policy  is  stated  in  general 
terms, few examples of concrete effects are given. There is general agreement, however, that 
these policies and European policy should complement each other. 

In  some  cases,  European  youth  and  youth  work  policy  seem  to  replace  youth  policy  at 
national, regional or local level. The strongest impact reported concerns the municipal level 
(see  above).  Involving  municipalities  and  also  local  politicians  proved  to  be  fruitful  and 
contributes  to  moving  their  focus  more  to  international  activities.  It  helps  to  overcome 
prejudice and racism at local level. 

3.8.4.  Conclusions 

Concerning  the  future  development  of  the  Action,  evaluators  emphasise  the  further 
development  of  youth  work  and  youth  policy  in  Europe  with  a  focus  on  White  Paper 
at 
objectives 

strengthening  networks  of 

co-operation 

and  on 

creating 

and 

31 

 
 
  
 
European/national/regional/local level with a higher profile at local level, where young people 
with fewer opportunities can in particular be reached more easily. 

Youth policy - youth work - priorities 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In some cases, European youth policy and youth work seem to replace youth policy 
at national, regional and local level. There is general agreement that youth policy and 
youth work approaches at the different levels should complement each other. 

Setting  international  standards  in  youth  work  could  contribute  to  continuously 
improved quality in youth work. 

The  programme  should  have  the  possibility  of  financing  youth  research-related 
projects both with regard to the Youth programme itself but also in the wider sense 
of youth. 

The Action's impact on the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities needs 
to be further strengthened. 

Structure of the current Action 

– 

– 

The  Action's  complexity  is  seen  both  as  a  productive  element  but  also  as  limiting 
room for manoeuvre at application level. 

Certain  Action  5  activities  should  be  used  to  prepare  not  only  Actions  1  and  2  but 
also Action 3. 

Selection process, decision making, feedback and follow-up 

– 

– 

– 

Youth  workers  would  like  to  be  more  involved  in  the  selection  process  and  better 
informed about who is involved in the decision making process. 

Participants would like to be given clearer reasons in writing why their projects were 
rejected, to be able to improve the quality of their next application. After the end of 
their project, they would very much like to get feedback on the quality of their work. 

The quantitative evaluation of Action 1, 2 and 3 projects resulting from an Action 5 
project should be strengthened. 

Visibility - networking - transferability 

– 

– 

Better  dissemination  of  best-practice  projects  by  publishing  them  more  widely  on 
different websites and the use of the full potential of the network involved (National 
Agencies, Regional Centres, SALTOs, Council of Europe). 

Further  decentralisation  within  the  programme  countries  could  lead  to  more 
transparency  and  proximity,  fostering  especially  the  inclusion  of  those  living  in 
remote areas and young people with fewer opportunities in general. 

32 

 
 
  
 
3.9. 

Actions with third countries 

3.9.1.  Framework 

Four  geographical  priorities  for  Youth  third  country  co-operation  have  been  defined  by  the 
Commission and the programme Committee: as first priority, the countries neighbouring the 
enlarged  EU,  i.e.  the  Mediterranean  basin  (Morocco,  Algeria,  Tunisia,  Egypt,  Lebanon, 
Jordan, Syria, Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Turkey, Cyprus, Malta) , South East Europe 
(Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia 
and  Montenegro),  and  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States  (Armenia,  Azerbaijan, 
Belarus,  Georgia,  Moldova,  Russia,  Ukraine),  and,  as  second  priority,  Latin  America 
(Argentina,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Chile,  Colombia,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  Ecuador,  Guatemala, 
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela). 

Third  country  cooperation  under  the  Youth  programme  aims  at  promoting  universal  peace, 
dialogue, tolerance and solidarity amongst young people. The main objectives are furthermore 
to build long-lasting and solid partnerships, as well as to promote the exchange of youth work 
expertise  and  know-how  between  non-governmental  and  governmental  structures  in  the  EU 
and  third  countries.  Activities  involving  third  countries  should  give  participants  a  better 
understanding of their respective situations and cultures and help them explore their identities. 
They  are  also  intended  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the  voluntary  sector  and  civil 
society in the partner countries, and to make it possible for partners in third countries to gain 
experience in the field of non-formal education and to contribute to the development of youth 
work and associations in those countries. 

The  overall  objectives  of  the  Euro-Mediterranean  Youth  programme  are  to  improve  mutual 
knowledge, understanding and dialogue between youth in the Mediterranean partners and in 
the  EU  and  to  stimulate  young  people’s  active  citizenship,  in  particular  by  young  women, 
within  their  local  communities  and  youth  NGOs  contributions  to  their  country’s  public  life. 
The specific objectives are to provide informal intercultural learning opportunities for young 
people,  to  provide  training  opportunities  for  youth  workers  and  youth  leaders,  to  exchange 
experiences and good practices, to promote the development of non-profit-making structures, 
to  improve  co-operation  with  civil  society  as  an  element  of  democratic  reform,  to  inform 
youth  NGOs  and  to  promote  greater  understanding  between  the  cultures  of  the  27  Euro-
Mediterranean  partners  and  a  better  perception  of  each  other,  as  well  as  to  increase  the 
participation of Mediterranean partner NGOs in Youth NGO transnational networks. 

Three  of  the  five  Youth  programme  actions  are  open  to  cooperation  with  third  countries: 
Action 1 (Youth for Europe), Action 2 (European Voluntary Service) and Action 5 (Support 
Measures). 

3.9.2. 

Implementation 

a) 

Overall assessment 

On  average,  around  8%  of  the  annual  Youth  budget  has  been  allocated  to  co-operation 
between  the  30  programme  countries  and  42  third  countries.  In  the  framework  of  the  Euro-
Mediterranean Youth programme, the Youth budget has been substantially supplemented by 
funds from MEDA. 

The  third  country  cooperation  strand  of  the  programme  has  registered  a  comparatively  high 
demand  in  relation  to  the  available  funds.  On  average,  the  rate  between  number  of 

33 

 
 
  
 
applications  and  number  of  approved  projects  was  around  55%,  which  is  a  lower  ‘success 
rate’ than the one registered in the programme countries’ activities. 

The European added value of the Action lies in its contribution to a European foreign policy 
and the promotion of a positive perception of Europe in the world, as well as the recognition 
of a Europe based on values of democracy and solidarity and its contribution to the creation of 
a  European  identity  and  to  the  opening  up  of  cooperation  with  countries  with  which  not  all 
Member States may have bilateral agreements.  

b) 

Operational mechanisms 

The  implementation  of  the  Action  relies  almost  exclusively  on  micro-projects.  Although 
cumbersome and demanding in terms of human resources, this approach has been confirmed 
as the most suitable one for ensuring proximity to the citizen and accessibility to small grass-
roots  organisations  and  groups  which  characterise  the  youth  field.  Larger-scale  cross-action 
multi-annual  projects,  such  as  youthNET  and  the  Balkan  Youth  Project,  have  succeeded  in 
increasing  visibility  and  accessibility  in  third  countries,  as  well  as  contributing  to  building 
partnerships and networks. They are valid but should not replace micro-projects. 

the  coherence  of  external  relations  actions.  Another  disadvantage 

Due  to  the  large  number  of  small  contracts,  management  of  the  action  has  been  gradually 
decentralised to National Agencies. This management mode has the advantage of being closer 
to the users and in principle speeding up the selection and contracting process, albeit to the 
detriment  of 
is 
fragmentation  into  small  budgets,  which  creates  contradictions  between  promotion  and 
capacity  to  satisfy  demand.  On  the  other  hand,  positive  effects  are  expected  in  terms  of 
increased promotion and visibility thanks to the activities of the NA. Decentralisation is also 
gradually contributing to a more active involvement of those Programme countries, which had 
registered few or no projects with third countries when the budget was distributed centrally. 

Part of the Action (projects by European NGOs and projects submitted by organisations in the 
southern  Mediterranean  countries)  has  remained  centralised  (managed  by  the  Commission), 
and problems with delays in contracts have not been completely reduced. 

As  far  as  project  management  is  concerned,  only  organisations  from  the  Mediterranean 
partner countries can become lead applicants and coordinators of projects in the framework of 
the  Euro-Med  programme,  while  organisations  from  other  third  countries  have  to  apply  via 
their European partners. 

Know-how  and  working  tools  have  been  pooled  by  two  Resource  Centres  established  at 
National  Agencies  (Euro-Med  and  SEE).  These  Resource  Centres  have  proved  valid 
instruments  for  promoting  information,  visibility  and  access  to  the  programme  in  third 
countries. 

The current funding mechanism, i.e. the flat-rate system, has proved more user-friendly than a 
percentage funding. However, it is more rigid and does not allow specific situations in third 
countries to be taken into account. Also, the calculation of final payments is complicated in 
the current system, mainly due to different rates applicable per country and the combination 
of percentage of real cost with flat rates within one project. 

As far as instruments  and criteria  are concerned, it has been found that some of the current 
criteria  do  not  fully  correspond  to  the  needs  of  young  people/organisations,  e.g.  the 
requirement  for  exchanges  to  be  multilateral  (at  least  four  partners,  or  five  in  the  case  of 

34 

 
 
  
 
participation  by  a  pre-accession  country)  was  considered  too  demanding  for  many 
organisations/groups.  The  upper  age  limit  sometimes  represents  an  obstacle  to  the 
participation  of  young  people  from  certain  third  countries.  The  requirement  to  work  with 
partners from the same geographical region was felt to be too restrictive by National Agencies 
as well as by organisations and young people, and a mixing of regions within one project was 
recommended. 

3.9.3.  Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions 

18.6  million  €  were  committed  for  third  country  cooperation  between  2000-2002  from  the 
Youth and MEDA budgets (13.7 million from Youth and 4.9 million from MEDA). 41% of 
the funds were allocated to cooperation with the Mediterranean region, 34% to the southern 
and eastern neighbouring regions (SEE 14%, CIS 20%) and 25% to Latin America. Around 
18 000 young people and youth workers/representatives of NGOs benefited from the Action 
by participating in one of the 850 supported projects. The programme has reached an almost 
equal number  of  participants  from the programme countries (53%) and from third countries 
(47%). 

In 2001 and 2002, the Action succeeded in absorbing more funds than initially allocated at the 
beginning  of  the  year  due  to  good  performance  in  terms  of  the  number  of  high-quality 
projects submitted and approved.  

Impact on young people 

The  concrete  achievements  so  far  are  significant  impacts  on  young  people  in  terms  of 
intercultural  learning,  personal  development  and  active  participation  in  society.  The  Action 
has  succeeded  in  improving  mutual  understanding  between  young  Europeans  and  young 
people  from  outside  Europe.  It  contributed  to  a  recognition  of  a  Europe  based  on  values  of 
solidarity and support, particularly in areas of conflict.  

Youth  Exchanges  have  proved  to  be  especially  effective  in  promoting  intercultural 
understanding and European awareness within a wider target group through the impact on the 
local communities hosting the exchanges, whereas EVS has registered a stronger impact on 
the personal development of individuals. 

Impact on youth workers, organisations and local communities 

The Action, mainly through the Support Measures, has also made a significant contribution to 
capacity  building  and  networking  of  youth  workers  and  youth  organisations/structures. 
Organisations benefited from an exchange of experience and from new contacts, often leading 
to the establishment of sustainable partnerships with a view to future cooperation.  

However,  the  fact  that  organisations  from  third  countries  cannot  apply  for  funding 
themselves, but only via a European partner (except Euro-Med Youth), has prevented the full 
potential of the impact on participants from third countries from being realised, as cooperation 
is not fully based on an equal partnership. 

The  Action  has  succeeded  in  raising  awareness  at  local  level  of  the  values  of  non-formal 
education  and  intercultural  learning;  it  has  increased  mutual  knowledge  about  the  other 
countries’ cultures and thereby contributed to fighting cultural prejudices. It has also had an 
impact  on  the  development  of  the  voluntary  sector  and  civil  society  in  the  programme 
countries and in third countries. 

35 

 
 
  
 
A  number  of  differences  have  been  noted  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in  the 
different regions. Action 2 (EVS) proved to be especially difficult to implement in South East 
Europe  and  in  the  Mediterranean  region  because  of  the  lack  of  tradition  and/or  negative 
perceptions  of  voluntary  service  due  to  historic  reasons.  Latin  America  continued  to  be  the 
region where contacts and projects were most easy to implement. This region therefore ranked 
second,  after  the  Mediterranean  region,  in  terms  of  volume  of  activities.  It  was  a  popular 
destination for hosting projects, whereas projects with South East Europe and the CIS were 
more frequently hosted in the programme countries due to certain difficulties related to visa 
and administrative procedures, logistics, bank transfers etc.  

In  addition  to  the  above-mentioned  impacts  registered  in  all  regions,  the  Euro-Med  Youth 
Programme has achieved important further results: the establishment of national structures in 
the  southern  Mediterranean  countries,  which  have  contributed  greatly  to  increased  visibility 
and  accessibility;  and  the  triplication  of  funding  through  the  MEDA  budget  line,  which  has 
facilitated  a  quantitative  and  qualitative  increase  of  projects  implemented  as  well  as  the 
possibility  for  organisations/groups  from  the  Mediterranean  partner  countries  to  apply.  A 
specific  training  strategy  has  been  implemented  by  SALTO  Euro-Med  which  has  further 
contributed to increasing the quality of projects and to creating new partnerships. 

In the other regions, the visibility of the programme has been found to be relatively low and 
organisations  find  it  rather  difficult  to  access  the  programme.  The  creation  of  the  Resource 
Centre  for  South  East  Europe  in  2002,  however,  has  done  a  good  deal  to  improve  this 
situation in the countries of the Western Balkans. 

Impact on policy, legislation and institutions 

Thanks  to  complementary  funding  provided  by  MEDA  in  the  framework  of  the  Euro-Med 
Youth programme, National Coordinators, nominated by the respective Ministries, have been 
established  in  the  Mediterranean  partner  countries.  The  involvement  of  the  authorities  has 
helped  the  programme  to  gain  political  importance  and  visibility,  as  well  as  have  a  more 
direct influence on national youth policy and systems. The more critical aspect of this system, 
however, is the increased control of the programme by governments and occasional conflicts 
of interest between national policy and programme philosophy. 

In other third countries, national authorities are not involved in the programme at all, which 
constitutes a major weakness due to the subsequent lack of structural and policy impact. This 
hampers  sustainability  and  results  in  lack  of  political  support  and  co-funding,  low  visibility 
and  lack  of  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  project  activities  (facilitating  visas, 
partnerships etc.).  

Visa  and  residence  permits  continue  to  constitute  a  major  obstacle  to  third  country 
cooperation. Any further development will depend on whether solutions to this problem can 
be found. 

3.9.4.  Conclusions concerning actions with third countries 

The  validity  of  Youth  cooperation  with  third  countries  has  been  strongly  confirmed  by  the 
stakeholders involved. It has furthermore enhanced the links and cooperation between the EU 
and  its  southern  and  eastern  neighbours  as  well  as  Latin  American  countries  and  thus 
contributed to constructive and dynamic relations with these countries.  

36 

 
 
  
 
Aims and objectives have been confirmed as being extremely relevant and should continue in 
the future. However, the current legal basis does not make sufficient reference to the general 
and specific aims of third country cooperation. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

More efforts have to be made to enhance the visibility of the Action and to improve 
access for organisations based in third countries.  

More efficient dissemination of results and information to local organisations should 
be implemented.  

The model of the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Programme should be transferred to the 
Balkans and the CIS, by creating regional subprogrammes based on complementary 
funding by external budget lines and establishing national coordinating structures. In 
line  with  the  recommendation  to  multiply  the  Resource  Centres,  a  CIS  Resource 
Centre is being established in September/October 2003. 

In addition to their active participation in the programme, the organisations in third 
countries  should  be  enhanced  by  giving  them  the  possibility  of  submitting 
applications and become leading partners in the projects. 

It has  to be  underlined, however,  that  any further  development  of third country  cooperation 
will  depend  heavily  on  progress  made  to  facilitate  the  issue  of  visas  and  residence  permits, 
which currently still constitute a major obstacle to youth mobility.  

– 

It  has  been  strongly  recommended  that  action  be  taken  with  a  view  to  raising 
awareness  with  the  relevant  embassies/consulates,  and  to  continue  providing 
assistance by issuing support letters outlining the non-formal educational character of 
the programme. 

Some considerations should be made concerning the geographic scope of the Action. There is 
less  agreement  on  favouring  Latin  America  over  African  or  Asian  countries.  Young  people 
and  organisations  as  well  as  representatives  of  some  of  the  Member  States  have  shown  a 
strong  interest  in  cooperation  with  other  regions  which  were  considered  just  as  relevant  for 
providing young people with opportunities to develop mutual understanding and solidarity.  

– 

– 

A widening of geographical reach has therefore been recommended. 

Although  recommended  by  the  evaluations,  bilateral  exchanges  should  not  replace 
multilateral ones in order to safeguard the European added value of the Action. They 
might  however  become  eligible  under  certain  conditions,  such  as  for  small 
organisations new to the programme or for countries with two or more ethnic groups.  

As far as administrative and financial procedures are concerned, the current mechanisms have 
proved  to  be  relatively  adequate  and  should  be  continued.  However  minor  adjustments  to 
third country realities could be considered: 

– 

– 

Increase the grant for third country participants’ travel costs to 100%. 

The current system of ‘micro-projects’ could be complemented by a more long-term 
approach,  i.e.  funding  larger  multi-annual  projects  which  would  be  useful  for 
enhancing visibility and allow longer-term planning.  

37 

 
 
  
 
Finally,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  the  terminology  ‘third  countries’  has  been  called  into 
question as it triggers the association with ‘third world countries’.  

– 

It  has  therefore  been  recommended  that  the  terminology  be  changed.  Terms  like 
‘international cooperation’, or ‘cooperation with partner countries’ were considered 
more appropriate, as they would convey a more positive connotation. 

4. 

OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAMME 

The  YOUTH  programme,  which  is  the  subject  of  this  evaluation,  is  a  programme  in  which 
implementation  has  achieved  “cruising  altitude”,  and  although  the  evaluation  comes  a  year 
earlier than the deadline laid down in its legal basis, it provides a general view of results with 
regard to its management, achievements and impact. 

This  evaluation  includes  the  results  of  impact  studies  by  countries  participating  in  the 
programme,  some  external  evaluations  and  various  specific  seminars.  These  various  results 
are  consistent  with  each  other  and  enable  “proposals”  to  be  presented  with  a  view  to 
improving the programme.  

The evaluation of the YOUTH programme, although it comes at the end of the fourth year, is 
generally positive. The aims set by the programme will  in all probability  be achieved if the 
programme  continues  on  track:  active  contribution  by  young  people  to  the  construction  of 
Europe  through  participation  in  transnational  exchanges,  solidarity  measures  for  young 
people, initiative projects, and strengthening cooperation. 

Implementation  of  the  programme,  which  is  largely  decentralised,  is  also  the  subject  of  a 
consensus approach, as sought by the Commission, between the different players in the field. 

A  number  of  the  recommendations  set  out  below  have  been  put  forward  following  this 
evaluation with a view to further improving the implementation of the programme in order to 
achieve these objectives most effectively. 

The  various  actions  under  the  programme  have  their  own  dynamics,  which  give  rise  to 
expectations.  A  number  of  comments  are  not  aimed  directly  at  the  programme  but  at  its 
environment,  as  is  the  case  with  the  question  regarding  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  visas  for 
young people from third countries, or the question of recognising experience acquired in the 
context of the programme, which depend largely on specific legislation being adopted in other 
fields. 

Paradoxically, some of the weaknesses identified by the evaluation are also indicators of the 
programme’s success, in that they indicate clearly that beneficiaries have new expectations or 
new requirements. 

As far as participation to the programme is concerned, it can be underlined that between 2000 
and 2003, 52% of the participants were young girls and 48% boys. This balance is more or 
less the same for Actions 1 and 3, whereas for Action 2 (European Voluntary Service) there is 
a larger participation amongst girls who represent 72% of participants against 28% for boys. 
This  latter  aspect  was  in  the  past  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  EVS  was  less  attractive  for 
young  boys  who  were  compelled  to  fulfil  an  obligatory  military  or  civic  service  in  most 
Member  States.  With  the  progressive  suppression  of  such  obligation,  a  re-balancing  of 
participation of both sexes should be observed in the near future. 

38 

 
 
  
 
With regard to programme management, the main questions centre on the transparency and 
coherence of procedures, particularly for the selection of transnational projects, the simplicity 
and flexibility of those procedures and the need to bring the programme closer to beneficiaries 
by  supporting  them  in  preparing  their  projects.  Resolving  these  difficulties  is  of  particular 
importance,  as  these  questions  are  linked  to  access  to  the  programme  and  are  a  potential 
source of frustration or incomprehension.  

The evaluation of projects, feedback of information to beneficiaries and the recognition that 
the European Union can give to the activities carried out are also seen as positive elements for 
the programme. 

With  regard  to  action  1,  the  evaluation  shows  that  the  programme  objectives  have  been 
achieved  and  that  the  action  is  operating  satisfactorily.  This  action  plays  a  particularly 
important  role  in  the  context  of  the  programme  as  it  is  the  one  with  the  highest  number  of 
beneficiaries.  It  provides  a  significant  European  added  value  through  its  multilateral 
exchanges  and  its  impact  on  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  and  on  small 
organisations.  One  of  the  main  comments  concerning  the  exchanges  of  young  people  is  the 
need  to  continue  to  improve  the  quality  of  projects,  particularly  by  having  the  National 
Agencies  play  a  more  important  supporting  role.  Another  important  aspect  identified  is  the 
desire on the part of the players concerned to be able to factor the preparatory phase into the 
length of the project, and to have a phase for taking stock of achievements. This arises from 
the  willingness  to  assess  the  projects  globally  and  demonstrates  an  approach  aimed  at 
improving the quality of projects.  

Action 2 is without doubt a flagship measure for the programme. European Voluntary Service 
is easily identifiable and has a high impact. It is also the most demanding action in terms of 
implementation. The evaluation shows that this action is also functioning satisfactorily. The 
main  comments  highlighted  relate  to  the  willingness  to  improve  the  quality  of  projects  and 
procedures and to increase accessibility to the service for young volunteers. Questions linked 
to the recognition of experience acquired by young volunteers under the programme, or to the 
need  to  remove  obstacles  to  mobility  for  volunteers,  are  of  particular  importance  in 
developing  the  action.  However,  these  two  aspects  are  not  directly  linked  to  the 
implementation of the programme, but are determined by the context within which the action 
is  implemented.  These  questions  will  only  be  resolved  in  part  with  assistance  from  other 
fields such as education and internal affairs. 

Action  3  presents  three  distinct  strands.  Group  initiatives,  networking  projects  and  Future 
Capital. The first two measures are complementary, as the first enables young people to create 
their  own  projects  and  the  second  gives  them  a  European  dimension.  These  measures  also 
complement the programme as a whole because they have shown their capacity for creating 
structures in the field to enable the development of non-formal education activities for young 
people,  drawing  particular  inspiration  from  the  priorities  defined  by  the  White  Paper  on 
Youth. From this point of view the action is sufficiently flexible to enable the implementation 
of  projects  in  phase  with  the  most  recent  developments  in  political  cooperation.  As  far  as 
Future Capital is concerned, the results are not as good. This measure, intended primarily to 
enable young people to implement projects following their participation in voluntary service, 
should probably be better integrated with the follow-up to EVS. 

to  action  4, 

the  difficulties  arising  from 
the  evaluation  highlighted 
With  regard 
implementation.  Without  calling  into  question  the  merits  of  actions  establishing  bridges 
between  the  fields  of  education,  training  and  youth,  and  although  the  reduced  number  of 
projects approved to date does not yet make it possible to validate this type of action, it turns 

39 

 
 
  
 
out  that  action  4  suffers  from  tripartite  management,  which  involves  particularly  complex 
procedures. The results of the evaluation should therefore lead us to an in-depth discussion of 
alternative methods of implementing multi-disciplinary measures.  

Action 5 is an original action under the programme, intended to support the quality of youth 
organisations,  in  particular  through  training  and  networking  measures,  promote  cooperation 
activities  within  the  youth  field  and  implement  innovative  pilot  projects.  The  evaluation 
shows that the programme’s objectives in this field have been achieved and that this action is 
relevant to the creation of a favourable environment for the development of youth activities in 
general  and  the  programme  in  particular.  Improvements  to  this  action  should  in  particular 
enable  it  to  provide  support  for  all  the  actions  under  the  programme  and  to  play  a  more 
important role in highlighting them through profile-raising measures and the dissemination of 
good practice.  

The "third countries" action is not a stand-alone action within the programme. The various 
"third countries" actions come under actions 1, 2 and 5 of the programme. The achievement of 
programme  objectives with  regard to third countries is confirmed  by  the  evaluation.  One of 
the  main  points  to  which  the  evaluation  draws  attention  is  that  relating  to  access  for  the 
programme to new geographical areas. This shows on the one hand that the action is operating 
satisfactorily,  but  also  that  there  is  a  demand  for  strengthening  it.  This  aspect  is  also 
highlighted by the willingness to raise the profile of these actions both within and outside the 
programme. One of the difficulties identified for the "third countries" action, and one which is 
similar  to  that  facing  action  2,  relates  to  the  obstacles  to  mobility  for  beneficiaries, 
particularly with regard to obtaining visas or residence permits. Resolving these questions, as 
noted previously, depends to a large extent on the context in which the action is implemented. 

The  overall  programme,  and  each  action  individually,  deserves  a  higher  profile  and 
exploitation  of  the  results  obtained,  taking  account  of  their  impact  on  young  people, 
organisations and national policies. 

Finally, the evaluation made it possible to identify a series of 52 proposals for improving the 
implementation of the programme. In some cases, these are aimed directly at the programme, 
particularly for questions which may be linked to implementing procedures. In others, these 
proposals  only  concern  the  programme  indirectly,  but  are  addressed  more  specifically  to  its 
environment, particularly with regard to removing obstacles to mobility. 

In either case, these proposals will be followed up with a view to improving the operation of 
the programme, but will also be taken into account when the Commission draws up a proposal 
for a new programme in the youth field. 

5. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  Commission  took  the  option  of  setting  out  the  various  recommendations  in  detail,  in 
order to permit clear identification of the points arising from this evaluation. A summary of 
the  recommendations  is  set  out  in  paragraph  5.2.  The  programme  evaluation  is  generally 
positive, from the point of view both of financial execution and of its impact on young people, 
youth  organisations  and  public  administrations.  Some  weaknesses  are  also  identified  and 
correspond  to  the  recommendations  set  out.  For  all  recommendations,  the  Commission 
outlines its initial response. 

40 

 
 
  
 
The  recommendations  in  this  report  will  be  followed  up  from  2004  by  a  working  party  on 
evaluation (GTE) to be implemented by the Commission.  

5.1. 

Recommendations 

These  recommendations  are  reproduced  below  with  comments  from  the  Commission 
concerning the way in which they will be followed up.  

5.1.1.  Recommendations covering all the actions 

1. 

The  age  limits  applied  to  the  programme  give  rise  to  much  debate.  Although 
there is no consensus on this question, it is recommended, following the actions, 
that the age for access to the programme be adjusted up or down. 

– 

– 

The  15-25  age  limit  is  laid  down  by  the  legal  basis  of  the  programme  and 
cannot therefore be amended. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for  the  future  legal  basis,  in  particular  by  opening  up  the  programme  in 
modular  fashion  to  young  people  aged  between  13  and  30,  depending  on  the 
type of action.  

2. 

It  is  recommended  that  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  be  the 
programme’s  main  target  group,  and  that  it  be  more  closely  adapted  to  the 
specific needs of this group. 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that the programme should remain accessible to all 
young people without discrimination. 

Some specific groups, particularly young people with fewer opportunities, may 
be  considered  in  modular  fashion  to  be  priorities  in  the  implementation  of 
actions. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for the future legal basis. 

3. 

With regard to the implementation and follow-up of projects, it is recommended 
that  measures  to  assist  in  the  preparation  of  projects  be  strengthened, 
particularly  for  small  organisations  and  those  with  no  prior  experience  of 
managing  Community  programmes,  and  that  better  follow-up  of  projects  is 
ensured. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers 
particularly for actions 1, 2 and 3. 

this  recommendation 

to  be  fundamental, 

The Commission recommends that the National Agencies use action 5 to assist 
with and prepare projects.  

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for  the  future  legal  basis,  particularly  by  making  provision  for  the  National 
Agencies to decentralise some of their support measures (see recommendation 
4).  

41 

 
 
  
 
4. 

Regional  and  local  information  relays  or  contact  points  should  be  set  up  to 
increase proximity to beneficiaries and to provide a supportive approach during 
the  promotion,  application  and  evaluation  processes  of  the  Programme.  They 
can be especially useful where marginalised young people are targeted. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  believes  that  accessibility  and  proximity  to  beneficiaries  at 
regional and local level are important aspects of the Programme, which could 
be generalised in accordance with national specificities, as long as this does not 
imply the decentralisation of financial management. 

A supportive approach can also positively influence the quality and outcomes 
of projects. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for  the  future  legal  basis,  particularly  by  enabling  National  Agencies  to 
decentralise some of their tasks. 

5. 

A  simpler  and  administratively  less  cumbersome  application  process,  but 
without dismissing small-scale projects. 

– 

– 

The  Commission  will  consider  the  possibility  of  simplifying  the  application 
process, taking particular account  of  management  constraints  and  the  specific 
needs of the different measures and actions.  

In  order  to  simplify  the  processes,  on-line  applications  and  new  forms  are 
being developed by the Commission.  

6. 

More  transparent  criteria  and  decision-making  process  as  well  as  a  more 
coherent and balanced implementation of the European and national priorities 
throughout the Programme countries. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  recognises  this  difficulty;  the  Working  Group  will  analyse 
this question.  

The Commission recommends a better connection between National Agencies, 
in particular using the Youthnet site, as a way to improve the implementation 
of the European and national priorities throughout the Programme countries. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  selection  criteria  and  decision-making 
process  should  be  transparent  to  applicants  and  recommends  the  use  of 
assessment grids as applicable at the centralised selections and by some of the 
National Agencies. 

7. 

Facilitate  access  to  the  Programme  by  introducing  a  more  flexible  grant-
awarding mechanism when appropriate. 

– 

– 

The  Commission  believes  that  too  much  flexibility  would  reduce  the 
Programme’s transparency and coherence. 

The  Commission  would  consider  for  each  action  whether  a  well  argued  and 
justified flexibility could be introduced.  

42 

 
 
  
 
– 

The  Working  Group  will  discuss  options  for  flexibility  which  could  be 
applicable to travel costs and pocket money.  

8. 

Annual evaluation meetings for beneficiaries at national and European level as 
well as within regional clusters of countries. 

– 

The Commission believes that feedback on the quality of projects is important 
to organisations, youth workers and young people.  

–  More regular evaluation meetings will be organised at European level and the 
Commission  recommends  that  regular  evaluation  meetings  be  organised  at 
national level. Where relevant, and possible, it would recommend and support 
the dissemination of project outcomes and of examples of good practice.  

9. 

Youth  workers  would  like  to  have  more  transparency  in  the  decision-making 
process in selections and to be more involved in the selection of projects. 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  selection  committees  (national  agency  or 
Commission level) should be open to "youth workers".  

The Commission will examine ways of improving information at European and 
national levels on the selection committees and on the decisions they take (see 
recommendation 10).  

10. 

Participants  would  like  to  be  given  clearer  reasons  why  their  projects  were 
rejected, in order to be able to improve the quality of their projects.  

– 

The Working Group will analyse a way of improving information to promoters 
justifying the rejection of their projects. 

11. 

It  is  recommended  that  a  certificate  be  issued  to  young  people  and  youth 
workers who have participated in a project, as is the case for EVS, recognising 
skills acquired during participation in a project.  

– 

– 

The Commission, on the basis of the EVS certificate and good practice in the 
Member States,  will  recommend  to  the  national  agencies  that  they  phase  in  a 
system  from  2004  for  issuing  certificates  to  young  people  benefiting  from 
programmes. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  future  legal  basis  in 
order  to  include  the  obligation  to  issue  a  certificate  to  beneficiaries  of  the 
programme.  

12. 

As  obstacles  to  mobility  hinder  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  it  is 
particularly  recommended  that  appropriate  measures  be  taken,  especially  in 
order to facilitate the obtaining of visas by beneficiaries of the programme. 

– 

– 

The Commission considers this question to be very important, particularly for 
the actions involving third countries. 

The  level  of  political  commitment  with  regard  to  the  removal  of  obstacles  is 
insufficient.  The  Commission  will  take  initiatives  in  this  field  to  raise 

43 

 
 
  
 
awareness  of  this  question  in  the  Member  States  participating  in  the 
programme. 

The  absence  of  a  status  for  volunteers  is  also  an  obstacle  to  mobility.  This 
question  should  be  considered  within  the  framework  of  the  open  method  of 
coordination. 

The need to remove obstacles to mobility will be reaffirmed in the Commission 
proposal for the future legal basis. 

– 

– 

13. 

After  the  end  of  their  project,  the  project  promoters  would  like  to  receive 
feedback on the quality of their work. 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  it  is  important  to  provide  project  promoters, 
both  at  centralised  and  decentralised  level,  with  information  concerning  the 
final  evaluation  of  the  project  outcomes.  This  issue  will  be  tackled  by  the 
Working Group.  

14. 

It  is  recommended  that  "labelling"  be  used  to  support  projects  which  are  not 
funded, but are similar to those funded under the programme. 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  Member  States  could  use  the  models  of 
good practice from the Youth programme for labelling. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for the future legal basis.  

15. 

The  creation  of  longer-term  bridges  between  different  actions  should  be 
possible. 

– 

– 

The  call  for  projects  launched  by  the  Commission  in  2004  within  the 
framework  of  action  5  is  intended  to  enable  implementation  of  projects 
integrating a number of actions under the programme. These types of measures 
will be repeated in 2005 and 2006. 

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for the future legal basis. 

16. 

Enhanced visibility for the Programme. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  visibility  of  the  programme  should  be 
improved towards policy makers. 

The Commission further considers that the visibility of the programme should 
be reinforced towards social partners in order to underline the way in which the 
programme has contributed to young people’s active citizenship, to their sense 
of solidarity, to their spirit of undertaking and to their employability. 

The Commission believes that activities already organised during the European 
Youth  Week  in  September  2003  greatly  helped  raise  the  profile,  as  well  as 
promote a wider awareness, of the Programme at European, national and local 
level.  

44 

 
 
  
 
– 

The Commission is considering the organisation of a similar event in 2005. 

5.1.2.  Recommendations concerning action 1 

17. 

It should be possible to reduce the length of projects for groups of young people 
with fewer opportunities. 

– 

– 

– 

The legal basis of the YOUTH programme lays down that exchange activities 
should last at least one week; this cannot be changed. 

Nevertheless,  the  working  Group  will  examine  the  possibility  of  making 
certain adjustments concerning the length of projects, in order to facilitate the 
participation of young people with fewer opportunities.  

This  recommendation  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Commission  proposal 
for the future legal basis. 

18. 

The quality of projects and partnerships should be improved. 

– 

– 

– 

Improving the quality of partnerships is important, and the quality of projects 
depends upon it. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  national  agencies  should  involve 
themselves more in assisting with seeking and establishing partnerships. 

The  Commission  intends  to  establish,  through  the  TAO,  a  follow-up  for 
partnerships,  particularly  multilateral  ones,  of  organisations  which  have  been 
partners in an action 1 project.  

5.1.3.  Recommendations concerning action 2  

19. 

The  core  quality  elements  of  EVS  (partnership,  service-learning  balance, 
training/support  etc.)  should  be  maintained  and  systematically  developed 
further.  Additional  support  for  preparation  and  follow-up  and  systematic 
involvement of other partners are recommended. 

– 

– 

– 

The  strengthening  of  preparation,  support  and  follow-up  activities,  and  the 
roles and responsibilities of the various partners, are questions to be tackled by 
the Working Group. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  experience  of  young  people  who  have 
taken part in EVS should be put to good use, and to this end it intends to renew 
its support for networks and associations of former European volunteers from 
2004.  

In  the  proposal  for  the  future  legal  basis,  the  Commission  could  integrate 
Future Capital into the EVS action, in order to enable young people who have 
taken part in EVS to use their newly-acquired experience and skills for better 
social integration.  

20. 

Clear definition of the target group and the volunteer profile is recommended. 
Reviewing  and  increasing  the  flexibility  of  funding  rules  and  procedures  with 
regard to the inclusion of young people within EVS is needed. 

45 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that EVS should be open to all young people. It is 
not primarily intended for young people with fewer opportunities.  

EVS should be open to young people regardless of their qualifications. 

Particular effort should be devoted to young people with  fewer opportunities, 
in order to provide them with access to EVS also.  

The  Commission  will  review  the  rules  in  2004  within  the  framework  of  the 
Working Group in order to take better account of the specific needs of young 
people with fewer opportunities and to facilitate their participation in EVS.  

The Commission considers it appropriate in certain cases to take into account 
certain specific skills of young people wishing to take part in EVS, if the nature 
of the voluntary action concerned justifies it. 

21. 

The  decentralisation  of  the  assessment  procedure  of  Host  Expressions  of 
Interest  (HEI)  and  an  overall  faster  and  less  cumbersome  accreditation  and 
application procedure are recommended.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

The decentralisation of HEIs is under examination. The Commission will draw 
up proposals in 2004. 

A more quality-oriented accreditation of host placements will be envisaged.  

A European on-line database of approved host projects will be maintained and 
its user-friendliness improved.  

It  is  also  envisaged  that  the  number  of  approved  host  placements  will  be 
expanded.  

22. 

EVS  projects  are  transnational  partnerships  where  funding  depends  on  two 
national  agencies,  in  the  sending  and  host  countries  respectively.  According  to 
some Member States, it should be possible to introduce alternatives to this type 
of  shared  funding  in  order  to  avoid  a  situation  where  a  project  cannot  be 
carried  out  owing  to  the  failure  of  one  of  the  national  agencies  to  provide 
funding.  

– 

The  Commission  plans  to  study  alternatives  to  shared  funding  during  2004 
within the Working Group.  

23. 

The individual character of EVS should be preserved; other formats can only be 
complementary.  

– 

– 

– 

The Commission will continue with pilot experiences of collective EVS. 

The  Working  Group  will  examine  ways  of  giving  EVS  a  more  collective 
character  in  order  to  increase  the  number  of  volunteers  and  the  impact  and 
visibility of EVS. 

The Commission proposal for the future legal basis could include, in addition 
to individual EVS, a collective EVS, while keeping a balance between the two 
formats. 

46 

 
 
  
 
24. 

The number of volunteers involved in EVS should be increased.  

– 

– 

– 

The  programme  budget  is  defined  for  the  period  2000-2006.  In  this  context, 
there is little leeway for increasing the number of volunteers. 

However,  the  Commission  will  propose  to  the  Working  Group  in  2004  an 
examination of the possibilities for flexibility in EVS, for instance in terms of 
standard rules, with a view to increasing the number of participants. 

This recommendation will be taken into account in the proposal for the future 
legal basis for youth. A labelling system could make it possible to recognise as 
EVS, voluntary service projects funded under national or regional programmes. 

5.1.4.  Recommendations concerning action 3 

25. 

It would seem worthwhile linking Future Capital to EVS. 

– 

This change cannot be envisaged under the current programme. However, the 
Commission  will  take  this  recommendation  into  account  in  its  proposal  for  a 
new legal basis in the youth field (see also recommendation 19). 

26. 

The  action  should  be  developed  on  the  basis  of  active  participation  by  young 
people, non-formal and informal learning and social inclusion. 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission has reoriented the action, particularly following the seminars 
held in 2002 and 2003 on this question. 

The  Commission  also  envisages  using  action  3  as  the  main  instrument  for 
participation  by  young  people,  following  the  launch  of  pilot  projects  for 
participation in 2003 and 2004. 

This action is an instrument of the strategy for the inclusion of young people in 
the  programme.  The  Commission  plans  to  identify  specific  indicators  for 
improving  follow-up  of  the  contribution  made  by  this  action  to  this  objective 
(2004-2006). 

27. 

Support  for  action  3.1  (group  initiatives  and  networking  projects)  should  be 
strengthened, particularly through the use of action 5, to offer contact seminars 
to prepare for networking projects. 

– 

– 

– 

Contact seminars, to enable young people who have already carried out a youth 
initiative project to establish networking projects, were organised in 2002 and 
2003. Seminars of this type will continue in the coming years. 

The 2004 version of the Youth programme User’s Guide lays down that action 
5 will support activities under action 3. 

The  Commission  will  propose  the  creation  of  monitoring  indicators  (2004-
2006) in order to improve networking follow-up. 

47 

 
 
  
 
5.1.5.  Recommendations concerning action 4 

It is still too soon to evaluate the results of action 4. Only a very limited number of projects 
have so far been implemented. The results of this evaluation therefore relate only to aspects of 
the implementation of the action.  

28. 

Procedures applied to joint actions should be simplified. 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that the "inter-committees" group for joint actions 
should  have  a  more  specific  mandate  enabling  it  to  provide  the  Commission, 
on behalf of the three committees, with an opinion on the annual themes and 
project selection procedures, without the need to formally put the matter before 
the three committees afterwards. 

In  2004, 
administrative procedures involving the various Commission departments. 

the  Commission  will  study 

the  possibility  of  simplifying 

In  the  new  generation  of  programmes,  the  Commission  will  propose  flexible 
bridges between programmes. 

29. 

More account should be taken of youth in joint actions 

–  While  it  is  true  that  the  projects  selected  in  2001  originated  primarily  from 
large organisations which  were not very representative  of  the youth field, the 
themes in 2002, 2003 and 2004 give significant emphasis to themes specific to 
youth, such as active citizenship for young people. The Commission intends to 
pursue this approach for 2005 and 2006. 

– 

– 

The beneficiaries of projects selected in 2002 and 2003 originate in part from 
youth-related NGOs. 

The Commission is of the opinion that  the participation  of beneficiaries from 
the  world  of  youth  in  joint  actions  may  be  improved  through  greater 
involvement by national agencies in informing potential candidates. 

30. 

The selection criteria for joint actions should be more flexible.  

– 

– 

– 

Joint action projects are projects with either a structuring effect (definition of 
new  approaches,  etc.)  or  a  laboratory  function  (experimenting  with  new 
approaches,  etc.).  They  are  limited  in  number  and  the  criteria  need  to  be 
defined accordingly. 

The  call  for  proposals  should  be  clear,  structured  and  transparent.  It  would 
therefore appear difficult to launch calls for proposals which are totally open, 
as some would wish. 

The  Commission,  in  contrast,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  requirement  for 
compatibility  between  all  the  fields  contributing  to  the  joint  actions  is 
excessive (currently: education, training and youth) and could in certain cases 
be limited to joint actions between two fields. 

48 

 
 
  
 
31. 

A strategy for exploiting joint actions should be developed. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  communication  concerning  joint 
actions, information on calls for proposals and exploitation of the results of the 
first projects should be strengthened. 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  better  use  should  be  made  of  the 
multiplier effect of joint actions. 

The  Commission  will  carry  out  measures  to  this  end  (website,  meetings 
between beneficiaries and national agencies, etc.). 

5.1.6.  Recommendations concerning action 5 

32. 

The focus on quality and capacity-building in youth work has to be maintained. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  it  necessary  to  further  strengthen  quality  in  youth 
work. 

Action  5  projects  at  centralised  and  decentralised  level,  Action  5  large-scale 
projects,  the  SALTO  Resource  Centres  and  the  Partnership  Programme 
between  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  European  Commission  on  European 
Youth Worker Training will be used to achieve this goal. 

These  measures  shall  be  accompanied  by  active  networking  and  the 
dissemination  of  best  practice  projects,  involving  young  people  wherever 
appropriate to guarantee a continued link to and feedback from them. 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  envisages  organising  a  new  "Bridges  for 
Training" event in 2004 to gather the major players involved in training. 

The Commission, within the framework of the future legal basis, could propose 
a specific measure relating to support for “Youth Work”. 

33. 

Action 5 should continue easing access to the Programme for all young people. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that special attention has to be paid to better targeting 
young people with fewer opportunities and those living in remote rural areas by 
strengthening  information  and  communication  activities  at  local  and  regional 
level (see recommendations 3 and 4). 

Specific  aims  related  to  these  target  groups  will  be  included  in  the  work 
programme for 2004. Synergies with the SALTO Resource Centre dealing with 
the inclusion of young people within the programme will be intensified in this 
respect. 

In  addition,  the  full  potential  of  face-to-face  communication  and  information 
technology shall be used to reach a wider range of young people in general and 
to  provide  them  with  in-depth  information  about  YOUTH  programme 
priorities. 

The  programme  finances  the  Eurodesks,  and  the  Commission  is  shortly  to 
establish a Youth portal to support information measures. 

49 

 
 
  
 
– 

This recommendation will be taken into account in the proposal for the future 
legal basis.  

34. 

Simplified and more flexible action 5. 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that the complexity of Action 5 is seen both as an 
advantage  (the  activities  are  positively  seen  as  creative  proposals  for  project 
formats) and a relative disadvantage, as the number of activities and the criteria 
applied are in some cases understood as being restrictive in nature. 

In  the  short  term,  the  Commission  considers  that  project  formats  will  not  be 
changed in order to stabilise procedures and understanding. 

In  2004,  the  Working  Group  will  analyse  possible  ways  for  increasing 
flexibility. 

35. 

The need for continued support for innovative activities. 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  innovative  projects,  in  combination  with  an 
appropriate dissemination of project results, represent an important part of the 
added value of youth projects at European level. 

The Commission intends to launch between now and 2006 calls for large-scale 
projects  on  an  annual  basis  to  support  capacity-building  and  innovation  with 
regard to international training and cooperation in the field of youth work. 

The  Commission  will  take  this  recommendation  into  account  in  the  proposal 
for the future legal basis. 

36. 

The impact of action 5 on other programme actions should be monitored. 

– 

The Commission proposes to define an indicator in 2004, in order to improve 
monitoring of the impact of action 5 on other actions. 

37. 

Youth  workers  ask  for  a  support  activity  focused  on  youth  policy  issues  and, 
more specifically, youth research. 

– 

– 

In  2004,  the  Council  should  adopt  common  objectives  concerning  "better 
knowledge  of  youth".  This  will  enable  the  Commission  to  draw  up  a  plan 
concerning actions linked to research in the youth field for 2005-2006. 

The  Commission  could  introduce  a  specific  measure  concerning  research 
within the framework of the future legal basis for the youth field.  

38. 

Quality standards at European level for youth activities should be defined. 

– 

– 

The Commission will organise meetings for exchanging good practice on this 
subject (2004-2006). 

Cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  the  Council  of  Europe  will  be 
oriented towards defining quality standards. 

50 

 
 
  
 
5.1.7.  Recommendations  concerning  the  Partnership  Programme  between  the  Council  of 
Europe and the European Commission on European Youth Worker Training 

39. 

The management structure should be clarified, especially selection and decision-
making procedures within the framework of the Covenant 

– 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that a clearer definition of the responsibilities of the 
different stakeholders involved in the Covenant and wider communication, by 
means  of  the  internet  and  publications,  of  selection  and  decision-making 
procedures will contribute to the quality of the Covenant. 

The  Commission  will  pay  special  attention  to  the  efficient  use  of  the 
competencies and tools at the disposal of the Partnership, e.g. by strengthening 
the network of trainers who participated in the Covenant's training measures. 

These  issues  will  be  reinforced  in  the  New  Covenant  with  the  Council  of 
Europe in the field of training which the Commission intends to set up in 2004. 

40. 

A  more  integrated  approach  concerning  the  different  stakeholders  involved  in 
the training of young people 

– 

– 

The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  synergies  between  the  different 
stakeholders, activities and tools involved in the Covenant are reinforced at all 
levels. This will be done in particular by involving the National Agencies and 
SALTO  Resource  Centres  more  closely  in  the  Partnership  Programme  within 
the existing Training Strategy. 

The  Commission  will  also  aim  to  use,  wherever  appropriate,  the  synergies 
between  the  three  different  partnerships  (Training,  Research,  EuroMed)  with 
the Council of Europe. 

41. 

A greater focus on the dissemination of results and practices is desirable. 

– 

– 

The Commission will strive to strengthen the multiplier effect of the Covenant 
both  by  putting  greater  focus  on  the  multiplier  network  and  by  increasing 
synergies  and  cross-references  between  all  publications  within  the  context  of 
the Covenant. 

It will ensure that training modules and other tools are presented in such a way 
that these products can be transferred to and used at national, regional and local 
levels.  The  Commission  will  look  into  the  possibilities  of  involving  youth 
workers at grass-roots level in this process. 

5.1.8.  Recommendations concerning actions with third countries 

42. 

It was recommended that the funds for co-operation with third countries should 
be increased 

– 

This recommendation  could  be taken  into account in the 2004-06 budgets, as 
well as in the new programme. 

43. 

It was recommended that the number of Resource Centres be increased 

51 

 
 
  
 
– 

This recommendation has already been implemented, with the establishment of 
a  Resource  Centre  for  the  CIS  in  addition  to  the  ones  already  operating  for 
South East Europe and Euro-Med. 

44. 

A  greater  effort  has  to  be  made  to  enhance  the  visibility  of  the  Action  and  to 
improve access for organisations based in third countries.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission 
this 
took  measures  during  2003 
recommendation,  particularly  by  establishing  a  Resource  Centre  for  the 
Commonwealth  of  Independent  States  (CIS),  launching  the  Euro-Med  Youth 
Platform and holding a ‘Youth in Action’ week to promote the programme, one 
priority of which was cooperation with Mediterranean partners.  

implement 

to 

For 2004, the Commission envisages implementing events such as conferences, 
seminars  and  meetings  between  administrations  and  young  people’s 
organisations.  

There will also be improved promotion of the work of the Resource Centres, in 
particular through improvements to the website.  

The  Commission  could  envisage  the  creation  of  an  action  specific  to  third 
countries within the framework of the future legal basis. 

45. 

More  efficient  dissemination  of  results  and  information  to  local  organisations 
should be implemented.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  this  recommendation  will  be  partially 
implemented  by  establishing  the  Resource  Centre  for  the  CIS  and  extending 
the work of the Resource Centres for South East Europe and Euro-Med. 

Larger-scale  multi-annual  projects  could  also  contribute  to  this  objective,  as 
has  been  shown  by  pilot  projects  for  the  Balkans  (‘youthNET’  and  ‘Balkan 
Youth Project’). 

The Commission intends to propose a priority aimed at the CIS countries and 
the south Mediterranean basin for the call for projects for action 5 in 2005. 

In the context of Euro-Med, the establishment of the Euro-Med Youth Platform 
will facilitate the dissemination of information to local organisations. 

46. 

The model of the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Programme should be transferred 
to  the  Balkans  and  the  CIS  by  creating  regional  sub-programmes  based  on 
complementary  funding  by  external  budget  lines  and  establishing  national  co-
ordinating structures.  

– 

– 

The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  examining  the  possibilities  for 
establishing  this  type  of  programme  in  2005  for  the  two  regions  mentioned 
above. This will depend in particular on the financial and managerial resources 
which could be allocated to this end. 

The  Commission  will  ensure,  in  the  draft  of  the  future  legal  basis,  that 
provision  is  made  for  different  programmes  to  pool  their  resources,  typically 
for actions similar to Euro-Med Youth.  

52 

 
 
  
 
47. 

A widening of geographic reach is recommended. 

– 

– 

– 

Given  the  limited  resources,  the  Commission  considers  that  one  option  could 
be  to  adopt,  in  the  new  legal  basis,  a  modular  approach  of  opening  the 
programme  to  a  wider  range  of  countries,  starting  with  the  Wider  Europe 
Countries. 

For  more  distant  regions,  co-operation  would  focus  on  youth  workers/ 
multipliers and co-operation on certain priority themes would be encouraged.  

A Working Group of National Agencies to be established in 2004 will analyse 
whether  such  a  thematic  approach  could  be  introduced  during  the  present 
programme. 

48. 

It  was  recommended  that  a  combination  of  regions  within  one  project  be 
allowed. 

– 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  this  recommendation  contrasts  with  the 
recommendation  to  establish  regional  sub-programmes  using  the  Euro-Med 
model,  and  that  it would not be appropriate to combine neighbouring regions 
for possible co-financing through external budget lines.  

As far as other countries are concerned, the Working Group will examine the 
possibility of adopting a thematic, rather than geographical, approach. 

49. 

The evaluations recommended making bilateral exchanges eligible. 

– 

– 

– 

This is not possible under the current legal basis, which requires a minimum of 
two Member States in addition to third countries.  

The  Commission  considers  that  the  multilateral  nature  of  exchanges  is  an 
important  element  in  ensuring  the  European  added  value,  but  recognises  the 
value of bi- or trilateral exchanges in facilitating access by local or small-scale 
associations with no experience at European level. 

The  Working  Group  will  examine  the  possibility  of  introducing  trilateral 
exchanges during the current programme, in order to facilitate participation by 
two or more ethnic groups from the same country. 

50. 

Increase the grant for third country participants’ travel costs to 100%. 

– 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  implications  of  this  proposal  need  to  be 
studied by the Working Group. 

51. 

The  organisations  in  third  countries,  and  their  active  participation  in  the 
programme,  should  be  enhanced  by  giving  them  the  possibility  of  submitting 
applications and becoming leading partners in the projects. 

– 

– 

The Commission considers that this possibility will depend on the availability 
of appropriate national structures.  

These conditions could be created under regional sub-programmes established 
using supplementary funding. 

53 

 
 
  
 
52. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  terminology  be  changed.  Terms  like  ‘international 
cooperation’,  or  ‘cooperation  with  partner  countries’  were  considered  more 
appropriate, as they would convey a more positive connotation. 

– 

The  Commission  will  take  this  recommendation  into  account  in  the  proposal 
for the future legal basis.  

5.2. 

Summary of recommendations 

To  sum  up,  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Youth  programme  highlights  the  following 
recommendations: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Better  targeting  of  the  programme  towards  its  audience,  i.e.  all  young  people, 
particularly those with fewer opportunities. 

Improving assistance for beneficiaries and projects, in all phases, through measures 
on a local scale and of high quality. 

Simplifying procedures and making them as flexible as possible, bearing in mind the 
target audience. 

Increasing  transparency  and  coherence  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme, 
particularly at decentralised level. 

Increasing  the  quality  of  work  through  project  evaluation  with  feedback  to  the 
beneficiaries and recognition of the activities carried out. 

Developing voluntary activities in both qualitative and quantitative terms. 

Opening up the programme to more third countries. 

Anticipating developments through the implementation of innovative projects and by 
carrying out the necessary studies. 

Giving  the  programme  and  each  of  its  actions  a  profile  and  exploiting  the  results 
obtained. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

The mid-term evaluation of the Youth programme was organised in such a way as to involve 
all players in the programme: national administrations, national agencies, youth organisations, 
youth workers and researchers. 

It  was  carried  out  by  combining  a  variety  of  evaluation  methods:  reports  from  countries 
participating  in  the  programme,  evaluations  of  particular  systems,  meetings  of  experts, 
working parties and external evaluations. 

Its  conclusions  are  useful  and  are  along  much  the  same  lines.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Youth 
programme  is  appreciated.  Its  objectives  are  largely  achieved  and  its  implementation,  the 
result  of  a  consensual  approach  between  the  various  players,  is  appreciated.  On  the  other 
hand,  given  youth  trends,  the  political  cooperation  implemented  in  the  youth  field  and  the 

54 

 
 
  
 
difficulties  inherent  in  this  type  of  programme,  the  evaluation  concludes  with  a  set  of 
recommendations to be implemented. 

In  this  document,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  position  on  these  recommendations  and 
undertakes to implement them in whole or in part, some during the second part of the current 
programme  between  now  and  2006  and  others  within  the  framework  of  its  proposals  for  a 
new Youth programme from 2007. 

55 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 1 

Methodology used for the impact study 

in the countries running the Youth programme 

Impact study carried out 
by an external firm 

Internal impact study 
carried out in cooperation 
with the national agency 

No reply 

Germany 

Austria 

Portugal 

Belgium (Dutch-speaking) 

Belgium (French-speaking) 

Spain 

Hungary  

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Poland 

United Kingdom 

Iceland 

Belgium (German-speaking) 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Finland  

France 

Greece 

Italy 

Latvia 

Liechtenstein 

Netherlands 

Slovakia 

Czech Republic 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Estonia 

Sweden 

Norway 

Bulgaria 

Malta 

56 

 
 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Education and Culture 
Youth, Civil Society, Communication 
Youth 

EAC/D1/JK/NV/AP/JM/LV/HC D(2002) 

Impact study on  
Actions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the YOUTH programme  
with regard to the preparation of the future generation of 
programmes in the field of education, training and youth 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In view of the preparation of the future generation of programmes in the field of education, 
vocational  training  and  youth,  the  European  Commission  proposed  a  framework  for  this 
preparation within the context of the youth field (see note EAC.D1/VG/12-D(2002)24639). 

The purpose of the current document is to specify what is expected from programme countries 
in  implementing  the  evaluation  of  actions  planned  within  this  framework,  in  anticipation  of 
the impact analysis requested in Decision No1031/2000/EC of the European Parliament and 
the Council of 13 April 2000 establishing the YOUTH programme. 

Due to the timeframe, it is proposed to concentrate this exercise on: 

(1) 

An analysis of the extent to which the general objectives of the YOUTH programme 
and the more specific objectives of the different actions of the programme have been 
achieved, in terms of having an impact on young people, organisations and policies, 
legislation and institutions; 

(2) 

Recommendations for the future generation of the programme. 

A quantitative evaluation of the existing programme is not required as such data are already 
available. 

Programme countries are invited to follow the proposed structure and to give feedback to the 
European Commission on the different topics covered by these guidelines.  

2. 

SCOPE AND TIMEFRAME OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

This  document  is  addressed  to  the  National  Authorities  of  programme  countries.  The 
assessment  covers  the  YOUTH  programme  since  2000.  References  to  or  comparisons  with 
evaluation results, trends, achievements or challenges of the predecessor programmes would 
however be welcome. The assessment concerns only the YOUTH supported activities under 
Actions 1.1, 2.1, 3 and 5.1 in the programme countries. For actions 1.2, 2.2 and 5.1.2. (third 
country co-operation) the Commission has launched a separate external evaluation. 

57 

 
 
  
 
 
 
National Agencies are invited to send back the final results to the Commission (DG EAC, 
YOUTH Unit D.1, rue Van Maerlant 2, B-1049 Brussels) by 30 June 2003 in English, French 
or German. 

3. 

METHODOLOGY  

The  choice  of  the  appropriate  instruments  and  approaches  will  be  left  to  the  National 
Authorities, taking into account the guidelines of this document. National Authorities are also 
free to externalise some activities to be carried out. 

The  focus  of  the  consultation  should  be  on  quality  and  impact  of  the  YOUTH  programme. 
This  qualitative  assessment  should  be  based  on  existing  material  available  within  National 
Agencies and ideally be complemented by case studies, interviews and life stories of young 
participants  and  organisations.  It  could  be  helpful  to  create  working  groups  or  to  held 
seminars  at  national  level  in  order  to  gather  information  and  to  compare  results.  It  is 
considered as essential to draw on the opinions and experiences of the young people formerly 
involved as participants in YOUTH projects. 

For  each  action  of  the  YOUTH  programme  (1,  2,  3  and  5),  National  Authorities  from 
programme countries are invited: 

– 

To assess the impact on young people, youth workers, organisations and local 
communities, policies, legislation and institutions (see chapter 7) 

– 

To assess the effectiveness of the instruments (see chapter 8) 

And more globally: 

– 

To make recommendations for the future (see chapter 9). 

4. 

THE ROLE OF NATIONAL AGENCIES  

The National Agencies are the main actors in the implementation of the YOUTH programme 
at  national  level,  and  their  contribution  to  this  exercise  is  therefore  essential.  The  National 
Authorities  must  nevertheless  remain  fully  responsible  for  the  assessment  throughout  the 
process, but could draw on the National Agencies’ experiences and existing information in the 
collection  of  data  and  information.  The  National  Agencies  have  at  their  disposal  statistical 
material,  reports  from  projects,  on-site  visits,  seminars,  evaluation  meetings  etc.,  and  could 
also provide support and input in the additional collection of data. 

5. 

GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME  

The  following  objectives  of  the  YOUTH  programme  are  spelled  out  in  the  Decision  No. 
1031/2000/EC establishing the YOUTH programme: 

– 

To promote an active contribution by young people to the building of Europe through 
their  participation  in  transnational  exchanges  within  the  Community  or  with  third 
countries so  as to  develop understanding  of the cultural diversity  of Europe and its 
fundamental common values, thus helping to promote respect for human rights and 
to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia; 

58 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

To  strengthen  their  sense  of  solidarity  through  a  more  extensive  participation  by 
young people in transnational community-service activities within the Community or 
with third countries, in particular those with which the Community has concluded co-
operation agreements; 

To  encourage  young  people's  initiative,  enterprise  and  creativity  so  that  they  may 
take  an  active  role  in  society  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  stimulate  recognition  of  the 
value of informal education acquired within a European context; 

To  reinforce  cooperation  in  the  field  of  youth  by  fostering  the  exchange  of  good 
practice,  the  training  of  youth  workers/leaders  and  the  development  of  innovative 
actions at Community level. 

To ensure that all young people, without discrimination, have access to the activities 
of this programme. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that special 
efforts  are  made  to  assist  young  people  who,  for  cultural,  social,  physical,  mental, 
economic  or  geographical  reasons,  find  it  more  difficult  to  participate  in  relevant 
action  programmes  at  Community,  national,  regional  or  local  level,  as  well  as  to 
assist  small  local  groups.  The  Commission  shall  accordingly  take  account  of  the 
difficulties faced by these target groups, thus contributing to combating exclusion. 

In addition, the Decision stresses the necessity of providing equal opportunity for young men 
and women in society. 

6. 

SPECIFIC AIMS OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

support for transnational mobility of young people ; 

support  for  the  use  of  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICT)  in  the 
youth field ; 

to  promote  citizenship  of  the  Union  and  the  commitment  of  young  people  to  the 
development of the Union ; 

promotion of language skills and understanding of different cultures ; 

support  for  pilot  projects  based  on  transnational  partnerships  designed  to  develop 
innovation and quality in the youth field ; 

development,  at  European  level,  of  methods  of  analysis  and  follow-up  of  youth 
policies and their evolution and of methods of disseminating good practices  

7. 

PRIORITIES PER ACTION  

7.1. 

Action 1 

– 

– 

To offer young people opportunities for mobility and active participation, 

To include young people for whom it is their first European activity and small-scale 
or local groups with no experience at European level, 

59 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

To focus on multilateral group-mobility activities, 

To fund bilateral group mobility if this is justified in terms of target groups (young 
people with less opportunities) or specific pedagogical approach, 

To provide the young people with linguistic and intercultural skills,  

To develop projects related to the fight against racism and xenophobia.  

7.2. 

Action 2 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To  involve  young  people  actively  and  personally  in  unpaid  and  non-profit  making 
activities designed to help meeting the needs of society in a wide range of fields, 

To  provide  the  young  volunteers  with  an  experience  of  informal  education  with  a 
view to acquiring social and cultural skills and enhance their employability, 

To  implement  voluntary  service  projects  in  a  spirit  of  partnership  and  shared 
responsibilities  between  the  sending  and  hosting  organisations  as  well  as  the 
volunteer, 

To provide short-term voluntary service and specific support and training for people 
with less opportunities and to help them to integrate gradually in long-term voluntary 
service and/or other Actions of the YOUTH programme, 

To  introduce  voluntary  service  activities  as  a  new  element  in  existing  partnerships 
and/or  create  new  partnerships  between  organisations/associations/structures  active 
in the social, cultural, youth or environmental fields, 

To involve organisations which have not yet participated in EVS, 

To include a new area of activity, or have innovative features, 

To bring an added value to the local community and support its development,  

To provide volunteers with a document (certificate), which attests the participation as 
well as the experience and skills acquired in Action 2. 

7.3. 

Action 3 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To encourage young people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity, 

To foster young people’s active participation and integration into society through the 
development of common initiatives at local, regional or national level, 

To  promote  young  people’s  social  and  cultural  skills  in  order  to  enhance  their 
employability, 

To  extend  youth  initiatives  to  similar  initiatives  conducted  in  other  Member 
States/programme countries through networking projects, 

To strengthen the European dimension of the youth initiatives, 

To involve disadvantaged young people, 

60 

 
 
  
 
– 

To develop projects to fight against racism and xenophobia.  

7.4. 

Action 5 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To  contribute  to  giving  further  training  to  persons  involved  in  youth  work, 
particularly those planning to take part, or taking part, in schemes directly involving 
young  people  in  Actions  1,  2  and  3,  the  aim  being  that  such  schemes  are  of  an 
appropriate high quality, 

To  develop  activities  with  a  particular  focus  on  exchange  of  experiences  and  good 
practice which are designed to facilitate and promote the establishment of sustainable 
transnational  partnerships  and  networks  between  those  active  in  the  field  of  youth 
work, 

To disseminate and promote the results of good quality projects and activities, 

To contribute to experimental, innovative activities implemented through the shared 
efforts of participants from differing backgrounds, 

To  improve  the  access  of  young  people  to  the  programme  and  to  enhance  their 
initiative and active participation in society, 

To  investigate  those  factors  which  hinder  the  social  integration  of  marginalised 
young people into society, 

To develop projects to fight against racism and xenophobia.  

8. 

IMPACT AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT TO BE ANSWERED FOR EACH ACTION 

8.1. 

Impact on young people 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

With  regard  to  the  general  and  specific  objectives  mentionned  above,  what  is  the 
estimated impact of the actions on young people after three years of implementation 
of the YOUTH programme? 

With regard to the annual priorities ?  

With  regard  to  the  multicultural  learning  of  young  people,  the  acquisition  of  new 
social and personal abilities and skills thus enhancing personal development and, if 
any, employability of young people? 

With regard to an increased involvement of young people in society and a decreased 
likelihood of being involved in risk behavior? 

With regard to the access of all young people to the YOUTH programme, organised, 
non-organised and with less possibilities? 

8.2. 

Impact on youth workers, organisations and local communities 

1. 

With  regard  to  the  general  objectives  and  specific  aims  mentionned  above,  what  is 
the  estimated  impact  of  the  actions  on  youth  workers,  organisations  and  local 
communities after three years of implementation of the YOUTH programme? 

61 

 
 
  
 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

With regard to the annual priorities?  

How  did  the  participation  in  action-supported  projects  influence  the  day-to-day 
practice of youth workers, organisations and local communities? 

With  regard  to  introducing  new  elements  to  existing  partnerships,  and  /or  creating 
new partnerships between organisations/associations/structures? 

With  regard  to  reinforcing  transnational  cooperation  in  the  field  of  youth  through 
best practice, exchange, training and development of innovative actions? 

What kind of multiplier effects have been noticeable with regard to organisations and 
local communities? 

8.3. 

Impact on policy, legislation and institutions 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

9. 

1. 

2. 

How  did  the  Action  affect  national,  regional,  local  policy,  legislation  and 
governmental institutions? 

Is there a distinction between the European Action and various national or regional 
actions  of  the  same  kind?  Is  the  European  Action  complementary  to  national 
schemes? 

To  what  extent  and  how  did  you  respect  the  annual  Action-specific  priorities  from 
2000-2002? To what extent have priorities from 2000-2002 been relevant to attaining 
the programme objectives? Which national priorities did you add? 

For voluntary service, is there a legal status for volunteers in your country? How do 
you  estimate  the  recognition  of  the  certified  non-formal  learning  experience and 
skills acquired in EVS projects by employers, educational institutions and the state? 

EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUMENTS 

To what extent the current instruments within each action are appropriate to meet the 
objectives and the priorities of the actions (bilateral and multilateral exchanges, long-
term and short-term EVS, group initiatives and Future Capital, support measures)? 

Does  the  participation  in  one  action  motivate  young  people  to  participate  later  in 
another action of the YOUTH programme? 

10. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE PROGRAMME GENERATION 

10.1.  General 

1. 

2. 

With regard to those aspects and/or activities that have been particularly successful 
in  the  current  YOUTH  programme?  Which  specific objectives  and  priorities  would 
you  recommend  to  maintain  for  the  future  programme?  Which  kind  of  specific 
objectives and priorities would you recommend to introduce in the future? 

Do you see new historical or social challenges that should be tackled by  the future 
programme?  

62 

 
 
  
 
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Which  instruments,  administrative  or  procedural  aspects  would  need  to  be  adapted 
for  the  future  YOUTH  programme  in  order  to  enhance  its  effectiveness  and 
efficiency? 

Which  alternative  would  you  recommend  to  the  present  practice  of  micro-project 
management  based  on  project  selections?  Please  indicate  details  of  a  possible 
support, selection and monitoring mechanism. 

Would  you  be  in  favour  of  a  greater  involvement  of  local, regional  and/or national 
authorities in the management and/or funding of the YOUTH programme? 

To what extent could a systematic and public co-funding of the YOUTH programme, 
either  globally  at  national  level  or  more  specifically  at  regional  or  local  level  be  a 
solution to cope with the increasing demand for funding from applicants’ side? 

To what extent would it make sense to rethink and possibly extend the co-operation 
with international organisations?  

10.2.  Action-specific recommendations 

1. 

2. 

3. 

How  could  the  general  and  Action-specific  objectives  be  better  achieved  in  each 
action? 

How  could  the  impact  on  young  people,  local  communities  and  organisations  be 
increased by the different actions of the programme? 

How could the impact on policy, legislation and institutions be improved, also with 
regard to the recognition of non-formal learning? 

63 

 
 
  
 
– 

Interim  evaluation  of  third  countries  cooperation  of  the  Youth  Programme 
2000-2002: http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth/program/index_en.html 

ANNEX 3 

64