REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Final evaluation of the multi-annual EU programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies (Safer Internet)
Date: 2016-06-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Internet, child protection, data protection, information technology, project evaluation, public awareness campaign

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.6.2016  COM(2016) 364 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Final evaluation of the multi-annual EU programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies (Safer Internet)  
 
 
1.  OVERVIEW 

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Safer Internet programme 2009-
20131,  hereafter  'the  Programme'.  The  Commission  concludes,  on  the  basis  on  this 
evaluation  that  the  Programme  has  been  successful  in  achieving  its  main  goals.  The 
Programme was highly relevant in terms of the problems addressed and the stakeholders 
involved,  and  responded  well  to  changing  technologies  and  problems.  It  demonstrated 
that EU intervention had been both necessary and effective in the delivery of results. The 
pan-European  dimension  of  the  activities,  the  establishment  of  Safer  Internet  Centres 
(SICs) in all Member States, and the close cooperation between different stakeholders are 
some of the key success factors.  

The  evaluation  is  based  on  an  external  study  using  data  collected  through  surveys  and 
interviews with project participants and a wider range of stakeholders. The conclusions 
of  the  external  survey  are  sound  and  corroborated  by  the  conclusions  of  the  project 
reviews and by findings from the parallel work to  benchmark  Safer Internet policies in 
the Member States2. The findings indicate that the Commission should consider: 

  continuing  the  most  effective  activities,  namely  the  SICs,  focused  research  and 

European coordination of actions; 
improving measures for monitoring activities undertaken in the projects; 

 
  continuing communication and cooperation at all levels, and;  
  ensuring greater involvement of Member States and industry. 

In addition the evaluation found that: 

  SICs play a key role in the coordination of actions and initiatives. In the majority 
of  Member  States,  the  SIC  is  recognised  as  the  key  platform  for  the 
implementation and coordination of actions and initiatives. 

 

issues  related  to  online  safety  for  children  is  high  on  the  policy  agenda  in  all 
Member States but there is room for improvement in the design of the policies, in 
particular in relation to the coordination, collection of evidence and evaluation of 
the policies. 

2.  BACKGROUND 

This  report  concerns  the  final  evaluation  of  the  Safer  Internet  Programme  2009-2013, 
with the objective to assess the Programme for its relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, 
as well as its broader impacts and sustainability. Article 5 of the Programme Decision3, 
stipulates  that  the  Commission  evaluates  the  manner  in  which  the  projects  have  been 
carried out and their impact in order to assess whether the objectives have been achieved, 
and  that  the  Commission  will  submit  a  final  evaluation  report  at  the  end  of  the 
Programme. The evaluation will also feed into recommendations as input for future Safer 
Internet  policy  and  on  the  follow-up  of  the  Programme  through  the  digital  services 

1   Decision No 1351/2008/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 
December  2008  establishing  a  multiannual  EU  programme  on  protecting  children  using  the  Internet 
and other communication technologies – OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 118 

2   Published  as:  Mapping  Safer  Internet  policies  in  the  Member  States:  The  Better  Internet  for  Kids 

(BIK) Map ISBN: 978-92-79-47784-3 

3   No 1351/2008/ EC 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
infrastructure  for  Safer  Internet  services  implemented  under  the  Connecting  Europe 
Facility4.  

With  a  budget  of  MEUR  55  the  Programme  co-funded  projects  in  the  Member  States, 
Iceland,  Norway,  Serbia  (through  a  MoU)  and  provided  limited  funding  to  Russia  for 
participation  in  European  networking  activities  Its  main  objectives,  set  out  in  the 
following Action Lines, were to: 

1. 

Increase  public  awareness  in  particular  among  children,  parents  and  teachers  about 
opportunities and risks related to the use of online technologies, and means of staying 
safe online.  

2.  Fight against  illegal content  and harmful conduct online by reducing the  amount  of 
illegal content circulated online; and by dealing adequately with harmful contact and 
conduct,  with  particular  focus  on  online  distribution  of  child  sexual  abuse  material 
(CSAM), grooming and cyber-bullying. 

3.  Promote  a  safer  environment  by  bringing  together  stakeholders,  including  children, 

and by fostering self-regulatory initiatives. 

4.  Establish a knowledge base for dealing adequately with existing and emerging uses 
of  the  online  environment  and  relevant  risks  and  consequences,  with  a  view  to 
designing adequate actions aimed at ensuring online safety for all users. 

92%  of  the  budget  co-funded  projects  under  actions  1  and  2  (the  European  network  of 
SICs and its coordination), 5% funded projects for establishing a knowledge base and 2 
%  was  allocated  to  the  third  action.  The  average  co-funding  rate  was  73%  and  the 
average duration was 26,5 months. 

Compared to the earlier Safer Internet Programmes5 the general scope of the Programme 
was extended to include emerging online technologies, coverage of harmful contact and 
conduct  and  the  establishment  of  a  knowledge  base  within  this  field.  The  main 
mechanism  for  implementing  the  Programme  was  annual  Work  Programmes  outlining 
priorities,  actions  and  funding  instruments  for  each  year.  The  co-financing  of  projects 
selected on the basis of calls for proposals resulted in a wide range of projects aimed at 
creating  a  safer  online  environment  for  children.  The  projects  were  complemented  by 
non-funded  activities  which  ranged  from  supporting  Safer  Internet  Day,  organizing  the 
Safer Internet Forum, supporting industry self-regulation, and international cooperation. 

The  recommendations  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Programme  in  2011  were 
incorporated in the continued implementation of the Programme such as engaging with 
youth  through  regular  activities,  extending  the  coverage  of  helplines  and  initiatives 
supporting self-regulation, such as the CEO Coalition to make the internet a better place 
for kids, were maintained.  

More specifically, the Programme co-funded Safer Internet Centres in all EU Member 
States,  Iceland,  Norway,  Serbia  and  Russia.  SICs  carried  out  activities  to  raise  public 
awareness;  they operated  helplines from which  children and parents could  get support 
and  advice  on  online  related  issues.  The  awareness  centres  and  helplines  belong  to  the 

4   Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  913/2010  and  repealing 
Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010. 

5   Safer Internet Action Plan (1999-2004) with a budget of 38,7 MEUR; 2005-2008 Safer Internet plus 

Programme (2005-2008) with a budget of 45 MEUR 
3 

 
                                                 
INSAFE network.6  In  most countries SICs also include hotlines,  whose  main task is  to 
receive  reports  from  the  public  about  CSAM,  and  if  assessed  as  illegal,  notify  law 
enforcement  and  the  hosting  ISP  for  the  content  to  be  removed.  The  hotlines  are 
coordinated  by  the  INHOPE  Association.7  Under  the  action  for  fighting  against  illegal 
content the Programme also co-funded initiatives to support law enforcement in the fight 
against CSAM. These activities have in turn supported the compliance by Member States 
with their obligations on prevention of child sexual abuse and removal of CSAM under 
the  child  sexual  abuse  directive8,  as  well  as  with  their  commitments  under  the  Global 
Alliance against child sexual abuse online.9 

In order to prepare for the follow-up of the Programme, the Programme funded a pilot for 
developing  a  platform  to  share  resources,  services  and  good  practices  for  SICs;  and 
establishing a database that enhances hotlines' capacity to identify and analyse reports of 
CSAM.  The  review  of  this  project  concluded  that  the  INSAFE/INHOPE  networks  are 
increasingly consolidated across Europe and that their impact is undeniable. The project 
was said to play a key role in Safer Internet work in Europe and beyond partly due to the 
overall  strength  of  the  dissemination  which  has  positioned the  project  as  a reference  in 
the field. 

Under  its  third  action  'promoting  a  safer  environment',  the  Programme  has  supported 
self-regulatory agreements and through this pushed for increased use of safety practices 
on websites and devices used by children. Online technologies develop at a fast pace and 
industry self-regulation is seen as the most effective approach to be able to react quickly 
concerning  new  developments  of  children's  use  and  risks.  The  online  industry  has 
responded positively to Commission initiatives and other joint activities. The most recent 
example  is  the  CEO  Coalition  to  make  the  Internet  a  better  place  for  kids10  where  31 
global companies across the value chain were invited to sign up to VP Kroes' initiative to 
work  together.  This  builds  on  earlier  support  from  the  Programme  to  self-regulation 
initiatives11 taken by the industry at the European level. 

Civil society was included through actions such as the national youth panels, as well as 
through the funding given for the eNACSO network of children's welfare NGOs.12 The 
aim of this network was to develop a concerted approach by sharing experiences, and by 
developing joint strategies, in order to ensure that the needs of children are better taken 
into account in national, European and international discussions around online safety.  

Knowledge  enhancement  is  crucial  in  order  to  develop  robust  policy  approaches, 
especially in this rapidly changing area, and increased knowledge on young people's use 
of  new  media  and  technology  was  a  central  aim  for  the  work  in  the  Programme.  The 
Programme  supported  the  EUKidsOnline  network13,  whose  activities  have  proven 
instrumental  as  a  source  of  accurate  trend  analyses  and  for  getting  input  on  future 

International Association of Internet Hotlines INHOPE http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx 

6   https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/ 
7  
8   Directive  2011/93/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2011  on 
combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing 
Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA 

9   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-

trafficking/global-alliance-against-child-abuse/index_en.htm 

10   Coalition  to  make  the  Internet  a  better  place  for  kids  Statement  of  purpose.  Available  at  : 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/ceo_coalition_statement.pdf 

11   European Framework for Safer Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers and Children; Social Networking 

Principles for the EU 
12   http://www.enacso.eu/  
13   http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx  

4 

 
                                                 
research and policy priorities; and a broad range of research projects covering a range of 
topics14.  In  addition  to  raising  the  research  profile  of  Safer  Internet  related  issues,  the 
knowledge developed fed into the knowledge base for all activities in the Programme. 

The Programme has also funded a number of studies to gather evidence, specifically the 
SIP-Bench  study15  and  a  study  on  Safer Internet  policies and indicators in  the  Member 
States16.  The  overall  aim  of  the  latter  was  to  improve  the  understanding  of  current 
national policies and actions and to design a sustainable tool enabling identification and 
sharing of good practices.  

The European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children (BIK strategy)17 has been 
since its launch in 2012 a central reference document for the activities undertaken in the 
Programme.  The  BIK  strategy  sets  out  a  comprehensive  approach  through  four  pillars: 
stimulating  quality  content  online  for  young  people;  stepping  up  awareness  and 
empowerment; creating a safe environment for children online and fighting against child 
sexual abuse and exploitation. The Programme contributed to actions under each of these 
through:  the promotion of positive content through national and European competitions; 
developing and  sharing awareness  resources  and  promoting  best  practices;  hotlines and 
training for dealing with CSAM.  

3.  EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 

The final evaluation examined the implementation of the Programme, with respect to its 
relevance,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  and  assessed 
impacts  and 
sustainability as well as its EU added value and coherence, which were assessed as parts 
of these criteria. The evaluation is qualitative in nature and includes limited quantitative 
evidence  but  additional  data  is  available  in  the  external  evaluation  report.  The 
Commission  will  feed  the  results  of  this  evaluation  into  further  policy  and  action 
development. 

its  broader 

To consider the relevance of the Programme the evaluation centred its questions around 
the evolution of the problems addressed by the Programme and how it responded to these 
changes, the relevance of the actions and their added value to the key target groups. 

The  efficiency  of  the  Programme  was  evaluated  through  questions  about  overall 
satisfaction  with  the  implementation,  the  efficiency  of  the  activities,  the  adequacy  of 
funding and its leveraging effect.  

Effectiveness  considered  the  contribution  the  Programme  made  to  protecting  children 
online and the broader digital environment, whether the same results or activities might 
have been achieved by other more effective means or without the Programme, and what 
improvements might be made in any follow-up actions. 

14   EU NET ADB , SPIRTO, Social Web Social Work, the ROBERT  project, Net Children Go Mobile. 
15   SIP-Bench III:  http://sipbench.eu 
16   Final report published as: Mapping Safer Internet policies in the Member States: The Better Internet 

for Kids (BIK) Map ISBN: 978-92-79-47784-3 

17   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: European Strategy for a Better 
Internet for Children  COM(2012) 196 final 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=2170 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/creating-better-internet-kids 

5 

 
 
                                                 
 
Impact and sustainability looked at evidence of the sustainability of impacts, whether 
changes  would  have  happened  without  EU  funding  and  what  would  have  been  the 
alternatives as  sources of funding, and the complementarity/overlap with other  national 
or EU Programmes.  

The  external  evaluation  employed  a  number  of  data  collection  tools  in  order  to  gather 
evidence  to  inform  this  report.  The  data  collection  phase  included  a  survey  targeting 
project  participants  in  the  Programme  as  well  as  a  survey  open  to  a  wider  range  of 
stakeholders  representing  all  relevant  stakeholder  groups  –  industry,  public  authorities, 
education, and NGOs. 

These  were  complemented  by  an  interview  programme  of  semi-structured  interviews 
with  stakeholders  ranging  from  Commission  officials  and  Programme  beneficiaries  to 
external  actors  such  as  industry,  researchers  and  Member  State  and  law  enforcement 
representatives. Finally, case studies were carried out illustrating different forms of Safer 
Internet cooperation in four Member States. 

In addition an analysis was carried out of the final review reports of projects, focusing on 
the extent to which objectives were achieved and their impacts.  

3.1.  Limitations – robustness of findings 

The data collection and analysis carried out has a number of intrinsic limitations, whose 
impact was mitigated to a maximum possible extent: 

  Measuring  the  impacts  of  the  projects  was  not  possible  because  of  insufficient 
monitoring  tools.  The  assessment  of  impact  and  sustainability  was  therefore  mainly 
based on the perceptions of project participants, which is often not objective. 

  The evaluation takes into account the inherent limitations of the findings of surveys: 
the  answers  received  reflect the  views  of  a  sample  of  relevant  stakeholders  and  not 
those of the entire population who has a stake in this domain. Secondly, stakeholders' 
views convey an individual rather than a holistic perspective. 

Based on the elements above, this evaluation has been carried out on the basis of the best 
available  data.  Whenever  reliable  quantitative  data  is  lacking,  this  is  indicated  as 
appropriate and counter balanced with qualitative data and considerations. 

4.  FINAL EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The findings of the evaluation show that the Programme has been successful in achieving 
its main goals. The success of the Programme was particularly based on its pan-European 
character and coherence, and the close cooperation between the different stakeholders.  

The initiatives funded have had a positive impact on the rights of children. Article 24 of 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recognising that children are 
independent and autonomous rights-holders and prescribes that children have the right to 
protection  and  care  necessary  for  their  well-being,  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the 
promotion of Safer Internet policies. 

6 

 
 
 
 
The  findings  presented  below  by  each  evaluation  criterion  represent  the  consolidated 
results  of  the  work  carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  the  surveys  and  the  interviews 
conducted for the external study.  

4.1.  Relevance 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  confirm  that  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  took 
account of new technologies and new online behaviours such as children going online at 
an  ever  younger  age  on  a  variety  of  connected  devices,  and  that  consistent  revision  in 
strategy were needed due to the fast changing nature of the field. This was made possible 
through  the  flexibility  offered  by  annual  work  programmes  and  calls  for  proposals. 
Stakeholders  acknowledged  that  the  Programme  has  become  a  significant  forerunner 
internationally,  and  has  provided  leadership  as  well  as  financial  support  to  Member 
States. 

This  evaluation  has  also  confirmed  that  the  Programme's  actions  were  comprehensive 
and  have  both  involved  and  targeted  a  wide  spectrum  of  different  stakeholder  groups. 
'Increasing public awareness' and 'Fighting against illegal  content' were regarded as the 
most relevant objectives, while stakeholder opinions are more split on 'Promoting a safer 
online  environment'  and  'Establishing  a  knowledge  base'.  Nevertheless,  all  four  actions 
were  viewed  as  responding  to  the  needs  of  children  engaged  in  the  Internet.  There  has 
been  an  added  value  for  the  Programme's  target  groups:  most  stakeholders  consulted 
were not aware of activities similar to their project undertaken by other organisations at 
national level; and there was a strong indication that without EU funding, the majority of 
projects  would  not  have  been  carried  out,  or  at  least  not  to  the  same  extent,  due to  the 
lack  of  financial  resources  specifically  allocated  for  promoting  safer  use  of  online 
technologies by children. 

The  evaluation  results  emphasised  the  importance  of  education  and  positive  content. 
Children  need  to  access  quality  education  that  includes  a  digital  component  to  help 
protect  against  various risks  when confronted with  such  rapidly  changing  technologies. 
The  evaluation  underlined  the  benefits  of  children's  participation  and  the  need  both  for 
children to be aware of possibilities offered by digital technologies and for parents to be 
sufficiently  engaged  in  their  children’s  online  activities.  To  be  active  and  effective 
participants online and to be empowered in recognising harmful content and navigating 
their  own  safety  online,  children  need  digital  competences,  ideally  provided  through 
school curricula. 

Programme participants and other policy and industry actors valued highly the research 
conducted  and  the  importance  of  disseminating  this  research  throughout  the  rest  of  the 
Programme. Specific input to the survey underlines the need to conduct further in-depth 
international  research  on  children’s  online  behaviour18,  and  on  efficient  methods  of 
education.  

Finally,  Programme  beneficiaries  and  industry  wished  to  continue  their  collaboration, 
including  through  more  specific  actions  for  vulnerable  children,  disabled  children  and 
children with difficult situations at home.  

18   An example of this is the study carried out by DG SANCO on marketing to children through social 
media, online games and mobile applications. The study is expected to publish its results in 2016. 

7 

 
                                                 
4.2.  Efficiency 

Project  participants  reported  a  high  level  of  satisfaction  with  the  management  of  the 
Programme  carried  out by  the  Directorate-General  Communications  Networks,  Content 
and Technology (DG CNECT), though there may be some bias due to vested interest in 
supporting  the  Programme.  Still,  some  beneficiaries  identified  areas  for  improving  the 
process of applying for future EU grants in the field, such as: simplified procedures and 
reporting 
to  accommodate  country 
specificities; longer-term planning of work and funding; and more information on other 
funding Programmes in related areas.  

requirements;  more 

requirements 

flexible 

Stakeholders generally recognised that the Commission ensured an efficient management 
of  the  Programme.  The  average  time  to  contract  was  292  days  for  the  77  projects  that 
were  negotiated  during  the  programming  period.  Actions  of  the  Programme,  and 
especially the focus on network activities, were largely considered as being ‘good value 
for  money’  but  there  is  scope  for  more  consolidation  and  collaboration  at  EU  level, 
across services, and between programme beneficiaries. The findings on the adequacy of 
funding were split evenly between those who found it sufficient and those who did not, 
and  of  those  who  found  it  insufficient,  nearly  all  had  access  to  funding  from  other 
sources.  However,  these  results  could  be  biased  depending  on  whether  the  beneficiary 
had access to additional funding or not.  

Funded projects often benefitted from synergies with other initiatives. The fact that SICs 
exist in  27 Member States  is  perceived by stakeholders as the main added  value of the 
Programme as this allows the sharing of knowledge and good practice. This is confirmed 
in the mapping of Safer Internet policies, which concludes that in the majority of the EU 
countries,  the  SIC  is  recognised  as  the  key  platform  for  the  implementation  and 
coordination of actions and initiatives.19  

The evaluation confirmed that the projects funded under the Programme have contributed 
to achieving the Programme’s objectives. This has been done by raising public awareness 
on safer use of online technologies, by enhancing cooperation between stakeholders, by 
tackling  harmful  conduct  online,  and  by  involving  and  informing  children  in  and  on 
online safety. Concerns were however raised that the effectiveness of the Programme and 
its  activities  in  the  future  may  be  endangered  by  a  lack  of  sustained  EU  funding  and 
reluctance by industry and national governments to step in. 

Regarding  improvements  for  the  future,  activities  which  could  have  received  more 
consideration include social work, and, further research and projects designed to improve 
children's  digital  skills.  Finally,  stakeholders  saw  the  need  for  industry  to  play  a  larger 
role in enhancing the effectiveness of activities launched by the Programme. 

4.3.  Impact and Sustainability 

The findings from the surveys and interviews with project participants and stakeholders, 
with the caveat that they could be biased, show that the programme has had a medium to 
high impact, mainly in raising awareness, fighting illegal content, increasing digital skills 
and by enhancing cooperation and creating synergies.  

Awareness  raising,  combined  with  providing  education,  training  and  related  tools  and 
materials  to  be  used  by  children,  was  the  most  cited  key  The  coordination  provided 

19 

http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Benchmarking-SI-Policies_Final-

report.pdf 

8 

 
                                                 
through the Insafe network is seen to maximise synergies and impact, and for example, in 
2014 the joint efforts of the network reached out to more than 22,5 million people across 
(and beyond) Europe.20 

The second strong area of impact was achieved in  the fight against  illegal content, and 
specifically the work of the hotlines. The establishment of a system of notice and take-
down  of  CSAM  and  the  improved  cooperation  between  hotlines  and  law  enforcement 
have led to faster removal. In 2011, 60% of the reported content was removed within 1 to 
3  days  compared  to  over  90%  in  2014.21  Also,  over  the  programme  period,  hotlines 
received an increasing number of reports22 leading to an increase in sites deleted by the 
INHOPE network.  

The  findings  further  show  that  the  Programme  has  been  influential  in  relation  to  other 
national and international activities. This is evidenced by references made to research and 
results from the Programme. European Safer Internet activities are often considered good 
practice  internationally,  and  have  been  taken  up  in  Latin  America,  the  US  and  Asia-
Pacific. As an illustration, the Safer Internet Day, which stems from the Programme, is 
an  international  yearly  event  to  raise  awareness  of  child  online  safety.  It  is  organised 
annually  in  more  than  100  countries  and  recognised  across  Europe,  North  America, 
South America and the Asia-Pacific region.  

The  majority  of  stakeholders  considered  that  project  activities  would  not  have  been 
carried out without EU funding, and they voiced concerns about obtaining funding from 
national  governments  or  the  industry  and  many  believed  that  in  this  regard,  continued 
funding  by  the  Commission  is  necessary.  Project  beneficiaries  said  that  the  impact  of 
their projects would continue in the medium to longer term with a crucial role for public 
authorities and industry in funding future activities.  

5.  EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

On the basis of the external evaluation and its parallel work, the Commission arrives at 
the following conclusions as input for deliberations on future Safer Internet policy. 

–  The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Programme  has  been  successful  in  achieving  its 
main  objectives.  The  Programme  was  highly  relevant  in  terms  of  the  problems 
addressed  and  the  stakeholders  involved,  and  responded  well  to  evolving 
technologies and problems.  

– 

It is demonstrated that EU intervention had been both necessary and effective in 
the  delivery  of  results.  The  pan-European  dimension  and  coherence  of  the 
activities,  the  establishment  of  SICs  in  all  Member  States,  and  the  close 
cooperation  between  different  stakeholders  have  contributed  to  the  successful 
implementation consolidation and collaboration at EU level, across services, and 
between programme beneficiaries  

–  The  programme  was  recognised  to  have  been  delivered  efficiently,  although 

certain procedures were highlighted as presenting scope for simplification. 

–  The  programme  has  had  a  medium  to  high  impact,  mainly  in  raising  awareness 
due  to  the  focus  on  networking  and  creation  of  synergies,  and  fighting  illegal 

20   Insafe – INHOPE, Annual Report 2014, April 2015 
21   Infographics/INHOPE 2014 
22   Insafe – INHOPE, Annual Report 2013, April 2014, p. 6. 

9 

 
                                                 
content; the establishment of a well-functioning system of notice and take-down 
of  CSAM,  complemented  by  voluntary  efforts  from  industry  to  counter 
distribution  of  CSAM  through  their  infrastructure,  has  significantly  reduced  the 
time to removal.23  

–  The Commission has exercised a recognised leadership role both with respect to 
Member  States  and  internationally  where  European  Safer  Internet  activities  are 
often  considered  good  practice  and  have  been  taken  up  worldwide  such  as  the 
celebration of Safer Internet Day. 

5.1.  Continuation of most effective activities 

In order to keep up and build on the results achieved, the following types of activities that 
have to date proven to be the most effective, could be further sustained: 

- 

- 

the  work  of  the  SIC  awareness  centres,  which  should  be  continued  by  further 
reinforcing  awareness-raising  activities, 
the  dissemination  of 
information  and  tools  for  children  on  safer  use  of  online  technologies  and 
continuation  of  the  annual  Safer  Internet  Day;  to  further  expand  the  work  of  the 
helplines  and  their  cooperation  with  national  child  protection  systems  should  be 
encouraged; also the work of the hotlines which has been a major achievement of 
the Programme should be continued. 

including 

to  ensure  that  the  SICs  reach  out  to  children  in  disadvantaged  or  vulnerable 
situations (such as children with disabilities, children at risk of poverty, children in 
migration) allowing them to embrace the benefits of digital technologies by their 
full inclusion. 

-  continued research at EU and national level on children’s behaviour online and the 
risks they face to keep the knowledge base up to date and to ensure any initiatives 
remain relevant and focused on those areas that need the most attention. Given the 
lack  of  focused  research  in  this  area,  there  is  a  need  to  think  about  how  to 
encourage researchers to contribute to the knowledge base on children’s use of the 
Internet and provide the material for the continuing development of actions, and to 
ensure  that  the  rights-based  approach  evident  in  EUKidsOnline  is  replicated  in 
future research, with a view to further realising the rights of the child in the online 
environment. In this context, helplines could be a valuable source of information, 
as they are the first point of contact, consulted directly by children and parents.  

- 

to  continue  the  mapping  of  Safer  Internet  policies  on  a  regular  basis  to  get  an 
overview of how the challenges concerning online safety are met and addressed in 
policies  and  initiatives  across  Europe,  and  to  identify  emerging  patterns  and 
approaches taken by the Member States. 

Overall, the coordinating and supervisory role of the Commission in the implementation 
of the Programme, and in particular through the SICs has been very valuable for Member 

23 

http://www.inhope.org/Libraries/Statistics_Infographics_2014/INHOPE_stats_infographics_for_2014.
sflb.ashx 

10 

 
 
                                                 
 
States and all stakeholders involved.24 Thus, a continued coordination role for the 
Commission in future Programmes would be of added value. 

5.2.  Facilitate the monitoring of impact of projects  

Determining and measuring the impacts of projects co-funded by the EU, is currently not 
possible because of insufficient monitoring tools. For the future, it is therefore advisable 
that a robust monitoring system is being set up and that regular independent evaluations 
are carried out. Therefore, measurable implementation and performance indicators need 
to continue being further developed, allowing for a comparison and better assessment of 
projects of the same kind and to highlight good practices. 

5.3.  Continued need for effective communication 

Communication should be pursued between all relevant entities and stakeholders in order 
to share good practices and to ensure that there is no overlap between future initiatives. 
In  this  context,  the  Commission  should  further  enhance  existing  cooperation  across  the 
various relevant Commission services on issues related to internet safety and full range of 
illegal  content  and  monitor  consistency  of  their  work.  In  addition,  the  cooperation  and 
exchange  of  good  practices  between  different  types  of  stakeholders  should  be  further 
enhanced.  

5.4.  Encourage industry and Member States’ involvement 

The  evaluation  has  demonstrated  that  the  activities  funded  under  the  Programme  are 
valuable,  but  at  the  moment  there  is  limited  financial  involvement  from  the  industry. 
Given existing concerns of project participants over future funding of initiatives, stronger 
industry  involvement  should  be  sought  as  alternative  sources  of  funding  of  activities 
currently funded by the Commission and, to some extent, by national governments. This 
could be a long-term objective which would enable the Commission to conduct research 
on how to best improve the (financial) engagement of industry more generally. 

Member  States’  involvement  in  future  initiatives  should  also  be  further  encouraged. 
Thus,  while  determining  the  level  of  resources  for  future  activities,  the  availability  of 
national and other sources to complement the EU funding should be assessed at an early 
stage.  Moving  forward,  the  need  for  national  co-financing  should  be  clearly  and 
continuously communicated by the Commission so that no Member States solely rely on 
EU-funded projects in this policy area. Highlighting good practices of Member States by 
the  Commission  and  communicating  this  to  all  other  Member  States  could  incentivise 
them to increase national funding. 

24 

http://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Benchmarking-SI-Policies_Final-

report.pdf 

11