COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020
Date: 2018-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European cooperation, European identity, citizens' Europe, civil society, participatory democracy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.4.2018 SWD(2018) 86 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Europe for Citizens programme 2014-2020  {COM(2018) 170 final}  
 
 
Report on the mid-term evaluation of the 
implementation of the Europe for 
Citizens programme 2014-2020 

Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 2 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 11 

4.  METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 18 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 19 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 31 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

This  staff  working  document  sets  out  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Europe  for  Citizens 
Programme (EfCP) 2014-2020. The evaluation was carried out under the provisions of Article 15.4 (a) of the 
Council  Regulation  establishing  the  EfCP  for  the  period  2014-20201.  It  aims  mainly  to  assess  the 
programme’s results and outputs compared to its objectives and to assess qualitative and quantitative aspects 
of  the  programme’s  implementation.  It  also  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  recommendations  of  the 
previous  2007-2013  EfCP’s  evaluation  have  been  followed  and  whether  the  programme  is  on  track  to 
achieving its objectives. 

The  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  have  fed  into  the  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions, which this document accompanies. 

It  will  also  help  the  reflection  on  the  programme’s  future.  Under  the  Regulation  the  Commission  is 
requested to present a communication on the continuation of the EfCP by 31 December 2018. 

The programme was assessed based on the following main evaluation criteria: 

- 

its relevance in relation to the identified needs it aims to address; 

-  effectiveness; 

-  efficiency  in  relation  to  resources  used  and  assessment  of  the  potential  for  simplifying  procedures  and 

reducing burden; 

-  consistency with other EU instruments that have common objectives; 

-  EU added value compared to what could have been achieved by participating countries on their own; and 

-  available alternative measures and their potential impact. 

Geographically, the evaluation covers the 28 EU Member States and 5 countries which signed agreements to 
participate  in  the  EfCP  (Albania,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  Serbia,  and  the  former  Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia). 

The reference period for this mid-term evaluation is the first three years of the programme’ implementation 
from April 2014 to December 2016. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE PROGRAMME 

Since the Maastricht Treaty was adopted in 1993 introducing the concept of European citizenship, the EU 
has  recognised  that  it  needs  to  bring  itself  closer  to  citizens  and  to  enable  them  to  fully  participate  in 
building  the  EU  project,  while  emphasising  its  common  and  shared  values.  The  EfCP  is  one  of  the 
instruments that can achieve this political objective. 

1   Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  390/2014  of  14  April  2014  establishing  the  ‘Europe  for  Citizens’  programme  for  the  period 

2014-2020 (OJ L 115 of 17.04.2014).OJ L 115, 17.4.2014, p. 3. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
Following  the  Community  Action  Programme,  which  awarded  grants  in  the  field  of  active  European 
citizenship  from  2004  to  2006,  the  first  fully-fledged  citizenship  programme  under  the  name  ‘Europe  for 
Citizens’ was established, running from 2007 to 2013. 

The current EfCP helps people to understand the EU, its history and diversity. It aims to support European 
citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at EU level. It is divided into 
two strands: 

-  Strand 1: European remembrance 

-  Strand 2: Democratic engagement and civic participation 

The programme’s general objectives are to: 

- 

- 

to contribute to citizens’ understanding of the Union, its history and diversity; 

to foster European citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at Union 
level. 

Its specific objectives are to: 

- 

- 

to  raise  awareness of remembrance,  the common history  and values  of the Union and the Union's aim,  
namely to promote peace, the values of the Union and the well-being of its peoples by stimulating debate, 
reflection and the development of networks; 

to  encourage  democratic  and  civic  participation  of  citizens  at  Union  level,  by  developing  citizens' 
understanding  of  the  Union’s  policy-making  process  and  promoting  opportunities  for  societal  and 
intercultural engagement and volunteering at Union level. 

The  programme  is  open  to  the  EU  Member  States  and  other  European  countries,  namely  those  from  the 
Western  Balkans  provided  that  they  sign  an  international  agreement  laying  down  the  details  of  their 
respective participation in the programme. In 2017, the EfCP was implemented in 33 participating countries: 
28  Member  States  and  5  other  participating  countries  (Albania,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  Serbia 
and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).2 

The  total  EfCP  budget  for  the  period  2014-2020  is  EUR  187 718 000.  The  budget  provided  for  in  the 
Regulation  was  initially  EUR  185 468 000,  but  it  was  increased  in  2014.  This  was  due  to  the  budgetary 
authority  granting  an  additional  EUR  2 000 000  and  another  EUR  250 000  being  transferred  from  the 
cancelled preparatory project ‘European Civil Society House’3.  

In  the  three  years  covered  by  this  mid-term  evaluation,  the  annual  amount  spent  on  operational 
appropriations was: 

2   The signature of the agreement on the participation of Kosovo* is foreseen for 2018 (*This designation is without prejudice 
to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence) 

3   European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  Report  on  the  activities  of  the  ‘Europe  for 

Citizens Programme in 2014, Brussels, May 2015, EFCC/029/2015. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Year  

2014 

2015 

2016 

Total 2014-2016 

Annual amount spent (EUR) 

22 688 003 

22 352 785 

22 765 895 

67 806 683 

Source: DGHOME Annual Reports on EfCP activities 2014, 2015 and 2016 

Strenghtening a shared sense of European identity and coming closer to European citizens and theMember 
States continue to be key objectives for the EU. The EfCP offered a unique forum to European citizens to 
express their ideas about current socio-political challenges and the future of Europe. 

In its Resolution on the implementation of the EfCP programme for the period 2014–2020 of March 20174, 
the European Parliament called on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to consider to raise 
its budget under the next MFF. The European Economic and Social Committee came to similar conclusions 
in its opinion on "Financing of civil society organisations" adopted in October 2017.5 

Description of the programme 

The programme supports a wide range of activities and organisations promoting active European citizenship 
through the involvement of individual citizens. The two strands of the programme are complemented by a 
cross-cutting horizontal action for analysis, dissemination and use of the projects’ results. 

The programme has two funding mechanisms: action grants and operating grants. Action grants are provided 
for projects (those with a limited duration during which proposed specific activities are implemented) within 
both  strands.  Operating  grants  fund  European  public  policy  research  organisations  (think  tanks)  and 
European  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs).  These  grants  provide  financial  support  to  cover  part  of  the 
running costs that enable a body to exist independently and implement a range of activities envisaged in its 
annual work programme. 

  Strand 1: European remembrance 

This strand of work supports activities that reflect on European cultural diversity and on the EU's common 
values  in  the  broadest  sense.  In  this  context,  it  aims  to  finance  projects  that  reflect  on  the  causes  of 
totalitarian regimes in modern European history and to commemorate the victims of their crimes. 

It also supports activities relating to other defining moments and reference points in recent European history. 
In particular, preference is given to projects which encourage tolerance, mutual understanding, intercultural 
dialogue and reconciliation as a means of moving beyond the past and building the future, with an emphasis 
on reaching the younger generation. 

The projects under this strand (1) include different types of organisations (local authorities, CSOs, research 
institutes, etc.), or (2) develop different types of activities (research, non-formal education, public debates, 

4   European  Parliament  Resolution  of  2  March  2017  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  390/2014  of  14 
April  2014  establishing  the  ʻEurope  for  Citizensʼ  programme  for  the  period  2014-2020  (2015/2329(INI)),  P8_TA-
PROV(2017)0063 

5   European Economic and Social Committee: "Financing of Civil Society Organisations by the EU", own-initiative opinion by 

Jean Marc Roireau of 19 October 2017, EESC 2017, 01953. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
exhibitions, etc.) or (3) involve  citizens  from different backgrounds. Projects should be implemented on a 
transnational level (involving the creation and operation of transnational partnerships and networks) or with 
a clear European dimension. 

  Strand 2: Democratic engagement and civic participation 

This strand supports activities relating to civic participation in the broadest sense with a particular focus on 
activities directly linked to EU policies. These activities aim to help shape the EU political agenda in areas 
related to the EfCP’s objectives. The strand also covers projects and initiatives that develop opportunities for 
mutual understanding, intercultural learning, solidarity, civic engagement and volunteering at EU level. 

The following types of activities are supported under Strand 2: 

- 

- 

- 

Town  twinning:  This  measure  supports  projects  that  bring  together  a  wide  range  of  citizens  from 
twinned towns to discuss topics in line with the programme’s  objectives. By mobilising citizens at 
local and EU level to debate concrete issues on the European political agenda, these projects seek to 
promote civic participation in the EU's policy-making processes and develop opportunities for civic 
engagement and volunteering at the EU level. 

Networks  of  towns:  Municipalities  or  regions  and  associations  working  together  on  a  common 
theme over the long term can develop networks of towns to make their cooperation more sustainable 
and  to  exchange  good  practice.  Networks  of  towns  organise  activities  around  subjects  of  common 
interest  in  the  context  of  the  programme’s  objectives  or  multiannual  priorities  which  are  aimed  at 
sustainability. 

Civil  society  projects:  This  measure  supports  projects  promoted  by  transnational  partnerships  and 
networks  that  directly  involve  citizens.  These  projects  bring  together  citizens  from  different 
backgrounds  in  activities  aimed  at  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  participate  in  shaping  the  EU's 
political  agenda.  As  part  of  these  projects  citizens  are  invited  to  collaborate  or  debate  the 
programme’s multiannual priority themes at local and European levels. 

 

 Horizontal Action: Valorisation 

This action is about the dissemination of the programme’s results and applies to both of the strands already 
mentioned.  This  action’s  main  activity  is  the  funding  of  the  Europe  for  Citizens  national  contact  points 
(ECPs)  —  appointed  in  Member  States  and  participating  countries.  These  provide  advice  to  applicants, 
support searches for partners and disseminate programme information in the broadest sense. 

The programme intervention logic is outlined in the graph below: 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Baseline and points of comparison 

The mid-term evaluation assessed the EfCP performance starting from the situation described in the impact 
assessment  for  the  programme  2014-20206  and  in  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  programme7. 
These  documents  contained  the  baselines  and  main  points  of  comparison  for  measuring  the  programme’s 
achievements during the reporting period. 

The  impact  assessment  suggested  a  list  of  indicators  which  was  later  amended  by  the  Regulation 
establishing  the  EfCP.  Therefore,  the  indicators  used  for  this  evaluation  are  those  provided  for  in  the 
Regulation itself (see Annex III)8. 

On the general objectives, the Regulation does not provide for any indicator. However, the EfCP statement 
on operational expenditure attached to the annual draft general budget9 uses the percentage of EU citizens 

6  

Impact Assessment Accompanying the document: Proposal for a Regulation of the Council establishing for the period 2014-
2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’ to promote European citizenship SEC (2011) 1562 FINAL, Impact Assessment. 

7.  Ex 

post 

the 
http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/final_efcp_final_report_2015_10_15.pdf. 

evaluation 

Citizens 

Europe 

for 

of 

Programme 

2007-2013 

Final 

Report, 

8   OJ L 115 of 17.04.2014. 
9   Draft  General Budget of  the European  Commission  for  the  Financial  Year  2018  - Working  Document  Part  I  -  Programme 

statements of operational expenditure- COM (2017)400- May 2017. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
feeling  European  based  on  Eurobarometer  surveys10  as  the  main  indicator  for  measuring  the  programme’s 
impact. 

The  baseline  for  this  indicator  was  59%  in  the  autumn  of  2013.  However  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the 
extent to which European citizens have a feeling of being European purely on the basis of Eurobarometer. It 
is also difficult to measure the programme’s impact at the mid-term stage. Moreover, while the 2011 impact 
assessment was ‘superseded’ by the Regulation, it contained long-term and medium-term targets which were 
more  helpful  for  measuring  the  programme’s  impact:  enhanced  capacity  of  civil  society  to  influence  the 
European project, contributions to the European Years in the form of intellectual input or activities to link 
the  Years  with  the  local  and  regional  realities  and  contributions  to  political  platforms  in  the  run-up  to 
European elections 2014-2019. These targets were translated into the general and specific objectives of the 
Regulation. 

Impact assessment indicators11  

Targets 2020 

Baseline 2013 

EU citizens now feel European 

Stable at 59% 

59% 

and  quality 

initiatives 
Number 
promoted by citizens’ organisations with a 
view to: 

of 

- have an impact on the EU 
policy making process 

- strengthen cohesion in 
Society 

- enhance the understanding 
of the role of the EU 

Strengthened capacity of civil society to influence 
the European project 

No baseline established 

Contributions to the European Years 12in the form 
of intellectual input or activities to link the Years 
with the current local and regional experiences 

Contributions to political platforms in the run-up 
to European elections 2014-2019. 

On  the  specific  objectives,  the  performance  indicators  used  are  those  provided  for  in  the  Regulation 
establishing the programme. The baselines 2013 for both strands are presented in the tables below: 

Strand 1 

EfCP 2014 – 2020 Regulation performance 
indicators  

Impact assessment impact indicators / targets in 
medium term  

Baseline 2013 

Indicator  1:  the  number  of  participants 
who are directly involved 

none 

Indicator  2: 
indirectly reached by the Programme 

the  number  of  persons 

none 

100 000 

150 000 

Indicator 3: the number of projects 

Increase of projects by at least 80 %. 

31 

10   Between 2012 and 2016, the Eurobarometer produced results on the question ‘Do you feel like an EU citizen’ twice per year 
see: 

(in 
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Chart/getChart/themeKy/50/groupKy/263. 

spring  & 

autumn). 

autumn 

shown. 

results 

results 

Only 

full 

For 

are 

of 

11    See footnote 6. 
12   See:  https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/european-years_en 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Indicator  4:  the  quality  of  the  project 
applications and  
the  degree  to  which  the  results  of  selected 
projects can be further used / transferred 

none 

Lowest score obtained by 
a retained project: 80/ 100 
events 
of 
Number 
organised: 50 

Indicator  5:  percentage  of 
applicants 

first-time 

33% approx. (depending on action and year) 
Minimum  15%  of  first-time  beneficiaries  across 
the board 

40% 

Strand 2 

EfCP 2014 – 2020 Regulation performance 
indicators  

Impact assessment impact indicators / targets in 
medium term 

Baseline 2013 

Indicator  1:  the  number  of  participants 
who are directly involved 

Minimum 600 000 per year 

Indicator  2: 
indirectly reached by the Programme 

the  number  of  persons 

5 million people 

Indicator  3:  the  number  of  participating 
organisations 

2000 per year 

Indicator  4:  the  perception  of  the  Union 
and its institutions by the beneficiaries  

none 

Indicator  5:  the  quality  of  the  project 
applications  

none 

1 000 000 

1 000 000 

1 000  

77%13 
more 
feel 
European  as  result  of 
participating in the EfCP  

Lowest score obtained by 
a retained project:71/ 100 

Indicator  6:  percentage  of 
applicants 

first-time 

Indicator  7:  number  of 
transnational 
partnerships  including  different  types  of 
stakeholders 

33 % approx. (depending on action and year) 
Minimum  15%  of  first-time  beneficiaries  across 
the board 
Increase by 5% 

Indicator 8: number of Networks of towns 

Increase by 50% 

40% 

1.3 

41 

Indicator  9:  the  number  and  quality  of 
policy  initiatives  following-up  on  activities 
supported  by  the  Programme  at  the  local 
or European level 

Baseline to be established by new programme 

0* 

13   This percentage was established in the study ‘Measuring the impact of the Europe for Citizens Programme’, Euréval/PPMI, 

May 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/final_report_efc_may_2013_eurevalppmi.pdf 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
EfCP 2014 – 2020 Regulation performance 
indicators  

Impact assessment impact indicators / targets in 
medium term 

Baseline 2013 

Indicator  10:  the  geographical  coverage  of 
the activities: 

At least one project per country 

(i)  the  comparison  between  the  percentage 
of projects submitted by one Member State 
as a lead partner and the percentage of its 
population  in  the  total  population  of  the 
Union 

 (ii) the comparison between the percentage 
of projects selected per Member State as a 
lead  partner  and  the  percentage  of  its 
population  in  the  total  population  of  the 
Union 

(iii) the comparison between the percentage 
of projects submitted by one Member State 
as  a  lead  partner  or  co-  partner  and  the 
percentage  of  its  population  in  the  total 
population of the Union 

(iv) the comparison between the percentage 
of projects selected per Member State as a 
the 
lead  partner  or  co-partner  and 
percentage  of  its  population  in  the  total 
population of the Union. 

Number 
of  Member 
States  with  appropriate 
national coverage (NC)14: 

(i)  submitting  as 
partner (13) 

lead 

(ii)  selected  as  a  lead 
partner (12) 

(iii)  submitting  as  lead 
partner or co-partner (18) 

(iv)  selected  as  a  lead 
partner or co-partner (15) 

*= It was intended that a baseline would be set as well for the quality of initiatives, but none have been set so far as it 
has proven difficult to have a proportionate and accurate reporting mechanisms on this indicator 

The progress made during the period covered by the mid-term evaluation compared to the 2013 baselines are 
presented in Section 3 (see State of play). 

Follow-up on the ex post evaluation report of the 2007-2013 programme 

The  mid-term  evaluation  also  examined  the  follow-up  action  on  the  recommendations  of  the  ex  post 
evaluation report of the 2007-2013 programme15. The report confirmed the relevance of the programme’s 
objectives and activities and recognised its uniqueness. However, it pointed out that the programme needed 
to  make  improvements  on  a  number  of  issues  which  could  increase  its  impact,  added  value,  effectiveness 
and efficiency in delivering results. 

The  report  recommended  that  the  programme’s  impact  be  maximised  at  a  wider  level,  with  its  relatively 
small budget being leveraged by identifying specific areas where it can add the most value. The report also 
recommended that the programme complement larger initiatives. 

Potential beneficiaries should be requested to deliver follow-up action to demonstrate the EU added value 
of  the  programme,  which  is  to  be  assessed  based  on  a  set  of  criteria  to  be  developed.  The  report 

14   As  explained  in  the  monitoring  document  from  EACEA,  the  NC  is  calculated  as  a  percentage  of  projects  submitted  (or 
selected) per Member State as a lead partner (or co-partner) divided by the percentage of its population in the total population 
of the EU. Geographical coverage at EU level is the number of Member States for which 90% < NC < 110%.  

15   Ex post evaluation 2007-2013 report, (ibid). 

9 

 
 
                                                 
recommended  improving  monitoring  by  introducing  more  standardised  monitoring  provisions  for 
projects (e.g. that help beneficiaries distinguish between individuals reached) and integrating indicators to 
be developed as part of a study on the monitoring system, commissioned through the programme. 

On remembrance projects the Commission was invited to encourage potential participants to demonstrate 
the links between past, present and future in funding applications and take them into account as part of 
the scoring process. 

The report also highlighted the need to improve the communication between DGs to maximise synergies 
and use good practices developed by other EU programmes on citizenship to reduce overlaps. 

On the geographic balance, it called for increased support for first-time applicants and unrepresented 
Member States. ECPs should also be more involved in the programme and their collaboration with the 
central programme management should increase. 

The report also pointed out that the budget used for funding CSOs, which could plausibly benefit from EU 
funding  from  other  sources,  could  be  more  effectively  spent  on  projects  that  are  more  citizen-centric, 
and/or ensuring that CSO-led projects were comprised of strong citizen-centric components. 

Considering the scale of the problems falling within the programme’s scope in light of its relatively small 
budget  and  the  myriad  of  demographic,  social  and  cultural  factors  affecting  citizenship  and  civic 
engagement,  the  report  recommended  that  there  should  be  a  greater  strategic  focus  on  the  target 
audiences.    It  also  made  recommendations  on  the  types  of  activies  and  guidance  for  applicants/ 
beneficiaries to increase the EfCP’s ability to provide value for money. 

These recommendations were either integrated into the Regulation establishing the current programme and 
in  the  annual  work  programmes  or  translated  into  technical  implementation  measures  and  included  in  the 
guidelines  for  applicants  to  projects  calls  launched  by  the  Education,  Audio-visual  and  Culture  Executive 
Agency (EACEA) (see under programme management). 

In particular: 

-  The programme’s scope was narrowed and its strands reduced from four to two, so that it could deploy 

its limited funding more strategically and focus on citizen-centred activities. 

-  Thematic  priorities  were  introduced  in  the  annual  work  programmes  to  focus  on  current  issues  of 

relevance to European citizens (i.e. migration, Euroscepticism). 

-  A study was launched to improve programme and project monitoring which aimed to develop a list of 

indicators to be integrated by the contractors for project evaluation. 

-  Strengthened  measures  for  monitoring  projects  (incl.  desk  monitoring)  were  introduced  to  support 
their implementation and to strengthen their EU added value. An annual monitoring strategy plan has 
been set up which establishes the criteria for selecting the projects to be monitored. 

-  The  final  report  form  was  simplified  and  revised  in  order  to  gather  measurable  information  and  to 
enable results to be better used. Beneficiaries were also requested to report on specific themes (e.g. the 
future of Europe) and some organisations who received grants started ‘clustering’ among each other in 
order to increase the project’s impact and its EU-wide dimension. 

10 

 
-  For Member States less represented in the programme, ‘ad hoc’ visits to and participation to info-days 
were organised (e.g. in Baltic countries). Ad hoc training to ECP staff and job-shadowing initiatives 
were also put in place.  

-  The  budget  allocated  to  the  EfCP  in  2017  for  operating  grants  is  less  than  30%  of  the  total  budget 

which means that 70% is allocated to citizen-centric projects. 

-  DG HOME maintained close contacts with other DGs with responsibility for citizenship issues that are 

implementing funding programmes over the 2014-2020 period. 

Those  recommendations  not  yet  addressed  will  be  considered  in  the  future  implementation  of  the 
programme. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Programme management 

After the Juncker Commission was established, the responsibility for the citizenship portfolio was given to 
the Commissioner in charge of migration, home affairs and citizenship. Accordingly, the EfCP was moved 
from  Directorate-General  Communication  (DG  COMM)  to  Directorate-General  Migration  and  Home 
Affairs (DG HOME) as of 1 January 2015. 

DG HOME manages the budget and sets priorities, targets and criteria for the programme after consultation 
of the Programme Committee. Furthermore, it guides and monitors the general implementation, follow-up 
and evaluation of the programme at European level. 

The Education, Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) is responsible for implementing the 
programme.  The  Agency  is  notably  in  charge  of  selecting  projects  and  signing  grant  decisions  and 
agreements, financial management, monitoring projects, communicating with beneficiaries and spot checks. 

Member States implement the programme through the Programme Committee. The Committee is consulted 
on different implementation aspects, in particular the proposed annual work programme, and is informed on 
the  annual  reports  of  activities  and  the  selection  results.  Non-EU  participating  countries  take  part  in  the 
Programme Committee as observers, but without any voting rights. 

Every  year  the  Commission  presents  an  annual  report  on  the  activities  of  the  EfCP  to  the  Programme 
Committee so Member States can have the opportunity to review its implementation according to the annual 
work programme. The annual reports for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were analysed under the mid-term 
evaluation16.  

State of play 

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  present  the  state  of  play  of  the  programme’s  implementation  and  the 
qualitative and quantitative results achieved  in the period  2014-2016 in general terms and by each strand. 
Baselines and milestones set up on the basis of the Regulation for 2017 and 2020 are also included. 

16 DG HOME, Europe for Citizens Programme Annual report 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
General objectives 

General objectives: to contribute to citizens’ understanding of the Union, its history and diversity, to foster European 
citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at Union level 

Indicators 

Baseline 2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU citizens now 
feel European  

59% 
(Eurobarometer 
80-Autumn 
2013) 

60% 
(Eurobarometer82
-Autumn 2014) 

64% 
(Eurobarometer 
84-Autumn 
2015) 

67% 
(Eurobarometer
86-Autumn 
2016) 

Target 
2017 

Target 
2020 

59% 

59% 

The review of recent Eurobarometer surveys shows that the percentage of EU citizens who definitely  or to 
some extent feel that they are EU citizens slightly increased between 2013 and 2016. While this is a positive 
development,  it  is  not  possible  to  establish  whether  the  programme  caused  this  increase,  as  many  factors 
influence the feeling of being an EU citizen besides the programme. 

As  noted  in  Section  2,  to  highlight  the  achievement  of  the  programme’s  general  objectives  based  on  the 
quantity and quality of the initiative, the impact assessment sets out three long-term targets and milestones. 
The EfCP performance in relation to these was evaluated as follows: 

- Strengthened capacity of  civil society to  influence  the European project  . The programme is  on track  as 
demonstrated by its potential contribution to attaining this target, for instance through civil society projects 
that encourage citizens to participate in the community and take interest in decision-making processes 

- Contributions to the European Years in the form of intellectual input or activities to link the Years with the 
local and regional experiences. The European Year 2014 was focused on citizens and continued some of the 
activities  of  the  European  Year  of  Citizens  2013,  with  an  emphasis  on  the  EU  elections.  Due  to  the  late 
adoption of the Programme for the 2014-2020 period, its contribution to the European Year could only have 
been limited. There is no evidence of the EfCP contributing to the European Year for Development in 2015, 
although it is briefly mentioned in the EfCP's annual work programme for 2015 as a potential topic under 
the priority of the debate on the future of Europe. There were no European Years in 2016 or 2017. 

-  Contributions  to  political  platforms  in  the  run-up  to  European  elections  2014  and  2019.  Given  the  late 
adoption of the programme in April 2014, projects in line with the annual priority for Strand 2 built around 
the European Parliament elections and citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the EU, were not in 
place by the time of the June 2014 elections. However, the debate on the future of Europe is a permanent 
priority of Strand 2 and can also contribute to greater interest in European issues such as the EU elections. 

Specific objective 1 

Specific objective 1 to raise awareness of remembrance, the common history and values of the Union's aim, namely 
promote peace, the values of the Union and the well-being  of its peoples, by stimulating debate,  reflection and the 
development of networks  

Indicators   

Baseline 
2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Target 2017 

Target 2020 

1. number of participants 
who are directly involved  

100 000 

100 000 

100 000 

100 000 

100 000  

100 000 

12 

 
2. number of persons 
indirectly reached by the 
Programme  

150 000 

165 000 

185 000 

190 000 

180 000 (or an 
increase 
of 
20%) 

202  500  (35% 
increase ) 

3. number of projects  

31 

36 

33  

38 

35  

36 

4. quality of the project 
applications and degree to 
which the results of 
selected projects can be 
further used/transferred 
(lowest score obtained by a 
retained project and number 
of events organised) 

5. percentage of first-time 
applicants 

80/100 

84.5/100 

80/100 

82.5/100 

81.6/100 

83.2 

50 

84 

90 

95 

40% 

43% 

45% 

50%  

at least 40% of 
new applicants 

Between  35  and 
first-time 
45% 
applicants 
per 
year 

For  Strand  1,  the  table  above  summarises  the  programme’s  actual  performance  for  the  reporting  period 
against  the  indicators  set  out  in  the  Regulation  establishing  the  programme.  Most  of  the  targets  were 
exceeded in 2016 and the programme appears to be on track to reach the targets set for 2020. 

The number of direct participants stabilised at 100 000 per year between 2014 and 2016 while the number of 
people indirectly reached by the programme increased by 27%. 

On the number of projects funded, the target was already exceeded in 2014 compared to the 2013 baseline 
(from 31 to 38). This trend was confirmed in 2016. Even if this increase is not significant, it demonstrates an 
increased  interest  in  these  types  of  projects,  which  could  also  be  attributed  to  the  introduction  of  annual 
priorities. The target set in the impact assessment (an increase of 80%) was not achieved, but it should be 
highlighted  that  this  target  was  fixed  before  the  overall  programme  budget  was  reduced  in  the  new 
programming period. 

The  quality  of  project  applications  on  average  increased  slightly  compared  to  the  2013  target  (82.5/100 
points in 2016 compared to the required 80/100). 

First-time  applicants  made  up  50%  of  total  applicants  in  2016,  exceeding  the  target  set  by  the  baseline 
(40%). Therefore, the impact assessment target (minimum 15%) was comfortably exceeded by mid-term. 

Specific objective 2 

Specific  objective  2  to  encourage  the  democratic  and  civic  participation  of  citizens  at  Union  level,  by  developing 
citizen understanding of the Union policy-making process and promoting opportunities for societal and intercultural 
engagement and volunteering at Union level  

Indicators 

Baseline 
2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Target 2017 

Target 2020 

1 000 000 

1 000 000 

1 000 000 

1 000 000 

1 000 000  

1 200 000  

1. number of 
participants 
who are 
directly 

13 

 
 
involved 

2. number of 
persons 
indirectly 
reached by the 
programme  

3. number of 
participating 
organisations  

4. feel more 
European as a 
result of their 
participation 
in the Europe 
for Citizens 
programme 

5. quality of 
the project 
applications 
(lowest score 
obtained by a 
retained project)  

6. percentage 
of first-time 
applicants 

7. number of 
transnational 
partnerships 
including 
different types 
of 
stakeholders 
(average 
number of 
types 
stakeholders)  

8. number of 
Networks of 
towns 

9. number and 
quality of 
policy 
initiatives 

1 000 000 

1 100 000 

1 100 000 

1 100 000 

1  200  000  (or 
an  increase  of 
20%)  

1  350  000  (or 
an  increase  of 
35%)  

1000 

1100 

1300 

1550 

1 400  

1 700 

77% 
(Eureval/PPMI 
Study,  
May 2013) 

60%17 
(Euro 
barometer82-
Autumn 
2014) 

64% 
(Euro 
barometer84-
Autumn 
2015) 

67% 
(Euro 
barometer86Autumn 
2016) 

stable at 77% 

stable at 77% 

71/100 

53/100 

74/100 

73/100 

at 
72.4/100 

least 

73.9 

40% 

40% 

44% 

53%  

1.3 

1.6 

1.8 

1.8 

at least 40% 
new applicants  

5%<40%<+5% 

at least 2 types 
of stakeholders 
in transnational 
partnerships.  

At least 2 types 
of stakeholders 

41 

0* 

35 

32 

30 

35   

0 

0 

0 

The target for 
2017 of 2 
follow-up 
policy 

42 

2 

17   Since  no  measurement  was  done,  results  for  2014,  2015  and  2016  are  those  of  the  annual  Eurobarometers  ‘Percentage  of 
feeling  European’.  In  the  public  consultation  of  2017,  stakeholders  answered  positively  to  the  question  ‘do  you  feel  more 
European as a result of your participation in the Europe for Citizens programme’ (32 respondents out of 40). However, this 
sample cannot be considered as representative.  

14 

 
                                                 
following-up 
on activities 
supported by 
the 
Programme at 
local or 
European level 

10. 
geographical 
coverage of 
the activities:  

(i) the 
comparison 
between the 
percentage of 
projects 
submitted by 
one Member 
State as a lead 
partner and the 
percentage of its 
population in 
the total 
population of 
the Union 

Number of 
Member States 
with appropriate 
national 
coverage (NC)18  

-submitting as 
a lead partner: 

13 

 (ii) the 
comparison 
between the 
percentage of 
projects selected 
per Member 
State as a lead 
partner and the 
percentage of its 

18   See footnote 14. 

initiatives at 
local of 
European 
level. 
According to 
the EfCP 
management, 
the monitoring 
was not 
possible for 
this indicator, 
thus it is 
unclear if the 
target was 
achieved or 
not.  

The targets for 
2017 have 
been achieved 
in 2016: 

28 

27 

(26) 

(28) 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
12 

27 

27 

(26) 

(28) 

population in 
the total 
population of 
the Union 

--selected as a 
lead partner: 

(iii) the 
comparison 
between the 
percentage of 
projects 
submitted by 
one Member 
State as a lead 
partner or co- 
partner and the 
percentage of its 
population in 
the total 
population of 
the Union 

--submitting as 
a lead partner 
or co-partner: 

18 

 (iv) the 
comparison 
between the 
percentage of 
projects selected 
per Member 
State as a lead 
partner or co-
partner and the 
percentage of its 
population in 
the total 
population of 
the Union. 

-selected as a 
lead partner or 
co-partner:  

15 

28 

28 

(26) 

(28) 

28 

28 

(26) 

(28) 

*= It was intended that a baseline would be set as well for the quality of initiatives, but none have been set so far 
as it has proven difficult to have proportionate and accurate reporting mechanisms on this indicator 

For Strand 2, while the number of participants who are directly involved in the programme remained stable 
and  in  line  with  the  2013  level,  the  number  of  indirect  participants  has  increased  by  10%.  Although  the 
impact  assessment’s  medium-term  target  of  five  million  has  not  been  achieved,  the  programme  has  been 
successful in engaging a growing number of indirect participants. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The programme has successfully included a large number of organisations and is over-performing in relation 
to  this  target.  The  number  of  organisations  participating  in  projects  has  consistently  increased to  reach  an 
increment of 35% compared to 2013 baseline. 

The programme is over-achieving on the target for new beneficiaries in 2016 by a very large margin (from 
40% to 53% in 2016). Strand 2 activities appear attractive to newcomers, as more than half of the applicants 
in 2016 were applying for the first time19.  

The monitoring data also indicates an increase in multi-member partnerships and networks since 2013. The 
project quality has also increased since 2015 exceeding the 71/100 target from the 2013 baseline (73/100 in 
2016). 

Another indicator is the number of ‘participants feeling more European as a result of their participation in 
the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme’.  Until  now  no  opinion  poll  has  been  carried  out  and  the  only  data 
available refer to the results of the Eurobarometer ‘EU citizens now feel European’. In the survey carried out 
for the external study, the strongest effect that was felt from participating in programme activities was that 
participants  wanted  to  get  more  involved  in  civil  society  activities  after  taking  part  in  the  programme.  A 
significant  number  also  claimed  that  they  had  learnt  more  about  Europe,  its  history  and  culture,  while 
slightly less felt any more European after participating in the programme20.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of  networks  of  towns  which  have  been  supported  by  the  programme  has 
decreased  since  2013  (from  41  to  30  in  2016)  and  is  falling  short  of  achieving  the  2017  targets  (see  in 
section 5 under Efficiency). The programme is also underachieving in fostering policy initiatives that follow 
up on activities supported by the programme at local or EU level since 2016; there is no indication of such 
initiatives, as it has not been possible to put proportionate reporting and monitoring mechanisms into place. 

On the geographical coverage, the number of Member States with appropriate national  coverage has  been 
constantly  increasing  and  in  fact  doubled  compared  to  2013  situation  in  relation  to  both  applications  and 
selected projects. While the impact assessment target of one funded project per country was not reached as 
of 2016, it should be highlighted that the target for 2020, referenced in EACEA’s monitoring document has 
been  revised to  include organisations from 28  countries selected either as  lead or co-partners. This  means 
that the future target would be achieved. 

Horizontal action 

The main activity covered by the Horizontal Action was the funding of information structures in Member 
States  and  participating  countries  -  the  ECPs.  These  organisations  provide  advice  to  applicants,  support 
partner search and disseminate information on the programme. The ECPs have been effective in their role 
and are helpful in providing assistance to potential applicants to the EfCP,21 as also stressed by the European 
Parliament's Resolution on the implementation of the EfCP Regulation22.  

A financial contribution to institutional communication about the political priorities of the Union (related to 
the  programme  general  objectives)  was  also  provided  once  in  2014  for  an  amount  of  250  000  EUR.  The 
Horizontal  action  has  also  supported  a  variety  of  events  relevant  to  the  two  strands,  as  well  as  the 
development and  maintenance of dissemination tools such  as  a website /Citizenship Portal, a platform  for 
project results (VALOR) and a newsletter. An annual Holocaust Remembrance Day was organised by  DG 

19 EACEA monitoring data. 
20 Deloitte report, Mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2014-2020, Final Report, September 2017, Figure 
38:"Effects of participation in EfCP-funded activities"(n=40) 
http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/dg_home_efcp_final_report_finalised_en.pdf 
21   Deloitte report, Annex B, Web-based survey results 
22   See footnote 4 

17 

 
                                                 
HOME  throughout  the  reviewed  period,  involving  organisations  active  in  the  area  of  European 
remembrance,  ECPs  and  Commission  staff.  This  recurring  commemoration  represents  an  interesting 
opportunity  to  bring  together  key  stakeholders  and  to  disseminate  further  the  programme’s  message  on 
remembrance. 

4.  METHOD 

The  evaluation  process  was  supported  by  an  external  evaluator  (Deloitte  in  cooperation  with  Coffey)23, 
under DG HOME’s responsibility  

The  criteria  used  for  the  evaluation  include  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  sustainability  of  the 
programme and EU added value. The evaluation methodology relied on a series of methodological tools: 

-  desk research of relevant documents; 

- 

interviews  with  14  EU  officials  and  4  members  of  the  Programme  Committee,  as  well  as  with  4 
operating grant beneficiaries; 

-  a web-based survey in English targeting both beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants; 

-  a workshop with 20 members of the Civil Dialogue Group (CDG);24 

- 

three online focus groups with a total of 17 Europe for Citizens Contact Points (ECPs); 

-  20 case studies25 of projects funded under both strands; and 

-  analysis of the results of a public consultation about the mid-term evaluation of the EfCP 2014-2020 

run by the European Commission between January and April 2017. 

Based  on  this  methodology,  the  indicators  for  measuring  outcomes  (in  complying  with  the  general 
objectives)  contained  in  the  impact  assessment  for  the  2014-2020  programme  were  used.  Therefore  the 
contribution of the EfCP to its objectives was assessed in qualitative and quantitative terms.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The Commission considers the evaluation’s findings and conclusions as credible and consistent according to 
the  evaluator’s  methodology.  There  were  some  challenges  which  by  their  nature  could  not  always  be 
mitigated.  Some  indicators  in  the  Regulation  were  difficult  to  use  for  assessing  the  programme’s 
performance because they were not always directly comparable.  

To  make  sure  that  the  evaluation  results  were  reliable,  in  the  absence  of  suitable  indicators  to  assess 
performance in the EfCP Regulation, the extent to which the programme’s activities effectively contributed 
to its general objectives was assessed based on the indicators from the impact assessment. On the other hand 
comparison between targets was difficult due to the diversity and the number of the actions funded. There 
were no straightforward baselines for all indicators either, which made it difficult to make extensive use of 
the monitoring data collected. 

23   Mid-term  evaluation  of 

the  Europe 

for  Citizens  Programme  2014-2020,  Final  Report,  September  2017. 

http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/dg_home_efcp_final_report_finalised_en.pdf 

24   The Civil Dialogue Group discusses all matters relating to the EfCP and to its implementation.This dialogue involves regular 
meetings between the Commission and approximately 50 key European organisations actively involved in the programme. 

25   Deloitte report, Annex B, Case studies 

18 

 
                                                 
 
Despite  this  limitation,  the  number  of  projects  funded  and  the  number  of  direct  and  indirect  participants 
between 2014 and 2016, when taken together with the evidence of the quality of the initiatives, suggests that 
the programme has contributed to the achievement of the general objectives. 

Reporting  data  were  sometimes  different  as  in  the  case  of  the  figures  reported  in  the  DG  HOME  annual 
reports  compared  to  activities  reports  available  on  the  programme's  webpage  (i.e.  list  of  beneficiairies, 
budget  awarded).  This  was  mainly  due  to  adjustments  in  the  projects  implementation  (i.e.  following  the 
cancellation of a contract). The evaluation report only referred to figures included in the DG HOME activity 
reports. 

The  web-survey  results  were  not  fully  representative  of  each  profile  as  only  5  responses  were  from 
unsuccessful applicants despite the efforts made by the Commission and EACEA to promote the survey on 
their webpages and social media. Since many beneficiaries were also unsuccessful applicants in the past (as 
indicated  by  the  number  of  applications  they  submitted  and  how  many  were  accepted),  it  is  likely  that 
respondents preferred to answer as beneficiaries rather than unsuccessful applicants. Whenever the questions 
to beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants were identical, those replies were merged.  

On  public  consultation,  since  individual  citizens  were  scarce  among  the  respondents,  results  need  to  be 
interpreted with caution. 

Even though the case studies proved to be a useful tool to get a better picture of the programme’s activities, 
it  was  not  possible  to  draw  definitive  conclusions  based  only  on  the  case  studies  selected  as  their 
representativeness of the programme as a whole was somewhat limited. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

A  number  of  evaluation  questions  were  addressed  to  assess  the  programme’s  relevance,  effectiveness  and 
sustainability, efficiency, coherence and EU dimension over the period 2014-2016. 

These questions were analysed based on the evidence collected by the external study, which supports this 
mid-term  evaluation,  and  the  feedback  provided  by  main  programme  stakeholders  (participants, 
organisations,  think  tanks,  NGOs,  ECPs,  and  citizens)  through  the  public  consultation  launched  by  DG 
HOME. 

Relevance 

• 

To  what  extent  the  programme’s  activities  are  still  relevant  in  contributing  to  citizens’ 
understanding of the EU, its history and diversity? 

The activities conducted under Strand 1 are considered as appropriate for achieving the programme’s 
objectives, in particular those encouraging reflection on European cultural diversity and on common 
values  in  the  broadest  sense,  initiatives  to  reflect  on  the  causes  of  totalitarian  regimes  in  Europe’s 
modern  history  and  to  commemorate  the  victims  of  their  crimes  and  activities  concerning  other 
defining moments and reference points in recent European history.  

Stakeholders consultations consistently highlighted the programme’s relevance (see Annex 2). CDG 
members,  grant  beneficiaries  and  EU  officials  claimed  that  the  programme  is  more  important  than 
ever. 

The relevance of these activities was supported by stakeholders responding to the public consultation 
as  part  of  the  evaluation  study:  91%  of  322  respondents  stated  that  remembrance  activities  were 

19 

 
‘very important’ (57%) or ‘rather important’ (34%)26. ECPs also claimed that the stronger focus on 
European  history  in  this  programme,  compared  to  the  previous  one,  is  appreciated  by  many 
organisations, institutions and municipalities in their countries. 

Moreover, a large majority of ECPs agreed that the current structure of the programme achieves an 
appropriate  balance  between  past  and  present  since  both  aspects  are  very  closely  linked  and  the 
lessons learnt from the past are essential for a healthy debate on the EU’s future. 

• 

To what extent the programme’s activities are still relevant to foster European citizenship and to 
improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at EU level? 

The activities under Strand 2 are considered as relevant overall to the programme objectives by all 
consulted stakeholders. Even if certain stakeholders (operating grant beneficiaries and ECPs27) think 
that some activities under town twinning and networks of towns have less relevance or European 
dimension, the public consultation’s results illustrate that town twinning is positive overall. 56% of 
respondents  stated  that  it  is  very  important  for  EU  action  and  33%  stating  that  it  is  important28.  It 
should also be taken into account that an EU dimension is not required for these activities, as Annex 
1 to the Regulation makes clear. However the external evaluation study showed a preference of the 
stakeholders for that EU dimension as gathered from the analysis of case studies and reinforced by 
consultations.  Moreover,  the  European  Parliament  in  its  recent  report  on  the  programme’s 
implementation stressed the importance and the proven value of the existing international twinning 
of cities and municipalities29.  

The  feedback  on  the  relevance  of  networks  of  towns  is  mostly  positive.  Most  respondents  to  the 
public consultation stated that networks of towns are very important (61%) or important (35%) for 
EU action30. 

The  relevance  of  civil  society  projects  to  the  programme’s  objectives  was  highlighted  and 
demonstrated  by  case  studies  in  particular  for  having  a  strong  focus  on  educating  citizens  on  EU 
topics and for encouraging them to participate in policy discussions. Most respondents to the public 
consultation  stated  that  civil  society  projects  are  very  important  (74%)  or  important  (24%)31.  Civil 
society projects were highlighted by half of the ECPs in one focus group as projects that need more 
funding when compared to others. 

• 

In how far were the objectives relevant to the problems to be addressed? 

The programme’s objectives were set out taking into account the needs to be addressed by the EfCP 
and in particular those included in the impact assessment for the 2014-2020 programme32: 

- 

- 

level of trust of EU citizens in the EU; 

level of the sense of belonging citizens feel in the EU; 

-  Euroscepticism; 

26. 
27  
28. 
29. 

30. 
31. 
32. 

 DG HOME, mid-term evaluation EfCP, public consultation results. 
 See Annex 2, Stakeholder consultation.  
 DG HOME mid-term evaluation EfCP, public consultation results 
 European Parliament Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April establishing the 
‘Europe for Citizens’ programme for the period 2014-2020 (2015/2328(INI)), 
 DG HOME mid-term evaluation EfCP, public consultation results. 
 (ibid). 
 Impact assessment for 2014-2020 EfCP programme, 2011, see footnote 4, data source: Eurobarometer. 

20 

 
                                                 
- 

reduced interest in EU matters (evidenced by EU elections voter turnout) 

Overall, the responses in the Eurobarometer surveys between 2014-2016 on the feeling of trust in the 
EU  and  on  the  sense  of  being  an  EU  citizen  do  not  differ  much  from  the  surveys  before  the 
programme (i.e. 33% and 26% citizens as of spring 2016 compared to 41% and 23% respectively as 
of spring 2011). This highlights that intervention is  continually needed in this area. Furthermore, 
the programme’s objectives were also considered to be relevant and up-to-date by most of the ECPs 
consulted. 

On the issues of Euroscepticism and interest in EU matters, Euroscepticism has evidently risen over 
the last few years as well as the increasing political presence of parties sceptical of the EU or protest 
parties. The voter turnout in the EU elections 2014 was the lowest ever recorded (42.61%) as many 
citizens consider the EU ‘too distant or ‘too interfering in their day-to-day lives’ and are unsure of 
how the EU improves their lives. 

Therefore,  in  these  challenging  times,  to  bring  the  EU  closer  to  its  citizens  it  is  considerably 
important to  raise their awareness of EU citizens’  rights, encourage  debate and reflect on citizens’ 
understanding of the EU. The Commission recognised it as a phenomenon for discussion, debate and 
action in the White Paper on the Future of Europe33.  

Effectiveness and sustainability 

•  

To  what  extent  have  the  activities  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  Europe  for  Citizens  been 
effective in achieving the programme’s general and specific objectives? Where objectives are not 
fulfilled in a satisfactory way, which factors have hindered the programme’s effectiveness and to 
what  extent?  Is  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  on  the  right  track  at  this  stage  of  its 
implementation? 

Between 2014 and 2016, the number of participants and projects funded suggest that the programme 
has contributed to achieving the general objectives. 

In  quantitative  terms,  352  projects  per  year  were  supported  on  average,  involving  at  least  1.1 
million direct participants and reached an additional 1.3 million indirectly every year34. The total 
number of participants at mid-term for both strands was 3.3 million direct and 3.9 million indirect 
participants35.  This  level  of  participation  exceeds  the  previous  EfCP’s  achievements,  which 
managed to reach (directly and indirectly) close to 7 million citizens from across the EU in its second 
half between 2011 and 2013, but which had more funds available36. 

Between April 2014 and July 2017, 3 950 CSOs37 were involved in the programme, i.e. on average 
more  than  1 300  each  year.  The  number  of  CSOs  participating  in  the  reporting  period  is  slightly 
lower  than  the  4 250  CSOs  which  participated  between  2011  and  2013,  but  it  has  been  increasing 
consistently each year. This suggests that the target of 1 700 CSOs per year by 202038 is likely to be 
achieved and that the programme is encouraging cooperation among CSOs by bringing a significant 
number together. 

33 White Paper on the Future of Europe, Reflections and scenarios for EU 27 by 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-

political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf 

34 Monitoring programme data, provided by EACEA. 
35 (ibid). 
36 The programme’s budget was reduced by 12.7% between programming periods. 
37  Monitoring programme data, provided by EACEA 
38  Indicator  3  in  the  Working  Programme  Statement,  see  Draft  General  Budget  of  the  European  Commission  for  the  Financial 
Year 2018- Working Document Part I- Programme statements of operational expenditure- COM (2017)400- May 2017. 

21 

 
                                                 
In qualitative terms, external factors  such as the different political, economic and social situation in 
different  EU  Member  States  made  it  difficult  to  measure  EfCP’s  effectiveness  in  achieving  its 
general  and  specific  objectives  as  these  factors  could  have  influenced  the  programme's  impact  in 
terms of awareness, understanding and civic engagement. Measurement during or immediately after 
an  activity  provides  only  a  snapshot  and  does  not  provide  information  on  long-term  change  in 
citizens’ behaviour. Nevertheless, the tables on the programme implementation indicate that progress 
has been achieved on the quality side. 

The way in which individual citizens were involved (bottom-up approach) is also seen as one of the 
programme's strength. 

The continuing increase of the average score obtained by the projects selected for funding between 
2013  and  2016  shows  their  increasing  quality.  This  can  partly  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
projects  submitted  have  become  more  focused  and  concrete  following  the  introduction  of  annual 
priorities. Results of case studies also confirmed that activities are well anchored in current political 
and societal issues.39 

However, even if the review of recent Eurobarometer surveys (presented under ‘Relevance’) shows 
that  the  percentage  of  EU  citizens  who  definitely  or  to  some  extent  feel  that  they  are  EU  citizens 
slightly increased between 2013 and 2016, it is not possible to establish a direct causal link between 
the programme and this positive development as already stated above. 

On  the  specific  objectives,  evidence  shows  that  under  Strand  1,  the  EfCP  has  made  progress  on 
achieving its specific objectives. The key target relevant for Strand 1 was to increase the number of 
projects by 80% in view of a slightly larger budget and a strengthening of remembrance activities. 
Since  the  overall  programme  budget  was  decreased  in  the  current  programming  period,  the  target 
could not be achieved but an increase of 27% was registered in 2016 compared to the baseline (from 
31 projects to 38). The number of first-time beneficiaries per year of Strand 1 in 2016 was 58%, and 
the key target of at least 15% referenced in the 2011 Impact Assessment was exceeded at mid-term. 

For  Strand  2,  the  specific  objective  ‘encouraging  democratic  engagement  and  civic  participation’ 
exceeded its targets in terms of the number of people reached (directly and indirectly) and first-time 
participants. In particular, it is fairly successful in indirectly reaching participants and the number of 
organisations participating is encouraging. The target to have at least one project funded per country 
could  be  achieved  in  the  future  as  it  was  revised  in  2016  to  include  organisations  selected  as  co-
partners. However, the geographical balance in town twinning should be improved as the reports on 
annual activities for 2015 and 2016 indicates that over 50% of selected projects came from only four 
Member States as coordinators (Germany, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia).  

For the Horizontal Action, the objective of building up a strategy for dissemination of best practices 
and  programme  results  has  been  effective  as  demonstrated  by  high-level  events  on  Holocaust 
remembrance40.  The  online  database  VALOR  also  contributed  to  raising  awareness  about  the 
programme through dissemination of projects' results. However, a more strategic approach should be 
developed  based  on  an  overarching  communication  and  dissemination  strategy  at  central  and  local 

39   Examples of case studies can be found in Deloitte report, Section 4.2 

40   See before under section 3, Programme implementation, State of play 

22 

 
                                                 
level, also supported by stakeholders and the European Parliament.41 

The CDG and ECPs have a lot of experience in dealing with CSOs and in sharing best practices with 
their counterparts in the Member States and centrally with European bodies and institutions. In order 
to  maximise 
improve  synergies  with  other 
impact  on  citizens  and 
programmes/activities at European and national level, mechanisms should be set  up to  guarantee a 
more  structured  discussion  between  all  parties  involved.  In  particular,  the  CDG  asked  for  a  more 
structured and open dialogue and more political orientation. 

the  programme’s 

The ECPs have been effective in  their role as information providers and in providing assistance to 
potential  applicants  to  the  EfCP.  However,  there  are  areas  where  the  effectiveness  of  their  action 
could be improved, such as on the application procedure. Half of the respondents to the web-based 
survey had not used the ECPs for the review of their application or for partner search. Among the 
reasons  for  not  using  their  services,  survey  respondents  noted  that  the  ECP  network  had  not  been 
advertised enough or that they thought they did not need any help. 

Providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants who would prefer to have more detail on the reason 
for their project being rejected is an issue which was also highlighted by the European Parliament in 
its  Resolution  from  March  2017  on  the  implementation  of  the  EfCP  Regulation,  which  stated  that 
‘rejected applications should be responded to satisfactorily’. 

VALOR, which contains information on EfCP-funded projects, could be more user-friendly in order 
to allow a better exploitation of programme results. Robust methods should be developed for widely 
disseminating programme results and making them more highly visible, as requested by interviewed 
beneficiaries and by the European Parliament. 42 

Dissemination activities contributed to raising awareness about the programme, but there is scope for 
a more strategic approach, in order to upgrade the overall communication of the EfCP at central and 
local level. Despite the satisfaction of stakeholders with the majority of activities funded through the 
Horizontal Action, the potential of activities has yet to be fully exploited and the role of ECPs could 
be reinforced. 

•  

How  does  the  programme  influence  the  town  twinning  movement,  European  civil  society 
organisations, think tanks and remembrance organisations participating in the programme? 

The participation of CSOs, the town twinning movement, think tanks and other organisations in the 
programme  influences  their  perception  of  Europe  and  feeling  European.  Data  from  the  public 
consultation show that the effect felt most strongly by participants resulting from their involvement 
in the programme was that they wanted to become more engaged with civic society (58%). It is also 
noteworthy that a large proportion of the respondents who had participated in programme activities 
claimed that their knowledge of Europe increased thanks to their participation. 

•  

Does  participation  in  the  programme  appear  satisfactory  in  terms  of  the  balance  between  new 
organisations and those which have received support previously? 

41   Report  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  390/2014  of  14  April  2014  establishing  the  ʻEurope  for 
Citizensʼ programme for the period 2014–2020 (2015/2329(INI)), Committee on Culture and Education, Rapporteur: María 
Teresa Giménez Barbat 

42   (ibid) 

23 

 
                                                 
The data on first-time beneficiaries suggest that the programme is successfully reaching out to new 
audiences  by  attracting  both  new  beneficiaries  and  larger,  more  transnational  partnerships43.  The 
proportion  of  first  time  applicants  has  been  rising  and  averaged  46%.  In  2016,  the  proportion  of 
new  beneficiaries  for  Strand  1  was  58%  and  for  Strand  2:  73%  for  Town-Twinning,  90%  for 
Networks of Towns, and 84% for Civil Society Projects.  

•  

To what extent has the Europe for Citizens programme been successful in delivering sustainable 
outcomes in relation to its objectives? 

At the mid-point of the programming period, the programme has delivered sustainable outcomes in 
relation  to  its  objectives.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  projects  created  long-lasting  relationships 
between partners who often find face-to-face interactions easier to recall and who want to continue to 
engage  in  further  civic  activities.  As  a  result  networks  of  towns  were  set  up  and  follow-up  events 
were organised between the same beneficiaries after initial events allowing for activities/projects to 
continue  after  funding.  Beneficiaries  felt  that  they  increased  their  knowledge  and  exchanged 
experience  with  European  partners.  However,  not  all  activities  are  long-lasting:  some  of  them  are 
also  ‘one-off’  such  as  events/meetings  whose  purpose  is  also  to  strengthen  the  exchange  of 
experience by focusing on social and cultural aspects (see town twinning). Nevertheless, the success 
of  the  city  twinning  projects  all  over  the  EU  remains  evident  as  recognised  by  the  European 
Parliament itself that called on the Member States to promote the scheme among municipalities and 
to enable cooperation. 

Efficiency 

•  

How  efficient  were  the  activities  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  the  Europe  for  Citizens 
programme so far to reach results at European and at national levels? 

The figures on budget spending during the period 2014-2016 show that the programme was efficient 
in achieving the expected results in line with the work programmes adopted for each programming 
year. A total amount of EUR 67 806 683 were awarded out of EUR 187 718 000 for Strand 1, Strand 
2 and the Horizontal Action. 

The budget available for Strands 1 and 2 is being spent at an even rate each year. This is providing 
predictability for beneficiaries and is an efficient approach.  

Given the wide spectrum of the programme’s objectives and the external factors such as the different 
political,  economic  and  social  situation  in  different  EU  Member  States  which  can  influence 
outcomes, it is very difficult to measure the benefits achieved from this expenditure in quantitative 
terms. Therefore the cost-benefit analysis of the mid-term evaluation mainly focused on qualitative 
aspects (see replies to the subsequent qualitative questions). 

The main purpose of EfCP is to increase citizens’ awareness and understanding of the EU, its history 
and  diversity  and  foster  active  citizenship.  In  this  respect,  activities  funded  by  the  programme 
provide  significant benefits  to  the citizens as  participants have better  knowledge  of  the EU  and  its 
history, feel more European, participate actively to the debate on the future of Europe and exchange 
experiences. Annual calls for action grants allow citizens' involvement in EfCP activities. 

43 See Section 3, State of play. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Organisations  are  able  to  carry  out  cross-border  activities  that  otherwise  would  not  be  financed. 
These organisations benefitted from one call for operating grants, awarding support under framework 
partnerships for 4 years (2014-2017). 

The time to grant, i.e. the time between the submission of the application and the contract signature, 
was 4.5 months on average. This demonstrates the efficient implementation of the programme. 

•  

To  what  extent  have  the  resources  been  properly  used  to  achieve  the  programme’s  objectives? 
Were  the  positive  effects  achieved  at  reasonable  costs?  What  factors  influenced  the  programme 
efficiency? 

Between  2014  and  2016  the  programme  reached  around  300 000  (under  Strand  1)  and  3  million 
people (under Strand 2) directly and 540 000 people (under Strand 1) and 3.3 million (under Strand 
2)  indirectly.  These  figures  confirm  that  the  programme’s  resources  have  been  efficiently  used  as 
they show that a high number of direct and indirect participants were reached with modest resources.   

In terms of the number of grants awarded, the total number of projects was far fewer than the number 
that  the  programme  had  planned  to  support.  This  was  due  to  a  higher  average  value  of  grant  per 
project in the period covered by this report. Moreover, projects with an enlarged partnership involved 
more participants and therefore, more citizens per project. These factors influenced the programme’s 
efficiency. 

Number of projects awarded versus number of projects planned 

Despite the EfCP’s budget not increasing the beneficiaries remain satisfied with the service provided, 
thus suggesting cost-effectiveness from doing more with less. 

•  

Is there any room for simplification? 

The  main  simplification  implemented  in  the  new  EfCP  programming  period  2014-2020  was  the 
introduction of only two strands (compared to four action strands in the previous Programme 2007-
types  of 
2013),  accompanied  by  an  Horizontal  Action.  The  structure  of 
actions/measures  of  projects  also  became  clearer  compared  to  the  previous  programme.  These 
changes  proved  to  work  satisfactorily  even  though  greater  clarity  about  the  link  between  the  two 

the  different 

25 

 
 
 
 
strands  has  been  raised  by  some  programme  stakeholders,  and  in  particular  of  the  civil  dialogue 
group.44 

The  programme  guide  was  in  principle  found  to  be  helpful.  But  during  the  case  studies  analysis, 
some  scope  for  further  improvement  was  identified45.  When  comparing  EfCP  with  other  similar 
initiatives at EU level, a greater clarity was requested by the ECPs on expectations of how to develop 
synergies with the European Solidarity Corps.46 

Some  changes  in  the  application  and  evaluation  process  were  introduced  recently  such  as 
multiannual priorities, a range of e-measures (i.e. e-reports) and lump-sum payments.47 

Programme’s  beneficiaries,  considered  that  these  changes  have  positively  affected  the  quality  of 
applications  and  the  willingness  of  potential  beneficiaries  to  apply48.  Providing  funding  via  lump 
sums is particularly suited to the action grants, although three years’ experience of this system has 
raised  the  question  whether  variations  in  costs  of  living  and  travel  between  participating  countries 
could  be  better  taken  into  account  within  the  overall  budget  without  modifying  the  lump-sum 
approach. 

The simplification carried out over the last two years has been a major, and beneficial, leap forward. 
Those  steps  have  included  the  introduction  of  multi-annual  priorities  and  a  range  of  e-measures. 
Introducing  greater  transparency  into  the  evaluation  process  would  further  improve  satisfaction 
levels among successful and unsuccessful applicants. 

The  monitoring  process  would  benefit  from  a  review  to  identify  baselines  and  choose  workable 
indicators, as requested by the CDG49 and reported under the section "Method" of this document. 

A  more  strategic  approach  to  communication  and  dissemination  about  the  programme  has  been 
recommended in order to improve the programme’s visibility. 

•  

Was the size of the budget appropriate and proportional to achieve the programme objectives?  

With a budget of EUR 187 718 000 the programme has been able to use all of its commitment and 
payment appropriations during the reporting period. 

The division between the programme’s strands and activities was as follows: 

  EUR 9.46 million was granted to European remembrance projects. 
  EUR 12.21 million to town-twinning projects. 
  EUR 12.71 million to networks of towns. 
  EUR 10.32 million to civil society projects.  
  EUR 3.64 million was granted as structural support to European remembrance organisations. 

44   See Annex 2, stakeholders' consultations,results of the meeting with organisation represented within the Civil Dialogue Group 

45   Deloitte report, section 4.3.4 

46   See  Annex  2,  stakeholders'  consultations,  on-line  focus  groups  with  ECPs.  For  more  information  on  European  solidarity 

Corps, see https://europa.eu/youth/solidarity/mission_en 

47   DG HOME annual report 2015 on EfCP activities. 

48   Deloitte report, Annex B, web- based survey results 

49   See Annex 2, stakeholders' consultations,results of the meeting with organisation represented within the Civil Dialogue Group 

26 

 
                                                 
  EUR  16.65  million  was  granted  to  think  tanks  and  European  CSOs  active  in  the  area  of  civic 

participation. 

  EUR 2.8 million horizontal activities, including for valorisation of the programme's results.   

The  average  rate  of  the  number  of  projects  funded  compared  to  the  number  of  projects  submitted 
over the period 2014-2016 was under 10%, except for town twinning, while in 2016 it reached 8% 
for  remembrance  projects,  9%  for  networks  of  towns  and  5%  for  civil society  projects50.  The  high 
demand  shows  that  there  is  scope  to  absorb  additional  funding,  including  for  follow-up  and 
dissemination. Despite their positive evaluation, a significant number of projects, which could have 
helped  the  programme  to  have  a  wider  impact,  could  not  be  funded  due  to  the  budget  limitations. 
Stakeholders have stressed that this situation could discourage applicants from re-applying. 

In  its  March  2017  report  on  the  programme’s  implementation  for  the  period  2014-202051  the 
European  Parliament  called  on  the  Council  and  the  Commission  to  consider  a  total  financial 
allocation of approximately EUR 500 million for the successor programme under the next MFF52. 

•  

Which  type  of  grants  (operating  grants  compared  to  actions  grants)  has  been  the  most  efficient 
tool to achieve the programme’s objectives? 

EU-level  interviewees,  CDG  members  and  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  the 
current system of operating grants provide a minimum of stability and an opportunity for long-term 
planning  to  organisations  which  are  essential  for  developing  civil  society  which  often  operate  in  a 
difficult financial environment. Their argument was that operating grant beneficiaries are very active 
and  proactive  in  ensuring  the  participatory  approach  and  by  their  nature  they  are  sustainable 
multipliers while action grants are project-specific and have a shorter life span. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  interviewees,  including  the  ECPs,  argued  that  the  stability  offered  by 
operating grants should not constitute life support to these organisations, but that large CSOs or think 
tanks should over time be able to find alternative and differing sources of funding. 

The  overall  view  of  stakeholders  is  that  both  action  and  operating  grants  should  continue  as  they 
fulfil different  roles. Actions  grants have  enabled concrete projects to  be implemented in line with 
the objectives.   

Coherence 

•  

To  what  extent  has  the  programme  so  far  proved  complementarity  to  other  EU  funding 
programmes  with  related  objectives,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  citizens'  rights,  education  and 
culture? 

The EfCP is not the only programme dealing with citizenship and related issues. The programme’s 
objectives are complementary to the objectives of other programmes in the area of active citizenship, 
education,  young  people  and  volunteering.  These  programmes  include  the  Rights,  Equality  and 
Citizenship Programme, Erasmus+ and Creative Europe. 

50  DG HOME Annual Reports on the programme activities 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

51 European Parliament Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) N0 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the 

‘Europe for citizens’ programme  for the period 2014-2020 (2015/2329(INI)) . 

52 Representing a symbolic ‘1 euro per citizen’. 

27 

 
                                                 
There  is  evidence  of  limited  direct  overlap  between  them  and  the  EfCP  in  terms  of  content, 
objectives and target groups. Nevertheless, the EfCP offers a unique programme and reaches beyond 
the target groups it shares with the other funding programmes through the potential of a broad range 
of  activities  for  citizens.  For  example,  the  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  programme  puts  the 
emphasis  on  ‘mobile’  EU  citizens  and  promoting  their  participation  and  inclusion  by  raising  their 
awareness of the rights they hold as mobile EU citizens. However the purpose of the EfCP is to reach 
EU  citizens  and  strengthen  their  democratic  and  civic  participation.  The  Erasmus+  programme, 
through the call for proposals ‘Civil Society Cooperation in the field of Education and Training and 
Youth’, provides structural support, in the form of operating grants, to European non-governmental 
organisations and EU-wide networks active in the education and training field or in the youth field. 
In  the  Creative  Europe  programme,  the  culture  dimension  is  predominant  even  where  there  is  a 
citizenship dimension. Therefore, the two programmes can be deemed complementary.  

Some synergies between these programmes are being exploited on the ground, notably through some 
informal cooperation of national structures such as ECPs, the Creative Europe Desks and Erasmus+ 
National  Agencies  which  occurs  occasionally.  The  setting  up  of  the  VALOR  platform  through 
cooperation  between  programmes  has  been  an  example  of  developing  synergies.  However,  the 
potential  for  complementarity  and  synergies  is  not  yet  maximised  either  at  national  or  EU  level, 
which hinders the gain of mutual benefits between these EU funding programmes. 

Stakeholder interviews clearly showed that the EfCP was unique in bringing together CSOs and local 
authorities to develop citizenship activities. This view was broadly shared by ECPs and the CDG, as 
well  as  stakeholders  contributing  to  the  public  consultation.53  In  its  report  on  the  EfCP’s 
implementation from March 2017, the European Parliament came to similar conclusions. 

•  

How  well  did  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  work  together  with  other  EU  instruments, 
especially  in  the  area  of  education,  vocational  training  and  youth,  sport,  culture,  fundamental 
rights,  social  inclusion,  gender  equality,  combating  discrimination,  research  and  innovation, 
information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union? 

The EfCP is coherent with other EU tools dedicated to increasing EU citizens’ participation in civil 
society  and  providing  them  with  information,  and  is  line  with  other  instruments  in  the  areas  of 
volunteering, youth, as well as research and innovation. 

Some synergies between these programmes are being exploited on the ground, notably through the 
informal cooperation of national structures such as ECPs, the Creative Europe Desks and Erasmus+ 
National  Agencies  which  occurs  occasionally.  However,  the  potential  for  complementarity  and 
synergies could be further exploited at national or EU level, which would allow to  increase mutual 
benefits for both strands of the EfCP. 

There  are  apparent  synergies  between  the  programme’s  objective  to  encourage  civic  participation 
and  the  tools  that  enable  citizens  to  engage  in  a  practical  way,  potentially  resulting  in  active 
citizenship. Synergies also exist between the programme and volunteering initiatives at EU level, and 
have  been  strengthened  by  the  EfCP’s  recent  referencing  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  in  the 
2017  work  programme  and  call  for  proposals.  EfCP  has  already  engaged  its  first  participants  and 
several  projects  selected  and  beneficiaries  of  operating  grants  will  offer  further  placements.  Given 
that the European Solidarity Corps initiative has only been launched recently, these synergies can be 
further developed. 

53   See Annex 2, Stakeholder consultation 

28 

 
                                                 
Unexploited synergies also exist in relation to other key policies, including youth policy, as well as 
research and innovation. A number of innovative youth projects were funded by the EfCP in 2014 and 
2015.  In  the  field  of  Research  &  Innovation  (R&I),  the  Commission  promotes  the  Responsible 
Research  and  Innovation  approach  (RRI)  to  involve  all  societal  actors  including  citizens  and  civil 
society  organisations  in  the  development  of  R&I  policy.  RRI  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to 
citizens’  understanding  of  the  Union  and  its  policy  making  processes  in  the  field  of  R&I,  notably 
through  the  provision  of  information  content  understandable  by  all.  This  shows  that  the  EfCP  and 
these  initiatives  are  complementary.  Although  if  the  evaluation  did  not  identify  any  explicit 
exploitation of the potential synergies, these could boost the programme’s impact and contribute to 
achieving the political priorities set out in the 2017 Citizenship Report and the White Paper on the 
Future of Europe. 

•  

To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  of  the  programme’s  different  strands  of  the  programme 
consistent  and  mutually  supportive?  What  evidence  exists  of  synergies  between  the  different 
strands and actions? How well do both strands work together?  

The  experience  of  the  EfCP  suggests  that  in  practice  the  two  strands  are  consistent  and  can  be 
mutually supportive, on the basis of the natural connection between lessons learned from the past and 
plans made for the future of Europe.  

Project results occasionally link the two strands through the finding  that the fostering of European 
citizenship is often implicated through the learning and understanding of the links between Europe’s 
past, present and future in Strand 1 projects, while some Strand 2 projects implicitly raise awareness 
on Europe’s shared history and values through the reflection on its future. 

However, some CDG members commented that the relationship between both strands still needs to 
be  further  explained  and  exploited,  which  would  consequently  increase  the  programme’s 
attractiveness as an initiative that can positively impact the daily lives of citizens. 

EU added value 

• 

What  does  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  offer  in  addition  to  other  citizenship  support 
schemes available at national or regional level? 

As the impact assessment pointed out, there is no single solution for bridging the gap between the EU 
and its citizens, for the lack of participation and for the limited development of a sense of belonging 
and  of  European  identity.  They  require  a  variety  of  measures  and  coordinated  efforts  through 
transnational and European level activities. However, developing the understanding and capacity for 
participating  in  EU  policy  making  and  developing  opportunities  for  solidarity  and  societal 
engagement is so wide in scope and ambition that it can only be addressed at EU level. 

Remembrance  activities  usually  go  beyond  single  Member  States.  Initiatives  such  as  networks  of 
towns  and  Pan-European  valorisation  platforms  focusing  on  the  analysis,  dissemination  and 
valorisation of the project results from both strands, are needed to broaden perspectives and enable 
transnational exchanges even where there is scope for exchanging and disseminating best practice at 
national level.  

The  evaluation  study  showed  that  all  consulted  stakeholders  emphasised  the  programme’s 
uniqueness,  highlighting  that  no  other  initiative  offering  funding  for  cross-European  activities  in 
remembrance and civic participation exists at EU level or within the Member States. 

29 

 
• 

What  has  been  the  European  added  value  of  the  programme?  Which  observed  changes  has  the 
EU intervention brought about compared to what could have been achieved at national level? 

The evidence of the programme’s added value is shown by the  number of applications submitted 
versus the number of grants allocated and information on the lack of similar funding at national or 
regional  level.  It  is  very  hard  for  beneficiaries  to  receive  local,  regional  or  national  funding  for 
citizenship  activities,  while  funding  for  remembrance  activities  is  even  less  available  in  many 
participating countries.  

The  level  of  reliance  of  beneficiaries  on  EfCP  funding  is  also  an  important  indicator  of  the 
programmes added value in the EU. 

The  qualitative  research  confirmed  the  absence  of  alternatives  should  there  be  no  EfCP.  In  the 
interviews with operating grant beneficiaries, interviewees pointed to a very small number of sources 
of  funding  they  have  access  to  in  their  Member  State  for  similar  activities.  Desk  research  on  the 
activities of one funding source found that it was not similar to the EfCP in terms of its focus and 
scope and could not  be considered as  a similar measure at  national level. Similarly, in  discussions 
with project managers of case study projects, it was found that some received only small amounts of 
funding from local authorities for very small-scale activities conducted at the local level. It is clear 
that, even if beneficiaries have received funding for “similar” activities, alternative funding sources 
do not prioritise the promotion of citizenship and remembrance at an EU level. This is particularly 
the  case  when  it  comes  to  town-twinning.  Town-twinning  agreements  certainly  occur  between 
European  cities  outside  of  the  EfCP  but  within  these  agreements  there  may  not  be  a  link  to 
encouragement of active citizenship or remembering historical moments. Thus, the effective results 
achieved by the programme in impacting citizens at EU level (at a low cost per project) are therefore 
attributable solely to the intervention of the EU in this area. 

Importantly, there is very strong evidence that the programme is overall unique given that funding at 
national  or  regional  level  to  achieve  the  same  or  similar  objectives  is  at  best  very  limited. 
Stakeholders’  limited  or  inability  to  conduct  similar  projects  without  the  support  of  the  EfCP  also 
highlights the level of reliance of beneficiaries on the programme. 

The  programme  demonstrates  clear  added  value  at  the  EU  level  as  the  activities  financed  are 
transnational by nature. In addition it has EU added value both in the aggregate effect of its impact 
on participants and its complementarity with other EU funding instruments and policy initiatives. 

Thus, all stakeholders agree that the EfCP can add value to Member States’ activities at national or 
regional level in this area (to the extent that there is any). As assessed under the section "Coherence", 
the EfCP contributes to the European Citizens Initiative54 and to the European Solidarity Corps. 
The  complementarity  of  the  EfCP  with  activities  reflected  in  the  Citizenship  Report55  is  also 
important  as  the  programme  offers  a  solution  to  meeting  the  aims  of  promoting  awareness  of 
citizens’ rights and strengthening common values. In particular, the EfCP provides a mechanism for 
enhancing citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the EU through Civil Society Projects that 
educate  and  raise  awareness  among  citizens  on  EU  policy,  the  democratic  process  and  existing 
channels of direct participation that exist in the EU.  

54   Regulation  No  211/2011of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011  on  the  Citizens’  initiative, 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02011R0211-20150728&from=EN 

55   EU Citizenship Report 2017, available: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-118_en.htm  

30 

 
                                                 
 
It  is  also  the  assessment  of  the  European  Parliament,  that  the  EfCP  has  “played  a  valuable  part  in 
different  policy  areas,  including  justice,  freedom  and  security,  migration,  employment  and  social 
policy, as well as education, training and youth”. 

• 

What would be the most likely consequences of stopping the Europe for Citizens programme? 

There  is  a  demonstrated  need  for  EU  action  in  the  area  of  remembrance  and  civil  society  and  the 
positive impacts achieved by the programme are not likely to be attained by other means should it 
not  be  continued.  All  project  managers  interviewed  in  the  framework  of  the  external  study  (case 
study exercise) stressed that their projects would not have been carried out had they not received a 
grant  under  the  EfCP.  When  asked  about  the  possibility  of  not  receiving  funding  under  the 
programme,  the  majority  of  beneficiaries  responded  that  they  would  find  it  “difficult”  (31%  of  75 
respondents) or “very difficult” (32% of 75 respondents) to remain operational without the funding 
from the EfCP. 

Therefore, the likely consequences of stopping the programme will be that: 

  Member States would not be able to offer the same support at national/regional level; 
  projects would not be carried out due to the lack of a national support scheme; and 
  operating grant beneficiaries would have to cease their current activities that are funded by 

the programme. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  EfCP  2014-2020  was  proposed  during  the  recent  financial  and  economic  crisis,  at  a  time  when  there 
was also an increasing lack of confidence towards the EU and its added value. It was deemed important in 
this context to make the EU’s role and achievements known to its citizens and to involve them further in the 
democratic process at EU level. 

In this context, the programme’s mid-term evaluation confirms its relevance for: 

  promoting civic participation; 
  strengthening the sense of belonging to the EU; and 
  mutual understanding.  

Overall,  this  instrument  plays  a  positive  role  in  fostering  citizens’  civic  participation  and  democratic 
engagement, reaching out to a large number of citizens who without the programme would not have become 
engaged with the European project. Thus the programme’s general objectives were and remain relevant to 
addressing the problems. 

Most of the activities under both strands effectively contributed to the EfCP’s two specific objectives, as 
set out in the Regulation.  

These activities have helped to boost civic participation and the overall debate on the EU’s past, present and 
future. In qualitative terms, external factors made it difficult to measure EfCP’s effectiveness in achieving 
its  general  and  specific  objectives  as  they  could  have  influenced  the  programme's  impact  in  terms  of 
awareness,understanding and civic engagement. Nevertheless, the tables on the programme implementation 
indicate  that  progress  has  been  achieved  on  the  quality  side.  The  way  in  which  individual  citizens  are 
involved is seen as one of the programme’s strengths. 

The  actual  performance  of  the  programme  based  on  the  results  between  2014  and  2016  and  the  level  of 
participation goes beyond the previous programme’s achievements. The programme is successfully reaching 

31 

 
out  to  new  audiences  both  by  attracting  new  beneficiaries  and  through  larger,  more  transnational 
partnerships. The geographic balance is good overall, although this is not the case with town twinning, with 
the selection being dominated by only  a few countries. This  balance could be improved  by increasing the 
programme’s  attractiveness  for  organisations  and  individuals  in  some  countries  that  provided  fewer 
applicants. 

There is still scope to further develop the programme’s governance and implementation in order to follow 
the  recommendations  of  the  previous  programme’s  ex  post  evaluation.  In  particular,  a  more  structured 
dialogue  between  the  programme’s  central  management  and  the  beneficiaries,  namely  the  ECPs  and  the 
CDG could be established in order to reach wider sections of civil society in Europe. 

Dissemination activities should be further improved as ECPs are still not very well known and applicants are 
not yet fully aware of their role. A more strategic approach should be introduced in order to ensure that these 
activities  are  further  developed  and  that  information  sharing  on  good  practices  is  strengthened  to  enable 
ECPs  to  provide  better  assistance  to  future  applicants.  For  this  purpose  ECPs  should  be  required  to 
disseminate project results in order to increase the benefits of the Horizontal Action.  

Methodological  limitations  do  not  allow  to  draw  solid  conclusions  reagarding  the  efficiency  of  the 
programme. Nevertheless, the high number of direct and indirect beneficiaries that have been reached by the 
EfCP  indicate  that  the  programme  was  efficient.  The  amounts  received  under  the  EfCP  for  individual 
activities  are  proportionate  to  the  beneficiaries’  purposes  and  cost-effective  in  fulfilling  the  programme’s 
objectives. Compared to the previous programme, the number of projects that received a grant was lower for 
all the respective measures. This can partly be explained by the larger size of the projects and higher number 
of  participants  involved.  The  demand  for  the  EfCP  is  even  stronger  then  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming period and the programme budget is staying below demand levels. 

Both action and operating grants are used efficiently for the separate functions they fulfil and in pursuing the 
programme’s objectives. 

The  simplification  carried  out  over  the  last  two  years  has  produced  improvements  in  the  quality  of  the 
evaluation  and  monitoring  process.  This  would  benefit  from  a  review  to  identify  baselines  and  choose 
workable indicators.   

The  programme’s  current  structure  with  two  strands  and  a  horizontal  action  works  well  even  though 
synergies  between  the  strands  and  measures  could  be  strengthened.  There  could  be  greater  clarity  about 
whether  the  strands  are  truly  stand-alone  or  a  closer  link  is  needed  to  ensure  coherence  and  a  clear 
continuum between past, present and future. 

At  EU  level,  the  EfCP  is  coherent  with  EU  funding  and  other  instruments  dedicated  to  increasing  EU 
citizens’  participation  in  EU  civil  society  and  providing  them  with  information,  as  well  as  with  other 
instruments  in  the  areas  of  volunteering,  youth,  and  research  and  innovation.  It  complements  other  EU 
funding programmes, notably Erasmus+ and Creative Europe’s Culture sub-programme. However, the other 
EU  funding  initiatives  do  not  address  the  issue  in  its  entirety  and  do  not  have  the  participation  angle.  To 
optimise the programme’s impact and cost-effectiveness, more structured cooperation could be established 
between  the  EfCP,  the  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  Programme,  Creative  Europe  and  Erasmus+  to 
enable discussion on future policy developments and to maximise the potential for synergies at central and 
national  level.  These  conclusions  were  also  included  in  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  previous  EfCP 
programme. 

Complementarity and synergies with other similar EU networks at national level could be further explored. 

32 

 
The programme enabled activities that could not have been funded elsewhere, in addition to promoting the 
spread of best practices. The programme demonstrates added value at the EU level as the activities financed 
are transnational by nature. In addition, it has EU added value both in the aggregate effect of its impact on 
participants and its complementarity with other EU funding instruments and policy initiatives. Furthermore, 
very  strong  evidence  shows  that  the  programme  is  unique  and  that  should  it  be  discontinued  its  positive 
impacts are not likely to be felt by other means. 

33 

 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead Directorate-General: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) 
DeCIDE planning reference: 2017/HOME/175 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The evaluation was carried out between January and December 2017. 

An  external  contractor,  Deloitte  and  Coffey,  was  commissioned  under  the  Framework  Contract  for 
evaluation,  Impact  Assessment  and  Related  Services  (HOME/2015/EVAL/02)  to  carry  out  a  mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme  (2014-2020).  The  final  report  was  completed  in 
September 2017. 

An interservice Steering group led by DG HOME was set up specifically for this evaluation. The 
representatives of the following Commission services were members of the group: 

Secretariat General 

Directorate-General for Justice 

Directorate-General for Education and Culture 

Directorate-General for Budget 

Chronology of the mid-term evaluation: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

14 April 2016: kick-off meeting of mid-term evaluation Steering group; 

10 November 2016: second meeting of mid-term evaluation Steering group; 

9 January 2017-10 April 2017: open public online consultation; 

17 March 2017: the mid-term evaluation Steering group discussed the interim report; 

30 May 2017: the mid-term evaluation Steering group discussed the draft final report and asked for 
several improvements. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

N/A 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

N/A 

34 

 
 
5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evaluation was based on evidence from different sources. The main sources were the monitoring reports 
produced once per year by the EACEA which contain ongoing monitoring data on the projects, based on the 
information obtained from beneficiaries and the results of monitoring visits. In addition, the annual reports 
for  2014,  2015  and  2016  on  the  activities  of  the  EfCP  presented  by  the  Commission  to  the  Programme 
Committee provided evidence on the programme’s results. 

The complete set of documents that were consulted for this evaluation is listed below: 

Legal basis of EfCP  

  Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the Europe for Citizens 

Programme for the period 2014-2020 

  Decision No 1904/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006, 
establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 the programme ‘Europe for citizens’ to promote active 
European citizenship 

  Council Decision 2004/100/EC of 26 January 2004 establishing a Community action programme to 

promote Active European Citizenship 

Commission Implementing Decisions 2014, 2015, 2016 

  Commission Implementing Decision C(2013)7160 concerning the adoption of the 2014 work 
programme and the financing for the implementation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 

  Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)9220 on the adoption of the 2015 work programme and 

the financing for the implementation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 

  Commission Implementing Decision C(2015)9186 on the adoption of the 2016 work programme and 

the financing for the implementation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 

EU documents 

  European Commission, Secretary-General, Director-General for Budget, Note for the attention of 
Directors General and Heads of Service, Preparation of the post-2020 Multiannual Financial 
Framework programmes: guidance to services, Brussels, SG.B.1/ BUDG.B.1 

  European Commission Report to the European Parliament. the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation, results and overall 
assessment of the ‘Europe of Citizens’ Programme 2007-2013, COM(2015) 652 final. 

  European Commission Staff Working Document, Better Regulation Guidelines, {COM(2015) 215 

final}, {SWD(2015) 110 final}, Strasbourg, 19.5.2015 

  European Commission, Better Regulation Toolbox 

  European Council 15 and 16 October 1999 of Tampere, Presidency Conclusions 

35 

 
  European Council 7 – 10 December 2000 of Nice, Presidency Conclusions 

  European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and 

Cohesion Policies, Culture and Education, Note on Europe for Citizens (2014-2020), 
IP/B/CULT/NT/2012-001, September 2012 

  European Parliament, Europe for Citizens Programme 2014-2020. European Implementation 

Assessment, July 2016 

  European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and 

Cohesion Policies, Culture and Education, Europe for Citizens Programme: New Programme 
Implementation — First Experiences, July 2016 

  European Parliament, Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 

April 2014 establishing the ʻEurope for Citizensʼ programme for the period 2014-2020, 
(2015/2329(INI)), Committee on Culture and Education, Rapporteur: María Teresa Giménez Barbat, 
1.02.2017 

  European Parliament resolution of 2 March 2017 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) 
No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the ʻEurope for Citizensʼ programme for the period 2014-
2020 (2015/2329(INI)), P8_TA-PROV(2017)0063 

  EU Citizenship Report 2017, Strengthening Citizens’ Rights in a Union of Democratic Change, DG 

JUST, 2017 

  Eurobarometer 82 (Autumn 2014),84(Autumn 2015),86 (Autumn 2016) 

EfCP documentation 

  Annual Activities Reports of the Europe for Citizens Programme, DG HOME 

  Call for proposals for Operating Grants 2014-2017 

  EACEA Report Activities (2014, 2015, 2016) 

  Europe for Citizens Programme Beneficiaries’ lists (available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/europe-

for-citizens_en) 

  Europe for Citizens Programme guides 

  Europe for Citizens, results 2007-2013, 22.10.2014 

  Europe for Citizens: new programme implementation-first experiences, 2016 

  Framework for Civil Dialogue in Matters Covered, by the ‘Europe For Citizens’ Programme 2014-

2020 

 

Internal Monitoring Documents of EACEA (including indicators) 

  Minutes of the Civil Dialogue meetings (2014, 2015, 2016) 

36 

 
  Minutes of the Programme Committee meetings (2014, 2015, 2016) 

  National Contact Points, Vademecum, November 2016 

  Programme multiannual priorities 

  Rules of procedure for the ‘Europe for citizens’ committee, EFCC/002/2014 — EN 

  Selection results (2014, 2015, 2016) 

  Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the Financial Year 2018- Working Document 

Part I- Programme statements of operational expenditure- COM(2017)400- May 2017 

  https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/bud/proc/adopt/Documents/DB2018-WD01-

programme-statements.pdf 

  Working Programme Statements (ref. DB2018) 

Past EfCP evaluation reports 

  Commission Report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, on the mid-term evaluation of the ‘Europe for 
Citizens’ Programme 2007-2013, COM(2011) 83 final, Brussels, 1.3.2011 

  Commission Staff Working paper — Executive summary of the Impact assessment, accompanying 
the document ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the Council establishing for the period 2014-2020 the 
programme ‘Europe for Citizens’ to promote European citizenship’, COM(2011)884 final, 
SEC(2011)1562 final 

  Mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013, by Ecorys 

  Ex post evaluation of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013, by Coffey International and 

Deloitte, September 2015 

  Study on measuring the impact of the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013, by Euréval, May 

2013 

37 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Consultation  with  the  main  stakeholders  of  the  ‘Europe  for  Citizens  for  Europe’ 
programme has been substantial. The following stakeholders were consulted: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

general public 

beneficiaries  of  Europe  for  Citizens  action  grants  and  operating  grants  (both 
strands); 

non-successful applicants 

the CDG; 

‘Europe for Citizens’ National Contact Points in participating countries; 

Members  of  the  Programme  Committee  and  EU  officials  working  on  the 
programme’s implementation. 

The consultation was conducted over several steps: 

• 

A  public  consultation  in  all  languages  was  available  online  for  a  mandatory 
period of 12 weeks between 9 January 2017 and 10 April 2017. The purpose of 
this  consultation  was  to  collect  insights  and  experiences  on  the  EfCP  from  the 
general  public  but  also  from  beneficiaries  (i.e.  organisations 
that  have 
received/receive  funding),  from  organisations  who  could  be  interested  in  the 
programme  but  have  not  yet  submitted  an  application  for  funding,  as  well  as 
unsuccessful applicants. In total, the public consultation received 322 responses. 

• 

A web-based survey targeting the following stakeholder groups:  

o  action grant beneficiaries; 
o  operating grant beneficiaries; and 
o  unsuccessful applicants.  

This  consultation  was  launched  by  the  external  consultant  via  the  EU  Survey 
platform and was open from 16 January 2017 until 10 March 2017. It received 80 
responses 

A consultation meeting with the main European level stakeholder organisations 
represented  within  the  programme’s  CDG  was  organised  to  assess  how  the 
programme and its results were perceived by European stakeholder organisations. 
The  workshop  was  held  on  15  February  2017  and  was  attended  by  20  CDG 
members. 

Three  online  focus  groups  with  a  total  of  17  ECPs  took  place  on  7,  8  and  9 
February  2017  to  discuss  the  programme’s  implementation  and  how  the 
programme, its results and impact at national level were perceived; 

14  interviews  with  a  number  of  EU  officials  (from  DG  EAC,  EACEA,  DG 
HOME  and  its  Cabinet,  DG  JUST,  and  the  European  Parliament)  and  four 

• 

• 

• 

 
 
interviews  with  members  of  the  Programme  Committee  (from  France,  Greece, 
Hungary and Slovenia). The main aim of these interviews was to obtain insights 
on  some  particular  aspects  of  the  programme,  as  well  as  on  the  more  general 
issues of programme design and implementation. 

Public consultation results: 

  Awareness, experience and involvement in the EfCP and EU-related activities 
The  overall  level  of  awareness  of  the  EfCP  among  survey  participants  was  very  high 
(87%).  More  than  8  out  of  10  reported  that  they  had  heard  about  the  EfCP  before 
participating in the public consultation. On their experience with the EfCP, almost 40% 
of respondents stated that their organisation received funding from the programme. More 
than  one  in  six  stated  that  they  were  aware  of  the  programme  but  had  no  practical 
experience  with  it.  Slightly  less  reported  that  they  knew  of  the  EfCP  because  they  had 
attended  an  event  or  participated  in  a  project  funded  by  the  programme.  About  their 
general involvement in EU activities such as voicing their opinion on the EU, engaging 
in  EU  affairs  and  participating  in  the  EU  policy-making  process,  two  thirds  of  all 
participants stated that they are well or sufficiently involved in EU-related activities. Less 
than 1 in 10 respondents reported not being involved at all. 

  Importance of activities funded by EfCP for EU action 

Overall the participants appeared to deem all activities to be important. The most relevant 
activity  for  EU  action  was  considered  to  be  the  civil  society  projects  followed  by  the 
networks of towns, whereas the least important was the financing of operating grants 

  Interest in taking part in EfCP activities and effects of past participation 

Respondents were overall keen to participate in future EfCP-funded activities. However, 
1 in 10 responded negatively. Participation in civil society projects attracted the biggest 
interest from the respondents. This was also the activity that they deemed most important 
for EU action. Almost half of the respondents who expressed an interest in participating 
in EfCP-funded activities were very interested in obtaining an operating grant or funding 
for  town-twinning  activities.  However,  this  contrasts  with  the  fact  that  public 
consultation respondents considered operating grants as the least important aspect of the 
EfCP for EU action. While the activities taking place under networks of towns scheme 
were deemed to be the second most important type of activity for EU action, it appears 
that  respondents  were  least  attracted  by  participation  in  this  programme  area.  For  each 
activity, less than 1 in 10 respondents stated no interest to participate at all. 

Overall, at least two out of three respondents stated they were ‘very interested’ or ‘rather 
interested’ to participate in the activities funded by the EfCP. 

Those who had already been involved in EfCP-funded activities were asked to comment 
on how their participation affected them in  relation to  four aspects of their relationship 
with  the  EU  and  their  sense  of  European  identity.  More  than  two  thirds  of  the 
respondents  reported  that  they  had  felt  some  effects  from  their  participation.  Among 
those, the strongest effect was that after the programme finished participants wanted to 
get more involved in civic society. A significant number also claimed that they had learnt 
more  about  Europe,  its  history  and  culture,  and  slightly  less  felt  more  European 
following their participation. 

39 

 
Respondents  were  given  the  opportunity  to  add  any  comments/suggestions  as  well  as 
share any position papers expressing the views of their organisation regarding the EfCP. 
A total of 102 comments and, 32 contributions were submitted56. 

Web-based survey results 

  Questions on the EfCP structure 

The feeling that the EfCP effectively addresses its objectives was echoed by the 
large majority of the respondents (75%). 

On  remembrance  projects,  a  significant  proportion  strongly  agreed  (66%)  or 
agreed  (59%)  that  their  funded  project  had raised  awareness  among  participants 
on the common values they share with others in Europe, the EU’s history, values 
and  aim.Almost  half  also  claimed  that  participants  learned  more  about  their 
common past.  

The  results  indicate  that  ECPs  are  mostly  used  for  requesting  information. 
Around half the respondents had not used the ECP to review their application or 
look  for  partners.  Among  the  reasons  for  not  using  the  services,  survey 
respondents stated that the ECP network had not been advertised enough or that 
they felt they did not need any help. Beneficiary respondents who reported using 
the  service  were  positive  about  the  ECPs’  provision  of  information  and 
clarifications.  This  suggests  that  the  ECPs’  role  in  disseminating  information  is 
positively perceived by the users of their services. 

Regarding  the  introduction  of  the  lump-sum  approach  currently  implemented  to 
co-fund the projects via action grants, more than three quarters of the respondents 
(77%) were very or rather satisfied. 

The simplification of online applications has positively affected their quality and 
encouraged  potential  beneficiaries  to  apply.  Most  respondents  to  the  web-based 
survey (67%) found the application process to be ‘very’ or ‘rather satisfactory’. 

 

  Questions on projects’ implementation and EU funding 
On  the  impacts  of  their  EfCP-funded  projects,  the  beneficiaries  were  generally 
positive about the effects felt by their project participants. The impacts that were 
particularly  highlighted  were  that  the  participants  shared  their  experience  and 
knowledge  with  others  and  that  they  found  their  experience  memorable,  which 
suggests that the results had the potential to be long-lasting. 

In  terms  of  the  administrative  burden  related  to  any  reporting/monitoring 
activities,  the  respondents  felt  that  EACEA’s  requirements  are  ‘reasonable’ 
overall.  On  budget  monitoring,  beneficiaries  believed  that  the  current  financial 
supervision is quite ‘light’. 

On  the  target  group,  it  should  be  stressed  that  the  similarity  of  target  groups 
between the EfCP, Creative Europe and Erasmus+ is evident from the responses 
to the web-based survey. Half of the beneficiaries who completed the survey had 
received  funding  for  remembrance/citizenship-related  activities  from  other  EU 

56 The comments are included in Deloitte’s final report. 

40 

 
                                                 
sources. The number was particularly high for citizenship-related activities, which 
shows  the  high  potential  for  synergies  with  EfCP.  Among  other  programmes  of 
interest  and  relevance  to  the  beneficiaries,  they  cited  Creative  Europe, 
Erasmus/Erasmus+  (including  Youth  in  Action)  and  the  European  Voluntary 
Service.  However,  while 
these  programmes  may  cater  for  comparable 
stakeholders,  they  are  fundamentally  different  in  what  they  offer  and  consider 
active citizenship from distinct points of view. 

Beneficiaries who had received local, regional or national funding for citizenship 
activities were in a clear minority, while such funding for remembrance activities 
is even harder to come by. 

Although prompted to provide information on the type of funding they received at 
national, regional or local level, most survey respondents did not state the precise 
initiative or funding mechanism. Among the very few survey responses providing 
more information, ministries, municipalities and local authorities were mentioned 
as alternative funding sources, without reference to a specific programme. 

When asked about the possibility of not receiving funding under the programme, 
most  beneficiaries  claimed  that  they  would  find  it  ‘difficult’  (31%  of  75 
respondents) or ‘very difficult’ (32%) to operate without EfCP funding. 

Survey  respondents  who  were  unsuccessful  in  their  bid  for  EfCP  funding  were 
asked about the impact that this had had on their project. Only five responses to 
the survey came from unsuccessful applicants. Therefore it cannot be claimed that 
these  answers  are  representative,  but  nevertheless  they  are  of  interest  as  they 
provide the best information available to us on the consequences of not receiving 
EfCP  funding.  Among  these  five  unsuccessful  applicants,  three  stated  that  their 
project was cancelled because of the failure to obtain funds. The remaining two 
stated that their project continued but with fewer resources. Only one respondent 
indicated that they received alternative local-level funding after failing to secure 
funding via the EfCP. The project was however carried out with fewer resources 
than if it had been funded by the EfCP. 

Results of the meeting with organisations represented within the Civil 
Dialogue Group (CDG) of 15.02.2017 

The  CDG  stated  that  the  EfCP  is  more  important  than  ever  in  the  current  political 
context. However, on the programme structure, the participants expressed dissatisfaction 
with the CDG meetings organised as part of the Horizontal Action. They stated that these 
consisted  mostly  of  networking  sessions  among  the  group  and  there  was  only  one-way 
communication  with  little  bilateral  engagement  (between  the  Commission  and  the 
group).  The  CDG  members  would  prefer  an  approach  enabling  open  and  structured 
dialogue. They also expressed an interest in having discussions with policy makers and 
other (national) stakeholders. 

In addition, the CDG members pointed out that there is currently insufficient follow-up 
to  the  meetings.  The  minutes  are  usually  sent  too  long  after  the  meetings  have  taken 
place and contain lengthy and unnecessary information (unsuitable for highlighting key 
points and or for sharing with constituents). 

41 

 
The  importance  of  having  two  strands  was  explored  and  the  vast  majority  of  CDG 
member workshop attendees agreed on the importance of both strands of the programme, 
although not all perceived a link between the two. Those seeing a relationship believed 
that  it  makes  sense  to  have  only  one  programme  dealing  with  democracy:  the  past  and 
lessons  learnt  (Strand  1)  together  with  the  present  and  the  future  (Strand  2).  However, 
they commented that the relationship between both strands needs to be further explained 
and exploited, which would consequently increase the programme’s attractiveness as an 
initiative that can positively impact on the daily lives of citizens. 

CDG members agreed that the current system of operating grants provide a minimum of 
stability and an opportunity for organisations essential to the development of civil society 
to plan long-term as they currently operate in a difficult financial climate. Their argument 
was  that  operating  grant  beneficiaries  are  very  active  and  proactive  in  ensuring  the 
participatory  approach  and  by  their  nature  they  are  sustainable  multipliers  while  action 
grants are project-specific and have a short life span. 

CDG member workshop participants expressed dissatisfaction with the indicators, most 
notably  the  indicators  on  impact.  Participants  believed  that  the  need  for  measurable 
indicators in this context is not justified. The impact is completely different in different 
circumstances and it is not comparable across all projects. It was further stated that not 
only  is  it  inappropriate  to  compare  these  types  of  impact  indicators,  but  often  it  is 
actually  impossible  to  estimate  or  report  on  their  impact.  Workshop  participants  also 
claimed that they were not consulted when the programme’s monitoring indicators were 
being created. 

CDG workshop participants commented that the use of project results seems limited as 
the Commission puts too much emphasis on the number of attendees at an event rather 
than on the quality of attendees (i.e. reaching  1 000 young people versus 20 politicians 
who may be more appropriate to act as multipliers). 

CDG  workshop  participants  felt  that  the  communication  activities  of  DG  HOME  and 
EACEA  were  not  sufficient,  although  it  appears  that  there  is  a  suitable  level  of 
awareness.  Criticism  was  levelled  at  the  websites  promoting  the  EfCP  for  lacking 
structure,  not  being  sufficiently  interactive  and  not  always  being  updated  in  a  timely 
fashion. In particular, it was claimed that current communication activities do not focus 
enough on promoting the results of the programme and the benefits it offers for regular 
citizens (networking, meeting different cultures and contexts). 

CDG  members  seem  to  see  less  of  a  benefit  from  the  Horizontal  Action  as  a  whole, 
especially  because  they  felt  that  the  activities  funded  were  not  visible  and  lacked 
transparency. Some CDG members questioned the need for the ECPs, but they are aware 
of the programme’s details and need less assistance than new entrants, so there may be a 
bias  in  these  comments.  Moreover,  others  highlighted  that  in  the  broad  scale  of  the 
programme, the percentage of funding allocated to the horizontal strand is quite minimal 
and therefore it is understandable that results are less visible. 

On complementarity and synergies, CDG members stated that it is not totally clear how 
the  European  Solidarity  Corps  fits  in  with  the  EfCP’s  objectives  and  what  potential 
synergies could be developed in practice. 

CDG members saw a disadvantage in the fact that the current system does not carry any 
weight to reflect different levels of prosperity in different Member States (and therefore 

42 

 
general  costs)  or  make  sufficient  allowance  for  travel  costs.  As  a  result  there  is  a  bias 
towards  cooperating  with  partners  from  neighbouring  countries  rather  than  making 
selections based solely on merit. 

Most  CDG  members  felt  that  the  lump-sum  system  imposed  a  higher  administrative 
burden  on  operating  grant  beneficiaries  than  the  former  flat  rate  system  because  of  the 
need to reapply each year under their framework agreement 

CDG  members  suggested  that  there  are  a  number  of  overlaps  in  the  application  form, 
which  is  inefficient.  For  example,  applicants  are  required  to  specify  several  times  their 
project’s  objectives  and  how  they  match  the  multiannual  priorities  and  specific 
objectives.  

They highlighted that the online platform/database of Europe for Citizens projects is 
helpful, but not necessarily user-friendly57. 

Online focus groups with ECPs 

The  ECPs  agreed  that the  objectives  of  the  two  programme  strands  are complementary 
and mutually supportive as both aim to bring citizens closer to the EU, so it makes sense 
for them to be included in the same framework. 

ECPs confirm that the EfCP contributes to both the strengthening of civic participation 
and  the  raising  of  awareness  on  the  EU’s  shared  history  and  values.  Compared  to  the 
previous  programme,  participants  in  the  ECP  focus  group  also  stated  that  the  stronger 
focus  on  European  history  in  this  programme  is  appreciated  by  many  organisations, 
institutions  and  municipalities  in  their  countries.  At  the  same  time,  a  large  majority  of 
ECPs  agreed  that  the  programme’s  current  structure  achieves  an  appropriate  balance 
between past and present. 

They  perceive  the  programme  as  still  unique  insofar  as  it  links  the  CSOs  and  town-
twinning  movement  on  an  EU  level.    Without  EfCP  funding,  the  only  activities  which 
would  be  carried  out  would  only  take  place  on  a  much  smaller  scale  and  often  only 
locally.  However,  town-twinning  projects  may  sometimes  give  the  impression  of  being 
restricted to those activities funded as a ‘one-off’ by the EfCP. 

Civil society projects were highlighted by half of the ECPs in one focus group as projects 
that need more funding compared to others. Half of the participants suggested that there 
should  be  more  focus  on  other  types  of  projects  (notably  civil  society  projects)  rather 
than town-twinning. 

Their general impression was that the programme has a certain impact which is difficult 
to  quantify  but  is  nevertheless  visible  at  local  level  and  within  the  local  communities 
involved. While ECPs could not directly attribute an improvement in civic engagement to 

57 The external consultant noted that the ability to make improvements to user-friendliness depends on the 
overall  development  of  the  VALOR  platform  and  the  programme  is  not  in  the  driving  seat  on  this. 
Deloitte  was  aware  that  delays  in  the  migration  from  Documentum  to  Drupal  have,  for  example, 
delayed  the  ability  to  make  improvements  to  the  search  function  as  well  as  the  addition  of  new 
functionalities across the underlying platform. 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
EfCP projects carried out in their Member State, they felt that the overall discussion on 
democratic and civic participation has been furthered thanks to the EfCP. 

The  ECPs’  impression  was  that  one  of  the  key  factors  that  make  the  programme 
outcomes sustainable is emphasising face-to-face interaction. 

On complementarity with other programmes, the ECPs consider the EfCP instrumental in 
supporting the civic engagement of young people and therefore are supporting the idea of 
exploiting synergies with the Youth programme. The focus groups also indicated that it is 
not totally clear how the European Solidarity Corps fits in with the EfCP’s objectives and 
what  potential  synergies  could  be  developed  in  practice.  At  national  level,  there  are 
natural  synergies  in  communication  and  peer  support  boosted  by  the  close  ties 
occasionally  developed  by  staff  of  the  National  Erasmus+  Agencies  and  the  ECPs, 
notably when they are hosted in the same country (for instance, in Finland). 

The ECPs appeared generally satisfied with their role in the programme, but highlighted 
possible  areas  for  improvement.  The  overall  impression  was  that  ECPs  have  relevant 
knowledge and experience which is not currently mobilised, but could add value to the 
EfCP. ECP staff complained that their budget has been unchanged for a number of years. 
The  lump  sum  they  receive  is  linked  to  holding  a  minimum  number  of  events  with  a 
minimum number of participants. The ECPs consulted perceived this as a rather technical 
— and at the same time over-simplistic — method of calculation which fails to suitably 
compensate them for dissemination and communication activities, 

On the programme’s implementation, a majority of ECPs considered the current rate of 
pre-financing  to  be  satisfactory.  However,  ECPs  pointed  out  that  the  provisions  on  co-
financing  in  the  programme  guide  are  confusing,  as  they  are  limited  to  a  single  line 
stating that the entire project costs cannot be borne by the EU. 

ECPs  agreed  that  the  move  to  a  lump-sum  system  for  the  action  grants  had  been  an 
improvement. However, they view as a disadvantage the fact that the current system does 
not  reflect  different  levels  of  prosperity  in  different  Member  States  (or  make  sufficient 
allowance  for  travel  costs).  They  also  agree  that  operating  grants  should  not  come  to 
constitute  life  support  and  that  organisations  that  receive  the  grant  should  also  look  at 
alternative sources of financing. 

Feedback from the online focus groups with ECPs showed that in their case, there was a 
high level of satisfaction regarding their collaboration with EACEA. 

On  dissemination,  ECPs  also  felt  that  DG  HOME’s  and  EACEA’s  communication 
activities were not sufficient. Some criticised the lack of regular newsletter updates as the 
latest  DG  HOME  Newsletter  has  strong  dissemination  potential,  as  it  disseminates 
information on the programme, which is then relayed by the ECPs acting as multipliers. 

Feedback  to  unsuccessful  applicants  is  currently  given  by  EACEA  in  fairly  concise 
terms,  while  some  applicants  would  prefer  to  see  more  detail  on  the  reasons  for  the 
rejection of their project. This also affects ECPs, insofar as it makes it difficult for them 
to advise potential applicants and develop best practices. 

44 

 
 
 
Feedback of interviews with EU officials and members of the 
Programme Committee 

The interviews with Programme Committee members showed alignment with the ex post 
evaluation of the 2007 – 2013 programme58, which concluded that the EfCP fills a gap in 
EU  policy,  which  would  otherwise fail  to  involve  citizens  in  civil  society  and  generate 
interest among EU citizens’ in questions pertaining to EU identity and integration. 

The interviewees agreed that the current system of operating grants provide a minimum 
of  stability.  The  counter-argument  heard  from  many  interviewees  is  that  the  stability 
offered  by  operating  grants  should  not  constitute  life  support,  but  that  large  CSOs  or 
think  tanks  should  over  time  be  able  to  find  alternative  sources  of  funding,  i.e.  the 
operating grant should be a form of seed funding. 

Interviewees  identified  a  gap  in  measuring  the  programme’s  impact  in  going  beyond 
quantitative measure to ensure that results are used in policy making. 

The strategic interviews also emphasised the synergies between EfCP and volunteering, 
particularly  in  light  of  the  recommendation  to  project  managers  to  use  the  European 
Solidarity Corps. 

58  Ex  post  evaluation  of  the  Europe  for  Citizens  Programme  2007-2013  Final  Report,  available: 

http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/final_efcp_final_report_2015_10_15.pdf. 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 3: Europe for Citizens project examples from the period 
2014 to 2017 

European remembrance project example: Project ‘BURNT’ by ‘Miteinander in Europa’ 
(Germany) 

The  project  ‘BURNT’,  promoted  by  ‘Miteinander  in  Europa’,  was  carried  out  in  2014  to 
remember  and  reflect  upon  the  book  burnings  by  the  Nazis  and  the  banning  of  certain 
literature  during  the  Stalinist  era.  It  took  place  in  five  European  cities  in  four  different 
countries (Bulgaria, Germany, Romania and Slovenia). It aimed to involve local communities 
and  people  of  all  ages  in  project  activities,  as  well  as  stakeholders,  members  of  the  public 
administration, and decision-makers in order to create wide-scale public awareness and debate 
about EU values notably the freedom of expression. People were invited to: 

take part in creative and interactive activities tailor-made to different target groups; 
read and listen to literature forbidden during the Nazi and/or Stalinist era; 

 
 
  attend intergenerational talks with contemporary witness, theatre shows, production of 
documentaries  and  interviews  filmed  on  the  streets  and  final  forums  to  debate about 
the outcomes reached.  

Regarding  the  communication  tools,  project  flyers  were  published  and  distributed  on  the 
streets, whereas interviews, theatre shows, speeches and discussions were put on the project’s 
website. 

Town-twinning project example ‘Implicare activa, democratie Europeana’ by Comuna 
Capitalnita (Romania) 

This  town-twinning  event  took  place  in  Capilnita  (Romania)  between  10  July  2014  and  14 
July 2014 and involved 321 citizens. The main issues addressed during this event were: 

the active involvement in EU democratic life; 

 
  EU elections; 
 
 
  equal opportunities. 

issues concerning European citizens’ rights; 
freedom of movement; and 

Through  different  interactive  methods  (such  as:  ‘Gateway  to  Europe’  —  an  info  point; 
workshops;  seminars;  social  activities;  forum),  the  organisers  provided  the  opportunity  for 
participants  to  get  actively  involved  in  discussing  the  issues  raised  and  formulate  their 
opinions  about  EU  policies.  The  project  promoted  debate  and  reflection  about  European 
citizenship and democracy, shared values, history and culture. It allowed participants to gain 
insight  into  the  EU  integration  process  and  its  impact  on  the  daily  lives  of  citizens,  and  to 
discuss what will be the Europe of tomorrow. 

The  dissemination  activities  carried  out  helped  promote  opportunities  for  collaboration  and 
exchange of best practice between a large and varied group of stakeholders and citizens, with 
particular emphasis on civic participation and the NGO sector. The project was promoted via 
traditional  and  online  media  (i.e.  TV,  radio,  newspapers,  blogs  etc.),  using  different 
dissemination  material  (‘Eurovision  citizen’  booklet;  CDs  containing  event  photos, 
interviews; partners’ websites). 

46 

 
Project  partners:  Gyöngyössolymos  Köszégi  Önkormanzyat  (Hungary),  Kapolna  Kozsegi 
Onkormanyzat (Hungary), Bercel Község Önkormanyzata (Hungary), Urzad Miasta I Gminy 
(Poland), Mesto Modry kamen (Slovakia) 

Network  of  towns  project example:  ‘MIGRAIN’  (migration  and  integration)  by  Urzad 
Miasta i Gminy Cieszanow (Poland) 

The  theme  of  the  2014/2015  project  was  the  mobility  of  citizens  within  the  EU  and  the 
immigration of citizens from non-EU countries to the EU. 

The project aimed to investigate issues linked to mobility and immigration in Europe and their 
social  impact,  and  to  give  citizens  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  formulating  answers  to 
these questions. 

The towns participating in  the network  were  facing the impact of mobility and immigration 
including  difficulties  linked  to  the  arrival  of  irregular  immigrants  from  non-European 
countries. By exchanging ideas and examining possible solutions to these issues, the project 
contributed to developing local strategies and policies for the social integration of immigrants. 
Moreover,  the  project  contributed  to  raising  awareness  among  citizens  living  in  the 
participating  towns  on  the  importance  of  migration  for  the  society  by  showing  successful 
models  of  integration  for  different  groups  of  migrants  and  by  highlighting  the  existing 
potential for changes in local communities. 

Project  partners:  Diosd  Varos  Önkormanyzata  (Hungary),  Freundeskreis  Partnerschaften 
Gemeinde Argenbühl (Germany), Dimos Lokron (Greece), Comune di Forli (Italy), Comune 
di Fusignano (Italy), Kmetstvo Aheloy (Bulgaria), Comuna Lupeni (Romania). 

Civil  society  project  example:  ‘SUCCESS’  by  ‘Institut  français  des  relations 
internationales’ (France) 

SUCCESS is a network of young European citizens coming from different cultural, social and 
national  backgrounds  who  are  rethinking  citizenship  together  in  Europe.  The  project’s 
objective  was  to  contribute  to  the  reversal  of  populist,  racist  and  xenophobic  tendencies  in 
Europe  and  promote  the  founding  values  of  European  citizenship.  SUCCESS  adopted  a 
‘bottom-up’  approach  and  raised  the  voice  of  the  citizens  living  in  several  popular 
multicultural  disadvantaged  neighbourhoods  in  major  European  cities  —  Montreuil  (near 
Paris), Palermo, Oeiras (near Lisbon), Birmingham. The project called for a multicultural and 
integrated Europe. 

As a result of the project, citizens living in disadvantaged areas had the opportunity to interact 
and  participate  in  constructing  a  tighter-knit  Europe,  thereby  developing  their  feeling  of 
belonging to the EU. Local groups were created in each of the towns involved in the project. 
They were able to stimulate the debate on ‘citizenship’, notably on the civil participation of 
EU citizens and immigrants in the political and civic life, multiculturalism, mass media and 
transparency of institutions (accountability). Meeting with local, national and European policy 
makers  (i.e.  members  of  the  French  Senate)  allowed  for  the  transferability  of  results  and 
represents  a  successful  example  of  collaboration  and  integration.  A  website,  a  video  and  a 
book/e-book were produced. 

Project  partners:  Università  di  Palermo  (Italy),  Fundaçao  Calouste  Gubenkian  (Portugal), 
University of Birmingham (United Kingdom) 

47 

 
European Remembrance project example: ‘Mobilising society against genocide, denial, 
racism and anti-semitism in Europe’  by ‘European Grassroots Anti-Racist Movement’ 
(France) 

The project ‘Mobilising society against genocide, denial, racism and anti-semitism in Europe’ 
by  ‘European  Grassroots  Anti-Racist  Movement’  (EGAM,  France)  was  selected  in  2015  to 
address speech on genocide denial and the current rise in xenophobic and Eurosceptic trends. 
The project seeks to educate citizens on historical events that have been discredited, denied or 
marginalised  in  contemporary  European  society  such  as  Holocaust  and  the  Roma,  the 
Armenian  or  the  Srebrenica  genocides.  The  project  comprises  17  NGOs  from  14  European 
countries to help raise awareness and promote a more inclusive Europe by exchanging good 
practice and by mobilising and empowering European civil society. 

Town  Twinning  project  example:  ‘We  in  Europe  —  for  peace  and  humanity  in  the 
world’ (city of Burg/Germany) 

The  project  ‘We  in  Europe  —  for  peace  and  humanity  in  the  world’  led  by  the  German 
municipality  Burg  gathered  citizens  from  municipalities  in  France,  Finland,  Greece  and 
Germany  to  discuss  the  role  of  the  EU  in  maintaining  peace  and  respecting  human  rights. 
During roundtable discussions, an international conference, meetings, and family exchanges, 
the  project  aimed  to  reflect  about  the  common  values  on  which  Europe  was  built  on,  and 
contribute to building a sustainable network. 

Example of a Network of Towns: CitiPart — Cities’ Partnership against extremism and 
populism by ‘Maison de l’Europe des Yvelines’ (France) 

CitiPart  is  an  interactive  network  between  eight  towns  dealing  at  local  level  with  political 
debates  of  interest  for  citizens.  It  represents  municipalities,  town  twinning  committees, 
European  Houses  and  youth  organisations  from  France,  Germany,  Poland,  Austria  and 
Hungary.  Against  the  background  of  rising  populism  and  Euroscepticism  as  well  as  
decreasing participation in elections, the project aimed to give citizens the floor. The aim of 
the network was for people to reflect together on today’s meaning of the common values of 
solidarity, tolerance and peace. Through multilateral conferences, citizens had the opportunity 
to  discuss  these  issues  with  MEPs  and  local  representatives  and  to  present  them  with 
proposals. 

Civil  Society  Project  example:  ‘BY-ME’  (Boosting  young  Migrants’  Participation  in 
European  Cities:  Transnational  Solutions  to  Common  Challenges)  by  Instituto 
Cooperazione Economica Internazionale (Italy) 

The project "BY-ME: Boosting Young Migrants’ participation in European cities" by Instituto 
Cooperazione Economica Internazionale promoted young people’s participation in presenting 
proposals  in  policy  areas  that  concern  them  and  the  “European  Union  they  would  like”.  It 
aimed  in  particular  to  boost  the  participation  of  young  migrants  in  the  formulation  of 
migration  policies  and  implementation  measures  by  supporting  their  involvement  in  local 
networks  and  the  structured  dialogue  between  young  people  of  foreign  origin  and  local 
administrations.  The  project  brought  together  representatives  of  three  big  European  cities 
(Milan, Barcelona and Lisbon) with CSOs and groups of migrants. It helped to increase young 
migrants’  civic  participation  by  promoting  concrete  activities  at  local  level,  establish  local 
networks and promote the participation of migrants’ associations in these fora. It gave young 

48 

 
migrants the opportunity to contribute to developing public policies and it enabled the three 
participating cities to share experience and best practice. 

Example of a European Remembrance project: ‘CROCUS’ (Ireland) 

The Crocus Project is an Irish initiative whereby Holocaust Educational Trust Ireland (HETI) 
provides yellow crocus bulbs for school pupils aged 11 years or older to plant in memory of 
the 1.5 million Jewish children who perished in the Holocaust and thousands of other children 
who were victims of Nazi atrocities. The yellow flowers recall the yellow Star of David that 
Jews were forced to wear under Nazi rule. 

The  Crocus  Project  is  a  tangible  way  of  introducing  young  people  to  the  subject  of  the 
Holocaust and to raise awareness about the dangers of racism, discrimination, prejudice and 
hatred. The children’s involvement in learning about the Holocaust, in planting the bulbs and 
watching  the  flowers  grow,  encourages  ongoing  learning  about  the  importance  of  tolerance 
and  respect.  HETI  provides  a  comprehensive  information  and  guidelines  pack  to  assist 
teachers in explaining the Holocaust. 

The  crocus  blooms  around  the  end  of  January  around  the  time  of  international  Holocaust 
Memorial  Day  (27  January).  When  people admire  the  flowers,  the  pupils  explain  what they 
represent and recall the children who perished in the Holocaust. 

The Crocus Project was introduced at the launch of HETI in September 2005. That year, 239 
Irish schools participated in the project and 6 000 primary school pupils planted yellow crocus 
bulbs.  Since  then,  the  project  has  expanded  and  developed  and  now  involves  primary  and 
post-primary  pupils  as  well  as  some  third-level  students  and  youth  groups.  10  European 
countries have joined the project and we hope that more will join each year until we have the 
whole  of  Europe  participating  along  with  more  than  one  and  a  half  million  crocus  flowers 
blooming each year. In 2016/17 over 90 000 Irish and European school pupils were involved 
in the Crocus Project. 

Example of a Town twinning project: ‘We of Today — Europe of Tomorrow’ by Silales 
rajono savivaldybes administracija, (Lithuania) 

The aim of this small-scale trilateral town twinning project developed by a Lithuanian town in 
cooperation with its partner towns from Poland and Germany was: 

 
 
 

to make young people aware of different aspects of migration; 
to promote tolerance and solidarity towards migrants and refugees; and 
to decrease xenophobia.  

To  achieve  this  objective  the  project  used  non-traditional  interactive  teaching  and  learning 
techniques including roundtable discussions, a walking event for tolerance, simulation games, 
workshops,  a  ‘living’  library,  film  screening,  etc.  The  idea  was  to  show  that  innovative 
learning  methods  offer  the  opportunity  to  assess  the  migration  crisis  and  its  origins  from 
different  perspectives  and  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  situation  of  migrants  and 
asylum-seekers. 

49 

 
Example of network of towns: ‘3i — Welcome to Europe: 3i — inclusion, integration & 
internationalisation’ by Kalajoen kaupunki (Finland) 

Based on a partnership between partner towns from Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Italy 
and Montenegro this project aimed to address negative attitudes towards immigrants, refugees 
and asylum-seekers by giving citizens the opportunity to interact and to exchange knowledge 
and best practice related to the inclusion and integration of migrants into local communities as 
well  as  on  the  internationalisation  of  all  questions  linked  to  migration.  By  doing  so,  the 
project  tried  to  promote  a  strong  sense  of  European  identity  and  to  strengthen  mutual 
understanding  between  long-term  and  new  members  of  the  local  communities.  Through  a 
platform to learn, share and debate on issues related to the future of Europe, focus was put on 
intercultural  dialogue 
involving  members  of 
mechanisms. 

local  communities 

in  developing 

the 

Example of a Civil Society Project: European Citizens Crowdsourcing- EUCROWD by 
Zavod Institut Za Elektronsko Participacijo (Slovenia) 

This  project  explored  crowdsourcing  as  one  tool  offered  by  digital  technologies  to  increase 
citizens’ engagement in democracy. Crowdsourcing was understood by this project as an open 
call for online participation in a task by submitting information or knowledge, as it is used in 
processes  ranging  from  urban  planning  to  new  product  design  to  solve  complex  scientific 
problems.  Seven  public  workshops  organised  through  this  project  dealt  with  the  question: 
How  can  this  tool  promote  a  democratic  debate  on  the  future  of  the  European  Union? 
Citizens,  NGOs,  activists,  experts,  media,  politicians  and  government  officials  gathered  to 
share  experience  on  e-participation  at  national  and  European  level.  Moreover,  an  online 
repository  was  set  up  (knowledge  centre  on  digital  democracy)  to  gather  best  practice  and 
guidelines for crowdsourcing at the national and European level in the fields of immigration, 
the economic crisis and the future of Europe. 

Town twinning project example: ‘Festival of Europe’ by Colors of Europe (France) 

The  ‘Festival  of  Europe’  project  has  been  organised  every  year  since  2012  with  the  idea  of 
gathering young people and citizens on a local level to celebrate Europe. 

The  2017  edition  of  the  festival  that  took  place  in  May  2017  in  the  ‘Ile  de  France’  region 
brought  together  150  local  organisations  from  20  countries.  In  the  context  of  the  60th 
anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, 1200 young people were invited to express their feelings 
about solidarity and friendship. Their artistic performances were celebrated during the festival 
and their paintings exhibited. The event attracted 20 000 visitors from 18 countries. 

European  Remembrance  project  example  ‘In  Between?’  by  the  Polish  organisation 
European Network of Remembrance and Solidarity  

The  ‘In  Between?’  project  carried  out  by  the  Polish  organisation  the  European  Network  of 
Remembrance and Solidarity is about stories and history. The projects aims to encourage the 
younger generation of Europeans to explore 20th-century history by reflecting on the past of 
eight  European  cross-border  regions  through  oral  testimonies  —  with  their  cultural  and 
historical complexities. Participants are given the opportunity to gain theoretical and practical 
experience in documenting oral stories. 

50 

 
Town-twinning  project  example  by  San  Bartolomé  de  las  Abiertas  (Spain)  and 
Lavernose-Lacasse (France) 

The  project  between  San  Bartolome  de  las  Abiertas  and  Lavernose-Lacasse  aimed  to  raise 
awareness of the EU and its policies such as the common agricultural policy, the current ways 
to actively participate in the EU decision-making process, etc. through the active engagement 
of  participants  in  roundtables,  presentations  and  knowledge  sharing  of  local  policies  and 
practices.  The  project  targeted  different  groups  of  people  such  as  CSOs,  schools  and  the 
private  sector.  Special  attention  was  given  to  sustainable  tourism  as  a  tool  to  support  local 
economies  and  to  promote  job  creation  in  rural  areas.  In  addition  to  the  direct  participants, 
people from the village showed great interest in the project and around 200 people took part 
in  the  event.  Both  partners  have  shown  their  willingness  to  continue  collaborating  in  new 
projects in the future. 

Example of a European Remembrance project: ‘Women, War and Peace’ (2016) 

‘Women,  War  and  Peace’  is  an  Irish  project  carried  out  by  the  theatre  and  film  company 
‘Smashing Times Theatres Company Limited’, which is dedicated to promoting social justice, 
peace, gender equality and human rights by means of artistic performances. 

Throughout  the  project,  theatre  and  film  as  well  as  public  events,  including  symposia  and 
workshops,  provided  the  framework  through  which  European  history  including  both  World 
War  II  and  its  aftermath  was  explored.  ‘Women,  War  and  Peace’  especially  focused  on  the 
role of women during that time in order to raise awareness and shed light on ways in which 
the EU is capable of promoting peace and gender equality today. 

To  that  end,  an  online  book  was  published  which  contains  23  women’s  stories  who  fought 
against  totalitarianism  during  World  War  II.  These  stories  were  complemented  with 
information on the EU’s history and its role in defending human rights. 

Around 2000 young people and adults in Ireland, Spain, Germany and Poland were directly 
involved in this transnational project and a huge number of citizens were reached as a result 
of their dissemination activities. 

51