REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (2007-2013)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European citizenship, anti-discriminatory measure, exchange of information, fundamental rights, human rights, institutional cooperation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.2.2017  COM(2017) 69 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (2007-2013)   
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2 

1 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 

1.1  OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................. 3 

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ......................................... 3 

1.3  OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 3 

2  RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................. 6 

2.1  RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .................................................................... 6 

2.2  COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY ........................................................... 7 

2.3  EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................................... 9 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY ................................................... 12 

2.5  EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION ........................................... 15 

2.6  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................ 17 

3  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 23 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

The  Decision  establishing  the  fundamental  rights  and  citizenship  programme  (FRC)  requires  the 
Commission  to  submit  an  ex  post  evaluation  for  the period  2007  to  2013.1  This  ex  post  evaluation2 
was performed by an independent external evaluator assisted by Commission staff. 

This  report  is  based  on  that  evaluation.  The  report  is  structured  according  to  the  main  evaluation 
criteria  and  corresponding  questions.  These  include  relevance,  coherence  and  complementarity, 
effectiveness, impact and sustainability, efficiency and scope for simplification, and European added 
value. 

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION 
This final evaluation is based on the following: 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

an  extensive  review  of  the  available  documentation  for  135  action  grants  and  34  operating 
grants funded by the FRC programme 2007-2013; 
a  review  of  programme  documentation,  such  as  the  founding  decision,  annual  work 
programmes and calls for proposals for both grants and public procurement contracts; 
a  review  of  other  information  available  online  —  e.g.  EU  policy  documents,  websites, 
founding decisions on related EU programmes etc.; 
a quantitative analysis of the 169 projects (action and operating grants); 
an analysis of 71 responses to the online survey from FRC programme grant beneficiaries; 
the write-ups of 17 follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving 
FRC grants 2007-2013;  
four scoping interviews with Commission officials. 

1.3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME 

The  FRC  programme  was  established  by  Council  Decision  2007/252/JHA  of  19 April 2007  (the 
‘founding  decision’)  for  the  period  2007-2013  as  part  of  the  ‘Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice’ 
programme. 

Article 2 of the founding decision outlines four general objectives: 

 

 

 

 

to promote the development of a European society based on respect for fundamental rights as 
recognised in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on the 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  providing  support  for  judicial 
training to ensure a better mutual understanding among such authorities and professionals. 

1 Article 15(3)d, Council Decision 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 
‘Fundamental rights and citizenship’ as part of the General programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’. 
2 The ex post evaluation report of the external evaluator is published here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf, Annexes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_annex_1,_2_and_3.pdf, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_annex_4_quantitative_analysis.pdf  
The mid-term evaluation report of the Commission is published here: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0249:FIN:EN:PDF 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
The  general  programme  objectives  complement  the  objectives  of  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Fundamental  Rights  established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  168/2007,  i.e.  to  contribute  to  the 
development and implementation of Community policies in full compliance with fundamental rights. 

The  FRC  programme,  as  with  other  programmes  forming  part  of  the  fundamental  rights  and  justice 
programme, funds actions through the following mechanisms3: 

 

action grants in the form of co-funding (up to 80 % of the total costs) for specific transnational 
projects  of  Community  interest  presented  by  an  authority  or  any  other  body  of  a  Member 
State,  an  international  or  non-governmental  organisation,  which  may  run  for  a  maximum  of 
two years; 

  operating grants providing financial support (up to 80 %) to the activities of non-governmental 

organisations or other entities pursuing an aim of general European interest; 

 

  operating grants co-financing expenditure associated with the permanent work programme of 
specific  organisations  mentioned  in  the  legal  basis  (the  Conference  of  the  European 
Constitutional  Courts  and  the  Association  of  the  Councils  of  State  and  Supreme 
Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union); and 
tendered  contracts/public  procurement  for  undertaking  specific  actions  initiated  by  the 
Commission  such  as:  studies  and  research;  opinion  polls  and  surveys;  formulation  of 
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  national  experts  networks;  and 
analytical, monitoring and evaluation activities, etc. 

The  total  budget  allocated  for  the  FRC  programme  for  its  implementation  period  (January  2007  – 
December 2013) amounted to EUR 94.8 million (see Table 1-1). 

Table 1-1 Planned budgetary breakdown for the FRC programme (2007-2013) 

Available Budget for Grants and Contracts 

Projects (action grants) 

Operating grants 

Commission initiatives 

Total annual budget 

Value (€) 

% 

Value (€) 

% 

Value (€) 

% 

Year 

2007 

5 505 000 

51.9 % 

2 100 000  

19.8 % 

2 995 000 

2008 

5 800 000 

50.0 % 

2 100 000 

18.1 % 

3 700 000 

2009 

9 200 000 

64.8 % 

1 300 000 

9.2 % 

3 700 000 

2010 

10 195 000 

73.9 % 

1 400 000 

10.1 % 

2 205 000 

2011 

9 290 000 

67.3 % 

1 000 000 

7.2 % 

3 510 000 

2012 

12 235 000 

80.0 % 

1 000 000 

6.5 % 

2 065 000 

2013 

10 900 000 

70.3 % 

1 000 000 

6.5 % 

3 600 000 

28.3 % 

31.9 % 

26.1 % 

16.0 % 

25.4 % 

13.5 % 

23.2 % 

 Value 
(€ m) 

10.60  

11.60  

14.20  

13.80  

13.80  

15.30  

15.50  

% 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

63 125 000 

66.6% 

9 900 000 

10.4 % 

21 775 000 

23 % 

94.80 m 

FRC — Annual Work Programmes (2007-2013) 

In the period 2007-2013, the Commission published: 

 

five calls for proposals for action grants: FRC/AG 2007, 2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2013; 

3 Articles 4 and 8, Council Decision 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 
‘Fundamental rights and citizenship’ as part of the General programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

six calls for proposals for operating grants: FRC/OG 2007 financial year 2008, FRC/OG 2008 
financial  year  2009,  FRC/OG  2009  financial  year  2010,  FRC/OG  2010  financial  year  2011, 
FRC/OG 2012 financial year 2012, and FRC/OG 2013 financial year 2013. 

The Commission also funded 111 Commission initiatives through public procurement procedures. 

Table  1-2  summarises  the  number  of  different  actions  funded  in  each  year  of  the  programme 
implementation period. 

Table 1-2 Number of actions funded per year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

Action grants  

Operating grants  
Public procurement  

18 

3 

7 

26 

7 

19 

49  

42 

     4 

14 

6 

27 

0 

13 

10 

16 

N/S4 

4 

15 

135 

34 

111 

Most of the grants (46 %) went to national NGOs, including NGO platforms and networks. The next 
largest  number  (19 %)  of  projects  were  led  by  a  European  network/platform/forum,  followed  by 
national authorities (e.g. ministries) (6 %), research institutes (6 %) and universities (6 %). Moreover, 
5 %  of  projects  were  led  by  local  authorities,  4 %  led  by  other  education/training  institutes,  3 %  by 
regional authorities, and 5 % by other types of organisations. Finally, 0.6 % were led by courts, public 
services and prosecution services. 

For  FRC  action  grants,  awareness-raising,  information  and  dissemination  represent  24 %  of  the 
activities,  followed  by  mutual  learning,  exchange  of  good  practices,  cooperation  (22 %),  analytical 
activities (20 %), support to key actors (15 %) and training activities (13 %). 

For  FRC  operating  grants,  awareness-raising,  information  and  dissemination  are  the  main  types  of 
activity at 25 %, followed closely by support to key actors (24 %), mutual learning, exchange of good 
practices, cooperation (23 %), analytical activities (16 %) and training activities (10 %).5 

4 Not considered within the scope of this evaluation, because the final reports were not submitted during this evaluation process. 
5 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: 
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme (FRC), ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 4-5 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

2.1 

RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME 

The relevance of a programme is assessed in terms of the extent to which its actions logically address 
its objectives, the wider policy needs of the EU and the needs of the target audiences. 

2.1.1 

The relevance of the programme’s actions to its objectives 

To  ensure  that  the  programme  achieved  results  consistent  with  the  objectives,  the  Commission  set 
priority  areas  of  work  in  each  annual  work  programme.  The  priority  areas  determined  the  focus  of 
activities  funded  through  the  action  grants,  as  applicants  were  requested  to  put  forward  activities 
falling within one or more of the priority areas. Each year, priorities could change according to the EU 
policy agenda and according to the practical needs in the different sectors. 

The  first  annual  work  programme  in  2007  introduced  the  priority  focusing  on  the  protection  of  the 
rights of the child following the adoption of the Commission communication Towards an EU strategy 
for the rights of the child. The aim was to better promote and respect children’s rights as they are listed 
in  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child,  through  activities  such  as  awareness-
raising campaigns and analysis of specific needs of children. This priority area fits within the broader 
objective of promoting fundamental rights. The consistent prioritisation of this area over the years is 
therefore relevant.6 

The 2007 annual work programme also made the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism a 
priority.  This  is  in  line  with  the  FRC  programme’s  general  objective  on  this  issue.  The  idea  was  to 
promote  actions  targeted  at  fighting  stereotypes  and  racist  attitudes,  speech  and  violence  through 
initiatives aiming at fostering  mutual  understanding and at developing  cross-community approaches. 
In  2008  one  more  priority  was  added  —  the  fight  against  homophobia  —  which  aimed  at  better 
identifying and fighting homophobic attitudes and stereotypes. These two priorities were maintained 
until the end of the programme in 2013.7 

The  founding  decision  does  not  mention  the  issue  of  data  protection  and  privacy  rights,  yet  the 
Commission already made this a priority area in the 2007 annual work programme. As with children’s 
rights,  this  priority  area  fits  within  the  broader  objective  of  promoting  fundamental  rights,  and  is 
therefore relevant to the objectives of the FRC programme. In 2011, an additional priority was set, to 
improve  cooperation  between  data  protection  authorities.  No  further  changes  were  made  to  the 
priorities in this area during the programme period.8 

The founding decision mentions, as a specific objective, ‘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’. This is therefore a highly relevant area, and it was given 
priority throughout the programme period. 

The  2008  annual  work  programme  introduced  a  priority  focusing  on  training  on  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights,  aimed  at  improving  the  knowledge  and  understanding  of  legal,  judicial  and 
administrative  authorities  and  legal  professionals  on  the  principles  enshrined  in  the  Treaty  on 
European Union and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This priority was maintained until the 
2012 annual work programme, in which priority was also given to educating the general public, with a 
specific  focus  on  projects  aimed  at  directing  individuals  who  believed  their  fundamental  rights  had 
been violated towards the appropriate authorities.9 

6 Ibid., p. 7 
7 Ibid. 
8 Ibid. 
9 Ibid., p. 8 

6 

 
 
 
 
2.1.2 

Priorities set in the calls for proposals and selected actions, and their relevance to 
the policy  

The priorities established in the FRC programme and set out in the calls for proposals were, overall, 
consistent  with  EU  policy  developments  in  the  course  of  the  programme,  and  appear  to  have 
adequately addressed those policy developments.10 The programme’s priorities were  mainly selected 
by the policy unit and according to the policy agenda and practical needs identified in each sector. The 
entire hierarchical chain was involved and different DGs could be consulted. This process was put in 
place to make sure that the priorities were consistent with the EU policy development. 

For  example,  from  2010  one  focus  of  the  EU  policy  agenda  with  regard  to  citizenship  was  the 
promotion of gender balance in participating in the European Parliament elections. The following year, 
this issue was reflected as one of the FRC annual work programme priorities.11 

2.1.3 

Relevance of the programme to the needs of the target groups 

The FRC was a popular programme with quite a high number of applications received relatively to the 
available funding. The total number of applications in fact varied from a minimum of 66 in 2007 to a 
maximum  of  257  in  2011-2012  for  action  grants.  For  operating  grants  the  lowest  number  of 
application was 11 in 2007 and the highest number of applications was 52 in 2010.12 

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  had  received  more  than  one  grant  under  the  FRC 
programme, and they considered the priorities identified by the Commission in the calls as relevant to 
both  the  specific  needs  of  the  target  group  (80 %)  and  to  the  needs  of  their  home  country  (86 %).13 
Also, most of the people interviewed (10 out of 17 interviews) were satisfied with the priorities as set 
in the calls for proposals, whilst only two out of 17 interviewees were not satisfied with the calls.14   

However,  whether  the  needs  of  the  target  group  could  be  met  by  the  project  activities,  outputs  and 
results  and  were  actually  met,  could  not  be  verified.  Needs  assessments  are  not  a  mandatory 
requirement  for  the  grant  beneficiaries.  However,  if  grant  applicants  had  done  so,  this  would  have 
given a much clearer indication of the relevance of their project, enhanced the quality of their study 
and  provided  a  baseline  for  assessing  project  success  at  a  later  date.  Projects  that  are  not  based  on 
needs  assessment  may  still  be  relevant  to  the  target  groups’  needs,  but  not  producing  a  needs 
assessment creates a risk that more relevant methods or means of supporting the target groups could 
have been developed.  

2.2 

COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

The FRC focus on the protection of fundamental rights in general includes protection of the rights of 
children.  The  Daphne  programme  targets  children  among  the  vulnerable  groups  it  aims  to  protect 
against  violence.  The  Prevention  of  and  Fight  against  Crime  (ISEC)  programme  also  refers  to  the 
protection  of  children  among  its  general  objectives,  and  in  particular  to  protecting  children  from 
becoming  victims of crime. In their focus on refugees and displaced persons, the European Refugee 
Fund  and  the  European  Integration  Fund  also  include  the  protection  of  children  among  their  aims, 
albeit those children who are among their target groups. 

The  objectives  of  combating  racism,  xenophobia,  anti-Semitism  and  homophobia,  which  are  part  of 
the  FRC’s  remit  on  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  in  general,  are  shared  by  the  PROGRESS 
programme  and the Seventh Framework  Programme, among  others.  PROGRESS, which aims  at the 
protection of persons from discrimination, has a narrower focus in that it is focused on contributing to 

10 Ibid., p. 11 
11 Ibid. 
12 Ibid., p. 13 
13 Ibid. 
14 Ibid. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
the economic and social objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. Daphne’s focus on ensuring 
protection from violence against certain vulnerable groups also has complementarities with this area. 

The  most  scope  for  complementarity  and  potential  for  overlap  was  identified  for  the  objective  of 
training  and  networking  between  legal  professions  and  legal  practitioners.  The  FRC  programme’s 
objective in this area is very broad, i.e. to improve contacts, exchange of information and networking 
between legal, judicial and administrative authorities and the legal professions. This included support 
to judicial training, with the aim of better mutual understanding, though focused on training related to 
fundamental  rights  in  general.  The  scope  for  complementarity  and  overlap  is  the  widest  with  the 
Directorate-General  Justice  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme  (JPEN)  and  Civil  Justice  Programme 
(JCIV). The JPEN, JCIV and FRC programmes aim at improving training for the members of national 
judiciaries.  JPEN  funds,  however,  can  be  allocated  only  to  activities  in  the  area  of  criminal  justice, 
while JCIV funds can be allocated only to activities in the area of civil justice. Therefore JPEN and 
JCIV are more focused than FRC. 

In  conclusion,  the  most  scope  for  complementarity  was  identified  for  the  JPEN  and  PROGRESS 
programmes.  Potential  complementarities  were  also  identified  with  the  Daphne  and  ISEC 
programmes. The analysis identified no overlap with CIPS (Terrorism & other Security-related Risks), 
the RF (European Return Fund) or the DPIP (Drug Prevention and Information Programme).15 

2.2.1 

Nature of the projects 

The FRC covered only projects that were transnational in nature; national activities were covered only 
in so far as they were part of a larger transnational action. The FRC was implemented through direct 
management, along with the other funding programmes in place to support the EU policies on justice, 
rights and equality for 2007-2013. Under direct management, all programming and operational work is 
carried out by the Commission, which retains full responsibility. 

2.2.2 

Actions funded 

The  process  of  developing  annual  priorities  within  the  FRC  annual  work  programme  is  one 
mechanism for ensuring  coherence between  the FRC and other  EU programmes and policies. These 
programmes, and in particular the annual priorities, are developed with the support of various actors, 
within and beyond the Commission. In this respect the programme reflects a range of policy priorities 
in the development of annual priorities. 

A  review  of  the  priorities,  set  for  the  key  thematic  areas,  identified  the  following  instances  where 
priorities were set with a view to achieving coherence and complementarity and avoiding overlap:16 

  Protection of the rights of the child: the 2008 and 2009-2010 calls for action grant proposals 
mentioned  support  for  projects  on  children  who  are  victims  of  crimes,  which  is 
complementary to the Daphne programme. 

  Combating  racism,  xenophobia,  anti-Semitism,  and  homophobia:  the  2008  and  2009-2010 
calls  for  action  grant  proposals  similarly  mentioned  support  for  actions  fighting  stereotypes 
whose  persistence  or  diffusion  are  at  the  roots  of  violent  incidents,  which  is  partly 
complementary to the Daphne programme.  

  Under the priority ‘Fight against Homophobia’, the 2008 call excluded actions that duplicate 
activities on non-discrimination in employment. The 2009-2010 call had a similar exclusion. 
These are both aimed at avoiding overlap with PROGRESS. 

  Citizenship and active participation in the democratic life of the Union: the priorities set in the 
various calls for proposals range from awareness-raising on participation in EU elections by 
EU citizens resident in another Member State to exchanging best practice on acquisition and 

15 Ibid., p. 15 
16 Ibid., pp. 16-17 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
loss of EU citizenship. Across the various calls for proposals this priority area does not appear 
to afford many opportunities for complementarity. 

  Training on the EU Charter and networking between legal professions and legal practitioners: 
the 2011-2012 call excluded projects aimed mainly at the creation of new websites, in order to 
avoid overlap with projects already being carried out, presumably through public procurement. 
The 2013 call specifically prioritises projects to encourage authorities handling complaints on 
fundamental rights to draw up admissibility check lists, and requires project proposals to state 
their complementarity and added value with work carried out by the FRA. 

  Data  protection  and  privacy  rights:  under  this  priority  area,  the  2011-2012  call  refers  to 
‘reinforcing  children’s  privacy  in  the  online  environment’,  which  forms  an  internal 
complementarity with the priority area ‘protection of the rights of the child’. 

2.2.1 

Synergies created between projects 

The online survey revealed that various synergies had been established with other projects funded by 
other EU and national programmes.17 

Out  of  29  respondents,  14  mentioned  that  they  had  established  synergies  with  other  FRC  projects. 
Moreover,  21  reported  that  they  had  established  synergies  with  projects  funded  by  other  EU 
programmes and 23 reported that synergies had been created with other national/regional programmes 
with similar objectives. Seven survey respondents stated that synergies with projects funded by other 
programmes of international donors were created. 

Examples of the types of synergies established provided by respondents to the online survey included 
the following: 

  The project leader for ‘Assisting and reintegrating children victims of trafficking: promotion 
and evaluation of best practices in source and destination countries (ARECHIVIC)’ noted that 
the project was able to link closely with projects funded under other EU programmes and with 
projects financed by international donors (e.g. the Council of Europe’s GRETA project). The 
project  also  established  synergies  with  projects  in  other  Member  States,  in  particular  with 
activities  of  the  Slovak  national  commission.  This  was  considered  beneficial  in  establishing 
additional  mechanisms  for  cross-border  cooperation  in  this  area.  The  leader  of  the  same 
project  also  referred  to  synergies  with  projects  financed  through  the  ISEC  programme  and 
through the Norway Fund. 

  The project leader for the ‘ICUD (Internet: Creatively Unveiling Discrimination)’ noted that 
during the implementation phase of the project they closely cooperated with leaders of other 
projects  with  similar  objectives  financed  by  FRC  and  DAPHNE  III.  The  project  leaders 
exchanged  experience  and  information  on  the  outcome  of  the  projects,  which  enabled  the 
project teams to learn from each other and to become more effective in combating this form of 
discrimination. The leader noted that members of the management team presented the project 
and its deliverables at conferences/seminars/meetings organised under other projects, and were 
able to disseminate their methodology and findings to a broader audience. 

2.3 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of a programme refers to the extent to which the programme has been successful in 
achieving its objectives, and the extent to which FRC projects were successful in achieving their own 
project objectives. 

2.3.1 

Programme and project achievements 

Most the outputs produced under Children’s Rights (102 out of 143) related to awareness raising and 

17 Ibid., p. 18 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
analytical  activities  and  were  consistent  with  the  aim  of  the  priority  (e.g.  events,  books  or  other 
published material and studies or guidelines on the promotion of children’s rights).18 For example, one 
project  entitled  ‘Children’s  voices:  exploring  interethnic  violence  and  children’s  rights  in  the  school 
environment’ produced state of the art reports which gave an insight in a general context on ethnicity 
issues and interethnic violence in five Member States. Also the quantitative research surveys and the 
qualitative  research  field  surveys  provided  information  and  an  insight  into  the  topic  of  interethnic 
violence in the school environment, forms of violence and the extent of the phenomenon. 

The project ‘Right to Justice: Quality Legal Assistance for Unaccompanied Children’ produced an in-
depth  report  on  this  subject,  which  had  not  been  researched  before.  A  ‘guiding  principles’  tool  was 
also developed.19 

The  priorities  focusing  on  Racism,  Homophobia  and  Anti-Semitism  were  set  to  promote  projects 
fighting stereotypes, discrimination and violence as well as initiatives fostering mutual understanding 
and developing cross-community approaches. 

A number of action grants developed reports, training, and educational  materials related to  the fight 
against  racism,  homophobia  and  anti-Semitism.20  An  example  of  this  type  of  project  was  the  2009-
2010 action grant project by the German Autonomia Foundation entitled ‘One Europe! Transnational 
Network of Citizens Actions promoting Intercultural Understanding and Mutual Respect’. This project 
involved  activities  in  over  20  localities  in  the  participating  countries  (Denmark,  Bulgaria,  Hungary, 
and  Germany)  and  aimed  at  bringing  a  message  of  tolerance  to  local  youth  and  their  sports  teams. 
Also, the projects entitled ‘Football for Equality — Challenging racist and homophobic stereotypes in 
and through football’ and ‘Football for Equality  — Tackling Homophobia and Racism with a Focus 
on  Central  and  Eastern  Europe’  produced  outputs  raising  awareness  on  the  issue  of  homophobia  in 
football.  These  included  ‘love  football  —  hate  sexism’  stickers;  jerseys  with  the  logo  -  ‘football  for 
equality’; an anti-racism event in Prague; three information events in Hamburg; a comedy by the No 
Mantinels  group  dealing  with  homophobia  in  football;  an  annual  tournament  against  racism  and 
intolerance;  an  anti-homophobia  conference  at  Eurogames,  Budapest;  and  awareness-raising  action 
days at Fans’ Embassies at EURO. 

The  initial  aim  of  the  Commission  in  setting  a  Data  Protection  priority  was  to  promote  activities 
informing  the  public  about  data  protection  issues.  Over  the  years  this  priority  area  focused  on 
reinforcing  children’s  privacy  and  on  the  risks  to  privacy  posed  by  electronic  means  as  well  as  on 
improving the cooperation between data protection authorities. According to the quantitative analysis 
of the 169 actions carried out under the FRC programme, the activities implemented by the projects 
under this area were mainly awareness-raising activities (e.g. published material, promotional material 
and events) and research activities such as data collection and surveys. Other outputs related to mutual 
learning activities, such as study visits and workshops. The project entitled ‘Données personelles des 
droits?  Sensibiliser  et  informer  les  jeunes  citoyens  européens’  produced  a  good  quality  output  —  a 
comic in four languages — in order to disseminate information to young people about their rights to 
privacy and data protection online. The outcomes of the project are also considered valuable.21 

Also,  the  project  entitled  ‘Children  Protecting  Personal  Data  and  Privacy’  created  ‘Sheeplive’ 
cartoons,  an  online  pedagogical  tool  for  primary  school  teachers  to  educate  children  on  their  data 
protection and privacy rights. These are nationally recognised in Slovakia as the best known cartoons, 
have been translated into all EU languages and have been disseminated to Russia and China.22 

The Citizenship priority area includes a set of priorities focusing on participation in the democratic life 
of  the  Union  by  all  citizens,  including  EU  citizens  who  are  not  nationals  of  the  Member  States  in 

18 Ibid., p. 19 
19 Ibid. 
20 Ibid., p. 20 
21 Ibid., p. 21 
22 Ibid. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which  they  live.  Over  the  years  more  specific  priorities  were  added,  e.g.  one  addressing  gender 
imbalance  in  European  Parliament  elections.  It  is  a  priority  area  characterised  by  a  focus  on  very 
specific and sometimes technical issues (e.g. awareness of the rules in Directive 2004/38/EC on free 
movement of citizens) that  might require specific and  rather technical knowledge.  This factor  might 
explain the rather low number of projects carried out (21) and the low evidence of results.23 

The activities carried out in this priority area were mostly based on awareness raising, information and 
dissemination.  For  example,  the  project  entitled  ‘Citizens  IT  Consular  Assistance  Regulation  in 
Europe’ produced good quality outputs including a comparative study on the consular protection laws 
and  practices  in  the  Member  States  and  a  database  containing  relevant  national,  European  and 
international legal material.24 

Over  the  years,  the  aim  of  the  Fundamental  Rights  priority  was  to  improve  the  knowledge  and 
understanding  of  legal,  judicial  and  administrative  authorities  and  legal  professionals  and  of  the 
general public on the principles enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and in the EU Charter of 
Fundamental  Rights.  Project  activities  in  this  area  were  primarily  based  on  training  and  on  mutual 
learning, exchanges of good practice and cooperation, aimed at achieving better mutual understanding 
among authorities and professionals.25 

2.3.2 

The projects’ contributions to the implementation and development of EU and 
national policies and legislation 

A number of actions funded under the FRC programme contributed to the development of policy and 
legislation.26  Some  projects  were  specifically  aimed  at  reaching  policy  makers  at  national  and  EU 
level, by different methods. For example, by organising meetings to involve policy makers, by inviting 
them to workshops and/or other dissemination events or inviting them to briefings/conferences, and — 
according  to  project  partners  —  policymakers  were  reached.  Indeed,  a  large  majority  of  survey 
respondents (60 out of 65) reported that policy makers responded to the information provided by the 
project/activities.  Out  of  these,  60 %  reported  that  policy  makers  had  shown  some  interest  in  the 
project while in 32 % of the cases they had shown a lot of interest. 

Positive responses by policy makers took a range of forms. Survey respondents reported unanimously 
that  policy  makers  had  participated  in  project-related  events.  Other  involvement  of  policy  makers 
included  distribution  of  communication  materials  (reported  by  59 %  of  respondents)  and  providing 
additional  funding  to  support  continuation  of  (some)  of  the  projects’  activities  (reported  by  30 %  of 
respondents). A smaller but nonetheless significant proportion of respondents (18 %) noted that their 
projects’ results had led to policy makers shaping new policy developments or making adjustments to 
existing policies. In these cases the projects could certainly be considered as having made an effective 
contribution to the development of policy and legislation.27 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  51 %  (out  of  70)  of  respondents  reported  that  they  had  received  positive 
attention from policy makers which had been additional to their expectations. This additional attention 
indicates that certain projects had an  impact greater than originally foreseen, such that they could be 
considered effective.28 

2.3.1 

Effectiveness of the projects in achieving their own objectives 

According to the quantitative evidence gathered during the mapping of the final reports, over half of 
all finalised action grants and operating grants (70 out of the 115 grants for which final reports were 
available, since some projects awarded in 2012 and 2013 did not produce yet a final report by the time 
of  this  evaluation)  implemented  all  their  activities  as  planned.  In  some  cases,  achievement  of  this 

23 Ibid. 
24 Ibid. 
25 Ibid., p. 22 
26 Ibid., p. 23 
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
entailed  changes  to  staff,  or  replacement  of  a  member  in  the  partnership  or  required  searching  for 
additional  funding.  Nonetheless,  these  fluctuations  had  a  minor  impact  on  the  development  of  the 
funded actions (in fact, 63 % of the 71 respondents to the online survey indicated that these changes 
had no impact on the outcomes of their actions, while major impact was reported only in five cases).29 

For example, in the 2007 action grant project ‘ARIES  — Against Racism in Europe through Sport’, 
although one of the original partners had to be replaced by another organisation and although changes 
were made to the project staff, all of the project’s objectives were achieved. 

Another project result involved the training of law enforcement authorities. The project manager for 
the  2010  action  grant  project  entitled  ‘Fundamental  Rights  Education  in  Europe  —  F.R.E.E.’,  in  a 
follow-up interview, stated that her project had made a difference on human rights education of police 
officers, prison guards and judicial authorities. In her opinion the impact of such training was relevant 
especially on police officers in Greece, Italy and Romania, where — according to the jurisprudence of 
the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  —  cases  of  violation  of  human  rights  by  law  enforcement 
authorities  are  recurrent.  Yet  in  these  countries,  police  officers  had  never  received  training  on  such 
issues before.30 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY 

In terms of sustainability, it was analysed whether the results, outcomes and impacts achieved by the 
projects  were  sustainable  beyond  the  project  funding  period.  Three  levels  of  sustainability  were 
identified in the evaluation:  

1) short-term sustainability, achieved mainly through dissemination of projects’ results;  

2) medium-term sustainability, implying continuation of project results and/or partnerships;  

3)  longer-term  sustainability,  achieved  mainly  by  transferring  projects’  results  to  other  contexts, 
organisations and Member States with little or no additional funding.31 

2.4.1 

Short-term sustainability: dissemination of project results 

As  noted  earlier,  the  main  types  of  activity  covered  by  both  the  action  grant  and  operating  grant-
supported projects are related to awareness raising, information and dissemination. Indeed, 346 of the 
total of 806 outputs tallied during the project mapping exercise — the largest share of project outputs 
—  were  linked  to  awareness  raising  and  dissemination.  Outputs  included  books,  films  and  other 
published  materials,  as  well  as  events  such  as  conferences,  seminars,  and  press  conferences  and 
support and advice services e.g. information and advice website and helplines.32 

Concerning the beneficiaries’ dissemination of outputs and results, the majority (89 %) of respondents 
to the online survey reported to have a clear plan for the dissemination of the outputs and results of 
their  project/activities.  The  dissemination  plans  provided  that  the  outputs  and  results  would  be 
disseminated in more than one language (93 % of respondents) and in more than one country (100 % 
of respondents).33  

Project  partners  reported  having  disseminated  the  outputs  and  results  of  the  projects  and  increased 
their  visibility  by  a  range  of  means,  including:  seminars,  conferences  and  other  events,  information 
leaflets, websites and electronic tools (e.g. videos and mobile applications), publication of reports and 
theme publications reflecting the conclusions reached in the activities and policy recommendations.   

A  review  was  carried  out  of  selected  applications  to  assess  the  quality  of  these  dissemination 
strategies. These were then compared to what the grant beneficiaries said concerning dissemination of 
the project results in their final reports. The descriptions in the AG applications varied from a rather 
uninformative  description  of  what  the  organisation  had  achieved  in  the  past  in  terms  of  media 

29 Ibid., p. 26 
30 Ibid. 
31 Ibid., p. 28 
32 Ibid., p. 29 
33 Ibid. 

12 

 
 
 
coverage,  to  one  which  stressed  that  one  of  its  work  streams  was  devoted  to  advocacy  and 
dissemination and described in detail how dissemination would be occurring throughout the duration 
of the project.  None of the applications reviewed provided details concerning how they would adapt 
dissemination  to  the  target  group  and  most  of  the  corresponding  final  reports  were  vague  about 
whether the target group was reached. 

In general, the Commission’s efforts to disseminate the results of projects have been limited. The lack 
of  effective  means  for  the  Commission  to  share  information  concerning  the  FRC  programme  was 
already  mentioned  in  the  mid-term  evaluation,  and  this  evaluation  did  not  find  any  additional 
communication  resources  and  measures  put  in  place.  In  particular,  the  FRC  programme  lacks  a 
dedicated way to share results of one project with other beneficiaries, so as to spread best practices.34 
The  Commission  mostly  relied  on  its  beneficiaries  to  disseminate  the  outputs directly  to  their  target 
groups. Also, the Commission's human resources were reserved mostly to the financial management of 
projects.  

The lack of a proper mechanism/plan to communicate and disseminate the results of projects funded 
under  the  FRC  programme  was  confirmed  by  the  Commission  officials.35  They  noted  two  different 
groups who could benefit from such a dissemination mechanism: 

  Stakeholders  involved  in  activities  related  to  the  FRC  programme  objectives,  including 

funding applicants or beneficiaries of the programme; and 

  EU  policy  makers  and  particularly  Commission  staff,  including  those  managing  the  FRC 

programme. 

Each of these groups has a different need:  

  Stakeholders  could  benefit  from  having  access  to  information  about  the  activities  and 
successes of other projects, so that they could consider how to build on the best practices of 
others. This might require a more structured dissemination of project results. 

  EU  policy  makers,  including  Commission  staff,  might  find  the  analytical  results,  mutual 
learning and other aspects from the projects helpful in the effort of designing better policies, 
including  for  implementation  of  the  FRC  programme.  For  them,  it  could  be  useful  to  get 
information highlighting the overall results of the programme, and the results of key projects.  

2.4.2  Medium-term sustainability: continuation of results 

The mapping of the projects showed that just under half (81 out of 169 grants) reported that they had 
developed  sustainable  outputs  that  were  used  after  the  programme  funding  had  ended,  and  seven 
reports  stated  that  the  partnerships  established  outlived  the  project.  A  number  of  projects  had  also 
produced outputs that continue to be used for present and future activities.36 For example, the project 
‘Exchanging  good  citizen  participation  practices  for  the  promotion  of  an  active  citizenship  in  the 
European  Union  (ESPACE)’  developed  several  outputs  including  awareness-raising  materials  and 
activities in four languages, mutual learning initiatives and national networks which continued to be 
used  after  project  completion.  Also,  the  project  ‘When  the  innocent  are  punished  —  Children  of 
imprisoned  parents,  a  vulnerable  group’  developed  several  sustainable  outputs  including  the 
publication of a report and a summary entitled ‘Eurochips’ which was distributed in four languages to 
at  least  10  Member  States  and  which  continues  to  be  used  to  promote  the  rights  of  children  with 
imprisoned parents. 

The survey confirmed that sustainable results were achieved for a good portion of the projects. Out of 
72  respondents,  44  (61 %)  reported  that  their  projects  made  a  significant  difference  to  the  thematic 
area  they  are  working  in.  They  also  reported  a  high  response  from  policy  makers  to  the  funded 
projects. They noted a 100 % rate of participation by policy makers in project-related events, such as 
seminars,  conferences,  workshops  etc.  In  59 %  (33)  of  the  projects  surveyed,  policy  makers  had 

34 Ibid. 
35 Ibid. 
36 Ibid., p. 30 

13 

 
 
 
responded by distributing communication material (e.g. brochures,  leaflets, flyers etc.); 30 % (17) of 
the policy makers involved had provided additional funding to support continuation of (some) of the 
projects’ activities; and 23 % (13) of policy makers involved had established/supported other projects 
that used elements of the project (approach/method, one or more activities etc.). Finally, 18 % (10) of 
policy makers shaped a new policy development/action plan/legislation or by adjusting existing ones 
using as a basis the project’s outputs and results.37 

2.4.3 

Continuation of partnerships after the projects’ completion 

While  the  mapping  found  direct  evidence  of  only  7  out  of  168  projects  continuing  the  partnerships 
established, survey results were much more positive. They suggested that many of the projects enabled 
the establishment of partnerships or networks which continued after the projects’ completion. Out of 
the 71 respondents to the survey, 48 (68 %) reported that their partnerships did or will continue after 
completion of the project.38 

Stakeholders  interviewed  reported  that  the  cooperation  built  between  partners  through  the  project 
helped  set  up  a  network  which  is  still  working  together  on  new  projects.  For  example,  the  project 
‘Children’s  Voices:  Exploring  interethnic  violence  and  children’s  rights  in  the  school  environment’ 
helped  to  set  up  a  new  international  network  of  researchers  dealing  with  issues  of  ethnicity  and 
interethnic violence. Its aim was to raise awareness among educators, children and the general public. 
The  partners  involved  in  the  project  ‘Données  personnelles  des  droits?  Sensibiliser  et  informer  les 
jeunes citoyens européens’ also reported they planned to continue using the network established by the 
project.39 

2.4.4 

Long-term sustainability: transferability of project results 

To  identify  and  evaluate  whether  the  project  outputs  and  results  were  transferrable  and  indeed 
transferred to another EU Member State this evaluation relied only on the data from the online survey 
and  follow-up  interviews.  These  data  were  self-reported  and  are  not  fully  objective  evidence.  They 
show  that  a  large  number  of  outputs  produced  could  be  transferred  to  other  EU  Member  States, 
particularly  materials  which,  once  translated,  could  be  disseminated  and  used  in  other  countries  for 
other  projects  with  similar  objectives.  Methods  of  approach  may  also  be  transferred  to  serve  other 
target  groups  and  beneficiaries,  particularly  any  ‘best  practice  aspect’  of  the  output,  which could  be 
used in other contexts and projects. In a number of cases, minor conditions affecting the transferability 
of the projects’ outputs were reported. These mostly relate to the need to translate the outputs in other 
languages,  or  to  adapt  the  project’s  methods  or  outputs  to  the  country-specific  or  local  context  by 
consulting with local stakeholders.40 

Most survey respondents confirmed the transferability of their projects’ outputs to other EU countries. 
For example, the training course prepared in the context of the project ‘Fundamental Rights Education 
in  Europe  —  F.R.E.E.’  can  be  used  in  all  Member  States  as  they  are  available  online  and  they  are 
copyright-free.  They  are  available  in  the  language  of  the  country  participating  in  the  transnational 
partnership established for the project. However, translation into other languages would be required to 
ensure the wider use of the courses.41 

Another project entitled  ‘Football  for Equality  — Challenging racist and homophobic stereotypes in 
and  through  football’  organised  exhibitions  and  workshops  on  the  issue  of  discrimination  in  the 
football sector.42 Project partners from different Member States coordinated with stakeholders within 
the national and local networks/football groups active in this sector to set up the events. In the follow-
up  interview,  the  project  manager  stated  that  the  projects’  outputs  could  be  transferred  to  other 
Member States easily by coordinating with national and local stakeholders to better tailor the events to 
the country-specific context. 

37 Ibid. 
38 Ibid., p. 31 
39 Ibid.  
40 Ibid., p. 32 
41 Ibid. 
42 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
 
2.5 

EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION 

2.5.1  Money spent in comparison to the impacts achieved 

The  FRC  programme  had  an  initial  budget  of  EUR 94.8  million  over  the  period  2007-2013,  broken 
down  into  an  annual  provision  of  between  EUR 10.6  million  and  EUR 15.50  million.  A  detailed 
breakdown  for  the  initially  planned  budget  per  implementation  year  and  funding  tool  for  the  period 
2007-2013  is  provided  in  Table  1-1  Planned  budgetary  breakdown  for  the  FRC  programme 
(2007-2013)). 

Over the course of the programme the total amounts of annual funding allocated gradually increased. 
This reflected the general practice of the Commission. The yearly allocation of funds is determined at 
the  beginning  of  the  seven  year  programme  period,  within  the  context  of  the  EU  budget.  Small 
adjustments  are  then  made  annually,  with  allocations  becoming  higher  towards  the  end  of  the 
programme period, once the programme is well underway. 

The  largest  proportion  of  the  budget  was  distributed  via  action  grants  with  an  average  of  66.3 %  of 
funds  allocated  in  this  way  each  year,  corresponding  to  EUR  62.6  million.  The  remainder  of  the 
budget  was  allocated  to  operating  grants  (10 %  or  EUR  9.5  million)  and  to  Commission  initiatives 
(21 % or EUR 20 million).43 

The  quantitative  analysis  of  the  169  grant  projects  included  over  the  implementation  period  (which 
does not include the projects awarded grants under the 2013 action grants) found that the total budget 
committed to these was EUR 46 460 022, or some 90 % of the total funding of EUR 51 675 000 that 
had been allocated to action grants for the period 2007 to 2012.44   

Whilst  the  amounts  committed  to  action  grants  are  close  to  the  original  allocations,  the  situation  is 
different for operating grants, which received significantly less funding than initially envisaged. The 
budget actually committed to operating grants was EUR 3 459 900, or some 39 % of the total funding 
of EUR 8 900 000 that had been allocated for operating grants for the period 2007 to 2012.45 The low 
funding levels of OGs  raises questions about the efficiency of the OGs as  a funding tool to 
achieve the objectives of the programme. 

The budgets allocated, committed and paid to date are quite closely aligned for the action grants over 
the various calls for proposals during the programme period. The funds actually paid out, compared to 
those committed, under the 2007, 2008 and 2009-2010 calls for action grants show an absorption rate 
of some 87.5 %. 

As already noted above, only 39 % of the funding allocated for operating grants during the programme 
period  was  actually  committed.  But  a  closer  look  at  the  commitments  made  during  the  2007,  2008, 
2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 calls for operating grants, compared to the funds actually paid out, shows a 
similar absorption rate of 88 %.46 

The  other  funding  tool  available  under  the  programme  was  public  procurement.  During  the 
implementation period EUR 12 595 652 was actually committed, for a total of 111 public procurement 
contracts awarded during the programme period. This comes to 56.4 % of the total allocated budget of 
EUR  22 325 000.  Over  10 %  of  this  budget  was  committed  to  IT  services  and  more  specifically  the 
development and maintenance of the consular protection website47 and of the website on the rights of 
the child.48 

43 Ibid., p. 35 
44 Data for 2013  were not available at the time of the evaluation. Ibid. 
45 Ibid. 
46 Ibid. 
47 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection/index.action, Ibid. 
48 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/0-18/, Ibid. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5.2 

Extent to which the allocation of funds among different tools was efficient 

Considering  the  above,  action  grant  funding  appears  to  have  been  allocated  in  an  efficient  manner, 
especially when taking into account the ‘newness’ of the programme, the outputs and results achieved 
and the findings of the input/output analysis above. Operating grants received considerably less than 
initially allocated (EUR 3.5  million instead of EUR 9.9 million), but budget absorption of operating 
grants was overall acceptable. As for action grants and operating grants funding allocations appear to 
have been efficient.49 

While each of the funding tools had a clear focus, procurement could, to some extent, overlap with the 
activities undertaken by these grants. During the implementation period, the Commission committed 
EUR 12.6 million on a total of 111 procurement contracts (or 56.4 % of the initially allocated budget 
of EUR 22.3 million). Some 55.6 % of expenditure on procurement was committed to studies; 34.2 % 
on  events,  and  10.2 %  on  IT-related  contracts.  Whilst  the  proportion  of  allocated  funding  actually 
committed  is  higher  than  that  achieved  for  the  operating  grants  funding  tool,  it  still  remains 
significantly  under-used,  which  could  have  negatively  affected  the  Commission’s  interests  in  e.g. 
programme monitoring and dissemination of programme results at EU level.50 

Following stakeholder consultation, inefficiencies in relation to committing these funds mainly related 
to insufficient resources and capacity within the Commission to properly plan procurement, follow the 
implementation of projects and use their results. During this evaluation, no evidence of poor contract 
performance was reported.51 

2.5.3 

Scope for simplification 

Overall  the  management  of  the  application  and  implementation  phase  of  the  projects  by  the 
Commission were considered positive. The introduction of kick off meetings, the involvement of the 
policy  team  in  discussions  on  project  outputs  and  the  provision  of  improved  guidance  on  managing 
grants were seen as positive developments. Nevertheless, 20% of respondents did not know or did not 
express their opinion. This could suggest that a number of applicants were not aware of the possibility 
to  receive  support  from  the  Commission  during  the  application  procedure.  Several  interviewees 
highlighted areas that could be improved and simplified in the future. Chief among these areas was the 
perception that the financial requirements were overly complicated and needed to be simplified.  

Linked  to  this  was  the  concern  expressed  by  a  few  respondents  that  the  Commission  itself  did  not 
always  respect  project  timelines,  which  sometimes  had  knock-on  effects  on  the  project  concerned, 
leading  to  difficulties  in  project  implementation.  It  was  seen  as  critical  for  the  Commission  to  also 
stick  to  the  timeline  given  for  the  project  in  order  for  everything  to  run  efficiently.  Linked  to  the 
previous suggestion, respondents also expressed frustration with the length of time between submitting 
a  proposal  in  response  to  a  call  and  receiving  notification  of  a  grant  award.    They  asked  for  the 
Commission to create a more efficient and quicker way for people to contact them before the call is 
awarded, perhaps through improvements of the current IT system. 

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  to  the  on-line  survey  perceived  the  information  provided  to 
applicants during the call for proposals and application process as clear and easy to understand, and 
straightforward.  Out  of 71 respondents to this question, most  grant  recipients (50%) strongly agreed 
with the statement “the information in the calls for proposals was clear and easy to understand’’, while 
44% partially agreed. In addition, detailed guidelines for FRC grant applicants were available on the 
DG Justice website.  

Nevertheless,  18%  of  the  70  respondents  to  the  online  survey  reported  having  to  request  help  from 
persons  with  specific  expertise  and  knowledge  on  the  procedures  in  order  to  respond  to  the  call, 

49 Ibid., p. 40 
50 Ibid. 
51 Ibid. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
although  37%  did  not.  A  quarter  of 
they  knew  of 
organisations/projects/practitioners  that  did  not  respond  to  the  call  for  proposals  due  to  the 
complex/difficult requirements of the call.  

respondents  confirmed 

that 

the 

In  light  of  the  fact  that  the  EU  is  providing  funds  for  these  grants,  grant  beneficiaries  considered  it 
reasonable to provide information on the activities they had carried out with the funds provided. More 
than  half  of  survey  respondents  considered  reporting  arrangements  to  be  appropriate.  In  particular, 
39%  out  of  71  respondents  considered  reporting  arrangements  concerning  the  progress  and 
achievements of the project/activities to be appropriate, while 35% partially agreed, for a total of 74% 
positive responses. However, several complained about burdensome reporting requirements.  
At the same time it was recognised that stricter documentation of budgetary changes would help with 
the financial reporting. It was also seen as important to have more involvement by partners in this area, 
e.g.,  by  getting  information  to  them  early  on  concerning  the  financial  details  that  would  need  to  be 
reported.   

As  for  the  Commission’s  monitoring  arrangements,  these  were  considered  as  partially  good  and 
helpful  during  the  implementation  of  the  project/activities  by  39%  of  respondents  out  of  72 
respondents. Nevertheless, 14% of respondents partially disagreed or even strongly disagreed with the 
statement  ‘the  Commission’s  monitoring  arrangements  are  good  and  have  been  useful’  and  5% 
strongly disagreed. Respondents considered it particularly important to get timely feedback from the 
Commission on projects’ progress/interim reports, so that corrections could be made if necessary.  

2.6 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

EU  added  value  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  nature  of  the  programme  brings  value  to  its 
stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  has  a  comparative  advantage  over  national  and 
international actors working  in the area. First, the EU nature of the programme and its geographical 
coverage is discussed. This is a starting point for identification of a EU added value. The EU added 
value is then analysed in terms of outputs that brought value to the EU and to beneficiaries. However, 
it has not been possible to identify and measure EU added value already in terms of impacts. 

In  general,  funding  within  the  FRC  programme  is  only  available  to  activities  with  a  clear  European 
‘added value’. The programme was created to promote the development of a European society based 
on  respect  for  fundamental  rights  and  rights  derived  from  citizenship  of  the  European  Union.  Such 
aims have implications that Member States cannot effectively address by themselves. The programme 
was  therefore  designed  to  require  an  international  response  comprising  a  coordinated  and 
multidisciplinary  approach,  including  the  exchange  of  information  at  EU  level  and  ensuring  wide 
dissemination  of  good  practices  throughout  the  EU.  Cooperation  between  different  countries  is 
therefore crucial for the implementation of the programme. 

The  EU  nature  of  the  programme  is  reflected  in  its  legal  basis  outlining  the  objectives  of  the 
programme,  as  well  as  in  the  criteria  to  receive  funding  laid  down  in  the  calls  for  proposals.  The 
founding  decision  states  that  one  of  the  general  objectives  of  the  programme  is  to  contribute  to  the 
development and implementation of ‘Community policies in full compliance with fundamental rights’. 
The EU dimension is further promoted via the criteria to receive funding and the theme of projects52, 
as laid down in the founding decision, the annual work programmes and the calls for proposals. 

2.6.1 

The geographical coverage of the projects funded 

The  number  of  lead  organisations  and  thus  the  number  of  projects  implemented  differs  significantly 
across Member States. For example Figure 2-1shows that most FRC action grants projects were led by 

52 Articles 4 and 9, Council Decision 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 
‘Fundamental rights and citizenship’ as part of the General programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
organisations  established  in  Italy,  followed  by  Belgium,  France,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom, 
whilst  low  numbers  were  found  in  e.g.  Cyprus,  Romania  and  Luxembourg.  It  follows  that  FRC 
projects have tended to be led by a select group of Member States, whilst other Member States were 
only involved to a limited extent. 

Lead organisations were particularly clustered within two Member States: Italy and Belgium. In total 
33 % (57) of all projects were led by these two Member States. Some Member States did not lead any 
FRC projects, such as Estonia. However, when looking at the partner organisations, the Member State 
participation  is  more  evenly  spread;  out  of  all  Member  States,  only  Malta  and  Luxembourg 
participated with less than five partner organisations.53   

Figure 2-1 Total number of organisations participating in FRC projects, including lead (left) and partner 
(right) organisations 

Much of the FRC programme funding was committed to projects where an Italian 
organisation was a lead (25 %), followed by Belgium (13 %) and France (10 %). This 
funding distribution closely follows the distribution of the number of projects led by 
Member States. Distribution of funding by Member State of the lead organisation is 
presented in  

53 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: 
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme (FRC), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 45  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-2 (left). However, the figure does not show the spread of committed funding among project 
partners, but rather assumes that all of the committed funding was allocated to the country of the lead 
organisation. As this was not the case in reality (projects were transnational and project partners also 
received part of the funding) the figure should be interpreted with caution.54 

The committed funding per Member State of lead organisation was further divided by 
population, to account for differences in Member State size (see  

Figure  2-2  right).  Assuming  that  the  committed  funding  to  lead  organisations  was  not  shared  with 
partners outside the Member State of the lead organisation, then between 0.50 – 0.60 EUR per capita 
was  committed  in  Belgium  and  Slovenia.  Other  Member  States  received  less  than  0.30  EUR  per 
capita.55 

Figure 2-2 Allocation of FRC committed funding by lead organisation (left) and by lead organisation per 
capita (right) 

54 Ibid., p. 46 
55 Ibid. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6.2 

Structure of the partnerships 

Figure 2-3 further highlights the partnership structure of the top three Member States with the highest 
number of lead organisations located in Italy, Belgium and France. The figures show that Italian lead 
organisations  were  more  likely  to  partner  with  Italian  partners  (21  projects)  followed  by  Spanish 
partners (14 projects) and Romanian partners (13 projects). This could reflect a preference for teaming 
up  with  partners  in  countries  with  similar  languages.  However,  in  total,  Italy  partnered  with  22 
different Member States. 

Belgium lead organisations commonly partnered with organisations from the United Kingdom (eight 
projects),  Spain  (seven  projects),  Belgium  (six  projects),  Greece  (six  projects)  and  Romania  (five 
projects). In total, Belgium partnered with 24 different Member States. 

France  commonly  partnered  with  Italy  (four  projects),  Belgium  (four  projects)  and  France  (four 
projects). In total France partnered with 14 different Member States. 

Figure 2-3 Partnership structure for the Top 3 Member States of lead organisations 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6.3 

Analysis of the geographical coverage of the programme 

The FRC programme did not cover all Member States equally. The coverage of Member States largely 
reflects the number of applications received by different Member States. In total 804 applications were 
received  for  project  funding  through  the  FRC  programme.  The  highest  number  of  applications  was 
submitted  by  Italian  organisations  (174)  followed  by  organisations  from  Belgium  (77)  and  France 
(69). This top three applicant Member States submitted 39 % of all applications for funding from the 
programme (see Figure 2-4).56 

Figure 2-4 Total number of applications in FRC projects (right) and the success rate by MS (left) 

The success rate of the submitted applications was the highest for Denmark and Ireland, followed by 
Finland, Austria, Belgium and Germany. Estonia and Malta applied but did not succeed in obtaining 
funding from the FRC programme. It should be noted again that these success rates were calculated 
based only on the applications for which Member States could be identified. 

2.6.4 

The added value for the EU and for grant beneficiaries 

For  grant  beneficiaries  responding  to  the  online  survey  and  follow-up  interviews,  the  transnational 
partnerships brought specific benefits to their organisation, which no other funding source would have 

56 Ibid., pp.47-48 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enabled  on  the  same  scale.  Indeed,  most  survey  respondents  (88 %)  stated  that  the  project/activities 
would  not  have  been  implemented  without  EU  funding.57  Also,  a  significant  part  of  activities 
developed  under  FRC  would  have  not  been  developed  had  the  programme  not  existed,  since  the 
programme itself had created a demand for new activities.  

The partnership approach  has resulted in an increased  knowledge-base of participating  organisations 
as evidenced by the survey results. Out of 59 respondents, the majority confirmed that the partnerships 
resulted  in  more  knowledge/expertise  in  the  topic  area,  enabled  networking  to  consist  of  (more) 
international  partners,  and  brought  about  more  knowledge  on  policy  and  practice  in  other  countries. 
The partnership also contributed, though to a lesser extent, to more knowledge on relevant EU policies 
and EU legislation.58 

57 Ibid., p. 48 
58 Ibid. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance of the programme59 

  Overall, the priorities of the calls and the actions that were funded can be considered relevant to 
the  programme  objectives  and  to  the  development  and  implementation  of  EU  policies  and 
legislation. 

 

In  general,  the  action  grants  and  operating  grants  calls  met  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  main 
target group. However, some interviewees raised the need to increase the clarity of the calls.   

  The priorities concerning the training of the general public or the judicial, legal and administrative 
authorities  or  legal  professionals  on  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  were  not  set 
consistently over the years. 

  The robustness of the method used for the needs assessments carried out by the projects could not 
be assessed by this evaluation. Needs assessments are not a mandatory requirement for the grant 
beneficiaries. In the absence of needs assessments it is difficult to assess whether certain priorities 
should be dismissed or on what issues should be prioritised in the future. 

Coherence and complementarity 

  The  FRC  programme  is  consistent  with  other  European  policy  initiatives.  Moreover,  it  is 
complementary  with  other  EU  funding  programmes  e.g.  Daphne  III,  PROGRESS  and  JPEN,  in 
terms  of  objectives  and  thematic  areas  and  target  groups.  However,  this  complementarity  also 
carries the risk of potential overlap with those programmes. 

  Some  projects  funded  under  the  FRC  programme  were  complementary  to  the  objectives  and 
beneficiaries targeted by other EU funding programmes. Strength of the FRC programme is that it 
enables  the  financing  of  projects  that  may  not  fit  into  the  narrower  focus  of  other  EU  funding 
programmes. 

  At  project  level,  synergies  were  established  with  other  programmes  of  international  donors  with 
similar  objectives  at  the  EU  and  national  levels  as  well  as  with  projects  funded  by  the  FRC 
programme itself. 

Effectiveness 

  The actions funded under the FRC programme have made a notable contribution to the objectives 
it set out to achieve. In particular, the FRC programme has contributed to the implementation and 
development of EU policy and legislation. 

  However, the data provided in the final reports and the interviews was not sufficient to enable an 
assessment of the specific level of effectiveness of these activities in achieving the programme’s 
objectives. For example, neither the final report template nor the guidelines providing instructions 
for completing the template gave a clear explanation of the difference between outputs, results and 
outcomes. Therefore, the final reports reviewed tended not to  differentiate between  the projects’ 
outputs, results and outcomes. 

  The  majority  of  the  projects  were  able  to  achieve  the  planned  results  on  time  and  to  reach  the 
expected  target  group.  No  obstacles  seriously  influencing  the  implementation  of  the  project’s 
results or objectives were identified. 

  The mechanisms in place for monitoring projects while they are under way do not ensure feedback 
is  given  to  grant  beneficiaries  in  all  cases  and  or  that  lessons  learned,  good  practices,  success 
factors, etc. are identified. 

59 Ibid., pp. 50-51 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sustainability  

  The dissemination of project results by the grants beneficiaries was generally effective with some 
limitations. However, in the absence of continued monitoring by project partners once the project 
has ended, it is difficult to assess the long-term impact of their dissemination efforts. However, the 
Commission’s  efforts  to  disseminate  the  results  of  projects  have  been  limited.  The  lack  of 
effective  means  for  the  Commission  to  share  information  concerning  the  FRC  programme  was 
already  mentioned  in  the  mid-term  evaluation,  and  this  evaluation  did  not  find  any  additional 
communication resources and measures put in place. 

  The  FRC  programme  presents  gaps  in  communicating  and  disseminating  project  outputs  and 
results to EU policy  makers and to other project managers that could benefit from those results. 
Sometimes  projects’  material  and  tools  required  some  minor  changes,  such  as  translation  and 
adaptation of the project’s method to the local context, in order to be of use to other organisations 
addressing similar issues. 

  Many  of  the  projects’  outputs  and  results  were  considered  transferable  to  other  target  groups  or 
countries.  In  more  than  half  of  the  projects  the  outputs  have  already  been  successfully 
implemented in another country. 

  Overall, the FRC programme’s projects generated  sustainable results in terms of continuation of 
activities  and  partnership  building.  Evidence  that  partnerships  in  a  project  continued  after  the 
project had ended was strong. However, whether project activities continued depended on the type 
of activity and whether continuation required further funding. 

Efficiency  

  Overall, funding provided to action grants and operating grants appears to have been sufficient. Of 
the total funds allocated for action grants for the period 2007 to 2012, some 90 % was committed 
and  of  that,  88 %  actually  spent,  indicating  an  acceptable  absorption  rate  for  these  grants.  For 
operating grants, only 39 % of the total funding allocated was actually committed, though of those 
amounts, the same percentage as above (88 %) was actually spent, again indicating an acceptable 
rate of absorption. 

  The  efficiency  of  the  allocation  of  funds  among  the  different  funding  tools  was  overall 
appropriate. The amounts available per project were regarded as sufficient for the implementation 
of the project’s activities and achieving the objectives. 

  As regards scope for simplification, overall, the management of the FRC programme was efficient 
in  terms  of  the  requirements  imposed  on  applicants  and  beneficiaries  and  the  support  received. 
However,  some  organisations  encountered  difficulties  with  the  application  and  implementation 
process.  Reporting  requirements  were  sometimes  considered  as  burdensome,  particularly  with 
regard to financial reporting. Overall, the Commission’s monitoring arrangements were considered 
useful; however some respondents experienced difficulties. 

EU added value 

  The FRC programme has provided European added value. It has contributed to the development 
and strengthening of EU actions in the areas of freedom, security and justice and has particularly 
responded to the need to protect fundamental rights and promote EU citizenship. However, it has 
not been yet possible to identify and measure EU added value in terms of impacts. 

  Projects  covered  a  theme  of  relevance  to  the  EU  and  were  implemented  by  transnational 
partnerships between Member States. The transnational partnerships resulted in specific benefits, 
e.g.  increased  knowledge-base  of  participating  organisations  and  a  wider  dissemination  of  good 
practices. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
  The geographical coverage of projects and project partners receiving action grants and operating 
grants  funding  is  uneven,  with  a  few  Member  States  overly  represented  and  others  quite  under 
represented. 

Key recommendations 

  Better define the priorities: the Commission should invest more time and human resources in the 
process of setting priorities in order to ensure that the priorities can be adequately achieved within 
an earmarked budget. 

  Realistic assessments of project risks and better risk mitigation strategies: the Commission should 
better  monitor  risks  throughout  the  project  duration,  for  example  by  asking  for  brief  progress 
reports that identify any potential risks as they arise during the implementation of the project. 

 

Increase  focus  on  assessment  of  impacts  at  all  levels  and  not  merely  on  outputs,  as  regards 
monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  need  to  collect,  analyse  and  use 
objective  and  independent  evidence  in  order  to  perform  project  and  programme  evaluations. 
Increase focus on needs assessment that each project aims to address. 

  Explore  ways  of  enhancing  the  uptake  of  project  outputs,  results  and  best  practices  by  other 
organisations,  including  in  other  Member  States,  including  more  resources  for  translations, 
communication and dissemination.  

  Sharpen the programme's intervention logic; further to the scope of the programme and its general 
and specific objectives and priorities, types of action and types of intervention and implementing 
measures,  the  Commission  will  seek  to  sharpen  the  intervention  logic60,  and  make  the  relations 
between  the  rationale,  objectives,  inputs,  outputs,  beneficiaries,  expected  outcomes  and  impacts 
more articulate, precise and concrete in any future continuation of the programme. 

60 See for instance Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme 
evaluation: Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme (FRC), ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 1-2 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/frc_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdfError! Reference 
source not found. 

25