REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the interim evaluation of the &quot;Fundamental Rights and Citizenship&quot; Programme 2007 – 2013  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the interim evaluation of the &quot;Fundamental Rights and Citizenship&quot; Programme 2007 – 2013
Date: 2011-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European citizenship, action programme, antisemitism, human rights, racism

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.5.2011 
COM(2011) 249 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report on the interim evaluation of the "Fundamental Rights and Citizenship" 
Programme 2007 – 2013 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 2 

The Programme .......................................................................................................................... 2 

Types of actions supported......................................................................................................... 3 

Implementation of the FRC programme .................................................................................... 3 

The Interim evaluation ............................................................................................................... 7 

Relevance of the FRC programme ............................................................................................. 7 

Effectiveness of the FRC programme ........................................................................................ 9 

Efficiency of the FRC programme ........................................................................................... 10 

Sustainability of the FRC programme...................................................................................... 11 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 12 

Improved focus of EU policy priorities.................................................................................... 12 

Concentration on projects with a strong European Dimension................................................ 12 

Balance of participation in the FRC programme ..................................................................... 13 

More efficient management of the FRC programme ............................................................... 13 

Improved dissemination and exploitation of results ................................................................ 13 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 14 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

This document presents the main findings and recommendations of the interim evaluation of 
the "Fundamental Rights and Citizenship" Programme 2007-2013 as well as the conclusions 
drawn from these by the Commission.  

THE PROGRAMME 

The  specific  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  programme  (hereafter  referred  to  as  "the 
FRC  Programme")  was  established  by  Council  Decision  2007/252/EC  of  19  April  2007  for 
the period 2007-2013 as part of the programme "Fundamental Rights and Justice". 

General objectives: 

1. 

The programme has the following general objectives: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

to  promote  the  development  of  a  European  society  based  on  respect  for 
fundamental  rights  as  recognised  in  Article  6(2)  of  the  Treaty  on  European 
Union, including rights derived from citizenship of the Union; 

to  strengthen  civil  society  and  to  encourage  an  open,  transparent  and  regular 
dialogue with it in respect of fundamental rights; 

to fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and to promote a better 
interfaith  and  intercultural  understanding  and  improved  tolerance  throughout 
the European Union; 

to  improve  the  contacts,  exchange  of  information  and  networking  between 
legal,  judicial  and  administrative  authorities  and  the  legal  professions, 
including by way of support to judicial training, with the aim of better mutual 
understanding among such authorities and professionals. 

2. 

3. 

The  general  objectives  of  the  programme  are  complementary  to  the  objectives 
pursued  by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  established  by 
Regulation (EC) No 168/2007. 

The  general  objectives  of  the  programme  shall  contribute  to  the  development  and 
implementation of Community policies in full compliance with fundamental rights. 

Specific objectives:  

1. 

The programme has the following specific objectives: 

a) 

To promote fundamental rights as recognised in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on 
European  Union  and  to  inform  all  persons  of  their  rights  including  those 
derived from citizenship of the Union, in order to encourage Union citizens to 
participate actively in the democratic life of the Union; 

b) 

to  examine,  where  necessary,  respect  for  specific  fundamental  rights  in  the 
European  Union  and  its  Member  States  when  implementing  Community  law, 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
and  to  obtain  opinions  on  specific  questions  related  to  fundamental  rights 
within this scope; 

c) 

d) 

to support non-governmental organisations and other bodies from civil society 
in order to enhance their capability to participate actively in the promotion of 
fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy; 

to  create  relevant  structures  in  order  to  foster  an  interfaith  and  multicultural 
dialogue at the level of the European Union. 

TYPES OF ACTIONS SUPPORTED  

With  a  view  to  pursuing  the  general  and  specific  objectives,  the  programme  supports  the 
following 4 types of actions: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

formulation  of 

specific  actions  taken  by  the  Commission,  such  as  studies  and  research, 
opinion  polls  and  surveys, 
indicators  and  common 
methodologies,  collection,  development  and  dissemination  of  data  and 
statistics,  seminars,  conferences  and  expert  meetings,  organisation  of  public 
campaigns and events; development and maintenance of websites, preparation 
and  dissemination  of  information  material,  support  for  and  management  of 
networks of national experts, analytical, monitoring and evaluation activities; 

specific  trans-national  projects  of  Community  interest  presented  by  an 
authority  or  any  other  body  of  a  Member  State,  an  international  or  non-
governmental  organisation,  and  involving  in  any  case  at  least  two  Member 
States or at least one Member State and one other state which may either be an 
acceding  country  or  a  candidate  country,  under  the  conditions  set  out  in  the 
annual work programmes; 

support  to  the  activities  of  non-governmental  organisations  or  other  entities 
pursuing  an  aim  of  general  European  interest  in  accordance  with  the  general 
objectives  of  the  programme  under  the  conditions  set  out  in  the  annual  work 
programmes; 

operating grants to co-finance expenditure associated with the permanent work 
programme  of  the  Conference  of  the  European  Constitutional  Courts  and  the 
Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions 
of  the  European  Union,  which  maintains  certain  databases  providing  for  a 
European-wide collection of national judgments relating to the implementation 
of  Community  law,  insofar  as  the  expenditure  is  incurred  in  pursuing  an 
objective  of  general  European  interest  by  promoting  exchanges  of  views  and 
experience on matters concerning the case-law, organisation and functioning of 
their  members  in  the  performance  of  their  judicial  and/or  advisory  functions 
with regard to Community law. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRC PROGRAMME 

The FRC programme covers the 27 EU Member States. While it is in principle open to the 
participation  of  third  countries,  such  as  acceding  countries,  candidate  countries  and  the 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Western Balkan countries included in the stabilisation and association process, these have not 
taken up the opportunity to join. 

The Programme is managed entirely at central level by the European Commission and has a 
budgetary provision of 95,2 M€ over the pe riod 2007-2013, broken down into the following 
annual provisions in million Euro: 

TTT OOO TTT AAA LLL     AAA MMM OOO UUU NNN TTT     OOO VVV EEE RRR     TTT HHH EEE    222000000777---222000111333     PPP EEE RRR III OOO DDD:::    999555,,,222    MMM€

222000000777   

222000000888   

222000000999   

222000111000   

222000111111   

222000111222   

222000111333   

111000,,,666000   

111222,,,000000   

111444,,,222000   

111333,,,888000   

111333,,,888000   

111555,,,333000   

111555,,,555000   

As far as the distribution of the budget is concerned, an average of 70% of funds is allocated 
each  year  for  Action  Grants,  9%  for  Operating  Grants  and  21%  for  the  Commission 
initiatives. 

BUDGET AVAILABLE FOR THE PERIOD 2007-2010 

Since 2007 the Commission has published 3 calls for proposals for Action Grants and 4 calls 
for proposals for Operating Grants and has funded 61 Commission initiatives through public 
procurement procedures. 

ACTION GRANTS 

The  calls  published  by  the  Commission  attracted  a  great  number  of  proposals.  For  Action 
Grants the Commission has received and evaluated a total of 415 proposals submitted by the 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
€
€
   
 
 
partnerships of on average 4.5 organisations from at least two EU Member States. Out of that 
overall  number,  the  Commission  has  funded  a  total  of  93  multi-lateral  projects  with  an 
average funding of € 341.000 per project and  with an average duration of 21 months. 

OPERATING GRANTS 

Under  article  4  c)  of  the  decision  establishing  the  Programme,  the  Commission  has  co- 
financed  the  annual  work  programme  of  eight  NGOs  or  other  entities  pursuing  an  aim  of 
general  European  interest  in  accordance  with  the  general  objectives  of  the  programme, 
notably: 

European Network of Ombudspersons for Children 

Fair Trials International 

Jesuit Refugee Service (Europe) 

Association of European Administrative Judges 

Two  associations  are  mentioned  in  the  legal  basis  of  the  programme  and  may  receive 
operating grants to co-finance expenditure associated with their permanent work programme: 

1. The Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the 
European Union.  

The purpose of this association is to promote exchanges of views and experience on matters 
concerning the jurisprudence, organisation and functioning of its Members in the performance 
of their judicial and/or advisory functions, particularly with regard to Community Law. The 
Association has set up a data bank, consisting principally of decisions, advice and studies by 
its  Members  relevant  to  the  purpose  of  the  Association,  reports  and  conclusions  produced 
during the colloquiums of the Association as well as other useful information. 

2. The Conference of the European Constitutional Courts. 

Until now (2011), this association has never applied for the operating grant foreseen by the 
legal basis of the programme. 

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION 

Between 2007 and 2010 the Commission launched 61 own initiative actions financed by the 
programme  through  public  procurement  procedures.  In  these  cases,  contrary  to  grants,  the 
action  is  totally  financed  by  the  programme  and  the  product  or  the  result  belongs  to  the 
Commission. 

The actions financed cover a large range of subjects, including: 

•  Awareness  raising  and  information  campaigns  on  data  protection,  rights  of  the  child, 

racism and xenophobia 

•  Creation and maintenance of websites: rights of the child, consular protection 

•  Studies (12) and research, including:  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  Study  on  a  common  electoral  system  for  the  European  Parliament;  multiple 

candidacy; recognition of disqualifications;  

•  Comparative  study  on  Member  States'  legislation  and  practices  in  the  area  of 

diplomatic and consular protection;  

•  Study on how Member States' legislation and Member States' practices deal with 
the  issue  of  the  past  totalitarian  crimes,  in  particular  which  methods  and 
instruments Member States concerned have employed to do this;  

•  Study  on  the  practical  obstacles  encountered  by  same-sex  couples  when  they 

move within the EU;  

•  Study on national legislation on combating racism and xenophobia etc. 

•  3 Eurobarometers (data controllers and citizens; awareness of EU citizenship; memory of 

the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes) 

•  Conferences, seminars, events etc. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
THE INTERIM EVALUATION 

The  interim  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  with  the  support  of  an  external 
contractor1. The contractor carried out an extensive survey amongst all direct beneficiaries of 
funding through the action and operating grants and carried out interviews with internal and 
external stakeholders of the programme. 

The overall aims and objectives of the evaluation were: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

To  provide  an  overview  of  the  results  obtained  in  the  first  three  years  of  the 
programme; 

To  provide  an  assessment  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  the 
implementation in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency;  

To  provide  recommendations  and  guidance  on  how  implementation  in  the 
remaining years of the programme could be improved.  

The evaluation was carried out in the second half of 2010 and is based on data from 2007 to 
20102 and provided a very detailed representation of the performance of the programme and 
extensive statistical data on its beneficiaries. 

MAIN FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

RELEVANCE OF THE FRC PROGRAMME 

The  FRC  programme  is  highly  relevant  to  the  needs  it  was  set  out  to  address.  The  FRC 
programme has contributed to the development and strengthening of EU actions in the areas 
of freedom, security and justice and specifically responded to the need to protect fundamental 
rights and promote EU citizenship.  

The  programme’s  objectives  are  pertinent  to  the  needs,  problems  and  issues  they  were 
designed  to  address,  and  hence  externally  coherent  as  indicated  by  the  survey  amongst 
beneficiaries. Furthermore, the annual priorities set out in the work programme allow it to be 
responsive  and  reactive  to  changing  needs  and  policy  orientations  of  the  Commission.  An 
example of this is the inclusion of fighting homophobia, which has proven to be a successful 
addition  to  the  priorities.  However,  the  FRC  Programme  covers  a  broad  spectrum  of  policy 
areas which are also partially contained in other EU programmes, and as a result the impact of 
the implemented activities is not as focused on specific areas as it could be.  

This has resulted in a steady rise in applicants and in an ever growing competition for the little 
funding that is available for action grants. The number of applications has more than tripled in 

EPEC led by GHK Consulting, www.ghkint.com  
Action Grants: 18 projects started in 2008 (finished), 26 projects 2009 (mid-term point)  

1 
2 
Operating Grants: 3 in 2008, 7 in 2009 and 5 in 2010  
Commission initiatives in 2007-2009: 47 with 12 foreseen for 2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
three years from 66 in 2007 to 215 in 2009-2010. By contrast, the interest in funding through 
operating  grants  has  been  limited  with  applications  not  exceeding  20  in the  4  years  of  calls 
published.  

FRC Action Grants

48

215

Projects Funded

134

Applications

2009

2008

26

17

2007

66

0

50

100

150

200

250

As  regards  the  internal  coherence  of  the  programme,  the  implemented  actions  (projects 
funded  and  specific  activities  launched  by  the  Commission)  are  strongly  in  line  with  the 
programme objectives and there is a strong correlation between the activities that have been 
(or  are  being)  implemented  by  the  projects  and  the  annual  priorities  contained  in  the  Work 
Programmes as well as the broader programme objectives.  

However,  the  activities  funded  through  different  actions  (direct  grants  or  Commission 
initiatives)  are  somewhat  segregated  from  one  another.  This  is  partially  due  to  an 
organisational  separation  within  the  DG,  the  Commission  initiatives  being  driven  and 
implemented by three separate policy units, whereas action and operating grants are managed 
by an operational/financial unit. A further disparity lies in the demand for funding for action 
grants according to priority areas and Commission initiatives funded in those areas. Whereas 
the  initiatives  show  a  balanced  spread  between  fundamental  rights,  data  protection  and 
citizenship, the demand for funding in the fundamental rights areas (racism, children's rights 
and homophobia) constitutes over 82% of the applications received, whereas Citizenship with 
12% and Data Protection under 5% are far less represented. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
FRC action grant applications 2009-2010

Data protection

9

Citizenship

Fight against
homophobia

Combating racism

Rights of the child

24

18

88

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Although the  correlation between the  priorities and the projects funded is strong, the use of 
the results and the outputs of implemented activities to support policy developments could be 
improved. No formal mechanisms are in place to ensure that outcomes of action and operating 
grants  are  communicated  to  the  policy  units,  or  to  other  stakeholders  involved  in 
policymaking,  and  the  dissemination  of  results  takes  place  in  a  rather  ad-hoc  and  informal 
way.  

Several  factors  also  demonstrate  the  EU  added  value  of  the  actions  funded  under  the  FRC 
programme.  In  particular,  EU  funding  is  considered  a  crucial  enabling  force  for  the 
implemented  activities  and  the  European  dimension  of  projects  in  general  helps  the 
dissemination  of  results.  In  addition,  involving  partners  from  different  Member  States 
provides  benefits  with  respect  to  increasing  innovation,  exchange  of  good  practice  and 
amplifying  impacts.  The  approaches  developed  and  the  results  of  many  projects  can  be 
implemented in other countries with minor changes. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FRC PROGRAMME 

At  the  stage  of  the  interim  evaluation  any  far-reaching  conclusions  regarding  whether  the 
programme  is  reaching  its  objectives  would  be  somewhat  premature.  Furthermore,  the 
programme, due to its structure, varied priorities, and thematic fields, range of target groups 
and breadth of stakeholders makes the setting of meaningful and useable indicators complex 
and the extraction of revealing information somewhat illusive. 

It is nevertheless clear from the evaluation carried out that the type of projects having been 
funded as well as the initiatives taken by the Commission, have all fallen under the objectives 
and  priorities  of  the  programme.  However,  a  clear  limiting  factor  to  these  contributing  to 
reaching the objectives of the programme is the funding available, especially on a European 
scale. With an upper limit of € 1000000 per 2 year  project with an average of 4 partners, this 
leaves a maximum funding of just over € 125000 pe r year per partner, which does not usually 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
enable  projects  to  transcend  beyond  their  wider  partnerships  and  show  a  true  European 
dimension and added value. 

Overall,  no  major  obstacles  that  would  be  considered  as  a  detriment  to  the  progress  in 
implementing the activities were identified by the beneficiaries. The level of funding of up to 
80 % was considered as adequate, and the general setup such as the duration and partnership 
requirements  were  deemed  appropriate  for  action  grants.  In  the  case  of  operating  grants  a 
longer-term  funding  extending  beyond  the  current  annual  setup  was  suggested  by  some 
beneficiaries to ensure a greater impact.  

By  the  very  nature  of  the  selection  criteria  for  funding  projects,  these  have  proven  to  be 
effective in promoting cooperation between participating countries. Furthermore, the focus on 
balanced partnerships and equal attribution of tasks and participation in the project, not least 
regulated  by  a  balanced  distribution  of  funding,  have  resulted  in  healthy  participative 
management of the projects and a fertile feeding ground for establishing and exchanging best 
practices.  

In spite of these positive aspects it remains evident that the projects have as much led to the 
deepening of collaboration  between existing partners as to the creation  of new partnerships. 
Further  to  this,  the  disproportionate  participation  of  some  countries  (Italian  applications 
representing over one third of the total received under the 2009-2010 call for action grants) 
and in some cases total absence of others should be considered a weakness that may need to 
be redressed.  

FRC action grant applications 2009-2010

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

a

i
r
t
s
u
A

m
u

i

l

g
e
B

a

i
r
a
g

l

u
B

s
u
r
p
y
C

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a

i

n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a

l

n

i

F

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a

l

e
r
I

y

l

a
t
I

a

i

v
t
a
L

a

i

n
a
u
h
t
i

L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l

a
M

s
d
n
a

l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a

l

o
P

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a

i

n
a
m
o
R

a

i

k
a
v
o
S

l

a

i

n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i

i

n
U

EFFICIENCY OF THE FRC PROGRAMME 

The  percentage  of  Commission  funding  allocated  to  action  grants  is  close  to  the  limits 
foreseen by the Financial Regulation. For operating grants this percentage is much lower, not 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
least due to the funding limit of € 300000 per organisation.  Nevertheless, with a significant 
proportion  of  beneficiaries  being  NGOs,  these  are  encountering  increasing  difficulties  in 
obtaining  co-funding  from  other  sources,  due  to  the  effects  the  financial  crisis  is  having  on 
availability of national funding for this type of activities and organisations. 

The  Commission’s  general  management  ability  was  considered  appropriate  by  the 
beneficiaries surveyed, including in terms of guidance and reporting arrangements. However 
with  the  rapidly  increasing  popularity  and  success  of  the  programme  (application  numbers 
have  more  than  tripled  between  2007  and  2010)  the  Commission’s  human  resources  are 
becoming  overstretched  and  some  important  aspects  such  as  closely  monitoring  projects 
throughout  their  life  cycles  have  become  less  and  less  feasible.  As  a  result  the  potential  for 
vertical mainstreaming of FRC funded activities as well as dissemination and use of results to 
strengthen policy has not been optimally realised. 

The  efficiency  of  the  delivery  in  terms  of  selection  procedures  has  undergone  profound 
changes  and  the  move  away  from  paper-based  submission  of  proposals  to  the  on-line 
application  tool  "Priamos"  have  simplified  the  first  stages  of  that  process  significantly. 
However, in particular, aspects related to the plethora of documents required for submission 
and the lengthy evaluation procedure that follows, are considered as significant obstacles by 
the  beneficiaries.  Furthermore,  the  obligation  of  consulting  a  comitology  committee  on  the 
outcome  of  the  selections  was  identified  as  a  further  internal  obstacle  towards  reducing  the 
delays between the submission of proposals and the final awarding of grants. 

The complex financial conditions governing the latest generation of multi-beneficiary grants 
and  the  extensive  financial  reporting  obligations  have  been  identified  as  hindrances  in  the 
efficient  implementation  of  the  projects  by  the  beneficiaries.  Some  stakeholders  considered 
that both the requirements in terms of co-financing to be provided by the beneficiaries and the 
required  partnerships  and  European  dimension,  were  an  obstacle.  As  the  nature  of  the 
activities funded would suggest, FRC action and operating grants have allocated most of their 
budgets  to  staff  costs,  costs  relating  to  conferences  and  seminars,  publications  and 
dissemination  as  well  as  other  direct  costs.  These  costs  are  directly  invested  in  the 
implementation of activities for the target groups. 88 % of total action grant costs and 86% of 
operating  grant  costs  have  been  allocated  to  these  categories.  Action  grants  tend  to  allocate 
more  resources  to  dissemination,  as  well  as  to  conferences  and  seminars,  whereas  for 
operating grants the staff costs are comparatively higher. 

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FRC PROGRAMME 

The  beneficiaries  of  action  and  operating  grants  are  reliant  on  Commission  funding  to 
implement  activities  and  to  achieve  impacts  on  the  ground.  The  full  achievement  of 
objectives,  particularly  with  a  longer-term  view,  is  also  reliant  on  further  funding.  This  has 
been  achieved  in  some  case  by  the  same  organisations  securing  funding  from  the  FRC 
programme through consecutive successful applications, though this does not apply to the vast 
majority of organisations. 

Many  beneficiaries  are  making  efforts  to  obtain  additional  funding  for  their  activities, 
although only a few have managed this and consequently the co-funding is mainly provided 
by their own resources.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
However,  evidence  also  suggests  that  some  of  the  completed  activities  are  likely  to  have 
sustainable impacts even without additional injection of funds due to their validity beyond the 
project's scope. This is reflected in some of the outputs such as training manuals, tool kits and 
best practices being used beyond the end of the projects. Further evidence of sustainability of 
programme  outcomes  can  be  found  in  the  durability  and  stability  of  partnerships  developed 
within  the  grants.  These  partnerships  in  many  cases  have  further  deepened  or  indeed  been 
formalised through the creation of informal or formal networks and are likely to continue to 
implement activities together. 

The  activities  are  likely  to  continue  in  a  new  format  even  if  not  necessarily  with  the  same 
level  of  ambition.  The  needs  of  target  groups  are  evolving  and  other  approaches  may  be 
appropriate, rather than continuation of the same type of activities.  

RECOMMENDATIONS  

In response to the issues identified during the programme evaluation, the Commission plans 
to implement the following measures in order to strengthen the impact of the programme and 
improve its implementation. 

IMPROVED FOCUS OF EU POLICY PRIORITIES  

The relevance of the programme was highlighted by all the stakeholders consulted, however 
its impact has been limited in part by the diffuse prioritising of funding. Therefore in order to 
accentuate  the  relevance  of  the  programme,  a  narrowing  of  the  wide  coverage  of  the 
programme  may  help  to  increase  its  impact.  In  this  respect,  the  number  of  annual  priorities 
could be streamlined and significantly reduced. 

It should also be considered, in particular with a view to the next generation of programmes, 
to  focus  the  programme's  project  funding  on  strengthening  its  policy  areas  of  Fundamental 
Rights,  including  Data  Protection  and  Union  Citizenship.  Accompanied  by  appropriate 
support  for  the  development  of  Commission  initiatives,  this  would  increase  the  impact  of 
policy development and avoid overlaps with existing programmes within other DGs that have 
significantly higher budgets for this type of direct funding. 

CONCENTRATION ON PROJECTS WITH A STRONG EUROPEAN DIMENSION  

Throughout the first years of funding under the FRC programme, the element of multi-lateral 
partnerships  and  the  involvement  of  a  large  number  of  actors  and  in  some  cases,  Member 
States,  have  been  promoted  with  considerable  success.  This  approach  however  has  the 
adverse effect of allocating only limited funding to many beneficiaries and therefore diffusing 
the impact these can achieve with the activities funded. 

Therefore,  in  order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme  the  currently  limited 
funding  should  concentrate  on  projects  with  a  stronger  European  dimension.  Larger-scale 
projects  receiving  more  funding  would  increase  the  visibility  of  the  programme  and  ensure 
that projects achieve a wider impact not limited to local or regional level, as they would be 
broader  and  better  elaborated  with  a  stronger  added  value  at  EU  level  and  greater 
sustainability resulting from it.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Following  the  same  aim,  the  Commission  will  examine  further  if  the  impact  that  operating 
grants  have  on  reaching  the  programme's  objectives  are  sufficient  to  uphold  this  type  of 
funding, considering the continuously limited interest shown by applicants and the restrained 
visibility the FRC programme and its objectives have through this type of funding.  

BALANCE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FRC PROGRAMME 

The participation in the FRC programme continues to show a preponderance of beneficiaries 
form  certain  Member  States  and  an  underrepresentation  of  beneficiaries,  both  direct  and 
indirect, from the 12 newest Member States.  

In  order  to  address  this,  the  Commission  will  seek  to  target  information  campaigns  at 
organisations in those Member States and increase its contacts with the relevant national and 
regional authorities to act as multipliers for these campaigns to overcome the limitations set 
by the funding available for such actions.  

MORE EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE FRC PROGRAMME  

With the growing success of the programme and the rising number of applications for funding 
and  indeed  of  projects  funded,  further  efforts  are  needed  to  streamline  the  processes  that 
govern the life-cycle of projects. 

The  application  process,  having  recently  seen  the  introduction  of  the  electronic  application 
system  PRIAMOS,  has  shown  great  potential  in  facilitating  the  work  of  applicants  and 
Commission  alike  and  has  achieved  a  paper-less  initial  submission  of  proposals.  There  are 
many further potential advantages to be drawn from the system and the Commission will take 
further  steps  to  streamline  the  system's  user-friendliness,  efficiency  and  speed  and  to  strive 
towards  it  becoming  an  integrated  tool  that  will  serve  both  applicants/beneficiaries  and  the 
Commission in the efficient management of projects throughout their entire life-cycle.  

A  further  consideration  should  be  to  address  the  in-built  delays  caused  by  the  obligation  of 
consulting the FRC programme committee on the outcome of selections and to asses whether 
the  administrative  burden  of  this  procedure  is  warranted  by  the  very  limited  funding 
concerned. 

To  further  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  programme  efforts  will  be  made  to  strengthen  the 
Commission’s  support  and  monitoring  capability  towards  beneficiaries  throughout  the  “life 
cycle” of the implemented actions. This will contribute towards a better implementation of the 
activities  as  well  as  an  increased  understanding  and  mainstreaming  of  policy  priorities  and 
good practices. 

IMPROVED DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS 

The evaluation found that the deliverables and outputs produced by the projects would benefit 
from a more targeted dissemination and from being used as resources for policy development. 

In order to achieve this, the Commission will use a more output and results-based approach 
both in the selection and in the management of projects. In combination with the targeting of 
priorities this will further ensure a stronger correlation between policy initiatives carried out 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
by the Commission directly and through the projects and will therefore result in a more fertile 
feeding  ground  for  cross-fertilisation  between  these  two  funding  mechanisms  of  the 
programme. 

Together  with  this  results-driven  approach  further  measures  to  highlight  the  results  of  the 
programme  may  be  envisaged,  with  a  more  elaborate  and  dynamic  online  dissemination  as 
well  as  through  specific  events  to  single  out  specific  successful  projects  as  a  means  to 
illustrate further the added value of the programme. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The  Interim  evaluation  confirms  the  importance  of  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship 
programme in promoting the respect for fundamental rights, encouraging dialogue and fighting 
racism and xenophobia.  

The growing interest not only in its funding opportunities, but also the increasing visibility of 
its projects and the recent addition of well-known and respected international organisations as 
its  direct  beneficiaries,  are  all  strong  indicators  for  the  relevance  and  added  value  of  the 
programme.  The  fact  that  in  the  latest  selection  rounds  the  demand  for  funding  exceeded  5 
times  the  funds  available  is  a  clear  indicator  of  the  potential  of  the  programme  to  further 
develop and expand. 

Although the evaluation also highlighted some challenges in the implementation of the FRC 
programme and identified a number of improvements that could be made, there is no denying 
of the intrinsic quality of the programme, its relevance to current European policy priorities, 
to the needs of its chosen target groups and stake-holders, as well as its added value. 

Therefore,  in  order  to  further  improve  the  impact  and  effectiveness  of  the  programme,  the 
Commission  will  further  focus  the  programme,  ensure  a  stronger  coherence  between  result-
driven  projects  and  policy  developments,  spread  the  reach  of  the  programme  to  the  EU12 
Member  States,  rationalise  the  management  processes  of  the  programme  and  emphasise  the 
dissemination of its achievements. 

EN 

14 

   EN